Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Tobias]

Because if they don't make money, the studios won't make any more. And if the studios don't *expect* to make money, they won't make them in the first place.

Why is this such an alien concept?

Exactly!!

WB has just 3 (arguably) mega -DC franchises. Batman, JL and GL - GL is where there is room for argument.

These are franchises that can make way north of 500 million at the BO and as such WB can invest 200 million plus to produce them.

Marvel is in a stronger position. They have mega-franchises in Spiderman, IronMan, TA and Thor. Possibly Cap - Cap 2 could be huge - over 500 million.

WB's issue is, is it worth it spending say 170 million (production and marketing) on a Flash film when the total BO may be less around 350 million. Frankly I think Flash is not near as strong as Cap and Cap only did 370 million or so.

The problem is, until proven otherewise and aside from Bats, GL and JL, WB sees solo DC franchises as a huge risk. Which they should - given what has happened.

Personally I believe there is another 500 million franchise in the DC staple. It will come from a "secondary" character and, if I were to bet, I'd say it will be Shazaam. Shazaam is WB's Spidey in terms of appeal to the younger set. TAS is going to be huge. Shazaam could be just as huge IMO.

 

[The Batman]

I'm trying to understand how Superman isnt considered a mega franchise, with its 5 films and the fact that it STARTED THE CBM GENRE, yet GL, with its one flop film is.

It...dosen't make sense.

 

[gugumugats]

I understand the concept. But people also need to understand the concept that not every comic book film needs to be a 200 million dollar budgeted, mid summer tent pole.

I remember reading somewhere that this is one of the reasons that Edgar Wright's Ant-Man movie never moved forward (is that still happening?).

After the Marvel acquisition, Disney acknowledged that they are more interested in focusing on high-budget blockbusters or low-budget films rather than "mid-budget blockbusters" that Ant-Man would've been.

Then again, certain superhero franchises would need that budget to actually work as movies. For instance, GL would need a lot of money for their visual effects budget.

 

[gugumugats]

I'm trying to understand how Superman isnt considered a mega franchise, with its 5 films and the fact that it STARTED THE CBM GENRE, yet GL, with its one flop film is.

It...dosen't make sense.

And don't forget Smallville (10 seasons, WTF?)....... and the Twlight-ized Superman earth one ....

 

[solidsnake86]

I'm trying to understand how Superman isnt considered a mega franchise, with its 5 films and the fact that it STARTED THE CBM GENRE, yet GL, with its one flop film is.

It...dosen't make sense.

I was thinking the same thing, but according to some, superman is no longer viable for some odd reason.

 

[The Morningstar]

I remember reading somewhere that this is one of the reasons that Edgar Wright's Ant-Man movie never moved forward (is that still happening?).

After the Marvel acquisition, Disney acknowledged that they are more interested in focusing on high-budget blockbusters or low-budget films rather than "mid-budget blockbusters" that Ant-Man would've been.

Then again, certain superhero franchises would need that budget to actually work as movies. For instance, GL would need a lot of money for their visual effects budget.

I don't know where you read that. I'm sure i read that they Marvel wanted to do smaller films along with their bigger films.

 

[gugumugats]

I don't know where you read that. I'm sure i read that they Marvel wanted to do smaller films along with their bigger films.

Back in the day, when the economy was a little more sucky than the sucky economy now and studios where worried that less and less people are going to the movies.

I think Disney put out a statement that they would focus on big-budget films and smaller budget films to maximize profits.

Ant-Man wasn't mentioned by Disney, but it was speculated by the author of the article that Disney's new strategy may be an obstacle to Ant-Man.

I was able to Google the article:
http://io9.com/5480817/will-disneys-decision-to-crush-mid+budget-films-stomp-out-ant+man

 

[The Morningstar]

Black Panther and Dr Strange are in the works. I don't imagine they'll be 150-200 million dollar budgeted summer blockbusters.

 

[metaphysician]

I don't know, I could see them being 150, depending on how much risk Marvel Studios feels like taking. Something closer to 100 is more likely, though.

 

[The Batman]

I was thinking the same thing, but according to some, superman is no longer viable for some odd reason.

"Some" being internet fanboys and others who generally dont know what the **** they're talking about, lol

 

[MarvelKnight]

Personally, I'm not all that excited to see a JLA movie. I've always much preferred to see those heroes separately than together.

I would rather DC just keep pumping out good animated Justice League movies. I thought JLoom was pretty good. But I find myself linking 'new frontier' more and more every time I watch it.

