Comic-Con News:  On the eve of Comic-Con DC Entertainment President Diane Nelson talked about the past and future of DC Comics-based movies.  When asked about the DC characters she would most like to see on the screen, she cited Sandman first, saying "I think it could be as rich as the Harry Potter universe."  Since Nelson was Warner Bros. brand manager for the Harry Potter franchise, that is pretty high praise.  The question with Sandman is always whether it would be better as a movie franchise or, given the wealth of material to adapt, a TV series.
Three of the other titles she mentioned, Metal Men (see "Another Try at 'Metal Men' Movie"), Fables (see "'Fables' in Development"), and Justice League (see "Cavill Says 'Justice League' Movie Is Not Around the Corner") are already in various stages of development.  Aside from Sandman (which has been in development as a movie or TV series for years, though not so much since a TV show was rejected in 2011--see "'Sandman' TV Series Torpedoed"), the only property that she mentioned to The Hollywood Reporter that hasn’t been written about as a likely prospect is “Aquaman,” and she almost apologized for it, by prefacing her mention of the undersea superhero by saying, "And yes, I’m going to say it: Aquaman."
There was almost a note of desperation in Nelson’s response to a question about the often stillborn Wonder Woman media projects, "We have to get her right, we have to.  She is such an icon for both genders and all ages and for people who love the original TV show and people who read the comics now.  I think one of the biggest challenges at the company is getting that right on any size screen.  The reasons why are probably pretty subjective.  She doesn’t have the single, clear, compelling story that everyone knows and recognizes.  There are lots of facets to Wonder Woman, and I think the key is, how do you get the right facet for the right medium?  What you do in TV has to be different than what you do in features.  She has been, since I started, one of the top three priorities for DC and for Warner Bros.  We are still trying right now, but she’s tricky."
Contrast that astute analysis of the problems with adapting Wonder Woman to Nelson’s puzzling reply to what went wrong with DC and Warner Bros.’ big-budget Green Lantern film: "That balance of what  matters wasn’t quite right on Green Lantern.  I know everyone involved with the project wanted it to work as much as everyone involved with Man of Steel wanted it to work.  In the debate of art versus science, sometimes the mix just isn’t right. But we’ll find some other way to bring that characters to the screen."
"Art versus science"--just what exactly is Nelson referring to here?  There is no "science" in Green Lantern.  That intergalactic cop is among the most fantastic and implausible creations in the history of comics.  Is she talking about the technique of the moviemakers or the box office calculations of studio executives?  Or is "science" just a Hollywood code word for over-the-top action and special effects, since Nelson appears to ascribe a lot of the success of Man of Steel to people wanting "to see Superman kicking ass... people want to see Superman being Superman."  Or does she just want to refrain via a cloud of diplomatic obfuscation from slagging those involved in creating the Green Lantern film?