Why Can't DC Get it right?

[BATZARRO WWD]

I can't help but be a little disapointed at this years Comiccon showing from DC. I would have taken ANYTHING from characters that wheren't Green Lantern or Batman going to film. I know it's probably too early and stuff is in scripts but acknoweledgement is a form f hype, too.

Now, mind you , I like bot Marvel and DC, but lately I've focused my movie mongering efforts on DC, since Marvel's having their side pretty much covered already. I joined this very boards because I wanted more info and Justice League Mortal, and we all know how that turned out. And since then, TDK was released and Green Lantern got underway, Dc was renamed and reorganized. We get to the Comic Con and we come out pretty much the same.

Perhaps I may be a bit impatient, but it seems to me more like there is a difference between "lining up your ducks in a row" and "MIKE! Them damn ducks ran of the corral 4 days ago! When you gonna go catch them?". Maybe after Potter is done and done they can get that DC machine fully underway, but again, I fear non it is is a s deliberate as it seems.

 

[Spidey-Quad]

I feel for your frustration. The industry and us fans would only benifit from the two BIGS competing and producing the movies us comic fans want. A monopoly helps no one. Economics 101 teaches us "competition" IS good.

We now bring you back to Denial, Word Doctoring, and Accounting Manipulation 101 so those with low self-esteem can feel good about being let-down. (You know who you are)

 

[Heretic]

Spidey-Quaid is wrong.

How would the industry benefit by involving itself in 20 100 hundred million dollar risks based on what comic fans want? It wouldn't. In fact, if comic fans got their wish, the entire industry would likely bankrupt itself. Comic fans want more, more, more...but the market simply cannot support that.

Look at it this way:
Jonah Hex? Bomb
Iron Man 2? Success, but less than expected...
The Losers? Bomb
Watchmen? Scraped by...possibly breaking even with DVD
Wolverine? Least successful X-film
Punisher: War Zone? Bomb

The trend is clear...the public does NOT want a massive release slate of comic book movies. Yet comic fans are screaming for a tsunami of new movies that no one cares about outside of the few thousand who buy the comics.

The smart thing to do would be to develop a few tentpole releases, and then supplement them with different types of ideas...family friendly, comedic, horror...with lower budgeted movies.

Or invest 200 million in a Martian Manhunter series and another 200 million into Gen13...and watch companies go out of business.

 

[SuperFerret]

Why should it only be big name characters who get movies though?

"A-List" doesn't automatically equal "great character". There is plently of A-List characters in comics that I feel are crap characters and are only popular because they are big names or come under a big brand like X-Men. Seriously... 90% of the X-Men are crap, uninteresting characters... they are only popular because they come under the X-Men umbrella.

First off, 90% of the X-Men are C-list at best.

Second, while A-list may not automatically equal great character, for many it equals cultural impact, and it's a shame that the superhero movie genre has been big for over ten years now and we're no closer to a Wonder Woman, Flash or Aquaman movie than we were when it started.

Great characters or not, many of these characters are unimportant in the long run, and in that, I see them as less deserving.

 

[Raiden]

I can't help but be a little disapointed at this years Comiccon showing from DC. I would have taken ANYTHING from characters that wheren't Green Lantern or Batman going to film. I know it's probably too early and stuff is in scripts but acknoweledgement is a form f hype, too.

Now, mind you , I like bot Marvel and DC, but lately I've focused my movie mongering efforts on DC, since Marvel's having their side pretty much covered already. I joined this very boards because I wanted more info and Justice League Mortal, and we all know how that turned out. And since then, TDK was released and Green Lantern got underway, Dc was renamed and reorganized. We get to the Comic Con and we come out pretty much the same.

Perhaps I may be a bit impatient, but it seems to me more like there is a difference between "lining up your ducks in a row" and "MIKE! Them damn ducks ran of the corral 4 days ago! When you gonna go catch them?". Maybe after Potter is done and done they can get that DC machine fully underway, but again, I fear non it is is a s deliberate as it seems.

I think it's clear that Comic-Con of 2010 belongs to Marvel, not DC. DC may only have one superhero movie coming out next year (GL), but even then they still couldn't really muster the same kind of support or hype Marvel gave to Thor, Cap, and the Avengers at the convention. GL may be good, but to moviegoers they are all the same genre, and they couldn't care less about whether it is Marvel or DC. I think GL will end up performing somewhere between Thor & Cap next year at the box office.

