What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[jmc]

Given the box office of both Cap and Thor Avengers has at the very least a $60 million plus opening audience, so it won't flop, but I don't think it's going to be the massive phenomenon that some are anticipating.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Anyone could've done a Batman/Superman film. Obviously, WB knew this and they just kept on putting all of their money in a character that is famous, but the story, actors and direction MAKE that character memorable. Hence, Burton had his run with Batman twice made a success out of it. Schumaker had it twice and made a mess. Nolan takes over.....$$$$ a hit nonetheless.


They tried GL and barely put the effort on the story and acting. Sure as hell they put a crap load of money. Jonah Hex was another character that they put no effort whatsoever, great actors (not with Megan Fox), implausible story.


Marvel doesn't care how many millions DC makes, they make a film about a character that has been around forever, that fans love and if in the process they need to make or take out a character to make the story and acting fit they do it without hesitation. Something that WB doesn't do at all, and to think that DC is part of one of the biggest American studios in the world and yet they can't do anything to move on from their two main characters.

 

[Docker2.0]

Given the box office of both Cap and Thor Avengers has at the very least a $60 million plus opening audience, so it won't flop, but I don't think it's going to be the massive phenomenon that some are anticipating.

I actually agree with you there. I don't think Avengers will make $1B like everyone is predicting, I'm saying $350M Dom MAX, $200M Minimum. I don't think TDKR will will be the financial success TDK was either. I see it making around the same as Avengers but a tid bit more.

Anyone could've done a Batman/Superman film. Obviously, WB knew this and they just kept on putting all of their money in a character that is famous, but the story, actors and direction MAKE that character memorable. Hence, Burton had his run with Batman twice made a success out of it. Schumaker had it twice and made a mess. Nolan takes over.....$$$$ a hit nonetheless.


They tried GL and barely put the effort on the story and acting. Sure as hell they put a crap load of money. Jonah Hex was another character that they put no effort whatsoever, great actors (not with Megan Fox), implausible story.


Marvel doesn't care how many millions DC makes, they make a film about a character that has been around forever, that fans love and if in the process they need to make or take out a character to make the story and acting fit they do it without hesitation. Something that WB doesn't do at all, and to think that DC is part of one of the biggest American studios in the world and yet they can't do anything to move on from their two main characters.

Hence why I say that Nolan is the worse thing that happened to DC. They are missing out on a golden opportunity to tie their characters together but because Nolan says no..............what Nolan says, Nolan gets. Despite GL's flaws, it wasn't to far from the comics. I actually think Whedon would have made a better GL than Avengers but it's all water under a bridge now.

 

[jmc]

I actually agree with you there. I don't think Avengers will make $1B like everyone is predicting, I'm saying $350M Dom MAX, $200M Minimum. I don't think TDKR will will be the financial success TDK was either. I see it making around the same as Avengers but a tid bit more.

I think Rises will make far more than Avengers, the only one who's likely to give Batman a run for it's money next year is Spider-Man given he and Bats are about on equal terms. The way I'm forecasting it based off past results is - 1st Rises, 2nd Spider-Man, 3rd Avengers, distant 4th Ghost Rider 2.

 

[Docker2.0]

I actually think Spiderman is going to underachieve next year. As far as Rises, I think it will make more than the Avengers but not as much as people think. Ledger's death played a part in it's box office success as well as the Joker himself, who is an A list villian. Bane is not well known, neither is the guy playing him. I'm saying $300M dom tops.

 

[WildcatNC]

I think Avengers and TDNR will do around the same. I don't think the Spiderman reboot will catch the magic of the Raimi movies but will still be big.

 

[jrd550]

just watched Jonah hex and I have no idea what DC were thinking - bad script, bad acting, bad music and terrible directing

 

[jmc]

For the last time DC have sweet **** all to do with the films.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

They're throwing darts in the air and trying to see if it hits or misses. Nothing new on other properties other than Batman and Superman....again as always.

