Justice League Movie: Blogged and Memo to WB

[Jake Cassidy]

That is a good idea.

They would have to do a lot of editing to get the key scenes for each characters. Even if there are five of them it'd take a decent amount of time to get that in the credit sequence. I'm sure it can be done, though.

They won't have to do Batman's and Superman's origins. Everyone already knows them, to a degree.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea supes/bats dont really need them explained.

 

[dnno1]

You also don't put in movies that came out in different decades, were made with no budget, went direct-to-video, or starred a cast of nobodies when discussing the prospects of big budget solo movies for League members like Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, or Flash. That's what is called "a stupid comparison."

Why not? Bryan Singer certainly considered the fact that there were four other Superman films written over the course of 30 years or more when he started "Superman Returns". He looked at both the good and the bad parts about the franchise and tried to emulate the strong points by respecting the work done by Richard Donner (not Richard Lester). Low budget films should be considered as well. Like I had mentioned before, if you look at trends on films, you will see that a good number of horror films are done on a relatively low budget and wind up being profitable. If you want to write/direct a superhero film in that style that might be a way to go ("Darkman" is a perfect example of that). Films that go DTV can tell you either of two things: the film was not good enough to market in (American) theaters (ala "The Punisher" '89) or it may be more profitable to marketing to consumers for home viewing (ala the current animated DTV's). You are assuming that characters like Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern are big budget franchises, when they can not be compared to the likes of Spider-Man, Superman, or Batman. Remember, Wonder Woman saw a TV series that lasted 3 years on two different networks on the merits of T&A (and has not been able to repeat such success in 30 years), the flash did not even complete a season on TV (and they tried to model him as a dark character), and Green Lantern has restarted at least 4 times in the comics and has no TV series to claim his own. That's a lot to overcome and I wouldn't say their potential for being big budget franchises is all that good based on that history.

WHOA GOOD POINT!!!

You continue to shock me with the downright wacky crap you say. Amazon is a shopping website, people go there to SHOP. Very few people go there to actually post reviews; the handful who do are pretty much already fanboys of the product in question. You only get one side of the story from an insignificant amount of people...therefore it is ******ed to use a few Amazon.com user reviews to argue that a critical and box office flop like freaking Ultraviolet was considered a good move, which you have done.

You know, one thing that merchandising retailers do very well is take statistics. That is all part of marketing and is a necessary evil. Once again, I would tend to trust them more than Rotten Tomatoes, which is more like reading your horoscope than anything else.

IMDB typically has thousands, if not tens or a hundred thousand user reviews for movies that see a wide release. There are good as well as bad reviews. Therefore, IMDB can give a better idea of what people actually think.

I may have mentioned this before in another thread, but just because they have a large number of reviews or large sample sizes for their statistical data does not imply that their data is any good nor accurate. People are free to write as many reviews on a subject as they like and the site is subject to influence or persuasion via viral marketing. That is why some of the data the I have seen there is skewed.

More wacky bizarro logic from you. Are you saying that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Fox, therefore you don't trust it?

No I am saying that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by the makers of Fox News, and I don't trust it for that reason (but not only that reason).

When the HELL did politics figure into this?

It doesn't. Fox News is a NEWS outfit that is owned by News Corp (i.e. Rupert Murdoch). So is Rotten Tomatoes and MySpace. I don't rather like it when most of the media that I see is controlled by one person (that could be dangerous), and that is why I won't patronize it. It is not necessarily political.

I don't like Fox News either...but that has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Rotten Tomatoes basically tallies up reviews from hundreds of prominent internet and newspaper critics, LINKING to each of their reviews. What you see on RT is what was actually reviewed.

Not necessarily. If you look at the site for the reviews on TDK you would have seen that it had a 98% (fresh) score. If you would have read the reviews from the critics that gave it a rotten score you would have see their reviews actually said that the film was good an that they just didn't think it was Oscar material. That to me doesn't mean that it was a rotten review and hence the fallacy of their rating system.

I'm just going to say it. Only an absolute moron would think that Love and Plutonium fits into the same category as Batman Begins, Spider-Man or proposed big budget movies with Green Lantern or Flash. Only someone who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about would think that Love and Freaking Plutonium can figure into an analysis of how successful a big budget Wonder Woman would be.