 

[Spidey-Quad]

That's your opinion Heritic and that is fine. I've been going over the thread this morning and found myself disagreeing with plenty of your thoughts, not all of them by any means. I can still respect you and many others here. It's the blind ones that try to argue away reality just so they can feel they're Icon is safe.

Hell, I love Spider-Man. In my eyes SM3 was junk, completely missing the mark. There's reasons yes. Was it Rami's fault? Hard to believe from his other two attempts. Most fan's can see the imperfections and talk constructionally about them without muddy-ing the waters. A few can not. I see them getting called here out even by the DC purests, and that is how it should be.

You have a valid point about "saturation". My point was strictly from my wants and desires. More "Comic book SuperHero movies." Of course I want quality too. I feel DC can do this. Just not by following their past formulas (point of this thread).

I do apoligizes to you and posters like you for my attacks on the "brainless ones." They are after all only minions of Dormammu, and he's purely evil.

 

[Heretic]

Actually, with all due respect...it's not my opinion.

The clear trend is that superhero movies are doing far, far less business than they used to. When marvel first exploded, all superheroes were making mad money. Daredevil was considered a bomb and it made 100 million. After The Dark Knight and Iron Man set a new high bar in quality for the genre, every comic film since has been a box office disappointment. People DO NOT WANT more superhero films. Sure, the few thousand people who read comics want a flood of them, but the box office numbers dont lie.

There can be some huge movies in the future. My hope is that DC will use Avatar as inspiration for Aquaman and create a ridiculously vivid and realistic underwater world...and I believe people would respond to that.

But in general, instead of flooding the market as will happen in the summer of 2011 (which will possibly be known as the summer that killed the superhero trend) we should examine what the market needs and fill those needs. If the movie doesnt fill a need in the market, it shouldnt be made just because a few hundred fanboys want it to happen (fanboys that likely wont even buy a monthly comic book starring the character they want a movie of).

 

[dnno1]

Spidey-Quaid is wrong.

How would the industry benefit by involving itself in 20 100 hundred million dollar risks based on what comic fans want? It wouldn't. In fact, if comic fans got their wish, the entire industry would likely bankrupt itself. Comic fans want more, more, more...but the market simply cannot support that.

Look at it this way:
Jonah Hex? Bomb
Iron Man 2? Success, but less than expected...
The Losers? Bomb
Watchmen? Scraped by...possibly breaking even with DVD
Wolverine? Least successful X-film
Punisher: War Zone? Bomb

The trend is clear...the public does NOT want a massive release slate of comic book movies. Yet comic fans are screaming for a tsunami of new movies that no one cares about outside of the few thousand who buy the comics.

The smart thing to do would be to develop a few tentpole releases, and then supplement them with different types of ideas...family friendly, comedic, horror...with lower budgeted movies.

Or invest 200 million in a Martian Manhunter series and another 200 million into Gen13...and watch companies go out of business.

You are looking at it the wrong way. On a macro scale, both studios spent around $587 million for all of those films and made around $635 million in profits (DC made over $21 million while Marvel made a little over $614 million) . Even though there were a few films that were stinkers, they were able to expose the general public to characters other than the usual Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man. Sure there will be some that wont stick with the audience, but the ones that do, you run with and turn it into a franchise. So in a nutshell with the money that some of these films are making, you can afford to take risks since you are still making a profit. Don't say that people don't want to see comic book films because the numbers show that they do. What you should say is that they prefer certain characters/franchises over others.

 

[Heretic]

You're saying that a few properties make so much money that it offsets tons of bombs...that means that people want a few awesome superhero movies...not dozens that they wont bother to see.

Besides, as I said...ALL superhero movies have been disappointments at the box office since The Dark Knight. That's a heck of a streak. Are they making money? Some of them...but to try to put a good face on Jonah Hex or Punisher War Zone like "they are exposing the characters to a new audience" I sincerely doubt that makes anyone feel better about losing tens of millions of dollars.

 

[GL's Light]

Well, I think you need to differentiate between comic book films and superhero films. There's significant overlap, but they're not synonymous. Most moviegoers have no clue that non-superhero comic adaptations are in fact based on comic books. They just see them as being films of whatever genre they happen to fall into (western, horror, action, gangster, etc), so their success or failure really means nothing to the superhero genre.

