Would DC be better off ignoring main canon lines for their movies and going with some of their alt realities like Red Son?
>if you don't know Red Son imagines Supes landed in the USSR instead of Kansas...pretty neat story line worth checking out
>>71155759
hrm...kinda surprised no one wants to talk about this.
>>71155759
>Super Red Manson
They wouldn't, solely because they want long lasting franchises and 90% of these 'alternative realities' are one shots at best.
Would i like it? Hell yeah. Would they be better off as a company doing it? Hell no.
I see these coming into fashion when people are sick and tired of the generic marvel / DC trash that we've been getting for years now, and when they need to start replacing the second and third tier of actors they've reduced to contractual slavery.
>>71155759
because nobody will go and see it
just like nobody except neackbeards reads those comics
>>71157072
>implying anyone is going to see the DC movies anyway>>71156939
>They wouldn't, solely because they want long lasting franchises and 90% of these 'alternative realities' are one shots at best.
Thing is, their long lasting franchises aren't working at all.
>>71157164
>their long lasting franchises aren't working at all.
Why? Because rotten tomatos and chris evans memes? They still make fucking mountains of money, even as a critical flop BvS made 800k, they'd make more money with Superman Vs Batman 2 than with some 'weird' offshoot storyline normies would avoid.
Best they can do is go for some more 'out there' characters and hope for the Deadpool / Guardians of the Galaxy effect, which is exactly what they're doing with Suicide Squad.
They'll never stop making mainline supes movies for red son, or create some anti-matter universe shit, or do any of the weird stuff required by these stories because studio execs are scared of change and doing this would probably bring in less money. It's just not in their interest to do so.
>>71155759
Who are you quoting?
>>71157394
Batman v Superman was underwhelming at the box office, they needed at least a billion to consider it a success. WB is panicking and they've already started restructuring their universe
>Ben Affleck given more and more creative control
>Geoff Johns brought in to be their Feige
>Snyder out after Justice League
>Snyder admitted he's shifting tone for Justice League and making it more lighthearted
>Justice League a single film instead of a two parter
if Batman v Superman can't even bring in a billion, what hope do their lesser franchises have? Do they think people are going to line up for a Cyborg movie?
>>71157394
>Why? Because rotten tomatos and chris evans memes?
see
>>71157646
Judging a successful big budget movie requires you readjust your scale of thinking. Heaps of money (even money in the black) to us, or even in terms of other movies can still be a bust. A lot of this has to do with cash flow. It doesn't matter if you have 200 million coming over the next eight months if you need it today.
>>71157646
>>71157732
>Do they think people are going to line up for a Cyborg movie?
More so than a commie superman i'd wager.
At the outset OP asked if they'd be 'better off' and i think outright no they would not, because normies are afraid of change and most of these alt lines explore heady topics that would scare the shitbrained audience for your superhero flick.
They want quips and 5000 taiwanese slaves animating "FUCKIN SICK C G I BATTLES SON!"
Even ignoring the 'better off' angle, it would never happen because execs are also afraid of change. At best you're going to get some D and C-list characters being explored in the hope they go gangbusters like Deadpool.
They'll never throw away Supes for Red Son, or Batman for Owlman. Again, i think these could be great, and infinitely better than anything DC or Marvel have made up to this point, but in no realm of believablility are they going to do it.
>>71157861
>normies are afraid of change
I call bullshit. Where popular audiences don't drop money isn't new/changed IP, it's poorly done new/changed IP.
Old, familiar IP can be done poorly and still draw money. New IP has to be done well.
>>71158009
>Old, familiar IP can be done poorly and still draw money.
Which is why it's safer for DC to stay their current course than torch their entire line of A-list superheroes than risk it all on something that may or may not work.
Say there's a 50% chance a movie is shit. If you were an executive, would you go with the option that will still make money if it is shit, or the one that will most definitely not make money if it is shit.Hint: It's the first one.
>>71158094
That's kind of the thing though, shit's not really making money. Well, it is, but not enough nor fast enough.
See, you're predicating your position on the idea that what they're doing is being viewed internally as anything but abject failure. No one is happy with what's happening, no one has any confidence in the DC movies.
>>71158227
I'm not saying it's right or good they're doing this, or that DC are good and everythings fine.
I'm saying they'll never go against the grain and undo the major thing their movies have going for them (memorable / safe characters, settings and themes) and produce something like Red Son.
Red Son should have blond hair, red outfit, and gold cape, you incompetent retarded nigger faggots REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I want to see an alternate reality where Superman lands in Israel
I wonder how different the world would be?
It'll be a direct-to-video animated film at some point guaranteed. In fact I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.
>>71158392
>can't be circumcised
LOL
>>71158297
>I'm saying they'll never go against the grain and undo the major thing their movies have going for them (memorable / safe characters, settings and themes) and produce something like Red Son.
Why are you even participating in this discussion?
It's not predicated on what they will do, but whether or not they'd be better for it.
>>71158512
>Why are you even participating in this discussion?
Because before me the only fucking post in this thread is complaining that no one wants to discuss it.
I'm discussing it and why i think they'll never do it. From the top i've commented within the topic of it being 'better' for them, and unless they completely retool and de-budget their movies (again something they wont do) no, it would not be better for them to take massive risks for money they could otherwise get staying the course.
Do you want every fucking post to be "haha yeah they should totally do that good job OP i agree with you and like you and respect your opinions on stuff DC are such fags they should hire you!!" Go back to your safe space if you can't handle people disagreeing with you, you nancy boy.
>>71158662
>watch me confuse disinterest for disagreement
Your discussion is just a generic "why do studios just keep pumping out the same movies" which has been rehashed so many times it's boring as fuck.
>>71158793
Fine, feel free to enjoy the vibrant and flourishing discussion fostered in this thread without me.
>>71158823
Shitty, trite rehashing of the same old topic is arguably worse than just letting the thread die.
