Why Can't DC Get it right?

[Tony Stark]

Dispite how much it made, another 300 million dollar movie in the staple of Marvel, while DC ought to be ashamed of themselves for what they did to Jonah Hex. That movie could have been incredible, but they blundered it and burried it behind TS3, so that no one would even notice their screw up.

I'm glad that GL seems to be getting some serious attention, but casting Reynolds and Lively, are really less than stellar choices. Mark Strong on the other hand is an excellent choice and I'm looking forward to him as Sinestro.

Again the problems at DC, aren't at DC they're at Warner. If they ran DC with Legendary and went compeletly hands off, you could have something here. They also need to hire some better producers. It should not be that hard to get some decent script writers.

Also as contraversial as the Abrams script for Superman, it wasn't any more contraversial than Cameron's Spider-man scriptment, yet that was the basis for the Spider-man film. IOW, some of the more contraversial elements of Abram's script could have been changed, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater as DC/Warner often does.

J.J. Abrams is one of the most talented and creative forces in Hollywood, but the way Warner treated him, I doubt he'll ever do a project for them.

 

[Heretic]

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?

my complete sentence included "lower budgeted superhero films" as part of the supplemental idea...so in that sense, no...my stance hasnt changed...you simply decided not to include that part of my statement.

However, I do think that we as fandom are hoping for too much. People are screaming that DC isnt making movies...and they have 3 movies this year!!

I know, I know...only superheroes "count"...but I am not going to give any respect to fandoms closed mindedness and lack of diversity in their interests.

Next summer is going to show...5 superhero movies mixed in with tons of other blockbuster type movies. Something is going to crash and burn.

I just dont think that the market is big enough to hold everything that is planned AND everything that the fanboys want.

With DC:
A summer and winter tentpole is all they need. Given three years between films, that would be Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Aquaman and Flash as tentpoles.

Given fall and winter horror releases, you cover Sandman and it's affiliates...maybe even a Books Of Magic series to go after the Harry Potter crowd...more Hellblazer, and random vertigo books.

Throw in lower budget Transmetropolitan, Y the Last Man, the Invisibles...thats like 5 movies a year just from DC!!!!!!

Not all the tentpoles will be a hit...maybe Flash doesnt deserve a sequel and ends up just as a JLA character...okay...greenlight Shazam or Plastic Man.

However, fans are screaming for Blue Beetle, Zatanna, Martian Manhunter...it just isnt needed.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Not all the tentpoles will be a hit...maybe Flash doesnt deserve a sequel

I will hypothetically fight you.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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!"

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...

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?

my complete sentence included "lower budgeted superhero films" as part of the supplemental idea...so in that sense, no...my stance hasnt changed...you simply decided not to include that part of my statement.

However, I do think that we as fandom are hoping for too much. People are screaming that DC isnt making movies...and they have 3 movies this year!!

I know, I know...only superheroes "count"...but I am not going to give any respect to fandoms closed mindedness and lack of diversity in their interests.

Next summer is going to show...5 superhero movies mixed in with tons of other blockbuster type movies. Something is going to crash and burn.

I just dont think that the market is big enough to hold everything that is planned AND everything that the fanboys want.

With DC:
A summer and winter tentpole is all they need. Given three years between films, that would be Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Aquaman and Flash as tentpoles.

Given fall and winter horror releases, you cover Sandman and it's affiliates...maybe even a Books Of Magic series to go after the Harry Potter crowd...more Hellblazer, and random vertigo books.

Throw in lower budget Transmetropolitan, Y the Last Man, the Invisibles...thats like 5 movies a year just from DC!!!!!!

Not all the tentpoles will be a hit...maybe Flash doesnt deserve a sequel and ends up just as a JLA character...okay...greenlight Shazam or Plastic Man.

However, fans are screaming for Blue Beetle, Zatanna, Martian Manhunter...it just isnt needed.

