WB/DC: It's All Part Of The Plan

[Nightwing1983]

WB was not waiting for the success or non success of Valkyrie to figure out if they wanted to bring Singer back or not. Whatever their decision is or was, had or has nothing to do with Valkyrie, so I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep bringing that up.

Well, if I were them, that's what I would have done. I mean, to be honest, I thought that if I were right, they'd have announced something months ago; but that doesn't mean that they weren't at least using that as an indicator for whether or not to bring him back.

After all, why wouldn't they?

1) This movie would show whether or not he was capable of making a high-grossing action film. It did okay, but not spectacular.

2) The film would show how much the critics liked a Bryan Singer film when he didn't have anyone's cape to hide behind--it had been a whole decade since Apt Pupil and a whole 13 years since The Usual Suspects: his last successful non-superhero film. The consensus at RT was, "[g]iven the subject matter, Valkyrie could have been an outstanding historical thriller, but settles for being a mildly entertaining, but disposable yarn."

And so why would they bring him back after that? The film did okay commercially, but not great; and the notices on Valkyrie were going to make it harder to promote him as a "prodigy" or "visionary" or even "critical darling." Especially given that the aforementioned consensus which clashed with the whole, "Superman Returns wasn't just an action film, it had so much depth," or whatever.

It's possible that they'd been strongly considering getting rid of him before that, but what if Valkyrie had been the success--commercially and critically--that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was? Then they'd be like, "oops. We slaughtered the goose that laid the golden egg." This way, they know they have little to loose by axing him and, hopefully, his continuity.

 

[Nightwing1983]

See, it's not like there's a time limit on sequels. I mean, common wisdom says, "strike while the iron is hot," but movies like Terminator 2 show that sometimes studios are willing to make a sequel to a movie that came out seven years earlier.

 

[Showtime]

Well, if I were them, that's what I would have done. I mean, to be honest, I thought that if I were right, they'd have announced something months ago; but that doesn't mean that they weren't at least using that as an indicator for whether or not to bring him back.

After all, why wouldn't they?

They were already bringing directors and writers in way back in 2007 to pitch Superman Sequel and Reboot ideas...so why would they be waiting to see how Bryan Singer handles a movie that has less than half of the budget of Superman Returns and only played in about 2/3 of the theaters Superman Returns did?

1) This movie would show whether or not he was capable of making a high-grossing action film. It did okay, but not spectacular

The film would show how much the critics liked a Bryan Singer film when he didn't have anyone's cape to hide behind--it had been a whole decade since Apt Pupil and a whole 13 years since The Usual Suspects: his last successful non-superhero film. The consensus at RT was, "[g]iven the subject matter, Valkyrie could have been an outstanding historical thriller, but settles for being a mildly entertaining, but disposable yarn."

Why would WB be looking at how Bryan Singer handles a WW2 drama in order to gauge how he would handle a Superman Sequel when he already made a Superman film for said studio? If you want to go by rotten tomatoes as some kind of thermostat on how the critics like Bryan Singer, Superman Returns scored much better with critics and that movie actually has to do with...well...Superman.

And so why would they bring him back after that? The film did okay commercially, but not great; and the notices on Valkyrie were going to make it harder to promote him as a "prodigy" or "visionary" or even "critical darling." Especially given that the aforementioned consensus which clashed with the whole, "Superman Returns wasn't just an action film, it had so much depth," or whatever.

Who said that WB was waiting to hear how Valkyrie did before bringing him back...besides you of course.

It's possible that they'd been strongly considering getting rid of him before that, but what if Valkyrie had been the success--commercially and critically--that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was? Then they'd be like, "oops. We slaughtered the goose that laid the golden egg." This way, they know they have little to loose by axing him and, hopefully, his continuity.

You're reaching for something that isn't and was never there. WB obviously already was looking for other directors and storylines previously, it wouldn't have mattered if Valkryie was the surpirse hit of Christmas.

So what you would have or want to do is not what WB did or wanted to do.

WB doesn't need to look at a WW2 drama do see how Bryan Singer is going to handle Superman, they already have a film about Superman to go by.

 

[Showtime]

See, it's not like there's a time limit on sequels. I mean, common wisdom says, "strike while the iron is hot," but movies like Terminator 2 show that sometimes studios are willing to make a sequel to a movie that came out seven years earlier.

What does that have to do with Valkyrie?

