Do you think other studios may try and follow suit with the teamups/crossovers?

[Drummerdude7]

If we see anyone in IM3, it'll be Banner in a very limited capacity...perhaps via video chat or something working at Stark Tower or whatnot. But I certainly believe Hulk will not factor into IM films at all. Keep them separate.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by PunyGod

Well DC can't be worried about that if they want to go thru with this. As I said no one in Hollywood is embarrassed about ripping other people off. There is no way a Justice League movie won't be called a ripoff of Avengers no matter what they do. But that doesn't mean it can't be successful.

Its kind of funny how the tables have turned since the Avengers comic was a response to JL. Reminds me of when some people said FF was a ripoff of Incredibles.

People actually said that? Are you ****ing kidding me? The depths of human stupidity is truly astounding.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by thalidomide

Aquaman will look cheesy in cinemas.

Aquaman: The Movie will make a cool billion. Guaranteed.

[actionavenue]

Originally Posted by mclay18

I wouldn't be surprised if Fox tries an X-Men/FF4/Daredevil crossover in the future, though probably not with the First Class cast members (or with the original trilogy actors). Fox should consider themselves lucky to have three separate Marvel entities under their control -- they should try and utilize it to the max.

I hear Jeff Robinov, the head honcho at WB, wants a Batman & Superman film badly. No Justice League film, just those two.

Totally agree. Marvel could be on the hinges of making a whole new type of comic book movie where Daredevil meets Spiderman or Wolverine teams up with The Punisher. It could be a bigger and badder cash cow than what it already is. As for DC, I enjoy their superheroes too, but all they got is Superman and Batman, so yeah, I suppose they could team these characters up, but what's after that in the DC stable? Not much. DC has dropped the ball.
_____________________________________________
Check out my zombie blog http://freakindeadjed.blogspot.com.
View my scifi artwork http://zazzle.com/actionave.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Juicy J

That's where I'm coming from as well.
So maybe my GL example wasn't accurate, but to me I can't exactly figure why it had a relatively unimpressive opening weekend if indeed it wasn't the character at the core that people weren't interested in. Yeah it was a crap movie, but no one in the GA knew that when it opened. It was an action movie with a star-studded cast featuring one of the most bankable leading men you could ask for, had over $100 million poured into marketing the thing, and it still fell flat pretty much right out of the gate.

GL's opening weekend numbers ($53 M) were not that far off those of X:FC ($55 M), Thor ($65 M) and Captain America ($65 M). What tanked it were mediocre reviews and bad word-of-mouth. Once people began to hear how bad it was, the downward spiral commenced. It started relatively strong with $21 M on its first day, but business fell off the next two days and it had no legs. The same pattern happened in X:FC's opening weekend, but that movie did better business throughout the week and only declined $49% in its second weekend, so it did better overall.


The OW numbers convince me that people were more than willing to give GL the same chance they gave other superhero movies, and it could have performed as well as the others overall had it been a better film. If the producers been as competent as Kevin Feige at developing a good script and hiring a director who could handle the material, I think that GL could have at least matched X:FC's numbers. (Yes, I am a disappointed GL fan, but I really believe that.)

[Juicy J]

Originally Posted by xeno000

GL's opening weekend numbers ($53 M) were not that far off those of X:FC ($55 M), Thor ($65 M) and Captain America ($65 M). What tanked it were mediocre reviews and bad word-of-mouth. Once people began to hear how bad it was, the downward spiral commenced. It started relatively strong with $21 M on its first day, but business fell off the next two days and it had no legs. The same pattern happened in X:FC's opening weekend, but that movie did better business throughout the week and only declined $49% in its second weekend, so it did better overall.


The OW numbers convince me that people were more than willing to give GL the same chance they gave other superhero movies, and it could have performed as well as the others overall had it been a better film. If the producers been as competent as Kevin Feige at developing a good script and hiring a director who could handle the material, I think that GL could have at least matched X:FC's numbers. (Yes, I am a disappointed GL fan, but I really believe that.)

You bring up some good points, I retract my previous statement.
And coming from someone who has been deeply disappointed by big screen adaptions of my favorite character: I know that feel, bro.

[JeetKuneDo]

Originally Posted by mclay18

I wouldn't be surprised if Fox tries an X-Men/FF4/Daredevil crossover in the future, though probably not with the First Class cast members (or with the original trilogy actors). Fox should consider themselves lucky to have three separate Marvel entities under their control -- they should try and utilize it to the max.

It sounds cool...but it's Fox....do we want them to do it?

Originally Posted by Smashlilman

People know Green Lanterns character even though the movie sucked. GL is basically Warner Brothers' Hulk. He's salvageable. I would put Wonder Woman in the same boat as Batman and Superman. The older members of the GA know the general gist of her back ground because of the Old TV show.

If you limited the movie to Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and GL. I think the movie could work.

I'm thinking the same thing...but I would also say the Flash is a well-known character. (He did have a TV show in the 90s) It may be possible to do a JL movie with no solo films. I'll say Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, and even Aqua-Man are well known to most of the general population.

The problem may be...making it make sense. The general public also knew Capt America before his solo film...but having him just 'show up' in the Avengers may not have worked because there was no tie-in backstory.

Originally Posted by Smashlilman

If were talking about the GA under 30 then yea but the wider GA didn't watch the Justice Leauge chartoon. Most of those people viewed The Superfriends cartoon when they were younger.

In addition to that, younger viewers are now being exposed to the GL TV show featuring Hal Jordan and all the various animated movies WB has done in recent years with Jordan.

Originally Posted by xeno000

GL's opening weekend numbers ($53 M) were not that far off those of X:FC ($55 M), Thor ($65 M) and Captain America ($65 M). What tanked it were mediocre reviews and bad word-of-mouth. Once people began to hear how bad it was, the downward spiral commenced. It started relatively strong with $21 M on its first day, but business fell off the next two days and it had no legs. The same pattern happened in X:FC's opening weekend, but that movie did better business throughout the week and only declined $49% in its second weekend, so it did better overall.


The OW numbers convince me that people were more than willing to give GL the same chance they gave other superhero movies, and it could have performed as well as the others overall had it been a better film. If the producers been as competent as Kevin Feige at developing a good script and hiring a director who could handle the material, I think that GL could have at least matched X:FC's numbers. (Yes, I am a disappointed GL fan, but I really believe that.)

I agree. I say the same thing about Ang Lee's Hulk. It opened to $62 million in 2003! Clearly the public was interested in the character.

GL seems like a no-brainer. An epic space tale with aliens and flashy effects. Just don't fill it with "I know, right?!". I still can't believe they screwed that up.

[Golgo-13]

DC should come up with their own concept. I know that the MCU has changed the game and they want to get a piece of the pie..but still. Copying just makes them look un-creative.

The first time i saw the DC logo at the beginning of Batman Begins i as it was an obvious rip off of Marvel's logo first used at the beginning of Spider-Man.

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by Golgo-13

DC should come up with their own concept. I know that the MCU has changed the game and they want to get a piece of the pie..but still. Copying just makes them look un-creative.

That's what I was saying too.

[Godzilla2000]

Hmmmm...I just thought of this but despite how badly constructed the movies were, the Alien vs. Predator movies predates the Avengers.

[Golgo-13]

Their best bet now is to just go with Superman and Batman as a 'team up film'. GL flopped, and they'd be taking a hell of a gamble trying to put out a WW flick at this point.

Marvel has spent the last 4 years marketing the Avengers, with each of the charcters solo movies...and it paid off. DC would have a hell of a lot of catch up to do to get the same level of anticipation for a JL movie.

Also the problem with DC is it's characters don't really exist in relatable places i.e Gotham City, Metropolis, etc.., as opposed to NY, etc...their properties are a little more far fetched than Marvel's.

[Drummerdude7]

Originally Posted by Golgo-13

Their best bet now is to just go with Superman and Batman as a 'team up film'. GL flopped, and they'd be taking a hell of a gamble trying to put out a WW flick at this point.

Marvel has spent the last 4 years marketing the Avengers, with each of the charcters solo movies...and it paid off. DC would have a hell of a lot of catch up to do to get the same level of anticipation for a JL movie.

Also the problem with DC is it's characters don't really exist in relatable places i.e Gotham City, Metropolis, etc.., as opposed to NY, etc...their properties are a little more far fetched than Marvel's.

Exactly what I've said.

DC has a long way to go if they want to ever do a JL movie. I agree a Superman/Batman crossover would be more advantageous, considering they're the two hottest properties. After GL, Wonder Woman and Flash don't look very likely (I didn't see how they'd be possible in the first place).

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by xeno000

GL's opening weekend numbers ($53 M) were not that far off those of X:FC ($55 M), Thor ($65 M) and Captain America ($65 M). What tanked it were mediocre reviews and bad word-of-mouth. Once people began to hear how bad it was, the downward spiral commenced. It started relatively strong with $21 M on its first day, but business fell off the next two days and it had no legs. The same pattern happened in X:FC's opening weekend, but that movie did better business throughout the week and only declined $49% in its second weekend, so it did better overall.


The OW numbers convince me that people were more than willing to give GL the same chance they gave other superhero movies, and it could have performed as well as the others overall had it been a better film. If the producers been as competent as Kevin Feige at developing a good script and hiring a director who could handle the material, I think that GL could have at least matched X:FC's numbers. (Yes, I am a disappointed GL fan, but I really believe that.)

