Mike86

Well he definitely didn't have any love lost for him either. He's pretty much always been the character who's pushed Batman to his limits and almost made him go over the edge more than a few times.

kgrogers1979

But all of that stuff was after Robin was killed. All the O'Neil "dark knight" stories from the 70s weren't that dark with Batman being pushed over the edge.

Solid Snake

Pretty much, yeah. I'm not much for 1980s Bats aside from a few bits. But how was Bats after Todd's Death? My primary knowledge for 1980s bats is from Killing Joke onward. Which isn't much.

Mondo Kane

Mr. Freeze?

kgrogers1979

Gangsta tats!!!! And I bet if he opens his mouth there is a grill inside!!!!11

Double_Oh_7

With Marvel about to rule the box office for the next few weeks, if not months, it sounds like DC's movie slate is falling apart. Warner Bros. is scrambling to get ANYTHING going. Interesting, but lengthy, article here...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-battle-792190

RocShemp

It's been said before but DC needs to hire someone like Dini or Timm to Godfather the movie universe. Or have the movie division swallow its pride and allow the TV division (particularly those responsible for The Flash) to call the shots in the movie universe.

DthRdrX

Having just read the entire article, the only thing that I question is why they are so gung ho to go against the methods Marvel has used by having Feige in control. Hiring numerous writers for each project and giving control to each director sounds like we will have more flops like Green Lantern.

It's not like WB doesn't have a guy that knows just about everything about the DC universe, is pretty much universally loved by fans, and has put forth some of the best work the company has seen going back to the early 90s!

Josh-da-man

I don't know that having a "godfather" (or, more precisely, a Kevin Feige) at DC/Warners is something that would fit in with their corporate culture.

Seems like Warners is like a bunch of guys running around a football field fighting over the ball. Once in a while someone will grab the ball and score a touchdown, but none of them will listen to a coach.

Solid Snake

What they need to do is to actually make studio for the DC property to where it can cater and nurture the material to be adapted. Feige is a rarity but he's a double edged sword. He's a nerd but his job is to make sure this stuff sells at its maximum. That's hard to do. The reality of a studio system can be crushing to something like that.

RocShemp

And that's the problem in a nutshell (which is a typical Hollywood problem that I am amazed Marvel seems to have mostly avoided). Everyone wants to put in their "creative" input because that's usually a quick way to land yourself a producer's credit. Everyone's striving for personal glory and no one is working as a unified whole. They fail to see that success for the team is also success for the individual. Yes, some will get more attention than others but being a part of a multi-million dollar franchise has to be great for the ol' résumé.

DC more than anyone needs someone with a singular vision to steer the ship.

Paul_SD

A good article to get people up to speed. But mostly obvious stuff to those of us who have been paying attention the last 5-6 years (and longer if you were paying attention to the whacked development process surrounding Green Lantern including it's initial aborted Jack Black comedy spin).

To put some of this into perspective people should go over to the comics sub forum and read the thread about Gerry Conways blog post that goes into DC's royalty payment program- and specifically about the ouster of Paul Levitz and the corporate remolding of DC Comics into DC Entertainment.
The corporate behemoth doesn't understand and nurture creatives. This stuff is merely property to exploit to them. Very bottom line orientated (numbers are easy for suits to deal with, whereas creative personalities are a pain in the ass). That why to a suit everything gets reduced to easy to grasp calculations. Dark Knight made a billion $. Dark Knight was dark and gritty. Therefore all people want to see is dark and gritty superhero movies.
It's also why someone with a facile, surface knowledge of the properties and culture (like Synder) can talk the talk enough to sell the suits on a 'vision'- as inappropriate as it may be. The fact is, it's still a leg up on the suits who don't care about this shit at all. That's why they commission 5 different scripts from 5 different writers and then cherry pick the best parts out of each and Frankenstein something together and think it will be good. They don't understand the creative process is organic, not mercantile- which is all they are really versed in.