That all depends on what category you are talking about. I am talking about superhero genre films, of which Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern would fit into. If it is big budget blockbuster films, there is noting to indicate that they would fall into the same category as the Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man franchises. You know, no data to support the claim?

Only a dishonest punk would call someone "ignorant" or "narrow minded" for not having heard of a low-budget, never-was movie like Love and Plutonium.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. It just means that you don't know about something or maybe don't even care.

Wow, you really are deluded. Please, for YOUR sake, just stop embarrassing yourself. You're the guy who has in the past claimed that

-The classic Wonder Woman costume that shows up in CARTOONS is an R-rating risk (and I'm sure it is, when Joker can mutilate people and get a PG-13)

-A grand total of 25 or some other ridiculously insignificant number of horny fanboy user reviews of Ultraviolet on Amazon.com shows that the movie is well regarded.

-Moviegoer polls about their GENERAL satisfaction level over a period of several years somehow represents their opinion on one specific movie.

-CINO was a good movie.

-People are "ignorant" for not having heard of such blockbuster movies as Love and Plutonium or The Sidekick.

You said all of these things, not me. I can dig up the links too, for anyone who wants to see.

Outside of the total crazies (religious whackjobs, white supremacists), you may be the dimmest and most out-of-touch person I've ever talked to on the internet. Not because you disagree with me, but because you say things that are just so damn wacky, which couldn't have come from any logical thought process.

Yep, that would be correct -- except I said that you were ignorant. I would think that over the three years or more that I have been posting at this site and others I would have earned some respect from a lot of folks. I don't think I have been necessarily wrong and I have had a point. The mere fact that there is only one other person carrying on these lengthy discussions opposing me must mean something.

NO, you compare the chances of a WW, GL, or Flash film to other movies with similar traits, such as

-based on a known comic
-coming out in the same time period (the recent superhero boom)
-big budget
-summer debut

I have to disagree with these premises. There are films that can be considered superhero genre that have been good enough to be successful that have not been based on a comic ("The Incredibles"), not not came out in the same time period ("Superman: The Movie" or "Batman" '89), were not big budget ("Darkman"), nor had a summer debut ("300") that could be used as comparisons. Nobody who is anybody has stated when the release dates for these films you just mentioned will be and that will all depend on what type of competition they will face at the time of their release among other factors. Once again you are painting a pretty picture so as to make these films look like a slam dunk when in actuality they are on the bubble.

Movies with those traits have almost ALL been successful. Only in your BS analysis which throws things off with direct-to-video garbage do things look worse.

That's the key: almost. And what are we looking at here? The Spider-Man films (all released before summer), The X-men films. Batman, Iron-man, and maybe Superman? These are the top tier characters that either side has. What we have left are definitely second tier and there are no garantees that they will be as successful (you can only be 40% certain about that unless you have some better information on it).

Oh look, the broken record, wall-of-ignorance debating "tactic." If you have a problem with one of my points, then deal with it. Repeating your initial assertion again and again doesn't mean you win.

AGAIN, who here thinks that The Incredible Hulk 2008 with Edward Norton received anywhere near the marketing and publicity as Iron Man, Indiana Jones, or The Dark Knight?

If you ask me he had more than Iron-Man since there were a lot of his toys in stores (Hulk hands, action figures, et. al.), a TV show that was re-released to home video, a number of decent trailers and promotional interviews, and, although he did not have a Superbowl spot on TV like Iron Man, did get a TV spot for the NBA playoffs. I can't say the same for Indiana Jones or TDK (I didn't like their trailers as much). All of this doesn't change the fact that the film was released right at the heart of the summer blockbuster season and hence drives me to the conclusion that Marvel Entertainment intended this film to be a summer tent-pole film.

WOW man. Movies of any kind make the bulk of their money when they first come out. 3 weeks later and even a smash hit film isn't really anything to worry about. Even 1 week later and a movie has already lost a lot of steam.

