I think a clean slate would be best...

[Jake Cassidy]

7 characters is not really that many.

 

[GreenKToo]

I think they should go the trilogy route.
Have maybe 3 heroes at the most in the first.
A couple of more heroes could be added in the 2nd.
then the rest of em' join for the 3rd.
Have a really bada$$ villain for them to take on, someone that the big 3 can't handle in the first film.
The first film could end with somewhat of a cliffhanger, and show Batman seeking out help from other heroes..

 

[dnno1]

DC and the WB have been most suceessful with all 7 together. I don't think you want to disturb that formula.

 

[dnno1]

Marvel has a gameplan and WB doesn't. Sure, Marvel's plan is ambitious as hell, even Favreau stated this but at least they have a clear idea of what they want to do.

WB is clueless. Superman Returns' performance and its reception threw a wrench into their original plans. WB panicked with SR and decided to put plans together for a guranteed superhero movie mega blockbuster to be released in 2009. Superman Returns was supposed to be that for WB but it failed to do that for studio. Little do they know that's more of a result of the audience getting more "Singerman" than Superman.

One thing is clear, WB has lost confidence in Singer and his vision for Superman otherwise this forum would not exist and we would be getting SR2 in 2009. The original writers from SR are already gone and while Singer has recently said he plans to begin working on the sequel, the studio has said nothing (though that's not a surprise with most projects that are just beginning).

What we have now is a project thrown in the middle of two franchises: one that is healthy (Batman) and one that is on life support (Superman). Some execs are unsure on how to proceed with Singer and SR and are pushing JL while others are undecided with both projects (SR and JL). It's a mess at WB with these superheroes movies. There's no clear unanimous agreement among the executives. It's no wonder we only ever get Batman and Superman movies from this studio.

WB is lost. Marvel isn't. Marvel's willingness to reboot Hulk just proves this. Meanwhile we still have no clue what's going on with Singer's Superman. WB needs to finish out Nolan's Batman movies, reboot Superman and take a freakin shot at a solo movie(GL or Flash). And then follow up with a team-up movie. Save the biggest and best for last! They had this or something similar to this in mind originally (Bale and Routh had a team-up clause in their contracts). What we have now is a mess on our hands with a project that can't even get out of its own way in JL.

I find what you say laughable at best. Marvel has only been successful with really three franchises ("Spider-Man, "X-Men", and "Fantastic Four"). Secondly you are comparing a company that has only been into films for less than 10 years to a company that has been doing it for more than a century. The WB has several franchizes across numerous generes. How is that being clueless or lost? The only reason why Marvel is going with another Hulk film is because he is one of Marvel's flagship characters and they have to make him work or else. The WB certainly knows what they are doing. It's called lay in wait and see how your competition does. They have already discovered that female superheorines don't sell (not as blockbusters) so they are not going that route, and they see that ensemble films are not as risky. That is why they are going with Justice League (which has a much better shot at selling than Marvel's Avengers).

 

[Showtime]

I don't really think what he is saying is laughable at all. You're saying that Marvel has beens successful with three comic franchises, Spiderman, X-Men, and Fantastic Four...

Which franchises has WB/DC been successful with in the past decade while Marvel has been enjoying the success of the above?

Batman Begins, with Dark Knight yet to drop...
Superman Returns faired below studio exepctations, both Robinov and Horn said so...

Keep in mind, we are only talking about comic franchises, because that is the only relevent subject here. We aren't talking about Harry Potter and the like.

In regards to female superhero franchises, are you refering to Catwoman? If so, the reason that movie failed lies squarely on the shoulders of WB.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I find what you say laughable at best. Marvel has only been successful with really three franchises ("Spider-Man, "X-Men", and "Fantastic Four").

That's one more than WB. And my focus is about moving forward. Marvel has a gameplan. Solo movies for Iron Man, Hulk, and Thor is in development with an eventual lead in to The Avengers. Will this plan work? Who knows? But they have a plan. WB had one plan then they switched it midstream after the disappointing SR was released. Now we have execs undecided on SR2, JL, etc... So, yea WB is a wee bit lost right now.

Secondly you are comparing a company that has only been into films for less than 10 years to a company that has been doing it for more than a century. The WB has several franchizes across numerous generes. How is that being clueless or lost?