Hokeyboy

The conclusion is inescapable, my friends. We face RATNER!

RocShemp

Well, he has no style of his own so he could do generic knock offs of all the other directors DC wants to hire (and then fire). And he has sleezeball cred. He's perfect!

RichC2

Honestly, when you're a company that keeps giving David S. Goyer and Zack Snyder money, you deserve what you get.

I mean, I don't like Whedon's work, but at least it's competent.

robin2099

Because there part of a corporation. Ever producer wants to attach their name to one of these movies and put their own stamp on it to get the money and bigger projects. They don't want to go and let someone like Geoff Johns have too much power and say because then it belittles their power and in Hollywood power is money.

Like I said before Marvel lucked out and they weren't part of a studio, they financed it themselves and these were basically big budget indy movies. Henceforth they had total creative freedom to do what they want. DC doesn't have that since there part of a corporation. Everything they do has to be looked at, approved by and sold to a different suit. And if someone higher up wants to do something assinine and ridiculous, well too bad the higher up wins.

Double_Oh_7

Isn't Marvel owned by Disney... a corporation?

resinrats

I've always thought that although Disney owns Marvel, as long as Marvel is successful, Disney isn't going to meddle with them. Hands off approach. "You guys are doing good so we'll sign the checks but do your thing." If Marvel movies were flopping, I'm sure we'd see more Disney involvement.

DC needs to get a few guys to map out their whole movie universe (like what Marvel did). Then give portions to people to make movies of as long as they hit certain story points. "You can do Aquaman but he has to be at _______ point by the end since that leads into ______"

robin2099

Disney has only owned Marvel for about two years. They didn't buy Marvel until the first Avenges movie came out.

kgrogers1979

Disney should just buy DC from WB and let Feige run the DCCU too.

Big Boy Laroux

Disney bought marvel in 2009. The only Marvel Studios self-financed MCU films released before that were Iron Man and Incredible Hulk.

slop101

DC isn't willing to do the time and lay the groundwork Marvel has. They want to jump straight into their "Infinity Wars" based on some action shots by Snyder. They want to catch up to Marvel and be in the same situation as them, unaware that Marvel started this "race" long before DC even knew there was a race. So they're jamming everything into one movie, hoping that will catch them up.

It's cheap, it's lazy and the results are that no one will care about anything that happens to these characters. Comics, inherently, aren't about plot, because you just know that good will prevail over bad. What it's about are characters and what price these characters pay in order to prevail, and DC has done no work building up these character into people anyone gives a shit about. They just want to make everything look "realistic" and assume that solves their problems.

robin2099

Thor, and Captain America were self financed too. That was part of the original investment that they received from Merril Lynch. It wouldn't make any sense for Disney to invest in those movies because outside of owning Marvel Disney didn't receive any money from them.

Big Boy Laroux

wasn't stating that. Was just laying out the timeline. You said disney didn't purchase until Avengers.

brayzie

If we don't care about him (Robin) then we're less likely to care about what his death means to Batman. If there is no emotional investment in these characters and their deaths then we're less likely to identify or empathize with the main characters like Batman.

It feels like they're doing all they can to rush out years worth of continuity and history into one film just so they can move to the DC/Warner Bros version of The Avengers.

It wasn't that big of a deal for me because 1) Rachel wasn't even played by the same actress so, in a way, it felt like a totally new character. 2) Even though I like Maggie Gyllenhaal as an actress I couldn't see why Bruce Wayne was in love with her in TDK, let alone why him and Harvey Dent were fighting over her. Christian Bale and Maggie Gyllenhaal had zero chemistry together in my eyes, so when Bruce Wayne is crying and broken up about it I couldn't care less. I was just waiting for the Joker to appear on screen again.

I agree on Two-Face being rushed. At that point I was kind of wishing the film would be over. Introducing the Two-Face persona right at the end, having him go crazy, fight Batman, and die was too much.