WB & DC Meet For A Summit

[hippie_hunter]

Another key for the SR sequel to be successful is making sure they maintain budget discipline. Keeping the budget no more than 160 million would be good. If the sequel is a tighter film (say 2 hour and 10 minutes) more fun, and has great action, flight and fight scenes and with the lower budget and a redesigned and better looking suit....half the battle is already done for it be financially profitable.

But the reason why Superman Returns lacked budget discipline is because of Bryan Singer. He was given free reign, did what he wanted such as deleting a $10 million scene.

With Singer obviously going to be put on a shorter leash because of Superman Returns' underwhelming box office showing, such fiscal irresponsibility really isn't going to be a problem.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Another key for the SR sequel to be successful is making sure they maintain budget discipline. Keeping the budget no more than 160 million would be good. If the sequel is a tighter film (say 2 hour and 10 minutes) more fun, and has great action, flight and fight scenes and with the lower budget and a redesigned and better looking suit....half the battle is already done for it be financially profitable.

But the reason why Superman Returns lacked budget discipline is because of Bryan Singer. He was given free reign, did what he wanted such as deleting a $10 million scene.

With Singer obviously going to be put on a shorter leash because of Superman Returns' underwhelming box office showing, such fiscal irresponsibility really isn't going to be a problem.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

I don't know if Singer wasted money with SR. I know only that Spiderman's success hurted a lot of minds at Hollywood.
A lot of execs thought that the rule was that a successful sh movie had to make 300-400m with its first movie.
Yes it is possible (Iron Man proves it), but it's not the rule. You can start slowly and then make $240-300-400m with the sequel.
Fox's X-Men and Nolan's Batman show us that the best way is to invest gradually on a sh franchise.

Now that the obsession for the Spiderman numbers is gone, I think that it is possible to plan properly the future of the Superman franchise.

 

[mego joe]

I don't know if Singer wasted money with SR. I know only that Spiderman's success hurted a lot of minds at Hollywood.
A lot of execs thought that the rule was that a successful sh movie had to make 300-400m with its first movie.
Yes it is possible (Iron Man proves it), but it's not the rule. You can start slowly and then make $240-300-400m with the sequel.
Fox's X-Men and Nolan's Batman show us that the best way is to invest gradually on a sh franchise.

Now that the obsession for the Spiderman numbers is gone, I think that it is possible to plan properly the future of the Superman franchise.

THe difference btw Singer's SUperman and Nolan's Batman though is still rooted in the possibilities with the sequel. BB had everyone excited for a sequel. SR is just not the same. That is the biggest difference. If WB felt that SR had the same sequel potential they would not have been accepting reboot pitches, nor would employess of DC (and thus WB) have publicly criticized SR- Morrison, Waid and Meltzer. NOr would Levitz have had such politically safe answers to questions about SR. WB doesn't belive in Singer's Superman and is ready for a new take.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

THe difference btw Singer's SUperman and Nolan's Batman though is still rooted in the possibilities with the sequel. BB had everyone excited for a sequel. SR is just not the same. That is the biggest difference. If WB felt that SR had the same sequel potential they would not have been accepting reboot pitches, nor would employess of DC (and thus WB) have publicly criticized SR- Morrison, Waid and Meltzer. NOr would Levitz have had such politically safe answers to questions about SR. WB doesn't belive in Singer's Superman and is ready for a new take.

Absolutely true!

The ending of BB leaves you with the Joker card!
The ending of SR leaves you with Jason waving bye

Take a guess at which one left the audience pumped.

 

[hippie_hunter]

THe difference btw Singer's SUperman and Nolan's Batman though is still rooted in the possibilities with the sequel. BB had everyone excited for a sequel. SR is just not the same. That is the biggest difference. If WB felt that SR had the same sequel potential they would not have been accepting reboot pitches,

We all know that Superman Returns underperformed. It makes business sense to determine which is the best route to take with Superman, a sequel or a reboot.

Not only that, but there is nothing that says that they're accepting reboot pitches. Leterrier was never approached. We don't know if Zack Snyder was asked to do a sequel or reboot. Warner Bros. also flatout refused the reboot pitches as well from Grant Morrison and Mark Millar without really even considering them.

nor would employess of DC (and thus WB) have publicly criticized SR- Morrison, Waid and Meltzer. NOr would Levitz have had such politically safe answers to questions about SR. WB doesn't belive in Singer's Superman and is ready for a new take.

Mark Waid is no longer an employee of DC. He's been the EiC of Boom! months before that article went up. Meltzer was never an employee of DC.

Employees of DC and Warner Bros have also publically praised the film as well. Geoff Johns loves the film. Jamal Igle has come onto these forums to defend the film. Richard Donner, who has made his biggest films for Warner Bros. (Goonies, Lethal Weapon series, Superman), likes it. Justin Grey, Jimmy Palmiotti, and Marc Andreyko wrote the Superman Returns prequels.

Warner Bros. is trying to properly determine which way to take. Just who knows what it will be.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Richard Donner, who has made his biggest films for Warner Bros. (Goonies, Lethal Weapon series, Superman), likes it.