As I read this I think about the returns on "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope". That film only made $1.5 million in its first week (a late May start). It's returns steadily increased each week up to the July 4th weekend where it spiked at almost $7.5 million and ranged between 5 to 8 million into late September. The film's box office returns started to loose steam in December of that year (1977). This is jut proof that not all movies of any kind perform as you described. "The Incredible Hulk" was a disappointment because it was intended to be a summer blockbuster film but wound up not being anymore popular than its predecessor ("The Hulk").

A movie that comes out nearly a freaking MONTH after Indiana Jones isn't competing with Indiana Jones. Only in Bizarro dnno1 world is it competing.

Whenever I see those films in the top ten together at any given time, somebody is comparing them and that implies a competition.

Yeah that crappy, short-lived cartoon that was syndicated on Sunday instead of being on network TV on Saturday was really something.

It's funny how I remember it though (as well as the 1960's one). Come to think of it, Porky Pig and Tennessee Tuxedo had shows on Sundays back in the day.

Oh, he was known...

Then there is nothing else to discuss about it then. He was known enough or had people intrested to make over a half billion dollars at the box office.

Therefore, the 2008 Iron Man movie is evidence that WW, GL, or Flash do not suffer too much from a lack of popularity to be the subject of a hit movie.

I don't think these characters are as popular as Iron-Man as to why they do not have projects green-lit while they are already talking about a second Iron-Man film.

Oh yeah, the Superman franchise starring Christopher Reeve was still alive when there were rumors of Nicholas Cage, a gooey black costume-in-a-can, CIA agent Luthor and gay robots fighting polar bears. Anybody with half a brain knew the franchise was dead, and you're playing word games if you try to argue that it wasn't.

No, I said the Superman franchise was still alive. The fact that there was someone (Kevin Smith and others) writing screenplays, directors working on the development, and/or an actor tied to the filmk is "proof of life".

1. Watchmen isn't pandering to the tween crowd.
2. Watchmen doesn't have a cast of people who would look RIDICULOUS as their supposed characters (shady 5'9 punk Superman, Jay Baruchel as the big bad, some college-age kid as Batman).
3. Watchmen released materials to assure the fans, instead of being all hush-hush as if the WB was ashamed and had something to hide.

I don't see how your first two points counter anything I had written (your second point is more opinionated than anything else). As for your third point, the producers never got far enough with the project to show us anything worth assuring outside of the cast and nay sayers were against it from the day it was conceived. They selfishly didn't want it to interfere with the existing Nolan and Singer projects.

Except that history shows that it does (Jack Black GL killed, Raimi pressed into including Venom despite not wanting to), and it's obvious that businessmen are where they are by pleasing their customers. Keep crying about the fact that I'm not giving my respect to any old director by default.

Just because a few folks on SHH and Bluetights.net complained about it doesn't mean that they can claim victory over that. Didn't you consider the fact that the suits didn't like the pitch even with Jack Black in the lead role and that they might have had a bigger vision for the project?

 

[The Major]

Remember, Wonder Woman saw a TV series that lasted 3 years on two different networks on the merits of T&A (and has not been able to repeat such success in 30 years), the flash did not even complete a season on TV (and they tried to model him as a dark character), and Green Lantern has restarted at least 4 times in the comics and has no TV series to claim his own. That's a lot to overcome and I wouldn't say their potential for being big budget franchises is all that good based on that history.

Wasn't the Linda Carter WW a hit for WB?

You're right that it was a tv show which relied on T & A to sell but it did give the WW a foundation to build off in the public's consciousness.

There's also the fact that WW always had more potential then what that tv show was revealing. The budget restrictions and the era where camp was "in" kept it from reaching its potential in live action. WB doesn't have to deal with those restrictions anymore.

WB has never actually shown the real WW to the public until recently. JLU got the ball rolling. It wasn't perfect but it proved she could still be popular and relevant to the public.

She's finally getting her own solo project with the animated dvd. It's been 20 years since WB gave WW that treatment as a solo character.

It really shouldn't have taken that long, either. While batman and Superman got numerous live action shows and cartoon she's been MIA. No wonder it's going to be tougher for the public to get to know her with that. Hopefully things will be looking up for the WW franchise in those mediums in the future.

GL's concept made it impossible for a tv show to be made of it. A cartoon would have been much more difficult to execute then Superman or Batman. Just because a comic franchise doesn't have a cartoon or tv show doesn't mean it can't be successful. Many, many franchises don't get that oppotunity whether it be from companies not know they exist, they are busy with adapting something else which has a history of success in other mediums or their resources are limited. It could be all of the above.

