I think a clean slate would be best...

[Docker2.0]

I find your post laughable because the subject of my post was how WB handles their live action superhero properties. Yet you managed to direct the attention away from that to other genres and franchises WB handles. I don't care what other genres and franchises WB handles. WB is lost when it comes to handling their superhero live action films. We are in a comic book/superhero forum discussing superhero films not all the properties that WB handles. Do you understand this?! Good for WB that they have made billions off of Harry Potter but that still hasn't changed the fact that all we have received from them is Batman and Superman films.

WB has owned DC for more than 30 years and all we have seen are two live action superhero films: Batman and Superman. And they have had countless problems with Superman throughout the years. Yet Marvel Studios has just come into existence and already we have two from them: Iron Man and the Hulk, with more on the way. And now WB is trying to figure out the best way to handle a team-up film with two characters that are already appearing in solo films (stated in the recent NY Times article).

WB is lost when it comes to handling their superhero live action films. And if comic book films are just a small portion of what they have to worry about, which sounds to me you are just trivializing them and they are not a major concern to the studio, then perhaps it is time to license them to another studio. And then they can happily continue with all their other great franchises that you like to point out.

x 300000!

 

[KELLEL]

I'll give you that.

No, Jon Favreau was not my first choice for IM, but I gave him a chance because when you look at his track record with things like Swingers, it just makes sense that the superhero he would direct is a snarky billionaire playboy.

But with Dobkin and Berlanti...I dunno, it just doesnt make sense to me that the creator of Everwood is directing a movie about an intergalactic police force.

But his track record isn't THAT great either. Sure, he made Swingers, but he also made Elf and Zathura, and that's enough to make doubt enter ANY fanboy's mind.

Burton made a couple TV episodes, Beetlejuice, and Pee Wee Herman before Batman for godsakes! But he made a great Batman, and nobody believed in him at first either, especially with his bogus casting of Michael Keaton as Batman and trach record.

People hated the X-Men cast up until they saw the movie. Hugh Jackman, a guy who had only been in musical plays was cast as Wolverine? Pffftttt!!

So time has taught us to be patient and to have some degree of faith with these films. Miller has won an oscar and has been nominated several times for his work, I don't think he's a hack director. I hope he can pull a good live action JLA film off, and until I see cause for concern, I'm going to continue to be cautiously optimistic about this movie.

 

[dnno1]

I find your post laughable because the subject of my post was how WB handles their live action superhero properties. Yet you managed to direct the attention away from that to other genres and franchises WB handles. I don't care what other genres and franchises WB handles. WB is lost when it comes to handling their superhero live action films. We are in a comic book/superhero forum discussing superhero films not all the properties that WB handles. Do you understand this?! Good for WB that they have made billions off of Harry Potter but that still hasn't changed the fact that all we have received from them is Batman and Superman films.

WB has owned DC for more than 30 years and all we have seen are two live action superhero films: Batman and Superman. And they have had countless problems with Superman throughout the years. Yet Marvel Studios has just come into existence and already we have two from them: Iron Man and the Hulk, with more on the way. And now WB is trying to figure out the best way to handle a team-up film with two characters that are already appearing in solo films (stated in the recent NY Times article).

WB is lost when it comes to handling their superhero live action films. And if comic book films are just a small portion of what they have to worry about, which sounds to me you are just trivializing them and they are not a major concern to the studio, then perhaps it is time to license them to another studio. And then they can happily continue with all their other great franchises that you like to point out.

