I Don't Understand....

[Still A ThorFan]

Superman is DC's flagship character. His new movie hasn't and won't crack two hundred million dollars. So why in the world is DC going ahead with projects such as Wonder Woman, The Flash, and Green Lantern? If Superman bombed what makes them think those will do any better?

 

[Parker]

People were too "distracted" by PotC, from what I hear.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

Don't get me started on how that movie made a billion dollars. Superman should have destroyed it still.

 

[DarKush]

Superman is DC's flagship character. His new movie hasn't and won't crack two hundred million dollars. So why in the world is DC going ahead with projects such as Wonder Woman, The Flash, and Green Lantern? If Superman bombed what makes them think those will do any better?

I have issues with SR. But it's not a bomb, and it will make $200 million if it stays in the theaters for a good ten weeks or more. Plus, the international take will probably place it upwards to $400 million. That being said, it has been swamped by POTC. I haven't seen either of the Pirates films, but from the commercials, and obviously the box office, they are more crowd pleasing than SR. However, I don't think that signals the deathknell of the Superman film franchise.

Superman is the flagship character because he is the first superhero, and arguably the greatest superhero. Almost every other hero has been inspired, derived something from Superman-costume, secret identity, backstory, powers, archvillian, etc.

Plus, Superman is a part of Americana on a level unlike any other comic book hero. Spider-Man, the archetypical underdog, would probably come in second-and now first at the box office. But Superman had already been in serials, had a cartoon, and a TV show even before Spider-Man was created.

 

[chiefchirpa]

It's the film, not the comic character. The film doesn't make people want to see it more than once in the theater. But I expect the DVD would sell like hotcakes, while POTC's DVD won't sell that much.

 

[The Kid]

If all those movies are better than returns, expect them to have better box office returns as well.

That's usually how it goes in my neighborhood.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

It simply amazes me that the studio big wigs in WB, knowing that PotC was a monster hit, they would release Superman Returns so close to it...you possibly lose half your audience scheduling it so close to another blockbuster. Hopefully they will learn by their mistake.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

My point is if Superman didn't do as well as DC/WB thought it should, and even I. Why go ahead with projects such as Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and the Flash? Batman I understand, but come if Superman can't do it, no chance in hell those 3 films will come close to being any kind of success.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Still A ThorFan I do happen to agree with you. Unless you're a comic fan, most people dont really know much about Green Lantern, some may know he is a super hero, but thats as far as it goes. DC would have to have a mega-budget effect movie with a tremendous story for people to flock & see Green Lantern. The same goes for Flash. They would both need a lot of word of mouth to get them going. As far as Wonder Woman...I think she has no chance. If you look at the last few female action movies of this type, Elektra & Aeon Flux, both fem movies did poor.

 

[DarKush]

My point is if Superman didn't do as well as DC/WB thought it should, and even I. Why go ahead with projects such as Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and the Flash? Batman I understand, but come if Superman can't do it, no chance in hell those 3 films will come close to being any kind of success.

I think they should go forward because it would be foolish to cede the field to Marvel and/or the companies producing or distributing Marvel movies while there is still a market for comic book films.

Though SR isn't a runaway success, almost $180 million dollars in 4 weeks (at the time of this post) isn't too shabby. The movie will make most if not all of its money back. Plus, Superman's success on the small screen is proof that the character is still a draw. I think that SR's depiction of Superman was off. But Singer gave us a sedate first X-Men movie and then amped it up in X-Men 2. I'm assuming that he will do the same thing with SR2.

That aside, there is a definite market for comic book hero movies, and arguably Flash, Wonder Woman, and Green Lantern are more well known than many Marvel heroes, based on the recent JL/JLU cartoon if nothing else. And those movies will be made far more cheaply than SR, and have less to prove.

With Wonder Woman being the best known female action heroine, that's almost a lock to put her on the big screen, esp. with Joss Whedon-who has fan credibility due to Buffy and Firefly, plus media attention/hype working in his favor-on the project. The success of Aliens, Underworld, Buffy, the Resident Evil films prove that a good female action heroine movie can be successful.

The Flash has already had a TV show that failed more from CBS jerking its schedule around than quality IMO, so a Flash movie would be awesome to see.

