JLA movie question
Michael
If the guys doing the current Batmovies are gonna get THAT pissy over
Warner Brothers making a live-action big-screen JLA with Batman, why
doesn't Warners just use a different character?
- Smallville showed that Green Arrow could be a viable character and he
could fill the zillionaire role as well as using gadgets.
- Blue Beetle's also a rich gadget-using hero.
- The Question could fill in the dectective and "dark and moody" slots.
And I think the visuals could be pretty interesting.
- Nightwing's also a possibility.
If they're gonna have Superman and Wonder Woman, that's two of the three
big guns there. Is it really worth it to chance pissing off those doing
a current franchise that's doing well?
Michael
Denny Colt
That's a real good idea! Which of course almost guarantees them not
using it. HA!
Although, even with Superman and Wonder Woman, without Batman it might
feel a little B-list. Like they think that Superman can't carry his
own film so they're adding all the others, but Batman would be
slumming to be included. Plus, Batman still has tons of cachet, so
Warner's is gonna want him in there.
They'd do best to use a good character actor, a Tom Jane type, visibly
older than Christian Bale (as others have mentioned here) and give him
a totally different costume - closer to the comics with a cloth-like
mask and gray bodysuit. After all the tone of this movie needs to be
way less realistic than the Batman Begins universe anyway.
Duggy
> Just opining.
>
> If the guys doing the current Batmovies are gonna get THAT pissy over
> Warner Brothers making a live-action big-screen JLA with Batman, why
> doesn't Warners just use a different character?
Because Batman & Superman are big names that get people through the
door.
The rest of the JLA are great and everything, but having those two
names doubles the hype without an extra cent spent.
> - Smallville showed that Green Arrow could be a viable character and he
> could fill the zillionaire role as well as using gadgets.
> - Blue Beetle's also a rich gadget-using hero.
> - The Question could fill in the dectective and "dark and moody" slots.
> And I think the visuals could be pretty interesting.
> - Nightwing's also a possibility.
Hey, why not make a Green Arrow film or a Blue Beetle one or The
Question or Nightwing instead of another Batman film?
> If they're gonna have Superman and Wonder Woman, that's two of the three
> big guns there. Is it really worth it to chance pissing off those doing
> a current franchise that's doing well?
To get the JLA film going? Yes.
Because an ultra-successful JLA film increases name recognition for
Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman and renews it for The Flash, Green
Lantern, etc, thus making their films more likely in the future.
===
= DUG.
===
badth...@yahoo.com
Mickey Mouse and Coke, it's pretty much universal. A JLA movie will
do nothing for either Superman or Batman. And if the movie tanks you
kill any chance for individual films in the future. This remains a
"cart before the horse" idea.
Duggy
> Sorry, but you can't increase the recognition of Superman. Next to
> Mickey Mouse and Coke, it's pretty much universal.
Really? And so Coke spends billions in advertising for what reason?
Sure, Superman does more for JLA than JLA does for Superman, but JLA
adds heat to Superman that Returns may have lost (to a degree).
===
= DUG.
===
badth...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 2, 11:21 pm, badthin...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but you can't increase the recognition of Superman. Next to
> > Mickey Mouse and Coke, it's pretty much universal.
>
> Really? And so Coke spends billions in advertising for what reason?
>
> Sure, Superman does more for JLA than JLA does for Superman, but JLA
> adds heat to Superman that Returns may have lost (to a degree).
>
Sad but true. SR didn't exactly excite a new generation about
Superman.
Duggy
> On Oct 10, 12:13 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:> On Oct 2, 11:21 pm, badthin...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, but you can't increase the recognition of Superman. Next to
> > > Mickey Mouse and Coke, it's pretty much universal.
> > Really? And so Coke spends billions in advertising for what reason?
> To "maintain" not to "attain." And to keep those Pepsi bitches down.
And his appearence in JLA will maintain and increase Superman's
exposure.
> > Sure, Superman does more for JLA than JLA does for Superman, but JLA
> > adds heat to Superman that Returns may have lost (to a degree).
> Sad but true. SR didn't exactly excite a new generation about
> Superman.
Zactly.
===
= DUG.
===
black...@aol.com
>
> > Sorry, but you can't increase the recognition of Superman. Next to
> > Mickey Mouse and Coke, it's pretty much universal.
>
> Really? And so Coke spends billions in advertising for what reason?
>
To encourage people to chose Coke over Pepsi, not to introduce people
to Coke for the first time.
Duggy
> To encourage people to chose Coke over Pepsi, not to introduce people
> to Coke for the first time.
Zactly.
===
= DUG.
===
Shaun
> Because an ultra-successful JLA film increases name recognition for
> Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman and renews it for The Flash, Green
> Lantern, etc, thus making their films more likely in the future.
>
And what, prey tell, about this ill-advised JLA movie makes you think
it will be even moderately successful, let alone "ultra-successful"?
I'm not trying to bait you here, I'm honestly asking.
I think the movie is a huge mistake, on many counts. The fact that
it's going to be "Justice Babies" is bad enough. I just think that
many crazy costumes on screen, in live action, has the potential to
look really stupid, and I also think throwing Supes and Bats into a
team-up movie when the two characters have their own active film
franchises (well, Batman does at least... Not sure about Supes) has
the potential to damage those other franchises. Especially Batman,
since BB was not only acclaimed, and loved by most fans, but because
the darker, more realistic (for a comic book movie) approach to the
Bat-franchise is exactly the opposite of what this JLA movie seems to
be aiming for. Having a different actor play Batman in the JLA movie
just makes it all worse.
I think the Justice League name, coupled with fairly well-known
characters like WW, Flash, GL and maybe Aquaman would be enough to
make this fly. If it's honestly a good movie with strong actors and an
equally strong script (I greatly doubt either one, but for the sake of
argument let's say they are), then the acclaim will come and people
will go see it. A good movie shouldn't need Supes and Bats to make it.
Kickstart this new franchise, and then maybe bring in Supes and/or
Bats later, after their films have run their course. Of course, I'm
wondering if Man of Steel is ever going to get made. Maybe JLA is
meant to replace it? I'm not looking forward to another Singer-helmed
Superman movie, and I don't think all that many people are, so that's
possible.
But my real question is: If they're going to cast this movie so damned
young, why not just make a Teen Titans movie instead? That solves the
Superman/Batman problems.
Shaun
Duggy
> And what, prey tell, about this ill-advised JLA movie makes you think
> it will be even moderately successful, let alone "ultra-successful"?
> I'm not trying to bait you here, I'm honestly asking.
Because of Superman Returns.
It was moderately (well, quite successful but with the huge expense)
but the pre-film hype and the moderate success meant that there was a
major respark of interest in all the Superman films.
I don't know about you, but I couldn't wall into a video store,
department store, supermarket or even service station without seeing
massive displays with all the films.
Now play that back with the Superman films & TV, Batman films & TV,
Wonder Woman TV, Flash TV, and the animated JLA series.
Now look at the Wondy film, Green Lantern film, et al that are in
production trouble... what would a little more name recognition do for
those projects. The hype alone from JLA will help them.
> I think the movie is a huge mistake, on many counts.
There are levels of that, yes.
> The fact that it's going to be "Justice Babies" is bad enough.
It's going to what?
> I just think that many crazy costumes on screen, in live action, has the potential to
> look really stupid,
Ditto. Not so much stupid, but too packed. Fantastic Four had, well,
4 and it was too bogged in personal plots.
> and I also think throwing Supes and Bats into a
> team-up movie when the two characters have their own active film
> franchises (well, Batman does at least... Not sure about Supes)
Both have a franchise.
My belief is that the JLA film should have Bats and Superman
"kidnapped" at the beginning and this new team of characters forms to
save that and stop whatever menace has them.
But that's just me.
> the potential to damage those other franchises.
It has a possibility, yes.
> Especially Batman,
> since BB was not only acclaimed, and loved by most fans, but because
> the darker, more realistic (for a comic book movie) approach to the
> Bat-franchise
Batman Begins has Batman Begins and hype for The Dark Knight. It
isn't going to be hurt.
> is exactly the opposite of what this JLA movie seems to
> be aiming for. Having a different actor play Batman in the JLA movie
> just makes it all worse.
I think it counters some of that by having a different Batman.
> I think the Justice League name, coupled with fairly well-known
> characters like WW, Flash, GL and maybe Aquaman would be enough to
> make this fly.
Superman and Batman makes it soar.
Leaving them out makes it a bunch of also-rans.
> If it's honestly a good movie with strong actors and an
> equally strong script (I greatly doubt either one, but for the sake of
> argument let's say they are), then the acclaim will come and people
> will go see it.
Hype makes people go see films. Word of mouth from those who were
sucked in by the hype makes or breaks it from there...
Acclaim is nothing.
This is something the annoys me no end. I'm involved locally with a
group that brings acclaimed films to town so that the less than 200
people who want to see them can.
Hyped crap, however, appears at every local cinema.
> A good movie shouldn't need Supes and Bats to make it.
Hype.
> But my real question is: If they're going to cast this movie so damned
> young, why not just make a Teen Titans movie instead? That solves the
> Superman/Batman problems.
Because the Teen Titans aren't the JLA.
Because Robin, Wondergirl, Kid Flash & Speedy aren't Batman, Wonder
Woman, the Flash & Superman.
===
= DUG.
===
Michael
> On Oct 18, 5:07 am, Shaun <sknavis1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>And what, prey tell, about this ill-advised JLA movie makes you think
>>it will be even moderately successful, let alone "ultra-successful"?
>>I'm not trying to bait you here, I'm honestly asking.
>
>
> Because of Superman Returns.
>
> It was moderately (well, quite successful but with the huge expense)
> but the pre-film hype and the moderate success meant that there was a
> major respark of interest in all the Superman films.
>
> I don't know about you, but I couldn't wall into a video store,
> department store, supermarket or even service station without seeing
> massive displays with all the films.
>
> Now play that back with the Superman films & TV, Batman films & TV,
> Wonder Woman TV, Flash TV, and the animated JLA series.
>
> Now look at the Wondy film, Green Lantern film, et al that are in
> production trouble... what would a little more name recognition do for
> those projects. The hype alone from JLA will help them.
And will promptly kill those projects if the movie comes out and bombs.
>>I think the movie is a huge mistake, on many counts.
>
>
> There are levels of that, yes.
>
>
>>The fact that it's going to be "Justice Babies" is bad enough.
>
>
> It's going to what?
"Justice Babies"?
>>I just think that many crazy costumes on screen, in live action, has the potential to
>>look really stupid,
>
>
> Ditto. Not so much stupid, but too packed. Fantastic Four had, well,
> 4 and it was too bogged in personal plots.
