Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Originally Posted by roach

um thats what happens to horrible movies...they get rebooted

It's one thing if a film or film(s) made hay before getting rebooted, it's another when it fails right out of the gate.

[Tobias]

Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN

I think GL could have been that huge franchise, but the ball was dropped and most people do not have an appetite for another IMO. And to do justice to GL you need a massive budget. Wouldn't they be gun-shy with what just happened? Now if WB makes a really epic JL film and redeems the character in what could be a massively successful film, then perhaps it may be moved up on their slate.

If Snyder's MOS doesn't flame out, then you have to think that sequels will be on their radar before trying to resurrect a GL franschise.

I see Shazam as Thor at best.

I don't think WB is planning any Superman after MOS.

The legal issues aren't going well and won't be resolved probably for a long time. preventing a follow-up to MOS.

In any event, WB had already decided to shelve Superman films because they are not financially feasible. No one seems to be expecting much from MOS. Maybe 400 million? When it costs 200 million to make and maybe 100 million to market that is a bad investment.

This is good for GL. WB is probably right now looking for that franchise to complement Batman. WW and Flash are contenders but GL is probably the only major DC franchise that can do huge numbers.

Just satyin - don't count GL out.

[roach]

WB wouldn't be making MOS of they didn't think they won't be making sequels

[Rockstar]

They're making MoS because of the lawsuit. The trades confirmed this multiple times.

[Lord]

Which is an origin, they're making this an origin because from what i get they won't be able to do a film about his origin after the time the siegel and shuster estates get the rights of Action Comics 1

[The Morningstar]

Yea even if WB/DC lose the lawsuit they don't lose the Superman character. Just certain (albeit important) things from his mythos. Like the origin and all that.

[craigdbfan]

I thought if MoS makes money then the Siegel estate won't be able to get those rights back right?

It's really convoluted so I'm not sure about all the details.

[Donut]

With a Green Lantern Sequel at least they do not need Hal. They can say that after Hal's success of being a Green Lantern. More Humans started to become Green Lanterns & bring in someone like John or Kyle

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Tobias

I don't think WB is planning any Superman after MOS.

The legal issues aren't going well and won't be resolved probably for a long time. preventing a follow-up to MOS.

In any event, WB had already decided to shelve Superman films because they are not financially feasible. No one seems to be expecting much from MOS. Maybe 400 million? When it costs 200 million to make and maybe 100 million to market that is a bad investment.

This is good for GL. WB is probably right now looking for that franchise to complement Batman. WW and Flash are contenders but GL is probably the only major DC franchise that can do huge numbers.

Just satyin - don't count GL out.

I think they would just have to pay royalties to the Siegel and Schuster familes to start making films again. That's all.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by dnno1

I think they would just have to pay royalties to the Siegel and Schuster familes to start making films again. That's all.

Exactly.

Finally someone gets it.

[Tobias]

Originally Posted by Lord

Which is an origin, they're making this an origin because from what i get they won't be able to do a film about his origin after the time the siegel and shuster estates get the rights of Action Comics 1

First time I've heard this.

The trades back then reported WB as ending the Superman franchise because it wasn't profitable for them or profitable enough.

Then they were ordered to make MOS and scrambled to get it out by the deadline.

I don't read anything into the semi-origin story except that it was the quickest script treatment WB could turn into a film.

[solidsnake86]

Originally Posted by Tobias

First time I've heard this.

The trades back then reported WB as ending the Superman franchise because it wasn't profitable for them or profitable enough.

Then they were ordered to make MOS and scrambled to get it out by the deadline.

I don't read anything into the semi-origin story except that it was the quickest script treatment WB could turn into a film.

You read wrong.

The lawsuit the estate won was in regards to elements of action comics 1, and only what was in that issue. Meaning WB has to pay them to use those elements that appeared in that issue.

The movie is a separate issue, because I think the estate could sue for damages if they didn't make one.

Both the family and WB own important parts to the character as he is today, I would even say WB owns the most important part, the symbol, because that goes on all that merchandise they sell.

[Gamma Burst]

Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN

Green Lantern was one of the worst films I have ever seen. If that gets rebooted in the next decade I will be shocked. Absolutely horrible.

This.

[thorstone]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

1.) ...Then Avatar would have flopped, by your logic.
2.) The casting was fine.
5.) Says who? You? Zod is an interesting villain, and the perfect one for an origin story.

1. Avatar pulled in a bunch of idiots goggling over 3D; and already people are over the 3D trend. People want realism in their super hero movies; they want to feel they take place in real cities on real streets.