A comic series relaunch means nothing. Especially when that franchise has several leads which rotate as who the star is in it. Comics routinely get a new #1 since they sell better even when the series isn't failing in sales. If a new character is taking over the mantle usually the title is restarted, as well. Then there's creative "reboots" like Heroes Reborn. They relaunch when another character can take over the title like GL though sometimes they don't do this. A comic failing in the stands doesn't mean it cant be a successful film, either. If the concept is great and the film makers or people making a cartoon or tv show have the skills to make a good version the public can like it can succeed.

Franchises like Hellboy don't even have an ongoing, it's just mini-series so it gets lots of #1's. Iron Man has had many restarts in the comics then GL, if not more, and that didn't stop its movie from being successful.

That's the key: almost. And what are we looking at here? The Spider-Man films (all released before summer), The X-men films. Batman, Iron-man, and maybe Superman?These are the top tier characters that either side has.

Iron Man and X-men only became top tier after the movies, not before. I'd place X-men slightly above IM in popularity and familiarity due to its cartoon series which did much better.

What we have left are definitely second tier and there are no garantees that they will be as successful (you can only be 40% certain about that unless you have some better information on it).

Being a second tier franchise doesn't mean it'll automatically fail or succeed. It can come down to how a business treats the franchise in other mediums since it will affect what the public knows or sees it as and/or delivering a movie adaption the pubic will enjoy.

Outside of comics no-one knew Blade, 300 and V For Vendetta existed and they still did well in film since it was given a good introductions with the movies.

There are no guarantees in making movies. Sure, they can see some things and lessen the odds but in the end they're still speculating how a film will do.

They can improve their odds by working with their other divisions like animation, video-games and tv to get the public interested before launching the films. Thankfully WB has started doing this with lesser comic franchises more now then keeping it just for Superman and Batman.

 

[dnno1]

Wasn't the Linda Carter WW a hit for WB?

You're right that it was a tv show which relied on T & A to sell but it did give the WW a foundation to build off in the public's consciousness.

Although the series had decent ratings (top 25 or so) it didn't get picked up for a second season by the American Broadcasting Company. The Columbia Brodcasting Company (CBS) picked it up, but after two seasons suspended it indefinitely in lieu of sit-com programing. I don't know how much of a foundation it left in the minds of the public since there wasn't enough of an uproar after the suspension of the series to have it either continued on, restarted, or even picked up by another network.

There's also the fact that WW always had more potential then what that tv show was revealing. The budget restrictions and the era kept it from reaching its potential in live action. WB doesn't have to deal with those restrictions anymore.

WB has never actually shown the real WW to the public until recently. JLU got the ball rolling. It wasn't perfect but it proved she could still be popular and relevant to the public.

Certainly in hindsight after seeing the JLU version of Wonder Woman and how she is currently portrayed in the comics we can say that she had more potential, but considering the era that the TV series was released in it should be understood that that potential wasn't going to be exploited. In the 1970's the kind of violence on television that we are accustomed today was under a lot of scrutiny so there was very little kicking and punching seen in the series. I don't know so much that it was the budget restrictions that prevented the so called reaching of the full potential for the series, but rather that the technology to perform the types of stunts and feats that we were seeing (and are still seeing) in the comics were not there. It was only two years after the Wonder Woman series started that Superman was flying without a blue screened diving board in theaters.

She's finally getting her own solo project with the animated dvd. It's been 20 years since WB gave WW that treatment as a solo character.

Actually it's closer to 30. The the TV series ended in 1979 and the solo animated DTV won't be released until early 2009.

It really shouldn't have taken that long, either. While batman and Superman got numerous live action shows and cartoon she's been MIA. No wonder it's going to be tougher for the public to get to know her with that. Hopefully things will be looking up for the WW franchise in those mediums.

I think they tried to start up a series around the time that Xena was running (Julie Strain even had a shot at the role). That fell through the cracks. Let's face it. Wonder Woman is not Superman or Batman. That is part of why she hasn't been able to get he own solo projects in the last 30 years.

