Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[KalMart]

I'm sorry but I really can't buy into this whole marketing is part of what doomed SR. Like Kalmart has pointed out, there really was nothing that exciting to market. Superman doesn't even physically fight anyone in the movie. And in the commercials and trailers I saw, I always saw the plane and bullet scenes("big"/"exciting" moments in the film) . What was left out that could have been marketed? More scenes of Lex staring at the crystals?

Well, to be fair, you can also look at it as the marketing department making 'their own film' or experience out of the whole thing. Cool flashy web-page banners that someone in their art/graphics department whipped up....theme posters....interactive online stuff, whatever (aside form all the product/toy/soda/etc tie-ins and store displays that the film actually DID have). Making this upcoming film seem like a life-changing experience without actually having to show much footage from the actual film. It's possible if someone really wanted to do (and pay for ) it. But a) that'd be even more money put into the marketing before the film has a chance to make any money itself, and b) how would the people who were attracted by that feel once they get to the theaters...and they see nothing even resembling it? Really, if someone were somehow able to market the film to you as a crazy, exciting experience like, say, POTC......how would you feel after seeing SR? Would you give them props for fooling you into buying a ticket....would you tell your friends to go see it, so you could pull the same practical joke on them?

 

[rocco2216]

I agree flawless. If theres one thing you gotta hand to marvel its that they are up front about there properties. But you also have to realise that marvel has to since they are dependent solely on them whereas WB are not.

Are they working on superman? The fanboy in all of us wants them to be. You look at the hired writers of Johns, Wolfman and Morrison and you see that they've only announced John's projects so far leaving another 2 writers left that could be tackling superman.

Unfortunately, these rulings and frankly a lack of leaks also leads me to believe that nothing much is really going on. I mean, the IESB article says a film is being fast tracked and thats really all we know.

And on July 25th, a few days before IESB's scoop, Variety said that a Superman reboot was in the works.

 

[KalMart]

The court stuff is confusing, to say the least. Basically, WB payed DC 12.5 million for the rights in order to make the superman film (not sure how long its for but i remeber reading 20 years). Now this whole thing of production by 2011 is because the siegels can sue for damages if WB doesnt make another movie (I.e. the profits they arent getting because they arent making another one). From my understanding it seems like 2 separate issues, one being DC comics and the other being the film division. The article on think mcfly think was really good and laid out the basics of what you need to know.

Great...so now WB is working for them. Can theaters sue WB for having one less superhero movie playing and, hence, making less on concessions?

 

[solidsnake86]

Don't you guys get tired of bashing SR, seriously get over it. Or go to the SR threads and argue with Mostpowerful.

 

[KalMart]

Don't you guys get tired of bashing SR, seriously get over it. Or go to the SR threads and argue with Mostpowerful.

No no, I'm not trying top bash it...and I certainly don't think it's as horrible as a lot of folks here make it out to be. Personally, I thought it was okay...maybe a C/C-. But at the same time, don't you get tired of some people alluding to it as some misunderstood gem that fell victim to things out of its own control?

 

[solidsnake86]

I don't think they can sue for that much money to be honest unless they use the dark knight as an example but I doubt that will work. Either way it seems like it might end up being that superman is owned 50% by two sides and the only way to make money off of him is to come together. For WB it sucks because they didnt have to worry about sharing profits. For the Siegels its good because now they have leverage to get there cut.

Now for those of you who think they're gonna make there own comics, your really out of your mind along with the thoughts that marvel is going to buy a half-@#&ed character or any other companys for that matter. They're going to settle at some point, the question is when and at what cost.

 

[Timstuff]

Really, if someone were somehow able to market the film to you as a crazy, exciting experience like, say, POTC......how would you feel after seeing SR? Would you give them props for fooling you into buying a ticket....would you tell your friends to go see it, so you could pull the same practical joke on them?

That's already pretty much what happened. When Warner Bros. noticed the big post-release dropoffs, they brought in Joel Silver's company to try and salvage it through a new marketing campaign. They showed a bunch of fast-cut footage from the plane catch and eye shot with rock music in the back ground to try and make it look like an action movie. It was a smart business move, but it wasn't enough to save SR, and it wasn't entirely honest. Maybe Warner Bros. should have mandated Singer to make an exciting movie, rather than tricking people into watching a boring movie by showing them exciting commercials.

 

[solidsnake86]

Who are these people you speak of exactly, I can probably name 1 and she hasnt even posted in this topic. In fact, people like myself, who liked the film have moved on and discuss topics without saying that its this hidden gem and I'll tell you why, we got over it since a sequel isnt coming out anytime soon.

 

[KalMart]

I don't think they can sue for that much money to be honest unless they use the dark knight as an example but I doubt that will work. Either way it seems like it might end up being that superman is owned 50% by two sides and the only way to make money off of him is to come together. For WB it sucks because they didnt have to worry about sharing profits. For the Siegels its good because now they have leverage to get there cut.

Well, if you were in a 50/50...or even a 70/20 ownership of a money-making product...wouldn't it be nice if your partner were also actually putting up some of the investment required for the process of making said money? If they want a share of the rewards, let's see them take some of the risks, as well, no?

Now for those of you who think they're gonna make there own comics, your really out of your mind along with the thoughts that marvel is going to buy a half-@#&ed character or any other companys for that matter. They're going to settle at some point, the question is when and at what cost.

That's why it looks like a war of attrition. The Seigel's aren't going to be able to do anything with it...especially after legal fees. The only entities I see that would have the means to do anything with it like WB are Disney and Marvel.....and why would they want it? The S&S parties can even gain full rights to it...but then they'd have to sell it back to WB if they want it to make any money. They could jack up their asking price, and WB could refuse and just get by with their other characters from there on. And then the S&S's can put stuff on ebay, I guess.

