Yes, because that's how studios used to run franchises. You make sure you know you've got a series that's financially viable before tossing money into another movie that might or might not be a flop that'll kill studio finances.
DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
Well, fortunately that's not what they're doing here. I personally have no desire to go years between every film featuring my favorite characters, as the studio waits out the results of each entry before proceeding even to start the next.
Superman: 2025. Supergirl: 2026. Keep 'em coming, baby.
Superman: 2025. Supergirl: 2026. Keep 'em coming, baby.
Something can be deliberate and thoughtless at the same time.
But that was also at a time when a franchise didn't consist of a whole shared universe of different film series. Spin-off movies were an extreme rarity, and in those cases they were often planned to be set-up beforehand, like the original plans for Superman III included Supergirl, setting her up for her own solo movie. It didn't turn out that way, but the Salkynds still announced the Supergirl movie in 1982 before Superman III was in production.
But now, it's not just a Superman film series, it's the entire DC Universe that's considered the franchise. And to think they'd wait for the movie starring one character to see if it's a success before starting work on the movie starring a different character is just silly. Of course, that's not how they do it. Not even the MCU did that, they had both Iron Man and Incredible Hulk out the same year, while also already working on their plans to introduce Thor and Captain America.
One thing Gunn has made clear from the beginning was that each installment of the DC Universe would be its own thing that would have to be able to succeed on its own without relying on the interconnectivity of the larger franchise. Another thing he's emphasized is that every film would only even start pre-production with a strong script in place.
Yes, they've announced a broad range of projects already, but most of those are things they are currently developing, not what's entered the pre-production stage, and most aren't even set for a specific year to be released.
It just so happens two of the first installments of the new DCU are Superman and Supergirl. Because both are very popular characters, and they have stories ready they want to tell with these characters.
Like in the 70's, when they filmed Superman 1 and 2 simultaneously before seeing how the first would do?
Or Like how they paid Helen Slater for three Supergirl movies, but she only filmed one?
Not that I disagree with your point, but I'm not sure that's the best example, because that was something the Salkinds did to save money by combining two productions into one (they did the same with Richard Lester's The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers, IIRC).
Can I suggest you go watch some making of documentary on those movies because that was nothing with the studio and everything to do with the Salkinds running the same kind of scam they did with The Three/Four Musketeers.
It's been my observation that many comics readers loathe King precisely because they feel their "favorite characters" (which seem usually to include every single comicbook character ever created, no matter how unimportant or obscure) are often treated ... shall we say, ungently by him.
I understand that, but King's Adam Strange was given a weighty, believable purpose for his fall from his public persona, which he would one day need to answer for--something the Silver Age stories--as much as I enjoy them--did not explore.
For the readers who did not enjoy Strange Adventures, I suppose they can consider it a one-off.
I enjoyed King's take, but my favorite version is the post-Flash Gordon / Atomic Age interpretation. Personally, my view on darkness in characters: its fine if the world he/she inhabits justifiably and naturally took a turn (e.g. impactful event with personal consequences) which--by psychological necessity--brought the character to a point in life that alters the course of his/her worldview toward a more sobering, or dark view / approach (which the Snyder DC movies handled in wonderfully believable, logical fashion), as opposed to being dark 'round the clock "just because".
If anything, I'd like to see more about what makes Lois tick outside of her career on a long term basis--how she shuts down the reporter side of herself and relates to those "regular people" who she may see as "not getting it" (meaning how complicated or troubled the world is (beyond a post/report), which makes interacting with said regular people difficult--its remedy self-reflection about who she considers the "real" Lois--the reporter always ahead of others, or the person her "average" friends and family can relate to (we're getting that in Superman and Lois to a degree, but not in a long form comic book).
That might be too nighttime drama for some, but I enjoy that kind of exploration for the characters who do not wear tights.
Last edited:
There’s a reason SAG has the “Salkind clause,” and it’s because of the Three/Four Musketeers.
Good point. Warner / the Salkinds had no guarantee or idea Superman would work, but the Salkinds (in part, also thinking of getting two for the price of one) shot both back-to-back, until the Donner problem popped up.
Indeed.
Because they want to have a steady flow of these movies coming out, and in order to do that they need to work on multiple movies at one time.
Do that many people hate Tom King's writing? It seems like most of the reviews and responses I've to his stuff have been overwhelmingly positive.It's been my observation that many comics readers loathe King precisely because they feel their "favorite characters" (which seem usually to include every single comicbook character ever created, no matter how unimportant or obscure) are often treated ... shall we say, ungently by him.
You, of course, have a history of eagerly embracing darker interpretations of characters, so I'm not surprised you enjoyed Strange Adventures.
Personally, the only comics character that I'm especially protective of is Superman. Fortunately for me, King tends to treat him with enormous care and respect.
I suppose I'm somewhat protective of Lois Lane, too, but I'd be very open to seeing King do a deep dive into that character. I suspect it might prove challenging in some ways, but fascinating for me as a reader.
Like so many things, it's probably just an especially loud and angry minority at work. The Internet can create echo chambers that amplify such folks even further, making the King hate seem more common and pervasive than it actually is.
It would speak very poorly indeed of comics fans if most of them were actually unable to appreciate an artist of King's caliber.
Mostly one guy.
Maybe if you literally only listen to people that you know agree with you then you might think that Tom King is universally beloved, but if you spend any time looking a lot of (relatively normal) people criticize Tom King for a lot of things. Even the most obsessive Tom King/DC fan generally can't defend Heroes in Crisis and most (if not all) of King's Batman run, and I literally don't think I've ever seen anyone defend his Booster Gold/Batman story.
I hate everything he's ever written, I'd rather read a Rob Liefeld book then a Tom King book at this point so I'm far from unbiased, but despite what he hardcore fans think Tom King is not above criticism even among the more general reading audience.
Also, if there is an "echo chamber" its with his fans, people who seem to think he's literally the second coming in the form of a comic writer.
I hate everything he's ever written, I'd rather read a Rob Liefeld book then a Tom King book at this point so I'm far from unbiased, but despite what he hardcore fans think Tom King is not above criticism even among the more general reading audience.
Also, if there is an "echo chamber" its with his fans, people who seem to think he's literally the second coming in the form of a comic writer.
Last edited:
It's true that, from what I've seen, Heroes in Crisis and King's Batman run are his two most heavily criticized works, and the two that ignited a lot of the louder negative voices against him online. I don't think HiC is his best book, but not everything can be. It's still smarter and more interesting than the great majority of mainstream comics. As for his Batman stint, I haven't yet read it (haven't been a fan of the character in many years), but I plan to soon, because King.
With HiC, I gather fans' main beef is its treatment of the Wally West Flash -- a character in whom I have no personal investment or interest, so King can do whatever he wants to him AFAIC. With Batman, I'm not quite sure what all the bellyaching's about -- I gather Selina and Bruce say, "Bat," "Cat," too much or something, and also that people found the conclusion of the marriage arc unsatisfactory. (Both series, BTW, suffered from a good bit of editorial interference from what I understand.)
Anyway, even if HiC were truly the outrageous travesty it's made out to be (it isn't), and even if Batman sucked (doubtful), that's still just two missteps among his numerous works -- some of which, as I've said, rank among the best DC's ever published.
With HiC, I gather fans' main beef is its treatment of the Wally West Flash -- a character in whom I have no personal investment or interest, so King can do whatever he wants to him AFAIC. With Batman, I'm not quite sure what all the bellyaching's about -- I gather Selina and Bruce say, "Bat," "Cat," too much or something, and also that people found the conclusion of the marriage arc unsatisfactory. (Both series, BTW, suffered from a good bit of editorial interference from what I understand.)
Anyway, even if HiC were truly the outrageous travesty it's made out to be (it isn't), and even if Batman sucked (doubtful), that's still just two missteps among his numerous works -- some of which, as I've said, rank among the best DC's ever published.
His Booster Gold/Batman arc made me wish he was writing a Booster Gold book, I loved the way he wrote him fhat much. 
Bonus points to King, meeting him years ago at a local comic con, we mostly spent our few minutes talking of our love of The Next Generation! He actually had a REALLY cool Picard story idea.
Bonus points to King, meeting him years ago at a local comic con, we mostly spent our few minutes talking of our love of The Next Generation! He actually had a REALLY cool Picard story idea.
And here's the real answer. I suppose you'd feel differently if he did what he did to... I dunno, Kara?
You understand that Wally was the Flash for a generation of fans and had a well-developed history going back decades before that?
Similar threads