I sure hope so! That movie was one of biggest fanny kisses of all time!!

 

[hippie_hunter]

I sure hope so! That movie was one of biggest fanny kisses of all time!!

LMAO t:

 

[Nightwing1977]

WB doesn't belive in Singer's Superman and is ready for a new take.

Link please??

 

[SatEL]

THe difference btw Singer's SUperman and Nolan's Batman though is still rooted in the possibilities with the sequel. BB had everyone excited for a sequel. SR is just not the same. That is the biggest difference. If WB felt that SR had the same sequel potential they would not have been accepting reboot pitches, nor would employess of DC (and thus WB) have publicly criticized SR- Morrison, Waid and Meltzer. NOr would Levitz have had such politically safe answers to questions about SR. WB doesn't belive in Singer's Superman and is ready for a new take.

Gawddddddd dam they are not the only ones, I have been waiting for years since the Reeves films for a new Superman film for this Generation.

 

[mego joe]

We all know that Superman Returns underperformed. It makes business sense to determine which is the best route to take with Superman, a sequel or a reboot.

Not only that, but there is nothing that says that they're accepting reboot pitches. Leterrier was never approached. We don't know if Zack Snyder was asked to do a sequel or reboot. Warner Bros. also flatout refused the reboot pitches as well from Grant Morrison and Mark Millar without really even considering them.


Mark Waid is no longer an employee of DC. He's been the EiC of Boom! months before that article went up. Meltzer was never an employee of DC.

Employees of DC and Warner Bros have also publically praised the film as well. Geoff Johns loves the film. Jamal Igle has come onto these forums to defend the film. Richard Donner, who has made his biggest films for Warner Bros. (Goonies, Lethal Weapon series, Superman), likes it. Justin Grey, Jimmy Palmiotti, and Marc Andreyko wrote the Superman Returns prequels.

Warner Bros. is trying to properly determine which way to take. Just who knows what it will be.

THAT article also claims that Geoff Johns went in with a reboot pitch, so maybe he didn't 'love it' that much in the long run, or is able to see the limitations a sequel has. As for the writers of the Superman prequels, are you sure they liked the movie? I don't believe those guys even saw the film.

Sure Igle has defended the film. THat's one person. You've got MOrrison and the other writers who have all worked for DC or are currently working for DC publicly criticizing it. Plus what about Paul Levitz's comments? It sure wasn't a ringing endorsement of either SInger OR SR.

As for reboot pitches, we know WB has heard some and rejected them, just as we know WB has heard sequel pitches and rejected them as well.

My point is simply that you're not going to have two current top DC writers (both who are writing SUperman) pitching reboots to WB if WB had any faith in SR and Singer's vision.

 

[mego joe]

Link please??

Isn't it pretty clear by now? The writing is on the wall.

 

[Nightwing1977]

Isn't it pretty clear by now? The writing is on the wall.

Still need link please. You can't confirm something until it officially happend or WB said so, which hasn't happend. Now I still need the link.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

DC needs to completely revamp their characters and put them in a more modern and realistic setting. Not everyone should be wearing capes and masks. Marvel movies have been able to translate to the screen well for that reason, and DC has to follow suit.

 

[hippie_hunter]

DC needs to completely revamp their characters and put them in a more modern and realistic setting. Not everyone should be wearing capes and masks. Marvel movies have been able to translate to the screen well for that reason, and DC has to follow suit.

IMO, with Batman Begins, the Dark Knight, Superman Returns and V for Vendetta, along with how awesome Watchmen looks and how great the Green Lantern script apparently is, I'd say that they should stick with what they're doing because the quality of DC's recent film adaptations combined is far superior to Marvel's.

 

[TheBatman1979]

DC needs to completely revamp their characters and put them in a more modern and realistic setting. Not everyone should be wearing capes and masks. Marvel movies have been able to translate to the screen well for that reason, and DC has to follow suit.

Yes, let's completely alienate the long time fans of the characters by removing the masks and capes they've been wearing for last 70 some-odd years and trash the good word of mouth we might have gotten. What terrific Idea. that way we can not make nearly $500 million dollars domestically on the next movie we put out, how wonderful of an idea....

Now does that still sound genius to you?

 

[Dark Knight]

IMO, with Batman Begins, the Dark Knight, Superman Returns and V for Vendetta, along with how awesome Watchmen looks and how great the Green Lantern script apparently is, I'd say that they should stick with what they're doing because the quality of DC's recent film adaptations combined is far superior to Marvel's.

I agree. Also with the praise Goyers Green Arrow script is getting as well. The only thing WB needs to start doing is greenlighting the DC hero movies.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Man, between the Superman lawsuit and the Watchmen lawsuit, the WB lawyers need to go back to school.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Except Superman Returns. It is not better than the Marvel movies, IMO.

