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

[mego joe]

Remember he had Batman slapping Robin and telling him to eat rats if he wanted food lol. Badass!

See, I see that as gross, not badass. It's Robin for crying out loud, not the Joker.

 

[mego joe]

I didn't see any of that as sexist..

Prostitutes are nothing new to the world of crime fiction.

And the entire world was a dystopia in DKR, immorality abounds everywhere in that world.. intentionally.

The Catwoman thing was unecessary. As Miller has progressed he's gotten worse IMO. Black Canary and Batman on the dock in costume? That was stomach churning.

While many of these things may be part of 'crime fiction,' I find that when he goes to the well too often with the same motifs they become uninteresting and purposeless.

I felt making Catwoman was a bad idea and it detracted from her character. Just a few months before she was running around as Batman's partner.

As for DKR- to me so many of his stories involve shocking images for a comic that they tend to no longer serve a purpose.

 

[wellsy]

WB mostly nearly killed the Bat franchise. Batman Forever was pretty good. B&R was decent for what it was based off of which was the 50/60s Batman.

Besides it would not be a campy Superman film it be light hearted like how a Superman film is. Also Metropolis look futuristic whats wrong with that? Besides he said he was sorry and learned from his mistakes.

FP, I honestly can't take you seriously. First Frank Miller, who would probably shoot a Superman film with filters made of monkey droppings (or his own, if I might hazard a point to his vanity), and now Joel Schumaker, who would use light everything with neon and ensure that cardboard cutouts would have more character than the movie's character.

Rereading that, it seems like a good joke. Pity you're the butt of it.

 

[GreenKToo]

You know, Schumacher is prolly the only director whose film i'd skip, be it superman or not.

 

[Fresh Prince]

FP, I honestly can't take you seriously. First Frank Miller, who would probably shoot a Superman film with filters made of monkey droppings (or his own, if I might hazard a point to his vanity), and now Joel Schumaker, who would use light everything with neon and ensure that cardboard cutouts would have more character than the movie's character.

Rereading that, it seems like a good joke. Pity you're the butt of it.

Firstly I do not care and second its my own opinion thought I could have one in the first place. And Frank Miller made one bad film granted it bombed at the box office but other directors made bad films before. And he only made one bad film. 2 other films he was in was good. Also he did make good comics book whether they was back in the day still they were good.

Now Schumaker made BF which was good and B&R which was decent for what it was based off of. You see Schumaker learned from his mistakes and said he was sorry. WB wanted a light toned Batman and to sell toys and all that. Schumaker did what they wanted him to do he wanted to do a dark Batman based off of Batman Year One. And BF did good at the box office and was heavily hyped.

Now so what if Gotham City had neon lights get over it whats the big deal? Gotham City in Nolans movies do not even look like Gotham City looks like Chicago. And yes he had nipples on the bat suite which is awkard but not that big of a deal. Especially since Nolan Batman not perfect either with the bat voice and the Tumbler he do not even have the bat car. Anyways people say B&R was campy so was S:TM. Now not comparing the 2 movies but S:TM was heavily campy.

Anyways Schumaker could make a good Superman film and he did not nearly kill no franchise as they was gonna make a Batman 5 and other movies involving Batman to be in so he did not kill off anything. He could make a good Superman his light tone stuff minus the nipples could work for Superman. And a neon Metropolis is not bad since Metropolis known as the city of tomorrow and has all that high tech stuff anyways. Also he had good elements in BF that can work for a Superman film. He would do pull a B&R with Superman movie considering B&R was just used to sell toys.

Rant over.

 

[Angeloz]

Do you like Bay too?

Angeloz

 

[Wally West]

Firstly I do not care and second its my own opinion thought I could have one in the first place. And Frank Miller made one bad film granted it bombed at the box office but other directors made bad films before. And he only made one bad film. 2 other films he was in was good. Also he did make good comics book whether they was back in the day still they were good.

Now Schumaker made BF which was good and B&R which was decent for what it was based off of. You see Schumaker learned from his mistakes and said he was sorry. WB wanted a light toned Batman and to sell toys and all that. Schumaker did what they wanted him to do he wanted to do a dark Batman based off of Batman Year One. And BF did good at the box office and was heavily hyped.

Now so what if Gotham City had neon lights get over it whats the big deal? Gotham City in Nolans movies do not even look like Gotham City looks like Chicago. And yes he had nipples on the bat suite which is awkard but not that big of a deal. Especially since Nolan Batman not perfect either with the bat voice and the Tumbler he do not even have the bat car. Anyways people say B&R was campy so was S:TM. Now not comparing the 2 movies but S:TM was heavily campy.