I am trying to explain to you that you are comparing a company that deals solely with their superhero properties (Marvel) as a business model with a company that deals with the whole gamut of film genres (the WB) and produces more films per year. Superhero pictures are not a significant portion of the WB's revenue and they have no pressing need to place an emphasis on that. Even the ones they have produced have made millions of dollars for them and the ones that were flops out grossed their Marvel counterpart films (the worst Batman film had more people come out to see it than did a Punisher or a Daredevil film for example). It's more like been there, done that for WB when it comes to that genre whereas you are saying they are lost. That is far from the truth and it is laughable at best.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I am trying to explain to you that you are comparing a company that deals solely with their superhero properties (Marvel) as a business model with a company that deals with the whole gamut of film genres (the WB) and produces more films per year. Superhero pictures are not a significant portion of the WB's revenue and they have no pressing need to place an emphasis on that. Even the ones they have produced have made millions of dollars for them and the ones that were flops out grossed their Marvel counterpart films (the worst Batman film had more people come out to see it than did a Punisher or a Daredevil film for example). It's more like been there, done that for WB when it comes to that genre whereas you are saying they are lost. That is far from the truth and it is laughable at best.

Again, I don't care what other films WB puts out and franchises that they handle. That has been established and I recognize that. That doesn't change the fact that I want to see other superhero films besides Batman and Superman, and done correctly.

So, because they handle so many other films, we should it find acceptable that we never see anything besides Batman and Superman?! You know what, we may never see a Green Lantern film but good thing WB may be putting out another Exorcist film in the future. Thank God for that. That makes it all better.

And no pressing need to place an emphasis on their superhero properties? Are you kidding me? I find that completely laughable. If there is no pressing need for their superhero properties then why the scramble to get JLA done and released for 2009 as their big summer tentpole?!

And if it's been there done that for WB, as you claim it is, then license the superhero properties to another studio who will put forth a serious effort to get these other characters off the ground!

 

[dnno1]

Again, I don't care what other films WB puts out and franchises that they handle. That has been established and I recognize that. That doesn't change the fact that I want to see other superhero films besides Batman and Superman, and done correctly.

Then I guess you are doomed to misrepresent the WB by calling them lost. I am afraid you are sadly mistaken there. The WB is a company that has been around for more than 100 years in the film industry. They certainly know what they are doing (more than you for sure) to be around that long and to compare them to a small fry company like Marvel is kind of silly.

So, because they handle so many other films, we should it find acceptable that we never see anything besides Batman and Superman?! You know what, we may never see a Green Lantern film but good thing WB may be putting out another Exorcist film in the future. Thank God for that. That makes it all better.

No. We shouldn't be calling them lost when along with Batman and Superman, they have also made some really great films over the past 100 years.

And no pressing need to place an emphasis on their superhero properties? Are you kidding me? I find that completely laughable. If there is no pressing need for their superhero properties then why the scramble to get JLA done and released for 2009 as their big summer tentpole?!

Because they were presented with a very good script according to reports, and the Justice League has proven itself as a brand over the past three decades. Otherwise we may not be having this discussion at this time. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't have eventually been a Justice League film in the future though.

And if it's been there done that for WB, as you claim it is, then license the superhero properties to another studio who will put forth a serious effort to get these other characters off the ground!

That is not their strategy. The WB's policy has always been to maintain the distribution rights to their properties while having financed, co-financing, or wholly financing a project based on level of risk. That is smarter because you still maintain control of your franchises. The licensing strategy only contributed to net incomes of $102 million, $59 million, and $140 million, for Marvel Entertainment in 2005, 2006, and 2007 respectively (just see their annual report). Following the WB's strategy they have been able to make more films and make themselves a $10 billion company. If you are an investor, you could give a rip if they weren't putting forth a serious effort toward getting their other 55 characters off the ground so long as they are not loosing their shirts doing it and showing a significant profit every year.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Then I guess you are doomed to misrepresent the WB by calling them lost. I am afraid you are sadly mistaken there. The WB is a company that has been around for more than 100 years in the film industry. They certainly know what they are doing (more than you for sure) to be around that long and to compare them to a small fry company like Marvel is kind of silly.

I refer to WB in regards to only of their handling of superhero films. With their characters and franchises they are in possession of and what we have seen over the years, they are lost.

Because they were presented with a very good script according to reports, and the Justice League has proven itself as a brand over the past three decades. Otherwise we may not be having this discussion at this time. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't have eventually been a Justice League film in the future though.

