Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Optimus_Prime_]

hmmmm
MOS...the story of Kal coming to earth and growing into the man he'll become...have him go on sabbatical around the world...movie culminates with his first flight
MOS 2....moves to Metropolis and revealing himself to the world as Superman...distrust and fear...battles Luthor and proves himself to be the hero everyone knows and loves
MOS 3....Brainiac arrives on earth looking for the last kryptonian...massive battles

Movie 1 and Movie 2 seem like they could be one movie, or at least you could cover some of Movie 2 in Movie 1. Batman Begins essentially did what you described for Movies 1 and 2, just did it with less noteworthy villains (in the eyes of the public).

I don't have quite a formalized idea like yours, but I'd love to see a trilogy where each movie he gets stronger, and each movie he ventures further out into space, perhaps to find more aliens like himself. That way you could tie run-ins with characters like Brainiac, Mongul, Darkseid, Lobo and even Bizzaro into his own personal journey to discover more about his origins.

I rather liked Millar's one idea where he suggested Superman outlive our solar system, perhaps he could be bathed in the aftermath of our sun going supernova (which technically is scientifically inaccurate) and is turned into a God because of it. I also like how DC Year 1,000,000 has him use his Godlike abilities to ressurect Lois Lane. Obviously you couldn't even touch on this until a third movie but I think something like that utilizes the full potential of Superman a lot more, especially with the technology now available. Superman has a lot of trippy and high concept sci-fi elements that no one has ever bothered to touch.

 

[Tobias]

Of course he would say that. Saying the opposite would've been legally inadviseable especially if they wanted to continue to have any access whatsoever to that character.

I think it's both/and.

Legally WB has to be careful what it says and, at the same time, reading the transcript my sense was that in a decade or so after WB had successfully launches other DC franchises they might try Superman again. I think Horn was honest on that.

The court forcing MOS delayed what probably would have been a Flash or WW film in 2013. It's frustrating for anyone who wants to ses WB develop other franchises.

Once MOS is done next year WB can shift it's film development to other characters. The delay on other projects caused by MOS is very frustrating. Lawyers, courts - what can you say!

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Movie 1 and Movie 2 seem like they could be one movie, or at least you could cover some of Movie 2 in Movie 1. Batman Begins essentially did what you described for Movies 1 and 2, just did it with less noteworthy villains (in the eyes of the public).

I don't have quite a formalized idea like yours, but I'd love to see a trilogy where each movie he gets stronger, and each movie he ventures further out into space, perhaps to find more aliens like himself. That way you could tie run-ins with characters like Brainiac, Mongul, Darkseid, Lobo and even Bizzaro into his own personal journey to discover more about his origins.

I rather liked Millar's one idea where he suggested Superman outlive our solar system, perhaps he could be bathed in the aftermath of our sun going supernova (which technically is scientifically inaccurate) and is turned into a God because of it. I also like how DC Year 1,000,000 has him use his Godlike abilities to ressurect Lois Lane. Obviously you couldn't even touch on this until a third movie but I think something like that utilizes the full potential of Superman a lot more, especially with the technology now available. Superman has a lot of trippy and high concept sci-fi elements that no one has ever bothered to touch.

I love this idea!

 

[Rockstar]

AKA. Doctor Manhattan.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

AKA. Doctor Manhattan.

Nah. You'd have to make the point the Superman always retains his humanity. This is more directly related to power level.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

They (WB) just invest too much on two characters that eventually people will get tired off. Batman had his run with Nolan, on cartoons and video games. Marvel has ZERO competition, WB cannot expect to continue with the trend that they are having.

They need someone with vision to spearhead the DC Films. Hell if James Cameron can make a complete action/sci-fi movie with blue giants he won't have issues with a JL movie.

 

[HighFivingMF]

They (WB) just invest too much on two characters that eventually people will get tired off. Batman had his run with Nolan, on cartoons and video games. Marvel has ZERO competition, WB cannot expect to continue with the trend that they are having.

If the past 70 years have been any indication, nobody's going to get tired of Superman and Batman. Even if they do, WB has dozens of other options that aren't superheroes.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

If the past 70 years have been any indication, nobody's going to get tired of Superman and Batman. Even if they do, WB has dozens of other options that aren't superheroes.

Lets see, Batman had one movie (I think) in the 30's, then the tv Show, then the Tim Burton and Joel Schumaker's film. The latter one failed and put a curse on ALL superhero films until Spiderman. The Superman films started to suck in Superman II (not the Donner Film), they rebooted Superman Returns which did not do well with the public, Smallville was around for 10 years and the final episode destroyed any hope of seeing Tom Welling become Superman.

