Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 357131

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 355309

[Frodo]

True. After B&R WB swore up and down we'd get a sequel, after SR WB swore we'd get a sequel, and after Spiderman 3 Sony swore we'd get a sequel. We eventually have gotten Batman, Superman and Spiderman films but they aren't sequels. Something tells me the same will happen to GL. I suspect WB still thinks there's money to be made in GL but this sequel talk is more about face saving then anything else.

[Saitou Hajime]

Superman Returns seems to be the only false alarm. Batman and Spidey did have sequels planned after their respective last films, creative differences just stalled them.

[Karelia]

Superman/Batman/Spider-Man are all big names that sell alone. Green Lantern is not in the same category as them is the thing. We've seen movies that do terrible that get sequels anyways (and this movie isn't terrible, IMO. It's just average.) If the budget wasn't so ridiculous, most would be saying it's making decent money.

I just want a sequel, gosh darnit. :( I'll be hoping for one until they confirm they're not working one.

Green Lantern at box office so far:
Domestic: $89,311,000 75.2%
+ Foreign: $29,400,000 24.8%


= Worldwide: $118,711,000

[SuperDaniel]

This movie hasnt opened in a lot of countries yet. It will make its money back.

[Mysteryman]

Superman/Batman/Spider-Man are all big names that sell alone. Green Lantern is not in the same category as them is the thing. We've seen movies that do terrible that get sequels anyways (and this movie isn't terrible, IMO. It's just average.) If the budget wasn't so ridiculous, most would be saying it's making decent money.

I just want a sequel, gosh darnit. :( I'll be hoping for one until they confirm they're not working one.

Green Lantern at box office so far:
Domestic: $89,311,000 75.2%
+ Foreign: $29,400,000 24.8%


= Worldwide: $118,711,000
They will never say they are not doing a sequel.
A reboot is more likely.

[Octoberist]

This movie hasnt opened in a lot of countries yet. It will make its money back.

It has already, and the countries it hasn't opened up yet won't help that much.

[B]

Superman/Batman/Spider-Man are all big names that sell alone. Green Lantern is not in the same category as them is the thing. We've seen movies that do terrible that get sequels anyways (and this movie isn't terrible, IMO. It's just average.) If the budget wasn't so ridiculous, most would be saying it's making decent money.

I just want a sequel, gosh darnit. :( I'll be hoping for one until they confirm they're not working one.

Green Lantern at box office so far:
Domestic: $89,311,000 75.2%
+ Foreign: $29,400,000 24.8%


= Worldwide: $118,711,000

Well after clearing $119m in just 10 days, I'd expect them to make their budget back at the very least. It seems more like it could be 50/50 with a potential sequel, this is after all a character that isn't as mainstream popular like Superman, Batman & Spiderman that sell more or less on their name alone.. or will at least get 50% of people in seats with little to no publicity.

Green Lantern on paper looks like a good franchise that should/could have a good recipe for success with its aliens, superhero, action etc.. however it is just based on how well the public takes to it. I've not seen the film yet or read any reviews, but I get the impression that it didn't get outstanding reviews.. that might hurt a sequals chances. I mean if more than 50% of people think the film was bad & it didn't do so hot in theatres.. well that is usually that.. unless WB feel that the critics/fans were too hard on the film & that other conflicting heavy hitting films hurting the movie in the box office like PoC, Hangover 2, Transformers etc all lurking about still in cinemas.. doubtful & unlikely, but plausable.

Just depends what sort of potential WB see in the GL franchise. Considering Hulk (and Fantastic Four?) got/are getting a rebootquel/sequel & Ghost Rider is getting a sequel I don't see why GL shouldn't get one assuming it makes a similar amount of money $200m-$250m. Personally, I'd think that Green Lantern would have more potential inside it's universe than Ghost Rider does..

Time will tell.

[Ita-KalEl]

Superman Returns seems to be the only false alarm. Batman and Spidey did have sequels planned after their respective last films, creative differences just stalled them.

IMO a SR's sequel with a lower budget was real, but the story of the superkid was so lame that they decided to reboot it.

[shogunrua]

Well after clearing $119m in just 10 days, I'd expect them to make their budget back at the very least. It seems more like it could be 50/50 with a potential sequel, this is after all a character that isn't as mainstream popular like Superman, Batman & Spiderman that sell more or less on their name alone.. or will at least get 50% of people in seats with little to no publicity.

Green Lantern on paper looks like a good franchise that should/could have a good recipe for success with its aliens, superhero, action etc.. however it is just based on how well the public takes to it. I've not seen the film yet or read any reviews, but I get the impression that it didn't get outstanding reviews.. that might hurt a sequals chances. I mean if more than 50% of people think the film was bad & it didn't do so hot in theatres.. well that is usually that.. unless WB feel that the critics/fans were too hard on the film & that other conflicting heavy hitting films hurting the movie in the box office like PoC, Hangover 2, Transformers etc all lurking about still in cinemas.. doubtful & unlikely, but plausable.

Just depends what sort of potential WB see in the GL franchise. Considering Hulk (and Fantastic Four?) got/are getting a rebootquel/sequel & Ghost Rider is getting a sequel I don't see why GL shouldn't get one assuming it makes a similar amount of money $200m-$250m. Personally, I'd think that Green Lantern would have more potential inside it's universe than Ghost Rider does..

Time will tell.

I agree with you in some points. Green Lantern has the potential to be a good franchise, bringing something really fresh to the genre, where the actual modus operandi seems to be "ground this in reality/gritty etc..." and Thor kind of showed that the public is not repulsed by more fantastic/sci-fi superheroes. So yeah, Green Lantern definitely could be a good franchise if handled well. I agree with you that as of now, summer movie season is getting more and more overcrowded, and certainly, opening before Cars 2 AND Transformers 3 must have hurt the movie. Thos basically had one more week end on his own without another major release, that might explain why the second week end drop for Thor wasn't as big as Green Lantern's drop.

I think that it's not the superhero genre movie that maybe people are getting tired of, but also the overcrowding of the summer movie season: "- hey guys want to go see Transformers 3 ? - Come on dude, we've already been to the movies last week". Too many movies, in such a short time, might keep people out of theaters. And with to many new movies, the ones who might have a better chance at being successfull are those who are already part of a franchise with an established fan base and hype built around the mere notion of being a sequel.

Which brings me to one thing I don't completely agree with you. Green Lantern not being as known as the general public as Superman/Batman/Spider-Man can't be the only reason, Iron Man was in the same situation in 2008 and it was successfull, same thing with Thor (albeit with not the same success). This is where marketing campaign is important, to build hype around a new property, to make people interested. And well with a first trailer that made the movie looked like an Iron Man knock off, that didn't start too well. Then they started to put the space stuff in the front scene which, according to you guys (because here it only comes out in August) doesn't seem to correctly reflect the overall movie. So no, Green Lantern not being known by the mainstream audience isn't the problem, because it could have been sold with a good marketing campaign.

I just don't agree with you when you bring the Ghost Rider sequel to the table to justify a sequel to Green Lantern. Sony is pulling a "Roger Corman Fantastic Four" with this one. If they don't produce a movie based on this property, they'll lose their rights (same thing for Daredevil and Fantastic Four). The driving force behind those sequel/reboots isn't just "we believe a sequel can be successfull" but more "better do ****** sequels/reboots than Marvel have their characters back, potentially making better movies with them and make lots of cash and make us look like A-holes" :woot: DC being owned by Warner Bros doesn't have this problem.

But I feel that Green Lantern should have a second chance with the audience, because according to the way you guys make it sound, in the middle of all its flaws, this movie still has some redeeming qualities, so I think there's still hope for a sequel. Sadly, Hollywood (especially with movies with that big of a budget) money is the driving force. Commercial success is more important than a critical one (How are you Scott Pilgrim ?), so right now, I think Hal Jordan is heading more towards the blackest night than to the brightest day :csad:

[DaveMoral]

I've said it before, but I think it warrants repeating, it's not just on the silver screen that WB is looking to franchise Green Lantern. Which indicates to me that they might not be as willing to drop the film franchise after this bad showing. They've got GL: The Animated Series premiering this fall, and from the likes of Bruce Timm no less, which is almost a guaranteed Emmy. It'll certainly be a success, with the only potential weak link I can see thus far being the choice to CGI Timm's usual retro style.

Box office figures are surely important, but might be less so if they see themselves not just recouping with DVD/Blu-Ray sales of this movie, but also the success of GL:TAS and it's merch and DVD sales(the first of which will probably be on shelves by Christmas time). And the currently announced formula of GL:TAS of "lots of space, very little Earth" could prove a well needed lesson to the approach taken for a GL2.

[DIRECTOR]

what really hurt GL's box office is not because it was an OK movie. People go to see OK movies, it's because the word of mouth and articles talking about how unsuccessful it is at the box office.

For example, you have Transformers 2 (crucified by critics/fans, I LIKED IT THOUGH?), but it did well at the box office, and why is that. Because it was making money and there weren't articles talking about the box office downfall, because there wasn't, so that tapped audiences curiosity. GL however, after the weekend, there are articles (even on Yahoo) about the box office not being much, so the general audiences reads that and thinks, "hey, maybe it's not a good movie since it's not making money, i will skipp it".

And that is why, i believe, there is a 66% drop in ticket sales on the second weekend.

[Donut]

I wonder if this will make it easier for Ryan to want to do Deadpool ?

[Dreadstar]

Green Lantern dropped 72 percent from its opening Friday with an estimated $6.0 million, pushing its total to $77 million.

Green Lantern placed third on Friday, finishing behind Cars 2's $25.7 million and Bad Teacher's $12.1 million. :doh:

[Sith Scotti]

I still think if it sells decent enough on dvd it will get another film . I5ts not just about making the money ijn theraters , its about toy sells , tv shows , comic books ..... Yes Martin Cambell is gone , and I would expect the budget & marketing to be cut , but I still think a sequel is as likley to happen as it is not .... They just need to hire a solid director and writer .

[moviedoors]

what really hurt GL's box office is not because it was an OK movie. People go to see OK movies, it's because the word of mouth and articles talking about how unsuccessful it is at the box office.

For example, you have Transformers 2 (crucified by critics/fans, I LIKED IT THOUGH?), but it did well at the box office, and why is that. Because it was making money and there weren't articles talking about the box office downfall, because there wasn't, so that tapped audiences curiosity. GL however, after the weekend, there are articles (even on Yahoo) about the box office not being much, so the general audiences reads that and thinks, "hey, maybe it's not a good movie since it's not making money, i will skipp it".

And that is why, i believe, there is a 66% drop in ticket sales on the second weekend.

Or maybe it dropped because audiences didn't like it. Transformers 2 got got bad reviews, but audiences (god help us all) liked it. I know this is a hard pill to swallow for some of you, but Green Lantern just isn't blowing up the general audience's skirt.

[Rock Sexton]

I still think if it sells decent enough on dvd it will get another film . I5ts not just about making the money ijn theraters , its about toy sells , tv shows , comic books ..... Yes Martin Cambell is gone , and I would expect the budget & marketing to be cut , but I still think a sequel is as likley to happen as it is not .... They just need to hire a solid director and writer .

You project DVD sales to be huge after movie theater BO wasn't? :huh:

[Sith Scotti]

You project DVD sales to be huge after movie theater BO wasn't? :huh:
I said decent . I wouldn't expect Batman Begins numbers You would be surprised how many people wait for dvds . I do think it will sell ok on dvd

[Poni_Boy]

I said decent . I wouldn't expect Batman Begins numbers You would be surprised how many people wait for dvds . I do think it will sell ok on dvd

This movie will definitely do well with it's home release, but I very much doubt it will do well enough to offset the BO damages. Two major factors:

1) Netflix, Redbox, Digital rentals

2) It has to make back it's home release distribution costs and marketing (which is a sizable figure in and of itself) before profits can be consolidated with BO performance

[Sith Scotti]

This movie will definitely do well with it's home release, but I very much doubt it will do well enough to offset the BO damages. Two major factors:

1) Netflix, Redbox, Digital rentals

2) It has to make back it's home release distribution costs and marketing (which is a sizable figure in and of itself) before profits can be consolidated with BO performance

It may not make a profit but wb may see enough potential to warrent a sequel . If it sells enough toys , the tv shows do good etccc . Ancillory market is as important as ticket as the box office .

[Mysteryman]

Okay, what were the DVD numbers for Batman Begins?

[Poni_Boy]

It may not make a profit but wb may see enough potential to warrent a sequel . If it sells enough toys , the tv shows do good etccc . Ancillory market is as important as ticket as the box office .

Honestly that really doesn't compute. Toy profits are split with Mattel and distributors/retailers. Merchandise is split with DC Direct/Noble Collection/etc and distributors/retailers.

If the film doesn't make it's money back a studio as business minded as WB won't take the risk.

[Docker2.0]

Or maybe it dropped because audiences didn't like it. Transformers 2 got got bad reviews, but audiences (god help us all) liked it. I know this is a hard pill to swallow for some of you, but Green Lantern just isn't blowing up the general audience's skirt.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Themorningstar was right, hence my sig. :o

[Sith Scotti]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Themorningstar was right, hence my sig. :o
Fierrst of all Im not a Green Lantern fanboy . Never really read the books but like the movie a lot , and I would consider myself a Batman fanboy but have no problen calling Batman & Robin a pile of horse *****

[Docker2.0]

Fierrst of all Im not a Green Lantern fanboy . Never really read the books but like the movie a lot , and I would consider myself a Batman fanboy but have no problen calling Batman & Robin a pile of horse *****

I quoted another poster who quoted another poster, so where did you come in? :huh: And I wasn't really talking about anyone in general just saying.............in general. I can't lie, I am a GL fanboy more pissed off that WB dropped the ball on this than anything else. Please don't get offended so easily. :cwink:

[Tony Stark]

This is just too depressing. I was worried about this film a year ago from the less than impressive comicon debut. I can see those worries were well founded as this film will likely go down as the most forgettable comic book movie of all time. Which may actually bode well for the reboot.

There's no arguing the point, this movie is worse than Fantastic Four, it's worse than the Hulk, it's worse than Ghost Rider. The numbers speak for themselves, people don't give a crap about this movie, and while Bad Teacher probably overperformed, Cars 2 while it did a bit better than the original in the opening weekend, when you calculate 3D and inflation it opened lower than the first.

There's no exucse for Green Lantern, you reap what you sew, and the film makers just dumped a pile of excrement on the public and expected that we'd go flocking to it, because of the marketing and it had lots of cool toy and video game potential. Forget that movies like the Dark Knight and Iron Man had huge appeal to groups of all ages.

I am both extremely depressed and happy at the same time this bombed. I'm depressed because it set comic book movies back 10 years, and I'm happy, because the studio knows that the public won't accept any piece of crap thrown at us, with the expectation that we'll like it.

