Marvel's losing its edge and DC's getting its back

[BlueLightning]

You know, the "Future" might be an interesting way to approach DC Universe for Warner Bros. You know, a Batman Beyond film after Nolan's trilogy ends could be very interesting, if they involve the right people. Lot's of special effects, a deep story, I really think that Batman Beyond has a lot of cinematic potential. It would be kinda fresh, and help them distinguish from Marvel's approach, rather than making a rushed Justice League film.

That said, I really really want to see Wonder Woman and Flash done right. Hoping the best for Man of Steel.

 

[CConn]

WB actually played around with the idea of doing a Beyond movie before Nolan came around in 2003. But, at that time, it would've been way too expensive for them to produce.

Now, in our post-Avatar world, it might actually be pretty feasible. The Beyond universe is still proving to be a viable entity in the comics.

 

[dru-zod2501]

Yes, a live action Avengers movie will never, ever happen

To add to this - Didn't Arad also say something about an Avengers movie being an estimated cost of 500+ million? I don't see how or why it'd cost that much, but if that's a legitamate figure, then yes; the Avengers will never have a live-action movie.

from 2005 this thread is like a time capsule of awesome!

 

[CConn]

Wow, even Arad was way off.

 

[Chris Wallace]

one billion dollars worldwide and counting. t:

awesome!!!!!

 

[brainchild81]

Good stuff!

 

[Chris Wallace]

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

 

[Panthro]

That's all kinds of epic win.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

2. SR did not fail miserable. It had a mediocre box office take, and lukewarm critical reception. That's not opinion or supposition, that's just straight truth according to the accepted shorthands of the industry (IE; making more than your budget = success, only make back your budget = mediocre, not making back your budget = failure). Either way, I think we can all agree WB was wise to discontinue that vision of Superman.

Leaving aside for a moment the ridiculous amount of money spent on SR, it was a success really. Even today we call the box office of Thor and Capt America a success and they made less money than SR un-adjusted. SR made about the same money as BB....and SR was not considered nearly as good. Just imagine how much a good/great Supes movie would pull in. I mean...if WB can make 200+ million domestic on a Superman movie that isn't even that great....you know they would take that any day. That's easy money.

If I may enter my two cents. If I were DC, I would resist the temptation to do a straight up Justice League movie and instead test the waters first. What I would do is this, focus on making Man of Steel an awesome movie. That movie's success is absolutely essential. Now, assuming that movie does very well critically and financially, the next move would be to do a World's Finest movie with the first cinematic meeting of Batman and Superman. Maybe hint at a larger DC universe but JUST focus on them. I mean you could pretty much imagine the marketing for it, it could potentially be one of the biggest superhero movies of all time.

Assuming that movie does very well then I would do a sequel called World's Finest: Trinity and introduce Wonder Woman.Now assuming that movie is also a big success, then and only then would we move into Justice League bringing Green Lantern, Flash and maybe Aquaman as ancillary characters but if the audience responds well to them then they can do spinoffs.

But I think the correct approach for DC/Warner is to take their two biggest guns and run with that and see what happens and then use them as a platform to bring in the rest. But most importantly, none of this will work if Man of Steel isn't a success. DC and Warner NEED to to really give that movie everything they have because Batman cannot do it all alone.

I like it.

 

[The Morningstar]

Well you can't leave the budget aside when figuring in success.

If i invest like, $100 in something, and only get $120 back? That isn't really worth it, is it?

If i invest $60 and i get $120 back, that's a success, i've just doubled my money.

 

[metaphysician]

Yep. The relevant measure is always "percent return", not "gross." A 250M box office is a huge hit for a 50M rom-com. For John Carter, it was a career ending bomb, because John Carter cost five times as much as said rom-com.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Even today we call the box office of Thor and Capt America a success and they made less money than SR un-adjusted.

Isn't because they were also done with less money and domestic money earned minus production budget still result to a positive number, unlike SR?

Thor in particular even made more money than SR internationally. Cap sequel wasn't set in stone until the success of the Avengers.