GL's concept made it impossible for a tv show to be made of it. A cartoon would have been much more difficult to execute then Superman or Batman. Just because a comic franchise doesn't have a cartoon or tv show doesn't mena it can't be successful. Many, many franchises don't get that oppotunity whether it be from companies not know they exist, they are busy with adapting something else which has a history of success in other mediums or their resources are limited. It could be all of the above.

That's not why he didn't get a TV show. It was because he was not Superman or Batman either (not popular enough) among other things. In any case in the last 30 years we did get these clips of him:

A comic series relaunch means nothing. Especially when that franchise has several leads in it. Comics routinely get a new #1 since they sell better even when the series isn't failing in sales. If a new character is taking over the mantle usually the title is restarted, as well. Then there's creative "reboots" like Heroes Reborn.

That's just it. If the character were popular (or if they would have tried harder to make him so) they wouldn't have reinvented him three different times over the last 50 years. They only did that once to Batman and I don't recall that ever happening to Superman. This is excluding any reinterpretations of the characters in the way of powering them down or making them darker but rather changing the character physically.

Franchises like Hellboy don't even have an ongoing, it's just mini-series so it gets lots of #1's. Iron Man has had many restarts in the comics, if not more, then GL and that didn't stop its movie from being successful.

And you can see it's reception at the box office. The only reason why the project is getting by is because it is being produced on a low budget.

Iron Man and X-men only became top tier after the movies, not before. I'd place X-men slightly above IM in popularity and familiarity due to its cartoon series which did much better.

X-Men was the hottest selling comic when I was in high school back in the late 1970's and Iron Man has been in at least three titles since then (he is in at least 8 now). I don't know exactly what you mean by them not being top tier, because they sure are selling like they are.

Being a second tier franchise doesn't mean it'll automatically fail. It comes down to how a business treats the franchise in other mediums since it will affect what the pubic knows or sees it as. Outside of comics no-one knew Blade existed it still did well in film since it was given a good introduction with the movie.

And if it wasn't for Wesly Snipes, and a low budget (it was a monster flick, what do you expect?) I doub't if it would have been a franchise.

There are no guarantees in making movies. Sure, they can see some things and lessen the odds but in the end they're still speculating how a film will do.

You got that right.

They can improve their odds by working with their other divisions like animation, video-games and tv before launching the films. Thankfully WB has started doing this more then keeping it for Superman and Batman.

I think that is what they have been doing all along.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Why not? Bryan Singer certainly considered the fact that there were four other Superman films written over the course of 30 years or more when he started "Superman Returns".

1. Bryan Singer has been proven to be hopelessly devoted to the Donner movies. They were practically the only things he looked to when making Superman Returns.

2. Using the Donner Superman movies (big budget blockbusters using a known character) is nowhere near as out there as what you did, using the direct-to-video Captain America, or other direct-to-video, no-budget movies that nobody ever heard of like freaking Sidekick and Love and Plutonium.

Low budget films should be considered as well.

No, they shouldn't. A big budget Green Lantern movie will blow away freaking LOVE AND PLUTONIUM simply by coming out in the summer and having actual advertising behind it.

Like I had mentioned before, if you look at trends on films, you will see that a good number of horror films are done on a relatively low budget and wind up being profitable.

"Profitable" is relative. The horror movies that are considered mainstream hits are released in theaters, an all-important fact that can't be said for nothing movies like LOVE AND PLUTONIUM. You can't argue this.

You are assuming that characters like Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern are big budget franchises, when they can not be compared to the likes of Spider-Man, Superman, or Batman.

They compare pretty damn well to Iron Man. Something which I've said over and over again but can't seem to get through your thick skull.

Remember, Wonder Woman saw a TV series that lasted 3 years on two different networks on the merits of T&A (and has not been able to repeat such success in 30 years), the flash did not even complete a season on TV (and they tried to model him as a dark character), and Green Lantern has restarted at least 4 times in the comics and has no TV series to claim his own. That's a lot to overcome and I wouldn't say their potential for being big budget franchises is all that good based on that history.

As opposed to Iron Man, who got one short-lived, poorly received syndicated series in the 90s that nobody remembers.