 

[GreenLantern1]

Yes, let's completely alienate the long time fans of the characters by removing the masks and capes they've been wearing for last 70 some-odd years and trash the good word of mouth we might have gotten. What terrific Idea. that way we can not make nearly $500 million dollars domestically on the next movie we put out, how wonderful of an idea....

Exactly.

I would be quite pissed if they started changing costumes and stuff. Superman, Green Lantern, Flash, Hawkman, Wonder Woman, or whoever better look the way they look in the comics. I dont want to see all my favorite DC heroes in black leather outfits like the X-Men.

 

[Showtime]

Absolutely true!

The ending of BB leaves you with the Joker card!
The ending of SR leaves you with Jason waving bye

Take a guess at which one left the audience pumped.

Superman Returns!

Superman: Man of Steel

Following a horrendous custody battle of several years, Superman wins sole custody in this epic action-adventure Superman: Man of Steel, a soaring 2nd chapter in the saga of one of the world's most beloved superhero dads. While the same old enemy plots to render him powerless once again, Superman faces the heartbreaking realization that the woman he loves, Lois Lane, has kidnapped his child. Or has she? Superman's bittersweet search for Jason challenges him to bridge the distance between Lex and real estate while finding a brighter suit in a world that that is much more fashionable without him. In an attempt to protect the child he loves from the clutches of Lois, Superman embarks on an epic journey of fatherdom that takes him from the depths of the penal system to the highest courts in the land.

 

[X Knight]

:

Ironically, that's kind of where I see the "SR franchise" heading......

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Superman Returns!

LMAO, that was brilliant. Well done good sir!

 

[mego joe]

Still need link please. You can't confirm something until it officially happend or WB said so, which hasn't happend. Now I still need the link.

Hint: I'm giving you the reasons I believe this to be the case. We're discussing, not stating irrevocable facts. So there will be no link, just as there's no link showing that WB believes in SR.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Yes, let's completely alienate the long time fans of the characters by removing the masks and capes they've been wearing for last 70 some-odd years and trash the good word of mouth we might have gotten. What terrific Idea. that way we can not make nearly $500 million dollars domestically on the next movie we put out, how wonderful of an idea....

Now does that still sound genius to you?

That is the problem. The characters and their nature are stuck in a different time. DC comics has not grown with the times. The comments snyder has made are true. The audience is more sofisticated these days and you CANNOT sell them something that is too earnest or unrealistic becuase they simply wont buy into it. That is if, of course, getting the general public(i.e. people who are not fans of the character) to even consider checking out your movie is what you are looking for. Unfortunately that is what most of the DC catalogue is sitting at: Filling an archetype. People wearing colorful spandex with capes and masks and with outdated themes. It may have worked for linda carter in the 70s but that **** just looks straight up ridiculous in a modern movie. The common audience wont take it seriously and it is that realism and reflection of the times that DC lacks in most of its core characters and has to modify to have a succesful run in Hollywood.

Comic books are a part of popular culture which reflects itself in this form, and its themes and characters have evolved with the times for people to identify with them. Golden Age stuff has historical significance and importance but compared to what it is now it just doesnt fit. DC has not updated their characters with the times and now were having a huge problem with Superman and its difficulty to have the audience relate to the current incarnation/presentation of the character. Superman returns was basically a repeat of a 1979 CLASSIC, and this time(2008) it didnt go over too well even with the core FANS because its been done and ,well, it was just silly. People simply didnt care and take the use of this presentation of the character as one of the weak points of the latest superman flop. Note how trying to do the same thing again to please and not allienate the fans ended up upseting the fans, losing out on repeat viewings and interest of the general public, and not meeting expectations in the box office. Established movie franchises like James Bond have had to adapt with the times to keep filling the seats, and clearly it is working for them. Pierce Brosnan in a shooting scene and holding a martini in his invisible car was not going to work forever. That is, of course, if setting up multimillion dollar franchises is what WB is down with.

A movie is not made for audiences in the past 70 years. Its made for an audience of TODAY. The reason the Dark knight was succesful was because the character was presented in a modern setting with modern themes and situations in a manner that was realistic enough for the audience to suspend their disbelief and take interest. There was a reason for Batman to wear a riot gear armor and not spandex with underoos. It was nessesary for you to see that it made sense. Of course there are characters like Batman and maybe even superman that must maintain their cape and cowl, but the presentation of most the characters has to be modified and upgraded for these times and someone as imersed in this like Millar will tell you the same. It is possible that the new wave of movies does this for the comics instead of the other way around.

I understand you want to respect the history of the character, and certainly the essense of the character has to remain, but if you want to make money and keep people interested you cannot deliver a character that is out of setting with how sofisticated and non-naive the audience is. Not if you want to cash in big at the BO. When people are faced with something too surreal or not well done they wont enjoy the movie but will spend their time critizicing or making sense of it in their minds instead of watching it. The movie of course has to be fun, and has to be well written, etc, but if DC wants to pull this off succesfully in the same way marvel is doing it the characters have to be treated with a sense of common sensibility and realism that the characters currently do not have. Not to mention it has to be done in the same degree so that they can all be in the crossover movie.