 

[GreenKToo]

W.B. trusted Singer after seeing what he did with X-1 and 2, and you can't really blame them, but you can blame them for signing off on that story.
Even if they had misgivings, you just know they thought he knew what he was doing and the public would eat it up.
Hell, i'm sure non were more surprised at it's lukewarm response than singer himself.
I'm not trying to bash the man but I will never NEVER understand what he was thinking by not having a supervillain in it. Hind sight's 20/20.

 

[Dark Knight]

And around continues the cycle of the ferris wheel.....

Sheesh....

 

[Nightwing1983]

They were already bringing directors and writers in way back in 2007 to pitch Superman Sequel and Reboot ideas...so why would they be waiting to see how Bryan Singer handles a movie that has less than half of the budget of Superman Returns and only played in about 2/3 of the theaters Superman Returns did?

Because they want to see if he still has "pull." To see if he is someone an audience sees as particularly thougthful when he doesn't have someone's cape to hide behind.

Why would WB be looking at how Bryan Singer handles a WW2 drama in order to gauge how he would handle a Superman Sequel when he already made a Superman film for said studio? If you want to go by rotten tomatoes as some kind of thermostat on how the critics like Bryan Singer, Superman Returns scored much better with critics and that movie actually has to do with...well...Superman.

Scored better than what? It scored better than Apt Pupil. It scored worse there than The Usual Suspects and his X-Men films, though it scored better on that site than the X-flick he didn't direct.

You want to know why they'd be interested in seeing how he did without Superman, but the point is that it's without Superman or even a superhero. Is he really everything he'd been made out to be? Is he really a wunderkind or is that something the fans had seen because they wanted to believe someone "smart" was directing an X-Men film way back in '00, and that said "genius" did Superman in 2006?

After all, if it's really just a question of the film not having enough action, and his other films have action and make money, but have this image of being intellectual; then why let him go?

Who said that WB was waiting to hear how Valkyrie did before bringing him back...besides you of course.

Nobody. It's my own speculation. We're past that point.

You're reaching for something that isn't and was never there.

No, I'm seeing something you don't see. You're the one "reaching" to disprove me.

Why?

WB obviously already was looking for other directors and storylines previously, it wouldn't have mattered if Valkryie was the surpirse hit of Christmas.

But they never went with one. They were clearly in the dark over what direction to go in and they still are. But what if Valkyrie had been a big hit and people were saying, "what a marvelous film!" Then everyone who loved the film and had this dying infatuation with seeing it spawn sequels would be saying, "oh, just because he didn't give the film enough action, they want to replace him with some other loser who just wants a bunch of CG and explosions. No thanks!"

So what you would have or want to do is not what WB did or wanted to do.

You have yet to disprove my theory.

WB doesn't need to look at a WW2 drama do see how Bryan Singer is going to handle Superman, they already have a film about Superman to go by.

But WB does need to look at a Bryan Singer film that doesn't involve a superhero to see whether or not Bryan Singer is really the critical favorite he was made out to be by Fox's publicity for X-Men and the fanbase all the way up until the release of Superman Returns.

The fact that it isn't about Superman doesn't give them less information, it gives them more information.

 

[Nightwing1983]

W.B. trusted Singer after seeing what he did with X-1 and 2, and you can't really blame them, but you can blame them for signing off on that story.
Even if they had misgivings, you just know they thought he knew what he was doing and the public would eat it up.
Hell, i'm sure non were more surprised at it's lukewarm response than singer himself.
I'm not trying to bash the man but I will never NEVER understand what he was thinking by not having a supervillain in it. Hind sight's 20/20.

Well, some people would tell you that Lex Luthor is a supervillain just like Batman is a superhero. The problem is that he was the wrong kind of supervillain. Yet, someone like Singer whose only real famililarity--by his own words--comes from the Christopher Reeve films and the George Reeves TV series. After all, when he faced villains with his powers in II, it was considered "woah, can they do that?" In the comics, it's like, "what, again?"

 

[SuperDaniel]

It gives them information that Bryan Singer shouldn't be connected to any superhero franchise besides X-men.