 

[Airwings]

I'm not totally against a JL pic EVENTUALLY. However I think before then you should just mine the hell out of each property to it's fullest potential first on it's own. Not make each movie with the mentality of "oh boy it's another JL teaser trailer so let's get it out the way" but appraoch each movie as "let's make this the greatest Captain Marvel (or other DC hero) movie that it could possibly be" instead. That's the approach that CREATES franchises. Working hard on making each individual film the best it could be instead of thinking "lets make this one just so-so and then we'll have a great payoff in a sequel" which is just a suicidal perspective as a "so-so" movie is not always guaranteed to catch on. Just look at the GL situation.

Within a potential GL, Flash and Wonder Woman set of film series' alone you have the ability to make movies with 4 different lead characters and a GL corps with one property, or a movie about all the speedsters on epic adventures across time and space in another or an adventure of the Amazon women across an epic fantasy landscape with gods and other mythological creatures. All after you're done with already having established the leads of those properties on their own. All bringing something different & fresh to the superhero movie landscape & making those brands even stronger and even more marketable and profitable in the long run. All this of course before a JL movie is even necessary.

Simply because there is so much rich potential in each individual property to sustain and reinvent themselves in different ways if pulled off properly in the long run on their own without having to piggy back off the back of the more popular heroes. Matter of fact THAT approach will make the little known characters into more popular heroes themselves.

You have to allow each property the space to actually breathe and become it's own entity. In order to give each property some real importance and stature which in the long run also adds a lot of gravity & weight to a JL flick. It makes people anticipate and actually care about one far much more if they get heavily invested in each character first. Instead of it just seeming like "Batman & Superman with their superfriends" like many people will see it if it's just forced.

In other words no more "Aquaman is the guy who talks to fish" or "Wonder Woman is that lame chick that hangs around Batman & Superman" broad ignorant statements from your average person. Because movies were made that did a great enough job to really sell the world on what makes the characters and THEIR worlds SO much more than common misconceptions by average people who never read a comic about any of the characters say.

They should go make the films. And go to the limit with each hero regarding how to approach the character the story, the visual style, the design. Each of the films must beat us to the ground. We should just sit there for over 2 hours with open mouths and be totally amazed. That's one of the things Warner Bros have to think about when making, for example Hawkman.
And they also have to think about to let each hero be as far from the others as possible, just as you say Cain.
When Warner Bros do an adaption of, let's say Elongated Man (if they ever do), it should be so different from the rest that it takes the superhero genre to another level. And that should go for all of them.
No DC hero should be treated as lame. They should all be presented to us as a truly powerful force. And Aquaman IS the god of the sea

 

[Kyle Rayner]

They should go make the films. And go to the limit with each hero regarding how to approach the character the story, the visual style, the design. Each of the films must beat us to the ground. We should just sit there for over 2 hours with open mouths and be totally amazed. That's one of the things Warner Bros have to think about when making, for example Hawkman.
And they also have to think about to let each hero be as far from the others as possible, just as you say Cain.
When Warner Bros do an adaption of, let's say Elongated Man (if they ever do), it should be so different from the rest that it takes the superhero genre to another level. And that should go for all of them.
No DC hero should be treated as lame. They should all be presented to us as a truly powerful force. And Aquaman IS the god of the sea

I completly agree with you here, the WB mentality and work ethic is the same one screwing them over. Point: When Josh Wheedon offer to direct a Wonder Woman film that he even wrote the script WB said no thank you. What did Wheedon do? When on to direct The Avengers. I don't see how WB/DC just cluster f*&%s the character that could've made them millions. David Goyer helped Blade and Batman shine again, all he wanted to do was a Green Arrow film and he was denied, yet he has to work with Nolan to make another 2 Batman films...I just don't get it.

 

[dony2012]

Well, The Avengers doesn't REALLY feel like it's the ultimate team up/comic book movie that Marvel could have had if Spider-Man or Wolverine were in it.

The only hero on this team that sort of reaches their level of popularity is Iron Man.

He's the only real A-lister on that team when it comes to box office draw and success.

The Avengers doesn't have the A-list power that a film like Justice League could have with heroes like Superman and Batman.

The other movies in the MCU didn't even made that much (especially in the U.S.).

So without him I could even see a situation next year where Batman alone will make more money than all of those heroes that are together in The Avengers.

So why should DC make a Justice League movie that will overshadow their other productions and would only make them feel like they are just a set-up for the REAL BIG THING. When they can focus on stand alone movies and still be as successful as the Marvel Studios movies?

