DC Cinematic Universe: Phase One

DC Cinematic Universe: Phase One

With six movies completed, Marvel is moving on to the second phase of its celebrated cinematic universe, while DC is lagging behind. Though, with Man of Steel on the horizon, and Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy coming to a close, DC has a chance to catch up.

Editorial Opinion
By pkharat92 - Jun 04, 2012 04:06 PM EST
Filed Under: DC Comics



Over the span of five years, Marvel Studios brought to fruition a cinematic universe shared between the franchises of several of its most recognizable characters. This marvelous feat culminated in the unprecedented assemblage of those very characters in the highest grossing film to date in the comic book movie genre: The Avengers. The fact that DC failed to reciprocate puts it miles behind Marvel. No need to fret, though, as DC now has the opportunity to begin anew. With Man of Steel on its way and Christopher Nolan's telling of the Dark Knight legend coming to an end, DC can soon initiate phase one of their own cinematic universe.

Firstly, before DC launches the principal phase of operations, it would be wise to take a cue from Marvel and create a subsidiary company, namely "DC Studios," which would not only be responsible for producing films based on their own respective characters but also for the daunting task of actualizing a film in which those characters unite against a common threat. Man of Steel would be the first in a line of movies to bear the DC Studios imprint. The imprint would be the external factor linking those movies together, while an internal factor (i.e., a secondary character) would link the protagonists of each individual franchise together. Secondly, after The Dark Knight Rises, the final installment of Nolan's acclaimed saga, hits theaters, DC can appropriately reinvent the franchise in order to associate the Caped Crusader with the new continuity. Lastly, 2011 saw a new DC character take flight on the big screen in the sub-par Green Lantern. Hal Jordan is an important character in comic book lore, and a proper film adaptation must be constructed in order for moviegoers to fully appreciate the character. With that in mind, DC has two options: develop a sequel and rectify the mistakes of the first, or reboot the franchise altogether. Seeing as how Ryan Reynolds' comedic portrayal is cemented in the minds of the general public, the latter looks the better of the two. Whatever the decision, DC should be advised that a film of this nature does not belong in the comedy genre.

And then there were four. As of now, four of the seven founding members of the League have never made a theatrical appearance: Aquaman, The Flash, Martian Manhunter, and Wonder Woman. It is a wonder why DC has thus far been incapable of producing a movie centered on any one of the aforesaid characters. But, if DC can get its act together, there should be no added difficulty in producing character-accurate, story-driven films about any of its iconic characters.

ABSOLUTE SUPERMAN #2 Preview Reveals The Crazy First Meeting Between The Man Of Steel And Lois Lane
Related:

ABSOLUTE SUPERMAN #2 Preview Reveals The Crazy First Meeting Between The Man Of Steel And Lois Lane
DC Comics Rumored To Relaunch BATMAN And SUPERMAN In 2025 As First Look At BATMAN: HUSH 2 Is Revealed
Recommended For You:

DC Comics Rumored To Relaunch BATMAN And SUPERMAN In 2025 As First Look At BATMAN: HUSH 2 Is Revealed

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
Knightrider
Knightrider - 6/4/2012, 4:57 PM
@Gaston That is not the case, WB just doesn't have DC properties to look after, they have everything else on top of that, so DC movies, just (Sadly) are not their main priority all the time.

Unlike Marvel who only have this one focus, however, even Marvel stated there wouldn't be another Hulk film pre and, for a time, post Avengers, because it seemed it would not do to well. Now that interest is back up and as such Hulk could make money, they changed their minds, why? Because the risk factor went down, when it was high they weren't going to do it.

So to say one company makes larger gambles is crazy, especially when it was WB/DC films like Batman 1989, BB, Superman and even Spider-Man they paved the way for CBM's.

If anything have waited until it was safest to make Comicbook movies, which is smart business.
Knightrider
Knightrider - 6/4/2012, 4:58 PM
Yes Spider-Man is Marvel/Sony, i forgot to add that bit, but still doesn't change the point as it was Sony's money.
Knightrider
Knightrider - 6/4/2012, 5:29 PM
@Gaston I will give you that, they are sat on a gold mine, I personally think after Avengers a JL movie is a matter of when rather than if.

Yes, well maybe now Potter and Bat's are done, maybe they will make JL and DC there next big continuous franchise as it is proven to make money if done right.

What Marvel does have that DC doesn't is a Fiege type guiding it through. Not that they don't have people who could do it Bruce Timm to name one could easily be the DC's version of Feige.
Minotauro
Minotauro - 6/4/2012, 6:11 PM
@Gaston - Maybe DC wants quality over quantity. You ever think of that? You also try to make it sound like relying on just Batman and Superman like it's a bad thing? They both are the most popular superheros in all of comics.

Zarog
Zarog - 6/4/2012, 6:28 PM
@Minotauro Yeah.....Quality...... Major films from WB based on DC Universe characters (meaning that I'm not including imprints or Watchmen) since 2000: Catwoman (2004), Batman Begins (2005), Superman Returns (2006), The Dark Knight (2008), Jonah Hex (2010), Green Lantern (2011), The Dark Knight Rises (2012), and Man of Steel (2013). Well, of the ones released, I would say 2 were good the others were garbage. 2/6 is batting a .33 so I would say that the whole quality thing is BS. If TDKR and MoS are both good then it will be 4/8 or .5.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 6/4/2012, 6:46 PM
@Minotauro

DC wants quality over quantity? What are you smoking and can I have some of that?