 

[Lone]

I would rather DC just keep pumping out good animated Justice League movies. I thought JLoom was pretty good. But I find myself linking 'new frontier' more and more every time I watch it.

JL: Doom was poorly animated. Superman vs The Elite looks to be the same. I see a pattern starting to emerge...****ing WB.

 

[KalMart]

I'm trying to understand how Superman isnt considered a mega franchise, with its 5 films and the fact that it STARTED THE CBM GENRE, yet GL, with its one flop film is.

It...dosen't make sense.

I guess it was a mega-franchise until the 80's, but now it's starting over. GL was a failed attempt at a mega-franchise.

I understand the concept. But people also need to understand the concept that not every comic book film needs to be a 200 million dollar budgeted, mid summer tent pole.

Then why make a film of it? It's not like the general moviegoing public has a thirst to become comic fans or what have you. And even if it's 'only' $50M...that's still a hell of a chunk to take a gamble on a two years of work into two hours of running length...when you're already selling core material like comics to the core market for it. Nor ar they ingherently indy-friemdly/arthouse/critical-acclaim film material. So yes, they kinda' do have to be a major tentpole because otherwise, there's no value in them as films.

 

[The Morningstar]

I guess it was a mega-franchise until the 80's, but now it's starting over. GL was a failed attempt at a mega-franchise.



Then why make a film of it? It's not like the general moviegoing public has a thirst to become comic fans or what have you. And even if it's 'only' $50M...that's still a hell of a chunk to take a gamble on a two years of work into two hours of running length...when you're already selling core material like comics to the core market for it. Nor ar they ingherently indy-friemdly/arthouse/critical-acclaim film material. So yes, they kinda' do have to be a major tentpole because otherwise, there's no value in them as films.

If people shared that attitude then there is no value in any film that isn't a blockbuster. It's a ridiculous mentality.

Point is, there is great stories to tell in Vertigo. Stories that like V for Vendetta, Road to Perdition and History of Violence are not necessarily perceived as comic book films.

****, Road to Perdition was nominated for like, 10 Oscars wasn't it?

The idea that you should only do a comic book movie to make 800 million at the box office is infuriating.

 

[KalMart]

If people shared that attitude then there is no value in any film that isn't a blockbuster. It's a ridiculous mentality.

No, actually, this speaks directly to valuing film as an art...by letting precious resources and time go towards projects that are films from the ground up, not some adaptation of another format which has already cut out its own niche...looking to use film as another vehicle for anything. Who's the one with the ridiculous mentality here?

But that's not the most important point here...

Point is, there is great stories to tell in Vertigo. Stories that like V for Vendetta, Road to Perdition and History of Violence are not necessarily perceived as comic book films.

****, Road to Perdition was nominated for like, 10 Oscars wasn't it?

And what, that isn't enough last you a while? If there's another unknown graphic novel or what have you that someone wants to make into a film because of its creative appeal...guess what..they'll f'in do it anyway. They didn't need prodding before to do it, and they won't need it now in light of mega-franchises either.

The idea that you should only do a comic book movie to make 800 million at the box office is infuriating.

The idea that comics must keep being made into movies is what's silly. This attraction to making making movie franchises from comics is motivated by what? Right. So let cinema moderate that itself and address non-comic movie projects, etc...THEN if they run out of ideas, maybe they'll call on the comics again. Comics serve the movies made about them when needed, not the other way around.

Don't make it out like comics are somehow not getting their due recognition...or that someone shouldn't be looking to the comics for blockbuster material. They'll always look to books for blockbusters, and they'll always look to comics/shows/cartoons/games when they want to. They'll also always make more artsy films from some as well when they want to....not because some comic fans out there want them to take them more seriously or what have you. So sit back and enjoy them when they do happen, or don't....they don't have to do any more or less than what's important to them.

I'm not saying that comics are the red-headed step child of source material. But if a movie studio looks at the Flash as a possible big money-maker, or not and passes on it altogether...that's their prerogative to do so especially if they're putting up the money, not to somehow give comics more artistic appreciation or what have you.

 

[KalMart]

But I get where you're comin' from. If anything...I'd hope that when they do go for these big blockbusters, they realize that it starts with how just about any successful blockbuster has made its mark...with the right filmmaker at the helm doing it how they do it best.


Except for Superman Returns and Hulk, of course.

 

[The Morningstar]

Lol yea. Even though i like Ang's Hulk, some of the creative choices were... questionable, to say the least.