WB does have the option to get out of the Superhero Genre you are right. However this is about superheroes, not about other movie options. They should concentrate on other DC characters than have done very good in both comics and animation. They have to move foward and stop looking back.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Nolan/Bale are done with Batman, what could've been a spring board to making a JLA movie became a narrow-single-minded trilogy. Bale was the best Batman, he really had that role down to a science and could have the factor to connect the dots for JLA.

 

[roach]

Lets see, Batman had one movie (I think) in the 30's, then the tv Show, then the Tim Burton and Joel Schumaker's film. The latter one failed and put a curse on ALL superhero films until Spiderman. The Superman films started to suck in Superman II (not the Donner Film), they rebooted Superman Returns which did not do well with the public, Smallville was around for 10 years and the final episode destroyed any hope of seeing Tom Welling become Superman.

WB does have the option to get out of the Superhero Genre you are right. However this is about superheroes, not about other movie options. They should concentrate on other DC characters than have done very good in both comics and animation. They have to move foward and stop looking back.

Superman 2 was good...Superman 3 is where the series went down hill

 

[Tobias]

They (WB) just invest too much on two characters that eventually people will get tired off. Batman had his run with Nolan, on cartoons and video games. Marvel has ZERO competition, WB cannot expect to continue with the trend that they are having.

They need someone with vision to spearhead the DC Films. Hell if James Cameron can make a complete action/sci-fi movie with blue giants he won't have issues with a JL movie.

WB is a huge studio and superhero films contribute little to their overall profits. In fact, aside from Batman, WB has done poorly in financial terms from superhero films. GL, SR and so.

A film like Wedding Crashers costs little to make and canstill do huge at the BO. In terms of return for dollar it outperformed Batman.

Get the picture? This is how WB sees it and that's why they do so little with DC properties.

Until WB creates a subsidiary studio dedicated to DC properties only I don't think anything will change. I wouldn't hold my breath though waiting on WB to create a DC Studios.

WB seems content to do one superhero film a year. There will a change after 2013 when WB will have to look at other DC properties if it plans on making one film a year. That offers hope they will do Flash or WW in 2015, Batman again in 2016 and Flash or WW in 2017.

Not a lot of product still, but a change should be coming.

 

[Evil Twin]

Lets see, Batman had one movie (I think) in the 30's, then the tv Show, then the Tim Burton and Joel Schumaker's film. The latter one failed and put a curse on ALL superhero films until Spiderman. The Superman films started to suck in Superman II (not the Donner Film), they rebooted Superman Returns which did not do well with the public, Smallville was around for 10 years and the final episode destroyed any hope of seeing Tom Welling become Superman.

WB does have the option to get out of the Superhero Genre you are right. However this is about superheroes, not about other movie options. They should concentrate on other DC characters than have done very good in both comics and animation. They have to move foward and stop looking back.

Batman and Robin only failed critically. With a $238 million worldwide gross, plus merchandising, WB came out of the deal in the black.

Think about it, even a movie as bad as Batman and Robin still made WB money. And the fallout didn't extend to the comics, animation, etc. That's pretty much a bulletproof franchise. Arguably only James Bond and Star Wars are that resilient.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Batman and Robin only failed critically. With a $238 million worldwide gross, plus merchandising, WB came out of the deal in the black.

Think about it, even a movie as bad as Batman and Robin still made WB money. And the fallout didn't extend to the comics, animation, etc. That's pretty much a bulletproof franchise. Arguably only James Bond and Star Wars are that resilient.

Honestly the gap in time between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins may just be a fluke. WB was always pretty aggressive in pursuing more Batman, even considered several sequels to the "failed" franchise. In their minds Batman has never been a "failure". It just seems like, as far as the relaunch went they could never come together on the new creative direction until Begins. WB always seems quite content to throw lots of money Batman's way, even after B&R.

Batman is a very budget friendly character as well.

 

[Grammatizator]

Honestly the gap in time between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins may just be a fluke. WB was always pretty aggressive in pursuing more Batman, even considered several sequels to the "failed" franchise. In their minds Batman has never been a "failure". It just seems like, as far as the relaunch went they could never come together on the new creative direction until Begins. WB always seems quite content to throw lots of money Batman's way, even after B&R.

Batman is a very budget friendly character as well.