And I said that nobody is claiming that these pictures are all big budget films. The Losers was released in April. Now granted, Jonah Hex was released in mid to late June, but it was never promoted as a big budget blockbuster film (It had a $47 million budget). Punisher: War Zone was released December, 2008 on a $35 million budget. None of the films you indicated as bombs were big budget films. I doubt that films based on characters like Zatanna, Martian Manhunter, or Plastic Man will be either, but the real point here is that as long as a couple of the films released (actually more like 2/3rds of them) make a profit, then the studios will more than likely continue making them. It is not about dumping the entire genre just because a few of them didn't meet expectations and fell short of being a blockbuster or a franchise.

 

[Heretic]

The problem with over saturation is that they can take away from each others box office. next summer will be a good test of the theory...if none (or few) of the superheroes do extremely well at the box office then it will be because the public is tiring of the genre and dont want 5 superhero movies in the span of 2 months.

 

[dnno1]

The problem with over saturation is that they can take away from each others box office. next summer will be a good test of the theory...if none (or few) of the superheroes do extremely well at the box office then it will be because the public is tiring of the genre and dont want 5 superhero movies in the span of 2 months.

This is a perfect case for letting the market determine that. In the mean time they should continue with the status quo until it is shown that the aggregate of the films in the genre can not show a profit.

 

[Octoberist]

Also, it depends on the spectacle of each movie. The Losers and Jonah didn't look that great

But Thor, Captain America, and Green Lantern, they all represent different sub-genres in the genre: Fantasy, Historical/Period (Indiana Jones), and Sci-Fi Space Opera.

As long there's variety, they all will do fine.

 

[humanist]

I think the key for WB to exploit their comic properties is not to think only about superheroes and big bugdet A-list movies. They must diversify with more lower budget live action and animated movies with lesser known properties and relegating some properties to the tv market.

Heres's some my ideas:

Tv series or mini-series: 100 Bullets, Fables. Hellblazer, Preacher, Sandman/Lucifer and Y: The Last Man.

Cartoon: Batwoman, Blue Beetle, Captain Marvel, Doom Patrol, JSA, much of the Wildstorm universe would be great for anime, Batman (a dark and gritty Gotham Central-like show).

Animate CGI movie: Metal Men, The Mighty (Superman-like character that works for the gov, but has a dark secret), Sweet Tooth, WE3.

Lower budget movies: Scalped, and Unknown Soldier

Plus WB has plenty more Alan Moore to exploit. For example - Tom Strong and Promethea.

 

[Anita18]

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).

Well, it's possible for a few big films to co-exist, but they have to be different. IIRC Pirates 2 and Spidey 3 were released at around the same time, and both were big. But they weren't both superhero.

Generally I do agree that superhero fatigue is a real danger. Spacing them out to one superhero tentpole every 6 months is probably the closest I'd take it.

I think the key for WB to exploit their comic properties is not to think only about superheroes and big bugdet A-list movies. They must diversify with more lower budget live action and animated movies with lesser known properties and relegating some properties to the tv market.

Heres's some my ideas:

Tv series or mini-series: 100 Bullets, Fables. Hellblazer, Preacher, Sandman/Lucifer and Y: The Last Man.

Cartoon: Batwoman, Blue Beetle, Captain Marvel, Doom Patrol, JSA, much of the Wildstorm universe would be great for anime, Batman (a dark and gritty Gotham Central-like show).

Animate CGI movie: Metal Men, The Mighty (Superman-like character that works for the gov, but has a dark secret), Sweet Tooth, WE3.

Lower budget movies: Scalped, and Unknown Soldier

Plus WB has plenty more Alan Moore to exploit. For example - Tom Strong and Promethea.

I can get behind that. I think Watchmen would have been more successful as a miniseries anyway.

 

[J.Howlett]

humanist,

They did do V for Vendetta and Constantine. It's not like they haven't tried it yet. Personally, I just think WB/DC is more cautious than Marvel. That's all. Yes, they whiffed big time on Hex and Losers but V was a critical hit. Constantine, while not great, was solid. It's more interesting than a lot of Marvel's properties.