You know, one thing that merchandising retailers do very well is take statistics. That is all part of marketing and is a necessary evil. Once again, I would tend to trust them more than Rotten Tomatoes, which is more like reading your horoscope than anything else.

Wow, how out there can you be? Love and Plutonium being lumped into a GENERAL CATEGORY of superhero movies in Amazon.com based on subject matter is common sense, not the result of careful statistical research by "merchandising retailers."

You honestly scare me with the crazy crap that you say.

I may have mentioned this before in another thread, but just because they have a large number of reviews or large sample sizes for their statistical data does not imply that their data is any good nor accurate. People are free to write as many reviews on a subject as they like and the site is subject to influence or persuasion via viral marketing. That is why some of the data the I have seen there is skewed.

More bizarro talk from you.

You need to register for an account in order to vote on a numerical rating or write a review. Each account only gets to vote ONCE. Of course someone could make multiple accounts...but it's a time consuming process and it's ridiculous to suggest that movies with THOUSANDS of votes saying it's crap is the result of some people making craploads of duplicate accounts.

And any bias you want to claim on IMDB...is a far bigger force on Amazon.com, where the stupidly a small sample size of 25 reviews can easily be thrown off by the handful of horny fanboys who like to get off to Ultraviolet.

I've been through this with you, before. Yet each time you act like you act like it never happened. Either you aren't reading, or you just don't comprehend.

No I am saying that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by the makers of Fox News, and I don't trust it for that reason (but not only that reason)

It doesn't. Fox News is a NEWS outfit that is owned by News Corp (i.e. Rupert Murdoch). So is Rotten Tomatoes and MySpace. I don't rather like it when most of the media that I see is controlled by one person (that could be dangerous), and that is why I won't patronize it. It is not necessarily political.

So stupid. Rupert Murdoch likely doesn't know a damn thing about the goings on at Rotten Tomatoes, or many other parts of his corporate empire. Nothing as large as News Corp is controlled by one man, especially the freaking movie review site that was started by someone else and only bought later.

Not necessarily. If you look at the site for the reviews on TDK you would have seen that it had a 98% (fresh) score. If you would have read the reviews from the critics that gave it a rotten score you would have see their reviews actually said that the film was good an that they just didn't think it was Oscar material. That to me doesn't mean that it was a rotten review and hence the fallacy of their rating system.

Don't try to pull a fast one on me. I just skimmed through all 13 pages of TDK's reviews on Rotten Tomatoes to confirm your claim, because I've learned that you talk nonsense and don't do your homework when it comes to actually finding evidence to support your claims. When someone calls you on your claims (as I do), they fall apart.

Sure enough, the 14 negative reviews that TDK received on RT all genuinely disliked the movie, with opinions including that it was boring, pretentious, too long, too pessimistic, etc. I don't even recall seeing a negative review that the movie was good but just wasn't Oscar material, as you claimed.

dnno1 = liar

And seriously, nitpicking the exact numbers on TDK at RT (which wouldn't have changed a damn thing, RT still says that the VAST majority of critics liked the movie either way) does NOTHING to discredit it to the level that you want to.

That all depends on what category you are talking about. I am talking about superhero genre films, of which Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern would fit into. If it is big budget blockbuster films, there is noting to indicate that they would fall into the same category as the Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man franchises. You know, no data to support the claim?

Iron Man. Fantastic Four. Blade. Hulk. All movies that made big money (disappointment is a relative term, and can easily be ascribed to crap like Ang Lee's stupid decisions). All far more similar to WW or Flash than Love and Freaking Plutonium. Your attempt to lump DC's known heroes in with direct-to-video flops is lame and baseless.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. It just means that you don't know about something or maybe don't even care.

OH PLEASE. I know damn well what you were insinuating, I'm not the mental midget that you are. And I'd like to find a single person who would agree with you that "ignorant" is a fair label for someone who didn't know about Love and Plutonium, a direct-to-video movie starring nobodies, with no advertisement, that nobody saw or remembers.

Yep, that would be correct

So you admit to being a nutcase who thinks that CINO was a good movie, that a sample size of 25 horny fanboy user reviews means jack, or that WW's iconic outfit that shows up on cartoons is an R-rating risk. Thanks.