 

[dark_b]

W.B. trusted Singer after seeing what he did with X-1 and 2, and you can't really blame them, but you can blame them for signing off on that story.
Even if they had misgivings, you just know they thought he knew what he was doing and the public would eat it up.
Hell, i'm sure non were more surprised at it's lukewarm response than singer himself.
I'm not trying to bash the man but I will never NEVER understand what he was thinking by not having a supervillain in it. Hind sight's 20/20.

not to bash Singer but he made SR first for himself. it was like hes dream come true. he made a movie that he wanted to see. respect there. its WB's job to make it for the masses.

in nooooooooooo way was SR for the masses. IMO

 

[Nightwing1983]

not to bash Singer but he made SR first for himself. it was like hes dream come true. he made a movie that he wanted to see. respect there. its WB's job to make it for the masses.

in nooooooooooo way was SR for the masses. IMO

I honestly think the whole, "I'm such a big fan" thing was a pose, and that SR was for the masses. The problem is that it was for the wrong masses. He knows that there are a lot of people who think it's a work of genius when you have a superhero film that's more of a soap opera than an action film. Just like Spider-Man.

Besides, it had action. Just didn't happen to be the right kind of action.

 

[Showtime]

Because they want to see if he still has "pull." To see if he is someone an audience sees as particularly thougthful when he doesn't have someone's cape to hide behind.

No. They don't. He already directed a Superman film for them. That is all they need.

Scored better than what? It scored better than Apt Pupil. It scored worse there than The Usual Suspects and his X-Men films, though it scored better on that site than the X-flick he didn't direct.

You want to know why they'd be interested in seeing how he did without Superman, but the point is that it's without Superman or even a superhero. Is he really everything he'd been made out to be? Is he really a wunderkind or is that something the fans had seen because they wanted to believe someone "smart" was directing an X-Men film way back in '00, and that said "genius" did Superman in 2006?

After all, if it's really just a question of the film not having enough action, and his other films have action and make money, but have this image of being intellectual; then why let him go?

They only care about how he does with Superman, which he already directed.

Nobody. It's my own speculation. We're past that point.

No, I'm seeing something you don't see. You're the one "reaching" to disprove me.

How can I see something that isnt there and is speculation as you already said?

But they never went with one. They were clearly in the dark over what direction to go in and they still are. But what if Valkyrie had been a big hit and people were saying, "what a marvelous film!" Then everyone who loved the film and had this dying infatuation with seeing it spawn sequels would be saying, "oh, just because he didn't give the film enough action, they want to replace him with some other loser who just wants a bunch of CG and explosions. No thanks!"

Valkyrie was never set up to be a big hit though, and I don't see how a WWII drama has anything to do with Superman.

You have yet to disprove my theory.

WB disproved your theory by going forward with JLM and already looking for directors back in 2007? I don't have to disprove it.

But WB does need to look at a Bryan Singer film that doesn't involve a superhero to see whether or not Bryan Singer is really the critical favorite he was made out to be by Fox's publicity for X-Men and the fanbase all the way up until the release of Superman Returns.

...but they didn't, and aren't. I don't know what else I can tell you.

The fact that it isn't about Superman doesn't give them less information, it gives them more information.

Bold doesn't make it true.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

Honestly, they don't need to test Singer. They have to decide if they want to pay the guy, or pay the guy and have him make a sequel. I think if they wanted Singer, they already have him, don't they? I'll take the fact that he's got a couple more projects on him as indication that he's out.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Like I said, he should've stayed with X-men.

 

[Nightwing1983]

No. They don't. He already directed a Superman film for them. That is all they need.

And this film got mixed reaction. What money it made and what praise it got could have been built on his existing reputation and I say they wanted to see if it was.

They only care about how he does with Superman, which he already directed.

Then they're remarkably short-sighted.

How can I see something that isnt there and is speculation as you already said?

You fail to see my logic.

Valkyrie was never set up to be a big hit though, and I don't see how a WWII drama has anything to do with Superman.

Then it was working against him. Still, you can have a relatively big hit or not, but this was only a moderate hit even for what it was.

WB disproved your theory by going forward with JLM and already looking for directors back in 2007? I don't have to disprove it.

And yet, even as they were making JLM, they still moved forward with The Dark Knight which was entirely separate from JLM as a Singer sequel would have been; so that takes care of that. As for looking into different directors, obviously they wanted to, but they have a pay-or-play with Singer, so they wanted to make extra-sure that they weren't better off paying him for making a Superman movie than for paying him to do nothing.

...but they didn't, and aren't. I don't know what else I can tell you.

You're begging the question. You haven't proven me wrong, only that you don't understand the logic on which I base my theory.