Jonah Hex.... Green Lantern....
You say Batman and Superman are the most popular characters in comics? Batman sure may be, but definitely not Superman, although he does rank pretty high. Or are you referring to DC only? If so, then yes indeed, you are correct.

But it is a cycle. PART of the reason they are so popular is because they have had so very many adaptations. Superman was the first live-action television show based on a comic book character, followed by Batman. The cycle repeats itself - Richard Donner brought Superman to the theater, and after a semi-successful franchise was established, Tim Burton brought Batman to the big screen - and that franchise was born. The only two animated DC series of the 90s? Batman and Superman.

Live-action television series' returned with the horrific Birds of Prey and barely tolerable Smallville, although the former featured characters loosely based off of the Bat-family. Aquaman and Wonder Woman both had pilot episodes, both borrowing actors from CW's attempts, but DC couldn't sell them right.

Now we have "Arrow", which is taking a great deal from Batman Begins. Although Stephen Harnell looks committed, I would not put stock in that show lasting more than one or two seasons.

In conclusion, DC needs to grow a pair.

---
I still think an animated Justice League (similar in style to the Incredibles) is the way to go. The target audience would be 5-21, and it would introduce kids to the characters, create a spike in demand for them, and set up a broader audience for future live-action films depicting those characters.
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 6/4/2012, 6:51 PM
Everyone says DC/WB are afraid to take risks except thats exactly what they did with Green Lantern...and it failed miserably. I would be nervous about moving forward with other franchises too.

Even though GL was a piss-poor representation of what it could of been.
Knightrider
Knightrider - 6/4/2012, 6:55 PM
@Tainted87 I think Minatauro meant in terms of known outside of the Comicbook fandom world. Then Superman, although may not have the strangest books, is number 1. Every man, woman and child knows who Superman is, I think that was his point. Not that he is the most popular comic book character, they are two different things.
Knightrider
Knightrider - 6/4/2012, 7:00 PM
@CorndogBurglar What I find amazing about GL is how they got it wrong. It felt like it was made in 1995. Everyone before the films release or trailers were shown, thought this is, this should be the Comic Book Star Wars.

It was all there in the comics: History, Strong and Varied Characters, different worlds and so on. Not only that some of the stories that they could have progressed into, Blackest Night and Sinestro Corps War.

Instead they missed the boat on all of them, to give us what we got, which was a GL that spent most of the time talking to his cliche 'geek' friend and never even looks at another planet in his sector.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 6/4/2012, 7:12 PM
...and the screaming... don't forget the screaming. I wanted so badly to like Green Lantern BECAUSE it was the divergence from Superman and Batman, and even with all the euphoria and fan-filled hype I went into the theater with, even trying desperately to buck the critics' consensus, I thought it was mediocre at best when I got out. When I bought the DVD and watched it again, I couldn't stand it - it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

I understand investments failing, but WB has had success in other venues before. Why are they dragging their feet so much? Also consider that these movies are not related to one another apart from their comic book publisher. Green Lantern could very well have just been another super generic sci-fi flick. It isn't the genre that they are weary about investing in - it is the characters and their reception.
95
95 - 6/4/2012, 7:24 PM
They don't have Kevin Feige. Christopher Nolan could be that Godfather of DC Productions (since he's producing Man Of Steel). But everyone is right here about WB's focus not completely on DC properties.
MrsTonyStark0507
MrsTonyStark0507 - 6/4/2012, 7:43 PM
3D - You hit the nail on the head. They need a Kevin Feige. Someone who knows the characters and lives to bring the characters to life in the best way possible. Someone who can take control and plot thing out very carefully, as is very evident in the road to the Avengers. That is exactly what is needed.
ralfinader
ralfinader - 6/4/2012, 8:16 PM
Awww, this is sad. Pretty much everyone except WB knows what to to with DC movie properties.

"Christopher Nolan could be that Godfather of DC Productions (since he's producing Man Of Steel)."

@3D - He has a crew behind him with some knowledge of DC comics, but a better choice would be like a Paul Dini, Nolan isn't necessarily the right guy to handle this stuff, he is a director first. Not a full-time executive producer like they really need. Also, according to Nolan, he is way less hands on than Fiege and crew, so they still lack a unifying vision. I don't see it ever happening, WB is old school (trilogies trilogies trilogies), and Marvel is like a indy company and has taken some risks (Iron Man was a huge one), and will likely take more.
ralfinader
ralfinader - 6/4/2012, 8:18 PM
"Awww, this is sad. Pretty much everyone except WB knows what to to with DC movie properties." - reads sarcastic, but it isn't, It sucks the blueprints are there for all to see, and WB ignores them.

marknjoanna
marknjoanna - 6/4/2012, 9:30 PM
Gaston - 6/4/2012, 4:49 PM
Report Comment Unfortunately, it's not up to DC, it's up to WB.

