Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Optimus_Prime_]

but even if they weren't under the gun to do the origin I think the next Superman film would have been an origin film to reboot the series and not be connected to the Donner films.
Perhaps. The choice of Zack Snyder is due to time constraints though, otherwise you may have seen Darren Aronofsky or someone else entirely. Also the part in bold I'm not so certain of. Yeah, sure, they could've regardless, but they had to in this instance. Obviously they want this to make money though, that's pretty much true of most movies. I think if the lawsuit were not in effect they may have shelved this product entirely and tried to do a different character.

[Tobias]

I think if the lawsuit were not in effect they may have shelved this product entirely and tried to do a different character.

Yup. WB told the court they had no plans to make more Superman films because the franchise wasn't finacially viable in their eyes. It's in the court verbatims which are on the net.

Unfortunately the court messed things up with it's order. Were it not for that likely they'd have a Flash or WW film set for 2013.

Sad, but it is what it is.

[roach]

Yup. WB told the court they had no plans to make more Superman films because the franchise wasn't finacially viable in their eyes. It's in the court verbatims which are on the net.

Unfortunately the court messed things up with it's order. Were it not for that likely they'd have a Flash or WW film set for 2013.

Sad, but it is what it is.

The judge, who conducted a 10-day bench trial, also noted that Warner Bros. chairman Alan Horn had testified that he hopes to make another "Superman" movie but added that the property wasn't under development at the studio, that no script had been written and that the earliest another "Superman" pic could be released would be in 2012.

[Optimus_Prime_]

The judge, who conducted a 10-day bench trial, also noted that Warner Bros. chairman Alan Horn had testified that he hopes to make another "Superman" movie but added that the property wasn't under development at the studio, that no script had been written and that the earliest another "Superman" pic could be released would be in 2012.
Of course he would say that. Saying the opposite would've been legally inadviseable especially if they wanted to continue to have any access whatsoever to that character.

[CConn]

But he was being honest. :confused:

[Tobias]

The judge, who conducted a 10-day bench trial, also noted that Warner Bros. chairman Alan Horn had testified that he hopes to make another "Superman" movie but added that the property wasn't under development at the studio, that no script had been written and that the earliest another "Superman" pic could be released would be in 2012.

This is true. Horn basically said they had shelved the franchise for now but hoped someday to make another Supes film. He also voiced in that conterxt WB's doubts about the viability financially of Superman films.

It's clear that WB was indefinitely going to shelve Superman. They might try again, but had no plans to do so.

Personally I don't see Superman as being viable anymore. All has been done with him that can be. I expect MOS will be as big a financial disappointment as SR was.

It's frustrating for me that WB wasn't allowed to move past Superman as they wanted to do. It's delayed Flash or WW or another film for 2 or 3 or more years.

[jpharrah]

to me where they went wrong was they didnt get out there and just start making these movies.. we should have a wonder woman movie by now..and a flash movie..and maybe even an aquaman movie... (although now i think is a better time to make an aquaman movie then before since his comic sales have gone up there is a renewed interest it seems.)

however I understand why they didnt just start making them unlike Marvel WB is the owner of all dc characters it would all be paid for on the back of WB to make a movie... Marvel at the time didnt have a movie studio owning it so it could allow other studios to create their movies sony/fox etc.

personally..and i know these characters have a fan base....

giving green lantern, flash, aquaman generic style popcorn flick summer blockbusters would have atleast got those characters out there....(green lantern actually being one that was made)

but in my opinion green lantern isnt nearly as bad as everyone says i think its major fault is mostly ryan reynolds isnt a very likable actor even when he isnt trying to look smug he looks smug and cocky.... and when hes trying to act serious...it comes across as hokey... I think the rest of the cast was pretty good and maybe have done better if a better leard role was cast

i think for the big three superman batman wonder woman is where youd want to really focus on better stories as they are the 3 that have the biggest fan base and the general audience already know more about... wonder woman maybe not as much.

but i mean look at marvel they have generic movies that did rather well from a box office stand point...

Daredevil
Fantastic Four
Thor

Maybe not the best movies but atleast they are out there and made money...

[Parker Wayne]

This is true. Horn basically said they had shelved the franchise for now but hoped someday to make another Supes film. He also voiced in that conterxt WB's doubts about the viability financially of Superman films.

It's clear that WB was indefinitely going to shelve Superman. They might try again, but had no plans to do so.

Personally I don't see Superman as being viable anymore. All has been done with him that can be. I expect MOS will be as big a financial disappointment as SR was.

It's frustrating for me that WB wasn't allowed to move past Superman as they wanted to do. It's delayed Flash or WW or another film for 2 or 3 or more years.

Are you serious?

[Captain Marvel]

Yeah, I sincerely doubt having Superman fight Nuclear Man or whatever his name is marks the end of everything that can be done with Superman. I mean, geeze, where to even begin? Ok.

Metallo
Parasite
Lex Luthor (Done right)
General Zod
Brainiac
Intergang
Mongul
The Eradicator
Doomsday
The Reign of the Supermen
Darkseid

Any one of those is enough to justify its own movie, and all of those is enough suitable material for AT LEAST 11 movies, though frankly I think Darkseid and Apokolips can carry its own trilogy. Something like the animated series where Apokolips first starts making moves on Earth through human agents like Intergang before following up later with an invasion.

[Thundercrack85]

You could make a movie just about Superman's parents. About his childhood. About him becoming Superman. There is so much you can do. It just requires an iota of creativity and knowledge of the character.

[CConn]

Not even that, but there's still like a hundred different facets of Superman's character, psychology and meaning that has yet to be explored on film.

[Lord]

Yeah, while i know most prefer him with his full powers and as a kind of god among men, but i would like to one day see the more golden esque character's powers that was shown in the original stories and is being used in Morrison's story arc.

Just to show that Kryptonite isn't the only way to kill him.

[CConn]

We should also point out the obvious irony due to the fact that Superman fulfills probably the oldest and most popular fictional archetype of all time. :o

[JB-the-Hunter]

yeah, i sincerely doubt having superman fight nuclear man or whatever his name is marks the end of everything that can be done with superman. I mean, geeze, where to even begin? Ok.

Metallo
parasite
lex luthor (done right)
general zod
brainiac
intergang
mongul
the eradicator
doomsday
the reign of the supermen
darkseid
bizzaro

any one of those is enough to justify its own movie, and all of those is enough suitable material for at least 11 movies, though frankly i think darkseid and apokolips can carry its own trilogy. Something like the animated series where apokolips first starts making moves on earth through human agents like intergang before following up later with an invasion.
y u no include bizzaro?

[solidsnake86]

This is true. Horn basically said they had shelved the franchise for now but hoped someday to make another Supes film. He also voiced in that conterxt WB's doubts about the viability financially of Superman films.

It's clear that WB was indefinitely going to shelve Superman. They might try again, but had no plans to do so.

Personally I don't see Superman as being viable anymore. All has been done with him that can be. I expect MOS will be as big a financial disappointment as SR was.

It's frustrating for me that WB wasn't allowed to move past Superman as they wanted to do. It's delayed Flash or WW or another film for 2 or 3 or more years.

Superman is worth the risk because if they get things right they will make a fortune. Probably more than any other hero in their stable of characters.

For how bad some of the posters make Superman returns out to be, the film made over 200 million domestic, something that very few comic book films have achieved. Can you imagine what it would make if it got the praise of iron man 1 or batman begins.

Really just to get an idea of his popularity you don't have to look any further than these boards. Go to the iron man and thor boards after the films came out, they were a dead zone. The superman boards, even after there was no sequel in sight still had more posters talking about a film that may or may not have happened.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Yeah, while i know most prefer him with his full powers and as a kind of god among men, but i would like to one day see the more golden esque character's powers that was shown in the original stories and is being used in Morrison's story arc.

Just to show that Kryptonite isn't the only way to kill him.
Kryptonite never really seemed to be intended as the only means of hurting him. Plenty of villains stood toe to toe with him back in the day. Kryptonite is a poison, like an equivalent to arsenic. Otherwise you'd have to find a way to overpower him which for your standard human is impossible.

[CConn]

That's not necessarily true. Superman is also vulnerable to electrical attacks.

[Parker Wayne]

Superman is vulnerable to any magic or magic weapons.

[Optimus_Prime_]

That's not necessarily true. Superman is also vulnerable to electrical attacks.
I'm not 100% certain, but when Kryptonite was introduced I don't think these or his vulnerabilities towards magic had been established.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I kind of like the idea of Superman getting perpetually stronger, culminating with what they did with his character in DC Year 1,000,000. Smallville drew this out to the extreme, and in most comics and movies his powers seem to have kind of plateaued (even though they've referenced continued exposure to our sun indeed makes him stronger). I'd like to see that in a movie franchise. First movie he possesses Morrison and Golden Age era power levels, and by the third movie he's essentially a God. That storyline alone is ten times more intriguing than anything they've done with him on film so far.

[chamber-music]

Not even that, but there's still like a hundred different facets of Superman's character, psychology and meaning that has yet to be explored on film.
Exactly I think they have only scratched the surface so far on Superman, Lex Luthor, ect characters.

Special effects have moved on so much since the Christoher Reeves movies the type of things they could today in a Superman movie could be truely spectacular.

[Lord]

I kind of like the idea of Superman getting perpetually stronger, culminating with what they did with his character in DC Year 1,000,000. Smallville drew this out to the extreme, and in most comics and movies his powers seem to have kind of plateaued (even though they've referenced continued exposure to our sun indeed makes him stronger). I'd like to see that in a movie franchise. First movie he possesses Morrison and Golden Age era power levels, and by the third movie he's essentially a God. That storyline alone is ten times more intriguing than anything they've done with him on film so far.
That's exactly what i want, him getting stronger, that would make one hell of a trilogy

[roach]

That's exactly what i want, him getting stronger, that would make one hell of a trilogy

hmmmm
MOS...the story of Kal coming to earth and growing into the man he'll become...have him go on sabbatical around the world...movie culminates with his first flight
MOS 2....moves to Metropolis and revealing himself to the world as Superman...distrust and fear...battles Luthor and proves himself to be the hero everyone knows and loves
MOS 3....Brainiac arrives on earth looking for the last kryptonian...massive battles

[Lord]

I tought Superman was going to reveal himself to the public in MoS

[roach]

I tought Superman was going to reveal himself to the public in MoS

my bad this was my take on what I'd like to do with the series

[Optimus_Prime_]

hmmmm
MOS...the story of Kal coming to earth and growing into the man he'll become...have him go on sabbatical around the world...movie culminates with his first flight
MOS 2....moves to Metropolis and revealing himself to the world as Superman...distrust and fear...battles Luthor and proves himself to be the hero everyone knows and loves
MOS 3....Brainiac arrives on earth looking for the last kryptonian...massive battles
Movie 1 and Movie 2 seem like they could be one movie, or at least you could cover some of Movie 2 in Movie 1. Batman Begins essentially did what you described for Movies 1 and 2, just did it with less noteworthy villains (in the eyes of the public).

I don't have quite a formalized idea like yours, but I'd love to see a trilogy where each movie he gets stronger, and each movie he ventures further out into space, perhaps to find more aliens like himself. That way you could tie run-ins with characters like Brainiac, Mongul, Darkseid, Lobo and even Bizzaro into his own personal journey to discover more about his origins.

I rather liked Millar's one idea where he suggested Superman outlive our solar system, perhaps he could be bathed in the aftermath of our sun going supernova (which technically is scientifically inaccurate) and is turned into a God because of it. I also like how DC Year 1,000,000 has him use his Godlike abilities to ressurect Lois Lane. Obviously you couldn't even touch on this until a third movie but I think something like that utilizes the full potential of Superman a lot more, especially with the technology now available. Superman has a lot of trippy and high concept sci-fi elements that no one has ever bothered to touch.

[Tobias]

Of course he would say that. Saying the opposite would've been legally inadviseable especially if they wanted to continue to have any access whatsoever to that character.

I think it's both/and.

Legally WB has to be careful what it says and, at the same time, reading the transcript my sense was that in a decade or so after WB had successfully launches other DC franchises they might try Superman again. I think Horn was honest on that.

The court forcing MOS delayed what probably would have been a Flash or WW film in 2013. It's frustrating for anyone who wants to ses WB develop other franchises.

Once MOS is done next year WB can shift it's film development to other characters. The delay on other projects caused by MOS is very frustrating. Lawyers, courts - what can you say!

[DoomsdayApex]

Movie 1 and Movie 2 seem like they could be one movie, or at least you could cover some of Movie 2 in Movie 1. Batman Begins essentially did what you described for Movies 1 and 2, just did it with less noteworthy villains (in the eyes of the public).

I don't have quite a formalized idea like yours, but I'd love to see a trilogy where each movie he gets stronger, and each movie he ventures further out into space, perhaps to find more aliens like himself. That way you could tie run-ins with characters like Brainiac, Mongul, Darkseid, Lobo and even Bizzaro into his own personal journey to discover more about his origins.

I rather liked Millar's one idea where he suggested Superman outlive our solar system, perhaps he could be bathed in the aftermath of our sun going supernova (which technically is scientifically inaccurate) and is turned into a God because of it. I also like how DC Year 1,000,000 has him use his Godlike abilities to ressurect Lois Lane. Obviously you couldn't even touch on this until a third movie but I think something like that utilizes the full potential of Superman a lot more, especially with the technology now available. Superman has a lot of trippy and high concept sci-fi elements that no one has ever bothered to touch.

I love this idea!

[Rockstar]

AKA. Doctor Manhattan.

[Optimus_Prime_]

AKA. Doctor Manhattan.
Nah. You'd have to make the point the Superman always retains his humanity. This is more directly related to power level.

[Kyle Rayner]

They (WB) just invest too much on two characters that eventually people will get tired off. Batman had his run with Nolan, on cartoons and video games. Marvel has ZERO competition, WB cannot expect to continue with the trend that they are having.

They need someone with vision to spearhead the DC Films. Hell if James Cameron can make a complete action/sci-fi movie with blue giants he won't have issues with a JL movie.

[HighFivingMF]

They (WB) just invest too much on two characters that eventually people will get tired off. Batman had his run with Nolan, on cartoons and video games. Marvel has ZERO competition, WB cannot expect to continue with the trend that they are having.

If the past 70 years have been any indication, nobody's going to get tired of Superman and Batman. Even if they do, WB has dozens of other options that aren't superheroes.

[Kyle Rayner]

If the past 70 years have been any indication, nobody's going to get tired of Superman and Batman. Even if they do, WB has dozens of other options that aren't superheroes.


Lets see, Batman had one movie (I think) in the 30's, then the tv Show, then the Tim Burton and Joel Schumaker's film. The latter one failed and put a curse on ALL superhero films until Spiderman. The Superman films started to suck in Superman II (not the Donner Film), they rebooted Superman Returns which did not do well with the public, Smallville was around for 10 years and the final episode destroyed any hope of seeing Tom Welling become Superman.

WB does have the option to get out of the Superhero Genre you are right. However this is about superheroes, not about other movie options. They should concentrate on other DC characters than have done very good in both comics and animation. They have to move foward and stop looking back.

[Kyle Rayner]

Nolan/Bale are done with Batman, what could've been a spring board to making a JLA movie became a narrow-single-minded trilogy. Bale was the best Batman, he really had that role down to a science and could have the factor to connect the dots for JLA.

[roach]

Lets see, Batman had one movie (I think) in the 30's, then the tv Show, then the Tim Burton and Joel Schumaker's film. The latter one failed and put a curse on ALL superhero films until Spiderman. The Superman films started to suck in Superman II (not the Donner Film), they rebooted Superman Returns which did not do well with the public, Smallville was around for 10 years and the final episode destroyed any hope of seeing Tom Welling become Superman.

WB does have the option to get out of the Superhero Genre you are right. However this is about superheroes, not about other movie options. They should concentrate on other DC characters than have done very good in both comics and animation. They have to move foward and stop looking back.

Superman 2 was good...Superman 3 is where the series went down hill

[Tobias]

They (WB) just invest too much on two characters that eventually people will get tired off. Batman had his run with Nolan, on cartoons and video games. Marvel has ZERO competition, WB cannot expect to continue with the trend that they are having.

They need someone with vision to spearhead the DC Films. Hell if James Cameron can make a complete action/sci-fi movie with blue giants he won't have issues with a JL movie.

WB is a huge studio and superhero films contribute little to their overall profits. In fact, aside from Batman, WB has done poorly in financial terms from superhero films. GL, SR and so.

A film like Wedding Crashers costs little to make and canstill do huge at the BO. In terms of return for dollar it outperformed Batman.

Get the picture? This is how WB sees it and that's why they do so little with DC properties.

Until WB creates a subsidiary studio dedicated to DC properties only I don't think anything will change. I wouldn't hold my breath though waiting on WB to create a DC Studios.

WB seems content to do one superhero film a year. There will a change after 2013 when WB will have to look at other DC properties if it plans on making one film a year. That offers hope they will do Flash or WW in 2015, Batman again in 2016 and Flash or WW in 2017.

Not a lot of product still, but a change should be coming.

[Evil Twin]

Lets see, Batman had one movie (I think) in the 30's, then the tv Show, then the Tim Burton and Joel Schumaker's film. The latter one failed and put a curse on ALL superhero films until Spiderman. The Superman films started to suck in Superman II (not the Donner Film), they rebooted Superman Returns which did not do well with the public, Smallville was around for 10 years and the final episode destroyed any hope of seeing Tom Welling become Superman.

WB does have the option to get out of the Superhero Genre you are right. However this is about superheroes, not about other movie options. They should concentrate on other DC characters than have done very good in both comics and animation. They have to move foward and stop looking back.


Batman and Robin only failed critically. With a $238 million worldwide gross, plus merchandising, WB came out of the deal in the black.

Think about it, even a movie as bad as Batman and Robin still made WB money. And the fallout didn't extend to the comics, animation, etc. That's pretty much a bulletproof franchise. Arguably only James Bond and Star Wars are that resilient.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Batman and Robin only failed critically. With a $238 million worldwide gross, plus merchandising, WB came out of the deal in the black.

Think about it, even a movie as bad as Batman and Robin still made WB money. And the fallout didn't extend to the comics, animation, etc. That's pretty much a bulletproof franchise. Arguably only James Bond and Star Wars are that resilient.
Honestly the gap in time between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins may just be a fluke. WB was always pretty aggressive in pursuing more Batman, even considered several sequels to the "failed" franchise. In their minds Batman has never been a "failure". It just seems like, as far as the relaunch went they could never come together on the new creative direction until Begins. WB always seems quite content to throw lots of money Batman's way, even after B&R.

Batman is a very budget friendly character as well.

[Grammatizator]

Honestly the gap in time between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins may just be a fluke. WB was always pretty aggressive in pursuing more Batman, even considered several sequels to the "failed" franchise. In their minds Batman has never been a "failure". It just seems like, as far as the relaunch went they could never come together on the new creative direction until Begins. WB always seems quite content to throw lots of money Batman's way, even after B&R.

Batman is a very budget friendly character as well.

Thats the thing man, the thing that bugs me when it comes to B&R, everyone talks about how it lost so much money and all of that. When really, it made a damned profit, merch-wise they made a bucket-load alone.

And yea, they were pursuing so many ideas for Batman, hell rumor has it the script for Batman Triumphant was pretty much done or atleast the main points were layed out. Say if B&R maybe made a little more money, or if it wasn't as (unfairly) hated, then we sure as hell would have seen Triumphant which from rumors (again, but its all we have on this subject) it was to be more darker, more of the same tone as Forever and 89. This would have continued, and then we would have seen more.

[Tobias]

Batman and Robin only failed critically. With a $238 million worldwide gross, plus merchandising, WB came out of the deal in the black.

Think about it, even a movie as bad as Batman and Robin still made WB money. And the fallout didn't extend to the comics, animation, etc. That's pretty much a bulletproof franchise. Arguably only James Bond and Star Wars are that resilient.

Batman is indeed bullet-proof. The most successful superhero franchise in terms of revenue across the board. Spiderman being number two.

I'd add Spiderman to your list as being pretty much bullet proof.

Waitng in the wings? Marvel is lucky as I can see IronMan and Thor turning into bullet-proof mega franchises like these others. I think Thor 2 will do way north of 500 million which will put it a very rare class os super-hero films.

WB right now does not have a bullet proof DC franchise beyond Batman. One is waiting out there I'm sure but, at the rate WB rolls out new DC franchises, it may take 10 or more years for WB to come up with another Batman-like bullet-proof franchise.

[Optimus_Prime_]

They almost always had directors and actors attached to those scripts too. Many of them influenced the eventual direction of Begins. It just got stuck in development hell, but honestly Batman 5 and or many of the supposed reboots, like Year One, were basically inches from being made.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Superman's problem is he is not budget friendly. The nature of his powers and most of his classic villains make him a huge monetary risk.

[roach]

I wouldn't call Thor and IM bulletproof as the major draws to the movies right now are the actors...if people go in droves to an IM movie without RDJ then its bulletproof

[Tobias]

Superman's problem is he is not budget friendly. The nature of his powers and most of his classic villains make him a huge monetary risk.

Exactly!. It's why WB is shelving Superman. But for MOS which courts ordered them to make.

More generally, even films like Batman which are "budget friendly" are not really in the grander scheme.

Wedding Crashers cost 40 million to make and earned 7 plus times that in theatre receipts. TDK cost 250 million and to return the same profit as WC it would have had to have made 1.75 billion in theatre receipts which it didn't. It did well but it didn't come close to the equivalent WC number.

200 million plus super-hero films will only be made for a few franchises like Batman, IronMan, Avengers and Spiderman. Because these are the only franchises that can make 600, 700 or more million.

Cap, FF, X-Men, Wolverine can't make that. But they can be made for 150 million or less so studios will continue to make them.

Thor is a question. It cost 160 million to make and earned "just" 470 million or so. It looks like it could make way north of 500 million in it's sequel. Thor2's budget will swell to 200 million plus because it has the potential to join Bats, Spidey and IronMan in that rarified group of over 500 million super-hero franchises.

[Tobias]

I wouldn't call Thor and IM bulletproof as the major draws to the movies right now are the actors...if people go in droves to an IM movie without RDJ then its bulletproof

Like I said, I could see Thor and Ironman turning into mega-franchises like Spiderman and Batman. It may nt happen but the potential is definitely there. RDJ is great but I think IM has captured the popular concious in a rare way. Like Batman and Spiedrman have.

[Evil Twin]

Exactly!. It's why WB is shelving Superman. But for MOS which courts ordered them to make.

More generally, even films like Batman which are "budget friendly" are not really in the grander scheme.

Wedding Crashers cost 40 million to make and earned 7 plus times that in theatre receipts. TDK cost 250 million and to return the same profit as WC it would have had to have made 1.75 billion in theatre receipts which it didn't. It did well but it didn't come close to the equivalent WC number.



How many t-shirts, happy meal toys, video games, etc. did Wedding Crashers sell? Admittedly, we'll never know the actual numbers, and I do agree that ROI is an underlooked number, but box office alone doesn't tell the whole story.

Plus, there's also the element of risk. For every Wedding Crashers, how many comedies don't do better than break even? Batman may never turn in the massive ROI based on WW gross, but putting a large amount of money in a "surefire" investment is a good way to mitigate risk. A stock market portfolio has a mix of risk and reward, so does a movie studio.

[Tobias]

How many t-shirts, happy meal toys, video games, etc. did Wedding Crashers sell? Admittedly, we'll never know the actual numbers, and I do agree that ROI is an underlooked number, but box office alone doesn't tell the whole story.

Plus, there's also the element of risk. For every Wedding Crashers, how many comedies don't do better than break even? Batman may never turn in the massive ROI based on WW gross, but putting a large amount of money in a "surefire" investment is a good way to mitigate risk. A stock market portfolio has a mix of risk and reward, so does a movie studio.

Theatere receipts, DVDs and re-broadcast rights are where the big money is for films. In all those categories WC, relatively, outperformed TDK.

Not saying TDK did not do well. It was phenomenal.

Bottom line is sudios look at risk/return patterns and romantic comedies are much less risky than superhero films and, as often as not, outperform superhero films.

It's why WB is contnet to make just one superhero film per year. WB has only so much money to put into development and the lion's share of that is going to go to less risky films. Hence DC fare is on WB's backburner.

Yes, not all romantic comedies do well but a film flop flopping that cost 30 or 40 million is a lot easier for a studio to absorb than a film flopping that cost 200 millon.

This is how WB is looking at it and this is why WB is likely to put out a relative trickle of superhero films. I don't like it but I totally get it.

[Grammatizator]

They almost always had directors and actors attached to those scripts too. Many of them influenced the eventual direction of Begins. It just got stuck in development hell, but honestly Batman 5 and or many of the supposed reboots, like Year One, were basically inches from being made.


Totally, I actually remember seeing on TV they were talking about how Clint Eastwood was going to be the new Batman, I'm thinking it was on some Movie Review show, but I do remember seeing that. I assume it was to be for the Batman Beyond film they were chose over Triumphant.

On the note of bullet-proof franchises, I'd say Iron-Man is there now, after 3 I think its going to seal that franchise as a big one. Thor, I don't know, maybe after a few more films, and class films.
One I'd also add is Wolverine, sure we still haven't really gotten that 'one' film that is the true Wolverine/X-Men, but in due time, I'm sure we'll see it.

[Lord]

X-Men is not completelly imune, the 2 missed shots almost made First Class a failure, Iron Man, Thor and Cap still have some time to reach the invulnerable place.
Right now the only invulnerable heroes that i think could become never ending franchises like Bond movies if they wanted are Batman and Spider-Man.

[Evil Twin]

Theatere receipts, DVDs and re-broadcast rights are where the big money is for films. In all those categories WC, relatively, outperformed TDK.

Not saying TDK did not do well. It was phenomenal.

Bottom line is sudios look at risk/return patterns and romantic comedies are much less risky than superhero films and, as often as not, outperform superhero films.

It's why WB is contnet to make just one superhero film per year. WB has only so much money to put into development and the lion's share of that is going to go to less risky films. Hence DC fare is on WB's backburner.

Yes, not all romantic comedies do well but a film flop flopping that cost 30 or 40 million is a lot easier for a studio to absorb than a film flopping that cost 200 millon.

This is how WB is looking at it and this is why WB is likely to put out a relative trickle of superhero films. I don't like it but I totally get it.

George Lucas would disagree with you on where the big money for film franchises is.

And, if nothing else, a franchise like Batman returns a good ROI with merchandise on top. WC may look better on the surface, but Batman a) has a higher floor and b) is able to tap into a whole slew of revenue streams that a comedy can't.

There's also the question of how many opportunities you have. Granted, you can make at least six Wedding Crashers for every Batman film, at least. But you also have to sell six different films, there's only so much space at the multiplex/so many weeks in the year, and comedy is a much less predictable genre outside of perhaps Adam Sandler. And Adam Sandler gets paid a ton for his movies, because they're safe bets. I expect WB will make 8 or so comedies this year, and they'll be lucky if more than one is a big hit. There's no luck to predicting Batman will make a lot of money.

Batman isn't just another superhero franchise. It's one of the biggest and safest franchises in the world. It's why people who want WB to stop making Batman films and start branching out into other superhero films are wishing in vain. WB is in the Batman movie business for the foreseeable future.

I expect that WB will turn to other superheroes, likely Flash, WW or JL, in the near future. And there certainly won't be the gamble that GL was in terms of budget for Flash or WW. But, in WB's slate, I think Mad Max poses the big threat for next big tentpole more than anything else in light of Fast Five's box office.

[Tobias]

Totally, I actually remember seeing on TV they were talking about how Clint Eastwood was going to be the new Batman, I'm thinking it was on some Movie Review show, but I do remember seeing that. I assume it was to be for the Batman Beyond film they were chose over Triumphant.

On the note of bullet-proof franchises, I'd say Iron-Man is there now, after 3 I think its going to seal that franchise as a big one. Thor, I don't know, maybe after a few more films, and class films.
One I'd also add is Wolverine, sure we still haven't really gotten that 'one' film that is the true Wolverine/X-Men, but in due time, I'm sure we'll see it.

I think there are two sets of bullet proof franchises.

Those which cost 250 million or so to make and can rake in 600, 700 or 800 million plus at the BO.

In that category there is Batman, Spiderman, IronMan and, I'll go way out on a limb here and predict it, Avengers too.

Then there are films that can be made for 150 million maybe less, maybe a bit more and can pull in close to 400 million - plus or minus.

Thor, Cap, X-Men and Wolverine.

WB has one in the big league and none in the minor 150 million league.

Marvel has 3 in the big league and all 4 of the minor league members.

Going forward I can see Flash or WW joining the bullet proof minor league but I can't see another DC property joining the bullet prof major league anytime soon.

Unless they re-do GL right. It has huge potential. Other than that I'd guess the next major Batman-like DC franchise will come from a secondary character like Shazam.

[Tobias]

Batman isn't just another superhero franchise. It's one of the biggest and safest franchises in the world. It's why people who want WB to stop making Batman films and start branching out into other superhero films are wishing in vain. WB is in the Batman movie business for the foreseeable future.

I expect that WB will turn to other superheroes, likely Flash, WW or JL, in the near future. And there certainly won't be the gamble that GL was in terms of budget for Flash or WW. But, in WB's slate, I think Mad Max poses the big threat for next big tentpole more than anything else in light of Fast Five's box office.

I totally agree. People thinking WB will lay off the Batman reboot for more than 3 years are wrong.

IMO the first new Batman film will be in 3 years. 2015. Followed by a sequel in 2018.

Flash and WW will likely fill in the "holes". Flash 2014, WW 2016 and don't be surprised to see a GL reboot for 2017.

WB goes at a slow pace of one per year and given that I think the projections above are gonna be accurate.

2019? Look for JL. You'll have Bats, WW and Flash but whom else will WB choose to include?Will they use JL as an opportunity to launch one of their non-tried as of yet DC superh-heros in the film. Like that is a no-brainer.

Yup, besides Batman, I see WB's focus shifting now to include WW, Flash and JL.

[Grammatizator]

Well there is a new Batman reboot already slated for 2015 release, so yea we know we won't have to wait too long for it.

When it comes to Lantern, I really liked the first one, although it was marketed in the same tone as TDK, and was made to seem serious and most that went to see it were looking for that. Lantern isn't like that, I say give us another one, a sequel, make it mean something, let it get going.
People tend to forget just how 'meh' the initail reaction was for Batman Begins, no one really cared too much, it was OK, but not some massive film everyone makes it out to be now. TDK got more attention because of Joker (a bullet-proof franchise all in himself) and the death of Ledger, if say the film had just Two-Face as the villian, then TDK wouldn't have been this massive thing, thats for sure.

Its also really sad that there was so much riding on GL, there was a Hawkman film, a Flash film and even a Wonder Woman film all ridng on whethere or not GL was huge.

[BH/HHH]

Well there is a new Batman reboot already slated for 2015 release, so yea we know we won't have to wait too long for it.

There's been no confirmation of that

[DoomsdayApex]

I'll be shocked if the Batman Reboot lands in 2015. That's too damn early, in my opinion.

[Tobias]

I'll be shocked if the Batman Reboot lands in 2015. That's too damn early, in my opinion.

I'd actually be shocked if there isn't a Batman re-boot in 2015.

True, nothing official has been announced but, I wouldn't expect anything official until this fall after TDKR has completed it's theatre run.

A the rate of one DC film per year WB has to put out 7 films between 2014 and 2020.

Cutting WB slack, they may skip a DC film in 2014. It's starting to get to the point where an official announcement/pre-prod work has to start if WB plans a DC film for summer 2014.

So say 6 films between now and 2020. Can't see WB doing less when Marvel will have as many as 14 or 15 films out by then.

Given GL's failure and Batman's success the only way to anchor a 6 film run is with Batman. 2 or 3 new Batman films in the 2014 -2020 period. Then WB can take the risk and lauch Flash and WW. Or maybe re-launch GL. Those details will only emerge in the next few years. Add in a possible JL film and WB can do 6 new DC films by 2020 and anchor them around Batman to provide a foundation for success.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I'll be shocked if the Batman Reboot lands in 2015. That's too damn early, in my opinion.
I agree. It'll probably end up in development hell for a while anyways. Honestly I think people underestimate how long these things take to come together.

[roach]

These things can go pretty fast..depends on the director

[SlackBrian]

These things can go pretty fast..depends on the director
This is true. Once the ball starts rolling, things can get organized and finalized pretty quickly. Especially if the studio wants the film out fast, and is fast-tracking everything. I wouldn't like a fast-tracked, rushed Batman film, but I'm not going to pretend it isn't possible, either.

[roach]

AMS and MOS are examples of how fast they can make movies

[Parker Wayne]

Both of those though were 5 and 7 year turnarounds, not 3

[BH/HHH]

I really think depending on Man of Steel's box office take that they're gonna do Justice League next. If Man of Steel makes a mint at the BO though they'll probably delay that idea. Personally I hope we get at leats a trilogy of Superman films before they do a Justice League film. It would be good for Batman if they went Batman Beyond though.

[craigdbfan]

Having a Justice League with no build up I think would be a big mistake on WB part if they ever decide to do that.

[Grammatizator]

There's been no confirmation of that


You sure man, I could swear that it was announced that Nolan was to produce it and it was to be released in 2015?

Tbh I see it happening, they know how much money Batman can make, everyone knows that they'd be there in a second if there was one released, no matter if they thought it was too quick or not.

[Tobias]

I really think depending on Man of Steel's box office take that they're gonna do Justice League next. If Man of Steel makes a mint at the BO though they'll probably delay that idea. Personally I hope we get at leats a trilogy of Superman films before they do a Justice League film. It would be good for Batman if they went Batman Beyond though.

WB said Superman wasn't economically feasible for them so I don't think WB is factoring in Superman films as they develop their planned DC films for the rest of the decade.

I don't think WB will try JL before they have their new Batman up and running.

Doing a string of non-Batman solo films over the next many years is way too much of a risk for WB.

Batman is going to have to be the focus IMO. A 3 year turnaround can be done and, if you were WB, wouldn't you do exactly that?

[craigdbfan]

There's been no confirmation of that

You sure man, I could swear that it was announced that Nolan was to produce it and it was to be released in 2015?

Tbh I see it happening, they know how much money Batman can make, everyone knows that they'd be there in a second if there was one released, no matter if they thought it was too quick or not.

You're right about it being "reinvented/rebooted" just not about the time frame. It has been confirmed by the president of WB (Jeff Robinov) himself that they will be reinventing the character and keep Nolan as producer.

Source (http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/03/29/justice-league-the-movie-warner-chief-sets-sights-on-team-up-film-and-reinventing-batman/)

[Tobias]

You're right about it being "reinvented/rebooted" just not about the time frame. It has been confirmed by the president of WB (Jeff Robinov) himself that they will be reinventing the character and keep Nolan as producer.

Source (http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/03/29/justice-league-the-movie-warner-chief-sets-sights-on-team-up-film-and-reinventing-batman/)

Thanks for the link. I had recalled that Nolan was staying on for Batman but couldn't remeber where I read it.

I think WB would be wiser to make Nolan Executive Producer in charge of their DC properties.

In any case, a quick Batman turnaround sounds very likely.

[DoomsdayApex]

Thanks for the link. I had recalled that Nolan was staying on for Batman but couldn't remeber where I read it.

I think WB would be wiser to make Nolan Executive Producer in charge of their DC properties.

In any case, a quick Batman turnaround sounds very likely.

Based on what? If anything, a 4-5 year wait is more likely due to the fact that this reboot will start from absolutely scratch.

New cast, new director, and new story. WB isn't going to accumulate these in just a year.

Why would WB pull a Sony and release a reboot with TDKR still fresh in people's minds?

[DoomsdayApex]

I agree. It'll probably end up in development hell for a while anyways. Honestly I think people underestimate how long these things take to come together.

Exactly. I see the reboot being released in 2016-2017.

[Boom]

Based on what? If anything, a 4-5 year wait is more likely due to the fact that this reboot will start from absolutely scratch.

New cast, new director, and new story. WB isn't going to accumulate these in just a year.

Why would WB pull a Sony and release a reboot with TDKR still fresh in people's minds?

The Spider-Man reboot came five years after Spider-Man 3 :huh:.

[DoomsdayApex]

The Spider-Man reboot came five years after Spider-Man 3 :huh:.

Really??????!

Holy s**t. You're right. I honestly thought SM3 was released in 2009.

Five years still sounds like the best option though.

[Boom]

Don't worry. You're not the first one to make that mistake. Though it is curious how Spider-Man 3 is still so fresh in everybody's consciousness that they think it's much more recent than it really is. For better or worse, that film must have had a bigger impact than people realize.

But man, five years already. Where is the time going :csad:?

[DoomsdayApex]

Don't worry. You're not the first one to make that mistake. Though it is curious how Spider-Man 3 is still so fresh in everybody's consciousness that they think it's much more recent than it really is. For better or worse, that film must have had a bigger impact than people realize.

But man, five years already. Where is the time going :csad:?

Yeah, I'm flabbergasted. I honestly thought SM3 was released much more recently than 2007. Jeez, no kidding -- where has the time gone? Wow. :confused:

[Tobias]

Exactly. I see the reboot being released in 2016-2017.

I'd say 2016 at the latest and 2015 at the earliest. We are sort of on the same page give or take a year.

BOM opined that 4 years is the outside for sequels and reboots. To capitalize on the success of the previous film.

I don't think WB does JL before Batman is re-established and WB launches another successful solo. Be it Flash, WW or a re-boot of GL. Which franchise it will be beyond Batman is the wildcard that no one can predict.

WB could launch back to back new solo franchises in 2014 and 2015. It's a very big risk. Especially given GL. Less of a risk if WB passes on 2014 and launches Flash or WW in 2015. That could work with a new Batman in 2016.

I'd be surprised if Batman isn't out in 2015 and shocked if it's not out in 2016.

[Tobias]

Don't worry. You're not the first one to make that mistake. Though it is curious how Spider-Man 3 is still so fresh in everybody's consciousness that they think it's much more recent than it really is. For better or worse, that film must have had a bigger impact than people realize.

But man, five years already. Where is the time going :csad:?

I think ASM is going to be huge. Much bigger than some think. All the focus is on The Avengers and TDKR but I am totally taken by TAS trailers. It is going to outperform expectations IMO. That's saying a lot as expectations are 600 million plus for ASM.

[Raiden]

I think ASM is going to be huge. Much bigger than some think. All the focus is on The Avengers and TDKR but I am totally taken by TAS trailers. It is going to outperform expectations IMO. That's saying a lot as expectations are 600 million plus for ASM.

I wasn't initially sold on TAS and its attempt to reboot Spider-Man, but the trailer is slowly winning me over. I think it will do very well at the box office, although it won't beat Raimi's first SM movie and will likely gross less than either TA and TDKR.

[Kyle Rayner]

WB likes to tease, they will do a $300 million dollar Batman movie. When BATS came out it slowly open the door for Superman, that led for other heroes to show. When JL started there was hope for a JL live action film, still that did not happen.

With all the Batman cartoons they are always hinting to a JL/other DC character film, just to tease fans to believe that there is hope. It's the 21st century, CGI has evolved, the excuse to not make the movies is ridiculous. Someone here will tell me that "WB will not invest money on a unknown character." Which I believe they would be wrong, they do not try hard enough to develop a script and lack vision. They have this amazing library full of characters, heroes, villains, almost a century of stories that they can turn into a great profit.

I still do not see the problem here with them. All I see is lack of enthusiam.

[Tobias]

WB likes to tease, they will do a $300 million dollar Batman movie. When BATS came out it slowly open the door for Superman, that led for other heroes to show. When JL started there was hope for a JL live action film, still that did not happen.

With all the Batman cartoons they are always hinting to a JL/other DC character film, just to tease fans to believe that there is hope. It's the 21st century, CGI has evolved, the excuse to not make the movies is ridiculous. Someone here will tell me that "WB will not invest money on a unknown character." Which I believe they would be wrong, they do not try hard enough to develop a script and lack vision. They have this amazing library full of characters, heroes, villains, almost a century of stories that they can turn into a great profit.

I still do not see the problem here with them. All I see is lack of enthusiam.

I don't think it's a lack of enthusiasm, I think it's a lack of perceived profitabilty and specifically ROI that keeps WB from doing more with it's DC properties.

Invesing 225 million plus in a film? That means the film needs to do around 600 million at theatres to make the film viable.

Marvel has 3 such franchises - Ironman, Avengers and Spiderman (SONY controls Spidey for now). WB has only 2 such franchise Batman and JL. Personally I think GL could be a 600 million franchise so at best WB has 3 "mega-franchises - Bats, GL and JL.

Some may disagree on GL being a mega-franchise for DC. IMO it will ultimately prove to be the most successful solo DC film franchise after Batman - once the proper writers, director, producer and CGI team is brought on board and this thing is re-launched.

The second tier franchses are super-heros costing 150 million or about to make which can do around 400 million in theatres.

Marvel has Cap, Thor, X-Men and Wolverine in this category. WB has nada. Due to the fact WB has not tried Flash or WW or Hawkman.

WB's reluctance to try second tier DC character is that for the same money they can do a non-DC character/films and sci-fi stufflike Hobbit and get a 600 million or more BO for a 150 million investment.

It's all ROI which will probably continue to hold WB back from doing more DC films.

[gugumugats]

I think animated series are the way to go versus big blockbuster movies.

They seem to sell more at toy stores than big movies do PLUS they generate fan loyalty in a lot of younger children. I think The Clone Wars has created a lot of young Star Wars fans even though the original came out decades ago. In addition, the Batman TAS made me the Batman/DC fan I am today.

With Cartoon Network's DC Nation, DC/WB will have an opportunity to create a youth fanbase for JL and GL. I think GL is gearing up to be the next mega-franchise too. Especially since his universe can sell a hell of a lot more toys than other superheroes (with the exception of maybe Batman).

[Tobias]

I think animated series are the way to go versus big blockbuster movies.

They seem to sell more at toy stores than big movies do PLUS they generate fan loyalty in a lot of younger children. I think The Clone Wars has created a lot of young Star Wars fans even though the original came out decades ago. In addition, the Batman TAS made me the Batman/DC fan I am today.

With Cartoon Network's DC Nation, DC/WB will have an opportunity to create a youth fanbase for JL and GL. I think GL is gearing up to be the next mega-franchise too. Especially since his universe can sell a hell of a lot more toys than other superheroes (with the exception of maybe Batman).

Yup.

WB/DC has 3 mega-franchises for sure right now. Batman at 1 billion and JL and GL as 600 million blockbusters. JL could approach Batman numbers depending....

Beyond that WB/DC has no 500 million let alone 600 million franchises. And they know it which is partly why they move so slowly on this.

WW and Flash can be sucessful because they can be made for 150 million and make probably 400 - 450 milion. On a par w/Thor. Both are, speaking of toys, toy challeneged.

WB/DC has another 600 million mega-franchise waiting in the wings I'm sure and I think it will come from one of their second tier characters.

If I has to guess I'd say Shazaam. Very toy-friendly with Spiderman like appeal.

[CConn]

If WB was smart, they'd make Shazam into a CGI-film in the vein of The Incredibles or Megamind. It would kill.

[Jake Cassidy]

If WB was smart, they'd make Shazam into a CGI-film in the vein of The Incredibles or Megamind. It would kill.

Only if Patrick Warburton does the voice. :woot:

[gugumugats]

Yup.

WB/DC has 3 mega-franchises for sure right now. Batman at 1 billion and JL and GL as 600 million blockbusters. JL could approach Batman numbers depending....

Beyond that WB/DC has no 500 million let alone 600 million franchises. And they know it which is partly why they move so slowly on this.

WW and Flash can be sucessful because they can be made for 150 million and make probably 400 - 450 milion. On a par w/Thor. Both are, speaking of toys, toy challeneged.

WB/DC has another 600 million mega-franchise waiting in the wings I'm sure and I think it will come from one of their second tier characters.

If I has to guess I'd say Shazaam. Very toy-friendly with Spiderman like appeal.

I'm not sure if Shazam is all that toy-friendly in the way Green Lantern and Batman are. Batman has his various suits and gadgets and cars while Green Lantern can have various suits, various constructs, and an entire Green Lantern/Rainbow Lantern corps.

Also, on a sad note, it looks like Geoff Johns is trying to revive Shazam (which is also what Captain Marvel will now be named) in DC Comics as a darker character:
http://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/assets/media/news/images/dc/dc-new-52-shazam-captain-marvel.jpg

[Lord]

I'm not against renaming him at all, but if a movie about him is made i hope that he's not dark and is a boyscout like the original, i think it would also be a great oportunity to pay tribute to the golden age.

[K'Prime]

Also, on a sad note, it looks like Geoff Johns is trying to revive Shazam (which is also what Captain Marvel will now be named) in DC Comics as a darker character:

i have no words to capture how much i dislike geoff johns.. i'm open to new interpretations but I prefer the good cap

[moe]

Assuming WB will do 1 superhero film per year from 2015 on, leaving GL out of that equation does not make sense to me.

Of all the JL characters only GL, IMO, can do huge numbers. Not a billion like Bats, but say 500 - 600 million like IM.

I'd love to see Flash and WW on the big-screen and I think we will but these are not to me mega-franchises. At best they are Thor like franchises. 450 million or so. And that ain't bad. Thor is getting quick sequels.

I just don't see how WB doesn't do a GL reboot w/in 10 years.

Unless WB goes with it's secondary characters. Those films would be cheaper to make and I think, aside from GL and Bats, WB will find it's next mega-franchise from one of these.

Top of the list - Shazam. It has the potential to be another Spiderman.

Next decade?

2015 - Flash
2016 - Batman reboot
2017 - WW, if not a GL reboot
2018 - Flash 2
2019 - Batman reboot 2
2020 - Shazaam
2021 - WW 2
2022 - Batman reboot 3

There. I did a full decade ahead for WB w/o including GL. However, I think a GL reboot will come around a lot quicker than many think.

no one would reboot batman 4 years after Nolan's trilogy... that would mean story, casting and pre-production would have to start about a year after TDKR... likely a few months after the dvd is released...

and there is no need to reboot it... Begins is the best origin you can ask for any comic book hero. just tell different stories.

[moe]

I wasn't initially sold on TAS and its attempt to reboot Spider-Man, but the trailer is slowly winning me over. I think it will do very well at the box office, although it won't beat Raimi's first SM movie and will likely gross less than either TA and TDKR.

its gonna outgross TA worldwide... spidy is the biggest superhero overseas... likely going to make 650+ overseas.

[gugumugats]

Assuming WB will do 1 superhero film per year from 2015 on, leaving GL out of that equation does not make sense to me.

Of all the JL characters only GL, IMO, can do huge numbers. Not a billion like Bats, but say 500 - 600 million like IM.

I'd love to see Flash and WW on the big-screen and I think we will but these are not to me mega-franchises. At best they are Thor like franchises. 450 million or so. And that ain't bad. Thor is getting quick sequels.

I just don't see how WB doesn't do a GL reboot w/in 10 years.

Unless WB goes with it's secondary characters. Those films would be cheaper to make and I think, aside from GL and Bats, WB will find it's next mega-franchise from one of these.

Top of the list - Shazam. It has the potential to be another Spiderman.

Next decade?

2015 - Flash
2016 - Batman reboot
2017 - WW, if not a GL reboot
2018 - Flash 2
2019 - Batman reboot 2
2020 - Shazaam
2021 - WW 2
2022 - Batman reboot 3

There. I did a full decade ahead for WB w/o including GL. However, I think a GL reboot will come around a lot quicker than many think.


How come the Man of Steel franchise is excluded??? I think a Man of Steel sequel would be a more likely thing than a Shazam movie.

[Tobias]

no one would reboot batman 4 years after Nolan's trilogy... that would mean story, casting and pre-production would have to start about a year after TDKR... likely a few months after the dvd is released...

and there is no need to reboot it... Begins is the best origin you can ask for any comic book hero. just tell different stories.

You are correct. Reboot was the wrong word. The Batman re-launch doesn't need to redo the origin. I doubt it will.

I think WB goes for 2015 or 2016 for Batman's relaunch. It's like what else do they have.

I think WB will announce the relaunch in the fall of this year after TDKR completes it's theatre run. That's plenty of time to have a film out by 2015 especially if Nolan is going to remain on board in some capacity.

[metaphysician]

Giving it some thought. . . okay, so yes, Man of Steel is being rushed, they weren't originally going to do it so soon. However, theory: this could be a good thing.

Why? DC's biggest problem traditionally has been actually getting movies to market. For every movie that actually hits theaters, there are a half dozen adaptations that die in development hell. Whereas the Marvel IP, by contrast, isn't allowed to lay fallow in the same way, since everyone is in a "use it or lose it" situation.

So, my thought is that, maybe being forced to actually *make* a movie will be good for DC and Man of Steel, because they won't be able to dither and dally forever.

Granted, it could well suck badly. This is just a theory, and even if "use it or lose it" is good in the broad sense, that doesn't mean it won't turn out badly in this particular case. . .

[Tobias]

I wasn't initially sold on TAS and its attempt to reboot Spider-Man, but the trailer is slowly winning me over. I think it will do very well at the box office, although it won't beat Raimi's first SM movie and will likely gross less than either TA and TDKR.

Agreed TAS won't do as well as TA or TDKR. Of the three it will IMO do way better than expected. And expectations are high for TAS. I think it could outperform Raimi's films.

I'm impressed by all 3 sets of trailers but most impressed by TAS and least by TDKR.

TAS has an "intimacy" the other 2 films don't based on the trailers. Tons of action but it looks like there is a real story running throughout.

TAS will do gangbusters with the guys and I think it will do well with the young female demo. Way better than TDKR and TA will do.

Garfield has a "hotness" factor which McGuire never did . That is going to add to TAS's appeal beyond the guys.

TAS is going to be the sleeper hit of 2012.

[CConn]

no one would reboot batman 4 years after Nolan's trilogy... that would mean story, casting and pre-production would have to start about a year after TDKR... likely a few months after the dvd is released...

and there is no need to reboot it... Begins is the best origin you can ask for any comic book hero. just tell different stories.
WB will most definitely be making another Batman movie within the next four years.

Nolan's already talked about his role in producing it.

[souvlaki]

Giving it some thought. . . okay, so yes, Man of Steel is being rushed, they weren't originally going to do it so soon. However, theory: this could be a good thing.

Why? DC's biggest problem traditionally has been actually getting movies to market. For every movie that actually hits theaters, there are a half dozen adaptations that die in development hell. Whereas the Marvel IP, by contrast, isn't allowed to lay fallow in the same way, since everyone is in a "use it or lose it" situation.

So, my thought is that, maybe being forced to actually *make* a movie will be good for DC and Man of Steel, because they won't be able to dither and dally forever.

Granted, it could well suck badly. This is just a theory, and even if "use it or lose it" is good in the broad sense, that doesn't mean it won't turn out badly in this particular case. . .

I know you were referring to the film being greenlit so fast, but I find it hilarious that you used the word "rushed" to describe MOS when it will be in production for well over a year by the time it's actually finished, and in post production almost as long.

[CConn]

They think it's rushed because of its quick greenlighting, preproduction, and hiring of Zack Synder.

They all think Synder was just the most available stand in for WB to use to get the film in production by 2011. Which is, of course, ridiculous, but don't try to tell them that.

[Tobias]

WB will most definitely be making another Batman movie within the next four years.

Nolan's already talked about his role in producing it.

ITA.

Batman is the only "real" thing WB has going DC-wise at this time.

Sure there is JL but that is a "dream" franchise waiting to happen - someday.

WB hasn't retained Nolan to let him sit around and twiddle his thumbs for 6, 7 or more years. Yet many seem to think that is the earliest there will be a Batman re-launch.

My guess is WB's first priority is to as quickly as possible re-launch Batman. I think it may be done as quickly as 3 years but no more than 4. BOM opined that waiting longer than 4 yers to re-launch a franchise poses a big-risk to the success of the re-launch.

The JL dream can only come out of the foundation of the new Batman franchise. Another reason to get Bats going ASAP. Especially if TA does the billion number.

To get JL out by 2017 or 2018 WB is going to have to have the new Batman out by 2015.

Three years. That's my expectation. I think it will be confirmed this fall after TDKR completes it's theatrical run.

[metaphysician]

"Rushed" is perhaps a strong word, yes, but note how long it took WB to put out Superman Returns.

[solidsnake86]

"Rushed" is perhaps a strong word, yes, but note how long it took WB to put out Superman Returns.

Actually superman returns was put together pretty quickly, they hired singer in june or july of 04, hired routh sometime in the summer, and wrote a completely new script not based on any previous attempts. Filming began in march or april of 2005 for a 2006 release. MOS is just fine and has more time than Returns did. Not to mention its an origin story, which superman has plenty of comic material, as well as cartoons, movies etc. to pull from. MOS is anything but rushed.

X-men first class was rushed, heck even the marvel movies are rushed compared to the time this film has.

[Tobias]

They think it's rushed because of its quick greenlighting, preproduction, and hiring of Zack Synder.

They all think Synder was just the most available stand in for WB to use to get the film in production by 2011. Which is, of course, ridiculous, but don't try to tell them that.

I'd say they are referring to the quick greenlighting and pre-prod. Also the almost defacto casting of Cavill. An easy choice as he'd been among the group of runner-ups in prior attempts.

Personally I'm not at all sold on Cavill but, if he had ended up the choice, I would have felt a lot more comfortable about the casting if there had been a full-on worldwide search for the actor. That pesky court order included a timeline and so a months-long search for a "perfect" actor had to be foregone.

[The Morningstar]

I gotta say, DCs new "Captain Marvel" is horrible. All grimdark looking. Bring back the Big Red Cheese tis what i say.

[DoomsdayApex]

"Rushed" is perhaps a strong word, yes, but note how long it took WB to put out Superman Returns.

How exactly was MoS rushed?

The film is officially now in post-production and it's sporting a 2013 release.

[metaphysician]

Think of how long Superman 5 spent in preproduction hell. Think of how long the Green Lantern project languished before its eventual creation. Think of how long Wonder Woman. . . oh, wait, Wonder Woman never did get made.

WB has a track record of glacial development of comic book properties.

[The Morningstar]

GL was in development hell? I thought it was fast tracked?

[CConn]

It's like these two have created a plane of existence all of their own. Where up is down and left is Henry Cavill. :o

[DoomsdayApex]

Think of how long Superman 5 spent in preproduction hell. Think of how long the Green Lantern project languished before its eventual creation. Think of how long Wonder Woman. . . oh, wait, Wonder Woman never did get made.

WB has a track record of glacial development of comic book properties.

And yet BB, TDK, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, The Fountain (especially) and Constantine ended up being just fine.

[ЯɘvlveR]

personally, i don't think they'd need to reboot anything.

if what wb is worried about is about making money, then they need to understand that in order to make money, they need to spend the money. give nolan whatever he wants, whether he wants to direct, produce or both, whatever, give him whatever he wants. give bale all the money he wants. bring back ryan reynolds (since imo he along with mark strong were the best things out of GL) and have green lantern replace wonder woman in trinity, in a film based around sinestro, and his corps, have luthor and hugo strange try to stick their ***** in it somehow, then have the justice league assemble at the end of the film. bale cavill and reynolds is plenty of star power.

spoilers in white text, don't know how true it is, but i don't want to ruin in it for anyone.

I'd heard of one of TDKR spoilers that bane destroys gotham, so maybe after gotham is destroyed, bruce has time to cameo in MOS. have clark get to metropolis after gotham is destroyed, and after the parallax situation in coast city. and there you have your eater eggs.

[Cain]

And yet BB, TDK, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, The Fountain (especially) and Constantine ended up being just fine.


^ Yeah and aside from those movies it took less than 6 years to get something going on a new Supes movie but ok fine for the sake of an upcoming argument let's say it was cause of the legal **** going on with Supes. Then what about Jonah Hex or The Losers? and they got another movie based on the Frank Miller 300 comic book franchise in production soon; I mean really though.

[DoomsdayApex]

^ Yeah and aside from those movies it took less than 6 years to get something going on a new Supes movie but ok fine for the sake of an upcoming argument let's say it was cause of the legal **** going on with Supes. Then what about Jonah Hex or The Losers? and they got another movie based on the Frank Miller 300 comic book franchise in production soon; I mean really though.

Point?

It's not to say that WB had no intention of making a sequel to Superman Returns or a reboot/relaunch inbetween those years. A sequel, at one point and time, was considered probable.

WB interviewed a few directors and listened to their ideas after it was announced that no sequel was being sought (involving Singer and Routh).

It wasn't until Goyer and Nolan presented their idea and concept for a 'modernized' Superman to executives in early 2010 that WB finally green-lit the MoS project.

[Cain]

Point?

It's not to say that WB had no intention of making a sequel to Superman Returns or a reboot/relaunch inbetween those years. A sequel, at one point and time, was considered probable.

WB interviewed a few directors and listened to their ideas after it was announced that no sequel was being sought (involving Singer and Routh).

It wasn't until Goyer and Nolan presented their idea and concept for a 'modernized' Superman to executives in early 2010 that WB finally green-lit the MoS project.

Guy you seem to be having reading comprehension issues here. WTF are you explaining the Superman development process to me as if I asked you for it or something?

I'm saying that including those movies you listed it also took them less then a decade to get the ball rolling with Superman again. Meaning they weren't just sitting on a comic property again and got on it ASAP. I was agreeing with your counter to that other guy that was talking about WB taking decades to put out comic based features.

[DoomsdayApex]

Guy you seem to be having reading comprehension issues here. WTF are you explaining the Superman development process to me as if I asked you for it or something?

I'm saying that including those movies you listed it also took them less then a decade to get the ball rolling with Superman again. Meaning they weren't just sitting on a comic property again and got on it ASAP. I was agreeing with your counter to that other guy that was talking about WB taking decades to put out comic based features.

I sincerely apologize. I clearly misread your statement.

In reality though, I'm kinda pleased that WB releases one CBM a year (on average), and that DCE is not Marvel Studios. The genre would quickly grow dull if 5-6 CBMs were released every year.

Next year belongs to Superman, but I'm hoping 2014 belongs to The Flash. WB should take their time with it and not repeat Green Lantern's mistakes. First things first, sign a high-quality writer to write the script.

[Destructus86]

I think the problem with DC is that they don't seem to have enough control over their properties in movie form.

Yes, Batman did well...but it's not REALLY Batman...it's someones take on it...a very different take from the comics.

Green Lantern was just treated badly in every aspect...they had a director with no real vision for the material.

Superman I have high hopes for.

[gugumugats]

I think the problem with DC is that they don't seem to have enough control over their properties in movie form.

Yes, Batman did well...but it's not REALLY Batman...it's someones take on it...a very different take from the comics.

Green Lantern was just treated badly in every aspect...they had a director with no real vision for the material.

Superman I have high hopes for.

Didn't Geoff Johns/DCE have a hand in Green Lantern?

[Tobias]

Disney took a huge loss on John Carter and it actually caused the price of Disney shares to drop earlier this week.

Unlike WB, Disney has been upfront about Carter's failure. It may be a first for a studio to acknowledge a film's failure while it was still in theatres.

Compare this to GL and SR which WB initially refused to admit had both severly underperformed.

This won't stop WB from making big-budget DC films but Carter's failure reinforces WB's strategy to put DC films out at a very slow pace. The downside potential is just too huge.

It's frustrating for fans but makes complete economic sense if you are WB.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...r-disney-says/ (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/200-million-write-down-for-john-carter-disney-says/)

[jmc]

Disney took a huge loss on John Carter and it actually caused the price of Disney shares to drop earlier this week.

Unlike WB, Disney has been upfront about Carter's failure. It may be a first for a studio to acknowledge a film's failure while it was still in theatres.

Compare this to GL and SR which WB initially refused to admit had both severly underperformed.

This won't stop WB from making big-budget DC films but Carter's failure reinforces WB's strategy to put DC films out at a very slow pace. The downside potential is just too huge.

It's frustrating for fans but makes complete economic sense if you are WB.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...r-disney-says/ (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/200-million-write-down-for-john-carter-disney-says/)

Thing is with movies of this size the people owning the stock want assurances, I read a post from some person who owns Disney stock saying Disney have to avoid taking risks like this as they're too big a company to do so. People like this are who studios end up answering too.

[metaphysician]

I'm not worried, because honestly, John Carter *was* a stupid risk. Not the IP, mind, but the "lets give total control and 250M to an unproven live action director." Whereas the other high budget Disney projects have good arguments in favor of the risks involved.

As for "not enough creative control", yes, Geoff Johns was heavily involved in Green Lantern. Arguably, he was part of why it failed ( too much bad narration, forced inclusion of bizarre and unmarketable concepts like "the color of fear and will", etc ). To the broader question, though, I don't have a good answer. Marvel Studios produces good product, yes, but at the time they started, I would have bet anything that involving the creative minds at Marvel would be a train wreck, given their actual writing at the time.

[CConn]

I'm sorry, but Disney had to know John Carter wasn't going to be successful with the amount of marketing it had and it's release date in the movie deadzone of March.

[Tobias]

Hunger Games is a perfect example of why WB basically ignores it's DC properties aside from Batman.

HG almost beat TDK and Spidey 3 in it's Friday take. And those were sequels.

It is going to be huge in a way Thor, Cap and even the first IronMan were not. And those were all very successful films.

Relisitcally, aside from Batman, JL and GL, no DC property can come anywhere near close close to these kind of numbers.

On top of which DC WB properties cost at least 140 - 150 million to make. Compared to HG's 75 million. It'd be wiser for WB to purchase book rights (Hunger Games, Twilight) and start a new franchise that way.

IMO the success of HG is going to if anything slow down how fast WB rolls out more DC properties. I'd bet WB is going to put more energy into finding the next Twilight or HG rather than fussing too much with DC stuff. It's all risk/reward.

JL is the exception and it is predicated on TA.

[CConn]

Hearing you talk business strategies is like hearing a 10yo talk about thermodynamics.

[solidsnake86]

Hearing you talk business strategies is like hearing a 10yo talk about thermodynamics.

Well that 10yo may be a genius:o

[Kyle Rayner]

Hunger Games is a perfect example of why WB basically ignores it's DC properties aside from Batman.

HG almost beat TDK and Spidey 3 in it's Friday take. And those were sequels.

It is going to be huge in a way Thor, Cap and even the first IronMan were not. And those were all very successful films.

Relisitcally, aside from Batman, JL and GL, no DC property can come anywhere near close close to these kind of numbers.

On top of which DC WB properties cost at least 140 - 150 million to make. Compared to HG's 75 million. It'd be wiser for WB to purchase book rights (Hunger Games, Twilight) and start a new franchise that way.

IMO the success of HG is going to if anything slow down how fast WB rolls out more DC properties. I'd bet WB is going to put more energy into finding the next Twilight or HG rather than fussing too much with DC stuff. It's all risk/reward.

JL is the exception and it is predicated on TA.

The truth is that WB likes to play save, they do not move foward. They have taken some chances with other DC properties but they did not do right to the characters nor DC Comics' writers and artist that have made DC Comics a stable.

Marvel has taken more chances than DC and their film studios has not been around that long. Had Sony loss Spiderman, Marvel would probably concentrate on him. Good thing that it did not happen and opted for an Iron Man film.

WB safe place is always going to be Batman and Superman, regardless of how bad the film does they wait for a few years (decades) and come up with another one. That's just how is always going to be. That old mentality HAS TO GO! All DC Characters are known to comic book fans, in order to expose them to a greater audience they need to push themselves. They need to treat their properties as is the last film that they will put out.

Going thru other venues like Hunger Games will help them financially, but sooner or later they will run out of ideas to make films and DC Comics is by far their biggest story library that they have.

[matrix_ghost]

Thing is with movies of this size the people owning the stock want assurances, I read a post from some person who owns Disney stock saying Disney have to avoid taking risks like this as they're too big a company to do so. People like this are who studios end up answering too.

Every company has an obligation to report the state of things to it's shareholders.
THing is though that while Green Lantern bombed , Harry Potter more then compensated those losses.
That something that Disney didn't have. For the first quarter of 2012 they haven't any had a huge hit . Which is why , i guess , they are so frank about John Carter's failure.
I do think that if DIsney has Hunger Games , they wouldn't be talking about losses etc.

[Cain]

Marvel Studios is a sub company of a sub company who's priority is media adaptations of their superhero universe. Most importantly cinematic ones. DC doesn't have that luxury. They don't have the power to setup and develop their own independent films because they don't have an independent division to do it through.

Since WB gets first dibs on the movie rights and DC has no leverage in hollywood like Marvel does through their independent studio you have to be patient. DC can't "lease" their properties without going through Time Warner and Time Warner will not allow that knowing that they have their own movie studio that could distribute and produce these features.

There is no "DC Studios" so they don't have the resources and so far DC Entertainment is completely unproven when it comes to cinematic adaptations. With that in mind how could you credibly critique WB for not having the output of a Marvel Studios?

If cinematic superhero franchises was WB's main priority they probably would be pumping out as much as Marvel Studios is but they aren't. They have a greater scope of cinematic properties beyond superhero franchises.

For example this year so far they had two profitable joints in Journey 2 and Project X. Movies outside of the superhero subgenre. It's not like The Dark Knight Rises will be their bread and butter for 2012 on it's own. So why pursue more superhero ventures outside of 1 a year when you have other projects to tend to?

I mean in 2012 alone they have a few high profile releases coming up like Wrath of the Titans next weekend and Rock of Ages, The Great Gatsby and The Hobbit later in the year. You think they'll just stop all development on those other type of projects to prioritize on DC properties?

They're not going to reduce attention on potential assets to take the "risk" of placating to superhero movie fans only. That would be pretty stupid; especially when they have had no success with DC properties when they've tried in the past outside of Batman.

I say be grateful that they're at least contemplating making a Flash movie someday at this point.

[Cain]

Every company has an obligation to report the state of things to it's shareholders.
THing is though that while Green Lantern bombed , Harry Potter more then compensated those losses.
That something that Disney didn't have. For the first quarter of 2012 they haven't any had a huge hit . Which is why , i guess , they are so frank about John Carter's failure.
I do think that if DIsney has Hunger Games , they wouldn't be talking about losses etc.

Dude at the end of the day a loss in the hundreds of millions is STILL a loss in the hundreds of millions. No company no matter how lucrative wants to ever face losses like Dreamworks, WB and Disney recently did with Cowboys & Aliens, Green Lantern and John Carter.

[CConn]

Dude at the end of the day a loss in the hundreds of millions is STILL a loss in the hundreds of millions. No company no matter how lucrative wants to ever face losses like Dreamworks, WB and Disney recently did with Cowboys & Aliens, Green Lantern and John Carter.That wasn't really his point.

I think his point was more than its acceptable for studios to take SOME chances as long as they have monster franchises to keep their profit margin up if the chance doesn't pay off.

It's not about them being fine with failure, it's about them being fine with trying new things. To a certain extent, of course.

[Cain]

That wasn't really his point.

I think his point was more than its acceptable for studios to take SOME chances as long as they have monster franchises to keep their profit margin up if the chance doesn't pay off.

It's not about them being fine with failure, it's about them being fine with trying new things. To a certain extent, of course.


Oh no I get what he means just fine. Allow me to clarify a bit. As you said they will only accept failure to a certain extent. Yes one giant money maker carrying the loss of a financial failure has occurred. However you can't expect a studio with an annual portfolio of projects to tip the scales more in favor of taking risks. It's just not a sensible formula when it comes to making money.

Sadly they do have to "play it safe" like so many proclaim in here because it's the only way to protect their own necks and keep their jobs. If you're a movie studio and have for example 12 big budget major pictures to release in a year it makes no sense to take risks with 4 of those thinking that the other 8 will even everything out just fine in the end. Because if those 4 bomb hugely it's just a much greater loss than taking the same risk on 1 project out of 12.

So with that in mind I definitely understand why WB would rather put out one big budget DC superhero based movie per year like GL last year the sure thing this summer and the new Superman next year. It's a healthier approach financially speaking. Besides it doesn't mean that they won't make anymore DC related movies on the side anyway.

They could release a big budget superhero tentpole and a more modestly budgeted one based on a DC Comics favorite in the same year. They could still take risks on characters that don't have the same mass appeal as their supes that way without getting migraine headaches in the end. Like they did with GL and the Hex movie last summer. Granted they could take much greater care in how they approach them from a quality stand point but I'm not talking about that here.

[DoomsdayApex]

I think the problem with DC is that they don't seem to have enough control over their properties in movie form.

Yes, Batman did well...but it's not REALLY Batman...it's someones take on it...a very different take from the comics.

Green Lantern was just treated badly in every aspect...they had a director with no real vision for the material.

Superman I have high hopes for.

Then clearly you've missed the concept of Batman. The character, and his universe, can be rendered and presented in various different ways. Batman is that diverse.

[DoomsdayApex]

Hearing you talk business strategies is like hearing a 10yo talk about thermodynamics.

:hehe:

[dnno1]

Dude at the end of the day a loss in the hundreds of millions is STILL a loss in the hundreds of millions. No company no matter how lucrative wants to ever face losses like Dreamworks, WB and Disney recently did with Cowboys & Aliens, Green Lantern and John Carter.

Green Lantern didn't lose hundreds of millions of dollars...

[RachelDawes]

The truth is that WB likes to play save, they do not move foward. They have taken some chances with other DC properties but they did not do right to the characters nor DC Comics' writers and artist that have made DC Comics a stable.

Marvel has taken more chances than DC and their film studios has not been around that long. Had Sony loss Spiderman, Marvel would probably concentrate on him. Good thing that it did not happen and opted for an Iron Man film.

WB safe place is always going to be Batman and Superman, regardless of how bad the film does they wait for a few years (decades) and come up with another one. That's just how is always going to be. That old mentality HAS TO GO! All DC Characters are known to comic book fans, in order to expose them to a greater audience they need to push themselves. They need to treat their properties as is the last film that they will put out.

Going thru other venues like Hunger Games will help them financially, but sooner or later they will run out of ideas to make films and DC Comics is by far their biggest story library that they have.

Nah, there will never be a shortage of YA literature that picks up a public following. It's characters like Flash and Aquaman that are major risks.

[Tobias]

Marvel Studios is a sub company of a sub company who's priority is media adaptations of their superhero universe. Most importantly cinematic ones. DC doesn't have that luxury. They don't have the power to setup and develop their own independent films because they don't have an independent division to do it through.

Since WB gets first dibs on the movie rights and DC has no leverage in hollywood like Marvel does through their independent studio you have to be patient. DC can't "lease" their properties without going through Time Warner and Time Warner will not allow that knowing that they have their own movie studio that could distribute and produce these features.

There is no "DC Studios" so they don't have the resources and so far DC Entertainment is completely unproven when it comes to cinematic adaptations. With that in mind how could you credibly critique WB for not having the output of a Marvel Studios?

If cinematic superhero franchises was WB's main priority they probably would be pumping out as much as Marvel Studios is but they aren't. They have a greater scope of cinematic properties beyond superhero franchises.

For example this year so far they had two profitable joints in Journey 2 and Project X. Movies outside of the superhero subgenre. It's not like The Dark Knight Rises will be their bread and butter for 2012 on it's own. So why pursue more superhero ventures outside of 1 a year when you have other projects to tend to?

I mean in 2012 alone they have a few high profile releases coming up like Wrath of the Titans next weekend and Rock of Ages, The Great Gatsby and The Hobbit later in the year. You think they'll just stop all development on those other type of projects to prioritize on DC properties?

They're not going to reduce attention on potential assets to take the "risk" of placating to superhero movie fans only. That would be pretty stupid; especially when they have had no success with DC properties when they've tried in the past outside of Batman.

I say be grateful that they're at least contemplating making a Flash movie someday at this point.

Exactly.

WB has only a finite amount of development dollars each year.

Super-hero films cost so much to make. 140 - 150 million even for less FX dependent heros like Cap.

On a less than 140 million budget Cap did well but was not a huge success in terms of ROI. Not like HG will be or Wedding Crashers was. Or so many other non-comic films.

For WB especially, DC films are a huge risk outside of Batman and JL. I'd argue GL done right could be huge like Bats.

Fans should be grateful that WB continues to make one DC film/year. They really don't need to.

[DoomsdayApex]

Fans should be grateful that WB continues to make one DC film/year. They really don't need to.

Oh yeah they do, in order to keep the rights of character.

And if WB doesn't want to take risks with characters like Aquaman, Wonder Woman and The Flash, then they might as well just sell the characters' rights to the highest bidder.

[Tobias]

Green Lantern didn't lose hundreds of millions of dollars...

GL cost 300 million to produce/market. It took in 222 million WW. WB took a loss of over 100 million on GL at theatres.

DVDs will change GL's loss number but will also change John Carter's.

HG's look like it will make 155 million as of today. GL's total domestic take was 116 million. HG's domestic take in 3 days is just 20 million less than Cap's total domestic take for it's theatre run.

That kind of disparity is not lost on WB.

Super-hero films seem to top out at the high 300 millions to the mid 400 millions. Which is not great shakes in a world with HG's and the Hobbit and such.

There are exceptions like Bats, Spidey and Ironman but they are few and far between.

Given the returns generated by Twilight and HG's and other such fare if anything I could see WB doing fewer DC films going forward. Like skipping a year. I think it's possible there won't be a WB DC film in 2014.

[Tobias]

Oh yeah they do, in order to keep the rights of character.

And if WB doesn't want to take risks with characters like Aquaman, Wonder Woman and The Flash, then they might as well just sell the characters' rights to the highest bidder.

You get no argument from me on that. I don't see why WB doesn't license some DC characters out for a decade and see what happens. WB licensed the film rights to Superman to Canon Films in the late 80s/90s and the TV rights to Superman to Paramount/Viacom at the same time. So there is precedent.

[DoomsdayApex]

You get no argument from me on that. I don't see why WB doesn't license some DC characters out for a decade and see what happens. WB did that with Superman (Canon Films) in the 90s so there is precedent.

Precisely, what's the harm in letting another studio take the risk? If it pays off, then WB can pursue a JLA adaptation a decade from now. If not, no foul done.

[Tobias]

Precisely, what's the harm in letting another studio take the risk? If it pays off, then WB can pursue a JLA adaptation a decade from now. If not, no foul done.

Yup, you'd think it's a no-brainer.

Licensing deals can have hard time limits on them as did WB's with Canon films and Paramount/Viacom. When the 10 year period was over WB used it's option to take the rights back. In the wake of killing off Superman in the comics WB wanted to capitalize on the publicity and do a 'Death of Superman' film. As it turned out their best laid plans led to an almost 15 year development hell.

The Spiderman license is different and was done before there was even the idea of a Marvel Studios. SONY got a great deal. As far as I know that studio can keep the film rights as long as it makes a Spidey film every 5 or 6 years. There is no hard end-date to the agreement. It was poorly written from Marvel's POV.

[HighFivingMF]

Oh yeah they do, in order to keep the rights of character.

That's not true...

[Tobias]

Oh yeah they do, in order to keep the rights of character.

This is not true.

WB owns DC and their characters.

Like who would WB lose the rights to?!

[Parker Wayne]

Yeah that quote confused me to. They're not endanger of losing any of their characters and I think they're only at risk to losing certain aspects of Superman, but the character itself.

[DoomsdayApex]

This is not true.

WB owns DC and their characters.

Like who would WB lose the rights to?!

Wait, I read an article somewhere citing that WB needs to, in either film or television, showcase a character in order to keep the character's rights every so often.

[dnno1]

GL cost 300 million to produce/market. It took in 222 million WW. WB took a loss of over 100 million on GL at theatres.

DVDs will change GL's loss number but will also change John Carter's.

HG's look like it will make 155 million as of today. GL's total domestic take was 116 million. HG's domestic take in 3 days is just 20 million less than Cap's total domestic take for it's theatre run.

That kind of disparity is not lost on WB.

Super-hero films seem to top out at the high 300 millions to the mid 400 millions. Which is not great shakes in a world with HG's and the Hobbit and such.

There are exceptions like Bats, Spidey and Ironman but they are few and far between.

Given the returns generated by Twilight and HG's and other such fare if anything I could see WB doing fewer DC films going forward. Like skipping a year. I think it's possible there won't be a WB DC film in 2014.

Now, wait, wait, wait.

$300 million less $222 million is $78 million. That does not equal hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, it is quite uncertain how much was actually spent on marketing since there were alliances with retailers like Matel Toys, Subway, Reces, Cheetos, et. al. of which some of their advertising $'s helped promote the film. Warner Brothers made money from the licensing (of exact amount was never published) that we haven't accounted for. There were even tax offsets for filming in New Orleans that are not figured in your numbers. I am not saying that "Green Lantern" performed well, but just that it did not lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore if you want to see where CBM's top out at the BO, check out the Spider-Man, Batman, or Iron Man films. All those had films in their franchise (or all of them) topped out at well over $600 million.

[Tobias]

Yeah that quote confused me to. They're not endanger of losing any of their characters and I think they're only at risk to losing certain aspects of Superman, but the character itself.

This is true. Except for Superman, DC (and by extension WB) owns virtually all of these characters free and clear. No heirs waiting in the wings to sue.

It will only be an issue for WB decades down the road when these characters go public and anyone is free to use them. That is 30 or 40 yhears away however.

Superman is different. DC does not own the character. The heirs do as of late next year. Or own the core elements - name Superman, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Krypton.

So in Superman's case it's true WB can't make any more Superman films after MOS. Or use Superman in a JL film when WB eventually does JL.

Otherwise Flash, WW, Aquaman - you name it - ain't going anywhere.

[dnno1]

Exactly.

WB has only a finite amount of development dollars each year.

Super-hero films cost so much to make. 140 - 150 million even for less FX dependent heros like Cap.

On a less than 140 million budget Cap did well but was not a huge success in terms of ROI. Not like HG will be or Wedding Crashers was. Or so many other non-comic films.

For WB especially, DC films are a huge risk outside of Batman and JL. I'd argue GL done right could be huge like Bats.

Fans should be grateful that WB continues to make one DC film/year. They really don't need to.

"Hunter Games" did well because they have a captured audience. The book is required reading at a lot of schools and young adults enjoyed the story (my daughter was one of them). If the CBM's want to share the same success they will have to do something similar. Spiderman and Iron Man were successful franchises because of brand awareness. Over the past 25 years both these characters have been in animated television series and a large cross section of people recognize the character. In addition the appeal of a character like Tony Stark with all of his cool gadgets or Peter Parker who seems to have nothing go right for him seems to appeal to large audiences.

[Tobias]

Now, wait, wait, wait.

$300 million less $222 million is $78 million. That does not equal hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, it is quite uncertain how much was actually spent on marketing since there were alliances with retailers like Matel Toys, Subway, Reces, Cheetos, et. al. of which some of their advertising $'s helped promote the film. Warner Brothers made money from the licensing (of exact amount was never published) that we haven't accounted for. There were even tax offsets for filming in New Orleans that are not figured in your numbers. I am not saying that "Green Lantern" performed well, but just that it did not lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore if you want to see where CBM's top out at the BO, check out the Spider-Man, Batman, or Iron Man films. All those had films in their franchise (or all of them) topped out at well over $600 million.

No, the studio gets just around 50% of the box office receipts. You think theatres and distribution groups are showing films for free.

50% of 222 million is 112 million. Making for a loss, based on theatre receipts, of 188 million.

Yes, down the road DVD sales will reduce the huge GL loss but they will also reduce the huge John Carter loss.

[KingMadness]

The answer to the TC's question is simple really. WB/DC went wrong with Green Lantern. GL was the doorway to all of the other obscure characters, how they could mess this opportunity up the way they did is still a mystery to me this day.

[Mulholland '49]

I don't understand why it's so hard to make a Flash movie... You could EASILY make a Flash movie work with a 100 mill dollar budget.

[HighFivingMF]

I don't understand why it's so hard to make a Flash movie... You could EASILY make a Flash movie work with a 100 mill dollar budget.

How do you know how much a Flash movie would cost?

[metaphysician]

Well, you could leverage camera effects and scene cuts for a lot of stuff. However, I don't think it'd necessarily be that cheap, unless done cheaply.

[Docker2.0]

I don't understand why it's so hard to make a Flash movie... You could EASILY make a Flash movie work with a 100 mill dollar budget.

Agreed! I'd say do a Green Arrow movie or even Nightwing for around $60-70M, all you need is a great script.

[solidsnake86]

Precisely, what's the harm in letting another studio take the risk? If it pays off, then WB can pursue a JLA adaptation a decade from now. If not, no foul done.

The harm is when you have to answer to the board of directors/shareholders of the company you work for. Say they give the rights of the flash to fox. Fox takes it and turns the movie into an iron man success. The directors/shareholders of WB are going to fire whoever is in charge of development, at this point robinov. As the head of greenlighting projects wouldnt you question him if another studio turned it into a successful movie. I wouldnt want that guy running my business.

They sold the rights to Red, and that movie made money for summit, I remember reading that someone said WB would never let that happen again.

[dnno1]

No, the studio gets just around 50% of the box office receipts. You think theatres and distribution groups are showing films for free.

50% of 222 million is 112 million. Making for a loss, based on theatre receipts, of 188 million.

Yes, down the road DVD sales will reduce the huge GL loss but they will also reduce the huge John Carter loss.

Um.. The WB did all the distribution on Green Lantern. With the tax incentives the production costs look more like $154 million, meaning they would have needed to make only $281 million to show a profit. Since they made around $222 (box office take) that would mean they only came up a little over $60 million short. That is still not hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Bruce Malone]

^^^

You don't understand how studio costs work especially when movies cost over 200 million before marketing.

Take John Carter for example it also cost 200 million and it's actually made more money WW than green lantern did already and yet disney is still saying it is losing 200 million on it.

WB is much too proud a company to admit it's financial loses compared to a company like disney which is much more upfront. WB pretty much waited til GL was out theatres before they admitted it was a diassapointment, comapred to disney's 1st week statemet on jc. I'd wager gl cost WB nearly as much as john carter cost disney.

[Bruce_Begins]

Green Lantern had a staggered release dates throughout the world, meaning that it was not simultaneously released worldwide but in phases spread out over a period of three months.

Admitting that it was a failure after first week when you are due to release the movie in various countries over a period of three months would be incredibly stupid, what would be benefit of that ?

[Parker Wayne]

Staggered releases are pretty stupid. That's actually what ruins some movies in terms of box office. And studies have revealed that staggered release dates hurt ticket sales more than piracy.

[Bruce Malone]

Yeah I would compare Gl's staggered release to a slow painful death spread out, as opposed to JC's quick and (maybe not painless).

I wasn't saying WB should have admitted GL was a flop right away, I'm saying just because they weren't upfront about it's losses does not mean they were not significant.

[Bruce_Begins]

Green Lantern actually did fairly decent collection at Box Office in the First week -

Green Lantern: Opening Week ------$53.2 mil.
(Production Budget: 200 mil.)

John Carter : Opening Week-------- -$30.18 mil.
(Production Budget: 250 mil.)

Prince Of Persia: Opening Weekend--- $30.09 mil.
(Production Budget: 200 mil.)

[Parker Wayne]

Neither of them did well. When you consider the fact that WB spent $300+ million, and only made around $220 million, that movie failed.

John Carter may end up making more than Green Lantern because of overseas success, but it's not going to be a huge hit and I don't see a sequel happening.

[Bruce_Begins]

Neither of them did well. When you consider the fact that WB spent $300+ million, and only made around $220 million, that movie failed.

John Carter may end up making more than Green Lantern because of overseas success, but it's not going to be a huge hit and I don't see a sequel happening.

You are correct in stating that neither of these movies were successful, but in case of GL you have added the production cost and Marketing cost together making it 300 mil.

If we were to do the same and add the production cost of 250 mil.(John Carter) with average marketing cost for a big budget movie these days (about 70 mil.)

then it becomes 250+70 = 320 mil for john carter.

Now to break even any movie needs to earn roughly double its production cost plus it's marketing costs that is -

500 mil + 70 mil = 570 mil.

I don't see John Carter making that much money.

[Bruce Malone]

Green Lantern actually did fairly decent collection at Box Office in the First week -

Green Lantern: Opening Week ------$53.2 mil.
(Production Budget: 200 mil.)

John Carter : Opening Week-------- -$30.18 mil.
(Production Budget: 250 mil.)

Prince Of Persia: Opening Weekend--- $30.09 mil.
(Production Budget: 200 mil.)

I believe that is 3d inflation, correct me if i'm wrong but i don't believe either jc or pop opened in 3d? If so i think in tickets sales the 1st week would probably be not too far off the other two.

And yes as the above poster has mentioned when you have films that cost 200 million in production and another 100 milliion in marketing you need at least 500+ milllion to break even. i think for jc it's 530.

[Parker Wayne]

Ticket sales doesn't matter in this case when you're talking about actual box office receipts and costs.

[The Morningstar]

A movie that costs 200 million and upwards needs to open with like, 100 million, at least.

50 million OW is acceptable, for a movie that cost no more than 100-150 million to make.

Problem with GL was that it was made by committee. Instead of the director have a real vision that he wanted, the vision of the movie came from all over the place. Writers, producers, studio execs, Geoff Johns. In fact, i imagine Martin Campbell had the least amount of creative input out of all of them.

And the thing is, all those writers, producers, director, advisors obviously weren't on the same wave length. This is the difference between Marvel and DC/WB. Marvel, for the most part, all share the same vision, they all GET these characters. And they choose their directors very carefully so that their style and craft matches the character they are working on.

Shakespearian fantasy with intimate family drama- Kenneth Branagh
Old school style pulp adventures- Joe Johnston
Large ensemble which requires strong individuals- Joss Whedon

Epic cosmic space opera- Martin Campbell?!?! WTF?!!?

[Octoberist]

But Thor did well due to Kenneth's background in Shakespeare. Though he overdid the Dutch angle camera shots, the movie itself was decent.

I'd admit, I thought that Martin Campbell would have been good. But I also feel like it's too much for him. James Bond has been around for decades, so it's easier for him to weed out what made those films work prior.

With Green Lantern, you have to create a whole new world, and he's not the type for that type of 'world-building'.

[The Morningstar]

Well that's what i mean, Marvel carefully chose the directors for their properties.

Campbell being picked for Green Lantern stunk of some meeting of execs and picking a credible director out of a hat, instead of actually thinking about who would be a good choice for the project. I mean, how do you look at Zorro, Goldeneye and Casino Royale... then think the guy who made those would be suited to Green Lantern? It's pure idiocy.

Me personally? I would have chose someone like Alex Proyas. Someone who is well verse in sci-fi and is great at visual story telling.

[Octoberist]

Yeah, I think Martin meant well but I think he was relying on what made 'Avatar' successful, and misinterpreted everything completely.

For example, I think Oa and the alien could have benefited if they used a better CG company, but I think Martin didn't realize that Sony Imagework sucks. I think, in his mind, "Oh, let's recapture the CG magic of Avatar with Oa!'

Also, another failure was the suit, which was so counter-productive to the budget and a waste of man-power.

It was just bad decisions galore.

[The Morningstar]

Yep. But like i said before, I question the amount of actual creative control Campbell had. Especially when it came to the designs of Oa, the suit and the aliens etc.

Definitely right about the suit. That must have cost soooo much money. And it was needless. I mean yea, I actually think it looked cool, but they could have got the same results with a practical suit, touched up with CGI, like Tron Legacy.

[jmc]

In fairness on paper Martin looked at worst a solid choice.

[Octoberist]

Yeah, that's what I thought..initially.

[The Morningstar]

Ehhh, i just thought it was an odd choice to begin with. Then after seeing the film I just thought that it was a film made by committee. The director didn't have his own vision and was just along for the ride whilst Johns and a bunch of execs piloted the thing.

I can literally imagine conversations where all these artists are presenting Campbell with concept art etc. And Campbell is just like "Oh that's cool, i guess".

This is in no way a slight against Campbell as a director. Casino Royale is one of my favourite ever movies. But I just don't think he had any vision or real passion for Green Lantern, and it shows.

[Tobias]

Um.. The WB did all the distribution on Green Lantern. With the tax incentives the production costs look more like $154 million, meaning they would have needed to make only $281 million to show a profit. Since they made around $222 (box office take) that would mean they only came up a little over $60 million short. That is still not hundreds of millions of dollars.

WB lost way more than 60 million. I didn't add marketing costs in. Another 80 million cost right there.

Plus the budget is per WB and all studios play that down especially when a film fails.

Based on theatre run alone, indications are WB took a loss approaching 200 million on GL.

When all is said and done and even after DVD sales, WB will take a loss on GL.

Just look at SR. It lost around 100 million in it's theatre run and after DVD sales and licensing agreements barely made that up. WB made just 10 or 20 million after all was said and done on SR. A dismal amount given the 300 million or more it cost to make/market.

[The Guard]

Problem with GL was that it was made by committee. Instead of the director have a real vision that he wanted, the vision of the movie came from all over the place. Writers, producers, studio execs, Geoff Johns. In fact, i imagine Martin Campbell had the least amount of creative input out of all of them.

Every movie is made by committee in a sense. This is not neccessarily an explanation for its failure. Its a buzzterm people throw out when they can't come up with a solid explanation.

The Green Lantern script is quite similar to the initial draft, which was NOT made by committee. There are some changes to characters (changing Legion to Parallax), but they are relatively minor ones structurally and storywise. The designs are largely comic book based.

You're imagining that he had the least amount of creative input, but you don't know that. That seems like a rather silly assumption to make about a veteran director.

And the thing is, all those writers, producers, director, advisors obviously weren't on the same wave length.

Based on what? GREEN LANTERN has a very clear tone and approach.

Marvel, for the most part, all share the same vision, they all GET these characters. And they choose their directors very carefully so that their style and craft matches the character they are working on.

Shakespearian fantasy with intimate family drama- Kenneth Branagh
Old school style pulp adventures- Joe Johnston
Large ensemble which requires strong individuals- Joss Whedon

Epic cosmic space opera- Martin Campbell?!?! WTF?!!?

And this would make sense...except that the space/sci fi/fantasy elements tended to be most people's favorites, and a strength of the film.

I mean, how do you look at Zorro, Goldeneye and Casino Royale... then think the guy who made those would be suited to Green Lantern? It's pure idiocy

No it's not. It's a calculated risk.

You just answered your question. Why choose Campbell? Because of two Zorro films, and two of the better recent Bond movies. A director who had proven himself adept at swashbuckling adventure, decent humor, large scale, authentic action, and getting good performances out of actors. So he should have been discounted because he'd never made a superhero movie or a space opera? How many directors have? To suggest that the visuals in Green Lantern were poor, or that its space elements were a weakness, and that somehow it bears out that Martin Campbell was just the wrong choice for the job is just ridiculous.

There are so many "assumptions" and "groupthink" surrounding the production and failure of Green Lantern, and so much of it is just illogical and absurd.

Yep. But like i said before, I question the amount of actual creative control Campbell had. Especially when it came to the designs of Oa, the suit and the aliens etc.

And what was wrong with those?

Ehhh, i just thought it was an odd choice to begin with. Then after seeing the film I just thought that it was a film made by committee. The director didn't have his own vision and was just along for the ride whilst Johns and a bunch of execs piloted the thing.

"Along for the ride"?

You think Martin Campbell, the director of the film, was along for the ride, while Geoff Johns, who was a script/story/source material consultant at best, piloted the thing?

Based on what?

There are plenty of instances where directors don't handle every aspect of the filmmaking process by themselves, especially on a project as creatively complex as Green Lantern, requiring concept art, designwork, and CGI work. That doesn't mean he wasn't involved fully.

Of course WB execs were involved on some level. It was a $200 million movie about an unproven character.

I can literally imagine conversations where all these artists are presenting Campbell with concept art etc. And Campbell is just like "Oh that's cool, i guess".

Why?

This is in no way a slight against Campbell as a director. Casino Royale is one of my favourite ever movies. But I just don't think he had any vision or real passion for Green Lantern, and it shows.

It kind of is a slight against him. Because you seem to think he wouldn't care about the look of the film.

What do you feel "real vision" and "passion" entails, exactly?

I see a man that put the comic book mythology onscreen with some minor changes. He did not tell the most adult story possible, but he did treat the character with respect. If that's not some kind of passion for the character, I don't know what is.

I know what "vision" is, and there's a very clear vision to the approach taken with Green Lantern. It just isn't what most people responded to.

It's not like THOR is what it is because Kenneth Branagh had a particular vision or that CAPTAIN AMERICA is what it is because Johnston had a particular vision. These are also big movies made by committee in a sense.

[The Morningstar]

The results speak for themselves. Green Lantern is garbage. Martin Campbell is a great director. Put 2 and 2 together.

I know you like GL, but you are in a very, very, very small minority who think it's a good or even mediocre film.

[The Guard]

Which doesn't at all respond to anything I asked you.

I may be in the minority, but I'm also in the minority who bothers to think in terms that aren't black and white, "amazing" or "garbage", and who does things like analyze elements of a film rather than just labeling them "good" and "bad" based on popular opinion.

I'll keep my crappy sponges, thanks.

[The Morningstar]

I don't look at films in black and white. I analyse elements of film. And with GL i see a garbage film.

But i'll indulge you.

He knows nothing about the comics and has no interest in them. Therefore, he has no passion or real understanding of them. He also has zero knowledge and experience with sci-fi.

He also has zero experience of working with actors who are standing in big green vacuum's and have to imagine things that are not really there. You say he gets great performances out of his actors? Maybe so. But directing actors on sets or on locations is sooooo completely different to directing actors on green screen sound stages.

The whole movie was an uninspired mess. Sure it was like the comics were put onto the screen, but so what? That doesn't mean it's good. That to me says people like Geoff Johns were the main driving force behind the look and tone of the movie. Problem with that is, Geoff Johns isn't a film maker, he's not even a good comic book writer anymore. The movie did not have anything resembling Martin Campbell film making traits. It didn't have a likeable lead. It had awkward, unfunny humour. It had wooden performances from pretty much everyone apart from Mark Strong. It had uninspiring action scenes, ironic considering the heroes powers are all about imagination. It just didn't even feel like a film with a heart and soul, it felt like a cold, sterile "product" that doesn't exist to be a great piece of art, but a successful product that opens the doors for other products. The vapid sequal bait pre-credit scene is a true indication of this. DC/WB were more bothered about just getting this done and out of the way so they could move onto other "products".

In summery, I think Campbell was nothing more than a "face" for a film that was made by committee. I think he went along for the ride and the fat paycheck and didn't really give a **** about the film or the mythology. Why do you think he hasn't come out and said anything after the fact? I bet he wants to just completely forget about it. I don't blame him.

[Cain]

he's not even a good comic book writer anymore.

whoa what?!? you say this based on what exactly?

Justice League is a ****** read if you're a veteran comic book reader and not an extremely casual fan yes. It's definitely why I dropped the book and replaced it with something I care to read. But it's still well written enough for it's mass audience to happily consume it every month.

I haven't seen anybody who is either returning or new to collecting comic books bad mouth the writing in the book. I've seen the opposite; people that enjoy it and find it engaging even if I really really don't. It's meant to be the flagship book that is basically a gateway for readers getting into comic books and it's doing it's job pretty competently.

To say he's not a good comic book writer anymore overall is just BS. Aquaman is one of the most entertaining reads every single month. Fans and critics alike agree with that sentiment and it's made the book a top 10 staple every month which was unheard of when it came to previous volumes of the book. The main GL book has also definitely picked back up in terms of quality after the whole War of the Green Lanterns arc. I think you may be in the minority on this one.

[The Morningstar]

To be fair i haven't read any Aquaman. But his GL work is garbage. He hasn't written a good GL book since Sinestro Corps War. He chops and changes things to suit his stories, even contradicting his own writing just because he feels like it. Mainly to make Hal Jordan the most awesome, bad ass, super awesome dude that ever existed. It's basically professional fan fiction.

He is a pale shadow of the writer who did Stars and STRIPE, JSA and Flash back in the day.

And comic sales don't mean ****. The vast majority of comic book readers are zombies who read what they are told to by the companies.

[solidsnake86]

And comic sales don't mean ****. The vast majority of comic book readers are zombies who read what they are told to by the companies.

and that makes them what... unimportant. Or are you only a real fan because you read obscure books that no one cares about.

I don't really care all that much about comics but I find the fans who post on message boards funny. You have no clue what the vast majority of comic readers are like and what they think about those books.

[The Morningstar]

No it's pretty clear. Marvel or DC say "This is the flagship event book". Comic book readers gobble them up. The vast majority read books based on what is "important" to the status quo, regardless of quality. I've actually lost count the amount of times i've heard people complaining about how crap a book is... then taken it up to the counter and buying it.

That's just how the industry works. "Important" books, the books the companies say are essential or tie into big events, sell well no matter how crap or good they are.

[The Morningstar]

No it's pretty clear. Marvel or DC say "This is the flagship event book". Comic book readers gobble them up. The vast majority read books based on what is "important" to the status quo, regardless of quality. I've actually lost count the amount of times i've heard people complaining about how crap a book is... then taken it up to the counter and buying it.

That's just how the industry works. "Important" books, the "franchise" books with the big name characters, the books the companies say are essential or tie into big events, sell well no matter how crap or good they are.

[The Guard]

I don't look at films in black and white. I analyse elements of film. And with GL i see a garbage film.

I don't see you analyzing. I see you using adjectives to broadly describe key elements of an entire film.

He knows nothing about the comics and has no interest in them. Therefore, he has no passion or real understanding of them. He also has zero knowledge and experience with sci-fi.

...

And yet, the film clearly has oodles and oodles of comic book inspiration in it.

The film also has quite a bit of science fiction.

Where were his missteps in those regards, exactly?

He also has zero experience of working with actors who are standing in big green vacuum's and have to imagine things that are not really there. You say he gets great performances out of his actors? Maybe so. But directing actors on sets or on locations is sooooo completely different to directing actors on green screen sound stages.

None of which explains to me why you think he failed in these respects. Why you're trying to use these statements to suggest he shouldn't have been hired to direct. He got good performances, green screen or not.

The whole movie was an uninspired mess. Sure it was like the comics were put onto the screen, but so what? That doesn't mean it's good. That to me says people like Geoff Johns were the main driving force behind the look and tone of the movie.

Then you're assuming, and you haven't followed this project.

The lion's share of the tone and content of this movie was set when the first script was written by Berlanti and comany, long before Geoff Johns ever became heavily involved.

Problem with that is, Geoff Johns isn't a film maker, he's not even a good comic book writer anymore. The movie did not have anything resembling Martin Campbell film making traits.

"Martin Campbell filmmaking traits"?

Not sure what you mean by that. He's what you call "versatile". His films don't all have to look the same, or feel the same.

It didn't have a likeable lead. It had awkward, unfunny humour. It had wooden performances from pretty much everyone apart from Mark Strong.

These are your opinions, and you are welcome to them, but frankly, I don't agree, and I don't think you really understand what a wooden performance is.

It had uninspiring action scenes

I didn't think so, and neither did plenty of others. I rather liked much of the action. It wasn't as big as it could have been, but it absolutely stood up to much of what is out there superherowise.

-Abin Sur's initial action, a kinectic exciting, effects laden combat sequence.
-An aerial dogfight, combat sequence, fairly unique in films since oh, the late 80's or so
-A relatively brutal fightfight in the parking lot
-An exciting swordfight with Sinestro that turns into a battle of rings.
Hal punches a giant fear monster into the Sun.
-Hal rescues Ferris party using giant Hot Wheels track.
-A flying, pseudo aerial combat use if powers against Hector Hammond.
-Pretty much everything between Hal and Parallax was a unique action beat.

ironic considering the heroes powers are all about imagination.

What's ironic now? You can't see where the imagination comes in in terms of the action and the use of powers?

It just didn't even feel like a film with a heart and soul, it felt like a cold, sterile "product" that doesn't exist to be a great piece of art, but a successful product that opens the doors for other products.

"Heart and soul". What does that even mean in context? It sounds like you're just rambling off a bunch of buzz words. You've not made a single, solid point about the film, you're just using adjectives.

The vapid sequal bait pre-credit scene is a true indication of this. DC/WB were more bothered about just getting this done and out of the way so they could move onto other "products".

Uh...no.

They took quite a lot of time and put quite a lot of effort into Green Lantern. The studio makes many products at once, so that's kind of irrelevant.

In summery, I think Campbell was nothing more than a "face" for a film that was made by committee. I think he went along for the ride and the fat paycheck and didn't really give a **** about the film or the mythology. Why do you think he hasn't come out and said anything after the fact? I bet he wants to just completely forget about it. I don't blame him.

Think what you want. Logic dictates otherwise.

[Cain]

Yeah sales don't mean **** and the only books that sell are the shallow ones because monthly comic book readers are all sheep that follow anything the big 2 dictate :whatever:

Look man I won't argue with you that a lot of crappy books pull big numbers. Just look at The Dark Knight or any of that New Avengers trash. At the same time though if Swamp Thing, Animal Man and Daredevil weren't pullin in solid sales every month they probably would've ended up cancelled since they're not the most popular characters around.

Same with Hickman's Fantastic Four run; if that didn't catch on with solid sales due to it's consistency they'd probably botch it up and put another "A-list" writer like Millar who doesn't really know what to do with those characters. At this point in time those are some of the best books from the mainstream publishers without question.

Now a days you could find more than just 3 or 4 well written books in the top 20. You could find about 8 on average; which is a huge improvement for the industry after the last couple of years. If a lot of those books didn't pull in the sales they pull we would just see more of the shallow garbage that the other books in the top 20 consist of instead. So sales DO mean ****.

[Docker2.0]

DC should try to get some A-list actors to commit to their company if it's possible. Marvel got Robert Downey Jr., who basically made his comeback with them and is almost their spokesperson. They could have had Edward Norton as well but it didn't work out so now they have Ruffalo who's a big name as well. Not to mention Samuel Jackson, Jeremy Renner, and Scarlett.....................I think even though GL didn't do as well as they hoped, they should do a sequel with a smaller budget, keep Ryan Reynolds as GL, get Jessica Biel or even Justin Timberlake, someone that has a name that would commit and even though the suits at DC say they don't want to copy Marvel's style, they may not have a choice. Marvel having a shared universe has tons of potential and even gives the fanboys something to look for in all kinds of easter eggs. With GL, TDK, and I'm sure MOS will follow suit, there seems to be barely any easter eggs at all. The only one that I can think of was Clooney's line when he stated that Superman works alone. Even though the Avengers will probably do wonders at the box office, a JLA movie, if done right, would challenge the Avengers and in all likely hood beat it as well.

Also, I think DC is getting it right by giving GL his cartoon but they have to build on it which they seem to be doing with Young Justice and DC nation. For the first time, they finally got out of the Superman/Batman related cartoons and looking more in their closets. I actually wish CW or even Syfy would have done the Booster Gold tv show because it would have been gold if done right. Arrow is looking more and more like it's going to be the new version of Smallville but again, it's a start in the right direction. Right now Marvel has like 8 cartoons on multiple networks, and they plan on copying DC's nation with their own version of it. Marvel seems to have no problem copying DC when necessary and I don't see why DC/WB doesn't do the same.

Just my two cents. :o

[Octoberist]

man Green Lantern sucked ;)

[The Morningstar]

I don't see you analyzing. I see you using adjectives to broadly describe key elements of an entire film.

Because you don't agree with me and think a garbage film is good...



...

And yet, the film clearly has oodles and oodles of comic book inspiration in it.

The film also has quite a bit of science fiction.

Where were his missteps in those regards, exactly?

Who gives a **** if it has oodles of comic book inspiration or science fiction? Just because it's there doesn't mean it's done well.



None of which explains to me why you think he failed in these respects. Why you're trying to use these statements to suggest he shouldn't have been hired to direct. He got good performances, green screen or not.

No he didn't. Live in your little dream world where Green Lantern was a good movie. Sorry, it wasn't.



Then you're assuming, and you haven't followed this project.

The lion's share of the tone and content of this movie was set when the first script was written by Berlanti and comany, long before Geoff Johns ever became heavily involved.

If you don't think Johns was involved with the conception and writing of the script you're on a different planet.



"Martin Campbell filmmaking traits"?

Not sure what you mean by that. He's what you call "versatile". His films don't all have to look the same, or feel the same.



These are your opinions, and you are welcome to them, but frankly, I don't agree, and I don't think you really understand what a wooden performance is.

Yes i do. A wooden performance is a performance that is unbelievable and shows no life or emotion. Pretty much characterises the entire cast apart from Mark Strong.

You are welcome to your opinion, doesn't mean it isn't wrong. GL is a bad film, it's that simple. But is it wrong for people to enjoy it? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with enjoying bad films, more people need to adopt that mentality. What bothers me though is when someone claims a fundamentally bad film is a good one.



I didn't think so, and neither did plenty of others. I rather liked much of the action. It wasn't as big as it could have been, but it absolutely stood up to much of what is out there superherowise.

-Abin Sur's initial action, a kinectic exciting, effects laden combat sequence.
-An aerial dogfight, combat sequence, fairly unique in films since oh, the late 80's or so
-A relatively brutal fightfight in the parking lot
-An exciting swordfight with Sinestro that turns into a battle of rings.
Hal punches a giant fear monster into the Sun.
-Hal rescues Ferris party using giant Hot Wheels track.
-A flying, pseudo aerial combat use if powers against Hector Hammond.
-Pretty much everything between Hal and Parallax was a unique action beat.

The action was crap. The training montage was laughable. So was the final fight. It doesn't matter if it looks cool, if the context behind it is crap, it's a crap, redundant action scene.

So this cosmic being of near infinite power that can destroy entire planets is stupid enough to get sucked into the ****ing sun?

Can't you see how utterly crap that is?

Hal trains for literally 5 minutes with Sinestro and Kilowog, then runs off home like a little *****? Can't you see how much that short changed the fans and also made Hal out to be a ****ing lame lead character? And then you have this stupid line from Kilowog at the end "I know how to train them!" WTF? Complete and utter waste of a character.

The dog fight? Please. Again further displays why Hal is a prick.

Fact is no one likes Hal. And when no one likes or at least can connect to your titular character, you have failed. It really is as simple as that.


What's ironic now? You can't see where the imagination comes in in terms of the action and the use of powers?

Cool SFX and bright colours don't make a great action scene.


"Heart and soul". What does that even mean in context? It sounds like you're just rambling off a bunch of buzz words. You've not made a single, solid point about the film, you're just using adjectives.

You know exactly what i mean. But because i'm trashing a movie you like you're playing coy.


Uh...no.

They took quite a lot of time and put quite a lot of effort into Green Lantern. The studio makes many products at once, so that's kind of irrelevant.



Think what you want. Logic dictates otherwise.

Logic dictates that i'm right, seeing as the film is a sterile, soulless piece of crap that the director clearly doesn't want anything to do with anymore. And who clearly wasn't enthused or passionate about the project to begin with. It is clear to anyone that Green Lantern was a soulless cash in that WB hoped would open the floodgates.

But hey, carry on living in your dream world and accept the giant turd and absolutely huge waste of potential and money that Green Lantern is. Like i said, it's great that you and a few others enjoy it. But to not accept that it is a terrible film that isn't worthy of the GL name and mythos, well, you're doing yourself a disservice. Because if more people had that mentality, there would be no motive for the film makers to do anything different and you'd just get more of the same.

Because lets put this into perspective, GL being a critical and financial disaster will hopefully make the people responsible for it sit up and realise they did something wrong. If GL was successful we'd just get more of the same, and that would be the real crime.

[jmc]

DC should try to get some A-list actors to commit to their company if it's possible. Marvel got Robert Downey Jr., who basically made his comeback with them and is almost their spokesperson. They could have had Edward Norton as well but it didn't work out so now they have Ruffalo who's a big name as well. Not to mention Samuel Jackson, Jeremy Renner, and Scarlett.....................I think even though GL didn't do as well as they hoped, they should do a sequel with a smaller budget, keep Ryan Reynolds as GL, get Jessica Biel or even Justin Timberlake, someone that has a name that would commit and even though the suits at DC say they don't want to copy Marvel's style, they may not have a choice. Marvel having a shared universe has tons of potential and even gives the fanboys something to look for in all kinds of easter eggs. With GL, TDK, and I'm sure MOS will follow suit, there seems to be barely any easter eggs at all. The only one that I can think of was Clooney's line when he stated that Superman works alone. Even though the Avengers will probably do wonders at the box office, a JLA movie, if done right, would challenge the Avengers and in all likely hood beat it as well.

Also, I think DC is getting it right by giving GL his cartoon but they have to build on it which they seem to be doing with Young Justice and DC nation. For the first time, they finally got out of the Superman/Batman related cartoons and looking more in their closets. I actually wish CW or even Syfy would have done the Booster Gold tv show because it would have been gold if done right. Arrow is looking more and more like it's going to be the new version of Smallville but again, it's a start in the right direction. Right now Marvel has like 8 cartoons on multiple networks, and they plan on copying DC's nation with their own version of it. Marvel seems to have no problem copying DC when necessary and I don't see why DC/WB doesn't do the same.

Just my two cents. :o

You realize the actors don't care about 'brand loyalty' right?

[Docker2.0]

You realize the actors don't care about 'brand loyalty' right?

You are kind of missing the point. Get an actor into a contract and to commit to their brand. RDJ has seem to become Marvel's spokesperson and has committed to numerous films. They locked up Helmsworth, Evans, and Samuel Jackson as well. Angela Bassett was willing to be DC's Fury and even she said the guy's at WB/DC wasn't thinking long term when it comes to their characters and how to market and get them out.

[Parker Wayne]

You are kind of missing the point. Get an actor into a contract and to commit to their brand. RDJ has seem to become Marvel's spokesperson and has committed to numerous films. They locked up Helmsworth, Evans, and Samuel Jackson as well. Angela Bassett was willing to be DC's Fury and even she said the guy's at WB/DC wasn't thinking long term when it comes to their characters and how to market and get them out.

I think instead of actors, they need to get better directors to commit to them the same way they got Nolan to commit to them.

WB simply put their eggs in the wrong basket both times in the last 10 years with DCU superhero movies with Bryan Singer and Martin Campbell.

Bryan Singer sounded like a good choice, but his nostalgic love for Superman (especially Donnerverse Superman) got in the way of him trying to make a great movie. He should have made a new Superman movie for this generation, but instead we got love letter to Richard Donner's Superman and in my opinion, we got an underwhelming movie that hurting the Superman franchise (but not that much).

Martin Campbell, as others said, was not a sci-fi guy or a guy who has really worked at CGI before. You can say the same about Kenneth Branagh, but Branagh never done action at all before and there are traces of Shakespearean elements in Thor that made the story work and ultimately made that movie successful, especially with Loki. Branagh has shown to do a specific kind of action, which is the practical, stuntman approach. It sounded like a solid choice for WB, but as Morningstar said, he was overwhelmed by it all. With the ballooning budget and constant reshoots, Campbell lost control of the movie.

What I think WB should do is to do what they did when they found Nolan. They should look back into hiring indie directors or up and coming directors to get their movies. Veterans aren't working, and it partially worked for Watchmen (as in it worked better Green Lantern). Marvel got Favreau when he was coming into his own as a filmmaker. Maybe younger directors can help provide a new voice for it, and it seems they are doing that for Man of Steel. I don't fully like the choice of Snyder, but at the same time I feel like he's going to take the character in new and possibly an unprecedented direction.

[The Guard]

Because you don't agree with me and think a garbage film is good...

No. I don't believe you are not analyzing simply because I don't agree with you, but rather because I don't see you doing any analyzing. I think GREEN LANTERN is okay. It's got some very nice moments, and they got a lot right. There were a couple of key missteps, and a few more glaring flaws.

Who gives a **** if it has oodles of comic book inspiration or science fiction? Just because it's there doesn't mean it's done well.

You're creating strawman arguments. We weren't discussing whether it was done well.

I know you don't like the film. I know you don't think it was done well. I don't need you to tell me that in response to everything I said.

We were discussing whether Martin Campbell was appropriate for the role of director of GREEN LANTERN. You suggested he was not because he didn't know/like the comics, and because he was untested with regard to science fiction.

I'm asking how that is borne out by your examples. I asked where he failed in this regard.

I'm asking...where were his missteps in regard to the source material and the science fiction elements of the movie? Not the script's. Where were Campbell's?

If you don't think Johns was involved with the conception and writing of the script you're on a different planet.

I didn't say that he wasn't involved. I know he was. I said he was not the one who chose the tone and approach of the film. That was on paper in the original draft of the script...years before he was ever directly involved with the project.

Yes i do. A wooden performance is a performance that is unbelievable and shows no life or emotion. Pretty much characterises the entire cast apart from Mark Strong.

A wooden performance is a performance that is stiff and unnatural. You sort of know what it is, but you apparently have no ability to judge it, because you're implyin that the entire cast gave them. The only performance in the film that shows no "life" or "emotion" is the one delivered by Tim Robbins, and even that one is not that bad. A good amount of critics and fans praised the performance of Reynolds and Lively, for instance. Angela Basset certainly wasn't bad, and its quite clear that Saarsgard, Strong and Rush weren't.

You are welcome to your opinion, doesn't mean it isn't wrong. GL is a bad film, it's that simple. But is it wrong for people to enjoy it? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with enjoying bad films, more people need to adopt that mentality. What bothers me though is when someone claims a fundamentally bad film is a good one.

It isn't a fundamentally bad film. It's an average film with missteps. Saying words like "bad" and "wooden" doesn't make it these, especially if you don't bother to point to examples.

There's a difference between you just flat not liking something, and something being an actual, tangible creative flaw.

At this point, you're just engaging in hyperbole. If you have any ability analyze a performance or a piece of art, I haven't seen it, because you just keep using adjectives to describe your final impression.

If you just want to spout your opinion, fine. I find that kind of ranting kind of boring.

The action was crap. The training montage was laughable. So was the final fight. It doesn't matter if it looks cool, if the context behind it is crap, it's a crap, redundant action scene.

Allow me to retort in kind:

No it wasn't. The action was great. The training montage was great. The final fight was stupendous. It looked amazing, and the context was perfect.

See what I mean? There's no discussion going on here...just adjectives. This is no way to analyze a film. You have apparently already analyzed it, but what your basis for it is, I cannot tell. That's what I'm trying to discern.

So this cosmic being of near infinite power that can destroy entire planets is stupid enough to get sucked into the ****ing sun?

Apparently. Yes.

No one ever said Parallax was particularly intelligent, just that it was a powerful being of fear.

Can't you see how utterly crap that is?[/quote\

A cloud of fear chasing Green Lantern through space until he is sucked into the SUn, and Green Lantern, through sheer force of will, resits its pull?

No, that's way too unique a concept for me to think its "crap". I can see how its a little silly and over the top, but we're talking about Green Lantern's universe, and a being made of fear light.

[quote\Hal trains for literally 5 minutes with Sinestro and Kilowog, then runs off home like a little *****? Can't you see how much that short changed the fans and also made Hal out to be a ****ing lame lead character? And then you have this stupid line from Kilowog at the end "I know how to train them!" WTF? Complete and utter waste of a character.

No. I see that it made him human.

It's not like that's all he did in the film, or as Green Lantern. He redeems himself later on.

And Kilowog DOES know how to train them, as evidenced by the final sequences.

The dog fight? Please. Again further displays why Hal is a prick.

It was supposed to display that he is a prick. So it succeeded.

Fact is no one likes Hal. And when no one likes or at least can connect to your titular character, you have failed. It really is as simple as that.

No, that's...that's not a fact. That's hypebrole. You may not like Hal. Plenty of people did, and discussed liking him.

[quote]SFX and bright colours don't make a great action scene.

I didn't say it was great.

I said it had imagination. Which is the point you had made about it, that it lacked imagination.

You still haven't explained why it doesn't.

You know exactly what i mean. But because i'm trashing a movie you like you're playing coy

No, I really don't know what you consider "heart and soul" in writing terms. In the context of Hal Jordan, what do you feel Green Latnern lacked in terms of "heart"? Heart and soul to me equals "emotion", and an emotional core idea, and some kind of common human issue. GREEN LANTERN has those things.

So what is it that it didn't have that you wanted to see?

[HighFivingMF]

man Green Lantern sucked ;)

Did not. :BA

[Docker2.0]

I think instead of actors, they need to get better directors to commit to them the same way they got Nolan to commit to them.

WB simply put their eggs in the wrong basket both times in the last 10 years with DCU superhero movies with Bryan Singer and Martin Campbell.

Bryan Singer sounded like a good choice, but his nostalgic love for Superman (especially Donnerverse Superman) got in the way of him trying to make a great movie. He should have made a new Superman movie for this generation, but instead we got love letter to Richard Donner's Superman and in my opinion, we got an underwhelming movie that hurting the Superman franchise (but not that much).

Martin Campbell, as others said, was not a sci-fi guy or a guy who has really worked at CGI before. You can say the same about Kenneth Branagh, but Branagh never done action at all before and there are traces of Shakespearean elements in Thor that made the story work and ultimately made that movie successful, especially with Loki. Branagh has shown to do a specific kind of action, which is the practical, stuntman approach. It sounded like a solid choice for WB, but as Morningstar said, he was overwhelmed by it all. With the ballooning budget and constant reshoots, Campbell lost control of the movie.

What I think WB should do is to do what they did when they found Nolan. They should look back into hiring indie directors or up and coming directors to get their movies. Veterans aren't working, and it partially worked for Watchmen (as in it worked better Green Lantern). Marvel got Favreau when he was coming into his own as a filmmaker. Maybe younger directors can help provide a new voice for it, and it seems they are doing that for Man of Steel. I don't fully like the choice of Snyder, but at the same time I feel like he's going to take the character in new and possibly an unprecedented direction.
I agree with you on all aspects but I think actors are just as important as directors. And as far as Campbell for GL, let's be real: I know GL gets knocked a lot for being a movie that sucked but it really wasn't that far off from the source material and if you listen to Campbell during a lot of interviews, it sounded like WB was way involved than he liked. I think Nolan is the worst thing that could have happened to DC when it comes to it's comic department. He doesn't want a shared DCU, which is now not going to happen. Batman "realism" is not really Batman. You can make the comic Batman work on film if done right. Again, they should look some kind of way to tie their universes up because again, if done right, you think the Avengers are going to be huge! If a World's Finest movie is done correctly, it could make Avatar numbers.

[jmc]

You are kind of missing the point. Get an actor into a contract and to commit to their brand. RDJ has seem to become Marvel's spokesperson and has committed to numerous films. They locked up Helmsworth, Evans, and Samuel Jackson as well. Angela Bassett was willing to be DC's Fury and even she said the guy's at WB/DC wasn't thinking long term when it comes to their characters and how to market and get them out.

But they're not committed to the brand they're contracted to do movies, they're still doing films with other studios. That's no more commitment than what Bale is to WB or Garfield is to Sony. What you're asking for doesn't exist and frankly can't exist.

[Docker2.0]

But they're not committed to the brand they're contracted to do movies, they're still doing films with other studios. That's no more commitment than what Bale is to WB or Garfield is to Sony. What you're asking for doesn't exist and frankly can't exist.
I.............:huh: I can't explain it any easier than I already did. They committed to the studio, meaning Marvel Studios for so many movies contractually. That's all I'm saying.

[Lone]

When they make The Flash movie, I hope they're smart enough to introduce the concept of the multiverse. No brainer way to lead up to a JL movie and an easy way to bring all the stand alone DC characters that we've seen on screen so far, together.

The way WB is heading with all the stand alone movies, they will need a Crisis to make a JL movie work IMO.

[DoomsdayApex]

I agree with you on all aspects but I think actors are just as important as directors. And as far as Campbell for GL, let's be real: I know GL gets knocked a lot for being a movie that sucked but it really wasn't that far off from the source material and if you listen to Campbell during a lot of interviews, it sounded like WB was way involved than he liked. I think Nolan is the worst thing that could have happened to DC when it comes to it's comic department. He doesn't want a shared DCU, which is now not going to happen. Batman "realism" is not really Batman. You can make the comic Batman work on film if done right. Again, they should look some kind of way to tie their universes up because again, if done right, you think the Avengers are going to be huge! If a World's Finest movie is done correctly, it could make Avatar numbers.

Nolan's success with the franchise indicates otherwise. Batman is a character that can be interpreted in a realistic or fantastical way because he's a human with no super-powers. Just because you didn't enjoy the films doesn't mean Nolan was the worst thing to happen to the franchise when Batman's current Platinum status with the general audience is abundantly due to Nolan's movies.

WB did the right thing to place a franchise-tag on Christopher Nolan. WB needs him.

[solidsnake86]

I agree with you on all aspects but I think actors are just as important as directors. And as far as Campbell for GL, let's be real: I know GL gets knocked a lot for being a movie that sucked but it really wasn't that far off from the source material and if you listen to Campbell during a lot of interviews, it sounded like WB was way involved than he liked. I think Nolan is the worst thing that could have happened to DC when it comes to it's comic department. He doesn't want a shared DCU, which is now not going to happen. Batman "realism" is not really Batman. You can make the comic Batman work on film if done right. Again, they should look some kind of way to tie their universes up because again, if done right, you think the Avengers are going to be huge! If a World's Finest movie is done correctly, it could make Avatar numbers.

Really, the third highest domestic grossing movie is the worst thing to happen to dc. I haven't heard that one yet.

Avengers has to come out before you start claiming its huge.

[Docker2.0]

Nolan's success with the franchise indicates otherwise. Batman is a character that can be interpreted in a realistic or fantastical way because he's a human with no super-powers. Just because you didn't enjoy the films doesn't mean Nolan was the worst thing to happen to the franchise when Batman's current Platinum status with the general audience is abundantly due to Nolan's movies.

WB did the right thing to place a franchise-tag on Christopher Nolan. WB needs him.

Not once did I say I didn't enjoy Nolan's Batman series. I actually love TDK. But as far as Batman the superhero tied to the rest of the DCU, he is indeed the worst thing. All of DC's movies now want realism, all have to be dark and gritty, and don't get me started on the shared universe thing. Financially, the series was a success but it would help the DC name more if their biggest character would help out it's other names when it comes to big screen success.

[HighFivingMF]

WB never wanted a shared universe in the first place. Hence different actors for Superman and Batman in Justice League: Mortal.

[DoomsdayApex]

Not once did I say I didn't enjoy Nolan's Batman series. I actually love TDK. But as far as Batman the superhero tied to the rest of the DCU, he is indeed the worst thing. All of DC's movies now want realism, all have to be dark and gritty, and don't get me started on the shared universe thing. Financially, the series was a success but it would help the DC name more if their biggest character would help out it's other names when it comes to big screen success.

WB had no interest in DCU characters sharing the same universe until recently. If so, WB would have already engaged SR, GL and BB into their plans. They didn't.

As for the 'realistic' approach, show me where WB and Nolan are reinventing the genre into a realism hotspot. Green Lantern wasn't realistic and according to our sources at WB, MoS is far from 'realistic'. Nolan has publicly stated that with Superman, the approach would have to be dissimilar from Batman.

[Lone]

I'm sure WB wanted a shared universe prior to Marvel beating their asses to it but were just:


clueless on how to go about it
lacking in faith in their cbm properties
too stupid to make it work.


If they're only interested in a shared universe after seeing Marvel's success, then they are bigger fools than I thought.

The Avengers will be huge. Yeah, the movie isn't even out yet but deep down, we all know it's gonna be huge. Marvel is making pop-culture history and I applaud them for taking risks, having faith in their properties and getting the right talent and not just some big name involved in their movies.

[jmc]

I.............:huh: I can't explain it any easier than I already did. They committed to the studio, meaning Marvel Studios for so many movies contractually. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah but you said WB should get some actors to commit to their movies, they have gotten actors to commit to their movies, Bale signed for 3 films, how is that any different to RDJ signing with Marvel for 3 films?

[craigdbfan]

I'm sure WB wanted a shared universe prior to Marvel beating their asses to it but were just:


clueless on how to go about it
lacking in faith in their cbm properties
too stupid to make it work.


If they're only interested in a shared universe after seeing Marvel's success, then they are bigger fools than I thought.

The Avengers will be huge. Yeah, the movie isn't even out yet but deep down, we all know it's gonna be huge. Marvel is making pop-culture history and I applaud them for taking risks, having faith in their properties and getting the right talent and not just some big name involved in their movies.Amazing post.

I hope with all my heart that WB tries making a viable shared universe. Their opportunity was with MOS but they are dead set on following everything Chris Nolan tells them to do (I love the Nolan Batman films but DC/WB needs to be more gutsy in getting certain things across).

WB has already made several great standalone movies (along with several stinkers) on their flagship characters but they seem to be completely stuck in that rut and don't have anywhere else to go but further that stagnation.

There is so much potential for an amazing DC shared universe movie concept. Unfortunately they were beaten to the punch. They have had this idea of a Justice League movie for ages but couldn't figure out how to do it. Marvel Studios figured to make the best out what they had and have done incredibly well. This is a company that didn't even have their flagship characters to spearhead this endeavor yet it still worked through determination and assembling (no pun intended) the right individuals for the job.

Regardless of Marvel Studios getting there first, DC/WB should just embrace this experiment Marvel Studios embarked on and use the basic framework to their own main DC canon. I mean WB has every single character at their disposal and aren't anywhere near the handicapped situation Marvel Studios found themselves in with the selection of characters yet they still pulled it off.

They simply don't have any more excuses from this point forward.

[Lone]

Agreed, craig. It doesn't matter who gets there first. WB really needs to take notes from Marvel.

I seriously believe The Flash is our only hope for a jumping off point into a shared DC cinematic universe as I have mentioned previously. I pray they do not drop the ball on that one.

[jmc]

Amazing post.

I hope with all my heart that WB tries making a viable shared universe. Their opportunity was with MOS but they are dead set on following everything Chris Nolan tells them to do (I love the Nolan Batman films but DC/WB needs to be more gutsy in getting certain things across).

WB has already made several great standalone movies (along with several stinkers) on their flagship characters but they seem to be completely stuck in that rut and don't have anywhere else to go but further that stagnation.

There is so much potential for an amazing DC shared universe movie concept. Unfortunately they were beaten to the punch. They have had this idea of a Justice League movie for ages but couldn't figure out how to do it. Marvel Studios figured to make the best out what they had and have done incredibly well. This is a company that didn't even have their flagship characters to spearhead this endeavor yet it still worked through determination and assembling (no pun intended) the right individuals for the job.

Regardless of Marvel Studios getting there first, DC/WB should just embrace this experiment Marvel Studios embarked on and use the basic framework to their own main DC canon. I mean WB has every single character at their disposal and aren't anywhere near the handicapped situation Marvel Studios found themselves in with the selection of characters yet they still pulled it off.

They simply don't have any more excuses from this point forward.

What does WB get from copying now?

[The Morningstar]

Yea i don't necessarily want, or think doing a DCU is a good idea.

[craigdbfan]

Agreed, craig. It doesn't matter who gets there first. WB really needs to take notes from Marvel.

I seriously believe The Flash is our only hope for a jumping off point into a shared DC cinematic universe as I have mentioned previously. I pray they do not drop the ball on that one.I'm right there with you Lone. :up:

Good call on Flash being the last bit of hope to get something like this rolling. I think there's a very good chance of WB adopting a similar approach if The Avengers proves itself to be successful both critically and financially (which is seeming very, very likely).

[DoomsdayApex]

Yea i don't necessarily want, or think doing a DCU is a good idea.

I'm with you. DC hasn't copied Marvel significantly in the past (except with a casual character here and there). Why should they start now?

Marvel beat WB/DC to it first. That's that. WB/DC should really reconsider their approach.

[jmc]

My fear is that WB are going to react to Avengers by doing a JL film.

[DoomsdayApex]

Mine too.

[craigdbfan]

Making a JL with zero build up and no ties across different films would be the most dimwitted thing WB/DC could ever possibly do.

[DoomsdayApex]

Making a JL with zero build up and no ties across different films would be the most dimwitted thing WB/DC could ever possibly do.

They almost attempted it in 2007.

Terrible, terrible idea.

[jmc]

Making a JL with zero build up and no ties across different films would be the most dimwitted thing WB/DC could ever possibly do.

It's not the lack of lead up films that worries me, it's the knee jerk reaction to Avengers I'm worried about.

[craigdbfan]

I don't think DC/WB would be so dense as to do something so impulsive like that. Especially after Green Lantern. Taking what worked from the shared universe concept Marvel studios has been successfully doing and applying it to their unused characters like The Flash, Martian Manhunter, & Wonder Woman however to lay the foundation for an eventual JL movie would be far more likely at this stage.

MOS would have been the perfect launch point but that ship has seemingly long sailed.

[jmc]

Dude, studios react like that all the time when something big happens. You know what's work from Marvel's concept? It ain't the shared universe thing. It's the fact that the films for the most part have been competently made. Not perfect by any mean but at a consistent level. Thing is WB shouldn't have to look at Marvel to know what to do, there's no secret formula to successful superheroes other than go in with the intention of making a good movie, not a good superhero movie, a good movie. They only need to look in their own bloody backyard to see what happens when you have a creative team who want to make a great movie. Thing is Marvel Studios whole existence depends on the movies at worst being watchable, and the intention is there to do it, WB doesn't rely on superheroes and can generate revenue from countless other films, if something fails they move on to the next thing, there's not the same commitment. It comes down to the philosophies of each companies being different, there's no desire for DC universe because financially it doesn't make sense for them to do it, if Batman and Superman are helping pay the bills then it's all good, what do you need WW, Flash, Aquaman or GL for then?

[Lone]

If WB decides to do a standalone JL movie in response to Avengers, there wouldn't be enough facepalms in the universe to react to that.

Had the Avengers been a standalone movie, I definitely feel there wouldn't be as much hype and anticipation and probably half as much fun.

After Nick Fury popped-up at the end of IM, it made me look forward to see IM2, TIH, Thor and CA just to see all the pieces fit. When was the last time we had a bunch of franchises that belonged to a shared universe and didn't actively try to hide that fact or be vague about it but actually embrace it? That alone added a lot of fun and excitement to my cinema going experience.

JL movie = Yes. Standalone JL movie = HELL NO!

[jmc]

Difference being a stand alone JL still has the biggest names in all of comics books attached to it. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, even Green Lantern.

[Lone]

Difference being a stand alone JL still has the biggest names in all of comics books attached to it. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, even Green Lantern.

It would make even more money if those characters were played by the same actors who the audience has already seen playing them in a solo outing.

[chamber-music]

The JL Mortal movie they were planning had mostly no name actors in the roles and a budget bigger than John Carter. It wouldn't of been wise to bank on the name recognition alone of the characters alone to bring in audiences.

[jmc]

It would make even more money if those characters were played by the same actors who the audience has already seen playing them in a solo outing.

I'm fairly confident a JL film would make just as much money whether there are solo film before it or not, granted it's good. Batman now = $$$.

[The Morningstar]

I'm with you. DC hasn't copied Marvel significantly in the past (except with a casual character here and there). Why should they start now?

Marvel beat WB/DC to it first. That's that. WB/DC should really reconsider their approach.

The thing DC has over Marvel is Vertigo. So many rich, intelligent, mature stories to tell from there. WB should take advantage of that, because that is where DC completely outclasses Marvel.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do any superhero films, but I just don't think there needs to be that much emphasis on keeping up with Marvel, in terms of actual superheroes, when DC has a goldmine of potential in Vertigo.

[Lone]

I'm fairly confident a JL film would make just as much money whether there are solo film before it or not, granted it's good. Batman now = $$$.

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on that one buddy. If you cast actors that the audience have already invested in as the character from a previous outing, you will probably double the amount of money it would make.

Off topic, I would kill to watch an 80's John Carpenter directed DCnU Animal Man movie.

[FlashThompson]

The thing DC has over Marvel is Vertigo. So many rich, intelligent, mature stories to tell from there. WB should take advantage of that, because that is where DC completely outclasses Marvel.

Outclasses? Maybe in the comics, but at the rate they're going with movies (other than batman) I highly doubt there is a way these dimwits at WB will "outclass" a marvel movie such as IronMan or X-Men 1-2 in the next 2-4 years.

[chiefchirpa]

The thing DC has over Marvel is Vertigo. So many rich, intelligent, mature stories to tell from there. WB should take advantage of that, because that is where DC completely outclasses Marvel.


But Vertigo based films like V for Vendetta, Stardust, Road to Perdition and History of Violence have been irrelevant commercial-wise. They may have critically acclaimed but they're also easily forgotten (so far). Though the most important thing for WB is they couldn't sell merchandising and other promotion out of these more artsy films.

Flash and Wonder Woman on the other hand could sell toys and more superhero movies because of the DC Comics brand.

[Docker2.0]

Amazing post.

I hope with all my heart that WB tries making a viable shared universe. Their opportunity was with MOS but they are dead set on following everything Chris Nolan tells them to do (I love the Nolan Batman films but DC/WB needs to be more gutsy in getting certain things across).

WB has already made several great standalone movies (along with several stinkers) on their flagship characters but they seem to be completely stuck in that rut and don't have anywhere else to go but further that stagnation.

There is so much potential for an amazing DC shared universe movie concept. Unfortunately they were beaten to the punch. They have had this idea of a Justice League movie for ages but couldn't figure out how to do it. Marvel Studios figured to make the best out what they had and have done incredibly well. This is a company that didn't even have their flagship characters to spearhead this endeavor yet it still worked through determination and assembling (no pun intended) the right individuals for the job.

Regardless of Marvel Studios getting there first, DC/WB should just embrace this experiment Marvel Studios embarked on and use the basic framework to their own main DC canon. I mean WB has every single character at their disposal and aren't anywhere near the handicapped situation Marvel Studios found themselves in with the selection of characters yet they still pulled it off.

They simply don't have any more excuses from this point forward.

How is that any different to what I said?! :argh:

[The Batman]

What does WB get from copying now?

Nothing, fanboys just spew the most unoriginal ideas.

The funny thing is, said fanboys would be the same ones crowing if the "lets rip off marvel" approach went wrong....

[The Morningstar]

Outclasses? Maybe in the comics, but at the rate they're going with movies (other than batman) I highly doubt there is a way these dimwits at WB will "outclass" a marvel movie such as IronMan or X-Men 1-2 in the next 2-4 years.

Get Nicolas Winding Refn to do 100 Bullets or Terry Gilliam to do Sandman and they'll outclass every Marvel movie ever made.

But Vertigo based films like V for Vendetta, Stardust, Road to Perdition and History of Violence have been irrelevant commercial-wise. They may have critically acclaimed but they're also easily forgotten (so far). Though the most important thing for WB is they couldn't sell merchandising and other promotion out of these more artsy films.

Flash and Wonder Woman on the other hand could sell toys and more superhero movies because of the DC Comics brand.

Why should we, as fans give a **** about that though? Just give me some good movies, i don't care about how much money they make.

[gugumugats]

I'm fairly confident a JL film would make just as much money whether there are solo film before it or not, granted it's good. Batman now = $$$.

I'm with you on this one ....

However, as an overall franchise, a shared universe can definitely make more money. People would want to see all the movies within the shared universe so that they "don't miss any piece of the puzzle." You can sell more DVDs of the older movies when the newer movies come out PLUS you can sell box sets of the entire franchise.

I still agree with you though on a JL movie making $$$ with or without build up. Batman/Superman/WW are really iconic characters that most of the GA will recognize. Flash and maybe GL are the only tough sells here, but even the Flash is simple as "guy who runs really fast."

Keep in mind though that $$$ ≠ Quality.

Plus, why risk shared universes and team-ups if you can sell the GA on one character and give that one character their own franchise. I remember then how they felt that Thor or CA were the risky films that could bring the whole house of cards down.

[metaphysician]

Why should we, as fans give a **** about that though? Just give me some good movies, i don't care about how much money they make.

Because if they don't make money, the studios won't make any more. And if the studios don't *expect* to make money, they won't make them in the first place.

Why is this such an alien concept?

[The Morningstar]

Because if they don't make money, the studios won't make any more. And if the studios don't *expect* to make money, they won't make them in the first place.

Why is this such an alien concept?

I understand the concept. But people also need to understand the concept that not every comic book film needs to be a 200 million dollar budgeted, mid summer tent pole.

[Tobias]

Because if they don't make money, the studios won't make any more. And if the studios don't *expect* to make money, they won't make them in the first place.

Why is this such an alien concept?

Exactly!!

WB has just 3 (arguably) mega -DC franchises. Batman, JL and GL - GL is where there is room for argument.

These are franchises that can make way north of 500 million at the BO and as such WB can invest 200 million plus to produce them.

Marvel is in a stronger position. They have mega-franchises in Spiderman, IronMan, TA and Thor. Possibly Cap - Cap 2 could be huge - over 500 million.

WB's issue is, is it worth it spending say 170 million (production and marketing) on a Flash film when the total BO may be less around 350 million. Frankly I think Flash is not near as strong as Cap and Cap only did 370 million or so.

The problem is, until proven otherewise and aside from Bats, GL and JL, WB sees solo DC franchises as a huge risk. Which they should - given what has happened.

Personally I believe there is another 500 million franchise in the DC staple. It will come from a "secondary" character and, if I were to bet, I'd say it will be Shazaam. Shazaam is WB's Spidey in terms of appeal to the younger set. TAS is going to be huge. Shazaam could be just as huge IMO.

[The Batman]

I'm trying to understand how Superman isnt considered a mega franchise, with its 5 films and the fact that it STARTED THE CBM GENRE, yet GL, with its one flop film is.

It...dosen't make sense.

[gugumugats]

I understand the concept. But people also need to understand the concept that not every comic book film needs to be a 200 million dollar budgeted, mid summer tent pole.

I remember reading somewhere that this is one of the reasons that Edgar Wright's Ant-Man movie never moved forward (is that still happening?).

After the Marvel acquisition, Disney acknowledged that they are more interested in focusing on high-budget blockbusters or low-budget films rather than "mid-budget blockbusters" that Ant-Man would've been.

Then again, certain superhero franchises would need that budget to actually work as movies. For instance, GL would need a lot of money for their visual effects budget.

[gugumugats]

I'm trying to understand how Superman isnt considered a mega franchise, with its 5 films and the fact that it STARTED THE CBM GENRE, yet GL, with its one flop film is.

It...dosen't make sense.

And don't forget Smallville (10 seasons, WTF?)....... and the Twlight-ized Superman earth one ....

[solidsnake86]

I'm trying to understand how Superman isnt considered a mega franchise, with its 5 films and the fact that it STARTED THE CBM GENRE, yet GL, with its one flop film is.

It...dosen't make sense.

I was thinking the same thing, but according to some, superman is no longer viable for some odd reason.

[The Morningstar]

I remember reading somewhere that this is one of the reasons that Edgar Wright's Ant-Man movie never moved forward (is that still happening?).

After the Marvel acquisition, Disney acknowledged that they are more interested in focusing on high-budget blockbusters or low-budget films rather than "mid-budget blockbusters" that Ant-Man would've been.

Then again, certain superhero franchises would need that budget to actually work as movies. For instance, GL would need a lot of money for their visual effects budget.

I don't know where you read that. I'm sure i read that they Marvel wanted to do smaller films along with their bigger films.

[gugumugats]

I don't know where you read that. I'm sure i read that they Marvel wanted to do smaller films along with their bigger films.

Back in the day, when the economy was a little more sucky than the sucky economy now and studios where worried that less and less people are going to the movies.

I think Disney put out a statement that they would focus on big-budget films and smaller budget films to maximize profits.

Ant-Man wasn't mentioned by Disney, but it was speculated by the author of the article that Disney's new strategy may be an obstacle to Ant-Man.

I was able to Google the article:
http://io9.com/5480817/will-disneys-decision-to-crush-mid+budget-films-stomp-out-ant+man

[The Morningstar]

Black Panther and Dr Strange are in the works. I don't imagine they'll be 150-200 million dollar budgeted summer blockbusters.

[metaphysician]

I don't know, I could see them being 150, depending on how much risk Marvel Studios feels like taking. Something closer to 100 is more likely, though.

[The Batman]

I was thinking the same thing, but according to some, superman is no longer viable for some odd reason.

"Some" being internet fanboys and others who generally dont know what the **** they're talking about, lol

[MarvelKnight]

Personally, I'm not all that excited to see a JLA movie. I've always much preferred to see those heroes separately than together.

I would rather DC just keep pumping out good animated Justice League movies. I thought JL:Doom was pretty good. But I find myself linking 'new frontier' more and more every time I watch it.

[Lone]

I would rather DC just keep pumping out good animated Justice League movies. I thought JL:Doom was pretty good. But I find myself linking 'new frontier' more and more every time I watch it.

JL: Doom was poorly animated. Superman vs The Elite looks to be the same. I see a pattern starting to emerge...****ing WB.

[KalMart]

I'm trying to understand how Superman isnt considered a mega franchise, with its 5 films and the fact that it STARTED THE CBM GENRE, yet GL, with its one flop film is.

It...dosen't make sense.

I guess it was a mega-franchise until the 80's, but now it's starting over. GL was a failed attempt at a mega-franchise.


I understand the concept. But people also need to understand the concept that not every comic book film needs to be a 200 million dollar budgeted, mid summer tent pole.
Then why make a film of it? It's not like the general moviegoing public has a thirst to become comic fans or what have you. And even if it's 'only' $50M...that's still a hell of a chunk to take a gamble on a two years of work into two hours of running length...when you're already selling core material like comics to the core market for it. Nor ar they ingherently indy-friemdly/arthouse/critical-acclaim film material. So yes, they kinda' do have to be a major tentpole because otherwise, there's no value in them as films.

[The Morningstar]

I guess it was a mega-franchise until the 80's, but now it's starting over. GL was a failed attempt at a mega-franchise.



Then why make a film of it? It's not like the general moviegoing public has a thirst to become comic fans or what have you. And even if it's 'only' $50M...that's still a hell of a chunk to take a gamble on a two years of work into two hours of running length...when you're already selling core material like comics to the core market for it. Nor ar they ingherently indy-friemdly/arthouse/critical-acclaim film material. So yes, they kinda' do have to be a major tentpole because otherwise, there's no value in them as films.

If people shared that attitude then there is no value in any film that isn't a blockbuster. It's a ridiculous mentality.

Point is, there is great stories to tell in Vertigo. Stories that like V for Vendetta, Road to Perdition and History of Violence are not necessarily perceived as comic book films.

****, Road to Perdition was nominated for like, 10 Oscars wasn't it?

The idea that you should only do a comic book movie to make 800 million at the box office is infuriating.

[KalMart]

If people shared that attitude then there is no value in any film that isn't a blockbuster. It's a ridiculous mentality.
No, actually, this speaks directly to valuing film as an art...by letting precious resources and time go towards projects that are films from the ground up, not some adaptation of another format which has already cut out its own niche...looking to use film as another vehicle for anything. Who's the one with the ridiculous mentality here?

But that's not the most important point here...

Point is, there is great stories to tell in Vertigo. Stories that like V for Vendetta, Road to Perdition and History of Violence are not necessarily perceived as comic book films.

****, Road to Perdition was nominated for like, 10 Oscars wasn't it?
And what, that isn't enough last you a while? If there's another unknown graphic novel or what have you that someone wants to make into a film because of its creative appeal...guess what..they'll f'in do it anyway. They didn't need prodding before to do it, and they won't need it now in light of mega-franchises either.

The idea that you should only do a comic book movie to make 800 million at the box office is infuriating.
The idea that comics must keep being made into movies is what's silly. This attraction to making making movie franchises from comics is motivated by what? Right. So let cinema moderate that itself and address non-comic movie projects, etc...THEN if they run out of ideas, maybe they'll call on the comics again. Comics serve the movies made about them when needed, not the other way around.

Don't make it out like comics are somehow not getting their due recognition...or that someone shouldn't be looking to the comics for blockbuster material. They'll always look to books for blockbusters, and they'll always look to comics/shows/cartoons/games when they want to. They'll also always make more artsy films from some as well when they want to....not because some comic fans out there want them to take them more seriously or what have you. So sit back and enjoy them when they do happen, or don't....they don't have to do any more or less than what's important to them.

I'm not saying that comics are the red-headed step child of source material. But if a movie studio looks at the Flash as a possible big money-maker, or not and passes on it altogether...that's their prerogative to do so especially if they're putting up the money, not to somehow give comics more artistic appreciation or what have you.

[KalMart]

But I get where you're comin' from. If anything...I'd hope that when they do go for these big blockbusters, they realize that it starts with how just about any successful blockbuster has made its mark...with the right filmmaker at the helm doing it how they do it best.


Except for Superman Returns and Hulk, of course. :D

[The Morningstar]

Lol yea. Even though i like Ang's Hulk, some of the creative choices were... questionable, to say the least.

I mean you look at the mega successful blockbusters, even though they are big studio films, most of the time they are the directors vision. For better or worse in terms of quality. Just look at the TF films. That's a mega franchise, worth over 2 billion. Apart from the first one, which had Spielberg's fingerprints all over it, the other 2 were purely Bay set loose.

Obviously you gotta get a better director to start with, but the studios should let them do what they gotta do really. I mean, a director is a film maker, a studio exec is a glorified accountant.

It's like GL. I don't care what anyone says, to me that film was made by committee. Martin Campbell had no vision of his own there. I think he was just a "face" of the movie and the thing was made by all sorts of people. Where if DC/WB got a director who was suited to the material, like someone with a real passion and knowledge of sci-fi, who had experience working with CGI heavy blockbusters, and let them loose, we could have had a much, much better film. Alex Proyas, would be my choice. Or JJ Abrams.

[KalMart]

Basically...if you wanna stop seeing comics being treated as blockbuster fodder...it kinda' has to be a change in movies altogether. Because if it's not comics, it'll be something else. Even though a comic fan will say there's more to comics than just pop appeal or what have you...not really the point that movies are out to address in the first place. It's like with books, essentially. There are probably a lot of more esoteric comics that could be made into more eclectic films and such...but then there are also tons of smaller original film projects/scripts that get pushed aside to make room for the mega-flicks too. So I kinda' feel the latter should go earlier 'in line'...since their trajectory to the big screen is a bit purer, if you will.

[RachelDawes]

^What do you mean by their trajectory being "purer"?

[KalMart]

More conceived and designed as films and films only from the outset.

[Tobias]

The problem is that comic blockbusters generally cost way more to make than non-comic blockbusters.

So TA and TDKR will pencil out way north of 300 million to make/market but will "only" make 3 times that in theatres. Of which the studio gets half.

HG's cost 75 million to make and will likely make 10 times that in it's theatre run.

Comic blockbusters don't have a great ROI.

On top of which, let's bring it way down, only 5 comic films have been able to do better than 400 milion at the BO. Batman, IronMan, Spiderman, Thor and presumably TA. 400 million is a way low number. I'd argue 600 million is definitve for making a comc-book film a blockbuster and only 4 come anywhere close to that to date.

The pool of available comic book blockbusters can be counted on one hand right now. Maybe two in a few years. I think Thor and a relaunched GL will join this elite group. Still, blockbuster comic book franchises are few and very far between and their ROI is, comparitively, not that great. Compared to many non-comic film blockbusters.

[jmc]

I'm still not convinced Thor is the guaranteed franchise some think it is. I think the likes of Batman, Iron Man and Spidey could recover from a bad film but I'm not so sure the likes of Thor would, I'm not convinced those type of second tier characters will ever be cemented as box office guarantees, GL, Cap, Flash, WW, they're all going to be dependent on films being good. I think the elite group of heroes on film will always be Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Wolverine, with Iron Man being the exception to the rule.

[Tobias]

I'm still not convinced Thor is the guaranteed franchise some think it is. I think the likes of Batman, Iron Man and Spidey could recover from a bad film but I'm not so sure the likes of Thor would, I'm not convinced those type of second tier characters will ever be cemented as box office guarantees, GL, Cap, Flash, WW, they're all going to be dependent on films being good. I think the elite group of heroes on film will always be Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Wolverine, with Iron Man being the exception to the rule.

The elite group are those that can make 500 million or some would argue the cutoff is really 600 million.

Can Thor2 make 500 million? I think it will. Will it make 600 million? I doubt it. So depending on where one comes down on the 500/600 million divide Thor may not make the big time.

If we go with 600 million as the cutoff there are really very few super-hero films that can do that.

Bats, Spidey, Ironman and TA.

JL will be able to do it and I believe GL will be right there when it is done right.

Other than those 5 I don't think any other comic film can come close to doing 600 million.

There will always be the outlier as IronMan once was.

I think there is a sleeper second tier character waiting to make the big-time in the form of Shazaam. The jury is out on that of course.

Aside from the 5 above-metionned, all other comic franchises are second tier at best and 3rd tier at worst.

[RachelDawes]

^I would add Superman to the list of potentially elite superhero properties.

More conceived and designed as films and films only from the outset.

Hmm, I fail to see why this would make them more deserving of being made into movies before some comic book character.

[roach]

WB should do a Superman/Batman movie first and then have that lead into a JL movie