It depends on what the writer(s) and director chose to do. FF's
director chose to center on a family-friendly take on the FF's family
aspect, which sacrificed the super-heroics in the origin story.
And it depends on what they do for the costumes. Superman has always
been pretty much had the costume he has in the books, Batman has the
sculpted armor look, Flash has also had that, and so on.
>>and I also think throwing Supes and Bats into a
>>team-up movie when the two characters have their own active film
>>franchises (well, Batman does at least... Not sure about Supes)
>
>
> Both have a franchise.
Batman does. Superman's current big-screen franchise is iffy at best.
> My belief is that the JLA film should have Bats and Superman
> "kidnapped" at the beginning and this new team of characters forms to
> save that and stop whatever menace has them.
>
> But that's just me.
The movie could leave out the two entirely and still be a hit with
moviegoers.
Personally, I'd replace Batman with Green Arrow, Blue Beetle, and/or the
Question.
Superman could be replaced by several characters, Captain Marvel being
the first that comes to my mind.
>>the potential to damage those other franchises.
>
>
> It has a possibility, yes.
That it does. Imagine a Justice League movie that has a Superman and
Batman that end up being preferred by the moviegoers to the current
franchise versions (doubtful in Batman's case, but very possible in
Superman's case). Or if a JL take that is abhored by the moviegoers
kills interest in that character.
>>Especially Batman,
>>since BB was not only acclaimed, and loved by most fans, but because
>>the darker, more realistic (for a comic book movie) approach to the
>>Bat-franchise
>
>
> Batman Begins has Batman Begins and hype for The Dark Knight. It
> isn't going to be hurt.
Theoretically it could, which is a big reason why Nolan and Bale aren't
too thrilled. And with the Batman franchise doing very well at the
moment, I'd leave the character out just to avoid pissing off Nolan and
Bale.
>>is exactly the opposite of what this JLA movie seems to
>>be aiming for. Having a different actor play Batman in the JLA movie
>>just makes it all worse.
>
>
> I think it counters some of that by having a different Batman.
I'd just avoid the whole Bat-mess altogether.
>>I think the Justice League name, coupled with fairly well-known
>>characters like WW, Flash, GL and maybe Aquaman would be enough to
>>make this fly.
>
>
> Superman and Batman makes it soar.
>
> Leaving them out makes it a bunch of also-rans.
Depends on who they use and how they use them.
>>If it's honestly a good movie with strong actors and an
>>equally strong script (I greatly doubt either one, but for the sake of
>>argument let's say they are), then the acclaim will come and people
>>will go see it.
>
>
> Hype makes people go see films. Word of mouth from those who were
> sucked in by the hype makes or breaks it from there...
Unless the hype has a lot of "This movie SUCKS!" stuff going with it.
Look at "Bonfire Of The Vanities". Popular book at the time. Lots of
hype when it opened. Lots of "This sucks" hype at the same time. Bomb.
Catwoman's another example. Lots of "this movies sucks!" and it bombed
coming out of the gate.
> Acclaim is nothing.
My read on the quoted person's use of "acclaim" makes it equal to "good
reviews" or "word of mouth".
> This is something the annoys me no end. I'm involved locally with a
> group that brings acclaimed films to town so that the less than 200
> people who want to see them can.
>
> Hyped crap, however, appears at every local cinema.
And a lot of it bombs right out of the starting gate (Catwoman), or does
well it's first week or two, then limps along into a domestic total that
may green light a sequel (Superman Returns).
>>A good movie shouldn't need Supes and Bats to make it.
>
>
> Hype.
Blade.
>>But my real question is: If they're going to cast this movie so damned
>>young, why not just make a Teen Titans movie instead? That solves the
>>Superman/Batman problems.
>
>
> Because the Teen Titans aren't the JLA.
True. Different audiences to aim at.
> Because Robin, Wondergirl, Kid Flash & Speedy aren't Batman, Wonder
> Woman, the Flash & Superman.
Nightwing could be a replacement for Batman. Wasn't he briefly a mamber
of the JL?
Michael
Denny Colt
> And if the movie tanks you
> kill any chance for individual films in the future. This remains a
> "cart before the horse" idea.
I tend to agree with you on all of this, but when I think of the
opposite scenario, it actually seems worse. Can you imagine Christian
Bale and Brandon Routh, ten years older, teaming up for a JLA movie
after their respective franchises have run their course? That just
stinks of flop sweat right there.
Aside from the slight potential damage this might do to the current
Batman and Superman movies, I'd rather have Flash, Green Lantern and
Aquaman spin out of a JLA movie as opposed to have the burden on them
to kick-start their own franchises, and then team up later when
they're fat and old and broke. I'd have thought that Wonder Woman had
the name recognition to headline her own film, but Warner's obviously
has their heads so far up their own asses that it ain't gonna happen.
badth...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 18, 5:07 am, Shaun <sknavis1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > And what, prey tell, about this ill-advised JLA movie makes you think
> > it will be even moderately successful, let alone "ultra-successful"?
> > I'm not trying to bait you here, I'm honestly asking.
>
> Because of Superman Returns.
>
> It was moderately (well, quite successful but with the huge expense)
> but the pre-film hype and the moderate success meant that there was a
> major respark of interest in all the Superman films.
>
> I don't know about you, but I couldn't wall into a video store,
> department store, supermarket or even service station without seeing
> massive displays with all the films.
>
Returns itself was an admitted disappointment by Warner Brothers given
its ratio of money spent to money earned and the blindingly superior
numbers of each Spider-man film, all of whom made at least double
theatrically what SR did.
> Now play that back with the Superman films & TV, Batman films & TV,
> Wonder Woman TV, Flash TV, and the animated JLA series.
>
Apples and oranges. Smallville's success seven years ago didn't lead
to a Superman movie. The success of Spider-man did. Wonder Woman was
almost 30 years ago. The Flash show tanked. Only the animated JLA
series is current and hardly translates into a $150M live action
film. Witness the never made Batman Beyond movie.
> Now look at the Wondy film, Green Lantern film, et al that are in
> production trouble... what would a little more name recognition do for
> those projects. The hype alone from JLA will help them.
>
And you can blame Superman Returns for their trouble. When Spider-man
made box office history, Daredevil got an extra $20M for its budget.
When Superman Returns limped to $200M over the course of a summer,
every potential comic book movie at Warner Brothers took the hit. If
you can't succeed with the most famous comic book character in the
world, how are you going to succeed with the lesser-rans? This shows
the downside of one studio in control over every property.
> > I think the movie is a huge mistake, on many counts.
>
> There are levels of that, yes.
>
> > The fact that it's going to be "Justice Babies" is bad enough.
>
> It's going to what?
>
I don't get that either.
> > I just think that many crazy costumes on screen, in live action, has the potential to
> > look really stupid,
>
> Ditto. Not so much stupid, but too packed. Fantastic Four had, well,
> 4 and it was too bogged in personal plots.
>
And now you've got 7 to deal with. I'm not saying it can't be done,
because the first two X-Mens films showed you can have half-a-dozen
heroes onscreen and still do them a bit of justice, but it's more
unlikely than it is likely.
> > and I also think throwing Supes and Bats into a
> > team-up movie when the two characters have their own active film
> > franchises (well, Batman does at least... Not sure about Supes)
>
> Both have a franchise.
>
No, Batman has a franchise. Superman has talk of a franchise. It
won't be a franchise until the actually begin filming a sequel.
> My belief is that the JLA film should have Bats and Superman
> "kidnapped" at the beginning and this new team of characters forms to
> save that and stop whatever menace has them.
>
> But that's just me.
>
Well, the irony is, the original JLA didn't have Superman and Batman.
> > the potential to damage those other franchises.
>
> It has a possibility, yes.
>
It already has by damaging the relationship with Christopher Nolan.
> > Especially Batman,
> > since BB was not only acclaimed, and loved by most fans, but because
> > the darker, more realistic (for a comic book movie) approach to the
> > Bat-franchise
>
> Batman Begins has Batman Begins and hype for The Dark Knight. It
> isn't going to be hurt.
>
Again, the real hurt is if Nolan opts not to do a third film because
of his anger with this situation.
> > is exactly the opposite of what this JLA movie seems to
> > be aiming for. Having a different actor play Batman in the JLA movie
> > just makes it all worse.
>
> I think it counters some of that by having a different Batman.
>
It's a plus and a minus because it definitely identifies this as being
separate, so if it tanks it won't be associated with it, but if it
succeeds it allows them to think they don't need the Batman Begins
team and that's a mistake.
> > I think the Justice League name, coupled with fairly well-known
> > characters like WW, Flash, GL and maybe Aquaman would be enough to
> > make this fly.
>
> Superman and Batman makes it soar.
>
It could work without the big two, but they'd never risk at $200M film
without them.
> Leaving them out makes it a bunch of also-rans.
>
> > If it's honestly a good movie with strong actors and an
> > equally strong script (I greatly doubt either one, but for the sake of
> > argument let's say they are), then the acclaim will come and people
> > will go see it.
>
> Hype makes people go see films. Word of mouth from those who were
> sucked in by the hype makes or breaks it from there...
>
Hype didn't get people into Superman Returns. It doesn't even break
the top 30 opening summer weekends. And we know what word of mouth
did to it....
> Acclaim is nothing.
>
Sad, but true.
> This is something the annoys me no end. I'm involved locally with a
> group that brings acclaimed films to town so that the less than 200
> people who want to see them can.
>
> Hyped crap, however, appears at every local cinema.
>
Think of it as food. Most people don't want haute cuisine. They want
MacDonald's. They want simple tastes, not complex flavors and
definitely nothing sour or bitter.
John Desmarais
> Well, the irony is, the original JLA didn't have Superman and Batman.
Which "original JLA"? While they only just barely appear in the
story, they are listed as members on the first page of The Brave and
the Bold #28 (that's about as original as you can get).
JD
Duggy
> Duggy wrote:
> > Now look at the Wondy film, Green Lantern film, et al that are in
> > production trouble... what would a little more name recognition do for
> > those projects. The hype alone from JLA will help them.
> And will promptly kill those projects if the movie comes out and bombs.
True, but those projects are in development hell anyway. They
probably won't happen unless something like the JLA comes along.
> >>The fact that it's going to be "Justice Babies" is bad enough.
> > It's going to what?
> "Justice Babies"?
Like Muppet Babies and Tiny Titans?
> It depends on what the writer(s) and director chose to do. FF's
> director chose to center on a family-friendly take on the FF's family
> aspect, which sacrificed the super-heroics in the origin story.
No, I think you could do family friendly superheroic family story
(see Sky High or The Incredibles) the problem was that all four
characters... actually five with Doctor Doom had to have their own
plot.