Superman Returns was the set back. I love the film but I understand the disappointment. Had it not been a set back, you would've had Superman and Batman viable and relevant at the same time. They've got another chance in 2012.

I'm just not understanding the doom and gloom when it comes to DC right now. Marvel may be doing it at a record pace but let's really sit back and think about what has been the truly great Marvel films since Spider-Man 2 in 2004?

Of the top of my head, only one: Iron Man (2008).

DC: V, Watchmen (on pure ambition and scope), Batman Begins, and the Dark Knight. That's nothing to laugh at.

 

[Heretic]

Keep in mind that many other properties exist outside of DC and Marvel...so if they are releasing 20 superhero films per year, what chance does Madman, Hellboy or some other title have of getting noticed? Answer...almost none...considering how most comic readers only buy from the big 2, and they should be the ones willing to support indie creators more than anyone.

 

[GL's Light]

next summer will be a good test of the theory...if none (or few) of the superheroes do extremely well at the box office then it will be because the public is tiring of the genre and dont want 5 superhero movies in the span of 2 months.

Five superhero films next summer? Are you including Priest in that? If so, the public won't see that as a superhero film, nor will most of them know it's based on a comic book. Still, four big budget superhero films in one summer season will test the marketplace. That's the most since the summer of 2008 when Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Hancock (not based on a comic, but very much a superhero film), Hellboy II: The Golden Army, and The Dark Knight were all released (plus Wanted, but I don't think that was perceived as a superhero film). Iron Man, Hancock, and The Dark Knight were smash hits, while The Incredible Hulk and Hellboy II did middling numbers relative to their respective budgets. If you include Wanted, it was a substantial hit, too.

 

[Heretic]

Five superhero films next summer? Are you including Priest in that? If so, the public won't see that as a superhero film, nor will most of them know it's based on a comic book. Still, four big budget superhero films in one summer season will test the marketplace. That's the most since the summer of 2008 when Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Hancock (not based on a comic, but very much a superhero film), Hellboy II: The Golden Army, and The Dark Knight were all released (plus Wanted, but I don't think that was perceived as a superhero film). Iron Man, Hancock, and The Dark Knight were smash hits, while The Incredible Hulk and Hellboy II did middling numbers relative to their respective budgets. If you include Wanted, it was a substantial hit, too.

I was thinking Spidey was coming out then...

Still though...you have four (and Priest) AND a earth shattering amount of competition, including Transformers, Pirates Of The Caribbean, The hangover 2, Kung Fu Panda, Rise Of The Apes, Cars 2, the last Harry Potter...it will be the most competitive time in movie history...and it's not an overly exciting batch of superhero movies to be honest.

 

[J.Howlett]

Heretic,

Do you think one of these properties will blink and move it's release date? I mean, that's a serious line up next summer. Some one has to blink.

 

[Spidey-Quad]

OMG, two words INFINITY GAUNTLET

Can Thanos be far behind? Oh my stars n' garters!

 

[GL's Light]

I was thinking Spidey was coming out then...

Spidey is summer 2012. That's set to be another big superhero summer with the Spider-Man reboot, the next Batman film, The Avengers, and Wolverine 2 all aiming to be released then.

 

[jmc]

Generally I do agree that superhero fatigue is a real danger. Spacing them out to one superhero tentpole every 6 months is probably the closest I'd take it.

I actually think we've already hit that point of fatigue, and I believe IM2 was the beginning of it, I mean seriously, I don't remember the last time a superhero sequel that came and went so quickly. I seriously think Thor, CA, GL, Avengers, Wolverine 2, Superman Reboot etc, are really all in danger at the moment regardless if they're good or bad, especially when we've just come off the back of original material like Avatar and Inception, the audience has started to vote and it's the new and the different that is becoming appealing. We're are getting to the stage were the reaction is gonna be 'oh, not another superhero film'. The only film that's probably on a firmer grounding at the moment is Batman 3 and that's due to the Nolan factor, especially after this year.

