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

[biolumen]

Firstly, that would mean that no-one would be putting out a superhero movie, so Supes wouldn't be the only one.

The argument that the superhero movie fad could one day fade is a valid concern for DC fans. I'm not saying studios will stop making those kinds of movies if that day ever comes to pass. Marvel will certainly keep making them since that's the only kind of movie they make. Warners, however, is a different animal. They're into all kinds of movies. If, one day, superhero movies drop out in favor of....say....Irwin Allen type disaster movies, then guess what? Warners will be making more Irwin Allen type disaster movies at the expense of superhero movies.

 

[KalMart]

The argument that the superhero movie fad could one day fade is a valid concern for DC fans. I'm not saying studios will stop making those kinds of movies if that day ever comes to pass. Marvel will certainly keep making them since that's the only kind of movie they make. Warners, however, is a different animal. They're into all kinds of movies. If, one day, superhero movies drop out in favor of....say....Irwin Allen type disaster movies, then guess what? Warners will be making more Irwin Allen type disaster movies at the expense of superhero movies.

I honestly thought that it would have burned out by now, but I think it got a bit of a stay of execution with Iron Man. But all in all, I think it's good for comic movies to go through phases and die out....helps new ones be fresh and not so much on of the crowd when things get going again.

Could be good for Superman too, if they can get out of the gate early in an less-crowded pond....be one of the leaders of the next generation's 'rejuvenation' of the genre like Xmen and Spidey were for this one. At the same time, I think comic movies can still extend and not fall victim to the end of the phase if they're good. In a way, they're not as 'unique' as a genre as they were up until recently, and we have the technology to translate a lot more of them to screen.

But...you do start to wonder if the ones that inherently hold wide appeal have been milked as far as they can go for now. I liked that DC/WB were doing darker, more alternative titles/graphic novels like V For Vendetta, 300, and Watchmen rather than things like Flash and Wonder Woman. Even Nolan's take on Batman was more along the lines of that alternative to the more colorful, youth-friendly stuff like Spiderman or Iron Man. Despite SR, I liked that WB was putting things like the aforementioned out, at least from a cinematic perspective, even though some of them weren't your typical blockbuster.

 

[biolumen]

The concern I have is that Warner Bros is moving slowly on their big superhero movies because they're still not sure whether making these kinds of movies in greater numbers is in their best interests, and that the Green Lantern movie is being used as a sort of test bed to see if it's worth dedicating large amounts of money and resources on the other DC superheros, including Superman. I think Green Lanterns' success or failure will figure largely in the number of big superhero movies WB decides to make in the near future.

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

Of course it wasn't (even though it made a lot more on DVD). But something made that more worth continuing for them than SR, so to them it turned out with a better upside than SR....even though they chose to greenlight BB in much the same way as they chose to greelight SR. So you can 'blame' them equally for both...yet now that TDK was such a hit, you don't hear a lot of people blaming them for BB still.

With SR not having a sequel right now, and apparently no Superman movie on the immediate horizon, nothing is being hurt except some fans' pride....something that they're not really responsible for with these films when everything's said and done...even though you and I may sympathize with that. So just because some Supes fans are frustrated by the current state of events, it doesn't mean they 'don't have their act together'. That's not how this act is specifically gauged.

I love how people forget the WB wanted a sequel to Returns and even went as far as to give it a release date (Juen 19, 2009). Remember people when they were taking pitches they were taking them about a reboot and sequel to SR not just reboot. Hell Justice Leauge: Mortal in its starting phase was suppose to be a loose sequel to Superman Returns and Batman Begins. Even after The Dark Knight they went back to Singer and asked for a sequel to Superman Returns. So its not like they didn't want one. The main problem was if there was to be a sequel it would be on their terms not his. Also the whloe JL:M didn't help matters which is also one of the reasons why Nolan might not do a thrid Batman.

 

[GreenKToo]

I wouldnt be a bit surprised if something happens to G.L. as well.

 

[DavidTyler]

As I said, "something similar."

It doesn't bother me in the least since he is merely a figurehead and is there to help pump up interest along with merchandising. The man apologized and admited he was wrong. It was crazy times for awhile there at WB.

It would amaze me if the WB still thinks having Peters name on anything would help 'pump up interest' in any project.

I would have thought by now that the major Hollywood studios would think of Peters as box office poison.

 

[Excel]

I love how people forget the WB wanted a sequel to Returns and even went as far as to give it a release date (Juen 19, 2009).

Um, what are you talking about?

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

Um, what are you talking about?

If you go all the way back the sequels (projected release date much like Avengers and JL: Mortal and GL) was June 19 of this year as a matter of fact as reported in magazines . It was suppose to come out one year after TDK. However things change but that was its release date. If the old post haven't been erased you could find it back there somewhere it was posted a while back. If you don't find it here you will find it at Bluetights.

