Gephyrophillia | Not An Update #2

Originally Posted on 07/11/2008 by Jeff Harris

This is not an update.

It's a reaction to something that should have taken place, oh, about 20 years ago, give or take a year.

My friends at Warner Bros. have no idea what they're doing with their Superhero(TM) properties, particularly the ones owned by their iconic DC Comics division.

Yes, I am aware that I'm saying this the week that the Watertower releases a new DTD Batman animated feature and a week before they release their sixth theatrical Batman film, The Dark Knight. And yes, I am aware I'm saying this years after nearly 20-year legacy of the DCAU ended, years after the tween-friendly Teen Titans and the preschool-friendly Krypto ended, months after the awesome-yet-ill-advised revision of The Batman and the Superman-helmed Legion of Super Heroes ended, and nearly a year before yet another trek into the Batcave with The Brave and the Bold premieres. I am also clearly aware that I'm saying this in light of the multiple releases of original animated movies featuring the DCU.

However, if you read Variety, and I know you do, you'd think that Warner Bros. is shaking it their boots because Marvel is dominating theaters with the X-Men films, the Spider-Man films, and, recently, Iron Man. Obviously, they've failed to note the lackluster performances of both Hulk films, both Fantastic Four films, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Blade (which the recently injected New Line produced and distributed all filmed versions of it, including the short-lived Spike TV series), but the fact that more people know Marvel characters than DC characters is troubling to them. It's no surprise that Warner Bros. and DC are having a consortium to figure out how to exploit the classic characters created more than 70 years ago and the modern mythology they inspired to this day.

Here's the problem.

Why didn't they do this 20 years ago? Twenty years ago, they were ready to relaunch Batman as a Dark Knight for an uncertain world. Warner Bros. were ready to erase the hokey, campy, POW! WHAM! image the 60s live-action series had permanently implanted on the mainstream's image of not only Batman, but the Superhero(TM) genre as a whole.

DC Comics had tried to remove that image for about two decades prior to the film's release courtesy of talented writers like Denny O'Neil and artists like Neal Adams. Frank Miller (the creator of Elektra [she's still dead], Sin City, and 300 and director of the adaptation of Will Eisner's The Spirit) crafted The Dark Knight Returns, a gritty look at the future of Batman. A Death in the Family killed off the second Robin (the masses thought it was the original Robin, Dick Grayson, who got killed by the Joker). Crisis on Infinite Earths purged a lot of backhistory to make the DC Universe more cohesive to new readers. DC Comics used that event to later revamp Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman to fit with today's audiences. DC Comics, which was owned by Warner Communications, was figuring out what to do with their characters to fit them into today's marketplace, but, even then as they are now, Warner Bros. is clueless how to market new productions featuring the vast library of heroes and villains owned by the publisher.

Contrary to what Variety said, Warner Bros. hasn't been the only home for the DC Superheroes(TM). Universal produced the Swamp Thing movies and live-action series. DiC did the animated series. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, based on the Alan Moore-penned Wildstorm title, was adapted at 20th Century Fox. Okay, they're the only two in the Warner-owned DC Comics era. Sadly, all projects featuring DC-owned characters have to stay in development before they release them. IF they release them.

It's good that Warner Bros. are at least planning to figure out what to do the DC Comics characters. At least on the live-action side (the animation side is doing okay, but for the first time since 1992, there isn't a newly-produced animated television production based on a DC property). But here's the thing.

Just because Marvel is creating films, television shows, and animated productions based on nearly every one of their titles, doesn't mean DC should do likewise. Heck, Marvel shouldn't either. The Fantastic Four may be Marvel's first family, but they're boring. That's why nobody went to see the movies. That's why nobody watched the recent animated series. The Fantastic Four are boring. The Avengers are being diluted in many animated productions. The Ultimate Avengers was based on the Ultimates, an alternate version of the popular team. Young Avengers is another version of the team that doesn't necessarily have the original, popular incarnations of the team. Just their kids or something. At least the team comic fans know might end up in a theater near you. Marvel's also doing multiple versions of Wolverine, the Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and other Marvel characters (with the exception of Spider-Man; Sony's doing just fine with that) from preschool-friendly to kid-friendly to young adult-based adaptations. Wouldn't all these versions cause brand confusion in the end? Last time I checked, brand confusion is a bad thing. Either something gets phased out or they all clutter the marketplace. Google "Bat-embargo" when you have the chance.

I do hope Warner Bros. figure out what they want to do with the DC Comics characters. Maybe they'll figure out what to do with the Looney Tunes and Hanna-Barbera characters next.

This is not an update. It's a hope for something other than a quick fix and a quick buck.

Jeff Harris,
Webmaster, The X Bridge. Since 1998.