The other thing is the Next Gen films approach... Picard gets the
main story and a big solo action thing at the end. Data gets a plot.
Riker & his sidekick Geordi have a minor action plot. Worf is added
for no story reason but because of contracts. The female characters
certainly appear.
> And it depends on what they do for the costumes. Superman has always
> been pretty much had the costume he has in the books, Batman has the
> sculpted armor look, Flash has also had that, and so on.
The costumes are esthetics. Yeah, they can be a problem, but they are
nothing compared to the need to have 20mins of The Flash plot, 20
minutes of Wonder Woman plot, 20 minutes of Green Lantern plot, 20
minutes of Aquaman plot, 20 minutes of Martian Manhunter plot, the
main plot and Superman and Batman's lion's share.
> Batman does. Superman's current big-screen franchise is iffy at best.
Batman's does.
Superman's has go ahead and pay-or-play contracts. It's not 100%, but
it's not iffy.
> The movie could leave out the two entirely and still be a hit with
> moviegoers.
Superman & Batman together on the big screen is hype that all media
will pick up. That's free media. That's the holy grail of movie
advertising. JLA with Superman & Batman makes the news.
JLA without them... well, it has hype. But it's hype they have to
spend money on. Stand-ups of each of the characters in foyers.
Yeah. It has hype. But it costs dollars.
Without spending a cent on hype the Superman and Batman film has a
blockbuster openning. But they'll spend hype money. The openning
will be big. It will be #1 at its first weekend. What happens after
that is reaction dependent.
Without the big two, it's top 5. Possible #1 or #2 unless something
else comes out that week.
> Personally, I'd replace Batman with Green Arrow, Blue Beetle, and/or the
> Question.
None of those are The Batman.
> Superman could be replaced by several characters, Captain Marvel being
> the first that comes to my mind.
He isn't Superman.
It's like replacing James Bond with Jack Ryan... he's a great
character and can do the job... but he doesn't have the pull and the
name that Jack Ryan has.
Green Arrow... I make Green Arrow jokes at traffic lights and have to
explain who Green Arrow is. I wouldn't have to explain a Bat, man
joke.
I love Blue Beetle. My all time favourite character. When people ask
who my favourite superhero is I tell them. Then I have to explain who
Blue Beetle is.
The Question. See above.
> >>the potential to damage those other franchises.
> > It has a possibility, yes.
> That it does. Imagine a Justice League movie that has a Superman and
> Batman that end up being preferred by the moviegoers to the current
> franchise versions (doubtful in Batman's case, but very possible in
> Superman's case).
OK. Lets.
JLA Batman is hugely popular. JLA Superman is hugely popular.
Dark Knight tanks because JLA Batman is hugely popular.
The cancel Man of Steel.
They make Batman & Superman based on the JLA characters then a JLA
Superman film and then JLA Batman film.
One film failure and the loss of development on a Superman film (which
they'd tac onto the cost of the JLA Superman film, like that tacked
the cost of all those failed Superman films onto Superman Returns.)
> Or if a JL take that is abhored by the moviegoers kills interest in that character.
You'd have to try really had to kill interest in that characters.
Batman & Robin should have done it, but all it did is make people want
to see it done right even more.
Superman Returns has made people want to see a better Superman film.
If JLA Batman is like All-Star Batman, people will pay to see Dark
Knight twice to make a point.
> > Batman Begins has Batman Begins and hype for The Dark Knight. It
> > isn't going to be hurt.
> Theoretically it could, which is a big reason why Nolan and Bale aren't
> too thrilled.
I think they aren't too thrilled because of timing. Like James Bond
or Next Gen films too many closes together kills interest a little...
but nothing to be too scared of.
> And with the Batman franchise doing very well at the
> moment, I'd leave the character out just to avoid pissing off Nolan and
> Bale.
Why? Are they going to quit? No. Then what is the problem.
> I'd just avoid the whole Bat-mess altogether.
And reduce the revenue from JLA... and especially JLA Merchandise?
Nah.
Would you say "Let's leave Wolverine out of the next X-Men film"?
Because that's a revenue killer right there.
So Nolan and Bale are going to have a little bit of a tantie. Let
them.
> > Leaving them out makes it a bunch of also-rans.
> Depends on who they use and how they use them.
Give me two names as big with the public as Superman and Batman to
replace them with.
> > Hype makes people go see films. Word of mouth from those who were
> > sucked in by the hype makes or breaks it from there...
> Unless the hype has a lot of "This movie SUCKS!" stuff going with it.
> Look at "Bonfire Of The Vanities". Popular book at the time. Lots of
> hype when it opened. Lots of "This sucks" hype at the same time. Bomb.
That's about the content of the film. Taking Superman and Batman out
isn't going to change that, just reduce the "This is going to be
great!" Hype.
> Catwoman's another example. Lots of "this movies sucks!" and it bombed
> coming out of the gate.
Nothing to do with the character, but rather the plot.
> > Acclaim is nothing.
> My read on the quoted person's use of "acclaim" makes it equal to "good
> reviews" or "word of mouth".
Acclaim is awards and good reviews. Good Word of Mouth is something
different.
Yes, GWoM will keep a hyped film big. BWoM will kill a hyped film.
However a film with less hype won't get the WoM good or bad. There
are thousands of loved minor films that have GWoM from all 10 people
who saw it.
> And a lot of it bombs right out of the starting gate (Catwoman), or does
> well it's first week or two, then limps along into a domestic total that
> may green light a sequel (Superman Returns).
Yes... but guess what... they made the local cinema. They were there
for weeks. They made a hell of a lot more from Townsville than the
$2200 we get for other stuff.
> >>A good movie shouldn't need Supes and Bats to make it.
> > Hype.
> Blade.
Blade - first weekend $17 million.
Superman Returns - first weekend $52.5 million.
Batman Begins - first weekend $48.7 million.
Which would Warner Bros prefer? A $17 million openning weekend or a
$50 million one?
> > Because the Teen Titans aren't the JLA.
> True. Different audiences to aim at.
Well if JLA works, let them try that. Let's start with the one with
Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman.
> > Because Robin, Wondergirl, Kid Flash & Speedy aren't Batman, Wonder
> > Woman, the Flash & Superman.
> Nightwing could be a replacement for Batman. Wasn't he briefly a mamber
> of the JL?
He's still not Batman.
Batman is a $50million openner, Nightwing is a $17million openner.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> > I don't know about you, but I couldn't wall into a video store,
> > department store, supermarket or even service station without seeing
> > massive displays with all the films.
> That does not equate success. That equates hype.
These days they are pretty close.
> And Superman Returns itself was an admitted disappointment by Warner Brothers given
> its ratio of money spent to money earned and the blindingly superior
> numbers of each Spider-man film, all of whom made at least double
> theatrically what SR did.
A disappointment, but not a failure.
> > Now play that back with the Superman films & TV, Batman films & TV,
> > Wonder Woman TV, Flash TV, and the animated JLA series.
> Apples and oranges. Smallville's success seven years ago didn't lead
> to a Superman movie. The success of Spider-man did. Wonder Woman was
> almost 30 years ago. The Flash show tanked. Only the animated JLA
> series is current and hardly translates into a $150M live action
> film. Witness the never made Batman Beyond movie.
Pay attention. All these things are available on DVD. A JLA movie
would give them all a hype stand at the local DVD store just like the
Superman Movies had after the "failled" Superman Returns.
> And you can blame Superman Returns for their trouble. When Spider-man
> made box office history, Daredevil got an extra $20M for its budget.
> When Superman Returns limped to $200M over the course of a summer,
> every potential comic book movie at Warner Brothers took the hit. If
> you can't succeed with the most famous comic book character in the
> world, how are you going to succeed with the lesser-rans?
Can't succeed? 391 million isn't a failure. It isn't the numbers
they wanted but it wasn't a failure.
> This shows the downside of one studio in control over every property.
True.
It's the boom and bust cycle of Superhero films. Every they lived and
died on the 90s Batman series.
> > > The fact that it's going to be "Justice Babies" is bad enough.
> > It's going to what?
> I don't get that either.
Phew. Not just me then.
> And now you've got 7 to deal with. I'm not saying it can't be done,
> because the first two X-Mens films showed you can have half-a-dozen
> heroes onscreen and still do them a bit of justice, but it's more
> unlikely than it is likely.
Agreed. As I said elsewhere there's the Star Trek approach... focus
on a couple and ignore many...
Actually... X-Men sort of did that... Storm didn't have much plot
time.
As a JLA fan I'd be said to see anyone ignored or appearing briefly...
as a movie fan I'd hate to see 7 stories crammed together (Well, 8...
you know, a main plot.)
> No, Batman has a franchise. Superman has talk of a franchise. It
> won't be a franchise until the actually begin filming a sequel.
Beginning filming is no guarentee.
> > But that's just me.
> Well, the irony is, the original JLA didn't have Superman and Batman.
Truely? I have the Millenium Edition Replica of that first story.
The one with Starro.
They were in it. They were members. They were busy, sure, but they
were part of the story.
> It already has by damaging the relationship with Christopher Nolan.
And? This is Nolan's big loud, he's not going to quit.
> > Batman Begins has Batman Begins and hype for The Dark Knight. It
> > isn't going to be hurt.
> Again, the real hurt is if Nolan opts not to do a third film because
> of his anger with this situation.
Most of the audience won't care if Nolan is involved.
> > I think it counters some of that by having a different Batman.
> It's a plus and a minus because it definitely identifies this as being
> separate, so if it tanks it won't be associated with it, but if it
> succeeds it allows them to think they don't need the Batman Begins
> team and that's a mistake.
Agreed.
> > Superman and Batman makes it soar.
> It could work without the big two, but they'd never risk at $200M film
> without them.
With them it's a $50million plus openner.
Without them it's maybe $25.
> > Hype makes people go see films. Word of mouth from those who were
> > sucked in by the hype makes or breaks it from there...
> Hype didn't get people into Superman Returns.
It made $47 it's openning weekend. That's big. It was #1 for 2 weeks
until it was killed by Pirates 2. It got the people in.
Once they saw it...
> And we know what word of mouth did to it....
Agreed.
> Think of it as food. Most people don't want haute cuisine. They want
> MacDonald's. They want simple tastes, not complex flavors and
> definitely nothing sour or bitter.
Agreed.
===
= DUG.
===
Michael
> On Oct 18, 10:51 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>
>>Duggy wrote:
>>
>>>Now look at the Wondy film, Green Lantern film, et al that are in
>>>production trouble... what would a little more name recognition do for
>>>those projects. The hype alone from JLA will help them.
>>
>>And will promptly kill those projects if the movie comes out and bombs.