Thats the thing man, the thing that bugs me when it comes to B&R, everyone talks about how it lost so much money and all of that. When really, it made a damned profit, merch-wise they made a bucket-load alone.

And yea, they were pursuing so many ideas for Batman, hell rumor has it the script for Batman Triumphant was pretty much done or atleast the main points were layed out. Say if B&R maybe made a little more money, or if it wasn't as (unfairly) hated, then we sure as hell would have seen Triumphant which from rumors (again, but its all we have on this subject) it was to be more darker, more of the same tone as Forever and 89. This would have continued, and then we would have seen more.

 

[Tobias]

Batman and Robin only failed critically. With a $238 million worldwide gross, plus merchandising, WB came out of the deal in the black.

Think about it, even a movie as bad as Batman and Robin still made WB money. And the fallout didn't extend to the comics, animation, etc. That's pretty much a bulletproof franchise. Arguably only James Bond and Star Wars are that resilient.

Batman is indeed bullet-proof. The most successful superhero franchise in terms of revenue across the board. Spiderman being number two.

I'd add Spiderman to your list as being pretty much bullet proof.

Waitng in the wings? Marvel is lucky as I can see IronMan and Thor turning into bullet-proof mega franchises like these others. I think Thor 2 will do way north of 500 million which will put it a very rare class os super-hero films.

WB right now does not have a bullet proof DC franchise beyond Batman. One is waiting out there I'm sure but, at the rate WB rolls out new DC franchises, it may take 10 or more years for WB to come up with another Batman-like bullet-proof franchise.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

They almost always had directors and actors attached to those scripts too. Many of them influenced the eventual direction of Begins. It just got stuck in development hell, but honestly Batman 5 and or many of the supposed reboots, like Year One, were basically inches from being made.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Superman's problem is he is not budget friendly. The nature of his powers and most of his classic villains make him a huge monetary risk.

 

[roach]

I wouldn't call Thor and IM bulletproof as the major draws to the movies right now are the actors...if people go in droves to an IM movie without RDJ then its bulletproof

 

[Tobias]

Superman's problem is he is not budget friendly. The nature of his powers and most of his classic villains make him a huge monetary risk.

Exactly!. It's why WB is shelving Superman. But for MOS which courts ordered them to make.

More generally, even films like Batman which are "budget friendly" are not really in the grander scheme.

Wedding Crashers cost 40 million to make and earned 7 plus times that in theatre receipts. TDK cost 250 million and to return the same profit as WC it would have had to have made 1.75 billion in theatre receipts which it didn't. It did well but it didn't come close to the equivalent WC number.

200 million plus super-hero films will only be made for a few franchises like Batman, IronMan, Avengers and Spiderman. Because these are the only franchises that can make 600, 700 or more million.

Cap, FF, X-Men, Wolverine can't make that. But they can be made for 150 million or less so studios will continue to make them.

Thor is a question. It cost 160 million to make and earned "just" 470 million or so. It looks like it could make way north of 500 million in it's sequel. Thor2's budget will swell to 200 million plus because it has the potential to join Bats, Spidey and IronMan in that rarified group of over 500 million super-hero franchises.

 

[Tobias]

I wouldn't call Thor and IM bulletproof as the major draws to the movies right now are the actors...if people go in droves to an IM movie without RDJ then its bulletproof

Like I said, I could see Thor and Ironman turning into mega-franchises like Spiderman and Batman. It may nt happen but the potential is definitely there. RDJ is great but I think IM has captured the popular concious in a rare way. Like Batman and Spiedrman have.

 

[Evil Twin]

Exactly!. It's why WB is shelving Superman. But for MOS which courts ordered them to make.

More generally, even films like Batman which are "budget friendly" are not really in the grander scheme.

Wedding Crashers cost 40 million to make and earned 7 plus times that in theatre receipts. TDK cost 250 million and to return the same profit as WC it would have had to have made 1.75 billion in theatre receipts which it didn't. It did well but it didn't come close to the equivalent WC number.

How many t-shirts, happy meal toys, video games, etc. did Wedding Crashers sell? Admittedly, we'll never know the actual numbers, and I do agree that ROI is an underlooked number, but box office alone doesn't tell the whole story.

Plus, there's also the element of risk. For every Wedding Crashers, how many comedies don't do better than break even? Batman may never turn in the massive ROI based on WW gross, but putting a large amount of money in a "surefire" investment is a good way to mitigate risk. A stock market portfolio has a mix of risk and reward, so does a movie studio.