 

[Panthro]

Leaving aside for a moment the ridiculous amount of money spent on SR, it was a success really. Even today we call the box office of Thor and Capt America a success and they made less money than SR un-adjusted. SR made about the same money as BB....and SR was not considered nearly as good. Just imagine how much a good/great Supes movie would pull in. I mean...if WB can make 200+ million domestic on a Superman movie that isn't even that great....you know they would take that any day. That's easy money.

And yet SR did not get a sequel, so clearly someone at WB was not happy with the box office results. Also Thor & Cap were not as expensive to make as SR and were also more positively received by fans & critics than SR.

 

[CConn]

SR achieved mediocre box office and critical results.

It wasn't a flop, but it wasn't a hit either. And it's neither an exceptionally bad nor wholly good idea that WB chose not to go forth with a sequel.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Well you can't leave the budget aside when figuring in success.

If i invest like, $100 in something, and only get $120 back? That isn't really worth it, is it?

If i invest $60 and i get $120 back, that's a success, i've just doubled my money.

That's why I left that out of the conversation. Aren't we talking about the viability of the Superman character as a franchise?

I pointed out that a mediocre Superman movie made over 200 million domestic in 2006. Thor made 180 million in 2011 with a better movie. I'm saying Superman is a bigger property than Thor and thus should not be termed as a character that is not loved. You don't even have to make a good Superman movie to make more box office than a good Thor movie. Heck...Superman, with a mediocre movie, made about the same as a very good Batman movie. That's telling me the public will support Superman very well.

Now...if WB plans on spending the insane amount of money on every Superman movie...then it's not worth it. But why would they do that?

 

[actionavenue]

That's all kinds of epic win.

Love the Avengers vs. Batman picture.....
The Batman franchise won't die, because it's too much of a cash cow for DC and the studio behind it to let it die. In a few years after Nolan's last installment, it will rise again. That being said, The Avengers are the new champ and that new movie with all the awesome characters is outstanding. Hopefully, I can get to the theater again and see it at least once or twice more! No offense, Batman. I am a fan of yours too, but get ready to play second fiddle.
___________________________________________________________
Check out my zombie blog http://freakindeadjed.blogspot.com.
View my scifi artwork http://zazzle.com/actionave.

 

[Naked Shia]

Love the Avengers vs. Batman picture.....
The Batman franchise won't die, because it's too much of a cash cow for DC and the studio behind it to let it die. In a few years after Nolan's last installment, it will rise again. That being said, The Avengers are the new champ and that new movie with all the awesome characters is outstanding. Hopefully, I can get to the theater again and see it at least once or twice more! No offense, Batman. I am a fan of yours too, but get ready to play second fiddle.
___________________________________________________________
Check out my zombie blog http://freakindeadjed.blogspot.com.
View my scifi artwork http://zazzle.com/actionave.

I assume you're speaking of box office result, which may prove true... or not.

The Avengers was a fun movie. I had a great time watching it, and I'll watch it again. But to me, it's a good movie. Not an outstanding movie.

 

[Chris Wallace]

That's all kinds of epic win.

t:

 

[actionavenue]

I assume you're speaking of box office result, which may prove true... or not.

The Avengers was a fun movie. I had a great time watching it, and I'll watch it again. But to me, it's a good movie. Not an outstanding movie.

Yeah, I am speaking of the box office results for both these movies. Yes, only time will tell which one will come out on top. The Dark Knight Rises will have it's work cut out for it. Certainly, the last of the Nolan Batman movies will be a hugely successful film, just like the previous installments. I just think The Avengers are on track to rack up some major dough and may be the film to beat in terms of box office attraction this year. Believe me, I am a fan of both franchises, and this competition is exciting to me.
__________________________________________________________
Check out my zombie blog http://freakindeadjed.blogspot.com.
View my scifi artwork http://zazzle.com/actionave.

 

[Chris Wallace]

 

[Panthro]

 

[dru-zod2501]

Boy was this premature. And inaccurate.

that's what SHE said!

Man, this thread... I can waste hours in here!t:

 

[OsGom]

I'm going to go ahead and kickstart this thread again . . .

The Avengers 2 is NEVER going to happen! TDKR & MoS will be the dawn of a new era for comicbook movies. Jim Lee will descend from the heavens and crush the life from the Marvelites and raise DC once again to film dominance!!!

How's that?

 

[Red Mask]

No Place for DC except the Pit.