>
>
> True, but those projects are in development hell anyway. They
> probably won't happen unless something like the JLA comes along.
Only if JLA gets made, comes out, and does well enough. The hype might
get it past a doorway or two, but the project getting serious money
would be contingent on how well a completed live-action JLA films does
unless something like a big-name and/or visionary name gets on the
project and wows the studio brass.
>>>>The fact that it's going to be "Justice Babies" is bad enough.
>>>
>>>It's going to what?
>>
>>"Justice Babies"?
>
>
> Like Muppet Babies and Tiny Titans?
>
>
>>It depends on what the writer(s) and director chose to do. FF's
>>director chose to center on a family-friendly take on the FF's family
>>aspect, which sacrificed the super-heroics in the origin story.
>
>
> No, I think you could do family friendly superheroic family story
> (see Sky High or The Incredibles) the problem was that all four
> characters... actually five with Doctor Doom had to have their own
> plot.
I wasn't knocking FF by saying "family-friendly", just that it went for
the light-drama approach.
And I thought Sky High and The Incredibles were both great.
> The other thing is the Next Gen films approach... Picard gets the
> main story and a big solo action thing at the end. Data gets a plot.
> Riker & his sidekick Geordi have a minor action plot. Worf is added
> for no story reason but because of contracts. The female characters
> certainly appear.
The Next Gen films all suffered from too many characters, IMHO. That
size cast works well on weekly television. In movies it's much too
cumbersome to work in that many people.
Not that the plotlines themselves were all that great.
>>And it depends on what they do for the costumes. Superman has always
>>been pretty much had the costume he has in the books, Batman has the
>>sculpted armor look, Flash has also had that, and so on.
>
>
> The costumes are esthetics. Yeah, they can be a problem, but they are
> nothing compared to the need to have 20mins of The Flash plot, 20
> minutes of Wonder Woman plot, 20 minutes of Green Lantern plot, 20
> minutes of Aquaman plot, 20 minutes of Martian Manhunter plot, the
> main plot and Superman and Batman's lion's share.
Then characters would have to be cut or not given their own plotline,
just like the animated JL's premiere.
And really crappy/silly costumes can help kill interest.
>>Batman does. Superman's current big-screen franchise is iffy at best.
>
>
> Batman's does.
>
> Superman's has go ahead and pay-or-play contracts. It's not 100%, but
> it's not iffy.
Superman Returns Again is iffy since they aren't really doing anything
with it.
>>The movie could leave out the two entirely and still be a hit with
>>moviegoers.
>
>
> Superman & Batman together on the big screen is hype that all media
> will pick up. That's free media. That's the holy grail of movie
> advertising. JLA with Superman & Batman makes the news.
It probably would. And if the moviegoers decide that the movie is crap
all that hype won't help beyond the first or second week.
> JLA without them... well, it has hype. But it's hype they have to
> spend money on. Stand-ups of each of the characters in foyers.
> Yeah. It has hype. But it costs dollars.
And if the moviegoers love the movie it doesn't matter if the JLA in the
film is Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern or
Triumph, Gangbuster, Tomorrow Woman, Zan, and Jayna. Yes, the
higher-profile name characters would help, but all the big names in the
world won't help if the public decides it's crap and it flops at the box
office.
> Without spending a cent on hype the Superman and Batman film has a
> blockbuster openning. But they'll spend hype money. The openning
> will be big. It will be #1 at its first weekend. What happens after
> that is reaction dependent.
That's probable, but not at all a definite. Look at the current movie
pundits who said "The Kingdom" would open at #1. Not only didn't it,
but it hasn't done very well.
> Without the big two, it's top 5. Possible #1 or #2 unless something
> else comes out that week.
Also probable but not a definite.
Here's another scenario:
- A JLA movie with the Big Three opens at #1 but drops out of the Top
Ten after two or three weeks.
- A JLA movie without the Big Three opens in the Top Three but stays in
the Top Five for several weeks.
Without putting numbers in the equation, which scenario looks better?
I'd say the latter of the two.
>>Personally, I'd replace Batman with Green Arrow, Blue Beetle, and/or the
>>Question.
>
>
> None of those are The Batman.
No. They're not. But they could fill similar roles to what Batman
brings to the table without pissing off the director and star of the
current very profitable franchise. Plus, Green Arrow has been shown to
be able to work (in Smallville).
>>Superman could be replaced by several characters, Captain Marvel being
>>the first that comes to my mind.
>
>
> He isn't Superman.
See the previous comment. Though I haven't heard a thing about a
live-action JL movie with Superman pissing off Singer and Routh.
> It's like replacing James Bond with Jack Ryan... he's a great
> character and can do the job... but he doesn't have the pull and the
> name that Jack Ryan has.
No, but both of their movies have done pretty well over the years. I'd
even add in Jason Bourne to that mix. Are they the same characters?
No. Do they have the same level of name recognition? No. Have all
three been popular and profitable characters in movies and other media
over the years? Very.
> Green Arrow... I make Green Arrow jokes at traffic lights and have to
> explain who Green Arrow is. I wouldn't have to explain a Bat, man
> joke.
>
> I love Blue Beetle. My all time favourite character. When people ask
> who my favourite superhero is I tell them. Then I have to explain who
> Blue Beetle is.
>
> The Question. See above.
No one needed to have the character of Catwoman explained to them.
And that was quite a big bomb.
>>>>the potential to damage those other franchises.
>>>
>>>It has a possibility, yes.
>>
>>That it does. Imagine a Justice League movie that has a Superman and
>>Batman that end up being preferred by the moviegoers to the current
>>franchise versions (doubtful in Batman's case, but very possible in
>>Superman's case).
>
>
> OK. Lets.
>
> JLA Batman is hugely popular. JLA Superman is hugely popular.
>
> Dark Knight tanks because JLA Batman is hugely popular.
>
> The cancel Man of Steel.
>
> They make Batman & Superman based on the JLA characters then a JLA
> Superman film and then JLA Batman film.
>
> One film failure and the loss of development on a Superman film (which
> they'd tac onto the cost of the JLA Superman film, like that tacked
> the cost of all those failed Superman films onto Superman Returns.)
Assuming that the solo films of the JLA versions of Superman and Batman
do well.
>>Or if a JL take that is abhored by the moviegoers kills interest in that character.
>
>
> You'd have to try really had to kill interest in that characters.
Catwoman had Halle Berry romping around in a skintight revealing
leather-looking costume.
> Batman & Robin should have done it, but all it did is make people want
> to see it done right even more.
>
> Superman Returns has made people want to see a better Superman film.
>
> If JLA Batman is like All-Star Batman, people will pay to see Dark
> Knight twice to make a point.
Maybe. Maybe not.
>>>Batman Begins has Batman Begins and hype for The Dark Knight. It
>>>isn't going to be hurt.
>>
>>Theoretically it could, which is a big reason why Nolan and Bale aren't
>>too thrilled.
>
>
> I think they aren't too thrilled because of timing. Like James Bond
> or Next Gen films too many closes together kills interest a little...
> but nothing to be too scared of.
>
>
>>And with the Batman franchise doing very well at the
>>moment, I'd leave the character out just to avoid pissing off Nolan and
>>Bale.
>
>
> Why? Are they going to quit? No. Then what is the problem.
And if JLA kills a third (and maybe more) Nolan/Bale Batfilms that's okay?
>>I'd just avoid the whole Bat-mess altogether.
>
>
> And reduce the revenue from JLA... and especially JLA Merchandise?
> Nah.
>
> Would you say "Let's leave Wolverine out of the next X-Men film"?
> Because that's a revenue killer right there.
Since Hugh Jackman is so identified with the character and that
character is being spun-off into solo films, if I was head of a studio
and had what I thought was a good Wolverine-less X-Man script I'd say
leave him out.
> So Nolan and Bale are going to have a little bit of a tantie. Let
> them.
You're assuming an AWFUL lot.
>>>Leaving them out makes it a bunch of also-rans.
>>
>>Depends on who they use and how they use them.
>
>
> Give me two names as big with the public as Superman and Batman to
> replace them with.
>
>
>>>Hype makes people go see films. Word of mouth from those who were
>>>sucked in by the hype makes or breaks it from there...
>>
>>Unless the hype has a lot of "This movie SUCKS!" stuff going with it.
>>Look at "Bonfire Of The Vanities". Popular book at the time. Lots of
>>hype when it opened. Lots of "This sucks" hype at the same time. Bomb.
>
>
> That's about the content of the film. Taking Superman and Batman out
> isn't going to change that, just reduce the "This is going to be
> great!" Hype.
>
>
>>Catwoman's another example. Lots of "this movies sucks!" and it bombed
>>coming out of the gate.
>
>
> Nothing to do with the character, but rather the plot.
Technically, that can be said about many films. Catwoman failed at the
box office.
>>>Acclaim is nothing.
>>
>>My read on the quoted person's use of "acclaim" makes it equal to "good
>>reviews" or "word of mouth".
>
>
> Acclaim is awards and good reviews. Good Word of Mouth is something
> different.
>
> Yes, GWoM will keep a hyped film big. BWoM will kill a hyped film.
> However a film with less hype won't get the WoM good or bad. There
> are thousands of loved minor films that have GWoM from all 10 people
> who saw it.
>
>
>>And a lot of it bombs right out of the starting gate (Catwoman), or does
>>well it's first week or two, then limps along into a domestic total that
>>may green light a sequel (Superman Returns).
>
>
> Yes... but guess what... they made the local cinema. They were there
> for weeks. They made a hell of a lot more from Townsville than the
> $2200 we get for other stuff.
Um, Catwoman didn't make any money. And Superman Returns didn't make
nearly as much money as the studio thought it would. That's not good
for those movies, the people who made them, and the genre of movie they
represent.
>>>>A good movie shouldn't need Supes and Bats to make it.
>>>
>>>Hype.
>>
>>Blade.
>
>
> Blade - first weekend $17 million.
> Superman Returns - first weekend $52.5 million.
> Batman Begins - first weekend $48.7 million.
>
> Which would Warner Bros prefer? A $17 million openning weekend or a
> $50 million one?
Which movie made the better profit?
Movie studios LOVE killer First Weekend openings. But they don't base
all of their decisions on that.
>>>Because the Teen Titans aren't the JLA.
>>
>>True. Different audiences to aim at.
>
>
> Well if JLA works, let them try that. Let's start with the one with
> Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman.
>
>
>>>Because Robin, Wondergirl, Kid Flash & Speedy aren't Batman, Wonder
>>>Woman, the Flash & Superman.
>>
>>Nightwing could be a replacement for Batman. Wasn't he briefly a mamber
>>of the JL?
>
>
> He's still not Batman.
>
> Batman is a $50million openner, Nightwing is a $17million openner.