 

[Tobias]

How many t-shirts, happy meal toys, video games, etc. did Wedding Crashers sell? Admittedly, we'll never know the actual numbers, and I do agree that ROI is an underlooked number, but box office alone doesn't tell the whole story.

Plus, there's also the element of risk. For every Wedding Crashers, how many comedies don't do better than break even? Batman may never turn in the massive ROI based on WW gross, but putting a large amount of money in a "surefire" investment is a good way to mitigate risk. A stock market portfolio has a mix of risk and reward, so does a movie studio.

Theatere receipts, DVDs and re-broadcast rights are where the big money is for films. In all those categories WC, relatively, outperformed TDK.

Not saying TDK did not do well. It was phenomenal.

Bottom line is sudios look at risk/return patterns and romantic comedies are much less risky than superhero films and, as often as not, outperform superhero films.

It's why WB is contnet to make just one superhero film per year. WB has only so much money to put into development and the lion's share of that is going to go to less risky films. Hence DC fare is on WB's backburner.

Yes, not all romantic comedies do well but a film flop flopping that cost 30 or 40 million is a lot easier for a studio to absorb than a film flopping that cost 200 millon.

This is how WB is looking at it and this is why WB is likely to put out a relative trickle of superhero films. I don't like it but I totally get it.

 

[Grammatizator]

They almost always had directors and actors attached to those scripts too. Many of them influenced the eventual direction of Begins. It just got stuck in development hell, but honestly Batman 5 and or many of the supposed reboots, like Year One, were basically inches from being made.

Totally, I actually remember seeing on TV they were talking about how Clint Eastwood was going to be the new Batman, I'm thinking it was on some Movie Review show, but I do remember seeing that. I assume it was to be for the Batman Beyond film they were chose over Triumphant.

On the note of bullet-proof franchises, I'd say Iron-Man is there now, after 3 I think its going to seal that franchise as a big one. Thor, I don't know, maybe after a few more films, and class films.
One I'd also add is Wolverine, sure we still haven't really gotten that 'one' film that is the true Wolverine/X-Men, but in due time, I'm sure we'll see it.

 

[Lord]

X-Men is not completelly imune, the 2 missed shots almost made First Class a failure, Iron Man, Thor and Cap still have some time to reach the invulnerable place.
Right now the only invulnerable heroes that i think could become never ending franchises like Bond movies if they wanted are Batman and Spider-Man.

 

[Evil Twin]

Theatere receipts, DVDs and re-broadcast rights are where the big money is for films. In all those categories WC, relatively, outperformed TDK.

Not saying TDK did not do well. It was phenomenal.

Bottom line is sudios look at risk/return patterns and romantic comedies are much less risky than superhero films and, as often as not, outperform superhero films.

It's why WB is contnet to make just one superhero film per year. WB has only so much money to put into development and the lion's share of that is going to go to less risky films. Hence DC fare is on WB's backburner.

Yes, not all romantic comedies do well but a film flop flopping that cost 30 or 40 million is a lot easier for a studio to absorb than a film flopping that cost 200 millon.

This is how WB is looking at it and this is why WB is likely to put out a relative trickle of superhero films. I don't like it but I totally get it.

George Lucas would disagree with you on where the big money for film franchises is.

And, if nothing else, a franchise like Batman returns a good ROI with merchandise on top. WC may look better on the surface, but Batman a) has a higher floor and b) is able to tap into a whole slew of revenue streams that a comedy can't.

There's also the question of how many opportunities you have. Granted, you can make at least six Wedding Crashers for every Batman film, at least. But you also have to sell six different films, there's only so much space at the multiplex/so many weeks in the year, and comedy is a much less predictable genre outside of perhaps Adam Sandler. And Adam Sandler gets paid a ton for his movies, because they're safe bets. I expect WB will make 8 or so comedies this year, and they'll be lucky if more than one is a big hit. There's no luck to predicting Batman will make a lot of money.

Batman isn't just another superhero franchise. It's one of the biggest and safest franchises in the world. It's why people who want WB to stop making Batman films and start branching out into other superhero films are wishing in vain. WB is in the Batman movie business for the foreseeable future.

I expect that WB will turn to other superheroes, likely Flash, WW or JL, in the near future. And there certainly won't be the gamble that GL was in terms of budget for Flash or WW. But, in WB's slate, I think Mad Max poses the big threat for next big tentpole more than anything else in light of Fast Five's box office.