 

[dark_b]

Um, what are you talking about?

they wanted a sequel .
then bad luck.

remember when showtime and jamie talked about two camps at WB?
one camp wanted JL..............i guess they lost he he he

 

[DIRECTOR]

SR wasn't an exact failure in the box office, but I can see how the WB may be worried about a sequal. But, if they can do justice to the sequal (if there is one), than I can see them maybe rectifying the mistakes they made in the first movie.

But, I don't have a problem with a sequal. Look at Batman Begins, compared to TDK, BB is so different

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

they wanted a sequel .
then bad luck.

remember when showtime and jamie talked about two camps at WB?
one camp wanted JL..............i guess they lost he he he

To be honest the first few drafts of JL:M was written that it was a sequel to BB and SR. Only later did it move into a reboot stage for both heroes. Which pissed off both Nolan and Singer and caused problems for the WB.

 

[KalMart]

I love how people forget the WB wanted a sequel to Returns and even went as far as to give it a release date (Juen 19, 2009). Remember people when they were taking pitches they were taking them about a reboot and sequel to SR not just reboot. Hell Justice Leauge: Mortal in its starting phase was suppose to be a loose sequel to Superman Returns and Batman Begins. Even after The Dark Knight they went back to Singer and asked for a sequel to Superman Returns. So its not like they didn't want one.

Where are you getting this from, that they went back to him for a sequel.....did he refuse...after expressing that he wanted to do one and go "all Wrath Of Khan" on it??

The main problem was if there was to be a sequel it would be on their terms not his.

Who could blame them, after SR?

Also the whloe JL:M didn't help matters which is also one of the reasons why Nolan might not do a thrid Batman.

Let's say for the sake of argument they did 'go back to Singer' for a sequel....and he refused. I'd say they did their part to get another Superman movie going, no? Singer's the one who negged on it.

 

[Showtime]

WB obviously wanted a sequel at one point. They signed Singer to a "pay or play deal" on October 30th, on the 30th Superman Returns was listed as $200,072,600 at the box office.

WB wanted a sequel, despite the lower than expected box office. "Something" changed later on in the game. They didn't just realize it underperformed months later after they signed Singer.

 

[Showtime]

Right, and the guy who did Memento and Insomnia wanted Batman, and that's all that took too. How did that end up being a better movie, getting more critical acclaim, and making so much more on DVD for less investment...when WB didn't choose or treat it any differently than they did with SR? WB is responsible for choosing the wrong guy/direction with Supes, and the right one with Bats.

...they are responsible for choosing the wrong guy and not understanding a property that they own. Singer pitched a Superman story with no super villian and Superman with a kid.

 

[KalMart]

WB obviously wanted a sequel at one point. They signed Singer to a "pay or play deal" on October 30th, on the 30th Superman Returns was listed as $200,072,600 at the box office.

WB wanted a sequel, despite the lower than expected box office. "Something" changed later on in the game. They didn't just realize it underperformed months later after they signed Singer.

I never said they decided right away that there'd be no sequel. Something obviously changed along the way. But this is what I asked about the contract way back, but didn't get a clear answer. That contract was entirely contingent on an direct sequel, and not a reboot right? Now, is that not also a form of insurance for both parties, in terms of locking down your talent/director for a sequel if you want to go with one, so as not to lose them to other projects and cause difficulties, as well as Singer getting first crack at it? If they want to reboot, then the contract means nothing, right, or would someone still be owed money?

As far as realizing months later, I believe they did when they saw how much other movies were making. I think that TF and Iron Man further highlighted just how much SR under-delivered.

 

[Showtime]

I never said they decided right away that there'd be no sequel. Something obviously changed along the way. But this is what I asked about the contract way back, but didn't get a clear answer. That contract was entirely contingent on an direct sequel, and not a reboot right? Now, is that not also a form of insurance for both parties, in terms of locking down your talent/director for a sequel if you want to go with one, so as not to lose them to other projects and cause difficulties, as well as Singer getting first crack at it? If they want to reboot, then the contract means nothing, right, or would someone still be owed money?

Because it is a pay or play deal, Singer gets paid either way. Same deal they signed Burton too. Same deal they signed Cage too.

There is also something called "right to refusal" which would entail Singer getting that first crack at it as you mentioned above.

As far as realizing months later, I believe they did when they saw how much other movies were making. I think that TF and Iron Man further highlighted just how much SR under-delivered.

That might be part of it. Singer leaving to do Valkyrie is another part of it. JLM is another part of it. So many pieces to the pie.