And WB is run by retards who are afraid to take risks.

that 300 mill. on gl looked risky to me,ouch.

dc heroes that investors will still invest in.

1 batman,they never get enought of the same ole same ole,lol.


2 superman,if tmos dont atleast hit semi big hes off the list.

3 hummmmmmm.

i wish you guys had shelled out 300 mill on gl then another 150 mill on j. hex,just so i could see how fast you would shell out another 200 mill. on ww flash aqauman or any other dc hero lmao.


no investors = no movie its called the real world folks you should visit it sometime.
Oxion
Oxion - 6/4/2012, 10:41 PM
As much as I love Marvel films, their being pumped out too fast. I mean the Avengers hasn't even cooled down yet and we have set pics of Iron Man 3. I mean how many more ideas can they pump out b4 things get old and predictable? DC has a chance to take everyone by surprise but they too busy living in their comfort zone with their animated movies (all awesome except Superman:Doomsday) and half assing on characters people know the world over. I mean they are in charge of the holy trinity of superheroes, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman yet they are soooo far behind Marvel. There's no excuse for it, they need to grow a pair and a brain to go with it so they can at least try to keep up wit Marvels cinematic universe.
RidiculousFanBoyDemands
RidiculousFanBoyDemands - 6/5/2012, 12:10 AM
"And WB is run by retards who are afraid to take risks. "


Which is why Disney hired WB's former CEO to run their company...
Knightrider
Knightrider - 6/5/2012, 2:00 AM
@RFBD Good point.
Berger45
Berger45 - 6/5/2012, 2:37 AM
One man may start the DC-cinematic revolution, and that man is Bruce Timm.
Bumble
Bumble - 6/5/2012, 6:05 AM
more than likely you'll never see a dc cinematic universe; at lest not one done properly. as stated in the previous comics, wb is not just solely producing and focusing on dc properties; they have a whole nother line of film s they are splitting their time on as well. marvel has an entire film division. yeah, you could say that dc needsd to do the same thing but it's not like you can just start that up. it takes time to make sure that you get the right people in place who know what they are doing.
look wb has had five years to see the writing on the walls and do something about it. they haven't and more than likely they won't.
JBatesyFilmreviews
JBatesyFilmreviews - 6/5/2012, 6:10 AM
I completely agree with @Berger45 Bruce Timm is the man to run shit, he may have only done animation, but those animations are some of the best representations of those characters and to see what he could do with a whole production team, a massive budget and great actors would be amazing!
ralfinader
ralfinader - 6/5/2012, 11:48 AM
"And WB is run by retards who are afraid to take risks. "

Well, that isn't exactly true. Jonah Hex was not a sure thing at all, definately a risk. Green Lantern was a risk too, he may be more familiar to non-comicbook geeks than Iron Man was, but still a not an easy fit for the big screen...as we saw. They are not retarded, they just lack the vision, or desire, to do what Marvel has done and is doing.
ralfinader
ralfinader - 6/5/2012, 11:50 AM
Berger45 - 6/5/2012, 2:37 AM
Report Comment One man may start the DC-cinematic revolution, and that man is Bruce Timm.

He really could be their Fiege, but WB is so old school, they won't do it...Or they will do it wrong.
MoonDoggyX
MoonDoggyX - 6/5/2012, 1:00 PM
Where exactly did marvel take a big risk...? Not to sound like a douche bag, but some of you guys sound pretty silly with your "Marvel made a bunch of solo films that tied into the Avengers, so DC needs to do the same thing with the JLA like NOW!!!" you guys are forgetting a lot of stuff along the way to the MCU.

1) Marvel was going bankrupt in the early 90's so thay sold the film rights to a their most popular characters(at that time it was Spidey, Hulk and X-Men, etc) to Fox, Sony etc.

2) Marvel Updated the origins of their characters to fit a younger, more modern audience with their "Ultimate" line of comics. These characters models became the basis for their movie counterparts. It took DC nearly 12 years to follow suit.

3) Marvel put their logo in front of movies produced and financed but other companies to raise the popularity and awareness of their brand. The Spiderman and X-Men franchises were huge hits and Marvel made sure that everyone knew that they were their characters.

4) Due to the success of Spidey and X-men and the merchandising that followed(cartoons, shows video games, toys, etc) Marvel was practically a household name before Iron Man was ever announced.

5) Marvel used the money they gained from the success from the properties they sold to finance Iron Man. Though the financial risk of those movies were covered by multiple other movie companies.
dezdigi
dezdigi - 6/5/2012, 3:13 PM
I just can't believe we haven't heard any news about WB's future plans yet. If they were planning on releasing a DC property in 2013, we would have heard an announcement by now. So, we can expect nothing for 2013. Even for 2014, we might have gotten some rumors by now-yet again nothing!
MoonDoggyX
MoonDoggyX - 6/5/2012, 6:14 PM
Superman: Man of Steel comes out in 2014
dezdigi
dezdigi - 6/6/2012, 8:11 AM
@MoonDoggyX,
Sorry, I meant with the exception of MOS. I wasn't including that because they claim it won't be the start of a shared cinematic universe.
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder