DC and Warner are making multiple Batman movies at once with different actors

[ahalpert]

Talk about beating a dead horse. But in a way, I suppose this reminds me of oral traditions where storytellers would spin fables about the same mythical characters over and over. Infinite variations on a theme

Soon Every Movie Will Be Batman

Batman... Forever...?
Forget sequels. Forget reboots. Forget requels. A new challenger has entered the arena. We're gonna call it... SIMULQUELS. Or Si-quels?

According to Indiewire and The New York Times, DC Films and WarnerMedia are going to literally double down on Batman, making multiple Batman movies at once with different actors and claiming they exist in different timelines. There will also be spinoffs and other characters getting the same treatment.

This makes total sense. It is the lowest risk and highest reward move for a media conglomerate that owns a movie studio. Churn out a popular property... over and over again. How many Spider-Man movies can we have? Sony says, "tons."

Warners looks at Batman and says to Sony, "Hold my beer"

https://nofilmschool.com/Warners-multiple-batman-movies

The article is actually interesting in exploring connections to early Hollywood. Apparently the Bogart Maltese Falcon was the 3rd adaptation of that novel to be made in that decade, but it is the best-remembered.

 

[NorBro]

A few days ago, Tom Hanks said that he thinks Marvel-like franchise movies will dominate in the future (along with his belief that he thinks theaters will survive).

 

[ahalpert]

Well, they're already dominant. Does he mean they'll be the sole surviving theatrical releases? I could imagine that, sadly.

 

[NorBro]

IDR where I saw it (somewhere on Yahoo most likely) - and articles paraphrase a lot or take snippets out of interviews so you never know what someone's thinking - but it sounded like those movies are going to be the only ones anyone (executives) will be interested in making and people seeing (majority of moviegoers who are keeping movie theaters alive...like WW 1984 goers).

 

[ahalpert]

It's not super duper crazy to say that if you can't potentially gross $1 billion, you should just release online.

But I think it would definitely be a loss. And the broader cultural significance of cinema (and thus the potential to make that billion in the first place) may erode and vanish without the varied options at the theater and the variety of reasons to go there

Certainly, if you're releasing online, does it have to be a feature? Look at the variety of Mandalorian episode lengths. The very notion of a feature film as a unit might go away. Which wouldn't be the end of the world. But you might lose the clean distinction between TV and movies

 

[NorBro]

I don't know what the majority of people are thinking...not a topic I can add any personal value to as I watch everything on regular TV when it comes around 2-3 years later.

But I would very much prefer new Batman/DC over Marvel (unless they go back to the drawing board with the standalone Spider-Man movies).

 

[ahalpert]

Why? Because you like Batman more?

I guess I dont see a huge distinction. They're all sort of children's stories.

I'm midway through my 4th viewing of Dunkirk and it's...definitely not a children's story. I'd pay $125 to see it in an IMAX now that I know how much I like it. And there are some really dark bits that are lost to compression, including some key plot points

 

[NorBro]

Many of the comic books and the nature of the stories are very dark like the Joker movie, but I don't see them making the movies like that with the money they have in mind of making.

But I don't care much either way...I say the above now but by the time I see the new 2-3 Batman movies I'll be saying the opposite and asking for new Marvel again, or another universe/franchise.

 

[ahalpert]

Agreed. There has been a glut of marvel movies lately. and there is a dark side to batman and his universe that lends him a depth that other superheros lack.

I suppose in the end that it all comes down to concept and execution. Dunkirk could have been another run of the mill b war movie, after all. And Nolan did something nice with batman begins and the dark knight.

But my hopes go down when it starts to feel like a factory. I've been loving the new star trek shows but now there's going to be a 5th new one...a spinoff based on one of the most memorable characters from discovery (played by the inimitable Michelle Yeoh of crouching tiger fame) and I thought, "oh, no!" They also should have just kept her on Discovery because she has now made her exit and the show is lacking without her character. Plus the way the character departed was BS

 

[mcbob]

does anyone remember the days when the biggest movies featured normal, everyday people challenging powers and systems far greater than themselves, vs. watching superhumans bash each other in an endlessly looping physics-defying bacchanalia of explosions?

I mean, seriously, when "Dr. Sleep" gives horror the formulaic superhero treatment...

We're in a time when a majority just wants to lay back smoking a bowl, waiting to be saved, vs. anyone actually doing anything about anything themselves.

Superhero movies can go screw.