Green Lantern would be the toughest movie to do, and perhaps the most expensive depending on how many Lanterns will be present and the kinds of things GL will be doing with the ring, but I think it could still do well.

I think a Supergirl project would be a good chance to take though. Keep the production cost far below SR, but this time get a better script and cast and they might be able to make some magic happen.

After that, I don't see DC really having that many more marketable characters.

I don't know if Martian Manhunter could carry a film, or at least I don't know if I want to see him in a film by himself. Same with Aquaman, Green Arrow, The Question, The Birds of Prey. They might be able to do an action/comedy with Lobo.

 

[chiefchirpa]

IMHO, Flash movie would sell. Flash' superpower is unique and easily identified. Non-comic people would watch a movie about a man who ran fast.

On the other hand, GL and WW would have a tough time.

 

[Donnie Darko]

my response to this whole thread... look at movies like Fantastic Four, Hellboy and Blade. None of these films are nearly as famous as Superman, or Wonder Woman and the Flash for that matter, but they all succeeded at the box office. Whereas they did not make the kind of money a Superman film would hope for, they more than made back their budgets at the theater and added a lot on dvd. I guess my point is that if they can do a superhero movie in the $40-50 million range (like Blade, I believe) as opposed to $200 million, they can be worthy investments for the company. I believe Serenity cost about $40 million. There is no need for a Green Lantern or Flash movie to cost more than that IMO.

Also, I really liked Superman Returns and after all the worldwide box office and dvd sales come in, they will multiply the money it cost to make.

 

[Caliber]

Superman Returns was nothing more than a remake of the first Superman. So people have seen it done already. A Green Lantern or Flash would be good because its original and hopefully like the comics they appear in.

 

[mathhater]

Still A ThorFan I do happen to agree with you. Unless you're a comic fan, most people dont really know much about Green Lantern, some may know he is a super hero, but thats as far as it goes. DC would have to have a mega-budget effect movie with a tremendous story for people to flock & see Green Lantern. The same goes for Flash. They would both need a lot of word of mouth to get them going. As far as Wonder Woman...I think she has no chance. If you look at the last few female action movies of this type, Elektra & Aeon Flux, both fem movies did poor.

Yes, "Elektra" and "Aeon Flux" did poor. So did "Catwoman," "Ultraviolet," and "BloodRayne." But it's not because they're fem movies...it's because they sucked.
"Kill Bill" and "Underworld" also feature female leads and were successful films.
"Wonder Woman" has a very good chance at being a success...as long as the movie's good. That's what really matters...not if there's a male or female in the lead, but how good the movie is.

 

[GL1]

Um... DC is not "going ahead" with Flash or GL... they've got Gough Lobbying for Flash, Silver lobbying for WW and Corey Reynolds lobbying for Green Lantern... that's hardly "going ahead." Wonder Woman is the only one that's truly impending, since Silver carries a lot of weight at WB, especially on female heroines (it's funny when you can namedrop fictional characters).

None of the movies is beyond being postponed due to SR "underperformance" to say nothing of SR2...

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Yes, "Elektra" and "Aeon Flux" did poor. So did "Catwoman," "Ultraviolet," and "BloodRayne." But it's not because they're fem movies...it's because they sucked.
"Kill Bill" and "Underworld" also feature female leads and were successful films.
"Wonder Woman" has a very good chance at being a success...as long as the movie's good. That's what really matters...not if there's a male or female in the lead, but how good the movie is.

Mathhater, I didn't mean that only because those movies had female leads they bombed but, there is something to it a little. Sometimes its hard to sell an action story with a female in it is all. But yes, the story has A LOT to do with it. Im wondering how much care is going to be put into WW.

 

[Superman: Idols]

My point is if Superman didn't do as well as DC/WB thought it should, and even I. Why go ahead with projects such as Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and the Flash? Batman I understand, but come if Superman can't do it, no chance in hell those 3 films will come close to being any kind of success.

None of those movies will cost $200 million to make, I assume.

 

[dnno1]

Superman is DC's flagship character. His new movie hasn't and won't crack two hundred million dollars. So why in the world is DC going ahead with projects such as Wonder Woman, The Flash, and Green Lantern? If Superman bombed what makes them think those will do any better?