Agreed. Also, they spent too much on the film. Its budget was significantly higher than the other comic book movies that came out last year. But the big problem was that people hated it. I definitely think a good Green Lantern movie would have been successful.

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by Drummerdude7

Exactly what I've said.

DC has a long way to go if they want to ever do a JL movie. I agree a Superman/Batman crossover would be more advantageous, considering they're the two hottest properties. After GL, Wonder Woman and Flash don't look very likely (I didn't see how they'd be possible in the first place).

I also believe that most people are erroneously believing that just because a certain character is a household name (like WW), they can be dropped unceremoniously into a movie and the audience won't have a problem with it. Yes, they can do it with Batman & Superman, and maybe even GL since his movie is fairly recent, but to add WW, Flash, Manhunter, and Hawkman to the roster without buildup would be asking for trouble. But I won't be surprised if this is what WB will be planning if they want to cash in on Avengers' fad, though.

[Drummerdude7]

The only character I can see them "dropping" in (ala Hawkeye) is Martian Manhunter. Alien from space, and can serve a role in uniting the team or what have you. However, characters like Wonder Woman and Flash NEED the buildup as main team members...they are classic characters and it would be like throwing in Thor or Cap without proper backstories. Not something you can rush at all. However, I have always tried but I can't ever seem to picture Flash or WW being translated WELL to the big screen. Flash especially.

[The Guard]

I think GL had a better chance of succeeding than either Thor or Cap, because it's alot easier for audience to accept that an ordinary man would get a magic ring than one about Asgardian god who speaks in Shakespeare or a WWII soldier who wears the American flag. It's about story and execution, and GL fails in both.

I don't think that's neccessarily true.

To the general audiences who don't know him very well, Thor is much like Superman, a guy from myth with superstrength who flies and hits things hard. And hes a guy "connected" to a very popular superhero franchise in IRON MAN.

To the general audiences who don't know him very well, Captain America is a genetically engineered vigilante superhero who fights for freedom and throws his shield.

And to the general audiences who don't know him very well, Green Lantern is a guy with a magic ring who makes green things with his mind.

I'd say the third would have been a lot harder for people to accept than the previous two, both of which have seen various incarnations of it on film and TV.

GL's opening weekend numbers ($53 M) were not that far off those of X:FC ($55 M), Thor ($65 M) and Captain America ($65 M). What tanked it were mediocre reviews and bad word-of-mouth. Once people began to hear how bad it was, the downward spiral commenced. It started relatively strong with $21 M on its first day, but business fell off the next two days and it had no legs. The same pattern happened in X:FC's opening weekend, but that movie did better business throughout the week and only declined $49% in its second weekend, so it did better overall.

The OW numbers convince me that people were more than willing to give GL the same chance they gave other superhero movies, and it could have performed as well as the others overall had it been a better film. If the producers been as competent as Kevin Feige at developing a good script and hiring a director who could handle the material, I think that GL could have at least matched X:FC's numbers. (Yes, I am a disappointed GL fan, but I really believe that.)

I would believe this logic...except that plenty of movies have been bad...and still made money. And while I don't agree with the assessment that GREEN LANTERN is a bad movie...even bad movies find audiences much of the time. I don't believe that the general public suddenly discovered refined taste, or that the general public doesn't see movies they think look great just because critics aren't kind to it. And while word of mouth has an impact, I don't think word of mouth has that much impact over what people really want to see, period.

I'm sure bad reviews and word of mouth didn't help. I suppose it's possible that this is why GREEN LANTERN failed at the box office. I just have a hard time believing that after one weekend, people suddenly stopped giving the film a chance as a whole. I don't know anyone who isn't a die hard fan who didn't like GREEN LANTERN and who also didn't think the basic concept was silly. Plenty of critics, while pointing out very real flaws in the movie, took a similar approach, and didn't seem to find much joy in the concept to begin with. Factor in that its main competition was SUPER 8, CARS 2 and DARK OF THE MOON, the latter of which had already had two wildly successful films in the franchise. Part of me thinks GREEN LANTERN was pegged as a kids film because of its lighthearted, bright nature, and after the first weekend, it's not the kids film parents picked. And the teens and adults just weren't that interested in the basic concept to begin with.

[Flemm]

Originally Posted by Drummerdude7

Flash especially.

Agreed. He's an example of a character where I sometimes have a hard time suspending disbelief even in the comics. It's basically impossible to depict his powers in a consistent manner at all, even over the course of a single issue.

[Drummerdude7]

Tbh, I can get the whole fastest man on earth deal, and I can certainly accept his powerset, but it's difficult to incorporate that into a film and have a villain that can match that powerset without being too over the top.

[Golgo-13]

I think DC should be the one to tackle Aquaman BEFORE Marvel brings Sub-Mariner to the big screen. I honestly can't see either working, but if DC pulls it off they could pioneer what a Namor flick could look like, and at least pat themselves on the back for not copying Marvel.

[psylockolussus]

Sure but I just hope the casual viewers wouldn't get tired of team-ups and cross-overs.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Golgo-13

I think DC should be the one to tackle Aquaman BEFORE Marvel brings Sub-Mariner to the big screen. I honestly can't see either working, but if DC pulls it off they could pioneer what a Namor flick could look like, and at least pat themselves on the back for not copying Marvel.

Oh, people would see Aquaman. As much as he gets made fun of he's even more famous than Green Lantern and arguably Wonder Woman (though I guess the word should be infamous). If an Aquaman trailer comes on, people will snicker and make jokes at first, but if it looks badass that turnaround will be enough to put buts in seats. I mean you'd hear a lot of "Holy ****! He can do that?!" I have the utmost faith that Aquaman would work on screen but they CANNOT make him "pirate" Aquaman. Long, blonde hair, beard, scaly armor. Sound familiar?

I think the current Aquaman has the potential to blow minds on the big screen out of curiosity alone but hey, so did Green Lantern. Hopefully Man of Steel is really well made or people will start thinking "If it's not Batman it's crap" when it comes to DC productions.

[marcvader]

I used to be a big fan of Aquaman back when I was a small child. I even had the Mego figure. So I would greet an Aquaman movie with open arms.

[mclay18]

Originally Posted by JeetKuneDo

It sounds cool...but it's Fox....do we want them to do it?

I think Tom Rothman is realizing that stifling creative freedom for big-budget movies can ruin a film (as in mandating 105 minute lengths, short production schedules, et al). X-Men: First Class was a breath of fresh air, and didn't feel compromised the way X3, Wolverine and the Fantastic 4 movies were.

If Fox can corral in some talent similar to what Bryan Singer and Matthew Vaughn did for X-Men for Fantastic 4 (which might happen if Josh Trank accepts the FF4 reboot assignment), and make a entertaining reboot... then they should try a team-up film. The Avengers proves it can be done, if done right.

The thing is, even though there's some X-Men/FF4 team-up material in the comic books... a lot of consists on the teams coming together to thwart an alien invasion. If they go that route, it'd be seen as derivative of The Avengers.

[Thundercrack85]

We really should have some polls on character fame. Some people here might be surprised.

Green Lantern certainly isn't an obscure character. Considering how little they have done with him outside of comics up until recently.

DC had a golden opportunity with Green Lantern, but they ruined it by putting out an awful film. With a good film, the character could have been up there with Iron Man.

Aquman is also well known, though generally not taken seriously. But combine name recognition, with a good movie, word of mouth, and you could easily have a DC counterpart to Thor in success.

[JeetKuneDo]

Originally Posted by Godzilla2000

Hmmmm...I just thought of this but despite how badly constructed the movies were, the Alien vs. Predator movies predates the Avengers.

The reason it was badly constructed is because it wasn't done the same way Avengers was. They just took two pre-existing properties and wedged them into the same movie instead of planning it out in advance with movies to set up the idea.

Originally Posted by Flemm

Agreed. He's an example of a character where I sometimes have a hard time suspending disbelief even in the comics. It's basically impossible to depict his powers in a consistent manner at all, even over the course of a single issue.

That is a problem with the Flash...he's unbeatable really. I was watching some episodes of that TV show "No Ordinary Family" and they had to write the super speed character as a moron so she wouldn't solve all the problems instantly. It got on my nerves actually. I kept saying to myself, "She could have prevented everything that just happened with ease".

Same thing might happen in a Flash movie I suppose. I love the Flash though, so I still want them to try it. Hire a great writer though so when he puts in W.I.S it may not feel so obvious.

Originally Posted by mclay18

I think Tom Rothman is realizing that stifling creative freedom for big-budget movies can ruin a film (as in mandating 105 minute lengths, short production schedules, et al). X-Men: First Class was a breath of fresh air, and didn't feel compromised the way X3, Wolverine and the Fantastic 4 movies were.

If Fox can corral in some talent similar to what Bryan Singer and Matthew Vaughn did for X-Men for Fantastic 4 (which might happen if Josh Trank accepts the FF4 reboot assignment), and make a entertaining reboot... then they should try a team-up film. The Avengers proves it can be done, if done right.

I miss something about X-FC. I found it poorly written and rushed. I agree it's better than the Wolverine movie...but it's not X2. I even like X3 better.

I compare the two comic book movies Vaughn did.

1-One without Fox...Kick Ass (tied for #1 on my all-time favorite CB movie list)
2-One with Fox...X-FC (meh)

I can't help but notice how much better I thought Vaughn was without Fox.