Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[DoomsdayApex]

Hearing you talk business strategies is like hearing a 10yo talk about thermodynamics.

 

[dnno1]

Dude at the end of the day a loss in the hundreds of millions is STILL a loss in the hundreds of millions. No company no matter how lucrative wants to ever face losses like Dreamworks, WB and Disney recently did with Cowboys & Aliens, Green Lantern and John Carter.

Green Lantern didn't lose hundreds of millions of dollars...

 

[BestGirl]

The truth is that WB likes to play save, they do not move foward. They have taken some chances with other DC properties but they did not do right to the characters nor DC Comics' writers and artist that have made DC Comics a stable.

Marvel has taken more chances than DC and their film studios has not been around that long. Had Sony loss Spiderman, Marvel would probably concentrate on him. Good thing that it did not happen and opted for an Iron Man film.

WB safe place is always going to be Batman and Superman, regardless of how bad the film does they wait for a few years (decades) and come up with another one. That's just how is always going to be. That old mentality HAS TO GO! All DC Characters are known to comic book fans, in order to expose them to a greater audience they need to push themselves. They need to treat their properties as is the last film that they will put out.

Going thru other venues like Hunger Games will help them financially, but sooner or later they will run out of ideas to make films and DC Comics is by far their biggest story library that they have.

Nah, there will never be a shortage of YA literature that picks up a public following. It's characters like Flash and Aquaman that are major risks.

 

[Tobias]

Marvel Studios is a sub company of a sub company who's priority is media adaptations of their superhero universe. Most importantly cinematic ones. DC doesn't have that luxury. They don't have the power to setup and develop their own independent films because they don't have an independent division to do it through.

Since WB gets first dibs on the movie rights and DC has no leverage in hollywood like Marvel does through their independent studio you have to be patient. DC can't "lease" their properties without going through Time Warner and Time Warner will not allow that knowing that they have their own movie studio that could distribute and produce these features.

There is no "DC Studios" so they don't have the resources and so far DC Entertainment is completely unproven when it comes to cinematic adaptations. With that in mind how could you credibly critique WB for not having the output of a Marvel Studios?

If cinematic superhero franchises was WB's main priority they probably would be pumping out as much as Marvel Studios is but they aren't. They have a greater scope of cinematic properties beyond superhero franchises.

For example this year so far they had two profitable joints in Journey 2 and Project X. Movies outside of the superhero subgenre. It's not like The Dark Knight Rises will be their bread and butter for 2012 on it's own. So why pursue more superhero ventures outside of 1 a year when you have other projects to tend to?

I mean in 2012 alone they have a few high profile releases coming up like Wrath of the Titans next weekend and Rock of Ages, The Great Gatsby and The Hobbit later in the year. You think they'll just stop all development on those other type of projects to prioritize on DC properties?

They're not going to reduce attention on potential assets to take the "risk" of placating to superhero movie fans only. That would be pretty stupid; especially when they have had no success with DC properties when they've tried in the past outside of Batman.

I say be grateful that they're at least contemplating making a Flash movie someday at this point.

Exactly.

WB has only a finite amount of development dollars each year.

Super-hero films cost so much to make. 140 - 150 million even for less FX dependent heros like Cap.

On a less than 140 million budget Cap did well but was not a huge success in terms of ROI. Not like HG will be or Wedding Crashers was. Or so many other non-comic films.

For WB especially, DC films are a huge risk outside of Batman and JL. I'd argue GL done right could be huge like Bats.

Fans should be grateful that WB continues to make one DC film/year. They really don't need to.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Fans should be grateful that WB continues to make one DC film/year. They really don't need to.

Oh yeah they do, in order to keep the rights of character.

And if WB doesn't want to take risks with characters like Aquaman, Wonder Woman and The Flash, then they might as well just sell the characters' rights to the highest bidder.

 

[Tobias]

Green Lantern didn't lose hundreds of millions of dollars...

GL cost 300 million to produce/market. It took in 222 million WW. WB took a loss of over 100 million on GL at theatres.

DVDs will change GL's loss number but will also change John Carter's.

HG's look like it will make 155 million as of today. GL's total domestic take was 116 million. HG's domestic take in 3 days is just 20 million less than Cap's total domestic take for it's theatre run.

That kind of disparity is not lost on WB.

Super-hero films seem to top out at the high 300 millions to the mid 400 millions. Which is not great shakes in a world with HG's and the Hobbit and such.

There are exceptions like Bats, Spidey and Ironman but they are few and far between.