This shared universe thing could also get real tired real soon.
If they will make every one of their movies like little parts in a bigger universe it would probably make people feel like all of these movies are parts of the same series and they need to watch ALL OF THEM. And the GA will not want to do that. Eventually they will get tired and stop watching some of them,
what would create a domino effect that would knock all these films one after the other. And that would kill the superheroes genre.

Think about it.

 

[Oddzball]

DC thinks every Superhero film has to be EPIC and screw up badly. Marvel tells a tale each film and succeed commercially more often than not. Expecting new rewrite crews to fix a project so it will do better than Avatar is hideously delusional.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

DC has never been in charge with films. It has always been Warner Bros., and probably always will be, no matter the existence of DC Entertainment.

Marvel, on the other hand, had the benefit (some now see it as a curse) of selling off their characters to other studios. They had the benefit of seeing what other studios did with their characters and then using that knowledge to make films with the characters to which they do have the film rights.

There really is no Marvel vs. DC when it comes to films. There's Warner Bros. with the rights to DC characters vs. Marvel Studios vs. 20th Century Fox with the rights to Marvel characters vs. Sony with the rights to Marvel characters and so on.

But it's not like the studios that have some of Marvel's properties are just sitting on them. I mean, do you really see Fox, Sony, Universal, or Disney being as lax as WB is if they have their hands on DC's properties?

 

[akfj]

But it's not like the studios that have some of Marvel's properties are just sitting on them. I mean, do you really see Fox, Sony, Universal, or Disney being as lax as WB is if they have their hands on DC's properties?

Fox and Sony can't afford to be lax if they want to keep their properties according to the contracts. They'll have to return their characters to Marvel if they choose to stop making movies based on them. Universal returned the Hulk to Marvel so they're out of the business of making comic book movies, and they only served as the distributor on the Incredible Hulk and seemed to minimally promote it as best they could. If DC was never bought by WB and outsourced their characters to other film studios with deals that stated that films had to be made in order for those characters to be kept, then yes you would have definitely seen more films based on DC characters.

Marvel Studios was formed as an independent entity and is in the business to make comic book movies, so that's what we have seen from them and will continue to see from them. Disney has yet to release a Marvel film, but will next year, and it seems that they will still allow Marvel Studios to operate as an independent entity. There is no DC Studios, and never has been. DC Entertainment isn't a film studio, unfortunately. Their specialty really seems to be just with promotion and merchandise, not filmmaking.

WB is a huge film studio that releases a wide range of films and is under no obligation to release comic book films. They will continue to release films that they feel will make them money and that includes films based on DC characters every now and then. They have the rights to those characters, but they have been incredibly cautious when it comes to comic book films and have only chosen to make films with well-known characters with a few exceptions, and those exceptions have not been successes for them.

So, until WB allows for there to be an independent DC film studio, this is how it appears it is going to work. If Marvel would have been bought by Disney 30 years ago (or any other film studio for that matter), I really think they would be in the same situation that DC is in today. They really have had the benefit of other studios being contracted to make films based on their characters, and I really don't understand it when people wish that those film companies like Fox and Sony didn't have the rights. Those film companies making Marvel movies is really what started this comic book movie boom, and allowed for Marvel Comics to receive box office profits and the knowledge of what-to-do and what-not-to-do in order to start their own film company.

 

[jmc]

But it's not like the studios that have some of Marvel's properties are just sitting on them. I mean, do you really see Fox, Sony, Universal, or Disney being as lax as WB is if they have their hands on DC's properties?

A) They're not dependent on superheroes, B) They own the DC stable and can chose to make films about their heroes when it suits them. Like it or not WB can sit on these character or as long as they want and not do a damn thing with them.

 

[Tobias]

.What about WB setting up a subsidiary company?

.The film company would have control of what films to make and who to hire. .WB could fund them for a few years but the company would have to show a profit after a certain time. And raise money independent of WB to make it's films. This is sort of what Marvel Studios did. WB would not have any input to the company and the company would have to sink or swim on it's own. it might make the sunsidiary company more wise in how it spends money. Marvel is supposed to be real tight with it's budgets. .

 

[Docker2.0]

I say WB "leases" out some of their characters to help with the cost but still have some control over them.