 

[jmc]

Heretic,

Do you think one of these properties will blink and move it's release date? I mean, that's a serious line up next summer. Some one has to blink.

No ones gonna blink, survival of the fittest.

 

[The Batman]

I think people are a bit too worried about superhero films failing. The Superhero film is a genre like any other, like horror and sci fi, and with those genres we see tons of films a year from them.

Iron Man 2 was just a forgettable sequel. It didnt improve on the first like Spider-Man 2 or X-Men 2 did.

 

[Heretic]

No one is going to blink.

And to be honest...the people hurt by the glut of superhero films will be indie creators, who will be unable to get their movies made because of an overpopulation of similar characters by the big 2.

 

[Tony Stark]

Funny all of you who say IM2 was forgettable, yet you keep talking about it.

Oh well, yes the superhero genre is just one genre. I don't think a film that makes 300 million means people are getting tired of it. Sure some people are, but that's not your core audience anyway. I don't think Jonah Hex as bad as it was, hurt the comic book franchise. People accused the FF movies of doing that, and yet here we are still making comic book movies.

There's good sci-fi and there's bad sci-fi, and it's the same with comic book movies. If the movies are bad ala Jonah Hex, Punisher, then they're not going to go. On the other hand if there good like Iron Man, Spider-man, the Dark Knight people will go.

There's also a second tier that can't be dismissed. While movies like Watchmen, Hulk (both versions), and Sin City weren't box office hits, I'm sure glad they were made, and I can still enjoy them. The idea that every movie should make 250 mil or more is rediculous and unrealistic.

 

[GL's Light]

While movies like Watchmen, Hulk (both versions), and Sin City weren't box office hits, I'm sure glad they were made, and I can still enjoy them.

Sin City was a big hit. It made $158 million worldwide against a $40 million production budget. That's the good thing about comic book films at lower budget levels: you can make esoteric films that play to narrower audiences and still turn a big profit.

 

[jmc]

I think people are a bit too worried about superhero films failing. The Superhero film is a genre like any other, like horror and sci fi, and with those genres we see tons of films a year from them.

The ones we do get are usually crap, although Sci-Fi is in a bit of a golden period at the moment with Avatar, Star Trek, District 9, Moon and Inception. The superhero bubble will burst eventually, happens to all genres, goes in cycles. As soon as we have one massive flop, which shear law of averages says will happen, that's when studios will start putting the breaks on the genre.

 

[GL's Light]

The ones we do get are usually crap

I think the variance in quality is about the same as in any genre: a third are good or great, a third are middling to okay, and a third are poor.

The superhero bubble will burst eventually, happens to all genres, goes in cycles. As soon as we have one massive flop, which shear law of averages says will happen, that's when studios will start putting the breaks on the genre.

The superhero genre will wax and wane, but I think it'll recover fairly quickly after any given down periods. One big flop wouldn't be enough to steer the studios away from making superhero films. As long as there are some franchises delivering massive box office the studios will chase those dollars. It'll take a string of flops or underperforming films to really damage the genre.

 

[Anita18]

I actually think we've already hit that point of fatigue, and I believe IM2 was the beginning of it, I mean seriously, I don't remember the last time a superhero sequel that came and went so quickly. I seriously think Thor, CA, GL, Avengers, Wolverine 2, Superman Reboot etc, are really all in danger at the moment regardless if they're good or bad, especially when we've just come off the back of original material like Avatar and Inception, the audience has started to vote and it's the new and the different that is becoming appealing. We're are getting to the stage were the reaction is gonna be 'oh, not another superhero film'. The only film that's probably on a firmer grounding at the moment is Batman 3 and that's due to the Nolan factor, especially after this year.

Well I definitely read articles talking about the superhero fatigue after TIH failed to make a splash. And then TDK came and smashed THAT thought.

I think it could work if they all felt different. TDK certainly felt different from IM and TIH, which were more of "superhero" movies in feel and formula.

Well that and TIH only came one month after IM. That was probably too close....and obvious Hellboy2 suffered majorly being released one week before TDK.