2. I'm pretty confident that Jamie Fox would be a bigger draw.

5. It's Luthor all over again-- can't we get a villain that wasn't in Donner's films? Superman has much better villains than a mirror version of himself.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by thorstone

1. Green Lantern was heavily CGI and people are tired of that.
2. Green Lantern casting.
3. Heroes are only as interesting as their villains (thus Spiderman and Batman movies are easy compared to Aquaman, Flash, and Wonder Woman).
4. Superman Returns violated issue three when the character has powerful villains like Darkseid, Kalibak, and Doomsday.
5. Man of Steel once again has a boring villain.

This is all pretty much wrong, except for 3, but you screwed yourself over the latter parenthesis.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by thorstone

1. Avatar pulled in a bunch of idiots goggling over 3D; and already people are over the 3D trend. People want realism in their super hero movies; they want to feel they take place in real cities on real streets.

2. I'm pretty confident that Jamie Fox would be a bigger draw.

5. It's Luthor all over again-- can't we get a villain that wasn't in Donner's films? Superman has much better villains than a mirror version of himself.

Avatar wasn't just 3D. They pulled people because it introduced audiences into a unique, photorealistic world and smoothly blended CGI and human people.

I thought we were talking about critically. And also, I thought we were over the whole race issue with Green Lantern.

And Zod is the main villain. It's a redundant choice but one with much potential.

[Tobias]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

And Zod is the main villain. It's a redundant choice but one with much potential.

It's a weak choice for a villain but a lot cheaper to do than Brainiac. I'm not happy with the choice but I get why WB went that way.

I think WB is holding back on what it spends for MOS because they don't believe the franchise is a money maker. Why blow a lot of money on the film when you don't expect to make much from it and hadn't planned to do another in ther first place.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Zod is a 'hedging our bets' choice for sure.

[HighFivingMF]

Or he could be a "he suited the story we wanted to tell about Superman" villain. I'm going to bet on that one, since that's how Goyer and Nolan brothers chose the Batman villains.

[roach]

Originally Posted by Tobias

It's a weak choice for a villain but a lot cheaper to do than Brainiac. I'm not happy with the choice but I get why WB went that way.

I think WB is holding back on what it spends for MOS because they don't believe the franchise is a money maker. Why blow a lot of money on the film when you don't expect to make much from it and hadn't planned to do another in ther first place.

i think your logic is flawed.
Studios aren't going to make a movie if they don't think its gonna make them money back.
The choice of villain never bothers me...its how the villain is used. If this was a retelling of Birthright and Luthor was the villain again I would be ok with that. Is anyone upset that Nolan used Joker in TDK or Catwoman and Bane in TDKR???
Or Magneto in First Class????

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by HighFivingMF

Or he could be a "he suited the story we wanted to tell about Superman" villain. I'm going to bet on that one, since that's how Goyer and Nolan brothers chose the Batman villains.

This film is way more studio driven than Nolan's Bat-franchise. Both the director and choice to redo an origin were studio choices. Like many have pointed out they wouldn't necessarily feel the need to do the origin if it weren't for legal issues.

[roach]

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.

[Tobias]

Originally Posted by roach

i think your logic is flawed.
Studios aren't going to make a movie if they don't think its gonna make them money back.

That is true. Keep in mind though that WB shelved the franchise a few years ago for financial reasons.

WB wasn't going to do more Superman until the court ordered them to do MOS. WB was forced to make the film.

[roach]

Lot of misinformation out there:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005806
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269
August 2009 saw a court ruling in which Jerry Siegel's family recaptured the rights to Superman's origins and Siegel's copyright in Action Comics #1. In addition, a judge ruled that Warner Bros. did not owe the families additional royalties from previous films. However, if they do not begin production on a Superman film by 2011, then the Shuster and Siegel estates will be able to sue for lost revenue on an unproduced film.

Yes they are forced to make this film but I can guarantee they are still counting on this to make them some money...why else cast fan fav Henry Cavil as Superman, why else have Geek God Christopher Nolan Exec Prod this, why else cast legitimate actors such as Costner and Crowe and Laurence Fishburne, why else spend 175M on the production????

[The Guard]

Was was trying to make a Superman film anyway. The only question was whether it would be a sequel to SUPERMAN RETURNS or a reboot, and when it would be. The court order may have hastened the process, but they were working on it already. The success of The Dark Knight provided a clear springboard for it, when Goyer and the Nolans came aboard.