Bold doesn't make it true.

Repeating your assertion doesn't make it true either.

Besides, it's called emphasis.

 

[Nightwing1983]

WB was not waiting for the success or non success of Valkyrie to figure out if they wanted to bring Singer back or not. Whatever their decision is or was, had or has nothing to do with Valkyrie, so I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep bringing that up.

Because I think they were. I don't see why you're so adamant to try to prove me wrong when you can't. The only way to prove me wrong is to ask someone while they're on a lie detector or to find a memo that gave Singer his walking orders before or after the film came out.

 

[Showtime]

And this film got mixed reaction. What money it made and what praise it got could have been built on his existing reputation and I say they wanted to see if it was.

Then they're remarkably short-sighted.

You fail to see my logic.

Then it was working against him. Still, you can have a relatively big hit or not, but this was only a moderate hit even for what it was.

And yet, even as they were making JLM, they still moved forward with The Dark Knight which was entirely separate from JLM as a Singer sequel would have been; so that takes care of that. As for looking into different directors, obviously they wanted to, but they have a pay-or-play with Singer, so they wanted to make extra-sure that they weren't better off paying him for making a Superman movie than for paying him to do nothing.

You're begging the question. You haven't proven me wrong, only that you don't understand the logic on which I base my theory.

Repeating your assertion doesn't make it true either.

Besides, it's called emphasis.

Because I think they were. I don't see why you're so adamant to try to prove me wrong when you can't. The only way to prove me wrong is to ask someone while they're on a lie detector or to find a memo that gave Singer his walking orders before or after the film came out.

Ok. Yes. You're right.

WB was waiting for Valkyrie and because it wasn't a box office smash, Singer lost his job. Now they are waiting to see how the DVD performs, if it does well they are going to green light a sequel asap and offer him a chance to direct it.

 

[Nightwing1983]

WB was waiting for Valkyrie and because it wasn't a box office smash, Singer lost his job.

More-or-less. I think its earnings might have been enough to keep him if the reviews had been better. 60% on RT and a consensus that it was too much of a "thriller" and could/should have had more depth show that he'd lost his "intellectual" image.

Now they are waiting to see how the DVD performs, if it does well they are going to green light a sequel asap.

No, I never said anything about the DVD. At this point, Valkyrie has nothing to do with whether or not a sequel will be made. They just wanted tot see if Singer still had his commercial viability at the box office and his image as a "thoughtful" filmmaker. Whether or not they make a sequel depends on something else entirely.

I think you understand that, too.

I think you just don't want to admit how much sense it makes.

 

[Showtime]

More-or-less. I think its earnings might have been enough to keep him if the reviews had been better. 60% on RT and a consensus that it was too much of a "thriller" and could/should have had more depth show that he'd lost his "intellectual" image.

OK.

No, I never said anything about the DVD. At this point, Valkyrie has nothing to do with whether or not a sequel will be made. They just wanted tot see if Singer still had his commercial viability at the box office and his image as a "thoughtful" filmmaker. Whether or not they make a sequel depends on something else entirely.

I think you understand that, too.

I think you just don't want to admit how much sense it makes.

No I don't understand and I KNOW they weren't waiting for Valkyrie, so it is really tough for me to admit anything your saying makes any sense at all. I'm just tired of discussing it.

 

[Superark]

Where's Jamie with a smart-ass photo when ya need one?

 

[Scarlet Spider]

I highly doubt Valkyrie had any bearing on Warner Bros. decision to continue with Singer. You didn't see Marvel bringing back Ang Lee to make another Hulk film after he won an Oscar.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

What idiot thinks Valkyrie's box-office success actually mattered to the status of the next Superman film? Oh yeah...

 

[Nightwing1983]

No I don't understand and I KNOW they weren't waiting for Valkyrie, so it is really tough for me to admit anything your saying makes any sense at all. I'm just tired of discussing it.

So, you have a friend who works there and he said, "they're not going to worry about that."

 

[nintendo nerd]

Even if Valkyrie had made 100 gazillions of dollars. That wouldn't change the status of the Superman franchise.

 

[nintendo nerd]

So, you have a friend who works there and he said, "they're not going to worry about that."

He knows more than you think. Trust me, I've learned my lesson. He knows. Same with Jamie. I have new respect for them.

P.S. Think McFly Think is awesome.