[KalMart]

I've said it before, but I think it warrants repeating, it's not just on the silver screen that WB is looking to franchise Green Lantern. Which indicates to me that they might not be as willing to drop the film franchise after this bad showing. They've got GL: The Animated Series premiering this fall, and from the likes of Bruce Timm no less, which is almost a guaranteed Emmy. It'll certainly be a success, with the only potential weak link I can see thus far being the choice to CGI Timm's usual retro style.

Box office figures are surely important, but might be less so if they see themselves not just recouping with DVD/Blu-Ray sales of this movie, but also the success of GL:TAS and it's merch and DVD sales(the first of which will probably be on shelves by Christmas time). And the currently announced formula of GL:TAS of "lots of space, very little Earth" could prove a well needed lesson to the approach taken for a GL2.
It may not make a profit but wb may see enough potential to warrent a sequel . If it sells enough toys , the tv shows do good etccc . Ancillory market is as important as ticket as the box office .

So they should just keep GL in animation/DVD-Only release/comics/toys if it makes money there, and save themselves the huge costs and agony of having him on film again.

[Poni_Boy]

It may not make a profit but wb may see enough potential to warrent a sequel . If it sells enough toys , the tv shows do good etccc . Ancillory market is as important as ticket as the box office .

Not even close

[akfj]

True. After B&R WB swore up and down we'd get a sequel, after SR WB swore we'd get a sequel, and after Spiderman 3 Sony swore we'd get a sequel. We eventually have gotten Batman, Superman and Spiderman films but they aren't sequels. Something tells me the same will happen to GL. I suspect WB still thinks there's money to be made in GL but this sequel talk is more about face saving then anything else.

Aside from Spider-Man 4, which there did seem to be some movement on by Sony, I don't think you can really say that WB swore we would get Batman Triumphant or the Superman Returns sequel. There was some definite hesitancy there.

WB has always been hesitant with its superhero films, even with Batman and Superman. The 1989 Batman movie was in development for ten years. Follow-ups to Superman IV and Batman & Robin were in development for almost twenty years and over five years, respectively. It took ten years to make the Catwoman movie that was put into development right after Batman Returns came out, when it would have made the most sense to make it.

[Frodo]

I am both extremely depressed and happy at the same time this bombed. I'm depressed because it set comic book movies back 10 years, and I'm happy, because the studio knows that the public won't accept any piece of crap thrown at us, with the expectation that we'll like it.

While I don't think its set the genre back it does show that audiences expect better , which is a good thing. It also puts a bit of pressure on Cap to be good and not just another hero film.

[DaveMoral]

So they should just keep GL in animation/DVD-Only release/comics/toys if it makes money there, and save themselves the huge costs and agony of having him on film again.

I don't think that's a sensible view though. If he works in animation he can work on screen. They just need the right team on the script and obviously having so many hands in the pot resulted in a mess this time out. They also need a director that can do this kind of stuff.

[Frodo]

Aside from Spider-Man 4, which there did seem to be some movement on by Sony, I don't think you can really say that WB swore we would get Batman Triumphant or the Superman Returns sequel. There was some definite hesitancy there.

.

WB as pretty set on a Batman 5 of some sort for quite sometime and WB announced as much several times. Batman Triumphant was one script but WB had planned for a Batman 5 of some sort even after the reaction to B&R. B&R was a disappointment to be sure .but it wasn't apparent that a reboot was solution until a couple of years later . You have to remember back in the mid to late 90's the whole concept of a reboots as we know them today didn't exist.

Schumacer proposed year one after B&R but the studio didn't automatically run with it. There were at least two B5 scripts that were floating around though none greenlit . You even had a Batman Beyond live action script.However around 1999 to 2000 they were open to the idea of a reboot. That's when Darren Aronofsky came on board . Then you also had BVS which was a loose sequel to Burton/Schumacer films. A Batman 5 was alot closer then people remember because the myth was that B&R was so bad that WB rebooted the series but it didn't happen so quickly , nor was a reboot the original plan.

As for a Superman Returns sequel, WB was a bit more cautious then they were with B&R.

[kedrell]

Actual weekend: $18,028,056

Dropped $322K from the estimates. 66.1% drop.

[KalMart]

I don't think that's a sensible view though. If he works in animation he can work on screen.
That's not very sensible, either, after they've already had a $200M debacle under their belt.

They just need the right team on the script and obviously having so many hands in the pot resulted in a mess this time out. They also need a director that can do this kind of stuff.
Or they need to try another character and learn from their mistakes on this one....or reboot later down the road if they really believe that Green Lantern has some innate potential as a cinematic front-runner.

[Spider-Fan]

That's not very sensible, either, after they've already had a $200M debacle under their belt.


Or they need to try another character and learn from their mistakes on this one....or reboot later down the road if they really believe that Green Lantern has some innate potential as a cinematic front-runner.

I see GL very much where Hulk is right now. If WB still wants to do what Marvel did, then they have to run with something else. Prob Flash would be safest so go there (since Superman is already coming). Then maybe Wonder Woman (if they get a solid script). Once the JLA card is played, GL may then get a boost in populairty if that catches on, so now a GL2 is more sensible. But, much like Hulk, no sequel will be coming unless they get a bump from a larger property they were involved in.

[kedrell]

I see GL very much where Hulk is right now. If WB still wants to do what Marvel did, then they have to run with something else. Prob Flash would be safest so go there (since Superman is already coming). Then maybe Wonder Woman (if they get a solid script). Once the JLA card is played, GL may then get a boost in populairty if that catches on, so now a GL2 is more sensible. But, much like Hulk, no sequel will be coming unless they get a bump from a larger property they were involved in.


How do you figure. At the end of the day,neither Universal nor Marvel ever lost money on a Hulk movie. WB/DC is gonna eat $100M loss at least on GL.

[Spider-Fan]

How do you figure. At the end of the day,neither Universal nor Marvel ever lost money on a Hulk movie. WB/DC is gonna eat $100M loss at least on GL.

They didn't lose money on Hulk movies, but there is also no interest from Marvel currently in Hulk sequels, so it is essentially the same effect as if it did lose money. Now, maybe if Avengers makes money, a sequel to TIH will materialize, which is my point on GL. I think a GL sequel might happen if a JLA movie is big (if they make a JLA movie, I am sure GL would be included). But, short of that...WB I see having no interest.

[Tony Stark]

The big problem with doing sequels is that for guys like Reynolds and Strong, they hope that it will promote their careers the way it did for Downey Jr., Bale, and Toby Maguire. Since that obviously didn't happen, they will dump this franchise like an old gym sock.

These guys aren't dumb, they may be "contractually obligated" to do a sequel, but they can opt out, and will if it doesn't promote their career. Think about it, these actors give up months of their life to do one project. Why would they commit to a sequel that may not happen, and if it does obviously under different direction.

Their agents will line up other projects for them. These guys want to work, they aren't committed to the characters, it's about work for them.

If there's a sequel, expect a whole new cast.

[EliteF50]

I highly doubt that. I know for a fact Ryan would run back to a sequel. I mean, sure the guy's got some other projects lined up, but they're all simple comedies that also don't promote his career. Unless Deadpool happens, I'm sure he'd love to play GL again.

[KalMart]

I highly doubt that. I know for a fact Ryan would run back to a sequel. I mean, sure the guy's got some other projects lined up, but they're all simple comedies that also don't promote his career. Unless Deadpool happens, I'm sure he'd love to play GL again.

Well...if Clooney was still able to build his career without playing Batman again...Ryan may want to take inspiration from that.

[SuperAl]

i would guess that he signed a contract to appear in more than one movie so i doubt it matters what he wants. He cant opt out of a contract, whats the point of having a contract if you can just opt out whenever you want.

[The Sage]

I highly doubt that. I know for a fact Ryan would run back to a sequel. I mean, sure the guy's got some other projects lined up, but they're all simple comedies that also don't promote his career. Unless Deadpool happens, I'm sure he'd love to play GL again.

Not all comedies, as he's either in the middle of or finishing a movie he's doing with Denzel Washington.

[EliteF50]

Well...if Clooney was still able to build his career without playing Batman again...Ryan may want to take inspiration from that.

But GL has potential. A sequel to Batman & Robin would have sent Clooney to an early grave.

Not all comedies, as he's either in the middle of or finishing a movie he's doing with Denzel Washington.

Well, that's good. I didn't know that. But I still think he'd love to play Hal again.

[Karelia]

I think RR would come back if a sequel is greenlit. Which I hope happens.

[Rock Sexton]

I highly doubt that. I know for a fact Ryan would run back to a sequel. I mean, sure the guy's got some other projects lined up, but they're all simple comedies that also don't promote his career. Unless Deadpool happens, I'm sure he'd love to play GL again.

You know for a fact?

[KalMart]

But GL has potential. A sequel to Batman & Robin would have sent Clooney to an early grave.

Which is why it was rebooted. I'd say GL's 'potential' is looking rather similar, if it's lucky.

[Poni_Boy]

Which is why it was rebooted. I'd say GL's 'potential' is looking rather similar, if it's lucky.

Give it five years then reboot it with WETA effects, an unknown actor in the lead and Neill Blomkamp at it's helm :awesome:

[biolumen]

According to BOM, this past weekends actuals were a bit lower than the already low estimates.

Weekend = $18 million
Domestic total through Sunday = $89 million

It still hasn't reached $120 million WW.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=greenlantern.htm

[Excelsior.]

You know for a fact?
Ryan Reynolds posts here!

[Karelia]

RR did mention he lurks the SHH boards in an interview when he was promoting the Wolverine flick.

[Rock Sexton]

According to BOM, this past weekends actuals were a bit lower than the already low estimates.

Weekend = $18 million
Domestic total through Sunday = $89 million

It still hasn't reached $120 million WW.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=greenlantern.htm

Considering that the most they'll get out of international gross is 12-13%, it's even worse.

[Rock Sexton]

Ryan Reynolds posts here!

..... or the publicist he never knew he had .... :awesome:

[merced]

After GL - it looks like it won't even hit 300 million WW - I don't see WB doing a solo Flash or WW film in the immediate future.

I am betting that JL is being eyed for 2014. Filming in 2013. IMO that's the only way you see GL on screen in the next several years.

WB has no choice but to use Batman to boost these characters.

There are issues, a JL film filming in 2013 can't use Superman as the Court's decision (on what WB can and can't use) comes down in late 2013.

But not a biggie. You don't really need Supes. Batman is the flagship character of DC and WB studios.

So you include, IMO, no more than 3 heroes other than Batman. To giive them adequate screen time.

I'm sure it will be a JL with Bats, Flash, GL and WW.

Say this version of GL really becomes a fav of the JL audience. Give him a solo. Or if it is Flash do the same.

As I said, I don't see WB doing a non-Bats solo comic film before it does a team JL film. We'll see.

[KalMart]

After GL - it looks like it won't even hit 300 million WW - I don't see WB doing a solo Flash or WW film in the immediate future.

I am betting that JL is being eyed for 2014. Filming in 2013. IMO that's the only way you see GL on screen in the next several years.

WB has no choice but to use Batman to boost these characters.

There are issues, a JL film filming in 2013 can't use Superman as the Court's decision (on what WB can and can't use) comes down in late 2013.

But not a biggie. You don't really need Supes. Batman is the flagship character of DC and WB studios.

So you include, IMO, no more than 3 heroes other than Batman. To giive them adequate screen time.

I'm sure it will be a JL with Bats, Flash, GL and WW.

Say this version of GL really becomes a fav of the JL audience. Give him a solo. Or if it is Flash do the same.

As I said, I don't see WB doing a non-Bats solo comic film before it does a team JL film. We'll see.

Batman: First Justice?

[Spider-Fan]

After GL - it looks like it won't even hit 300 million WW - I don't see WB doing a solo Flash or WW film in the immediate future.

I am betting that JL is being eyed for 2014. Filming in 2013. IMO that's the only way you see GL on screen in the next several years.

WB has no choice but to use Batman to boost these characters.

There are issues, a JL film filming in 2013 can't use Superman as the Court's decision (on what WB can and can't use) comes down in late 2013.

But not a biggie. You don't really need Supes. Batman is the flagship character of DC and WB studios.

So you include, IMO, no more than 3 heroes other than Batman. To giive them adequate screen time.

I'm sure it will be a JL with Bats, Flash, GL and WW. But, it would have to be released by summer 2013 before the decision.

Say this version of GL really becomes a fav of the JL audience. Give him a solo. Or if it is Flash do the same.

As I said, I don't see WB doing a non-Bats solo comic film before it does a team JL film. We'll see.

They could film it in 2012, and release it in 2013 and still use Superman.

[Karelia]

What if they wanted to do a JL sequel, though? They couldn't use Superman for it, could they?

I hope they do a JL film. Would love to see it. I'd say keep RR as Hal in it. If it does well, maybe try and do a GL2 after that.

[TheVileOne]

It's so funny because like everyone was so anticipating Reynolds playing Deadpool. We never saw it. And he ended up doing Green Lantern and it tanked. So where is the Deadpool movie? In development purgatory.

[merced]

They could film it in 2012, and release it in 2013 and still use Superman.

No they couldn't. They could film in 2012 but anything the Court rules in 2013 that doesn't belong to WB can't be used - after 2012 basically.

So they could have a film that they couldn't release because it violated copyright laws.

You really don't need Superman in JL anyway. Batman is the big guy now and it makes for a less cluttered canvas.

[merced]

What if they wanted to do a JL sequel, though? They couldn't use Superman for it, could they?

I hope they do a JL film. Would love to see it. I'd say keep RR as Hal in it. If it does well, maybe try and do a GL2 after that.

No. "Superman" will not be WB's after 2012. Sequels couldn't use him but even the first JL which won't come before 2014 can't.

It'll be a new JL. Supermn doesn't need to be in it to make it work but Batman does.

[KalMart]

Could they just use a guy in blue armor that flies and call him Man Of Steel?

[Weadazoid]

What if they wanted to do a JL sequel, though? They couldn't use Superman for it, could they?

I hope they do a JL film. Would love to see it. I'd say keep RR as Hal in it. If it does well, maybe try and do a GL2 after that.




Well according to Nolan, no chance of cross polinization in Solo films under his helm / Godfathering films .... idiotic IMO but so be it. No cross overs


a JLU would stand alone, Bale would not be Batman and in all likelyhood Cavil would not be Superman... in a JLU movie



Best hope to not confuse the audience..... Teen JLU.... in otherwords Smallville the Movie.

[merced]

Batman: First Justice?

Exactly!

You could even leverage off of MOS.

A devastating threat confronts Earth. The Man of Steel (the film will be OK if it uses that term and not Supeman) has been missing for a year and is presumed dead at Luthor's hands. Batman can't handle the threat himself. In desperation he gathers up several meta-humans and they rise up as the JL to save the Earth.

[KalMart]

Exactly!

You could even leverage off of MOS.

A devastating threat confronts Earth. The Man of Steel (the film will be OK if it uses that term and not Supeman) has been missing for a year and is presumed dead at Luthor's hands. Batman can't handle the threat himself. In desperation he gathers up several meta-humans and they rise up as the JL to save the Earth.

I think they should try it out in animation first.

[Weadazoid]

Exactly!

You could even leverage off of MOS.

A devastating threat confronts Earth. The Man of Steel (the film will be OK if it uses that term and not Supeman) has been missing for a year and is presumed dead at Luthor's hands. Batman can't handle the threat himself. In desperation he gathers up several meta-humans and they rise up as the JL to save the Earth.



Dude.... Nolan already went on record and said no to this...


the JL is far far away right now, even if the Avengers is 600 mill domesitic box office smash...


If the JLU does get a movie, it will exist in it's 'own world' no cross over actors either.... they aint signed to deals like Marvel actors

[merced]

Could they just use a guy in blue armor that flies and call him Man Of Steel?

We won't know till the Court rules in 2013. Course we won't really know till 2020 cause the case is definitely going to the SCOTUS and that will take up to a decade to resolve. In the interim the betting is all things Superman will be put on hold/frozen.

[DaveMoral]

No. "Superman" will not be WB's after 2012. Sequels couldn't use him but even the first JL which won't come before 2014 can't.

It'll be a new JL. Supermn doesn't need to be in it to make it work but Batman does.

I have a feeling that WB/DC and the S&S family will hammer out a deal. S&S would be idiots to divorce Superman from the mythos that is basically inseparable from him and WB isn't going to really be so stupid as to let that happen.

Supes ain't going anywhere.

[KalMart]

I have a feeling that WB/DC and the S&S family will hammer out a deal. S&S would be idiots to divorce Superman from the mythos that is basically inseparable from him and WB isn't going to really be so stupid as to let that happen.

Supes ain't going anywhere.
The heirs' Lawyer...and now part Superman owner...may have something to say about that. :O

[EliteF50]

You know for a fact?

Haha, alright, not for a fact, but I'd bet my left testicle that RR would return for a sequel.

[Poni_Boy]

Haha, alright, not for a fact, but I'd bet my left testicle that RR would return for a sequel.

I'll take that bet :woot:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lt1yNpKxh1U/0.jpg

[EliteF50]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmkyt94vDi1qdxt9h.png

[Willi Berg]

‘Green Lantern’ Sequel: Tepid Box Office, Big Plans Create a Tough Call (Analysis)

11:37 PM 6/27/2011 by Kim Masters

As doubters abound, Warner Brothers weighs the pros and cons and still expresses confidence in the special powers of a future franchise.

That’s the question Warner Bros. faces in the wake of the less-than-stellar worldwide roll-out of the superhero tentpole. The studio appears to be grappling with the challenging decision. While a top studio source told THR on Sunday that Warners was proceeding with plans for a follow-up film, a studio spokesman said Monday that no decision has been reached.

The situation illuminates a dilemma facing Hollywood studios so intent on launching lucrative franchises that generate multiple revenue streams, including from sources other than box office, that they might find it difficult to accept the cold reality of disappointing ticket sales. And the issue arises at a delicate time for Warners. Its new studio head Jeff Robinov is basking in the glow of The Hangover Part II ($527 million worldwide and counting) but is hungry to launch a new franchise based on its DC Comics properties to replace the Harry Potter cash cow ending this summer.

Observers note there are many factors that will determine whether the studio ultimately goes forward with a Green Lantern sequel. Most significantly, Warners must determine what kind of total gross would justify another film, particularly if a follow-up can be done for less money.

Green Lantern had a budget well in excess of $200 million, according to industry sources, as well as an outsized marketing spend estimated at $100 million domestic and $75 million foreign. A source with ties to the studio says it is reasonable to assume that Warners has spent well over $400 million on the film--not unusual for a summer tentpole—making profitability a steep uphill climb.

Though the film is still rolling out overseas, current numbers suggest that Green Lantern could top out at $260 million or $270 million in worldwide gross. (Its cume through Sunday was $118.4 million; it has grossed $89 million domestically and $29.4 million overseas.) Green Lantern's weak foreign showing is especially problematic, considering that more than ever, international box office often drives tentpoles.

Though Warners had high hopes for the film starring Ryan Reynolds and directed by Martin Campbell, Lantern not only failed to ignite at the box office but was also rejected by critics, earning a mere 26% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes—not that reviews are crucial to the success of movies based on toys and comic books.

Some observers outside the studio say a Green Lantern sequel would be a misstep, one which Warners probably will not end up making.

“I don’t see how they actually move ahead, even if they are dying to launch some non-Batman, non-Superman DC [Comics] heroes,” an executive at a rival studio said.

On the other hand, Warners’ deep marketing spend has familiarized worldwide audiences with the character. And studio franchises are not just about box office any more. Disney’s Cars, one of Pixar’s lowest-grossing and least-embraced films, launched a $1 billion global licensing juggernaut that paved the way for the just-released sequel. Similarly, Warners is planning an aggressive roll-out of Green Lantern merchandise, with more than 100 global licensees, an animated series, games and theme park rides. A Lantern sequel could feed all of those revenue streams.

Plus, a talent rep associated with the film argues that the studio has learned from the first movie and could correct the tone of a sequel, hire a director with more CG experience and/or mandate a lower budget.

A script for a sequel was being developed with writer Michael Goldenberg even before the film opened as a matter of routine. And though Reynolds is said to be willing to reprise the role, several industry sources expressed doubt that another excursion would be a good move for him. “It’s not like he doesn’t have career choices,” the rival executive said. “He has no need to do it.”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/green-lantern-sequel-tepid-box-206002

[Poni_Boy]

Umm... did The Hollywood Reporter just renege their own report?

Yesterday: Studio insider says GL sequel is a go

Today: Studio spokesperson says GL sequel is undecided

[Willi Berg]

^Sounds like it's WB is giving them mixed messages lol

[Poni_Boy]

^Sounds like it's WB is giving them mixed messages lol

Sounds like they were talking out of their ass yesterday and WB spanked em for it

[Rock Sexton]

Yikes ....

Green Lantern had a budget well in excess of $200 million, according to industry sources, as well as an outsized marketing spend estimated at $100 million domestic and $75 million foreign. A source with ties to the studio says it is reasonable to assume that Warners has spent well over $400 million on the film--not unusual for a summer tentpole—making profitability a steep uphill climb.

[Willi Berg]

I remember the old days when the rumour was that Green Lantern 2 was already going to go into production and start shooting before the first movie even came out.

[Poni_Boy]

I remember the old days when the rumour was that Green Lantern 2 was already going to go into production and start shooting before the first movie even came out.

Ha! I remember that. What outlet was the source of that "scoop"?

[Willi Berg]

Ha! I remember that. What outlet was the source of that "scoop"?

Some drunk production crew guy in a New Orleans bar, I think it was!

[Poni_Boy]

Some drunk production crew guy in a New Orleans bar, I think it was!

Hey now, don't go blaming the below the line people. A drunk PA on the film gave me the walkthrough of the wardrobe room :awesome:

[Willi Berg]

Hey now, don't go blaming the below the line people. A drunk PA on the film gave me the walkthrough of the wardrobe room :awesome:

That's cool. What I remember was that the article said that the talk around New Orleans at the time was that GL2 was going to go into production right away. It probably got misconstrued along the way.

[KalMart]

Hey now, don't go blaming the below the line people. A drunk PA on the film gave me the walkthrough of the wardrobe room :awesome:

Would that be a recently-fired PA, or was it still on the clock? :oldrazz:

Did he pee on the Batsuit?

[Poni_Boy]

Would that be a recently-fired PA, or was it still on the clock? :oldrazz:

Did he pee on the Batsuit?

I dunno :huh: Her name was Adri and she couldn't hold her tequila worth a ****

[KalMart]

I dunno :huh: Her name was Adri and she couldn't hold her tequila worth a ****

Did you get to touch....






...the dot suits?

[Poni_Boy]

Did you get to touch....






...the dot suits?

Sadly, no. This was the day before I saw Ryan on set wearing a mo-cap suit. Before then everyone was still under the impression he would be wearing an actual GL suit

[solidsnake86]

Wow the budget on this film just keeps on growing, they should just report 500 million so it has a nicer ring to it. "green lantern spends half a billion dollars". Really if they knew they had such a bomb on there hands why did they go out of their way to spend a production budget worth in marketing.

[KalMart]

Sadly, no. This was the day before I saw Ryan on set wearing a mo-cap suit. Before then everyone was still under the impression he would be wearing an actual GL suit
I keep thinking that as mocap advances, it might end up being the best way to do...of all things...the 'ideal' Batman cowl. Something that won't add to much bulk/width (you can model it to be 'skin tight') or bunch up the on the skin, have just the right flexibility for full movement, as well as have it move a bit with facial reactions. When I brought the idea up on the TDKR forum, it was met with a lot of ridicule...and GL may not be the best example, but then again, I have a feeling that someone like ILM could probably do it really well.

[KalMart]

Wow the budget on this film just keeps on growing, they should just report 500 million so it has a nicer ring to it. "green lantern spends half a billion dollars". Really if they knew they had such a bomb on there hands why did they go out of their way to spend a production budget worth in marketing.

They had to...they probably knew they had such a disjointed mess on their hands, with very little time to put a campaign together, that they went straight for the stuff that had the least screentime but the best visual appeal...the space/Oa stuff. And then banked on getting as many butts in the seats for opening wknd before too much bad W.O.M. could spread.

[solidsnake86]

It doesn't justify spending 175 million in marketing. I just don't buy that number. I mean with the way the money gets tossed around it's a wonder how any films make a profit, or they just have really great accountants, lol.

[Liam_H]

It doesn't justify spending 175 million in marketing. I just don't buy that number. I mean with the way the money gets tossed around it's a wonder how any films make a profit, or they just have really great accountants, lol.

Agree, with the money they wasted marketing the last two weeks you think they could have actually used that in the movie itself to add more Oa etc.

They just did not realize the amount of time the FX was gonna take to finish everything they wanted. It was probably too late to move the release date when they realized this.

[Liam_H]

I keep thinking that as mocap advances, it might end up being the best way to do...of all things...the 'ideal' Batman cowl. Something that won't add to much bulk/width (you can model it to be 'skin tight') or bunch up the on the skin, have just the right flexibility for full movement, as well as have it move a bit with facial reactions. When I brought the idea up on the TDKR forum, it was met with a lot of ridicule...and GL may not be the best example, but then again, I have a feeling that someone like ILM could probably do it really well.

You have an interesting idea with mo-capping Batman's cowl and Bale's face does seem angular enough to fit that. Although Nolan's bat suit seems too bulky and the proportions would look off when looking at Batman as a whole.

Also the effects would have to be nearly perfect because any slight hiccup would just take you out of the movie.

[KalMart]

It doesn't justify spending 175 million in marketing. I just don't buy that number. I mean with the way the money gets tossed around it's a wonder how any films make a profit, or they just have really great accountants, lol.

I doubt they initially set out to spend that much or anywhere near it. But with a late start and overtime, etc...that's where costs can really mount.

I do think too much money is getting thrown at a lot of movies...but even today with so much other media/entertainment out there, there are still a few movies here and there that gross way over $500M. So if it's still possible, you know people are still going to shoot for it. Problem is, you really can't set out to be a top grosser and achieve it...there's always an element of surprise or something about the movie catching people off-guard that makes it a new experience. Sometimes you even go in expecting it to be a big waste because the money spent is so high...like with Titanic and Avatar.

So then you get people looking at those examples and thinking they can pick up on the formula to huge success. And you never really see that happening when it's so blatant that they tried to follow someone else's lead.

[KalMart]

You have an interesting idea with mo-capping Batman's cowl and Bale's face does seem angular enough to fit that. Although Nolan's bat suit seems too bulky and the proportions would look off when looking at Batman as a whole.

Also the effects would have to be nearly perfect because any slight hiccup would just take you out of the movie.

I was honestly thinking farther down the road with a Batman reboot that's more fantasy/comic-like. Not that you couldn't use it in a grittier 'realistic' setting like Nolan's....but I think a more stylized overall visual approach to the film would probably suit it a bit better.

Yeah, they'd have to be done as perfectly as possible, and another problem is that people get so much more inside-info and exposure to behind-the-scenes stuff that they automatically know they're looking at an effect, or trying to pick up on what separates it from the 'real' stuff, no matter how well it's done. Ignorance really can be bliss when it comes to that. But it can still impress...like the first time we saw Davy Jones in POTC. On humans it's always tough because we're so naturally programmed to picking up on the smallest of subtleties.

Put it this way, if the capability is up to snuff, I think it'd at least be worth exploring as an option.

[TheVileOne]

Honestly a budget that size doesn't surprise me. A friend of mine who worked in movie PR when I was in college when King Kong was coming out once told me that the new King Kong movie would have needed $1 billion to break even. And the reason that doesn't surprise me is because worldwide distribution for a big international release costs a ton more money. Not to mention percentages or extra fees for the producers and guys like Peter Jackson.

Also when Titanic was coming out and doing well, there were some bytes on E! suggesting the movie really had a total budget somewhere over $300 million which also wouldn't surprise me because of the marketing of a big movie like that as well.

[KalMart]

Honestly a budget that size doesn't surprise me. A friend of mine who worked in movie PR when I was in college when King Kong was coming out once told me that the new King Kong movie would have needed $1 billion to break even. And the reason that doesn't surprise me is because worldwide distribution for a big international release costs a ton more money. Not to mention percentages or extra fees for the producers and guys like Peter Jackson.

Also when Titanic was coming out and doing well, there were some bytes on E! suggesting the movie really had a total budget somewhere over $300 million which also wouldn't surprise me because of the marketing of a big movie like that as well.
That's funny...I actually edited a few of the TV spots and online sizzle-clips for King Kong because there was some last-minute scrambling for subcontracting work with marketing and their website. I got the connection through my sister who was working for a website company that did a lot of the Universal movies...and she would often get flooded with stuff at the 11th hour. It'd be hectic, but she welcomed the overtime pay.

[herolee10]

For GL to have at least had a chance on being a BO success, especially when you consider how much it took to make it along with its oncoming competition, it should have made its production budget by now imho, or at least VERY CLOSE to it.

[Liam_H]

For GL to have at least had a chance on being a BO success, especially when you consider how much it took to make it along with its oncoming competition, it should have made its production budget by now imho, or at least VERY CLOSE to it.

Let's say this movie was actually good, quality being around the first spider-man film. But they had the same exact trailers and footage that was used to market this movie; marketed exactly the same way. Had good critical reception say between 70-80% on RT. Fans love it too. I still think this movies tops out around $150 million domestically or even $180 million tops. Not sure about international but most likely better than it is now. Right now with TF3 coming out, it will stop around $125 million.

Because a lot of people based on those trailers had decided whether they would see it or not already. The opening weekend would already be higher and the word of mouth would be better. But the film was in such a bad slot to have legs even if it was good. Cars 2 would've taken away its kid audience and TF3 targets the same demographic that see superhero movies. Despite how bad TF2 was people still want to go see the third one.

However, if everything I said above hypothetically happened then WB would still be pleased. Even if they didn't make as much money as they would have liked, they got GA to like GL character and I'm almost 100% sure we would get a sequel. The sequel would be a lot more successful. This is what is happening to Thor right now; a sequel is pretty certain because its a good movie and liked by the majority of GA.

[Bruce Malone]

WB was not hoping for mid level success for this movie they weren't even looking at 200 million domestic. The reason they spent so much money was because they wanted this to be their Iron-Man they wanted a 300 million dollar domestic franchise. They wanted something that could take over for batman and harry potter.

They just totally bet on the wrong horse.

[Avenger]

The movie didn't fail because Green Lantern isn't a well-known character (which he isn't), it failed because it was a bad movie. If they'd had a stronger script and more focused direction, they would have made their money back.

[Liam_H]

I know WB was betting on DC heroes besides Batman/Superman to be their next big money makers but even if this surprised us and was Iron Man level quality. I still don't think it tops $200 million domestic not with its competition and not by the type of marketing. GA were not sold on the trailers, it had to rely on word of mouth.

[herolee10]

Green Lantern very well could have been the next IT franchise for the WB, the kind that they were hoping for, HAD this film been done correctly, with the budget having been used in a smart way. Given the large universe and mythology that entails for the GL universe (other worlds, countless aliens, etc), having spent money on CGI costumes was pretty much uncalled for since it just took a chunk out of the budget when it could have been used effectively elsewhere.

[jmc]

If it's one thing this whole debacle has taught us is that you simply cannot throw money at something at hope to get a return. They really should have moved the release date if they weren't going to make the deadlines, instead WB tried to buy there way out of trouble.

[Dreadstar]

Secondary characters like Ghost Rider, Blade, and Hulk will make more $$$ than GL! :doh:

[kedrell]

Secondary characters like Ghost Rider, Blade, and Hulk will make more $$$ than GL! :doh:

GL is just as secondary a character as them. Hell, if any of them has real name recognition with the GA it's Hulk.

[merced]

Or maybe GL, Superman and these other characters just don't work for modern cinema. In the way Batman, Spiderman and Ironman do?

Interesting observation by Mark Millar. Who knows, he may have a point.

the non-Batman DC characters just don’t seem to work in modern cinema and TV. I’ve loved these characters as far back as I remember, but whether it’s Wonder Woman or Superman or the Aquaman pilot or Catwoman or Jonah Hex or Birds of Prey or whatever… they just don’t seem to catch on in the modern world. I think it’s hard to compete with the new characters (or even the more recent Marvel characters, created a full generation later). Batman works because he’s more human for the big screen and more empathetic, but I fear The Flash and others would just meet the same fate as Green Lantern.

http://www.primaryignition.com/2011/...dc-characters/ (http://www.primaryignition.com/2011/06/28/mark-millar-comments-on-superhero-movies-dc-characters/)

[Poni_Boy]

Or maybe GL, Superman and these other characters just don't work for modern cinema. In the way Batman, Spiderman and Ironman do?

Interesting observation by Mark Millar. Who knows, he may have a point.

the non-Batman DC characters just don’t seem to work in modern cinema and TV. I’ve loved these characters as far back as I remember, but whether it’s Wonder Woman or Superman or the Aquaman pilot or Catwoman or Jonah Hex or Birds of Prey or whatever… they just don’t seem to catch on in the modern world. I think it’s hard to compete with the new characters (or even the more recent Marvel characters, created a full generation later). Batman works because he’s more human for the big screen and more empathetic, but I fear The Flash and others would just meet the same fate as Green Lantern.

http://www.primaryignition.com/2011/...dc-characters/ (http://www.primaryignition.com/2011/06/28/mark-millar-comments-on-superhero-movies-dc-characters/)

While the fanboy part of me wants to shake my head and say he "doesn't get it," the rational side of my thinks he has a point. I mean, just look at all those references of failed attempts to catch general audience interest across mediums. Maybe the modern GA just doesn't like live-action DC heroes that much

[HighFivingMF]

On the other hand, he wrote Kick-Ass.

[merced]

While the fanboy part of me wants to shake my head and say he "doesn't get it," the rational side of my thinks he has a point. I mean, just look at all those references of failed attempts to catch general audience interest across mediums. Maybe the modern GA just doesn't like live-action DC heroes that much

Well MOS will be a test of sorts. If it does just OK - under 250 million domestic - that would add further credence to Millar's POV.

You have to wonder what WB's reaction will be if MOS bombs next year as GL did this year. Will they continue to attempt to make comic book films or lay low for a number of years and shift their focus to other genres?

[Poni_Boy]

Well MOS will be a test of sorts. If it does just OK - under 250 million domestic - that would add further credence to Millar's POV.

You have to wonder what WB's reaction will be if MOS bombs next year as GL did this year. Will they continue to attempt to make comic book films or lay low for a number of years and shift their focus to other genres?

Well I can tell you that WB is more than likely searching right and low as we speak for young adult novel series that can be turned into film franchises. That has become the new firestarter, not superhero films. WB is five years too late in the game to start building comic book film franchises from scratch

[dark_b]

If it's one thing this whole debacle has taught us is that you simply cannot throw money at something at hope to get a return. They really should have moved the release date if they weren't going to make the deadlines, instead WB tried to buy there way out of trouble.i dont think the budget would be lower i fthey would moved the realese date lets say in december. because in 2011 its to late to move the realese date.

[Excelsior.]

Or maybe GL, Superman and these other characters just don't work for modern cinema. In the way Batman, Spiderman and Ironman do?

Interesting observation by Mark Millar. Who knows, he may have a point.

the non-Batman DC characters just don’t seem to work in modern cinema and TV. I’ve loved these characters as far back as I remember, but whether it’s Wonder Woman or Superman or the Aquaman pilot or Catwoman or Jonah Hex or Birds of Prey or whatever… they just don’t seem to catch on in the modern world. I think it’s hard to compete with the new characters (or even the more recent Marvel characters, created a full generation later). Batman works because he’s more human for the big screen and more empathetic, but I fear The Flash and others would just meet the same fate as Green Lantern.

http://www.primaryignition.com/2011/...dc-characters/ (http://www.primaryignition.com/2011/06/28/mark-millar-comments-on-superhero-movies-dc-characters/)
Green lantern was modeled after the first Iron man film. It didn't fail because it was DC, it failed because it didn't connect with the audiences. It is because of its failed execution.

[Silver Surfer]

While the fanboy part of me wants to shake my head and say he "doesn't get it," the rational side of my thinks he has a point. I mean, just look at all those references of failed attempts to catch general audience interest across mediums. Maybe the modern GA just doesn't like live-action DC heroes that much
I have to agree with that as well, as much as I love some DC heroes like Supes and Wally, I just don't see the love from the GA for them. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard non comic book fans badmouth superman in to the next century, saying he's too perfect, he's too boring blah blah blah. I get that Marvel's stable as a whole has more fans than DC, (even though Batman has A LOT of fans) the GA needs to give Supes and Flash at least some love.

[merced]

Well I can tell you that WB is more than likely searching right and low as we speak for young adult novel series that can be turned into film franchises. That has become the new firestarter, not superhero films. WB is five years too late in the game to start building comic book film franchises from scratch

Yup. Marvel owns this niche and it may not make sense for WB to spend a whole lot trying to develop it instead of spending that money developing young adult stuff from novels and such.

WB has done well with the animation adaption of it's DC characters so continue that but shift resources away from live adaption of comic characters.

[merced]

I have to agree with that as well, as much as I love some DC heroes like Supes and Wally, I just don't see the love from the GA for them. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard non comic book fans badmouth superman in to the next century, saying he's too perfect, he's too boring blah blah blah. I get that Marvel's stable as a whole has more fans than DC, (even though Batman has A LOT of fans) the GA needs to give Supes and Flash at least some love.

I agree.

Aside from fanboys I see little anticipation or interest in MOS among my non-comic friends. But these folks know all about the Spidey reboot and Ironman coming with a 3rd. The ones I've asked said they don't plan of seeing MOS - maybe they'll catch it when it is shown on TV.

Snyder and Nolan have a huge hurdle to cross with MOS.

Just as was the case with GL. That film wasn't even on the radar of my non-comic friends.

[Excelsior.]

I have to agree with that as well, as much as I love some DC heroes like Supes and Wally, I just don't see the love from the GA for them. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard non comic book fans badmouth superman in to the next century, saying he's too perfect, he's too boring blah blah blah. I get that Marvel's stable as a whole has more fans than DC, (even though Batman has A LOT of fans) the GA needs to give Supes and Flash at least some love.
The GA are retarded. They will change their tune if they get a kick ass Superman flick.

[solidsnake86]

Here's the thing though, when the movies bomb it's funny how the budget increases with every article published but you can't honestly tell me that Thor stuck to it's 150 million dollar budget and the advertising costs simply don't exist. Really it's not suprising and usually dark b makes a good point, these films simply aren't made on this magic 150 million dollar budget. The dark knight cost 185 million and that is for a character that's reality based. What about transformers 3, from what I've read the last hour is one huge action piece, and let me guess the budget is under 200 million... Yeah right.

[Poni_Boy]

Yup. Marvel owns this niche and it may not make sense for WB to spend a whole lot trying to develop it instead of spending that money developing young adult stuff from novels and such.

WB has done well with the animation adaption of it's DC characters so continue that but shift resources away from live adaption of comic characters.

I'm in the process of writing an editorial about this, but I feel the first major marketing failure of Green Lantern was disassociating the film, animated movie and cartoon series. they should all have been in the same continuity, telling different aspects of GL mythology and building upon each other.

[Poni_Boy]

Here's the thing though, when the movies bomb it's funny how the budget increases with every article published but you can't honestly tell me that Thor stuck to it's 150 million dollar budget and the advertising costs simply don't exist. Really it's not suprising and usually dark b makes a good point, these films simply aren't made on this magic 150 million dollar budget. The dark knight cost 185 million and that is for a character that's reality based. What about transformers 3, from what I've read the last hour is one huge action piece, and let me guess the budget is under 200 million... Yeah right.

The thing about Marvel Studios films are that they have definitive budget caps. MS has to finance these films independently, wile their distributors (first Paramount, now Disney) pitch in on marketing costs. That's why The Avengers -- a movie that deserves a $250 million production budget -- is capped off around the same as Captain America and Thor

[Deaths Head II]

Here's the thing though, when the movies bomb it's funny how the budget increases with every article published but you can't honestly tell me that Thor stuck to it's 150 million dollar budget and the advertising costs simply don't exist. Really it's not suprising and usually dark b makes a good point, these films simply aren't made on this magic 150 million dollar budget. The dark knight cost 185 million and that is for a character that's reality based. What about transformers 3, from what I've read the last hour is one huge action piece, and let me guess the budget is under 200 million... Yeah right.

The general rule is that a film usually has to make double it's listed budget to break even in theaters. Thor already did that. Green Lantern probably won't. WB already said they would be happy if this film would crack $400 million worldwide, which is double the $200 million that is listed.

[Rock Sexton]

Here's the thing though, when the movies bomb it's funny how the budget increases with every article published but you can't honestly tell me that Thor stuck to it's 150 million dollar budget and the advertising costs simply don't exist. Really it's not suprising and usually dark b makes a good point, these films simply aren't made on this magic 150 million dollar budget. The dark knight cost 185 million and that is for a character that's reality based. What about transformers 3, from what I've read the last hour is one huge action piece, and let me guess the budget is under 200 million... Yeah right.

We can't honestly tell you THOR stuck to it's budget? Uhhh buddy they weren't the ones trying to fix VFX at the last minute or switching around the marketing campaign mid-stream.

More Thor bashing. Man that crap gets old.

[Deaths Head II]

Yeah, WB really doesn't have the same ability to manage it's budget as Marvel Studios. Marvel Studios is notorious for trying to hire it's actors cheap while WB has thrown money out the window for scenes like the Return to Krypton scene in Superman Returns.

[merced]

I'm in the process of writing an editorial about this, but I feel the first major marketing failure of Green Lantern was disassociating the film, animated movie and cartoon series. they should all have been in the same continuity, telling different aspects of GL mythology and building upon each other.

Interesting. Hope you post the article.

As to WB, they only have so much development money each year. Given the failure of SR and now GL, WB needs to reconsider how it is allocating the development bucks. As much as I love DC characters, if I was advising WB I'd have them shift a big chunk of their development dollars away from the comic book genre and to young adult fare from nvels and such.

[merced]

Yeah, WB really doesn't have the same ability to manage it's budget as Marvel Studios. Marvel Studios is notorious for trying to hire it's actors cheap while WB has thrown money out the window for scenes like the Return to Krypton scene in Superman Returns.

And a tight budget forces a discipline on how the dollars are spent. You get more bang for your buck w/ the Marvel budget approach. And, to a degree, more quality.

[Silver Surfer]

The GA are retarded. They will change their tune if they get a kick ass Superman flick.
I doubt it will be just as simple as that, look at Batman Begins or First Class both great flicks but GA didn't really care a whole lot about em'.

Don't get me wrong, the most important thing is the actual quality of the movie but in addition to that you need anticipation, Hype, positive buzz to really crack with the GA. Superman doesn't have that unfortunately, at least not yet.

[solidsnake86]

Sorry rock sexton it's not Thor bashing.. Man your sensitive.

[Raiden]

We can't honestly tell you THOR stuck to it's budget? Uhhh buddy they weren't the ones trying to fix VFX at the last minute or switching around the marketing campaign mid-stream.

More Thor bashing. Man that crap gets old.

Yeah, just because WB throws their money around carelessly, doesn't mean Marvel Studio does the same thing. Remember that prior to Disney's acquisition, they had to take a loan out to finance their movies like Iron Man, so the budget had to be kept within estimation. When did WB ever had to borrow a loan to make any of their movies?

[Doc Phosphorus]

I think Marvel, in general, has just done a better job with their overall brand name. "MARVEL" seems to have brand recognition that "DC" just doesn't.

I rarely hear people I know refer to DC in any way. Friends and family and other people not "in the know" will ask me things like "Is Batman with Marvel?" or "Is Green Lantern with Marvel?" but never the other way around.

A lot of it has to do with the ancillaries and the merchandising. I always see t-shirts at Walmart and Target that say "Marvel" on it, with pictures of Spider-Man, Cap, Iron Man, Wolverine, etc all standing together. Whenever I see a DC shirt, it's either one particular character or "The Justice League," not the DC Comics brand in general.

[Rev]

I doubt it will be just as simple as that, look at Batman Begins or First Class both great flicks but GA didn't really care a whole lot about em'.

Don't get me wrong, the most important thing is the actual quality of the movie but in addition to that you need anticipation, Hype, positive buzz to really crack with the GA. Superman doesn't have that unfortunately, at least not yet.

I do agree that it took some time for the general audience to warm up to Batman Begins due to the horrid taste of Batman and Robin still lingering in their collective consciousness but they obviously warmed up when the film came to DVD which in turn had people wanting a sequel. The Heath Ledger factor just pushed it over the edge resulting in an even bigger win fall for the movie.

Regarding your second point that is very true something that the Dark Knight had going for it. Until we see more and get a better idea of what they are planning to do with Man of Steel, the general audience has not really seen anything that would cause them to invest interest in the character.

I would love to see rival studios take on the DC Comics properties rather than Warner Bros. having the rites to everything. I know this may not be the solution and they could possibly put out crap movies as well but at least we would get to see what other studios could do with the properties.

[merced]

I doubt it will be just as simple as that, look at Batman Begins or First Class both great flicks but GA didn't really care a whole lot about em'.

Don't get me wrong, the most important thing is the actual quality of the movie but in addition to that you need anticipation, Hype, positive buzz to really crack with the GA. Superman doesn't have that unfortunately, at least not yet.

I agree. Sadly, MOS doesn't seem to have much if any buzz.

I've read 2 articles recently about 2012 and 2013 comic genre films that didn't mention MOS at all. Guess the authors weren't even aware or, worse, didn't care.

I dunno if Snyder and Nolan can overcome this enough to so that MOS has a fighting chance.

They tried all kinds of PR with SR and the whole thing just sort of collapsed on itself. It didn't work and actually backfired.

[Rock Sexton]

Sorry rock sexton it's not Thor bashing.. Man your sensitive.

Nah, it's just gotten old how people keep bringing up it .... it's the worst comparison on just about every level.

[Rev]

While the fanboy part of me wants to shake my head and say he "doesn't get it," the rational side of my thinks he has a point. I mean, just look at all those references of failed attempts to catch general audience interest across mediums. Maybe the modern GA just doesn't like live-action DC heroes that much

I think Mark makes an interesting point but the problem does not lie with the DC characters but in how they are brought to life on the big screen. Superman worked because the source material and the character on screen was taken seriously and then eventually went down hill following the character's initial success. The same thing happened with Batman. The General Audience will sit in a theater and watch something mindless if they perceived it to be worth watching. Green Lantern's initial failing at the Domestic Box Office can be blamed on multiple things but not solely because of the character being unrelatable. A bad execution of a good story will still come across as weak and will fail especially when what was promises was not delivered in the eyes of the audience.

[Poni_Boy]

I agree. Sadly, MOS doesn't seem to have much if any buzz.

I've read 2 articles recently about 2012 and 2013 comic genre films that didn't mention MOS at all. Guess the authors weren't even aware or, worse, didn't care.

I dunno if Snyder and Nolan can overcome this enough to so that MOS has a fighting chance.

They tried all kinds of PR with SR and the whole thing just sort of collapsed on itself. It didn't work and actually backfired.

On comics book threads I notice a repetitive comparison: Marvel heroes are popular because they are relative to the masses. People can see themselves as Spider-Man, Wolverine, Hulk, Iron Man, etc

DC heroes are ones you look up to; set up on a pedestal, if you will. With the mainstream exception of Batman, most heroes aren't believable in the "real world."

... now, this isn't how I view the characters but I do understand the comparison (personally, I can relate to Hal Jordan). If this truly is the case then it's up to the creative team behind the film translations to make them relate-able to the masses.

[Rev]

I agree. Sadly, MOS doesn't seem to have much if any buzz.

I've read 2 articles recently about 2012 and 2013 comic genre films that didn't mention MOS at all. Guess the authors weren't even aware or, worse, didn't care.

I dunno if Snyder and Nolan can overcome this enough to so that MOS has a fighting chance.

They tried all kinds of PR with SR and the whole thing just sort of collapsed on itself. It didn't work and actually backfired.

Yeah, I am not sure that even the writers or Bryan Singer knew what Superman was supposed to be. The initial premise of the movie had me stoked for something epic and awesome but rather than being a grand slam, I think I got a double. This probably sums up the feelings toward Green Lantern as well for some.:csad:

[solidsnake86]

Nah, it's just gotten old how people keep bringing up it .... it's the worst comparison on just about every level.

All I'm saying is that Thor looks like an expensive movie. I'm not bashing the quality of the film. When you look at the set pieces it has asgard, they built a city in the middle of the desert, costume, frost giants, thor flying, the rainbow bridge etc., I have a hard time reconciling that the film cost less than batman begins to make, which Nolan is known for coming in under budget. I think its a good comparison because its 2 characters that had to use CGI.

[Rev]

:up:On comics book threads I notice a repetitive comparison: Marvel heroes are popular because they are relative to the masses. People can see themselves as Spider-Man, Wolverine, Hulk, Iron Man, etc

DC heroes are ones you look up to; set up on a pedestal, if you will. With the mainstream exception of Batman, most heroes aren't believable in the "real world."

... now, this isn't how I view the characters but I do understand the comparison (personally, I can relate to Hal Jordan). If this truly is the case then it's up to the creative team behind the film translations to make them relate-able to the masses.

exactly!!!

[Raiden]

On comics book threads I notice a repetitive comparison: Marvel heroes are popular because they are relative to the masses. People can see themselves as Spider-Man, Wolverine, Hulk, Iron Man, etc

DC heroes are ones you look up to; set up on a pedestal, if you will. With the mainstream exception of Batman, most heroes aren't believable in the "real world."

... now, this isn't how I view the characters but I do understand the comparison (personally, I can relate to Hal Jordan). If this truly is the case then it's up to the creative team behind the film translations to make them relate-able to the masses.

I think this probably has alot to do with their origins. Marvel superheroes are usually ordinary people who either got their powers through birth (mutants) or by freak accidents (Spider-man, Hulk), or by intelligence (Iron Man, Henry Pym). DC superheroes (except for Batman) usually were born with great destiny (Superman, Wonder Woman), got chosen (Green Lantern), or got their powers through some extraordinary circumstances (Flash). The way the heroes are presented also played a role, like the Justice League is filled with all the DC's top tier superheroes and perceived as a beacon of hope for mankind. The Avengers actually do not have all the most well-known superheroes of Marvel Universe, and I think can be accepted more as a team than a collection of bigwigs and demi-gods. In the end, I think DC works well in certain medium, like animation, but Marvel imo works better on the big screen where GA like to see characters that are more relatable.

[Rock Sexton]

All I'm saying is that Thor looks like an expensive movie. I'm not bashing the quality of the film. When you look at the set pieces it has asgard, they built a city in the middle of the desert, costume, frost giants, thor flying, the rainbow bridge etc., I have a hard time reconciling that the film cost less than batman begins to make, which Nolan is known for coming in under budget. I think its a good comparison because its 2 characters that had to use CGI.

Bro, they filmed the movie in NM on a set for the most part, the state also had massive tax breaks. They're not shooting on location, which can drive up costs considerably. MArvel has been pretty strategic about "where" they film because of strict budgeting measures.

[Excelsior.]

I doubt it will be just as simple as that, look at Batman Begins or First Class both great flicks but GA didn't really care a whole lot about em'.

Don't get me wrong, the most important thing is the actual quality of the movie but in addition to that you need anticipation, Hype, positive buzz to really crack with the GA. Superman doesn't have that unfortunately, at least not yet.
BB's DVD sales were massive. Some of the GA didn't give it a chance in the theaters but discovered it in DVD.

[solidsnake86]

Bro, they filmed the movie in NM on a set for the most part, the state also had massive tax breaks. They're not shooting on location, which can drive up costs considerably. MArvel has been pretty strategic about "where" they film because of strict budgeting measures.

... and GL went to New Orleans for the tax incentives as well, and they were considerable enough for them to drop new zealand in favour of new orleans. Are those being factored into this increasing budget of 200 million.

[Silver Surfer]

BB's DVD sales were massive. Some of the GA didn't give it a chance in the theaters but discovered it in DVD.
Yes they did because the anticipation, positive buzz and hype built up after the theater run. Most of the succesful movies already have those factors on their side prior to release hence better runs at the BO.

[Rock Sexton]

... and GL went to New Orleans for the tax incentives as well, and they were considerable enough for them to drop new zealand in favour of new orleans. Are those being factored into this increasing budget of 200 million.

GL also spent a ton of extra money to finish up botched VFX at the last minute. You know what kind of dough you have to shell out to get those guys to finish it up on such a truncated time schedule? Thor didn't have that problem.

[Excelsior.]

Yes they did because the anticipation, positive buzz and hype built up after the theater run. Most of the succesful movies already have those factors on their side prior to release hence better runs at the BO.
But my point still stands. The GA were convinced (eventually) that this Batman is not silly. MoS, if it can deliver an interesting Superman, can do the same.

[Silver Surfer]

But my point still stands. The GA were convinced (eventually) that this Batman is not silly. MoS, if it can deliver an interesting Superman, can do the same.
Yeah but if it convinces them after it's theater run like BB than it won't be the smash hit that WB and all of us are looking for.

[rogue trooper]

Monday's take: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm

[kedrell]

It should cross $100M domestic on Friday or Saturday.

[Poni_Boy]

It should cross $100M domestic on Friday or Saturday.

The simple fact you have to include "should" in that sentence makes me so sad. See >>> :csad: sad face

[kedrell]

The simple fact you have to include "should" in that sentence makes me so sad. See >>> :csad: sad face

Well I can't tell for certain which day it will be, hence the 'should' part. But I'm 99% sure it'll be one of those two days.:cwink:

[The Sage]

On comics book threads I notice a repetitive comparison: Marvel heroes are popular because they are relative to the masses. People can see themselves as Spider-Man, Wolverine, Hulk, Iron Man, etc

DC heroes are ones you look up to; set up on a pedestal, if you will. With the mainstream exception of Batman, most heroes aren't believable in the "real world."

... now, this isn't how I view the characters but I do understand the comparison (personally, I can relate to Hal Jordan). If this truly is the case then it's up to the creative team behind the film translations to make them relate-able to the masses.

I think the whole "relatable" thing has gotten out of hand. As Rev said, it's a matter of making the audience understand the character through a compelling story. The character doesn't have to be exactly like us for you be interested in him. If you do that, then people will get hooked on the character.

If the successful Marvel movies didn't have compelling stories, they wouldn't have made an impact as they have.

[BigThor]

Secondary characters like Ghost Rider, Blade, and Hulk will make more $$$ than GL! :doh:

This may be true, but their films are also a good bit cheaper than Green Lantern.

[rogue trooper]

Secondary characters like Ghost Rider, Blade, and Hulk will make more $$$ than GL! :doh:

I got news for you; Hulk is not a secondary character.:cwink: Was always more popular than GL.

[kedrell]

But my point still stands. The GA were convinced (eventually) that this Batman is not silly. MoS, if it can deliver an interesting Superman, can do the same.

I would definitely not count on MoS having a similar situation as BB did with regards to Theatrical Vs. DVD sales. The DVD market simply isn't what it was in 2005. Netflix has made sure of that. The days of big DVD sales saving otherwise underperforming movies is passing quickly.

[jmc]

I think Marvel, in general, has just done a better job with their overall brand name. "MARVEL" seems to have brand recognition that "DC" just doesn't.

I rarely hear people I know refer to DC in any way. Friends and family and other people not "in the know" will ask me things like "Is Batman with Marvel?" or "Is Green Lantern with Marvel?" but never the other way around.

A lot of it has to do with the ancillaries and the merchandising. I always see t-shirts at Walmart and Target that say ''Marvel'' on it, with pictures of Spider-Man, Cap, Iron Man, Wolverine, etc all standing together. Whenever I see a DC shirt, it's either one particular character or "The Justice League," not the DC Comics brand in general.

I can guarantee you the only people who give a damn about whether characters are DC or Marvel based are within these forums walls.

[DaveMoral]

I think the whole "relatable" thing has gotten out of hand. As Rev said, it's a matter of making the audience understand the character through a compelling story. The character doesn't have to be exactly like us for you be interested in him. If you do that, then people will get hooked on the character.

If the successful Marvel movies didn't have compelling stories, they wouldn't have made an impact as they have.

On paper, Thor should be about the least relatable comic book character in any stable of characters. He's a friggin Norse God. The only way we can be made to relate to him is by him being stripped of his powers and just being a dude, and even then he's a huge really buff dude that uses archaic language.

IMO, GL is the more relatable character between the two. And I include that on screen. There was just so many missteps in presenting this movie to people... marketing was a big problem from the get, and to be honest their choice of director was foolish. Sure, he's a proven action director that has made some awesome things... but GL is not that kind of action and never could have been. Much as a loathe his slo-mo fixation and odd soundtrack choices that don't seem to fit the actual film, Zack Snyder would have been a more fitting choice for GL. And while I expect him to deliver on MoS, I'm still not totally convinced he's the guy I would go to for Superman.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

GL's primise was fine people just didn't like the movie.

[Poni_Boy]

GL's primise was fine people just didn't like the movie.

People didn't like the movie because the premise presented was bad ;)

[Gamma Burst]

I got news for you; Hulk is not a secondary character.:cwink: Was always more popular than GL.

True that. :up:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

People didn't like the movie because the premise presented was bad ;)That about sums it up. With better execution I don't think that the movie would have been gianormous or anything but I do think that it could have pulled in a solid 180 to 200mil and WB could have built off of the audience good will with a sequel.

[Poni_Boy]

That about sums it up. With better execution I don't think that the movie would have been gianormous or anything but I do think that it could have pulled in a solid 180 to 200mil and WB could have built off of the audience good will with a sequel.

Well said. My thoughts exactly

[BigThor]

I got news for you; Hulk is not a secondary character.:cwink: Was always more popular than GL.

Yep, Thor is alot closer to be in the same ball park as GL in terms of popularity.

He might be a little below GL now that I think about it.

[Saitou Hajime]

DC heroes are ones you look up to; set up on a pedestal, if you will. With the mainstream exception of Batman, most heroes aren't believable in the "real world."


This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Look at Optimus Prime. You can make this quality look cool in the eyes of the GA, but WB are just too incompetent to do it.

[Excelsior.]

I would definitely not count on MoS having a similar situation as BB did with regards to Theatrical Vs. DVD sales. The DVD market simply isn't what it was in 2005. Netflix has made sure of that. The days of big DVD sales saving otherwise underperforming movies is passing quickly.
The original point of discussion was that the GA thinks Superman is boring and uninteresting. BB is an example of shifting damaged public consensus.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Superman needs an origin or semi origin film that is as well liked as Batman Begins, X-Men, Spider-Man and Iron Man to succeed.

I think that WB will be fine with The Man of Steel not exploding at the boxoffice provided it has better good will and sequel potential than Superman Returns. Like or love Superman Returns, half of the moviegoers were underwhelmed by it and the movie wrote itself into a corner when they included the kid (which was really the least of the movie's problems despite the hyperbole)

The fact is I don't think that Superman Returns is as hated as say, Hulk and GL are. I just think that alot of people were eh on it and thats not a good reaction to a blockbuster film either. MOS needs to get 70 to 80% of the average joe behind it if a sequel is to blow up and no I'm not talking about blowing up TDK style or New Moon or Shrek 2 style, I mean DeadMan's Chest style. A very comfortable bump domestically but not almost doubling or more than doubling the gross of the previous film.

Superman is only as outdated as whos writing him.

[merced]

I would definitely not count on MoS having a similar situation as BB did with regards to Theatrical Vs. DVD sales. The DVD market simply isn't what it was in 2005. Netflix has made sure of that. The days of big DVD sales saving otherwise underperforming movies is passing quickly.


It's true DVD sales have been sliding for several yeas and the industry is worried over that.

In the case of MOS though it's going to be all about the BO anyway. Seems like many in the industry are skeptical MOS can do well.

I'm amazed that some on the Supes board think MOS can do Ironman numbers. They are like those that said SR would do way north of 300 million domestic or that said GL would do 300 million. It ain't gonna happen and it never was gonna happen. IMO.

Others aren't even aware of it apparently. I've read several articles on coming comic book films for 2012 and 2013 that didn't even mention MOS.

My friends who aren't into comics are totally unaware of or uninterested in MOS. But they are hyped about the new Spiderman and the next Ironman.

Nolan and Snyder and WB have a huge PR probem on their hands and and I'm not sure they can oversome it.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Superman needs an origin or semi origin film that is as well liked as Batman Begins, X-Men, Spider-Man and Iron Man to succeed.

I think that WB will be fine will be okay with The Man of Steel not exploding at the boxoffice provided it has better good will and sequel potential than Superman Returns. Like or love Superman Returns, half of the moviegoers were underwhelmed by it and the movie wrote itself into a corner when they included the kid (which was really the least of the movie's problems despite the hyperbole)

The fact is I don't think that Superman Returns is as hated as say, Hulk and GL are. I just think that alot of people were eh on it and thats not a good reaction to a blockbuster film either. MOS needs to get 70 to 80% of the average joe behind it if a sequel is to blow up and no I'm not talking about blowing up TDK style or New Moon or Shrek 2 style, I mean DeadMan's Chest style. A very comfortable bump but not domestically but not almost doubling or more than doubling the gross of the previous film.

Superman is only as outdated as whos writing him.

Dead on.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Dead on.With the exception of some of the bad grammar that I just corrected. lol Yuck, I hate how much I make simple mistakes. I guess that isn't the point though as everybody makes mistakes on these here boards.

Millar is a f**king tool as far as I'm concerned. I can't stand him.

[merced]

Superman needs an origin or semi origin film that is as well liked as Batman Begins, X-Men, Spider-Man and Iron Man to succeed.

I think that WB will be fine with The Man of Steel not exploding at the boxoffice provided it has better good will and sequel potential than Superman Returns. Like or love Superman Returns, half of the moviegoers were underwhelmed by it and the movie wrote itself into a corner when they included the kid (which was really the least of the movie's problems despite the hyperbole)

The fact is I don't think that Superman Returns is as hated as say, Hulk and GL are. I just think that alot of people were eh on it and thats not a good reaction to a blockbuster film either. MOS needs to get 70 to 80% of the average joe behind it if a sequel is to blow up and no I'm not talking about blowing up TDK style or New Moon or Shrek 2 style, I mean DeadMan's Chest style. A very comfortable bump domestically but not almost doubling or more than doubling the gross of the previous film.

Superman is only as outdated as whos writing him.

What do you mean by blow up?

I think MOS does 225 - 250 million. IMO that will be seen as a modest success but not worthy of a sequel.

Truth to tell, my fear is MOS does not do that well and is the final nail so to speak. A part of me wishes WB wasn't doing this movie cause I just don't see the interest in another Supes film out there with the regular Joe/Jill regular movie going type.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Besides from a few corrected errors and probably uncorrected ones I think that my post is perfectly clear.

In lamest terms:

If Man Of Steel is as well recieved as the first movies in the Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man and modern Batman series I think that WB will be willing to give a sequel a go even if the first movie only does 200 to 220mil domestically and something simular overseas in hopes of it having a bump in gross.

The first Pirates made 305mil in total and the second make 425mil. I think that WB would be willing to take the hit for MOS if it's extremely well received in hopes of the second movie being rewarded. First one 200mil, second one 275 or 300mil.

Ofcourse Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 2 made less than the first one's domestically but those movies also made a good deal more than BB and X-Men so I'd compare it boxoffice wise to those films because I'm assuming it garners a simular gross.

[merced]

Besides from a few corrected errors and probably uncorrected ones I think that my post is perfectly clear.

In lamest terms:

If Man Of Steel is as well recieved as the first movies in the Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man and modern Batman series I think that WB will be willing to give a sequel a go even if the first movie only does 200 to 220mil domestically and something simular overseas in hopes of it having a bump in gross.

The first Pirates made 305mil in total and the second make 425mil. I think that WB would be willing to take the hit for MOS if it's extremely well received in hopes of the second movie being rewarded. First one 200mil, second one 275 or 300mil.

Ofcourse Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 2 made less than the first one's domestically but those movies also made a good deal more than BB and X-Men so I'd compare it boxoffice wise to those films because I'm assuming it garners a simular gross.

I totally disagree.

200 million would be the same as SR. But with a much better cast and production team. That would be seen as an outright flop IMO.

220 million? Better than SR but given the cast of MOS still a disappointment.

IMO MOS must do north of 250 million to be seen as a success by WB.

[Saitou Hajime]

For the Big 3 (although it's really the Big 2, box office wise), anything less than 300+ million domestic would be a disappointment IMO, especially if significant resources are allotted to its production.

[FilmNerdJamie]

If Man Of Steel is as well recieved as the first movies in the Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man and modern Batman series I think that WB will be willing to give a sequel a go even if the first movie only does 200 to 220mil domestically and something simular overseas in hopes of it having a bump in gross.

The first Pirates made 305mil in total and the second make 425mil. I think that WB would be willing to take the hit for MOS if it's extremely well received in hopes of the second movie being rewarded. First one 200mil, second one 275 or 300mil.

Ofcourse Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 2 made less than the first one's domestically but those movies also made a good deal more than BB and X-Men so I'd compare it boxoffice wise to those films because I'm assuming it garners a simular gross.

Perception most certainly plays a factor.

Both Superman Returns and Star Trek were made for roughly the same amount of dough (around $220-$240 million - FYI never take the "official" budgets studios list to heart. Ever. Or anything off Box Office Mojo.) and both did roughly the same amount of business worldwide (around $400 million). But the latter was considered the huge, brawling success and the former was viewed as an under-performer.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You are obviously allowed to disagree Merced. Still doesn't change one bit of my post. If people actually love MOS, WB will make sequel regardless of it grossing just as much as or only a little more than SR which had decidedly mixed word of mouth.

Star Trek cost a s**t load to make and market (more than that 150mil budget report, try 200+mil and you know it cost alot to market like every big blockbuster) and only made 385mil worldwide and yet Paramount is practically busting down JJ. Abrams and his writers doors to get the sequel started. Why is that? Oh I know! The average moviegoer liked to loved the film, it had really good legs for a big opener and it got fantastic reviews. The franchise has potential for an at least Pirates 2 style growth domestically if they play their cards right and a good deal of growth overseas too.

The first movie isn't the be all end all boxoffice wise if people loved the first movie enough. IMHO if the SR sequel ever went through I think that it would have made slightly less than the first because a good chunk of people weren't clamoring for a sequel.

I do not think that MOS has to make 300mil domestic for them to greenlight a sequel, if that were the case then Paramount would want no part of a Star Trek sequel and they clearly do.

Perception most certainly plays a factor.

Both Superman Returns and Star Trek were made for roughly the same amount of dough (around $220-$240 million - FYI never take the "official" budgets studios list to heart. Ever. Or anything off Box Office Mojo.) and both did roughly the same amount of business worldwide (around $400 million). But the latter was considered the huge, brawling success and the former was viewed as an under-performer.True, perception is one of the keys. And as you can see I brought up Trek but I'm a such a slow typer that you got out your post before I could get out mine.

[BenReilly]

In Superman's case, I would imagine anything less than a 500 Million worldwide total for the reboot, would be viewed as a disappointment by the studio.

That was their expectations for SR (as publicly stated by the head of the studio at the time), and that will probably be their expectations for the new film as well. If not more so six years later than the last film.

Truthfully, I just don't think the the studio is that interested in making more Superman films to begin with. The reboot only went into production to prevent further litigation from the Siegel Estate. The lawsuit forced their hand.

[FilmNerdJamie]

True, perception is one of the keys. And as you can see I brought up Trek but I'm a such a slow typer that you got out your post before I could get out mine.

Great minds think alike.

[solidsnake86]

Perception most certainly plays a factor.

Both Superman Returns and Star Trek were made for roughly the same amount of dough (around $220-$240 million - FYI never take the "official" budgets studios list to heart. Ever. Or anything off Box Office Mojo.) and both did roughly the same amount of business worldwide (around $400 million). But the latter was considered the huge, brawling success and the former was viewed as an under-performer.

Shocker they don't reveal the actual budget, some people should read your post because apparently avengers is being made for the same amount of money as captain america and thor.

[KalMart]

I think the whole "relatable" thing has gotten out of hand. As Rev said, it's a matter of making the audience understand the character through a compelling story. The character doesn't have to be exactly like us for you be interested in him. If you do that, then people will get hooked on the character.

If the successful Marvel movies didn't have compelling stories, they wouldn't have made an impact as they have.

It's the story that has to be engaging and immersive in a 'relatable' way...regardless of what character you portray, or whether it's realistic or fantastical. But I also think that with so many recent superhero movies, they need to push the envelope cinematically, with more creative filmmaking approaches that expand what movies..and only movies...can uniquely do, while finding those visceral elements within our realistic/relatable sensibilities to anchor their narrative logic. An unimaginative and contrived narrative is just that no matter what bright colors and eye-popping effects you wrap it in. So is bad pacing/flow, bad composition, etc.. When that happens...having it be a superhero is like putting a clown suit on it. But when it's good, it could feel like donning a cape and taking flight.

[Bruce Malone]

Why are people discussing a MOS sequel? from what I understand DC loses the rights after 2013. Everyone on the other forums here seem to be in agreement with that that MOS is more or less a one off film.


Also as for Returns budget wasn't 270 million the figure that was floated around?

[KalMart]

Why are people discussing a MOS sequel? from what I understand DC loses the rights after 2013. Everyone on the other forums here seem to be in agreement with that that MOS is more or less a one off film.


Also as for Returns budget wasn't 270 million the figure that was floated around?
After adding on the costs of prior 'failed attempts', yeah.

[kedrell]

Perception most certainly plays a factor.

Both Superman Returns and Star Trek were made for roughly the same amount of dough (around $220-$240 million - FYI never take the "official" budgets studios list to heart. Ever. Or anything off Box Office Mojo.) and both did roughly the same amount of business worldwide (around $400 million). But the latter was considered the huge, brawling success and the former was viewed as an under-performer.

Well yes, I know that we can never be sure about the budgets for films(Hollywood accounting and all that) but frankly, what else can we go by? We rarely get marketing $ info(GL's marketing numbers getting out is unusual). It seems we either accept the numbers given on sites like BOM or just remain in the dark unless some entertainment reporter happens to get a scoop that sheds more light on the matter.

[rnewbz]

I was under the understanding that DC doesn't loose the rights to superman, they loose the rights to elements of his origins such as Krypton and his parents and that's as of now with further court cases sure to follow.

[KalMart]

Perception most certainly plays a factor.

Both Superman Returns and Star Trek were made for roughly the same amount of dough (around $220-$240 million - FYI never take the "official" budgets studios list to heart. Ever. Or anything off Box Office Mojo.) and both did roughly the same amount of business worldwide (around $400 million). But the latter was considered the huge, brawling success and the former was viewed as an under-performer.

Because the latter was perceived as a better movie that presented an engaging beginning to a new ongoing saga, instead of a sullen end to an old one. :O

[TheIncredibleSk]

People WB's loses certain aspects of Superman not the whole character. MOS will not be a one off if successful.

[Silver Surfer]

People WB's loses certain aspects of Superman not the whole character. MOS will not be a one off if successful.
The lose the name "Superman", Lois, Jimmy, Perry, Daily Planet and Krypton.

[TheIncredibleSk]

Im not hearing they lose the Superman name its self. But the other thing they do lose. This is all a moot point though. Neither side is gonna win so they'll have to settle eventually or they'll lose money.

[Silver Surfer]

Im not hearing they lose the Superman name its self. But the other thing they do lose. This is all a moot point though. Neither side is gonna win so they'll have to settle eventually or they'll lose money.
No I think the name is def at stake and for settling out of court, I doubt it considering the SS family's lawyer is now involved as a rights owner. This will drag on for years.

[TheIncredibleSk]

I dont think the name is at stake but we could be seeing two Supermans running around.

[Silver Surfer]

I dont think the name is at stake but we could be seeing two Supermans running around.
I remember reading an article on IGN a lil' while back I think, it said that after 2013 DC can't use the name Superman but can have a character who can fly around with the same personality and environment. There was also word that WB took that into consideration when deciding on MOS for the title of the movie.

[KalMart]

Im not hearing they lose the Superman name its self. But the other thing they do lose. This is all a moot point though. Neither side is gonna win so they'll have to settle eventually or they'll lose money.

WB will lose more money...but then...they also have more money, and more capability to make money. In gross dollars, it'll hurt a billionaire more to lose millions than it would a peasant to lose hundreds. But if the latter only HAS hundreds...well....

The real 'tragedy', with the heirs' lawyer having ownership interest...is that the heirs could still end up starving to death as the lawyer and WB continue litigating over things.