 

[KalMart]

...they are responsible for choosing the wrong guy and not understanding a property that they own. Singer pitched a Superman story with no super villian and Superman with a kid.

And as I said, I agree with that. But people were putting their blame on how they're handling things now without so much as taking that into account...that which they share responsibility for the results of the film.

Because it is a pay or play deal, Singer gets paid either way. Same deal they signed Burton too. Same deal they signed Cage too.

Ah, interesting. Might explain some of Singer's uneasiness in answering questions about Superman lately, since there are some sticky money issues.

There is also something called "right to refusal" which would entail Singer getting that first crack at it as you mentioned above.



That might be part of it. Singer leaving to do Valkyrie is another part of it. JLM is another part of it. So many pieces to the pie.

Indeed. Imagine if SR actually was a great success, though?

 

[Showtime]

And as I said, I agree with that. But people were putting their blame on how they're handling things now without so much as taking that into account...that which they share responsibility for the results of the film.

I agree. I guess the bottom line is we don't really know how they are handling things at the moment. It is dead silence there.

Ah, interesting. Might explain some of Singer's uneasiness in answering questions about Superman lately, since there are some sticky money issues.

I'm sure the details will resurface at some point and be more in depth in regards to his contract.

Indeed. Imagine if SR actually was a great success, though?

That's the problem. Superman Returns didn't flop, nor was it a great success. Limbo.

 

[KalMart]

I agree. I guess the bottom line is we don't really know how they are handling things at the moment. It is dead silence there.



I'm sure the details will resurface at some point and be more in depth in regards to his contract.




That's the problem. Superman Returns didn't flop, nor was it a great success. Limbo.

Yeah, and as has been discussed in the past....in a lot of ways, that's even more frustrating. If a movie flops, it just does...it's obviously a big problem from top to bottom, and the idea of an alternative is probably a lot clearer. But when it just does okay, it calls to attention the potential for it doing much better....potential that was somehow undershot or missed. It's the difference of clearly not having a shot at something, and having a good shot at it but just letting it slip through your fingers. The latter can be much more infuriating and confounding.

 

[Excel]

If you go all the way back the sequels (projected release date much like Avengers and JL: Mortal and GL) was June 19 of this year as a matter of fact as reported in magazines . It was suppose to come out one year after TDK. However things change but that was its release date. If the old post haven't been erased you could find it back there somewhere it was posted a while back. If you don't find it here you will find it at Bluetights.

2009 was the year; but they never announced a release date.

 

[Webhead2006]

It is to bad we dont know what is going on with all the key players there at WB studios reguarding superman. I really wished it wasnt so many problems and all that. But in the end if we do get another film in the next few yrs or so, hopefully it will be a more enjoyable film for the whole fan base and try and unite it and all that.

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

That might be part of it. Singer leaving to do Valkyrie is another part of it. JLM is another part of it. So many pieces to the pie.

Those two play a big part into the sequel not happening though. Remember Valkyrie was suppose to be a small little side project Singer was going to do and him not being up front with the WB about the movie played a big part into JL:M. Which really didn't help matters and in fact only made things worse not only with Singer but with Nolan as well. IMO it is those two things that really played a huge roll into what hppened. Because during that time with JL the WB wanted full control of all their projects and didn't care if Nolan walked or not as well (keep in mind pre box office buzz for TDK). During that time is when the WB also started saying Singer could have his sequel after they put out JL:M and put limits on his control of the next movie as well.

 

[KalMart]

Any way you look at it...if this forces them into a complete reboot (assuming it's good), how could this not be a good thing for Superman AND Batman? Otherwise, the alternative you'd be looking at are a) a continuation of SR, or b) an amalgam of SR Sequel/Justice League tie-in that c) might have affected the Nolan Batman movies in turn. The only thing is that it's a wait. But if it means not continuing with Singer/SR and not making Nolan's Batman gear itself towards a JL team-up, it's certainly worth the time. This kind of situation is much more conducive to letting Batman continue the way it has on its own terms, and Superman eventually getting the kind of fresh start it should have in the first place, no? If the aforementioned is acccurate, one should shudder to think about if it actually DID happen.

 

[Dark Knight]

Are you ready Show?

It's time to move the Supes forums into the DC Comics movie forums buddy!

No new developments with the supposed next Superman film and no minor or major announcements are pending or expected. The Supes forums have become a repetitive forum that just goes around in circles.

Aren't you dizzy yet?

Move it! LOL

 

[batman strikes]

Wasn't there also a problem with Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty's pitch for the sequel? Supposedly the studio didn't like the story or any of the villains they had picked for the next the movie. Then Bryan Singer went to Christopher McQuarrie to come up with some story ideas before the studio ultimately wanted a reboot for the next film.