I'm referring specifically to superhero movies. How long has WB owned DC? How many live action movies outside of Batman and Superman have we received? They are clueless when it comes to making superhero movies. That work better for you?

How long did it take for them to develop a new Superman? Look at the discussions and the directions they were pondering when it came to making a new Superman film? And after all these years we get Superman Returns? A movie we already basically saw. With the rich history of Superman and his villains in the comics, we get SR.

The only reason why Marvel is going with another Hulk film is because he is one of Marvel's flagship characters and they have to make him work or else.

Superman is not one of WB/DC's flagship characters? He doesn't need to work? Last time I checked he isn't working out too well otherwise we wouldn't even be having a discussion on JLA.

The WB certainly knows what they are doing. It's called lay in wait and see how your competition does.

All we get is Batman and Superman solo movies and a bunch of talk that just amounts to hot air for the rest of the superheroes.

Oh wait, but we do have the prospect of DJ Cotrona as Superman and Arm & Hammer as Batman. So yea. they must really know what they are doing.

They have already discovered that female superheorines don't sell (not as blockbusters) so they are not going that route, and they see that ensemble films are not as risky. That is why they are going with Justice League (which has a much better shot at selling than Marvel's Avengers).

They have such a hard time developing a superhero movie based on one character and getting that right, what makes me think they will get one about seven superheroes right?

 

[dnno1]

I don't really think what he is saying is laughable at all. You're saying that Marvel has beens successful with three comic franchises, Spiderman, X-Men, and Fantastic Four...

Which franchises has WB/DC been successful with in the past decade while Marvel has been enjoying the success of the above?..

You mean which "franchises" has the "WB" been successful with in the past decade (DC makes comic books and graphic novels)? The answer to that is numerous over the years. Here are just some:

"Oceans 11"
"Harry Potter"
"Superman"
"Batman"
"The Exorcist"
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" (TMNT)
"Lethal Weapon"

I am classifying a franchise as a film that has had more than one production released. And if you would notice, the WB has several films that are currently in release that are doing very well at the box office. The WB has more genres to deal with than comic book superhero films. That's the major differences between Marvel and DC.

...Batman Begins, with Dark Knight yet to drop...
Superman Returns faired below studio exepctations, both Robinov and Horn said so...

These franchises still stand and have numerous films under their belt. As far as Marvel is concerned, they only have "Spider-Man" with more than two films.

...In regards to female superhero franchises, are you refering to Catwoman? If so, the reason that movie failed lies squarely on the shoulders of WB.

It's not just the WB's "Catwoman", but all of them. Haven't you been reading the recent articles?

 

[GreenKToo]

Even though they were only meant as a onetime deal, I think 300 and the soon to be released Watchmen can be added to the list of W.B. released C.B. films, Even if they were graphic novels.

That being said though, I agree that W.B. appears skittish about their Comic properties.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Even though they were only meant as a onetime deal, I think 300 and the soon to be released Watchmen can be added to the list of W.B. released C.B. films, Even if they were graphic novels.

That being said though, I agree that W.B. appears skittish about their Comic properties.

I liked 300 and I'm sure Watchmen will be really good, that's why I made sure to stress superheroes in my post. WB has such a damn hard time handling them (superheroes).

 

[Showtime]

You mean which "franchises" has the "WB" been successful with in the past decade (DC makes comic books and graphic novels)? The answer to that is numerous over the years. Here are just some:

"Oceans 11"
"Harry Potter"
"Superman"
"Batman"
"The Exorcist"
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" (TMNT)
"Lethal Weapon"

I am classifying a franchise as a film that has had more than one production released. And if you would notice, the WB has several films that are currently in release that are doing very well at the box office. The WB has more genres to deal with than comic book superhero films. That's the major differences between Marvel and DC.

It was pretty clear that I didn't mean franchises overall since I specifically pointed to comicbook movies, because that is what we are discussing. As far as I know, Harry Potter, Lethal Weapon, The Exorcist, and Oceans 11 are not comic book related movies.

There has been only one Ninja Turtle movie released this decade and because of it's lack of success it is not continuing with a sequel, therefore doesn't seem like it is going to become a stable franchise for WB.