So go to Hollywood, tell them all this, and get yourself a high-paying job.
Michael
Michael
> On Oct 19, 3:16 am, badthin...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>I don't know about you, but I couldn't wall into a video store,
>>>department store, supermarket or even service station without seeing
>>>massive displays with all the films.
>>
>>That does not equate success. That equates hype.
>
>
> These days they are pretty close.
>
>
>>And Superman Returns itself was an admitted disappointment by Warner Brothers given
>>its ratio of money spent to money earned and the blindingly superior
>>numbers of each Spider-man film, all of whom made at least double
>>theatrically what SR did.
>
>
> A disappointment, but not a failure.
These days they're pretty close.
>>>Now play that back with the Superman films & TV, Batman films & TV,
>>>Wonder Woman TV, Flash TV, and the animated JLA series.
>>
>>Apples and oranges. Smallville's success seven years ago didn't lead
>>to a Superman movie. The success of Spider-man did. Wonder Woman was
>>almost 30 years ago. The Flash show tanked. Only the animated JLA
>>series is current and hardly translates into a $150M live action
>>film. Witness the never made Batman Beyond movie.
>
>
> Pay attention. All these things are available on DVD. A JLA movie
> would give them all a hype stand at the local DVD store just like the
> Superman Movies had after the "failled" Superman Returns.
And that translated into money for Superman Return how?
>>And you can blame Superman Returns for their trouble. When Spider-man
>>made box office history, Daredevil got an extra $20M for its budget.
>>When Superman Returns limped to $200M over the course of a summer,
>>every potential comic book movie at Warner Brothers took the hit. If
>>you can't succeed with the most famous comic book character in the
>>world, how are you going to succeed with the lesser-rans?
>
>
> Can't succeed? 391 million isn't a failure. It isn't the numbers
> they wanted but it wasn't a failure.
Was that Worldwide or the Non-US number?
By name, probably not.
>>>I think it counters some of that by having a different Batman.
>>
>>It's a plus and a minus because it definitely identifies this as being
>>separate, so if it tanks it won't be associated with it, but if it
>>succeeds it allows them to think they don't need the Batman Begins
>>team and that's a mistake.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>>Superman and Batman makes it soar.
>>
>>It could work without the big two, but they'd never risk at $200M film
>>without them.
>
>
> With them it's a $50million plus openner.
> Without them it's maybe $25.
>
>
>>>Hype makes people go see films. Word of mouth from those who were
>>>sucked in by the hype makes or breaks it from there...
>>
>>Hype didn't get people into Superman Returns.
>
>
> It made $47 it's openning weekend.
Wait a minute! You just said in a reply to me:
"Superman Returns - first weekend $52.5 million."
> That's big.
Not as big as Spider-Man.
> It was #1 for 2 weeks
> until it was killed by Pirates 2. It got the people in.
>
> Once they saw it...
>
>
>> And we know what word of mouth did to it....
>
>
> Agreed.
Right. Which is why a studio basing everything on that first weekend is
a disaster in the making.
>>Think of it as food. Most people don't want haute cuisine. They want
>>MacDonald's. They want simple tastes, not complex flavors and
>>definitely nothing sour or bitter.
>
>
> Agreed.
Michael
Duggy
> Duggy wrote:
> These days they're pretty close.
Agreed. Certainly.
But a failure would have had them say "No" outright to Man of Steel.
A disappointment made them wary.
However, they know that the sequel will always be cheap, especially
once the CGI was been perfected and when you factor out all the
addtion money spent on failled attempts since Superman IV.
They're wary, but they think they'll get their money back. The line
between disappointment and failure is thin, but it was certainly not
on the failure side of it.
> > Pay attention. All these things are available on DVD. A JLA movie
> > would give them all a hype stand at the local DVD store just like the
> > Superman Movies had after the "failled" Superman Returns.
> And that translated into money for Superman Return how?
It translated into money that Warner Brothers made because Superman
Returns came out.
Hollywood maths is great. People get gross points, so that actually
want films to show up as just making their money back. Budget
+Advertising=Return, well, we didn't lose money but no one gets extra
money sorry.
Meanwhile, Warner sells the video rights to Warner cheap. Warner
licences or makes merchandise. Maybe the comics get a spike. This is
all extra revenue for Warner that doesn't show up as film profits.
Warner knows this. They'll never admit it out loud because, hey, they
get to keep it all, but that know that there is income outside the Box
Office Return.
In the case of Superman Returns, Warner used it to make a lot of extra
money on the old Superman movies they wouldn't otherwise have made. A
movie can sit in the cheap bin and never be sold. Suddenly they have
a reason to hype it and people are paying full price.
Superman Returns made no money from old DVD sales. But Warner did and
they know it.
Even a moderately successful JLA film (and even failure are often
quite successful on DVD (Not "get lost money back, but sit in the top
ten for months when no one was interested at the cinemas)) help to
promote all of the above things which Warner is already trying to
sell. Warner knows this. Warners sees it as a benefit.
> > Can't succeed? 391 million isn't a failure. It isn't the numbers
> > they wanted but it wasn't a failure.
> Was that Worldwide or the Non-US number?
Worldwide, IIRC.
> >>Again, the real hurt is if Nolan opts not to do a third film because
> >>of his anger with this situation.
> > Most of the audience won't care if Nolan is involved.
> By name, probably not.
If Nolan walks after 2, some fans will be upset. There will be a tiny
backlash from them.
There will be some critcal backlash. Any flaw in 3 will be blamed on
the new person and Nolan would have done better (When in reality there
is no guarantee of that).
Is Nolan some super-director who is the only person who make the Bat-
franchise work?
I don't think so. I like his other work. I enjoyed Batman Begins...
except I felt it was three films.
"Bruce Wayne: The Lost Years."
"Batman: Year One."
"Batman 5."
By which I mean, there was the Bruce Wayne stuff. Real Nolan
territory. And well done. Really well done.
Then there was the becoming Batman stuff which was slow but good.
Again, Nolan did what he does well.
Then there was the big battle. Which was pretty much the same as the
previous Batman films. Better than some, worse that others. Not sure
it was Nolan's strong point.
The first two bits are gone. The Joker's story can be told and I
think Nolan could do that well. And he could do stuff with the feel
of the becoming Batman stuff. But he's still week in the action
ending. And as the series progresses it's going to become more and
more about that... so, Nolan's Batman 3 probably wouldn't be great
anyway.
A new director might be an advantage.
But that is something we can never know whatever happens. It's all
what-ifs.
> >>>Hype makes people go see films. Word of mouth from those who were
> >>>sucked in by the hype makes or breaks it from there...
>
> >>Hype didn't get people into Superman Returns.
>
> > It made $47 it's openning weekend.
> Wait a minute! You just said in a reply to me:
> "Superman Returns - first weekend $52.5 million."
Sorry, 47 was Batman Begins. One of them. One was 52 and one was
47. Basically, the names Superman and Batman by themselves are worth
a 50million openning.
> > That's big.
> Not as big as Spider-Man.
That's true. But bigger than Blade.
Point being Batman and Superman are worth 50million. Green Arrow and
Captain Marvel are not.
> >> And we know what word of mouth did to it....
> > Agreed.
> Right. Which is why a studio basing everything on that first weekend is
> a disaster in the making.
No. Without a big first week a blockbuster doesn't get a big second
week.
Batman & Superman guarantee that JLA will be #1 at the box-office. If
the film sucks and BWoM gets out, it'll still make money for weeks and
weeks.
Look at Superman. BWoM killed it... but it still made the Top 50 all
time list because of inertia. It happens.
JLA without Superman & Batman will open smaller. It doesn't have and
50million guaranteed draws. If something big opens. A major sequel
or a Spielburg blockbuster it won't make #1. Even a good films has to
fight then. Being the #2 film is the media equivalent of BWoM. An
enjoyable #2 film "couldn't match the numbers of" the crap #1 film the
media will cry. It will seem like BWoM.
With Batman and Superman in the film. In the Advertising, in the Hype
the film will make a lot more money. The film won't have to rely on
its own merits to do well. It will do well anyway.
Superman Returns did well. It wasn't Spiderman, it wasn't Pirates of
Carbean. But it was the #6 film of last year.
Yes, for the amount it cost it should have been the #1 or #2 film.
But it was crap.
A crap JLA with Superman and Batman will be Top 10 of the year.
A crap JLA without them won't.
A good JLA film with Superman and Batman will be #1 or #2.
A good JLA film without them will be Top 10 (maybe #1 or #2.)
The truth is, JLA's take will be phenominally better with Superman and
Batman in it.
And I'm sorry, but I can't see making Batman Green Arrow and Superman
Captain Marvel changing the quality of the film from crap to good.
The film will be crap or good independant of those things, but those
two names make Warner Bros money.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Duggy wrote:
> > True, but those projects are in development hell anyway. They
> > probably won't happen unless something like the JLA comes along.
> Only if JLA gets made, comes out, and does well enough.
Agreed.
> The hype might get it past a doorway or two, but the project getting serious money
> would be contingent on how well a completed live-action JLA films does
> unless something like a big-name and/or visionary name gets on the
> project and wows the studio brass.
Agreed. The projects were being touted because there was money seen
in Superhero films. Big names were interested.
If JLA and Man of Steel tank then Warner won't greenlight those films
for another 3 years. Batman will keep going (depending on Dark Knight
doing well) but Superman and JLA will kill most other Warner DC
features. Even stuff unrelated to the JLA.
If JLA does well, then all the JLA stuff gets a boost. Superman, I
think will affect only Superman, but who knows.
Successful JLA and Superman and they'll be clamoring for make a
Booster Gold film. Even in that environment not everything will get
made.
> >>It depends on what the writer(s) and director chose to do. FF's
> >>director chose to center on a family-friendly take on the FF's family
> >>aspect, which sacrificed the super-heroics in the origin story.
> > No, I think you could do family friendly superheroic family story
> > (see Sky High or The Incredibles) the problem was that all four
> > characters... actually five with Doctor Doom had to have their own
> > plot.
> I wasn't knocking FF by saying "family-friendly", just that it went for
> the light-drama approach.
Yeah, I'm not sure what we're saying here.
I'm saying that there were 5 stories. Individual stories, some of
which feed into the main plot but didn't give the main plot any
forward momentum. And they had a combined origin. [Note I didn't
watch 2, so I can't speak to that.]
With seven character all with thier own fans and stories... JLA is
gonna get bogged in plot. The only way it can avoid that it to focus
on a couple of characters. That makes it the Superman & Batman story
which is a little bit of a waste.
> And I thought Sky High and The Incredibles were both great.