I mean you look at the mega successful blockbusters, even though they are big studio films, most of the time they are the directors vision. For better or worse in terms of quality. Just look at the TF films. That's a mega franchise, worth over 2 billion. Apart from the first one, which had Spielberg's fingerprints all over it, the other 2 were purely Bay set loose.

Obviously you gotta get a better director to start with, but the studios should let them do what they gotta do really. I mean, a director is a film maker, a studio exec is a glorified accountant.

It's like GL. I don't care what anyone says, to me that film was made by committee. Martin Campbell had no vision of his own there. I think he was just a "face" of the movie and the thing was made by all sorts of people. Where if DC/WB got a director who was suited to the material, like someone with a real passion and knowledge of sci-fi, who had experience working with CGI heavy blockbusters, and let them loose, we could have had a much, much better film. Alex Proyas, would be my choice. Or JJ Abrams.

 

[KalMart]

Basically...if you wanna stop seeing comics being treated as blockbuster fodder...it kinda' has to be a change in movies altogether. Because if it's not comics, it'll be something else. Even though a comic fan will say there's more to comics than just pop appeal or what have you...not really the point that movies are out to address in the first place. It's like with books, essentially. There are probably a lot of more esoteric comics that could be made into more eclectic films and such...but then there are also tons of smaller original film projects/scripts that get pushed aside to make room for the mega-flicks too. So I kinda' feel the latter should go earlier 'in line'...since their trajectory to the big screen is a bit purer, if you will.

 

[BestGirl]

^What do you mean by their trajectory being "purer"?

 

[KalMart]

More conceived and designed as films and films only from the outset.

 

[Tobias]

The problem is that comic blockbusters generally cost way more to make than non-comic blockbusters.

So TA and TDKR will pencil out way north of 300 million to make/market but will "only" make 3 times that in theatres. Of which the studio gets half.

HG's cost 75 million to make and will likely make 10 times that in it's theatre run.

Comic blockbusters don't have a great ROI.

On top of which, let's bring it way down, only 5 comic films have been able to do better than 400 milion at the BO. Batman, IronMan, Spiderman, Thor and presumably TA. 400 million is a way low number. I'd argue 600 million is definitve for making a comc-book film a blockbuster and only 4 come anywhere close to that to date.

The pool of available comic book blockbusters can be counted on one hand right now. Maybe two in a few years. I think Thor and a relaunched GL will join this elite group. Still, blockbuster comic book franchises are few and very far between and their ROI is, comparitively, not that great. Compared to many non-comic film blockbusters.

 

[jmc]

I'm still not convinced Thor is the guaranteed franchise some think it is. I think the likes of Batman, Iron Man and Spidey could recover from a bad film but I'm not so sure the likes of Thor would, I'm not convinced those type of second tier characters will ever be cemented as box office guarantees, GL, Cap, Flash, WW, they're all going to be dependent on films being good. I think the elite group of heroes on film will always be Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Wolverine, with Iron Man being the exception to the rule.

 

[Tobias]

I'm still not convinced Thor is the guaranteed franchise some think it is. I think the likes of Batman, Iron Man and Spidey could recover from a bad film but I'm not so sure the likes of Thor would, I'm not convinced those type of second tier characters will ever be cemented as box office guarantees, GL, Cap, Flash, WW, they're all going to be dependent on films being good. I think the elite group of heroes on film will always be Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Wolverine, with Iron Man being the exception to the rule.

The elite group are those that can make 500 million or some would argue the cutoff is really 600 million.

Can Thor2 make 500 million? I think it will. Will it make 600 million? I doubt it. So depending on where one comes down on the 500/600 million divide Thor may not make the big time.

If we go with 600 million as the cutoff there are really very few super-hero films that can do that.

Bats, Spidey, Ironman and TA.

JL will be able to do it and I believe GL will be right there when it is done right.

Other than those 5 I don't think any other comic film can come close to doing 600 million.

There will always be the outlier as IronMan once was.

I think there is a sleeper second tier character waiting to make the big-time in the form of Shazaam. The jury is out on that of course.

Aside from the 5 above-metionned, all other comic franchises are second tier at best and 3rd tier at worst.

 

[BestGirl]

^I would add Superman to the list of potentially elite superhero properties.

More conceived and designed as films and films only from the outset.

Hmm, I fail to see why this would make them more deserving of being made into movies before some comic book character.

 

[roach]

WB should do a Superman/Batman movie first and then have that lead into a JL movie