Because "Superman Returns" has cracked over $288 million (it didn't bomb if you include overseas returns) and will more than likely top $300 million by the end of this month or early next month. You can already conclude that with an estimated production budget of 260 million, the film has already made its money back. That figure will obviously be higher once you include other revenue streams like DVD sales and licensing as well. If you will notice a significant portion of the revenue for these comicbook films is coming from overseas returns ("Batman Begins" and both of the Spiderman films had over 50% of thieir gross coming from overseas for example). I think that when all is said and done you will see that "Superman Returns will probably gross about $400 million at the box office with $220 million coming from overseas returns (just my swag). I think the next focus is on making Wonder Woman a success and then the studios can direct their attention on films like The Flash and (hopefully) Green Lantern later on.

 

[Ben Urich]

Doesn't Superman Returns get a sequel if it tops $200 million domestically?

 

[dnno1]

Doesn't Superman Returns get a sequel if it tops $200 million domestically?

I saw something like this posted over at another forum, but I don't know where its coming from nor if it is totally true. What if the film had only made $40 million domestically and made $360 million overseas? Do you think that the studios would turn away the opportunity to make a sequel and to make more money just because it didn't do well here in the United States? I want to believe that the $200 million figure had to include both foriegn and domestic, because that is more than likely how they sold it in their pitch to the studios and investors. The fact that they were targeting overseas viewers also explains why they de-ephasized the whole American way thing in the film, so that was a clue in to me that they were relying on overseas revenue for the film. Like I mentioned before, overseas revenues are steadily becoming more and more a significant and even the dominant source of revenue for this gener of films so it should be and is respected and not discounted by the producers.

 

[Caliboy]

the article was on tmz site go here http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/10/exclusive-super-200-million-man-or-else/

The Wb was hoping it would do more than BB numbers, due to its budget and the attention a new superman movie would garner. 200 million is the benchmark that would greenlight the investment for a sequel

 

[Katsuro]

Superman is DC's flagship character. His new movie hasn't and won't crack two hundred million dollars. So why in the world is DC going ahead with projects such as Wonder Woman, The Flash, and Green Lantern? If Superman bombed what makes them think those will do any better?

Same reason Marvel is still going ahead with all of their movies. The truth is, the average moviegoer does not know Marvel from DC, except for possibly the much larger characters. So Superman not doing well is just as bad for any Marvel movie as it is for any DC movie. The Flash will have just as much going for it as, say, Iron Man in terms of how people feel about the genre.

 

[WarBlade]

Because "Superman Returns" has cracked over $288 million (it didn't bomb if you include overseas returns) and will more than likely top $300 million by the end of this month or early next month. You can already conclude that with an estimated production budget of 260 million, the film has already made its money back.

How could anybody possibly conclude something so absurd?

After the cinemas have taken their cut, other agencies have taken their fees, the manufacture and distribution of prints has been paid for etc etc, Superman Returns is still well below breaking even.

 

[dnno1]

How could anybody possibly conclude something so absurd?

After the cinemas have taken their cut, other agencies have taken their fees, the manufacture and distribution of prints has been paid for etc etc, Superman Returns is still well below breaking even.

Well maybe I should have said "may have already made its money back". This piece from MSNBC indicates that the film would have to hit $400 million worldwide box office to break even, but that figure doesn't include licensing and the sale of DVD's ("Look, Up in the Sky - The Amazing Story of Superman for example), audio CD, and other periphernalia that are already on the market. It could very well be possible that they will make their money back by the end of this summer if they haven't already.

 

[COME ON !]

Well maybe I should have said "may have already made its money back". This piece from MSNBC indicates that the film would have to hit $400 million worldwide box office to break even, but that figure doesn't include licensing and the sale of DVD's ("Look, Up in the Sky - The Amazing Story of Superman for example), audio CD, and other periphernalia that are already on the market. It could very well be possible that they will make their money back by the end of this summer if they haven't already.

I agree. I think they will just about break even at the box office, and then comes the profit from DVDs,TV rights, merchandise etc