Anyways Schumaker could make a good Superman film and he did not nearly kill no franchise as they was gonna make a Batman 5 and other movies involving Batman to be in so he did not kill off anything. He could make a good Superman his light tone stuff minus the nipples could work for Superman. And a neon Metropolis is not bad since Metropolis known as the city of tomorrow and has all that high tech stuff anyways. Also he had good elements in BF that can work for a Superman film. He would do pull a B&R with Superman movie considering B&R was just used to sell toys.

Rant over.

You're right. He didn't kill anything, thankfully. All he did was set the ENTIRE genre back for years.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But don't hold your breath waiting this out. If there is any order at all to the universe then there is an unwritten rule in hollywood, kind of like a restraining order stating that Joel Schumaker may not come with-in 500 yards of any comic book property ever again.

 

[The Englishman]

Firstly I do not care and second its my own opinion thought I could have one in the first place. And Frank Miller made one bad film granted it bombed at the box office but other directors made bad films before. And he only made one bad film. 2 other films he was in was good. Also he did make good comics book whether they was back in the day still they were good.

Now Schumaker made BF which was good and B&R which was decent for what it was based off of. You see Schumaker learned from his mistakes and said he was sorry. WB wanted a light toned Batman and to sell toys and all that. Schumaker did what they wanted him to do he wanted to do a dark Batman based off of Batman Year One. And BF did good at the box office and was heavily hyped.

Now so what if Gotham City had neon lights get over it whats the big deal? Gotham City in Nolans movies do not even look like Gotham City looks like Chicago. And yes he had nipples on the bat suite which is awkard but not that big of a deal. Especially since Nolan Batman not perfect either with the bat voice and the Tumbler he do not even have the bat car. Anyways people say B&R was campy so was S:TM. Now not comparing the 2 movies but S:TM was heavily campy.
Anyways Schumaker could make a good Superman film and he did not nearly kill no franchise as they was gonna make a Batman 5 and other movies involving Batman to be in so he did not kill off anything. He could make a good Superman his light tone stuff minus the nipples could work for Superman. And a neon Metropolis is not bad since Metropolis known as the city of tomorrow and has all that high tech stuff anyways. Also he had good elements in BF that can work for a Superman film. He would do pull a B&R with Superman movie considering B&R was just used to sell toys.

Rant over.

But you just did compare them.........

 

[Angeloz]

But you just did compare them.........

LOL. Also one is beloved (not everyone) and the other not so much. I'm wondering if they enjoyed "Batman & Robin" as a kid.

Angeloz

 

[merced]

That to me is like Madden taking over NFL games. Do you want to play Madden with the official teams, or go to another football game that has limited licensing power? I mean, the game might even be better but you just can't shake losing the official name of teams, stadiums, etc...

I think WB expects to keep the names in the long run and are biding their time.

Talking with a lawyer friend about this

However, whether & what the Siegels would win is undetermined. The judge indicates that the value of Siegels' share of the Superman property vis the movie license has the potential to be relatively small, a result of both the "challenged" state of the Superman property & the fact that the Siegels' rights as co-owners are nonexclusive, which means that an arms' length competition to license the property would likely lead each side to bid down the property to make the sale.

As a result, the notion that the WB *must* make a movie to avoid the Siegels' lawsuit is a bit of an overstatement. If WB doesn't make the film and the Siegels' sue, sure, they might face the cost of trial + potential - but by no means certain - damages upwards up a few million dollars. But is there a substantial incentive to spend upwards of 50-100 million dollars on a movie to save yourself, likely at worst, 6 or 7 million but possibly much less?

The judge says the movie liscense fee will be small. Its a nudge to get an out of court settlement. For WB it could encourage them to wait it out hoping for a better deal from the court. The 6 million possible loss to WB if they don't start a film might be a hint at what the judge plans on awarding the Siegals for movie fees. 6 million is not much and a lot less than what I recall was about a 15 million liscense fee for Spiderman 1.

Judge bases his figures on the challeneged state of Superman. What happens if WB makes a movie and it does well? Not as much of a challened state and the liscense fees awarded go up.

Bidding down the value of the rights helps WB. Hang in their to 2013 and hope one side gives in. After 2013 wait until one side does because it likely won't be easy to sell the film rights to 3rd parties.

My firend said if WB was his client he'd tell them do nothing. Wait until 2013 to see what happens.

 

[Angeloz]

I think WB expects to keep the names in the long run and are biding their time.

Talking with a lawyer friend about this

However, whether & what the Siegels would win is undetermined. The judge indicates that the value of Siegels' share of the Superman property vis the movie license has the potential to be relatively small, a result of both the "challenged" state of the Superman property & the fact that the Siegels' rights as co-owners are nonexclusive, which means that an arms' length competition to license the property would likely lead each side to bid down the property to make the sale.