[KalMart]

I remember reading an article on IGN a lil' while back I think, it said that after 2013 DC can't use the name Superman but can have a character who can fly around with the same personality and environment. There was also word that WB took that into consideration when deciding on MOS for the title of the movie.

The whole 'Man Of Steel', costume change, and rumored breakup with Lois may be WB/DC's way of sending a message that they'll find a way of moving on with their 'half'. Sure, it may result in only a 20% endorsement compared to before...but they may be okay with that 20% compared to the heirs/lawyer's 100% of diddly-squat.

[Silver Surfer]

The whole 'Man Of Steel', costume change, and rumored breakup with Lois may be WB/DC's way of sending a message that they'll find a way of moving on with their 'half'. Sure, it may result in only a 20% endorsement compared to before...but they may be okay with that 20% compared to the heirs/lawyer's 100% of diddly-squat.
True, I think that also played a part in DC deciding to reboot their whole universe in the comics. Preemptive damage control is prolly on their minds right now.

[Octoberist]

I think the main reason why the origins will be explored in MoSbis ecause it might e the last time ever we will ever see a proper Superman origins pre-legal woes.

[KalMart]

True, I think that also played a part in DC deciding to reboot their whole universe in the comics. Preemptive damage control is prolly on their minds right now.

You won't have to worry about other characters calling him "Superman" if you reboot them as characters that never called him that to begin with. :O

What's his alter ego's name...Ken Clarkson? :D

I think the main reason why the origins will be explored in MoSbis ecause it might e the last time ever we will ever see a proper Superman origins pre-legal woes.


Maybe also why they're treating it as a movie with no connection/carryover to a future Justice League movie.

[KalMart]

Wait...this is a GL thread. :doh:





Rebooting....!

[Silver Surfer]

All this talk is making me sad, Supes is my 2nd fav charter after Spidey. And he's about to be butchered.

[chiefchirpa]

I dont think the name is at stake but we could be seeing two Supermans running around.

One Superman with the family, perhaps loaned to Dark Horse or Image. The other "Superman" is without the name Supername & Clark Kent, and can't wear the familiar costume.

[chiefchirpa]

You won't have to worry about other characters calling him "Superman" if you reboot them as characters that never called him that to begin with. :O



What's superior than "Super"? Can't name him Ultraman I suppose.

Shazam (eh, Cap Marvel) and Icon needs to be utilized, stat. Backlash toward the S & S family from angry aging Superman fans is also projected.

[KalMart]

What's superior than "Super"? Can't name him Ultraman I suppose.

Shazam (eh, Cap Marvel) and Icon needs to be utilized, stat. Backlash toward the S & S family from angry aging Superman fans is also projected.

Just call him Man Of Steel.

One Superman with the family, perhaps loaned to Dark Horse or Image.
Who can't fly or fight villains like Luthor and Braniac with the Justice League....
The other "Superman" is without the name Supername & Clark Kent, and can't wear the familiar costume.
...and one who can.

[Silver Surfer]

One Superman with the family, perhaps loaned to Dark Horse or Image. The other "Superman" is without the name Supername & Clark Kent, and can't wear the familiar costume.
I was thinking about that the other day and I wondered if Marvel would make a play for the rights, a loan or otherwise.

[Octoberist]

marvel would never buyout Superman because they too respect DC too much. Also they have enough characters already.

[chiefchirpa]

I was thinking about that the other day and I wondered if Marvel would make a play for the rights, a loan or otherwise.

Marvel won't get a property that it can't permanently control.

It may resuscitate Sentry and/or utilize more other super characters though - including Thor, Silver Surfer, Hyperion and Gladiator.

[KalMart]

marvel would never buyout Superman because they too respect DC too much. Also they have enough characters already.

I don't think anyone's going to want to touch such damaged goods...and have to pay WB's enormous asking price just to let him fly.

The only thing the heirs could do if they don't strike a deal with WB is maybe sell some autographed copies of Action Comics #1 on ebay......under their Lawyer's account.

[chiefchirpa]

marvel would never buyout Superman because they too respect DC too much. Also they have enough characters already.

This. An angry competitor is a dangerous one and I hope they don't close out the chance for cooperation.

Marvel do have a lot of characters already and new characters can be spawned off just as easily.

[Octoberist]

One Superman with the family, perhaps loaned to Dark Horse or Image. The other "Superman" is without the name Supername & Clark Kent, and can't wear the familiar costume.

Dark Horse and Image are mostly creator owned (besides Star Wars, Buffy), so the writers would have to pay for the rights.Dark Horse got a lucky (cheap) deal with Lucas and Whedon and have a great relationship.

[TheIncredibleSk]

Plus the Superman they have would be a shell of his real self. Neither one of the Superman would be worth much

[Silver Surfer]

marvel would never buyout Superman because they too respect DC too much. Also they have enough characters already.
All things considered at the end of the day it`s business and Supes ins`t exactly a run of the mill character. Bringing him in would be a HUGE deal in every sense of the way, from mainstream press, to sales, to buzz and not to mention inside the 616 universe.

Right now this conversation is just one hypothetical point after another but IF in the future the SS family do decide to sell or loan the rights, I would rather they do it to Marvel and not Image or DH.

[KalMart]

All things considered at the end of the day it`s business and Supes ins`t exactly a run of the mill character. Bringing him in would be a HUGE deal in every sense of the way, from mainstream press, to sales, to buzz and not to mention inside the 616 universe.
Yep...a Superman in name only would be huge.....a huge flop.

As if WB would just generously lend the aspects that they still own to Marvel so that they could have their Superman fly.

Right now this conversation is just one hypothetical point after another but IF in the future the SS family do decide to sell or loan the rights, I would rather they do it to Marvel and not Image or DH.

They won't. they need WB to do anything with their 'half' of Superman. WB knows this, which is probably why they're doing this whole comic reboot thing. They're showing that they have an alternative, and the heirs don't.

Plus...I'll just bet that Dark Horse and Marvel would like nothing better than to deal with that lawyer of theirs. The heirs may very well end up in worse shape than they were before this whole battle.

Again, the only leverage that the heirs have in this fight is that it'll cost WB millions in lost sales. But even then...they still have billions.....whereas the heirs have...a working toaster, I guess.

[chiefchirpa]

All things considered at the end of the day it`s business and Supes ins`t exactly a run of the mill character. Bringing him in would be a HUGE deal in every sense of the way, from mainstream press, to sales, to buzz and not to mention inside the 616 universe.

Right now this conversation is just one hypothetical point after another but IF in the future the SS family do decide to sell or loan the rights, I would rather they do it to Marvel and not Image or DH.

Marvel have a lot of other characters already and plan to upgrade their characters if opportunity arises. C list to A- list popularity is easier in Marvel.

Superman's ideals is alive with Captain America (perhaps upgrade his power to match Superman?) and power is with Sentry/Thor/Hulk/Silver Surfer/Hyperion.

It's not worth to pick up DC's ire.

[KalMart]

Marvel have a lot of other characters already and plan to upgrade their characters if opportunity arises. C list to A- list popularity is easier in Marvel.

Superman's ideals is alive with Captain America (perhaps upgrade his power to match Superman?) and power is with Sentry/Thor/Hulk/Silver Surfer/Hyperion.

It's not worth to pick up DC's ire.

Nor to rent their power of flight.



How the heck did we get so far into Superman?! :doh:

[Silver Surfer]

Yep...a Superman in name only would be huge.....a huge flop.

As if WB would just generously lend the aspects that they still own to Marvel so that they could have their Superman fly.

Yeah about the whole flight thing, is it that SS family's Superman can`t start out with flying powers? I mean can he somehow acquire the ability to fly by other means like Magic or whatever. Or is it that no matter how, no matter when that character just can not fly even if he has a jet pack on or whatever.

They won't. they need WB to do anything with their 'half' of Superman. WB knows this, which is probably why they're doing this whole comic reboot thing. They're showing that they have an alternative, and the heirs don't.
Well they would have the name, the name of his alter ego, the costume, his origins, the majority of his powers, Lois. It`s not impossible to make it work. Just stick him in the Daily Bugle with JJJ instead of the planet. Have him go toe to toe with Doom or Thanos instead of Lex. It`s not ideal but hey.

[Silver Surfer]

Marvel have a lot of other characters already and plan to upgrade their characters if opportunity arises. C list to A- list popularity is easier in Marvel.

Superman's ideals is alive with Captain America (perhaps upgrade his power to match Superman?) and power is with Sentry/Thor/Hulk/Silver Surfer/Hyperion.

It's not worth to pick up DC's ire.
Sentry is dead, Silver Surfer hasn`t had an ongoing series in years, Hyperion is not even a B lister and Hulk and Supes have only super Strength in common. As for Thor, yes they have a lot of similarities but so do Cap Marvel and Supes, that`s never caused any problems.

[KalMart]

Yeah about the whole flight thing, is it that SS family's Superman can`t start out with flying powers? I mean can he somehow acquire the ability to fly by other means like Magic or whatever. Or is it that no matter how, no matter when that character just can not fly even if he has a jet pack on or whatever.
I don't think so...not without paying WB/DC....since it was after the sale to National that he power of flight became an identifiable trait or what have you. Not if they still want to call him 'Superman'.


Well they would have the name, the name of his alter ego, the costume, his origins, the majority of his powers, Lois. It`s not impossible to make it work. Just stick him in the Daily Bugle with JJJ instead of the planet. Have him go toe to toe with Doom or Thanos instead of Lex. It`s not ideal but hey.
That's like trying to sell Coca-Cola without being allowed to carbonate it. Flat soda fans rejoice!

[Poni_Boy]

WB/DC isn't going to lose Superman. The character was created by two individuals and made universally popular by a company (or series of). A character is only as popular as it's marketing which is has a direct correlation to it's reception by the masses, regardless of how original the concept behind it is. All WB/DC has to prove is that without their money to back the character from it's inception the property would not be worth what it is today. That's their smoking gun, and they won't use it till they have to.

[Silver Surfer]

I don't think so...not without paying WB/DC....since it was after the sale to National that he power of flight became an identifiable trait or what have you. Not if they still want to call him 'Superman'.

That's like trying to sell Coca-Cola without being allowed to carbonate it. Flat soda fans rejoice!
Hey I`ll take Marvel`s non carbonated Cola over DH or Image`s, I just don`t wanna see Supes stuck on a B List brand with no major players to interact with.

Ideally, I truly truly and completely hope DC gets to keep the whole Superman not just a portion of it but in the unfortunate case they don`t.....

[KalMart]

WB/DC isn't going to loose Superman. The character was created by two individuals and made universally popular by a company (or series of). A character is only as popular as it's marketing and reception by the masses, regardless of how original the concept behind it is. All WB/DC has to prove is that without their money to back the character from it's inception the property would not be worth what it is today. That's their smoking gun, and they won't use it till they have to.

Which they may never have to..since they can name any price they want for the usage of their 'half'.

Darkhorse: Hello DC? We've just acquired usage of the S&S heirs' half of Superman. How much would it cost us to use yours as well?

WB/DC: Well let's see....how much would we not be making per year by not having Superman...? Add emotional damages and eye-beam tax.....

Darkhorse: ....um...does that include Luthor and the S symbol as well?

WB/DC: <hysterical laughter>...ooohh, that was a good one...! Um.....no.

[Silver Surfer]

WB/DC isn't going to lose Superman. The character was created by two individuals and made universally popular by a company (or series of). A character is only as popular as it's marketing which is has a direct correlation to it's reception by the masses, regardless of how original the concept behind it is. All WB/DC has to prove is that without their money to back the character from it's inception the property would not be worth what it is today. That's their smoking gun, and they won't use it till they have to.
God, I hope your right.

[chiefchirpa]

Well they would have the name, the name of his alter ego, the costume, his origins, the majority of his powers, Lois. It`s not impossible to make it work. Just stick him in the Daily Bugle with JJJ instead of the planet. Have him go toe to toe with Doom or Thanos instead of Lex. It`s not ideal but hey.

Seriously instead of buying Superman Marvel better spends more money on writing new villains. Good heroes like Silver Surfer need villains. As do Sentry (if they want to give him a 2nd chance) or Nova. Marvel universe need more villains to make individual heroes viable. If not, Marvel keep doing crossover and team books (which is their strength) but not more in-franchise universe.

Marvel has a lot of characters, but most of those characters can't stand on their own legs. What if each character suddenly stand on its own - with more villains. That'll be a Juggernaut (no pun intended).

Back to GL time. LOL

[KalMart]

Hey I`ll take Marvel`s non carbonated Cola over DH or Image`s, I just don`t wanna see Supes stuck on a B List brand with no major players to interact with.
Or no list at all...which is what the heirs' half is worth to anyone else than WB.

Ideally, I truly truly and completely hope DC gets to keep the whole Superman not just a portion of it but in the unfortunate case they don`t.....

You'lll have Man Of Steel and no Clark Kent....probably because the Lawyer was 'fighting for what was rightfully his'.

[Silver Surfer]

Or no list at all...which is what the heirs' half is worth to anyone else than WB.
You never know, they might not have flight but that`s not the end all be all. The name superman alone will entice someone might not be Marvel but somebody will bite. I just hope it`s Marvel.



You'lll have Man Of Steel and no Clark Kent....probably because the Lawyer was 'fighting for what was rightfully his'.
And no costume, no Lois, no Krypton, no origins. This is depressing.:doh:

[Poni_Boy]

Which they may never have to..since they can name any price they want for the usage of their 'half'.

Darkhorse: Hello DC? We've just acquired usage of the S&S heirs' half of Superman. How much woudl it cost us to use yours as well?

WB/DC: Well let's see....how much would we not be making per year by not having Superman...? Add emotional damages and eye-beam tax.....

The other thing the S/S + bastard lawyer are worried about is post-settlement restitution. If WB/DC loses the rights to aspects of the character that are still being used (merchandising, reprinted comics/novels, toys, cartoons) they have a counter case for lost profits for pulling those items off store shelves. Now, if you were the S/S + bastard lawyer team and had this billion dollar threat smack you in the case at the last minute it may.. just may.. cause you to reconsider taking the rights instead of a fat paycheck.

FYI: No comics publisher in their right mind would purchase the Superman rights (well maybe Top Cow). Which would make the S/S + bastard lawyer team be forced to outsource it internationally or create their own publication company. Not gonna happen

[KalMart]

You never know, they might not have flight but that`s not the end all be all. The name superman alone will entice someone might not be Marvel but somebody will bite. I just hope it`s Marvel.
What if Silver Surfer couldn't surf?

It'll entice a few ebay buyers who sympathize with the heirs' plight...but then the Laywer's reserve price will send them away.



And no costume, no Lois, no Krypton, no origins. This is depressing.:doh:

He still has a costume, the now-classic S, he can still fight Luthor and Braniac, and still be in the Justice league.