A product they are unsure of on how to proceed with in certain aspects according to the article in the NY Times. The studio is not sure how to proceed with Superman and Batman in JLA due to uneasiness they feel the audience may have because of their 2 other current franchises. If they felt the product was so great and they know exactly what they are doing, why the holdup in this regard?

 

[dnno1]

I refer to WB in regards to only of their handling of superhero films. With their characters and franchises they are in possession of and what we have seen over the years, they are lost.

They have done pretty well whith the ones they have released. Just because Marvel is moving on a lot of films right now doesn't mean or imply that they are going to be successful on all of them. They are not lost at all.

A product they are unsure of on how to proceed with in certain aspects according to the article in the NY Times. The studio is not sure how to proceed with Superman and Batman in JLA due to uneasiness they feel the audience may have because of their 2 other current franchises. If they felt the product was so great and they know exactly what they are doing, why the holdup in this regard?

That would be the case with a lot of studios and their feature films set to be released in 2009. It should be no surprise that there could be an actors strike in a couple of months and that will effect everyone if it happens. If you were refering to the tax breaks in Australia, I doubt there really is any uncertainty. Accoding to articles in the news it is either stay or go (no uncertainty there). I seriously doubt that they will go since they have already set up camp in Australia and there is not real benefit going to Canada since the Dollar is weaker there and they probably wouldn't get any more of a break than where they are now. Don't think for a monment that Superman and Batman won't be in the film or that they don't know how to handle them or the audience. It is all hype. As far as the general audience is concerned, most of them don't even know there will be a film for crying out loud.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

They have done pretty well whith the ones they have released. Just because Marvel is moving on a lot of films right now doesn't mean or imply that they are going to be successful on all of them. They are not lost at all.

Really? What's the status on the sequel for Superman Returns? Why is there a quote from Robinov on how SR should have made more than it did. That, it could have used more action to satisfy the young male audience. How come we didn't get the sequel for SR in 2009 and instead WB has decided to go with JLA? All is well with Superman, though, right? So that leaves us with one franchise, Batman. That's pretty sad if you consider (one property) your definition of WB doing pretty well with their superhero properties.

That would be the case with a lot of studios and their feature films set to be released in 2009. It should be no surprise that there could be an actors strike in a couple of months and that will effect everyone if it happens. If you were refering to the tax breaks in Australia, I doubt there really is any uncertainty. Accoding to articles in the news it is either stay or go (no uncertainty there). I seriously doubt that they will go since they have already set up camp in Australia and there is not real benefit going to Canada since the Dollar is weaker there and they probably wouldn't get any more of a break than where they are now. Don't think for a monment that Superman and Batman won't be in the film or that they don't know how to handle them or the audience. It is all hype. As far as the general audience is concerned, most of them don't even know there will be a film for crying out loud.

I wasn't referring to the tax break at all. No uncertainty? Have you not read the article where George Miller himself has said the situation surrounding JLA is precarious?! That's your definition of no uncertainty? And when did I say that I thought Batman and Superman would not be in the film. I referred only to the NY Times article which specifically stated the studio is unsure on how to introduce those characters without creating a sense of uneasiness. Their words, not mine. Sounds like WB is really clued in on this project.

 

[Docker2.0]

They have done pretty well whith the ones they have released. Just because Marvel is moving on a lot of films right now doesn't mean or imply that they are going to be successful on all of them. They are not lost at all.



That would be the case with a lot of studios and their feature films set to be released in 2009. It should be no surprise that there could be an actors strike in a couple of months and that will effect everyone if it happens. If you were refering to the tax breaks in Australia, I doubt there really is any uncertainty. Accoding to articles in the news it is either stay or go (no uncertainty there). I seriously doubt that they will go since they have already set up camp in Australia and there is not real benefit going to Canada since the Dollar is weaker there and they probably wouldn't get any more of a break than where they are now. Don't think for a monment that Superman and Batman won't be in the film or that they don't know how to handle them or the audience. It is all hype. As far as the general audience is concerned, most of them don't even know there will be a film for crying out loud.