As a result, the notion that the WB *must* make a movie to avoid the Siegels' lawsuit is a bit of an overstatement. If WB doesn't make the film and the Siegels' sue, sure, they might face the cost of trial + potential - but by no means certain - damages upwards up a few million dollars. But is there a substantial incentive to spend upwards of 50-100 million dollars on a movie to save yourself, likely at worst, 6 or 7 million but possibly much less?

The judge says the movie liscense fee will be small. Its a nudge to get an out of court settlement. For WB it could encourage them to wait it out hoping for a better deal from the court. The 6 million possible loss to WB if they don't start a film might be a hint at what the judge plans on awarding the Siegals for movie fees. 6 million is not much and a lot less than what I recall was about a 15 million liscense fee for Spiderman 1.

Judge bases his figures on the challeneged state of Superman. What happens if WB makes a movie and it does well? Not as much of a challened state and the liscense fees awarded go up.

Bidding down the value of the rights helps WB. Hang in their to 2013 and hope one side gives in. After 2013 wait until one side does because it likely won't be easy to sell the film rights to 3rd parties.

My firend said if WB was his client he'd tell them do nothing. Wait until 2013 to see what happens.

Well that's screwy. But what else is new (in the world). Although they're assuming a judge wouldn't punish them for doing nothing (i.e. give a higher payment because a lack of action and good faith).

Angeloz

 

[Fresh Prince]

You're right. He didn't kill anything, thankfully. All he did was set the ENTIRE genre back for years.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But don't hold your breath waiting this out. If there is any order at all to the universe then there is an unwritten rule in hollywood, kind of like a restraining order stating that Joel Schumaker may not come with-in 500 yards of any comic book property ever again.

He did not even set the movie back for years BB came out in 05 8 years after B&R. Thats not a long time.

 

[Fresh Prince]

But you just did compare them.........

S:TM was campy cannot lie about that.

 

[stargazer]

S:TM was campy cannot lie about that.

STM had campy villains, that's all. In general the movie was epic, compelling and just plain wonderful, IMO, and in MANY people's opinions. It got the essence of the character right.


B&R is trash and an epic failure compared with STM.

 

[That-Guy]

Comparing the campy side of S:TM to that of B&R is beyond absurd. B&R was a flat-out joke... I think that The Naked Gun movies were more serious than that crap. A more accurate comparison would be S:TM and Spider-Man. Both films had some camp, but they weren't overwhelmingly silly in the least.

 

[Fresh Prince]

S:TM was not overly silly but still silly. SM had no camp parts.

 

[stargazer]

S:TM was not overly silly but still silly. SM had no camp parts.

What is SM? Spiderman? Hahahaha, the Spiderman movies are FULL of camp. And cheese.

 

[GreenKToo]

We'll meet again SPIIIIDER-MAANN!!!

 

[That-Guy]

Yeah... if someone can't see the camp in Spider-Man, then I think they don't know what camp is. It's DEFINITELY there. And that's fine; it works for the film and they don't beat you over the head with it like B&R did.

 

[El Payaso]

S:TM was not overly silly but still silly. SM had no camp parts.

Shazam!
Up up and away web!
Mmmhh, yep... big change.
We'll meet again Spiderman!
The whole rooftop scene with Spidey and Goblin.
The whole Peter love declaration to MJ.

to name a few.

as for silly, what about Peter changing to Spiderman to save MJ and "forgetting" to put his mask? I mean...

 

[GreenKToo]

well Batman 3 was announced. Looks like we're left out yet AGAIN.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Shazam!
Up up and away web!
Mmmhh, yep... big change.
We'll meet again Spiderman!
The whole rooftop scene with Spidey and Goblin.
The whole Peter love declaration to MJ.

to name a few.

as for silly, what about Peter changing to Spiderman to save MJ and "forgetting" to put his mask? I mean...

Thats not campy to me thats just some comedy. Camp to me is stuff like Batman 60s show.

And how is we will meet again Spiderman campy? Or MMMMhh, yep....big change?!?!?! And so what if Peter delaced lvoe to MJ thats not campy.

Jeez man Spiderman was no dark film but it was not campy and cheese either it was a regular light tone film with some comedy. Ya'll call that stuff campy and cheese? S:TM is campy and cheese.

Clark acting like a bumbling idiot was campy and cheese.
Lois Lane character was campy and cheese.
Luthor character was. Also wig come on he bald man.
Luthor sidekick campy and cheese
Luthor girlfriend campy and cheese
Luthor plot campy

 

[FaT_tONle]

well Batman 3 was announced. Looks like we're left out yet AGAIN.

Good news is that outside Potter/Batman WB has no other franchises lines up, so Supes is as likey as anything else.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Good news is that outside Potter/Batman WB has no other franchises lines up, so Supes is as likey as anything else.

Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Green Lantern, the Hobbit

 

[Superman-Prime]

Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Green Lantern, the Hobbit

And don't forget Jonah Hex. t: Well, the production has been finished recently, but still it counts.