As for the superhero genre, it has its strengths and weaknesses. Of course there are superhero films that flop outright or under-perform - that's to be expected in any genre - but the big superhero films are still delivering big opening weekends, showing that audiences are still drawn to them. The ability to deliver big openings with more consistency than most other genres is one of the superhero genre's enduring strengths. Its weaknesses are that superhero films are often very frontloaded in their box office and usually don't make as much in international markets as other types of blockbusters (although there are exceptions in both cases).

The danger territory for the genre is that in the next couple of years you have a number of movies featuring second-tier characters (from the general public's perspective) and reboots or prequels being released, most of them carrying budgets big enough that X-Men-sized box office is needed and Hulk-sized box office won't do.

I think the public will continue to respond strongly to superhero films, but how many characters can support big budget films remains to be seen. The real opportunity for profit for both Marvel and DC is to figure out the nexus where they can deliver comic book films (superhero and non-superhero alike) carrying more modest budgets that are nonetheless constructed skillfully enough to draw in a significant audience, with the big budget blockbuster approach being reserved for those characters that can really deliver huge box office returns.

 

[dnno1]

You're saying that a few properties make so much money that it offsets tons of bombs...that means that people want a few awesome superhero movies...not dozens that they wont bother to see.

Besides, as I said...ALL superhero movies have been disappointments at the box office since The Dark Knight. That's a heck of a streak. Are they making money? Some of them...but to try to put a good face on Jonah Hex or Punisher War Zone like "they are exposing the characters to a new audience" I sincerely doubt that makes anyone feel better about losing tens of millions of dollars.

Not quite. I am saying that comic book movies trend towards being profitable every 2 out of 3 tries (Wolverine, Iron Man 2, The Losers, and Watchmen all made profits) such that it is worth the risk of puting out virtually unknown characters to the industry to see if people will like them. If you took the attitude that people only liked a had full of characters and that we should only feature those, you would never really know if they actually liked or disliked the others.

 

[Heretic]

You're right...the general public doesn't realize that A History Of Violence or whatever is a comic book movie. So, we should hope for more of these films to be made so that the creators can profit and it can help the industry. Of course, most people who visit this forum daily have no interest in adding Persepolis, American Splendor etc to their Netflix list...they only want big name superheroes...and a nonstop stream of them.

If we actually cared about supporting comic book movies, then we'd all support the idea of DC using Vertigo as it's feeding system for movies. The market clearly views itself as being able to handle horror in the fall and winter. Fantasy type stuff has done well during the holidays. If DC had a few superhero movies per year, as did Marvel...thats 4 superhero movies a year, supplemented with comic related horror, western, sci fi etc and a random low budget superhero movie every now and then. That is PLENTY.

But no...lets instead have a glut of superheroes until there is a steady string of bombs and comic books are deemed no longer cool to movie execs and we go years on end waiting for new movies. That sounds much better than being patient for a steady stream every few months.

 

[Heretic]

Not quite. I am saying that comic book movies trend towards being profitable every 2 out of 3 tries (Wolverine, Iron Man 2, The Losers, and Watchmen all made profits) such that it is worth the risk of pouting out virtually unknown characters to the industry to see if people will like them. If you took the attitude that people only liked a had full of characters and that we should only feature those, you would never really know if they actually liked or disliked the others.

The superheroes that I think should get movies and the superheroes that the comic audience would deem worthy are likely two different lists.

My main interest would be in satisfying the general audience trend, while comic fans want their own personal fetish to be fed. I can't tell you how many times I've heard calls for 100 million dollar budgets on Zatanna, Lobo or Martian Manhunter because "everyone loves these characters and they would surely make 300 million in the US alone!"

 

[Spidey-Quad]

See, from Marvel's slate I do not see that at all. I feel if a movie is well written, acted, and promoted it will do well. Hollywood has a long history of following a formula. One that I accuse of being lazy and greedy. 70's disaster movies, slasher movies after the success of Halloween, the recent surge in Vampire movies, and oh yeah recent 3-D movies quickly come to mind. But the ones that bomb have obvious reasons. Not always that the genre has been played out, but a poopy movie is just that, a poopy movie.

They all can not be complete block busters like the two you mention. They only need to make money. You dream of an Aquaman movie. I dream of Capt. Marvel (Shazam). Another want Hulk done right. Another asks Fiege about the Punisher of all things.

No one is wrong or right here. The Punisher doesn't need to draw 700 million to be a success. But he should be done right and not marketed to pre-teens. Marketed properly that kind of movie (Clint Eastwood revenge movies) do fine.

Animated movies are a fair example in my eyes. Same genre, different stories & subjects, some more succesful then others BUT don't blame poor execution on over saturation cause it's not true. Look at ToyS 3, Shrek 4, D ME just in the last two months.