Whereas 'Marvel's Superman' can...well....he can walk....

[Silver Surfer]

The other thing the S/S + bastard lawyer are worried about is post-settlement restitution. If WB/DC loses the rights to aspects of the character that are still being used (merchandising, reprinted comics/novels, toys, cartoons) they have a counter case for lost profits for pulling those items off store shelves. Now, if you were the S/S + bastard lawyer team and had this billion dollar threat smack you in the case at the last minute it may.. just may.. cause you to reconsider taking the rights instead of a fat paycheck.

FYI: No comics publisher in their right mind would purchase the Superman rights (well maybe Top Cow). Which would make the S/S + bastard lawyer team be forced to outsource it internationally or create their own publication company. Not gonna happen
How did it come to this? I mean Bob Kane`s family hasn`t sued DC for Batman, Marvel had a case with Stan but IIRC the name rights to characters weren't on the line. Why Supes?

[Poni_Boy]

How did it come to this? I mean Bob Kane`s family hasn`t sued DC for Batman, Marvel had a case with Stan but IIRC the name rights to characters weren't on the line. Why Supes?

Every case is different. Just look at the Jack Kirby debacle that recently passed. No two contracts are the same and thus can be deliberated differently. In this case specifically it's the S/S lawyer that's the problem. They gave him property options to take the case, which mean if they win he becomes a part owner of the property. If he loses, he doesn't lose anything; so he's going to fight for it more than the S/S fams will.

[Silver Surfer]

What if Silver Surfer couldn't surf?

He`d borrow Ghost Rider`s bike

He still has a costume, the now-classic S, he can still fight Luthor and Braniac, and still be in the Justice league.

Whereas 'Marvel's Superman' can...well....he can walk....

Either side you look at it`s half an half. DC gets Flight, DP and Lex. SS get the name Superman and Clark Kent, the iconic costume, his origins and Lois.

As much as I have a hard time picturing Supes not flying, having him not interacting with Lois and not being Called Superman or Clark is just as bad.

[KalMart]

The other thing the S/S + bastard lawyer are worried about is post-settlement restitution. If WB/DC loses the rights to aspects of the character that are still being used (merchandising, reprinted comics/novels, toys, cartoons) they have a counter case for lost profits for pulling those items off store shelves. Now, if you were the S/S + bastard lawyer team and had this billion dollar threat smack you in the case at the last minute it may.. just may.. cause you to reconsider taking the rights instead of a fat paycheck.

FYI: No comics publisher in their right mind would purchase the Superman rights (well maybe Top Cow). Which would make the S/S + bastard lawyer team be forced to outsource it internationally or create their own publication company. Not gonna happen

IIRC, the lawyer is actually trying to start his own production company....what a coincidence.

[Poni_Boy]

IIRC, the lawyer is actually trying to start his own production company....what a coincidence.

Yep, but he's having trouble getting backing. I wonder why...

[KalMart]

He`d borrow Ghost Rider`s bike
And Superman would ride atop Captain Britain. Nice.



Either side you look at it`s half an half. DC gets Flight, DP and Lex. SS get the name Superman and Clark Kent, the iconic costume, his origins and Lois.
WB/DC is a comic/publishing/entertainment company with humongous resources...the heirs are not. One side has the ability to do much more with their 'half' than the other. Even if it's just a shell of the former whole...it's still doing something.

As much as I have a hard time picturing Supes not flying, having him not interacting with Lois and not being Called Superman or Clark is just as bad.
Like I said, WB/DC will just have to find a way to make due with Batman and the rest of the characters that are all sitting happy with them.

[KalMart]

Yep, but he's having trouble getting backing. I wonder why...

The investors are only signing the checks with half their signature?

[Poni_Boy]

Why are we talking about this again? Superman has become one of the most boring characters in current comics continuity. That aside, without DC Superman isn't worth a damn; the S/S team knows this.

[Poni_Boy]

The investors are only signing the checks with half their signature?

LOL no, but you can't piss off one of the largest literature publishers in the world without pissing off their friends too

[Silver Surfer]

And Superman would ride atop Captain Britain. Nice.




WB/DC is a comic/publishing/entertainment company with humongous resources...the heirs are not. One side has the ability to do much more with their 'half' than the other. Even if it's just a shell of the former whole...it's still doing something.


Like I said, WB/DC will just have to find a way to make due with Batman and the rest of the characters that are all sitting happy with them.
I don`t want them to just make due, either way the fans lose. DC can have a charcter fly around in a new suit, get called MOS but that`s not Superman. What are they going to say he comes from a planet called Krontonon? Who`s he goign to date Lana Lang?

And if the heirs and their Lawyers fail to market their version, that`s it? no character will ever be called Superman again? we will never see the suit again? and Lois she just disappears for ever, never to be published or mentioned ever again?

Either way the fans are F`ed!

[KalMart]

LOL no, but you can't piss off one of the largest literature publishers in the world without pissing off their friends too

Imagine if you're a divorce lawyer.....and you're trying to get clients by sleeping with their wives....

[KalMart]

I don`t want them to just make due, either way the fans lose. DC can have a charcter fly around in a new suit, get called MOS but that`s not Superman. What are they going to say he comes from a planet called Krontonon? Who`s he goign to date Lana Lang?
If people buy the comic, then sure.

And if the heirs and their Lawyers fail to market their version, that`s it? no character will ever be called Superman again? we will never see the suit again? and Lois she just disappears for ever, never to be published or mentioned ever again?
The heirs will probably try to sue their former lawyer...and we start another whole mess.

Either way the fans are F`ed!
Well...it's really not about the fans anyway for either of the parties involved...so at least it's not personal. :O

[Silver Surfer]

If people buy the comic, then sure.


Welll....the heirs will probably try to sue their former lawyer...and we start another whole mess.


Well...it's really not about the fans anyway for either of the parties involved...so at least it's not personal. :O
Serioulsy what are the chances this mess gets resolved in DC`s favor and the bastard Lawyer get jack? cause I am really not excited about either half of the character.

[The Sage]

Move the Superman discussion to the Superman section, folks...

[Dreadstar]

DC cant do anything right. They have been bungling everything (with a few exceptions) since the original crisis in the 80s. :doh: They should just up and SELL their "good" characters to Marvel.

Than and ONLY then will they get good! :yay:

[akfj]

Your basically asking for DC to put themselves out of business? Marvel bias much? You know it was DC that made those characters "good" in the first place.

Has Marvel done everything right in the past 25 years? At least DC was never at risk of going bankrupt. Marvel has made creative goofs. Ask Spider-Man fans what they thought of the "Clone Saga" or "One More Day". Or X-Men fans how they think Marvel has treated those characters in the past ten years. Jeph Loeb's contributions haven't been very much appreciated.

DC and Marvel have both had their share of successes and misfires. DC has shown to be capable of writing great stories with their top characters. It's not as if comic writers don't end up working for both companies at some point.

[merced]

Truthfully, I just don't think the the studio is that interested in making more Superman films to begin with. The reboot only went into production to prevent further litigation from the Siegel Estate. The lawsuit forced their hand.

Exactly. In Court Horn said under oath there were no plans for more Superman films.

He changed his tune a while later when the Court ruled that if WB didn't make another film they are liable for huge monetary penalties.

Man of Steel is a one-off. Even if they wanted to do a sequel they couldn't cause there can be no Lois, Jimmy, Superman or Clark in a next film. WB would have to start over which I don't see them doing.

It's all sort of moot as this will be the last film except that as a fan I want to see Superman go out on the top and the film make good money.

[Spider-Fan]

DC cant do anything right. They have been bungling everything (with a few exceptions) since the original crisis in the 80s. :doh: They should just up and SELL their "good" characters to Marvel.

Than and ONLY then will they get good! :yay:

Your basically asking for DC to put themselves out of business? Marvel bias much? You know it was DC that made those characters "good" in the first place.

Has Marvel done everything right in the past 25 years? At least DC was never at risk of going bankrupt. Marvel has made creative goofs. Ask Spider-Man fans what they thought of the "Clone Saga" or "One More Day". Or X-Men fans how they think Marvel has treated those characters in the past ten years. Jeph Loeb's contributions haven't been very much appreciated.

DC and Marvel have both had their share of successes and misfires. DC has shown to be capable of writing great stories with their top characters. It's not as if comic writers don't end up working for both companies at some point.

STOP THE MARVEL VS. DC DISCUSSION!!!

Yes, we get it. Marvel and DC have their own fans and they constantly have to be superior to each other. We get it. Now, STOP THIS DISCUSSION IMMEDIATELY!!!

Anyone who continues this Marvel vs DC discussion will be warned/infracted for Trolling. You have been warned.

[Spider-Fan]

Exactly. In Court Horn said under oath there were no plans for more Superman films.

He changed his tune a while later when the Court ruled that if WB didn't make another film they are liable for huge monetary penalties.

Man of Steel is a one-off. Even if they wanted to do a sequel they couldn't cause there can be no Lois, Jimmy, Superman or Clark in a next film. WB would have to start over which I don't see them doing.

It's all sort of moot as this will be the last film except that as a fan I want to see Superman go out on the top and the film make good money.

Sage said knock off the Superman discussion, so knock it off!

[Mysteryman]

Okay everybody what is your best Green Lantern prediction for the weekend?
Does GL stay in the top 5?

[akfj]

STOP THE MARVEL VS. DC DISCUSSION!!!

Yes, we get it. Marvel and DC have their own fans and they constantly have to be superior to each other. We get it. Now, STOP THIS DISCUSSION IMMEDIATELY!!!

Anyone who continues this Marvel vs DC discussion will be warned/infracted for Trolling. You have been warned.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/pledge_military_salute.gif

[Raiden]

edit

[Poni_Boy]

Okay everybody what is your best Green Lantern prediction for the weekend?
Does GL stay in the top 5?

My guess is it lands in the #5 slot

#1 Transformers 3
#2 Cars 2
#3 Larry Crowne
#4 Bad Teacher
#5 GL

[Silver Surfer]

Okay everybody what is your best Green Lantern prediction for the weekend?
Does GL stay in the top 5?
I doubt it, the buzz around GL is next to non existent other than census that it's terrible movie. It has been generally forgotten by GA and as overwhelming as last weeks competition was, it doesn't even compare to this weeks.

Here's my prediction:

1. Transformers 3 - 97.6

2. Cars 2 - 34.3

3. Larry Crowne - 20.5

4. Bad Teacher - 13.4

5. Monte Carlo - 11.9

6. Super 8 - 7.3

7. Green Lantern - 7.1

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm bored with GL's boxoffice already. I really have no idea where it will end up this weekend.

I don't see Bad Teacher dropping that hard though. The weekday numbers aren't amazing but I don't think that they are pointing to an over 57% drop. Maybe I'll be wrong but I just don't see it.

[KalMart]

I'm bored with GL's boxoffice already. I really have no idea where it will end up this weekend.
'Not high' is probably a safe bet. :O

[DieSmiling]

It'll probably cling to the 5 spot, with an unimpressive return.

I don't see Monte Carlo or Super 8 passing it.

[Dreadstar]

A comic retailer friend wrote this:


Green Lantern was inaccessible to the non-comic audience and that’s why it’s not doing well. There was too much information presented too quickly on who the Corps and the enemy were, couple with the fact that the enemy was a non-human entity that had a 2 hour build up and a 7 minute tear down. Joe Average can’t relate or understand that the way we can. :doh:

Thor had empathy and romance. A father/son, passing of the torch legacy story is something men can relate to and the romance angle, big, confused beefcake shows up out of nowhere and is grounded through the compassion of a woman, is something women can relate to. Thor did well because it was a good movie told well, not because of a lack of competition. Green Lantern was an okay movie told poorly and had no competition in it’s opening weekend and fared worse than X-Men First Class did in it’s opening frame.

A lot has to do with marketing as well. GL’s marketing was unclear and lacking (esp the romance angle, that should have been played up WAY more to attract more women). Thor and X-Men’s marketing was far better and as such, brought in a wider audience.

The GL sequel is already a go and it will do better as it will be a man-against-a-man and not a cloud :doh: and will be more easily understood than the first movie.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

'Not high' is probably a safe bet. :OYeah, lets settle on "not high."

[solidsnake86]

A comic retailer friend wrote this:


Green Lantern was inaccessible to the non-comic audience and that’s why it’s not doing well. There was too much information presented too quickly on who the Corps and the enemy were, couple with the fact that the enemy was a non-human entity that had a 2 hour build up and a 7 minute tear down. Joe Average can’t relate or understand that the way we can. :doh:

Thor had empathy and romance. A father/son, passing of the torch legacy story is something men can relate to and the romance angle, big, confused beefcake shows up out of nowhere and is grounded through the compassion of a woman, is something women can relate to. Thor did well because it was a good movie told well, not because of a lack of competition. Green Lantern was an okay movie told poorly and had no competition in it’s opening weekend and fared worse than X-Men First Class did in it’s opening frame.

A lot has to do with marketing as well. GL’s marketing was unclear and lacking (esp the romance angle, that should have been played up WAY more to attract more women). Thor and X-Men’s marketing was far better and as such, brought in a wider audience.

The GL sequel is already a go and it will do better as it will be a man-against-a-man and not a cloud :doh: and will be more easily understood than the first movie.

This may be true or not, but GL is in one of those tough positions. I mean i remember fans clamouring for a cameo by the bee (is it bzzd) and all I could think was really?

I mean in the comics its great and all because your cranking out a minimum of 12 issues a year and you can develop characters that fans like. With these comic book films I can't help but think the tides of catering to the fans to much have hurt the quality of the films.

[Gamma Burst]

A comic retailer friend wrote this:


Green Lantern was inaccessible to the non-comic audience and that’s why it’s not doing well. There was too much information presented too quickly on who the Corps and the enemy were, couple with the fact that the enemy was a non-human entity that had a 2 hour build up and a 7 minute tear down. Joe Average can’t relate or understand that the way we can. :doh:

Thor had empathy and romance. A father/son, passing of the torch legacy story is something men can relate to and the romance angle, big, confused beefcake shows up out of nowhere and is grounded through the compassion of a woman, is something women can relate to. Thor did well because it was a good movie told well, not because of a lack of competition. Green Lantern was an okay movie told poorly and had no competition in it’s opening weekend and fared worse than X-Men First Class did in it’s opening frame.

A lot has to do with marketing as well. GL’s marketing was unclear and lacking (esp the romance angle, that should have been played up WAY more to attract more women). Thor and X-Men’s marketing was far better and as such, brought in a wider audience.

The GL sequel is already a go and it will do better as it will be a man-against-a-man and not a cloud :doh: and will be more easily understood than the first movie.

Good joke. :funny: