Are we underestimating everything and everyone?

[metaphysician]

Eh, be fair. Green Lantern didn't fail because WB took it for granted; WB *knew* nobody knows GL. It failed because it was a poor movie.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

Ditto. For a JL movie to make Avengers money it would have to be absolutely perfect & they DO need a good build up. DC & maybe a lot of their fans seem to think being well known is a license to print money. I remember when Marvel had one of those Ultimate Alliance games coming out & DC had DC Superheroes coming out around the same time. Somebody from some videogame show was interviewing a guy who worked on the DC game & he asked him how he thought the game would stack up to Marvel's. He answered something like "Everybody on the planet knows Superman."

Marvels game sold waaaaay more and got better reviews

Ummm, The Avengers was far from perfect, and Justice League doesn't need a build up consisting of 4-5 films. Man of Steel and the Batman relaunch are all that's truly needed. Wonder Woman and Flash can be introduced together on film.

Okay... and DC's animated televison shows and films have dominated Marvel [for what feels like eons]. Forgive me, but I fail to see your point.

[Lots o lafs]

Originally Posted by raybia

Great. Most audiences not only didn't respect or care about the characters in "The Godfather", they weren't even aware of their existence.

That's the job for the writers.

Your missing one thing. The godfather characters didn't have superpowers. Making a believable avengers took many movies for one reason, to establish the ground rules of the reality. They made it less realistic with every release.

I think it is going to be very hard to replicate the success that marvel is having.

[Lorus]

I don't doubt that a Justice League film can be made well and earn a fair bit of money without an initial build up, but I think the argument that it's sure to earn more than the Avengers is flawed. It's certainly true that the Justice League team members are more iconic than the Avengers, more ingrained in the popular consciousness, but that argument implies that Avengers made the money it did purely based on the iconography of Captain America or Thor.

This isn't likely to have been the case, after all, only Iron Man really made any waves in the popular consciousness. The factors which boosted it's revenue would be related to all sorts of intangibles like novelty, hype and incredible reviews. Just having Batman and Superman isn't going to guarantee the film a spot as the third highest grossing film of all time. Especially if there is some kind of backlash against a Batman that doesn't match the current idealised vision of Batman, Nolan's, or if Man of Steel doesn't connect.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Ummm, The Avengers was far from perfect, and Justice League doesn't need a build up consisting of 4-5 films. Man of Steel and the Batman relaunch are all that's truly needed. Wonder Woman and Flash can be introduced together on film.

Okay... and DC's animated televison shows and films have dominated Marvel [for what feels like eons]. Forgive me, but I fail to see your point.

This is exactly right, and people shouldn't worry too much about Justice League because they wont need the same buildup to get over commercially. Batman + Superman sells itself. You mix that with other heroes that aren't too shabby, and you have one hell of a mix.

Green Lantern doesnt need his own movie beforehand, so that awful movie was a blessing in disguise. It works out no matter what.

Flash and Wonder Woman are introduced in the film like you said, then you launch their solos. Piece of cake there.

And that's all you need. Unless they really do bring in Aquaman or more. Then that's no biggie. Treat him the same way as the others. Other mediums have made the League a much more recognizable lineup than Avengers ever was before May came around.

[Zionite1]

Originally Posted by shauner111

This is exactly right, and people shouldn't worry too much about Justice League because they wont need the same buildup to get over commercially. Batman + Superman sells itself. You mix that with other heroes that aren't too shabby, and you have one hell of a mix.

Theres my problem with the idea.The appeal of a Justice League should be the joy of seeing the entire team not just seeing Superman and Batman-This isnt the world finest.The last thing we want is in our rush to see a Jl movie we end up creating a Superman/Batman movie with some heroes tagiing along.That isnt a Jl movie i dont care how finncially succesful itself.

Howver if they are going with 5 hero lineup Id rather they release a WW solo after MOS and not just jump in.IF Gl Had been a success,and if Nolans Batman was confirmed to be in the Jl movie this would not have been an issue.So they should release a WW solo movie and that would put them in the same position as avengers was.with 3 successful onscreen Superheroes,and one failed hero.

So they pretty much can go like this
2013-MOS
2014-Wonderwoman
2015-Justice League (5 hero line up)

Although Personally I wld like it to be
2013-MOS
2014-Wonderwoman
2015-Trinity(introduce rebooted Batman0
2016-MOS 2 and Wonderwoman 2
2017-Flash and GL
2018-Justice League(7 hero line up)

[brainchild81]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Ummm, The Avengers was far from perfect, and Justice League doesn't need a build up consisting of 4-5 films. Man of Steel and the Batman relaunch are all that's truly needed. Wonder Woman and Flash can be introduced together on film.

Okay... and DC's animated televison shows and films have dominated Marvel [for what feels like eons]. Forgive me, but I fail to see your point.

Try harder. The point was that just because people know of these characters from DC, it doesn't mean that they'll be smash hits. The general audience only seems to really care about Batman anyway. Knowing about something & caring about it are 2 different things. Currently Batman's the only one who seems to translate well. It remains to be seen if this new Supes flick will be worth the time. I'm betting against it because I think you need a great character to make a great movie.

Avengers was close to perfect IMO, but everybody's got an opinion. The facts are that Avengers made a ****load of money & feedback has been very positive. Numbers don't lie. It's not gonna be topped easily. DC has their work cut out for them because based on history, I don't think their non-Batman characters can work in live action as well as their Marvel counterparts.

DC's been dominating w/the cartoons? The cartoons don't reach massive audiences that the movies do but I agree. Maybe they should put some of those guys in charge of the live-action stuff.

Sadly, Marvel was making some gains with a great Avengers cartoon.........and then they put out Ultimate Spider-Man

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

Try harder. The point was that just because people know of these characters from DC, it doesn't mean that they'll be smash hits. The general audience only seems to really care about Batman anyway. Knowing about something & caring about it are 2 different things. Currently Batman's the only one who seems to translate well. It remains to be seen if this new Supes flick will be worth the time. I'm betting against it because I think you need a great character to make a great movie.

What are you talking about? Superman is just as translatable as Batman. Superman Returns (which is persistently labeled a failure) nearly made 500 million at the box office, and garnered generally positive reactions. Once more, I don't comprehend your argumentative point.

I'm sorry, but your doubting MoS because you believe Superman is not a great character (your opinion, of course)?

Try harder.

Avengers was close to perfect IMO, but everybody's got an opinion. The facts are that Avengers made a ****load of money & feedback has been very positive. Numbers don't lie. It' not gonna be topped easily.

Yeah... yeah... yeah... and Pirates 4 and Dark of the Moon made a billion too, point? Avatar is the highest grossing film ever, does that mean it's near perfect? No.

The Avengers was a great CBM (one of 2012's best), but yes, improvements could have been made.

DC's been dominating w/the cartoons? The cartoons don't reach massive audiences that the movies do but I agree. Maybe they should put some of those guys in charge of the live-action stuff.

I don't necessarily agree. Shows such as Young Justice and Smallville have amassed a crowd of fans (who've never read a single comic book in their lives) in a short amount of time. Granted, these shows pale in comparison to Batman: TAS, Superman: TAS, Batman Beyond and Justice League Unlimited when talking about ratings, but animated shows/cartoons aren't as popular nowadays.

Sadly, Marvel was making some gains with a great Avengers cartoon.........and then they put out Ultimate Spider-Man

Marvel is trying to reach out to the younger demographic. I can't say I'm surprised.

[brainchild81]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

What are you talking about? Superman is just as translatable as Batman. Superman Returns (which is persistently labeled a failure) nearly made 500 million at the box office, and garnered generally positive reactions. Once more, I don't comprehend your argumentative point.

I'm sorry, but your doubting MoS because you believe Superman is not a great character (your opinion, of course)?

Try harder.

What do you mean by "argumentative"? What SR made worldwide being "nearly" 500 mil is a matter of opinion. Hell, Thor made more even though it cost much less to make. What that made is nearly 500 mil. You're being too generous, broseph. SR was a failure. That's why it didn't bear repeating & they rebooted it. Of couse Supes not being a great character is my opinion. That's what forums are for. As for my MOS doubts, I had the same for SR. Time will tell if I'm right or not. I could be wrong, but that'd be rare.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

The Avengers was a great CBM (one of 2012's best), but yes, improvements could have been made.

Not many. I'd say Avengers was much closer to being perfect than SR was to making 500 mil

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

I don't necessarily agree. Shows such as Young Justice and Smallville have amassed a crowd of fans (who've never read a single comic book in their lives) in a short amount of time. Granted, these shows pale in comparison to Batman: TAS, Superman: TAS, Batman Beyond and Justice League Unlimited when talking about ratings, but animated shows/cartoons aren't as popular nowadays.

Yep & it's really ****ed up. I was saying that movies reach a larger audience though. They do.....the good ones anyway

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Marvel is trying to reach out to the younger demographic. I can't say I'm surprised.

If you do something really well, people of all ages can like it. No excuse for USM to be THAT horrible

[LauraT]

Justice League *can* probably well work as a solo movie in itself, even Avengers work as a standalone or for people who've only seen Iron Man both the writing and the performances are strong enough for that. However it is much more satisfying if you've seen the Thor and Loki backstory and have already seen how Tony's issues with his father have affected his life and the Howard Stark/Cap friendship etc. And I do think that just *knowing* the movie took 4/5 stars of their own movies and put them together makes it inherently more of a spectacle right now, since it had never been done before.

I do think "we have the most iconic characters, they don't need any introduction" is probably the last thing DC should be taking for granted, because right now apart from Batman, they've proved less adapt at handling their A-list characters than Marvel have at handling their C-list characters. There's a reason why people were so skeptical that a TA movie could be made, there was every chance it could have ended up a horrible, bloated and nonsensical movie. Taking anything for granted about their non Batman characters means they're more likely to stuff it up.


And as Zionite1 says if you focus on only on Batman and Supes then you might as well just make a "World's Finest" movie, and you run the risk of the traps that most of the X-Men movies fell into, and the other characters become little more than cyphers and not characters able to launch their own movies of it.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

What do you mean by "argumentative"? What SR made worldwide being "nearly" 500 mil is a matter of opinion. Hell, Thor made more even though it cost much less to make. What that made is nearly 500 mil. You're being too generous, broseph. SR was a failure. That's why it didn't bear repeating & they rebooted it. Of couse Supes not being a great character is my opinion. That's what forums are for. As for my MOS doubts, I had the same for SR. Time will tell if I'm right or not. I could be wrong, but that'd be rare.

I meant to write 400 million (typo).

Anywho, yes, it is your opinion. While Superman isn't my favorite character, it'd be alittle disingenuous to claim that Kal-El isn't a 'good' character compared to Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, Martian Manhunter, etc.

Superman Returns was not a failure. I don't see how you arrived to that conclusion. In fact, WB executives were heavily considering a sequel (planned to be released in 2009). Similar to Batman Begins though, the character was absent for nearly 20 years after following subpar installments.

Man of Steel will have to fight for every inch when it's released next year, but to me, it's the top CBM to watch out just based on leaked footage.

Not many. I'd say Avengers was much closer to being perfect than SR was to making 500 mil

I'd argue otherwise, but it's your opinion. For me, the story, the score, Black Widow/Hawkeye, the entire first act, the threat, etc were lacking... but this isn't the place to discuss it.

Yep & it's really ****ed up. I was saying that movies reach a larger audience though. They do.....the good ones anywayIf you do something really well, people of all ages can like it. No excuse for USM to be THAT horrible

Oh I agree with you. The animated shows back in the 90s and early 00s featured far more darker and mature content than the shows today. Not to mention, the writing and voice work were also well above average. It's a shame.

Disney XD has an agenda by canceling The Avengers and approving of Ultimate Spiderman and Avengers Assemble, and judging from the reactions of the younger demographic, they feel in what they're doing is right for the company.

[DoomsdayApex]

And as Zionite1 says if you focus on only on Batman and Supes then you might as well just make a "World's Finest" movie, and you run the risk of the traps that most of the X-Men movies fell into, and the other characters become little more than cyphers and not characters able to launch their own movies of it.

Singer's X-Men films were great CBMs for the genre, but it's no secret that he had trouble juggling Wolverine, Jean Grey, Cyclops, Professor Xavier, Magneto, Rogue, Storm, Mystique, etc. Eventually, the movies felt closer to Wolverine & Friends than X-Men.

You could cite Singer's failures as an example for Justice League if the DCU starts out with only Superman and Batman leading into the film, but it's all in the writing.

Singer's shortcomings =/= Justice League's destiny.

[brainchild81]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

I meant to write 400 million (typo).

Anywho, yes, it is your opinion. While Superman isn't my favorite character, it'd be alittle disingenuous to claim that Kal-El isn't a 'good' character compared to Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, Martian Manhunter, etc.

I didn't say that he wasn't good & I wasn't comparing him to those characters(WW & MM mean nothing to me & Flash was ruined by the lame speedforce. GL is only cool when it's John or Guy). When compared to great characters he falls short IMO.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Superman Returns was not a failure. I don't see how you arrived to that conclusion. In fact, WB executives were heavily considering a sequel (planned to be released in 2009). Similar to Batman Begins though, the character was absent for nearly 20 years after following subpar installments.

When you see how much they spent making it & how they didn't come close to making it back domestically, when you see how they did NOT move ahead w/a sequel can you call SR a success?

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Man of Steel will have to fight for every inch when it's released next year, but to me, it's the top CBM to watch out just based on leaked footage.

What CBMs are coming out next year anyway?

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Oh I agree with you. The animated shows back in the 90s and early 00s featured far more darker and mature content than the shows today. Not to mention, the writing and voice work were also well above average. It's a shame.

Disney XD has an agenda by canceling The Avengers and approving of Ultimate Spiderman and Avengers Assemble, and judging from the reactions of the younger demographic, they feel in what they're doing is right for the company.

The ratings & feedback for USM haven't been stellar tho. It's likely to be canceled after it's 2nd season, which was ordered before the 1st season even premiered

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

I didn't say that he wasn't good & I wasn't comparing him to those characters(WW & MM mean nothing to me & Flash was ruined by the lame speedforce. GL is only cool when it's John or Guy). When compared to great characters he falls short IMO.

John Stewart is one of DC's blandest characters. His story arcs are low tier, in my opinion.

Eh, if Speed Force bothered you then The Infinity Gauntlet and Monarch must have been lame power-ups as well.

When you see how much they spent making it & how they didn't come close to making it back domestically, when you see how they did NOT move ahead w/a sequel can you call SR a success?

Ahem... WB was moving forward with the sequel in '07. A script was written and pre-production was in full swing in '08 but Singer dropped out due to other commitments and the sequel slowly started to fall apart. WB executives were disappointed with 391 million but the studio still made a profit. If Returns was a failure, then a sequel would have never been an option.

What CBMs are coming out next year anyway?

Iron Man 3
Thor 2
The Wolverine

The ratings & feedback for USM haven't been stellar tho. It's likely to be canceled after it's 2nd season, which was ordered before the 1st season even premiered

Neither were the ratings for 'The Batman', but the show still lasted for five seasons (despite all the mixed reactions). Ultimate Spiderman is a polarizing show for the fans and non-fans, but it's still doing enough to stay alive in production.

[brainchild81]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

John Stewart is one of DC's blandest characters. His story arcs are low tier, in my opinion

I feel the same way about Hal. Haven't read much of him but most of what I did bored me. I liked John in JLU & I like him in YJ. I've heard he's totally different in the comics, but I still like him on the shows

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Eh, if Speed Force bothered you then The Infinity Gauntlet and Monarch must have been lame power-ups as well.

Haven't heard of Monarch & haven't heard anything lame about IG yet. I've heard the YJ guy doesn't like the speedforce either. It's almost as lame as Torquasm Vo

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Ahem... WB was moving forward with the sequel in '07. A script was written and pre-production was in full swing in '08 but Singer dropped out due to other commitments and the sequel slowly started to fall apart. WB executives were disappointed with 391 million but the studio still made a profit. If Returns was a failure, then a sequel would have never been an option.

It seems we won't agree on it being a failure. You didn't answer my question tho. Can we agree it wasn't a success?

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Iron Man 3
Thor 2
The Wolverine

I'm interested in all of those more than I am for Supes because I care about the characters more. That being said, the Wolverine ads & trailers will have to be great for me to pay for it because the last one was so horrible.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Neither were the ratings for 'The Batman', but the show still lasted for five seasons (despite all the mixed reactions). Ultimate Spiderman is a polarizing show for the fans and non-fans, but it's still doing enough to stay alive in production.

We don't know that. I doubt it's getting a 3rd season. If it does, it would mark the first time the show gets a season because of good ratings & not because DXD was dumb enough to order 2 @the same time

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

I feel the same way about Hal. Haven't read much of him but most of what I did bored me. I liked John in JLU & I like him in YJ. I've heard he's totally different in the comics, but I still like him on the shows

Precisely, you haven't read enough of Hal Jordan. When comparing the two from the comics, Hal is the more interesting Green Lantern.

Well, majority of John's fanbase comes the show (no surprise) but to those who've read the comics, John is a vapid character.

Haven't heard of Monarch & haven't heard anything lame about IG yet. I've heard the YJ guy doesn't like the speedforce either. It's almost as lame as Torquasm Vo

The Infinity Gauntlet is grossly overpowered so I don't know how you can find Speed Force lame if The Infinity Gauntlet is no different.

It seems we won't agree on it being a failure. You didn't answer my question tho. Can we agree it wasn't a success?

It wasn't a success in attracting a new audience (lack of action sequences certainly did that).

I'm interested in all of those more than I am for Supes because I care about the characters more. That being said, the Wolverine ads & trailers will have to be great for me to pay for it because the last one was so horrible.

It's the opposite for me. I've never been a big fan of Thor and Iron Man, so I really don't care for them. On top of that, Thor and Iron Man 2 were C+/B- films, so I virtually have no excitement for the sequels.

The Wolverine has an exciting premise but Origins was a **** movie. So I will approach with caution, but Jackman playing Wolverine easily gets me hyped.

Thus far, I only plan on catching Man of Steel and Wolverine in theaters.

We don't know that. I doubt it's getting a 3rd season. If it does, it would mark the first time the show gets a season because of good ratings & not because DXD was dumb enough to order 2 @the same time

We'll see, but I wouldn't be shocked to see it return for a third season. Disney is pushing for Marvel's titles/characters to be more kid friendly.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Precisely, you haven't read enough of Hal Jordan. When comparing the two from the comics, Hal is the more interesting Green Lantern.

Well, majority of John's fanbase comes the show (no surprise) but to those who've read the comics, John is a vapid character.

People refuse to accept that both DCAU Green Lanterns (John and Kyle) were based heavily on Hal Jordan, Pre-Johns, and say that they should use that John Stewart. It makes no sense, it really has gotten to the point where I think some people just want John because he is black. Like Wally West, everyone thinks he is some kind of jokester because of JL/U despite being based on Impulse.

[brainchild81]

Originally Posted by LauraT

Justice League *can* probably well work as a solo movie in itself, even Avengers work as a standalone or for people who've only seen Iron Man both the writing and the performances are strong enough for that. However it is much more satisfying if you've seen the Thor and Loki backstory and have already seen how Tony's issues with his father have affected his life and the Howard Stark/Cap friendship etc. And I do think that just *knowing* the movie took 4/5 stars of their own movies and put them together makes it inherently more of a spectacle right now, since it had never been done before.

I do think "we have the most iconic characters, they don't need any introduction" is probably the last thing DC should be taking for granted, because right now apart from Batman, they've proved less adapt at handling their A-list characters than Marvel have at handling their C-list characters. There's a reason why people were so skeptical that a TA movie could be made, there was every chance it could have ended up a horrible, bloated and nonsensical movie. Taking anything for granted about their non Batman characters means they're more likely to stuff it up.


And as Zionite1 says if you focus on only on Batman and Supes then you might as well just make a "World's Finest" movie, and you run the risk of the traps that most of the X-Men movies fell into, and the other characters become little more than cyphers and not characters able to launch their own movies of it.

Ditto

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Precisely, you haven't read enough of Hal Jordan. When comparing the two from the comics, Hal is the more interesting Green Lantern.

Well, majority of John's fanbase comes the show (no surprise) but to those who've read the comics, John is a vapid character.

You may be right, but I'd say it doesn't really matter to me if comic Hal > comic John because JLU John >any version of Hal. John is the best one to be used outside of the comics because so far he's had nothing but success, unlike Hal.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

The Infinity Gauntlet is grossly overpowered so I don't know how you can find Speed Force lame if The Infinity Gauntlet is no different.

But it is. IG is pretty awesome & it sounds awesome. Speed Force powers aren't that bad but "Speed Force" sounds lame. The problem w/the SF is that it shouldn't be mentioned. When Flash does some crazy **** involving speed it should be because he's the Flash. No further explanation is needed. When it is, come up w/a better one. Speed Force sux. Have they mentioned it in the new 52?

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

It wasn't a success in attracting a new audience (lack of action sequences certainly did that).

Fair enough

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

It's the opposite for me. I've never been a big fan of Thor and Iron Man, so I really don't care for them. On top of that, Thor and Iron Man 2 were C+/B- films, so I virtually have no excitement for the sequels.

The Wolverine has an exciting premise but Origins was a **** movie. So I will approach with caution, but Jackman playing Wolverine easily gets me hyped.

Thus far, I only plan on catching Man of Steel and Wolverine in theaters.

I liked Thor & Avengers has me hyped for Iron Man again. Great characters. I like Wolverine more than both, but I hated that movie sooo much. Not seeing MOS until it's on Cable or one of my friends who doesn't like Supes a whole lot tells me it's worth seeing. Not seeing Wolvie @all unless I hear from a reliable source that it's good.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

People refuse to accept that both DCAU Green Lanterns (John and Kyle) were based heavily on Hal Jordan, Pre-Johns, and say that they should use that John Stewart. It makes no sense, it really has gotten to the point where I think some people just want John because he is black. Like Wally West, everyone thinks he is some kind of jokester because of JL/U despite being based on Impulse.

I know they used Hal's origin for Kyle, but how's DCAU John based on Hal?

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

You may be right, but I'd say it doesn't really matter to me if comic Hal > comic John because JLU John >any version of Hal. John is the best one to be used outside of the comics because so far he's had nothing but success, unlike Hal.

I wouldn't agree, especially with Green Lantern's show now being picked up for second season and having solid ratings and reviews.

But it is. IG is pretty awesome & it sounds awesome. Speed Force powers aren't that bad but "Speed Force" sounds lame. The problem w/the SF is that it shouldn't be mentioned. When Flash does some crazy **** involving speed it should be because he's the Flash. No further explanation is needed. When it is, come up w/a better one. Speed Force sux. Have they mentioned it in the new 52?

I've personally stayed away from most of The New 52. Wally West has been erased from the history books (according to the new timeline).

Eh, we'll have to disagree. Speed Force is a badass concept, albeit the name could had a more gripping label. Without Speed Force in the picture abilities like Infinite Mass Punch, Speed Control, Intangibility/Self-Molecular Control, Steal Speed and Time & Universe/Dimension Travel wouldn't exist.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

People refuse to accept that both DCAU Green Lanterns (John and Kyle) were based heavily on Hal Jordan, Pre-Johns, and say that they should use that John Stewart. It makes no sense, it really has gotten to the point where I think some people just want John because he is black. Like Wally West, everyone thinks he is some kind of jokester because of JL/U despite being based on Impulse.

Ironically, I believe John is a poor ripoff of Hal and Kyle is more of a ripoff of John, but I agree with you. Hal was clearly the inspirational choice for John and Kyle.