Given the returns generated by Twilight and HG's and other such fare if anything I could see WB doing fewer DC films going forward. Like skipping a year. I think it's possible there won't be a WB DC film in 2014.

 

[Tobias]

Oh yeah they do, in order to keep the rights of character.

And if WB doesn't want to take risks with characters like Aquaman, Wonder Woman and The Flash, then they might as well just sell the characters' rights to the highest bidder.

You get no argument from me on that. I don't see why WB doesn't license some DC characters out for a decade and see what happens. WB licensed the film rights to Superman to Canon Films in the late 80s/90s and the TV rights to Superman to Paramount/Viacom at the same time. So there is precedent.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

You get no argument from me on that. I don't see why WB doesn't license some DC characters out for a decade and see what happens. WB did that with Superman (Canon Films) in the 90s so there is precedent.

Precisely, what's the harm in letting another studio take the risk? If it pays off, then WB can pursue a JLA adaptation a decade from now. If not, no foul done.

 

[Tobias]

Precisely, what's the harm in letting another studio take the risk? If it pays off, then WB can pursue a JLA adaptation a decade from now. If not, no foul done.

Yup, you'd think it's a no-brainer.

Licensing deals can have hard time limits on them as did WB's with Canon films and Paramount/Viacom. When the 10 year period was over WB used it's option to take the rights back. In the wake of killing off Superman in the comics WB wanted to capitalize on the publicity and do a 'Death of Superman' film. As it turned out their best laid plans led to an almost 15 year development hell.

The Spiderman license is different and was done before there was even the idea of a Marvel Studios. SONY got a great deal. As far as I know that studio can keep the film rights as long as it makes a Spidey film every 5 or 6 years. There is no hard end-date to the agreement. It was poorly written from Marvel's POV.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Oh yeah they do, in order to keep the rights of character.

That's not true...

 

[Tobias]

Oh yeah they do, in order to keep the rights of character.

This is not true.

WB owns DC and their characters.

Like who would WB lose the rights to?!

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yeah that quote confused me to. They're not endanger of losing any of their characters and I think they're only at risk to losing certain aspects of Superman, but the character itself.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

This is not true.

WB owns DC and their characters.

Like who would WB lose the rights to?!

Wait, I read an article somewhere citing that WB needs to, in either film or television, showcase a character in order to keep the character's rights every so often.

 

[dnno1]

GL cost 300 million to produce/market. It took in 222 million WW. WB took a loss of over 100 million on GL at theatres.

DVDs will change GL's loss number but will also change John Carter's.

HG's look like it will make 155 million as of today. GL's total domestic take was 116 million. HG's domestic take in 3 days is just 20 million less than Cap's total domestic take for it's theatre run.

That kind of disparity is not lost on WB.

Super-hero films seem to top out at the high 300 millions to the mid 400 millions. Which is not great shakes in a world with HG's and the Hobbit and such.

There are exceptions like Bats, Spidey and Ironman but they are few and far between.

Given the returns generated by Twilight and HG's and other such fare if anything I could see WB doing fewer DC films going forward. Like skipping a year. I think it's possible there won't be a WB DC film in 2014.

Now, wait, wait, wait.

$300 million less $222 million is $78 million. That does not equal hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, it is quite uncertain how much was actually spent on marketing since there were alliances with retailers like Matel Toys, Subway, Reces, Cheetos, et. al. of which some of their advertising $'s helped promote the film. Warner Brothers made money from the licensing (of exact amount was never published) that we haven't accounted for. There were even tax offsets for filming in New Orleans that are not figured in your numbers. I am not saying that "Green Lantern" performed well, but just that it did not lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore if you want to see where CBM's top out at the BO, check out the Spider-Man, Batman, or Iron Man films. All those had films in their franchise (or all of them) topped out at well over $600 million.

 

[Tobias]

Yeah that quote confused me to. They're not endanger of losing any of their characters and I think they're only at risk to losing certain aspects of Superman, but the character itself.

This is true. Except for Superman, DC (and by extension WB) owns virtually all of these characters free and clear. No heirs waiting in the wings to sue.

It will only be an issue for WB decades down the road when these characters go public and anyone is free to use them. That is 30 or 40 yhears away however.

Superman is different. DC does not own the character. The heirs do as of late next year. Or own the core elements - name Superman, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Krypton.

So in Superman's case it's true WB can't make any more Superman films after MOS. Or use Superman in a JL film when WB eventually does JL.

Otherwise Flash, WW, Aquaman - you name it - ain't going anywhere.

 

[dnno1]

Exactly.

WB has only a finite amount of development dollars each year.