WB has had some success with Begins this past decade and looks like they are going to build upon this with Dark Knight. A Superman Returns sequel is having some problems getting started up, so this is still questionable at best.

These franchises still stand and have numerous films under their belt. As far as Marvel is concerned, they only have "Spider-Man" with more than two films.

The last Batman movie before Begins was in 1997 and was considered a complete disaster, hence the reboot, the last Superman movie before Returns was in 1987.

WB/DC certainly understands how to potray Superman on television and video with some nice success, they struggle with the film interpretations.

It's not just the WB's "Catwoman", but all of them. Haven't you been reading the recent articles?

Again, we are talking about how female superhero franchises here, in which the only representation for WB/DC was Catwoman. Catwoman was screwed up by WB. The articles you are refering to deal with movies such as the Invasion and the Brave One, not comic book franchises?

 

[Sawyer]

Catwoman failed because WB left it in the hands of a writing/directing team that couldnt handle it. And now history is repeating itself.

Lets just pray that JLA gets better costumes....

 

[Webhead2006]

Or we can really hope if the film moves to canada miller decides not to come along and wb hires a new director and brings the film in a better direction and cast more suited people.

 

[Sawyer]

Or we can really hope if the film moves to canada miller decides not to come along and wb hires a new director and brings the film in a better direction and cast more suited people.

Definately. But you never know what the hell WB is going to do.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yup we wont know for sure untill WB comes out with the plans and who knows when that will be. But if the whole move ot canada thing is to happen i heard we would hear something official within the first few weeks of april. So if that happens lets hope they move production drop miller and turn this whole production around. Because i really dont want to see the film flop cause then we can easily say good bye to solo films for the characters in the film and a 3rd nolan batfilm if that is to happen could be dropped because wb doesnt trust the comic properties.

 

[Showtime]

Catwoman failed because WB left it in the hands of a writing/directing team that couldnt handle it. And now history is repeating itself.

Lets just pray that JLA gets better costumes....

They allowed it though. How can you not blame WB? Combined with DC it is their property to push towards failure or elevate to success.

 

[Orin]

Yup we wont know for sure untill WB comes out with the plans and who knows when that will be. But if the whole move ot canada thing is to happen i heard we would hear something official within the first few weeks of april.

From who? The same people, who said we'd hear something official back in november?

So if that happens lets hope they move production drop miller and turn this whole production around.

Why hope the production gets turned around, when you don't even know how it'll end up? Maybe Millers vision of this movie will turn out to be the greatest superhero movie ever made, while a replacement would make total bullcrap out of it. I mean, i hope Bryan Singer gets replaced, cause i thought Superman Retruns was an absolutely awful take on Superman, but with Miller nobody knows what his take is going to be...

Because i really dont want to see the film flop cause then we can easily say good bye to solo films for the characters in the film and a 3rd nolan batfilm if that is to happen could be dropped because wb doesnt trust the comic properties.

What facts indicate that WB would say good bye to the solo-films and a third Batman movie by Nolan? It's just fanboy speculation. It could as well be that WB would be more than ever interested in trying to do solo-movies for those characters, if the team-up thing fails. I mean, why is the JLA movie on the table? Cause the Superman solo-movie faild. This work the other way around as well. Same thing goes for the already established Batman franchise, which they'd be even more interested in keeping alive, since it'd be the only successful comic book franchise left then.

 

[Sawyer]

They allowed it though. How can you not blame WB? Combined with DC it is their property to push towards failure or elevate to success.

I am blaming WB...

 

[Docker2.0]

I find what you say laughable at best. Marvel has only been successful with really three franchises ("Spider-Man, "X-Men", and "Fantastic Four"). Secondly you are comparing a company that has only been into films for less than 10 years to a company that has been doing it for more than a century. The WB has several franchizes across numerous generes. How is that being clueless or lost? The only reason why Marvel is going with another Hulk film is because he is one of Marvel's flagship characters and they have to make him work or else. The WB certainly knows what they are doing. It's called lay in wait and see how your competition does. They have already discovered that female superheorines don't sell (not as blockbusters) so they are not going that route, and they see that ensemble films are not as risky. That is why they are going with Justice League (which has a much better shot at selling than Marvel's Avengers).