To be fair, Wally has been 'jokey' and snarky in the comics as well but Wally from JL/U channeled some of Impuse too. I won't deny that.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

I know they used Hal's origin for Kyle, but how's DCAU John based on Hal?

His life story and quite a lot of his demeanour. At the time of JL John's actual origin was an architect, and Hal had been a fighter pilot. John was a soldier in JL(U), and acted quite a bit like Hal because of a soldiers sense of duty. But he as the series progressed he did get more like John, but he was always an amalgamation.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Ironically, I believe John is a poor ripoff of Hal and Kyle is more of a ripoff of John, but I agree with you. Hal was clearly the inspirational choice for John and Kyle.

I will admit Kyle began pretty much just like John: Given Hal's ring, was an artist etc. But he grew into a very good character.

To be fair, Wally has been 'jokey' and snarky in the comics as well but Wally from JL/U channeled some of Impuse too. I won't deny that.

Oh yeah, I'm not denying that, but his snark comes largely from the fact that he inherited most of Barry's villains and he finds them all ridiculous because of their ties to the Silver-Age. He is nothing like he was in JLU who was at one point actually going to be Impulse.

[metaphysician]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

I meant to write 400 million (typo).

Anywho, yes, it is your opinion. While Superman isn't my favorite character, it'd be alittle disingenuous to claim that Kal-El isn't a 'good' character compared to Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, Martian Manhunter, etc.

Superman Returns was not a failure. I don't see how you arrived to that conclusion. In fact, WB executives were heavily considering a sequel (planned to be released in 2009). Similar to Batman Begins though, the character was absent for nearly 20 years after following subpar installments.

Okay, I'm sorry, but yes, Superman Returns was a failure. It made 390M worldwide on a listed production budget of 270M. Even if we ignore the sunk costs for the early attempts at a Superman movie, and assume the actual production costs were "only" 200M ( which is at the low end of the estimates I've heard ), it *still* didn't break even in theaters. That is the very definition of failure.

WB's interest in making a sequel only happened because they view the Superman IP itself as valuable, and wanted to do something with it. Which should come as no surprise to anyone, success or not of Superman Returns.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by metaphysician

Okay, I'm sorry, but yes, Superman Returns was a failure. It made 390M worldwide on a listed production budget of 270M. Even if we ignore the sunk costs for the early attempts at a Superman movie, and assume the actual production costs were "only" 200M ( which is at the low end of the estimates I've heard ), it *still* didn't break even in theaters. That is the very definition of failure.

WB's interest in making a sequel only happened because they view the Superman IP itself as valuable, and wanted to do something with it. Which should come as no surprise to anyone, success or not of Superman Returns.

You clearly can't distinguish the difference between a 'disappointment' and a 'failure'. WB and Legendary publicly stated that they still turned a profit after Superman Returns crossed 200 million (domestically). Now, was it the performer that WB/Legendary had hoped for? No. However, was Superman Returns a failure? Not even close. Out of the 191m made overseas, WB/Legendary received about 80-85m. So please, explain to me how Superman Returns was a box office 'failure'?

[Stikmann]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

You clearly can't distinguish the difference between a 'disappointment' and a 'failure'. WB and Legendary publicly stated that they still turned a profit after Superman Returns crossed 200 million (domestically). Now, was it the performer that WB/Legendary had hoped for? No. However, was Superman Returns a failure? Not even close. Out of the 191m made overseas, WB/Legendary received about 80-85m. So please, explain to me how Superman Returns was a box office 'failure'?

In light of the fact that Superman Returns didn’t nearly live up to what was wanted/expected, it’s widely considered a failure…by fans anyway. It failed to launch a new Superman franchise at the very least.

[Llama_Shepherd]

If you want to get pedantic, Superman Returns was actually going to launch a new franchise, development began in late '06. Singer left for Valkyrie, then the writers left, and reboot was underway in 09, initially with Routh still as Superman, until David Goyer wrote his Man of Steel treatment as a full reboot.