Ditto. I avoided Sky High. Disney annoys me. But while babysitting
my niece made me watch it, and I had to thank her afterwards.
It wasn't as good as J.Torres' Sidekicks comic, but it was a lot of
fun.
> The Next Gen films all suffered from too many characters, IMHO. That
> size cast works well on weekly television. In movies it's much too
> cumbersome to work in that many people.
Exactly. On TV, each character can have an episode sometime in 26
weeks.
In the movies, there were too many characters, the sames ones stole
the focus each time, the same ones were ignored.
All bad signs for a JLA franchise.
Especially since in Next Gene you didn't need to introduce the
characters and they had a shared story (they were on the same ship)
JLA, these are different characters that have to come together. I'm
not even sure how you deal with their origins.
I can't really see it even being possible.
> Not that the plotlines themselves were all that great.
They had good points and bad, and I'm not sure I agree with most on
what those were... but yeah.
> > The costumes are esthetics. Yeah, they can be a problem, but they are
> > nothing compared to the need to have 20mins of The Flash plot, 20
> > minutes of Wonder Woman plot, 20 minutes of Green Lantern plot, 20
> > minutes of Aquaman plot, 20 minutes of Martian Manhunter plot, the
> > main plot and Superman and Batman's lion's share.
> Then characters would have to be cut or not given their own plotline,
> just like the animated JL's premiere.
That's what I'm saying. We seem to agree on this.
> And really crappy/silly costumes can help kill interest.
They can, but that's a Superhero thing.
> Superman Returns Again is iffy since they aren't really doing anything
> with it.
They're writing the script and talking June 2009 release.
Dark Knight is filming for a July 2008 release.
Given that Dark Knight came out in 2005 and Returns came out last
year, I'd say that it's on track.
With JLA in 2010 it looks like DC might have a 3 year cycle of
franchise films in the offing.
> > Superman & Batman together on the big screen is hype that all media
> > will pick up. That's free media. That's the holy grail of movie
> > advertising. JLA with Superman & Batman makes the news.
> It probably would. And if the moviegoers decide that the movie is crap
> all that hype won't help beyond the first or second week.
SF and fantasy and sequels have massive first and second weeks and
then die off.
Because SF and fantasy fans are rabid, must see it imediately types.
Even when they have heard the film will be crap.
Of course, mainstream reaction is what keeps films afloat after that.
Thing is Superman Returns was crap. Superman Returns died off. But
it still had the numbers to hang around for weeks and make the money
back. It was a little like a fart in an elevator, long after everyone
else had gone it was still hanging around.
So, even a crap JLA films isn't a guaranteed failure. A
disappointment, probably, but probably not a failure.
> And if the moviegoers love the movie it doesn't matter if the JLA in the
> film is Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern or
> Triumph, Gangbuster, Tomorrow Woman, Zan, and Jayna. Yes, the
> higher-profile name characters would help, but all the big names in the
> world won't help if the public decides it's crap and it flops at the box
> office.
A $50million that is crap and drops 10% a week and a $25million that
gain 10% a week will make the same amount of money over 13 weeks. It
will take 17 weeks for the $25million to match the $50million if it
never drops.
But no film grows for 13 weeks or doesn't drop for 17.
JLA will be a blockbuster and blockbusters always struggle to make
anything near their openning week after the second week. While a
blockbuster can be better than people expected and hold longer, they
just don't make more money.
This is why film companies love the big openning week. Why the jockey
for position.
Because with a big openning week even a film that dies can make more
money that a strong long term performer.
> > Without spending a cent on hype the Superman and Batman film has a
> > blockbuster openning. But they'll spend hype money. The openning
> > will be big. It will be #1 at its first weekend. What happens after
> > that is reaction dependent.
> That's probable, but not at all a definite. Look at the current movie
> pundits who said "The Kingdom" would open at #1. Not only didn't it,
> but it hasn't done very well.
What's The Kingdom?
> > Without the big two, it's top 5. Possible #1 or #2 unless something
> > else comes out that week.
> Also probable but not a definite.
Agreed.
> Here's another scenario:
> - A JLA movie with the Big Three opens at #1 but drops out of the Top
> Ten after two or three weeks.
It won't. Even crap hangs around at #9 or #10 for weeks.
> - A JLA movie without the Big Three opens in the Top Three but stays in
> the Top Five for several weeks.
> Without putting numbers in the equation, which scenario looks better?
#1 can be 5 times a #2 or 3 position which means that a film starting
in #2 or #3 has to hang around in the Top Ten for 10 times as long as
to make the same money.
What looks better? To the public? The #1 openning looks better.
Three weeks later still being in the top ten looks good, but no one
remembers. The #1 openning sticks. That's what people remember in
when they go to the DVD shop.
That and word of mouth but stuff with BWoM often does really well on
DVD. Never worked out why. I guess people don't want to spend all
that money on a film everyone said sucked but still want to see it.
> I'd say the latter of the two.
Then you'd be wrong.
However, the situation you describe is false.
We're really talking about this:
A Big Three #1 film that drops out of the top ten quickly because it
is crap.
A Second Stringer #3 film that drops out of the top ten quickly
because is crap.
OR
A Big Three #1 film that stays at #1 for weeks, and hangs around in
the top ten.
A Second Stringer #3 film that hangs around in the top ten.
In both cases the Big Three openning at #1 is better.
> No. They're not. But they could fill similar roles to what Batman
> brings to the table without pissing off the director and star of the
> current very profitable franchise. Plus, Green Arrow has been shown to
> be able to work (in Smallville).
Batman or Green Arrow don't change the quality of the film.
Batman changes the initial success.
Nolan and Bale need to realise that they don't own Batman.
People didn't go and see Begins for Nolan and Bale, they went for
Batman.
Sure, they'll go to Dark Knight for Nolan, Bale and Batman.
But they'll go to Batman 3 for Batman without Bale and Nolan.
Did people avoid X-Men 3 because Singer wasn't on it?
Plus what makes you think that Nolan can do #3 better than anyone
else?
> > It's like replacing James Bond with Jack Ryan... he's a great
> > character and can do the job... but he doesn't have the pull and the
> > name that Jack Ryan has.
> No, but both of their movies have done pretty well over the years. I'd
> even add in Jason Bourne to that mix. Are they the same characters?
> No. Do they have the same level of name recognition? No. Have all
> three been popular and profitable characters in movies and other media
> over the years? Very.
Bourne at the moment as near Bond popularity. Tied to the current
series of films, obvious, so I didn't bring him in.
However, I think that James Bond/Jack Ryan have Batman/Green Arrow
levels of appeal and public knowledge. (I'm ignoring the fact you
couldn't easily change TWINE into a Jack Ryan film or Clear and
Present Danger in a Bond film)
My point is: You make a film with the Bond as the main character and
it makes money. Fans hated the Brosnan films more as his set
progressed, but they kept making money (and the final one was the
worse - and the most successful).
You make a film with Jack Ryan and it will do well, but no where near
as well as Bond.
Why? "You know the Name. You know the Number."
He sells himself. That's why when people were talking about which big
name was going to Bond I kept telling them it wasn't going to be a big
name. Bond makes actors big names, there's no point spending money on
a big name for Bond. Jack Ryan, though, needed big names. It needed
Sean Connery (not as Ryan, but to hype the film), it needed Harrison
Ford.
The same goes with Superman.
You release a Superman film people will go to it. You release a
Captain Marvel film and you'll have to explain who he is (and I think
explain to some that his name isn't Shazam!) And that requires a lot
more advertising for a lot smaller turn out.
> No one needed to have the character of Catwoman explained to them.
No. And they arrived at the cinema and found that it wasn't the
Catwoman they expected.
More than anything else, that's what killed that film.
(It was bad, but bad films can still be popular).
> And that was quite a big bomb.
Agreed.
It made $82million of its $85 million budget. Half of that was in the
US. And almost half of what it made in the US was in the first week.
If it had anything going for it it would have made its money back.
To be fair, it had Catwoman and Halle Berry in it, which is two draws
not one.
> Assuming that the solo films of the JLA versions of Superman and Batman
> do well.
Well, yes. If not they can do more JLA films.
> >>Or if a JL take that is abhored by the moviegoers kills interest in that character.
> > You'd have to try really had to kill interest in that characters.
> Catwoman had Halle Berry romping around in a skintight revealing
> leather-looking costume.
If DC gave you the go ahead to make a Catwoman film and you and the
star said in every interview that Warner paid for that "This film as
nothing to do with that other film" you could save the character.
It has been damaged, yes. But it isn't dead. And Superman and Batman
would have to take a lot worse damage than that to be killed. JLA
would have to be worse than Catwoman... and even then Batman Begins
would save him.
Look at Superman Returns. It should have damaged Superman, or at
least Singer on Superman... but people are expecing the sequel and
Warner Bros is fine doing it.
Now, I've already agreed that a dud Man of Steel & JLA will knock
Superman on the head in film for a few years... but if Man of Steel
saves the series and JLA tanks the Singer Superman will continue. If
JLA tanks the Nolan Batman will continue (with or without him)
(Assuming Dark Kight isn't Batman and Robin.)
See, even Batman & Robin couldn't hold Batman down for 10 years. And
that would have killed most characters.
> > If JLA Batman is like All-Star Batman, people will pay to see Dark
> > Knight twice to make a point.
> Maybe. Maybe not.
True.
Did The Phantom Menace kill the Star Wars Prequels?
> > Why? Are they going to quit? No. Then what is the problem.
> And if JLA kills a third (and maybe more) Nolan/Bale Batfilms that's okay?
It won't. Even if JLA included the Bale Batman Nolan could disavow
it. #3 introduces Robin and Batman says "I don't do teams. I had a
bad experience once" or "What about the JLA" "Never heard of them"
Never Say Never Again came out in 1983 and tanked [And still made 100
million]. EON were shitty because someone else was making a Bond film
and it would hurt them. Come 1985 and View to a Kill and it was clear
no one cared about someone else's Bond.
> > Would you say "Let's leave Wolverine out of the next X-Men film"?
> > Because that's a revenue killer right there.
> Since Hugh Jackman is so identified with the character and that
> character is being spun-off into solo films, if I was head of a studio
> and had what I thought was a good Wolverine-less X-Man script I'd say
> leave him out.
And if you had a good Wolverine solo script and a good X-Men script
with him in it... would you say leave him out?
> > So Nolan and Bale are going to have a little bit of a tantie. Let
> > them.
> You're assuming an AWFUL lot.
What do you mean? Nolan and Bale can rant all they like, it only
makes them look like children.
It doesn't make JLA fail any more than JLA will make Batman fail.
JLA will live or die on JLA not on Nolan and Bale's tears.
And if Nolan and Bale leave... so what? Is it the first time Batman
has been recast?