 

[ahalpert]

Well technically you could lie back and smoke a bowl while watching any film genre. Not too many start ups got off the ground while their founder was binge watching mad men

And I'm pretty sure most superhero movie fans fantasize that they're the hero, not the powerless victims he saves

 

[NorBro]

Any extended "universe" is good for people...it's nice to dream about something else being out there than whatever this is now.

Whether you're a superhero, or someone in space in a future galaxy, or a vampire/werewolf, or a hobbit...it's all a form of hope, a better place.

 

[ahalpert]

Yeah that sums up why I watch star trek. "I want to go to there," as Liz Lemler would say. Although the plausibility of the future it depicts always help me suspend disbelief. (I don't believe there are that many different alien species, if there are any. That's just fun)

But the important part is always tied back to the present. Trek launched during the Cold War and depicted a future where Russians and Japanese people and Americans and Vulcans would all work together. Every work of art reflects on the present culture or it's not doing its job.

 

[DLD]

... The article is actually interesting in exploring connections to early Hollywood. Apparently the Bogart Maltese Falcon was the 3rd adaptation of that novel to be made in that decade, but it is the best-remembered.

Bogart was once asked what he thought about the plot. His reply, "There was a plot?" Screenplay was basically being continuously rewritten on the shoot.

As to these mega franchises, they obviously depend to a great degree on theaters reopening. The movie stars/directors desire the outgoing system where they have the most power but it's shifting away from them. The eventual system is yet to be formed.

 

[ahalpert]

The shining was undergoing constant rewrites as well, much to jack Nicholson's chagrin

 

[groveChuck]

Managing Movie Superheroes Is About to Get a Lot More Complicated


Walter Hamada, who runs DC Films, is overseeing a dizzying number of projects, part of a swarm of comics-based stories coming from Hollywood.

Managing Movie Superheroes Is About to Get a Lot More Complicated https://nyti.ms/3mTHgAO


Mcbob, you're turning into a cranky, pudgy bearded camera guy. Which is not to say that I don't agree with you...

 

[groveChuck]

Managing Movie Superheroes Is About to Get a Lot More Complicated


Walter Hamada, who runs DC Films, is overseeing a dizzying number of projects, part of a swarm of comics-based stories coming from Hollywood...

As the president of DC Films, Mr. Hamada, 52, manages the movie careers of Wonder Woman, Batman, Cyborg, the Flash, Superman and every other DC Comics superhero. And the new course he has charted for them is dizzying.

Managing Movie Superheroes Is About to Get a Lot More Complicated https://nyti.ms/3mTHgAO

Am I the only one who's never heard of Hamada before?

Mcbob, you're turning into a cranky, pudgy bearded camera guy. Which is not to say that I don't agree with you...

 

[Batutta]

Am I the only one who's never heard of Hamada before?

About 20 years ago when I was a hot young screenwriter for a minute, I had a pitch meeting with Walter, who was a young development exec somewhere. His company produced The Big Hit, and he had a spoof movie poster that was in the movie up on his wall of 'Taste the Golden Spray'. I have no point to this anecdote, other than I heard of him before. Seemed like a nice guy. Didn't buy my pitch.

 

[Batutta]

Although the plausibility of the future it depicts always help me suspend disbelief. (I don't believe there are that many different alien species, if there are any. That's just fun)

Really? I think it's an almost certainty there's that many alien species and more. This is the Hubble deep field photograph, which is a photo of a thought to be dark patch of sky exposed for a very long time.

It captured almost 3,000 galaxies in that miniscule part of the sky. I think it's more implausible that we'll ever have faster than light travel, which rules out going to anything but the most nearby solar systems in a human life span. But there is certainly tons of alien life. Now, intelligent life that has evolved in roughly our same time of existence that is capable of traveling to our planet, maybe much less so. But if we ever have the kind of space travel depicted in Star Trek we'd likely find a galaxy and universe teeming with life.

 

[Peter C.]

As stated in the video someone posted roughly 74% of movies are either directly based on a book/comic book or a sequel. The remaining 26% is mostly made up of genre formula based movies. The high cost of Hollywood features doesn't lend itself to original ideas, taking chances, or taking on topics that don't have broad appeal. I'm not a fan of these comic book movies although that could be as one gets older the appeal of pop culture diminishes.

My opinion on other forms of life, it's probably a good thing that we are separated by great distances. I would imagine all forms of intelligent life would have the same weakness that we have. Mainly of competition that usually ends up with conflict. If there were two planets like earth supporting life we would undoubtedly be in some state of warfare between each other. Like it or not we thrive on conflict. You can't have a movie without it. Any contact with another life form would be seen as threat. The inability of light speed travel is what keeps us all safe.