Don't forget about Blade and some of the Marvel one shots that grossed over $100 million(Ghost Rider and Daredevil), say what you will about Marvel but they have got their properties out there. Plus they are just now in full control of most of their heroes so now you will see a different view of things. WB is scared to release theirs it seems. Green Lantern!!!! WTF! Why can't they get this guy on film?! This could be a killer franchise!

 

[KELLEL]

Agreed, on all counts. Miller is no fit for something like JLA, and neither are the other planned directors. I mean, when you look at the GL and Flash solo films that WB has planned, I mean...David Dobkin and Greg Berlant?!

Grow a pair and get someone who can handle these films, Warner Brothers...

I like the choices, I think/hope they do well.

And seriously, are you telling me that Jon Favreau, maker of "Elf" was your first choice for Iron Man? Puh-lease. I think everyone had their share of doubts with him up until the first teaser...

Favereau's work on Iron Man (which seems to be GREAT), has really convinced me to shut up and have some faith in what these lower profile directors are doing with my fave comic book characters. I think for once that studios might actually have a clue as to what they're doing.

 

[KELLEL]

Catwoman failed because WB left it in the hands of a writing/directing team that couldnt handle it. And now history is repeating itself.

Lets just pray that JLA gets better costumes....

Amen ta that. I hope they keep the suits as close to the comics as possible. Stylized material is fine (like the spidey, f4, Superman returns, and daredevil suit MATERIAL) for all the members, IMO. But enough about that, that's not what this thread is about....

Hopefully, Jon Peters ISN'T involved.....

 

[Sawyer]

And seriously, are you telling me that Jon Favreau, maker of "Elf" was your first choice for Iron Man? Puh-lease. I think everyone had their share of doubts with him up until the first teaser...

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.

 

[Sawyer]

Double post.

 

[Sawyer]

Aww s***burgers...triple post.

 

[dnno1]

It was pretty clear that I didn't mean franchises overall since I specifically pointed to comicbook movies, because that is what we are discussing. As far as I know, Harry Potter, Lethal Weapon, The Exorcist, and Oceans 11 are not comic book related movies.

And I am talking about the big picture here. WB distributes over 20 films a year crossing multiple genres. Marvel covers a little more than 10% of that.

There has been only one Ninja Turtle movie released this decade and because of it's lack of success it is not continuing with a sequel, therefore doesn't seem like it is going to become a stable franchise for WB...

...WB has had some success with Begins this past decade and looks like they are going to build upon this with Dark Knight. A Superman Returns sequel is having some problems getting started up, so this is still questionable at best....

TMNT is still a franchise that has had more than 3 films (Batman and Superman are in that club). It is very difficult, or at least you are not going to find too many films that will have more than three films in 10 years.

The last Batman movie before Begins was in 1997 and was considered a complete disaster, hence the reboot, the last Superman movie before Returns was in 1987...

It (Batman and Robin) did not lose money and neither film (Batman and Robin or Superman IV) certainly did not kill their franchises.

Again, we are talking about how female superhero franchises here, in which the only representation for WB/DC was Catwoman. Catwoman was screwed up by WB. The articles you are refering to deal with movies such as the Invasion and the Brave One, not comic book franchises?

Quiet as it's kept, Catwoman grossed more revenue that its cohort superheorine films, which is a measure of its relative popularity at the box office. So even when they did screw up with that genre, it was still more popular than other films in that category.

Don't forget about Blade and some of the Marvel one shots that grossed over $100 million(Ghost Rider and Daredevil), say what you will about Marvel but they have got their properties out there. Plus they are just now in full control of most of their heroes so now you will see a different view of things. WB is scared to release theirs it seems. Green Lantern!!!! WTF! Why can't they get this guy on film?! This could be a killer franchise!

Yes, you are right I did forget about those films, but once again people are trying to compare the WB, a company that releases over 20 films a year to the tune of over $10 billion a year in revenues (that's more than 20% of Time-Warner's revenues) to a company that only releases maybe 4 films a year and takes in only $300 to $400 million in revenue for it (the rest going to the distributor or co-producers). Comic book movies are just a small portion of what they have to worry about. That's why it is laughable.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Comic book movies are just a small portion of what they have to worry about. That's why it is laughable.

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.