Super-hero films cost so much to make. 140 - 150 million even for less FX dependent heros like Cap.

On a less than 140 million budget Cap did well but was not a huge success in terms of ROI. Not like HG will be or Wedding Crashers was. Or so many other non-comic films.

For WB especially, DC films are a huge risk outside of Batman and JL. I'd argue GL done right could be huge like Bats.

Fans should be grateful that WB continues to make one DC film/year. They really don't need to.

"Hunter Games" did well because they have a captured audience. The book is required reading at a lot of schools and young adults enjoyed the story (my daughter was one of them). If the CBM's want to share the same success they will have to do something similar. Spiderman and Iron Man were successful franchises because of brand awareness. Over the past 25 years both these characters have been in animated television series and a large cross section of people recognize the character. In addition the appeal of a character like Tony Stark with all of his cool gadgets or Peter Parker who seems to have nothing go right for him seems to appeal to large audiences.

 

[Tobias]

Now, wait, wait, wait.

$300 million less $222 million is $78 million. That does not equal hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, it is quite uncertain how much was actually spent on marketing since there were alliances with retailers like Matel Toys, Subway, Reces, Cheetos, et. al. of which some of their advertising $'s helped promote the film. Warner Brothers made money from the licensing (of exact amount was never published) that we haven't accounted for. There were even tax offsets for filming in New Orleans that are not figured in your numbers. I am not saying that "Green Lantern" performed well, but just that it did not lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore if you want to see where CBM's top out at the BO, check out the Spider-Man, Batman, or Iron Man films. All those had films in their franchise (or all of them) topped out at well over $600 million.

No, the studio gets just around 50% of the box office receipts. You think theatres and distribution groups are showing films for free.

50% of 222 million is 112 million. Making for a loss, based on theatre receipts, of 188 million.

Yes, down the road DVD sales will reduce the huge GL loss but they will also reduce the huge John Carter loss.

 

[KingMadness]

The answer to the TC's question is simple really. WB/DC went wrong with Green Lantern. GL was the doorway to all of the other obscure characters, how they could mess this opportunity up the way they did is still a mystery to me this day.

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

I don't understand why it's so hard to make a Flash movie... You could EASILY make a Flash movie work with a 100 mill dollar budget.

 

[HighFivingMF]

I don't understand why it's so hard to make a Flash movie... You could EASILY make a Flash movie work with a 100 mill dollar budget.

How do you know how much a Flash movie would cost?

 

[metaphysician]

Well, you could leverage camera effects and scene cuts for a lot of stuff. However, I don't think it'd necessarily be that cheap, unless done cheaply.

 

[Docker2.0]

I don't understand why it's so hard to make a Flash movie... You could EASILY make a Flash movie work with a 100 mill dollar budget.

Agreed! I'd say do a Green Arrow movie or even Nightwing for around $60-70M, all you need is a great script.

 

[solidsnake86]

Precisely, what's the harm in letting another studio take the risk? If it pays off, then WB can pursue a JLA adaptation a decade from now. If not, no foul done.

The harm is when you have to answer to the board of directors/shareholders of the company you work for. Say they give the rights of the flash to fox. Fox takes it and turns the movie into an iron man success. The directors/shareholders of WB are going to fire whoever is in charge of development, at this point robinov. As the head of greenlighting projects wouldnt you question him if another studio turned it into a successful movie. I wouldnt want that guy running my business.

They sold the rights to Red, and that movie made money for summit, I remember reading that someone said WB would never let that happen again.

 

[dnno1]

No, the studio gets just around 50% of the box office receipts. You think theatres and distribution groups are showing films for free.

50% of 222 million is 112 million. Making for a loss, based on theatre receipts, of 188 million.

Yes, down the road DVD sales will reduce the huge GL loss but they will also reduce the huge John Carter loss.

Um.. The WB did all the distribution on Green Lantern. With the tax incentives the production costs look more like $154 million, meaning they would have needed to make only $281 million to show a profit. Since they made around $222 (box office take) that would mean they only came up a little over $60 million short. That is still not hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Bruce Malone]

^^^

You don't understand how studio costs work especially when movies cost over 200 million before marketing.

Take John Carter for example it also cost 200 million and it's actually made more money WW than green lantern did already and yet disney is still saying it is losing 200 million on it.

WB is much too proud a company to admit it's financial loses compared to a company like disney which is much more upfront. WB pretty much waited til GL was out theatres before they admitted it was a diassapointment, comapred to disney's 1st week statemet on jc. I'd wager gl cost WB nearly as much as john carter cost disney.