 

[Cosmic]

Before Abrams' reboot, Star Trek was about as dead as a franchise can get and a complete joke at that. It was a monster hit b/c of its marketing (starting with the trailer that premiered in front of Quantum of Solace). They also sold it as a straight-forward sci-fi action/adventure film to the masses instead of just slapping on a logo with a release date for a one-sheet and leaving it at that.

The glowing reviews and word-of-mouth made Trek have its amazing staying power this summer. But it was marketing that got asses in the seats for its near $80 million opening weekend.

Also the fan-base had absolutely nothing to do with its success. If they actually mattered, then Insurrection and Nemesis would have done $150-$200 million stateside and Enterprise would be one of the most-watched shows on television.

What has this to do with the statement I was referring to? Insurrection was boring and completely forgettable. Nemesis was a disaster. Star Trek wasn't a hit because of "cutting ties to the past." It was a hit because it delivered what people have been wanting to see in a big-budget action movie.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

What has this to do with the statement I was referring to? Insurrection was boring and completely forgettable. Nemesis was a disaster. Star Trek wasn't a hit because of "cutting ties to the past." It was a hit because it delivered what people have been wanting to see in a big-budget action movie.

There was no "secret" to Trek's success. It was a solid, fast-paced, funny, sexy, big-budget action movie with good acting and special effects. Having the decades long-lasting brand name and huge fanbase also helped.

It didn't help at all.

 

[solidsnake86]

Was star trek really this mega hit that everyones making it out to be. Its budget was probably more then SR and frankly its done less world wide so far. Being a hit is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[KalMart]

Who are these people you speak of exactly, I can probably name 1 and she hasnt even posted in this topic.

Depends...whe are you claiming to be 'bashing' the movie?

In fact, people like myself, who liked the film have moved on and discuss topics without saying that its this hidden gem and I'll tell you why, we got over it since a sequel isnt coming out anytime soon.

Well, a lot of these discussions were going on way before there was any official word of no sequel, and they'll always come up no matter what state...or non-state....things are in. I see nothing more wrong or right with choosing to discuss them at any given time...or choosing not to. No one's saying that anyone is right or wrong for liking or disliking a movie...at least no-one that I'm conversing with. If someone else chooses to take it that way....well....that's their own cross to bear.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I don't think they can sue for that much money to be honest unless they use the dark knight as an example but I doubt that will work. Either way it seems like it might end up being that superman is owned 50% by two sides and the only way to make money off of him is to come together. For WB it sucks because they didnt have to worry about sharing profits. For the Siegels its good because now they have leverage to get there cut.

Now for those of you who think they're gonna make there own comics, your really out of your mind along with the thoughts that marvel is going to buy a half-@#&ed character or any other companys for that matter. They're going to settle at some point, the question is when and at what cost.

I agree. They will settle. It's in each parties best interest to do so. The only question is how long will it take to settle.

 

[solidsnake86]

The only one who wins is there lawyer Marc Toberoff for finding one hell of a client.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Was star trek really this mega hit that everyones making it out to be. Its budget was probably more then SR and frankly its done less world wide so far. Being a hit is in the eyes of the beholder.

True.

But the general public ate it up and are hungry for more ASAP. Plus getting to $200 million is not a cake walk. Let alone hitting past $250 (i.e. currently at $256). The Trek sequel is one of those films that could have a $100+ million opening weekend based on the insane popularity of the first one.

It's the film I'd honestly stay the Hell away from if I were an opposing studio.

 

[KalMart]

I credit Abrams.

And the marketing.


In that order.

 

[Cosmic]

Ok, I disagree. Insurrection, Nemesis, and Enterprise simply didn't have the appeal that Star Trek had. They didn't provide what mass audiences wanted. That's why they weren't successful.

 

[solidsnake86]

True.

But the general public ate it up and are hungry for more ASAP. Plus getting to $200 million is not a cake walk. Let alone hitting past $250 (i.e. currently at $256). The Trek sequel is one of those films that could have a $100+ million opening weekend based on the insane popularity of the first one.

It's the film I'd honestly stay the Hell away from if I were an opposing studio.

I agree with that, I think the sequel is where your gonna see what the word of mouth on the first film has done. Its just funny when SR was made to be this utter failure when it really came in at the worst place possible being mediocre. At least if it failed miserably they know they could completely change the direction.

I still think that any reboot superman film that comes out is going to face an uphill battle 1. Because of SR and 2. Because of the blind nostalgia people will have for STM and Chris Reeve and the comparisons that will come from it.

 

[GreenKToo]

Abrams is a freakin' genius at marketing.
He could prolly get folks to watch a film of monkies throwing poop.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I credit Abrams.

And the marketing.

It was Kurtzman and Orci's story. By his own admission, Abrams was talked into directing it by them when he was originally just going to produce it. I'd credit them too.

 

[KalMart]

Abrams is a freakin' genius at marketing.
He could prolly get folks to watch a film of monkies throwing poop.

So maybe WB should have gone with his Superman idea from way back when.

 

[KalMart]

It was Kurtzman and Orci's story. By his own admission, Abrams was talked into directing it by them when he was originally just going to produce it. I'd credit them too.

Definitely. How's that 'leaving' going, Jer? t:


They wrote Transformers too, right?

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Definitely. How's that 'leaving' going, Jer? t:

I left the "conversation" about Superman Returns' marketing because I gave examples of them marketing the film with action (as you asked). But you opted to ignore it to instead just crap on the film. You can like or dislike said film as much as you so desire. But it was clear that was all it was about. Grow a brain. Too late, I see.

This on the other hand is about Star Trek.

They wrote Transformers too, right?

Both of them in fact. Granted, I don't see that a good thing in any way, shape or form.

 

[The Guard]

I've got it!

SUPER TREK!