Will a SuperHero movie under perform in 2011, almost for sure. That's law of averages. If the trends are what you say, how or where is the fundings for the upcoming movies coming from?

People, not just the "few thousand" comic fans enjoy a good 90-120 minute escape. If you give it to them (Marvel, DC-WB, FOX, SONY, whomever) they will come and lay their money down.

I draw this from listening to many. So I suppose I can claim that this not opinion either.

Oh btw, Batman Begin's might never been made, and TDK would only be a fanboy wet-dream, if not for the hugely populor home made internet movie Batman & Predator/Aliens. DC wasn't sold on the "dark" Batman until that 10 minute movie took off, BUT it is the perfect example of what can be achived when the "suits" do listen.

 

[Heretic]

The money is pouring in to finance comic films despite every comic film since The dark Knight under-performing because the creative well has run dry in Hollywood. Besides, the major companies are always a few years behind what the public is thinking anyway. Like, with the recent emo trend. The indie labels were doing mad business while the majors wondered what was going on. Eventually, as the trend started to die off...the majors realized the sales potential and signed all of the emo bands...and their albums bombed because the trend was over on the streets a good year beforehand.

I think that the movie world is big enough for more comic movies...but 5 or whatever next summer is going to be a disaster. The profit margins for those movies are going to be razor thin...and if by chance Green Lantern were to tank, then where would we be with new DC movies???

I'd just rather take a more sensible approach.

 

[dnno1]

You're right...the general public doesn't realize that A History Of Violence or whatever is a comic book movie. So, we should hope for more of these films to be made so that the creators can profit and it can help the industry. Of course, most people who visit this forum daily have no interest in adding Persepolis, American Splendor etc to their Netflix list...they only want big name superheroes...and a nonstop stream of them.

If we actually cared about supporting comic book movies, then we'd all support the idea of DC using Vertigo as it's feeding system for movies. The market clearly views itself as being able to handle horror in the fall and winter. Fantasy type stuff has done well during the holidays. If DC had a few superhero movies per year, as did Marvel...thats 4 superhero movies a year, supplemented with comic related horror, western, sci fi etc and a random low budget superhero movie every now and then. That is PLENTY.

But no...lets instead have a glut of superheroes until there is a steady string of bombs and comic books are deemed no longer cool to movie execs and we go years on end waiting for new movies. That sounds much better than being patient for a steady stream every few months.

4 superhero films per being enough might be speculation or opinion. We don't know for a fact what the market will bear yet. Once again there are a lot of properties out there and we do not know for sure which ones are hits or misses. Furthermore, the likes and tastes of the general audience do change from year to year. So long as they can make a few big blockbuster films each year, let them make a few bombs as well. You never know if one of those films turns out to be a hit. BTW if you look at the entire industry across all genres, probably only 10% of films made actually make a profit. With your logic, we should only be making 10% of the films actually produced. That's obviously not going to happen as as long as we have blockbuster films to pay for the rest the industry will keep making these so called bombs to appease smaller makert and to see if they will stick.

 

[GL's Light]

I don't think it's correct to say that every superhero film since The Dark Knight has underperformed. Setting aside the nebulous and subjective expectations game and simply judging each film's commercial success in terms of the strength of its box office relative to its budget, Punisher: War Zone and The Spirit flopped (although not much money was at stake in either), Watchmen underperfomed by a wide margin, Wolverine did decent business, Kick-Ass made less than expected, but delivered a very profitable return on its budget, and Iron Man 2 was a major hit.

Again, I don't mention films like Whiteout, Surrogates, The Losers, and Jonah Hex because they're not superhero films.

 

[dnno1]

The money is pouring in to finance comic films despite every comic film since The dark Knight under-performing because the creative well has run dry in Hollywood. Besides, the major companies are always a few years behind what the public is thinking anyway. Like, with the recent emo trend. The indie labels were doing mad business while the majors wondered what was going on. Eventually, as the trend started to die off...the majors realized the sales potential and signed all of the emo bands...and their albums bombed because the trend was over on the streets a good year beforehand.

I think that the movie world is big enough for more comic movies...but 5 or whatever next summer is going to be a disaster. The profit margins for those movies are going to be razor thin...and if by chance Green Lantern were to tank, then where would we be with new DC movies???

I'd just rather take a more sensible approach.

You mean Iron Man 2 underperformed? It made more than the last Iron Man film. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen outperformed its predecessor film as well. Just because TDK made a billion dollars does not mean that is the expectation for every film afterward.

 

[Heretic]

Iron man 2 made slightly less in the US than Iron Man 1...and I am sure they expected a huge boost for the second film (like Transformers 2 got).

 

[Heretic]

4 superhero films per being enough might be speculation or opinion. We don't know for a fact what the market will bear yet. Once again there are a lot of properties out there and we do not know for sure which ones are hits or misses. Furthermore, the likes and tastes of the general audience do change from year to year. So long as they can make a few big blockbuster films each year, let them make a few bombs as well. You never know if one of those films turns out to be a hit. BTW if you look at the entire industry across all genres, probably only 10% of films made actually make a profit. With your logic, we should only be making 10% of the films actually produced. That's obviously not going to happen as as long as we have blockbuster films to pay for the rest the industry will keep making these so called bombs to appease smaller makert and to see if they will stick.

I say 4 meaning 4 BIG BUDGET. If you have a Batman and 150 million budgeted Wonder Woman movie out...I'd much prefer a lower budgeted movie based on a lesser character rather than another huge risk. Not every film is a tentpole. Take smaller risks and perhaps one will be a breakout release and create a new phenomenon that DC wasnt aware they had in their roster...

 

[GL's Light]

Iron Man 2 made slightly less than Iron Man domestically and slightly more worldwide, but $310 million domestic and $615 million worldwide against a $200 million production budget is a major hit, regardless of anyone hoping or expecting it to go up into Spider-Man territory.

I say 4 meaning 4 BIG BUDGET. If you have a Batman and 150 million budgeted Wonder Woman movie out...I'd much prefer a lower budgeted movie based on a lesser character rather than another huge risk. Not every film is a tentpole. Take smaller risks and perhaps one will be a breakout release and create a new phenomenon that DC wasnt aware they had in their roster...

I agree that not every character should be given the big budget treatment. The tentpole releases should be spaced out between summer and Christmas, with some modestly budgeted films being released in the spring and fall. Also, not every character or concept needs to be an ongoing franchise. Some characters should get one realy good standalone film with a complete character arc. That would help cut down on market saturation.

 

[Heretic]

The problem is that fans say "I hated Fantastic Four, and I hated Fantastic Four 2...but I hope they make a part 3 so they can fix the mistakes". They say that with EVERY franchise. I think the ONLY superhero film that I haven't seen fans asking for a sequel on is Watchmen. People have even asked for Catwoman and Elektra reboots.

The franchises with the most potential mainstream appeal should get movies. B level characters that have potential but not enough public awareness can get a tv series or something.

 

[dnno1]

I say 4 meaning 4 BIG BUDGET. If you have a Batman and 150 million budgeted Wonder Woman movie out...I'd much prefer a lower budgeted movie based on a lesser character rather than another huge risk. Not every film is a tentpole. Take smaller risks and perhaps one will be a breakout release and create a new phenomenon that DC wasnt aware they had in their roster...

Nobody was saying that films like The Losers, Watchmen, nor Punisher: War Zone were tentpoles. Just look at the time of the year they were released. Furthermore, you implied in your previous post that 4 superhero movies supplemented by films in other genres was plenty (in upper case letters). Your original premise was that the industry was making too many comicbook films. Are you changing your story now?

 

[dnno1]

Iron Man 2 made slightly less than Iron Man domestically and slightly more worldwide, but $310 million domestic and $615 million worldwide against a $200 million production budget is a major hit, regardless of anyone hoping or expecting it to go up into Spider-Man territory...

Iron Man 2 made more in both categories (domestic and foreign) than Iron Man. Don't get it twisted.

 

[GL's Light]

Iron Man 2 made more in both categories (domestic and foreign) than Iron Man. Don't get it twisted.

No, Iron Man made $318 million domestic, while Iron Man 2 made $310 million domestic. That's per Box Office Mojo and the link you provided to Worldwide Box Office actually says the same thing.

People have even asked for Catwoman and Elektra reboots.

The franchises with the most potential mainstream appeal should get movies. B level characters that have potential but not enough public awareness can get a tv series or something.

There are a lot of B-level characters that would work in modestly-budgeted films and TV series alike. I think Catwoman, for example, has a lot of potential, but I certainly wouldn't go the route of a big budget superhero film. If you made a Catwoman film as a great crime/heist film with a modest budget and, say, a spring realease it could be very successful relative to its outlays.