Render said:

---

Questions for TC:

The DC and Dark Universe misfires got me thinking, are the people who run these studios fans of the IPs they own? Do they enjoy movies? Do they read their IP's materials (comics, novels, etc) in their spare time? I know that sounds silly, but I'm just wondering. I always assumed that if someone was in charge of a property, then they had a passion for the IP. But is it simply more a job for those people? I'm not hating on those people, just curious about the personalities in charge and dynamics of their job.

---

I can't speak for the DC and Dark Universe executives, in particular, but I will say that one of the major problems with the Hollywood system in general is that the execs - the gate keepers, the decision makers, the purse string holders, etc. - aren't nearly as knowledgeable about the fundamentals of storytelling as they should be. First and foremost, they're business people, as they should be, but I really do believe that there needs to be some kind of storytelling certification class one should have to take in order to be a studio exec or hands-on financier. No different than being certified as a real estate agent. Granted, there are plenty of extremely passionate and knowledgeable execs when it comes to storytelling, but by and large, I'd say at least half of the studio-level notes across Hollywood on any given day are counterproductive, asinine, and useless. Too often, exec influence over a story is simply a bunch of less knowledgeable people than the writer or director trying to justify their jobs, which is why projects are often whittled down to the lowest common denominator.

All of this is to say that I would be genuinely surprised if more than a quarter of, say, WB execs genuinely care about the IP they're shepherding on a level beyond, "Will this make money for us?" / "How can we sell this in a way that ensures I get to keep my job?" Batman is product to them. Superman is a product. For the same reasons a huge chunk of execs don't understand / bother to learn storytelling, a huge chunk of execs don't truly understand/value/love the IP they're overseeing. And yes, ideally, these execs would be just as passionate about the IP as we are. But as with most companies, how often are execs utterly passionate about what it is they're selling? Does an exec at, say, Pepsi, grow up LOVING Pepsi? No. Working at Pepsi is just a job for them, and they're going to do whatever it takes to keep that job, but it's not like they live, eat, and breathe Pepsi philosophy. So why would/should it be any different at Warner Bros.? (I'm asking rhetorically, and again, I wish it were different.) Besides, you'd be shocked at how many people - including execs - in the industry A) fell into their jobs, and B) hardly ever watch movies/TV.

Quote:

---

And in your experience, is Marvel's cinematic-universe success the big goal/zeitgeist among executives/management in Hollywood? Do studios consciously push away new ideas in favor of older stuff?

---

It's mainly a case of the parent companies / shareholders saying, "Look at what Marvel is doing! Why can't we have that as well?" And then execs at, say, Sony, are forced to try and rush a universe out of whatever IP they own, as was the case with the ill-advised Amazing Spider-Man universe they were building with Andrew Garfield. It's not that the studios/execs want to do this, it's that they feel they have to.

Quote:

---

Additionally, is there a lot of people in the wings of Hollywood (such as yourself; people in the up-and-coming leadership generation of Hollywood) who are more willing to take creative risks and want to move away from the reboot-formula? Do you all chaff under the current leadership? Do you think that generation will change the creative arc of movies when they take charge in the next 20-30 years?

---

Most everyone I know in the business hates reboot culture, and of course we all say we'd take more creative risks if we were in charge. But it's important to understand that it's not just a current generation or a current type of mindset that is making these decisions. Maybe the culture will eventually change, maybe it won't, but the bottom line is, again, that all of decisions are predicated on survival. It's just people trying keep their jobs, and that survival instinct will never change. In other words, it's far more of a safe bet to gamble on a known property than it is to take a chance on something new. Because that's exactly what movie-making is: a gamble. Always and forever.

All that said, I take solace in this... as much as I loved the movie, Solo failing I think is really going to shake things up. It shows execs that nostalgia and familiarity don't won't always work, and I think the higher-ups are on high-alert now. Suddenly, IP may not be everything it's cracked up to be when it comes to blockbusters. Maybe audiences are finally speaking with their wallets in terms of wanting something new and original... or even just good... and maybe execs are finally listening.

Anyway, apologies if I rambled a bit too much, as I don't have all the answers, but tried to address your questions the best I could.

Joker's mom.

The character I've been waiting for in a DC film.

A. Martha
B. I don't really think the Joker should have an origin story

Frances McDormand who is a 2 time Oscar winner and 5 times nominated is not a big enough name to play a tertiary character that never existed before?

Ok.