> > Give me two names as big with the public as Superman and Batman to
> > replace them with.
Nah, couldn't, could you?
> > That's about the content of the film. Taking Superman and Batman out
> > isn't going to change that, just reduce the "This is going to be
> > great!" Hype.
Exactly.
JLA will be good or bad based on JLA, not on the inclusion of Batman
and Superman.
Either way the films will make more money with them in them.
> Technically, that can be said about many films. Catwoman failed at the
> box office.
Many films fail.
JLA will make more money with Superman and Batman in it.
If JLA sucks and it fails, it will fail by less. Warner will lose
less money.
If JLA succeeds it will make more money. Warner will make more money.
If it is borderline, then without Superman and Batman it will lose
money.
If it is borderline, then with Superman and Batman it will make money.
Which do you think Warner wants?
Which do you think that viewers of DC based films who rely on Warner
making money of superhero films want?
> > Yes... but guess what... they made the local cinema. They were there
> > for weeks. They made a hell of a lot more from Townsville than the
> > $2200 we get for other stuff.
> Um, Catwoman didn't make any money.
Lost 3 million. What's your point? Catwoman isn't Superman or
Batman.
> And Superman Returns didn't make nearly as much money as the studio thought it would.
Still one of the biggest films of all time. Still made it's money
back.
The problem with Superman Returns wasn't how much it made, but how
much it cost.
> That's not good for those movies, the people who made them, and the genre of movie they
> represent.
It's not... but... Man of Steel is being written, JLA is being cast.
It wasn't good for those movies, the people who made them, and the
genre of movie they represent, but they are still making those movies.
No harm. No fowl.
> > Blade - first weekend $17 million.
> > Superman Returns - first weekend $52.5 million.
> > Batman Begins - first weekend $48.7 million.
> > Which would Warner Bros prefer? A $17 million openning weekend or a
> > $50 million one?
> Which movie made the better profit?
That's about how much was spent making it.
It's going to cost the same to make Green Arrow/Captain America as it
is to make Batman/Superman... but Batman/Superman is going to bring in
at least twice as much as the box office.
Green Arrow/Captain America has a lot more chance of losing money.
> Movie studios LOVE killer First Weekend openings. But they don't base
> all of their decisions on that.
First weekends affect longterm totals. 1/4 of the money made, success
of failure comes in that openning weekend (for a blockbuster)
Blade made 24.4% of its money (domestically) in its first weekend and
the success of that openning weekend is what gave it the GWoM.
(Batman Begins made 23.7% and Superman Returns 26.3%)
> > He's still not Batman.
> > Batman is a $50million openner, Nightwing is a $17million openner.
> So go to Hollywood, tell them all this, and get yourself a high-paying job.
They already know. That's why they are making Batman and JLA with
Batman and not Nightwing and JLA with Nightwing.
You're the one that is saying that what that they are doing the wrong
thing.
They're not.
===
= DUG.
===
TedJ...@mindspring.com
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1192752240.6...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 19, 3:16 am, badthin...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > The fact that it's going to be "Justice Babies" is bad enough.
>> > It's going to what?
>> I don't get that either.
>
> Phew. Not just me then.
I assume "Justice Babies" is a snarky reference
to the actors in the JLA film being young.
Duggy
> I assume "Justice Babies" is a snarky reference
> to the actors in the JLA film being young.
How young? This is the team-up so I'd be expecting mostly around 21
or a little older, and it doesn't come out until 2010, so filming's
2008 or 2009 so 19 or 20 year olds is about right...
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
I found a list of people auditioning... not a cast list, but a sign...
This year:
Common is 35.
Scott Porter is 28.
Adam Brody turns 28.
D.J. Cotrona & Minka Kelly are 27.
Adrianne Palicki is 24.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead turns 23.
Joseph Cross & Teresa Palmer are 21.
Michael Angarano is 20.
Max Thieriot is 19.
So we're looking at 20 or 21 to about 29 or 30 for Justice League 1...
at least 23 - 33 for #2 and probably 28 - 38 for #3...
Wow, yeah. Babies.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
OK, what the hell are you talking about?
===
= DUG.
===
Michael
> On Oct 19, 4:31 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>
>>Duggy wrote:
>>
>>>A disappointment, but not a failure.
>>
>>These days they're pretty close.
>
>
> Agreed. Certainly.
>
> But a failure would have had them say "No" outright to Man of Steel.
> A disappointment made them wary.
>
> However, they know that the sequel will always be cheap, especially
> once the CGI was been perfected and when you factor out all the
> addtion money spent on failled attempts since Superman IV.
Well, Cheaper. And by how much, who knows?
> They're wary, but they think they'll get their money back. The line
> between disappointment and failure is thin, but it was certainly not
> on the failure side of it.
Does Hollywood still believe "A movie must make back 1.5 times what it
cost" (not that that's a bad thing)? If so, how much did Superman
Returns cost? Last I heard it was $200 - $250 million.
>>>Pay attention. All these things are available on DVD. A JLA movie
>>>would give them all a hype stand at the local DVD store just like the
>>>Superman Movies had after the "failled" Superman Returns.
>>
>>And that translated into money for Superman Return how?
>
>
> It translated into money that Warner Brothers made because Superman
> Returns came out.
>
> Hollywood maths is great. People get gross points, so that actually
> want films to show up as just making their money back. Budget
> +Advertising=Return, well, we didn't lose money but no one gets extra
> money sorry.
That'd be from the Ghostbusters school. :)
> Meanwhile, Warner sells the video rights to Warner cheap. Warner
> licences or makes merchandise. Maybe the comics get a spike. This is
> all extra revenue for Warner that doesn't show up as film profits.
>
> Warner knows this. They'll never admit it out loud because, hey, they
> get to keep it all, but that know that there is income outside the Box
> Office Return.
>
> In the case of Superman Returns, Warner used it to make a lot of extra
> money on the old Superman movies they wouldn't otherwise have made. A
> movie can sit in the cheap bin and never be sold. Suddenly they have
> a reason to hype it and people are paying full price.
>
> Superman Returns made no money from old DVD sales. But Warner did and
> they know it.
>
> Even a moderately successful JLA film (and even failure are often
> quite successful on DVD (Not "get lost money back, but sit in the top
> ten for months when no one was interested at the cinemas)) help to
> promote all of the above things which Warner is already trying to
> sell. Warner knows this. Warners sees it as a benefit.
>
>
>>>Can't succeed? 391 million isn't a failure. It isn't the numbers
>>>they wanted but it wasn't a failure.
>>
>>Was that Worldwide or the Non-US number?
>
>
> Worldwide, IIRC.
Eek. That's not good in the "Cost times 1.5" ratio is still in play.
>>>>Again, the real hurt is if Nolan opts not to do a third film because
>>>>of his anger with this situation.
>>>
>>>Most of the audience won't care if Nolan is involved.
>>
>>By name, probably not.
>
>
> If Nolan walks after 2, some fans will be upset. There will be a tiny
> backlash from them.
> There will be some critcal backlash. Any flaw in 3 will be blamed on
> the new person and Nolan would have done better (When in reality there
> is no guarantee of that).
Yep. And if a new director takes over the franchise chances are greater
of the franchise going in the dumper a'la "Batman & Robin".
> Is Nolan some super-director who is the only person who make the Bat-
> franchise work?
Not at all. But he's the current head of a currently-profitable
Bat-franchise. And, IMHO, it'd be best not to piss him off needlessly
lest he walk and we get a director who pulls out a 21st-century "Batman
& Robin", thus killing the (live-action movie) franchise for another 10
years or so.
> I don't think so. I like his other work. I enjoyed Batman Begins...
> except I felt it was three films.
>
> "Bruce Wayne: The Lost Years."
> "Batman: Year One."
> "Batman 5."
>
> By which I mean, there was the Bruce Wayne stuff. Real Nolan
> territory. And well done. Really well done.
> Then there was the becoming Batman stuff which was slow but good.
> Again, Nolan did what he does well.
> Then there was the big battle. Which was pretty much the same as the
> previous Batman films. Better than some, worse that others. Not sure
> it was Nolan's strong point.
The only thing I didn't like about "Batman Begins", and I think this is
a nitpick on my part, is that I liked how the camera was really close in
during fight scenes to avoid showing a good full-size shot of Batman
until the big "I'm Batman" moment (followed up by that great "nice coat"
line). After that it still stayed in really close during the fight
scenes so I didn't really get a good feel of what was going on.
> The first two bits are gone. The Joker's story can be told and I
> think Nolan could do that well. And he could do stuff with the feel
> of the becoming Batman stuff. But he's still week in the action
> ending. And as the series progresses it's going to become more and
> more about that... so, Nolan's Batman 3 probably wouldn't be great
> anyway.
>
> A new director might be an advantage.
>
> But that is something we can never know whatever happens. It's all
> what-ifs.
Hampered by the previous example of what happened.
Which is actually kind of funny. "Batman Forever" is my favorite of
that run. I thought it had a nice balance of the lighter and darker
stuff. It's only drawback was too many villains. I'd have liked to see
them go from one villain to the other in the story.
"Batman & Robin" was just a mess. Too much Schumacher, not enough
Burton I guess.
>>>>>Hype makes people go see films. Word of mouth from those who were
>>>>>sucked in by the hype makes or breaks it from there...
>>
>>>>Hype didn't get people into Superman Returns.
>>
>>>It made $47 it's openning weekend.
>>
>>Wait a minute! You just said in a reply to me:
>>"Superman Returns - first weekend $52.5 million."
>
>
> Sorry, 47 was Batman Begins. One of them. One was 52 and one was
> 47. Basically, the names Superman and Batman by themselves are worth
> a 50million openning.
>
>
>>>That's big.
>>
>>Not as big as Spider-Man.
>
>
> That's true. But bigger than Blade.
Yep. Though I wonder how adjusting for amost 10 years would affect that?
> Point being Batman and Superman are worth 50million. Green Arrow and
> Captain Marvel are not.
But is Batman being in a JL movie worth $50 if the hype showing The
Question and/or Green Arrow really takes off? JL IS a team movie after all.
I think Superman's kind of a moot point, at least since I haven't heard
of the Superman franchise players being miffed.
>>>>And we know what word of mouth did to it....
>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>
>>Right. Which is why a studio basing everything on that first weekend is
>>a disaster in the making.
>
>
> No. Without a big first week a blockbuster doesn't get a big second
> week.
>
> Batman & Superman guarantee that JLA will be #1 at the box-office. If
> the film sucks and BWoM gets out, it'll still make money for weeks and
> weeks.
>
> Look at Superman. BWoM killed it... but it still made the Top 50 all
> time list because of inertia. It happens.