You cant be serious! You must work for the WB!

 

[Orin]

I wasn't referring to the tax break at all. No uncertainty? Have you not read the article where George Miller himself has said the situation surrounding JLA is precarious?!

The way i read that article, he used the term to describe the status for JLA in Australia, not the film itself. I mean, that's what that article was all about. Not that i think it can't get derailed anymore. After all, there is still that possibility of an actors strike...

 

[FlawlessVictory]

The way i read that article, he used the term to describe the status for JLA in Australia, not the film itself. I mean, that's what that article was all about. Not that i think can't get derailed anymore. After all, there is still that possibility of an actors strike...

You're right. I wasn't originally referring to the situation in Australia but dnno1 brought it up and said he doubts there was any uncertainty. The director himself stated otherwise.

 

[Orin]

I see.

 

[The Guard]

WB is lost? That depends on what "lost" means.

Do you mean that the company simply doesn't know how to make superhero movies?

That WB hasn't made many superhero movies?

That WB's superhero movies are poor in quality?

First, we have not "only gotten Batman and Superman movies" from WB. In the last few years, we've gotten THE MATRIX movies (which may as well be a superhero movie), CONSTANTINE, 300, SUPERMAN RETURNS, two Batman movies, and now WATCHMEN. All of these are comic book films. There has also been a long-running live-action series based on the Superman mythos as well as various animated shows.

Would we all like to see more superhero franchises? Sure, but it's just not as simple as that. WB is a business, and they must run themselves like a business. That means giving attention to several genres, not just superheroes. When looking at the quantity coming from WB, taking "other franchises" into account is a valid argument. Some of you seem to insist to look at WB in terms of it's superhero potential, or what you think it "should" be doing. But WB is not a studio that can simply dedicate itself to making just superhero movies. It has many genres it must cover, and other franchises to deal with. So the fact that WB does not make a ton of superhero movies at any given time should really be taken in context.

It's difficult to compare Marvel on the same level, because Marvel, until very recently, was not a studio, it was a comic book company who sold its rights to other studios. Namely FOX, SONY, and LION'S GATE. Marvel has its own studio now. We'll see how IRON MAN and THE INCREDIBLE HULK do.

Now yes, Marvel Studios was created for the express purpose of making solo films and new franchises, but we have yet to see the quality of their work. IRON MAN looks solid, but THE INCREDIBLE HULK could go either way.

It's interesting. No one *****es that IRON MAN took years and years to develop, but if THE FLASH doesn't materialize right away and GREEN LANTERN doesn't show up a year after it's had a director semi-attached, it's "WB is lost".

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^It's clear what I am referring to if you have been reading through all my posts. Superhero characters that appear in DC Comics. I've already mentioned that WB has owned DC Comics for more than 30 years and the only live action superhero films we have seen are Batman and Superman. So, The Matrix movies don't count and neither do 300, Watchmen, V for Vendetta or Constantine. Not to say that those aren't good films or will be good.

But if you did read through, I made it a point that my concern is seeing superheroes that have appeared in DC Comics in live action films. I stand by my statement that WB is lost when it comes to that regard. Only two characters and the way Superman has been handled over the years and is virtually in limbo right now is proof of that, IMHO.

And you can bring up all the other franchises and properties WB handles all you want, and I recognize their existence, but that won't change the fact that I want to see these characters on the big screen and done properly. So, we're basically S out of luck since WB doesn't need to rely on those properties as someone such as Marvel Studios. But funny how they are tripping over themselves trying to get JL made for 2009 to be their big summer tentpole.

It's just too bad there is no DC Comics Studios.

 

[Black Zodak]

Films shot in Canada get better tax breaks then films shot in Australia. Its just as simple as that. The up and down Canadian dollar really means nothing, because the tax breaks American films get in Canada makes it worthwhile for them to shoot there. Thats why films like X-Men, Fantastic Four and Hulk keep getting filmed there. As someone who works in the film industry, I can tell you that its always cheaper to shoot in Canada. Canada is also the US' next door neighbour, so its easier to travel back and forth.