 

[jmc]

I say WB ''leases'' out some of their characters to help with the cost but still have some control over them.

That's kinda pointless if you ask me. Retaining 'some' control is only going to lead to a clashing of heads.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Well, The Avengers doesn't REALLY feel like it's the ultimate team up/comic book movie that Marvel could have had if Spider-Man or Wolverine were in it.

The only hero on this team that sort of reaches their level of popularity is Iron Man.

He's the only real A-lister on that team when it comes to box office draw and success.

The Avengers doesn't have the A-list power that a film like Justice League could have with heroes like Superman and Batman.

The other movies in the MCU didn't even made that much (especially in the U.S.).

So without him I could even see a situation next year where Batman alone will make more money than all of those heroes that are together in The Avengers.

So why should DC make a Justice League movie that will overshadow their other productions and would only make them feel like they are just a set-up for the REAL BIG THING. When they can focus on stand alone movies and still be as successful as the Marvel Studios movies?

This shared universe thing could also get real tired real soon.
If they will make every one of their movies like little parts in a bigger universe it would probably make people feel like all of these movies are parts of the same series and they need to watch ALL OF THEM. And the GA will not want to do that. Eventually they will get tired and stop watching some of them,
what would create a domino effect that would knock all these films one after the other. And that would kill the superheroes genre.

Think about it.

At least Marvel have their characters in line together. You're seeing it from a money making point (which is important), yet the most important aspect of it is that they are going foward with their vision on how the characters should be portrayed. Making WB/DC look like azses when Marvel Studios being such a small company pryor to merging with Disney pushed out 2 superhero movies as to where DC/WB keep on reinventing the wheel with the same 2 characters.

The Avengers have been roaming around both on TV, Movies and merchandise for about 4 years now. Marvel got it 300% better than DC, that's a fact.

Spiderman and Wolverine are out of the question for the time being. Both properties are part of Fox until further notice. Nonetheless down the road there may be a Spiderman and Wolverine in the Avengers.

One thing that I see DC/WB doing is their impleting the DC reboot with MOS, cause the Superman uniform being worn resembles the one in the new comic book for the relaunch in Sep 2011. This may be good news for the rest of the DCU.

 

[akfj]

The Avengers have been roaming around both on TV, Movies and merchandise for about 4 years now. Marvel got it 300% better than DC, that's a fact.

I'm 75% sure that your figures are 100% made up. 45% of people know that.

Spiderman and Wolverine are out of the question for the time being. Both properties are part of Fox until further notice.

Spider-Man is with Sony.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

I'm 75% sure that your figures are 100% made up. 45% of people know that.



Spider-Man is with Sony.

Films
Iron Man 2008, The Incredible Hulk 2008
Iron Man 2010,

(Disney and Marvel merger)
Thor 2011/Captain America 2011
Avengers 2012


BREAK ON 2009 FROM MARVEL FILMS

TV/Disney
Superhero Squad 2 seasons, Invicible Iron Man DVD, Iron Man TV show, Hulk vs. Thor vs. Wolverine, The Avengers

The merchandise even has the Avengers Assemble logo on every single piece of merchandise while the movies were still on production all working together.

Sorry for the Spiderman studios bs. My Bad!

Don't tell me I don't have my **** straight when it is the truth, DC has nothing on Marvel when it comes to films and merchandise. Are you going to sit there and tell me that the only reason DC is where they at is because of Nolan's Batman? That's all they got and the new Superman film. Other than that, WB/DC have nothing else to offer to the mainstream public. I'm a DC fan but those are the FACTS!

 

[akfj]

So your 300% figure is a fact? Don't pull made-up statistics out of your ass and then claim that they're facts. My post was merely mocking that part of your post.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

So your 300% figure is a fact? Don't pull made-up statistics out of your ass and then claim that they're facts. My post was merely mocking that part of your post.

Dude, really???? This is post, 300% is an exagerrated way of saying 100%. I don't care if you mock me or not, I don't take anything in here serious nor offensive.

You got to admit that from 2008 thru 2011 Marvel has been hitting homeruns in their film department. No questions asked.

 

[Steve Holt]

anyone can come up with statistics, forfty percent of people know that