>
> JLA without Superman & Batman will open smaller. It doesn't have and
> 50million guaranteed draws. If something big opens. A major sequel
> or a Spielburg blockbuster it won't make #1. Even a good films has to
> fight then. Being the #2 film is the media equivalent of BWoM. An
> enjoyable #2 film "couldn't match the numbers of" the crap #1 film the
> media will cry. It will seem like BWoM.
That depends on the hype around it and how good (or bad) the JL movie
itself is.
> With Batman and Superman in the film. In the Advertising, in the Hype
> the film will make a lot more money. The film won't have to rely on
> its own merits to do well. It will do well anyway.
In that first weekend. And that's if it's not another Catwoman, which
came out of the starting gate with everyone having heard that it sucked.
> Superman Returns did well. It wasn't Spiderman, it wasn't Pirates of
> Carbean. But it was the #6 film of last year.
>
> Yes, for the amount it cost it should have been the #1 or #2 film.
> But it was crap.
Superman Returns?
> A crap JLA with Superman and Batman will be Top 10 of the year.
> A crap JLA without them won't.
>
> A good JLA film with Superman and Batman will be #1 or #2.
> A good JLA film without them will be Top 10 (maybe #1 or #2.)
>
> The truth is, JLA's take will be phenominally better with Superman and
> Batman in it.
>
> And I'm sorry, but I can't see making Batman Green Arrow and Superman
> Captain Marvel changing the quality of the film from crap to good.
> The film will be crap or good independant of those things, but those
> two names make Warner Bros money.
It doesn't automatically change a JL film from crap to good. It
replaces currently in-play franchise characters with other characters in
similar roles.
And, like I said, replacing Superman is just in there due to the Batman
"controversy" currently being talked about.
Also, like I said, you could, at least in theory, make a really good JL
movie with lesser names, while a JL movie with all the big guns doesn't
guarantee you a masterpiece.
Michael
Duggy
> Well, Cheaper. And by how much, who knows?
Well, Warner Bros, obviously.
Since they know how much was from previous developments and will set
the budget for the new film.
> Does Hollywood still believe "A movie must make back 1.5 times what it
> cost" (not that that's a bad thing)? If so, how much did Superman
> Returns cost? Last I heard it was $200 - $250 million.
That's with Superman V, Superman Reborn, etc, etc, the money they paid
Nick Cage not to appear in the film they paid Tim Burton not to make,
et al.
The same reason they made Star Trek II after Star Trek: The Motion
Picture "lost" money.
Warner also knows to factor in merch and increase in old Superman
movie sales.
> That'd be from the Ghostbusters school. :)
OK.
> Eek. That's not good in the "Cost times 1.5" ratio is still in play.
Not if you consider the real cost of production.
> Yep. And if a new director takes over the franchise chances are greater
> of the franchise going in the dumper a'la "Batman & Robin".
Yes. But remember, Batman and Robin was Schmaker's second Batman
film.
When they changed actor and director for the third film it didn't kill
the franchise, it was the new director going insane on his second film
that killed it.
Why do you think Nolan and Bale being replaced will kill the new
franchise?
> Not at all. But he's the current head of a currently-profitable
> Bat-franchise.
Yes.
> And, IMHO, it'd be best not to piss him off needlessly
> lest he walk and we get a director who pulls out a 21st-century "Batman
> & Robin", thus killing the (live-action movie) franchise for another 10
> years or so.
That was second film insanity. "*I* did the last one so well, I can
do no wrong!"
There's nothing to say that that won't happen with The Dark Knight.
Sure a new director could fuck up royally, but it you know, they
*could* actually do well you know.
> The only thing I didn't like about "Batman Begins", and I think this is
> a nitpick on my part,
Oh, my thing was all nitpick, I liked the film, I just think there was
a flaw that they got away with...
> is that I liked how the camera was really close in
> during fight scenes to avoid showing a good full-size shot of Batman
> until the big "I'm Batman" moment (followed up by that great "nice coat"
> line). After that it still stayed in really close during the fight
> scenes so I didn't really get a good feel of what was going on.
That's action films ATM I'm afraid.
> Hampered by the previous example of what happened.
Which doesn't apply until film 4.
> Which is actually kind of funny. "Batman Forever" is my favorite of
> that run. I thought it had a nice balance of the lighter and darker
> stuff. It's only drawback was too many villains. I'd have liked to see
> them go from one villain to the other in the story.
Yes. That is a major problem as the films progress... too many
heroes, too many villains... which make me worry about JLA.
> "Batman & Robin" was just a mess. Too much Schumacher, not enough
> Burton I guess.
Too much Schumacher thinking he could do know wrong. "The fans hated
the nipples, but the film did well... this film needs Bigger Nipples!"
> Yep. Though I wonder how adjusting for amost 10 years would affect that?
Dunno. None of them make the adjust-for-inflation top 100. Although,
only Superman Returns makes the unadjusted list.
> But is Batman being in a JL movie worth $50 if the hype showing The
> Question and/or Green Arrow really takes off? JL IS a team movie after all.
OK, I have a problem with this argument that you keep making, over and
over.
That Superman/Batman will be a bad movie but Captain Marvel/Captain
Marvel will be good.
I can't see it working like that. Changing those characters won't
make the film "better" or "worse".
But having Superman/Batman will make the film earn more money upon
openning... which directly effects how much the movie makes and
indirectly effects it.
Thus a good Superman/Batman film will make more money than a good
Green Arrow/Captain Marvel film.
A crap Green Arrow/Captain Marvel film will make less money than a
crap Superman/Batman film.
Thus, whatever happens, Warner Brothers gets more money if they
include Superman/Batman.
> I think Superman's kind of a moot point, at least since I haven't heard
> of the Superman franchise players being miffed.
I think they are glad the pressure is taken off them.
> That depends on the hype around it and how good (or bad) the JL movie
> itself is.
Yes, but whether the film is good or bad, Superman/Batman brings in
more bums on seats.
> In that first weekend. And that's if it's not another Catwoman, which
> came out of the starting gate with everyone having heard that it sucked.
Yes. Let's say that the film sucks. Sucks so bad it made, basically
50% of it's take in the openning week (like Catwoman). And let's
assume a $200 million budget.
Superman/Batman: $50million openning, $100 million take. $100 million
loss.
Captain Marvel/Green Arrow: $25million openning, $50 million take.
$150 million loss.
Which would Warner prefer?
> Superman Returns?
Yes.
> It doesn't automatically change a JL film from crap to good.
I never said or implied that.
I said that either way, it makes more money if Superman/Batman are in
it.
> It replaces currently in-play franchise characters with other characters in
> similar roles.
No, it doesn't.
> Also, like I said, you could, at least in theory, make a really good JL
> movie with lesser names, while a JL movie with all the big guns doesn't
> guarantee you a masterpiece.
Yes, but Warner will make more or loss less if they include Batman &
Shaun
> "Justice Babies"?
I'm not the first person to call it that... That's based on how
they're casting (or planning to cast) all young, barely in their 20's,
kids to play these parts. God forbid they cast people who look like,
ADULTS to play these parts. Right now, what's been talked about seems
to be taking the casts of every show that ever airead on the WB/CW
(except Smallville, LOL) and auditioning all of those actors. Again,
if you're gonna go that route why not just do Teen Titans? Name
recognition aside, it's more believable.
Shaun
Shaun
> Wow, yeah. Babies.
Whatever. Maybe the people being discussed are a bit older than I
thought, but not by a lot... And there's the matter of looking young
too. Form the pics I've seen of most of these people, no one strikes
me as an imposing hero-type. I mean, why cast people like these when
you, perhaps could have the likes of a Catherine Zeta-Jones or Lucy
Lawless for Wonder Woman? I don't see them as "too old" at all. I see
them as what Wonder Woman should actually look like.
Shaun
badth...@yahoo.com
Because they want sequels and when you see a 50-year-old Robert Downey
Jr. in Iron Man 3 you'll understand.
Duggy
> On Oct 18, 7:51 am, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>
> > "Justice Babies"?
>
> I'm not the first person to call it that... That's based on how
> they're casting (or planning to cast) all young, barely in their 20's,
> kids to play these parts.
Sounds perfect, since they want to do a franchise.
> God forbid they cast people who look like, ADULTS to play these parts.
People in their 20s are adults.
> Right now, what's been talked about seems
> to be taking the casts of every show that ever airead on the WB/CW
So?
They've played teenagers in the past so they can't play people in
their early to mid twenties?
Riiiight.
> (except Smallville, LOL)
Yeah. Funny.
> and auditioning all of those actors.
Auditioning, not casting.
> Again, if you're gonna go that route why not just do Teen Titans?
Because Teen Titans need to be 10 years younger than that. Duh.
Plus, JLA has bigger names than the Teen Titans.
> Name recognition aside,
Very important.
> it's more believable.
No. It isn't.
> Whatever.
The standard dismissal of the stupid and wrong.
> Maybe the people being discussed are a bit older than I thought,
No. You didn't think. Some idiot made a claim and you swallowed it
without thinking.
> but not by a lot...
By enough.
> And there's the matter of looking young too.
Because people who look young usually remain looking young for
longer... meaning the franchise will last longer before people start
making the Star Trek XIII: Old People's Home jokes.
> Form the pics I've seen of most of these people, no one strikes
> me as an imposing hero-type.
Because they're casting for the beginning of the story? For the
normal people becoming the imposing hero type.
Because they've told casting agents they want people who look like...
and all the known names don't look like imposing hero types.
> I mean, why cast people like these when
you, perhaps could have the likes of a Catherine Zeta-Jones
Who is 39 next year when filming. 40 when it comes out. 42 when they
make 2, 45 when they make 3.
Yeah, seems like a young Princess Diana when she first leaves
Themsycra.
Plus, imdb has her pulling in 3 - 8 mill for films. She'd probably
demand 10 for JLA.
> or Lucy Lawless for Wonder Woman?
Take the ages for CZJ, and add a year.
Plus, the Xena think makes it nothing but stunt casting. Stunt
casting makes a film look tacky.
Sure, Lucy can fly, and that will cut the FX budget.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead is 23... making her 24 in #1, 30 for #3.
She's not a huge name so she's not going to be demanding millions to
play the part.
She looks young enough to have to hide her identity from her mother
(Can you see CZJ or LL doing that without looking like they are
mentally challenged in some way?)
She almost pulled off being a villain is Sky High so I think she could
do it. She acted in Bobby so we know she can act.
Minka Kelly is older, 28 in #1, 34 in #3.
> I don't see them as "too old" at all.
Then you've missed the point entirely.
> I see them as what Wonder Woman should actually look like.
Really? Are they making Kingdom Come?
===
= DUG.
===