 

[The Guard]

^It's clear what I am referring to if you have been reading through all my posts.

Nor have I denied it. It's also clear that you give WB no break for being a studio, and not a "superhero" studio. Your point of view is one that pretty much all fanboys share. We all want to see DC Comics live-action superhero films. But you refuse to allow any logic to seep into your thoughts on this phenomenon. For a business, it's just not as simple as saying "Hey, let's make a $250 million dollar GREEN LANTERN film." It certainly wasn't feasible financially at any point before about 2003, and even now, it just doesn't work that way. Especially now, after SUPERMAN RETURNS underperformed.

 

[dnno1]

Really? What's the status on the sequel for Superman Returns? Why is there a quote from Robinov on how SR should have made more than it did. That, it could have used more action to satisfy the young male audience. How come we didn't get the sequel for SR in 2009 and instead WB has decided to go with JLA? All is well with Superman, though, right? So that leaves us with one franchise, Batman. That's pretty sad if you consider (one property) your definition of WB doing pretty well with their superhero properties.

I said that they did pretty good with the ones they have released. It belive it was Alan Horn himself that said to the Los Angeles Times that the film fell $100 million short of what he expected (I was disappointed with certain aspects of the film), but a $391 million gross is nothing to sneeze at. The Superman franchise has more to worry about than just the next film. There is a law suit with the Siegel family going on right now and the rights to the character may expire in 5 more years. In spite of that, that has nothing to do with their past performance and it doesn't mean that they couldn't produce another film in the future with some other character that will perform just as well at the box office.

I wasn't referring to the tax break at all. No uncertainty? Have you not read the article where George Miller himself has said the situation surrounding JLA is precarious?! That's your definition of no uncertainty? And when did I say that I thought Batman and Superman would not be in the film. I referred only to the NY Times article which specifically stated the studio is unsure on how to introduce those characters without creating a sense of uneasiness. Their words, not mine. Sounds like WB is really clued in on this project.

It is dubious whether or not he was referring to the fact that the project wasn't getting tax breaks after they threatened to leave. That's the way I interpret those reports. I don't believe for a minute that they are going to leave for any reason. Canada is more expensive and they aren't going to get any more of a tax break than they will in Australia, unless they plan to release the picture after the term limits of Miller and Osbourne's filming rights have expired (which will probably be into the next decade). That would be dumb as well since inflation would make production costs much greater than $220 million by then.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea i wonder what is going to happen with wb and dc comics if the sigels with the lawsuit get total control of the superman rights? I guess dc and wb would have to pay to use the character is tv/movie/comics.

 

[dnno1]

Marvel will try to get the name I'm sure (like they did with Captain Marvel). Believe you me, the WB and DC don't want to pay a dime for the use of the character if they don't have to. Case in point, they are not using the name Superboy, although they still use the logo and refer the character with a different name. They will still keep the logo but without the name.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea that would so be weird if dc/wb loses the rights and marvel takes control would be so weird to see supes in marvel's regular verse.

 

[dnno1]

BTW, this is just for you, Webhead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/media/29comics.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin

 

[Webhead2006]

was this today? hmm i wonder what time warner and dc are going to do now?

 

[protocida]

Warner Bros only have ''Batman Begins'' (Extraordinary) and ''Superman Returns'' (Good) on their profile.

How can this be ''BAD''?

 

[The Major]

Warner Bros only have ''Batman Begins'' (Extraordinary) and ''Superman Returns'' (Good) on their profile.

How can this be ''BAD''?

It's bad because instead of just having 2 successful super-hero franchises they could have dozens.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea so true they could have easily been knocking out flash films, green arrow, green lantern, wonder women, and many others. But they just dont know how to get it done, or have no faith in the characters and all that. Hell i barely know anything on dc characters besides cartoons and looking up histories/bios of characters but i would so be there opening day for heros films. Good or bad i would see them, but hope they do good ones.