I would think that over the three years or more that I have been posting at this site and others I would have earned some respect from a lot of folks. I don't think I have been necessarily wrong and I have had a point. The mere fact that there is only one other person carrying on these lengthy discussions opposing me must mean something.

LOL, talking with you is a pain in the ass. You're thick-headed and downright wacky. I HATE responding to you, that's why I only do this once every week on the weekend (and even then, I regret wasting the time). I imagine most other people don't have the time or energy to waste with you.

And I recall quite a few people making fun of you for your opinions on CINO. And others in this very thread disagreeing with your ideas for Justice League.

That's the key: almost. And what are we looking at here? The Spider-Man films (all released before summer), The X-men films. Batman, Iron-man, and maybe Superman?

AGAIN, Fantastic Four (which sucked and STILL made money) and Blade. Iron Man was NOT a top-tier, A-list hero, so stop BSing about that. His public recognition was about the same if not LOWER than the individual League members like WW. Flash, or GL, who were all on Superfriends for years and showed up in multiple other series. Even Daredevil made over $100 million domestic with a February release and horrible critical buzz.

If you ask me he had more than Iron-Man

dnno1 seriously thinks that The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton received more publicity and marketing than freaking IRON MAN.

Any Hulk hands or other crap he wants to bring up are easily countered by the trailers, news articles, and online coverage that Iron Man got.

Add another entry to the file full of outrageous bizarro claims by dnno1.

As I read this I think about the returns on "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope".

The hits just keep coming! I really should compile an official list of dnno1's bizarro claims.

It is a fair statement to say that generally, movies lose steam with subsequent weekends. The reality is that a movie with a 45% drop in its second weekend is considered to have "legs."

Using Star Wars, which took people by surprise 30 years ago and became a cultural phenomenon (i.e., an ANOMALOUS case) doesn't refute that.

Whenever I see those films in the top ten together at any given time, somebody is comparing them and that implies a competition.

So stupid. The "Top Ten" at the box office means jack. Often, movies that debut #2 are thought of to be disappointments or failures. A movie at #5-10 likely isn't even on most people's radars anymore.

Only someone operating on bizarro logic thinks that coming out a month after Indiana Jones means competing with Indiana Jones.

It's funny how I remember it though (as well as the 1960's one). Come to think of it, Porky Pig and Tennessee Tuxedo had shows on Sundays back in the day.

YOU remember it. Congrats.

Ask any twenty-something nowadays what they thought about the X-Men cartoon in the 90s, and they'll all remember it and probably speak fondly of it. Ask most people what they thought about the 90s Iron Man cartoon and they probably wouldn't know what the hell you're talking about.

Then there is nothing else to discuss about it then. He was known enough or had people intrested to make over a half billion dollars at the box office.

So stupid. There is a WORLD of difference between Iron Man being barely known, and being an A-list icon on par with Superman or Spider-Man, which makes it impossible to compare Iron Man to the likes of Green Lantern or Flash.

I don't think these characters are as popular as Iron-Man as to why they do not have projects green-lit while they are already talking about a second Iron-Man film.

MORE bizarro logic. WW, GL, and Flash aren't as popular as Iron Man because they don't have green lit projects from the WB, a studio NOTORIOUS for not being able to develop ANY of their superhero franchises, up to and including Superman?

No, I said the Superman franchise was still alive. The fact that there was someone (Kevin Smith and others) writing screenplays, directors working on the development, and/or an actor tied to the filmk is "proof of life".

Someone writing an unused screenplay that had nothing to do with what came before or after, years after the previous Superman movie, and years before Superman Returns is "life" to you? I'm not going to bother with BS semantics like this.


I'm seriously just wasting time debating someone who doesn't comprehend normal human logic.

 

[BH/HHH]

I agree with Kevin Smith here

 

[protocida]

Kevin Smith, you're completelly right and i firmly believe that's what it's going to happen (Despite de 2010 releasde date)

 

[Evil Twin]

Although the series had decent ratings (top 25 or so) it didn't get picked up for a second season by the American Broadcasting Company. The Columbia Brodcasting Company (CBS) picked it up, but after two seasons suspended it indefinitely in lieu of sit-com programing. I don't know how much of a foundation it left in the minds of the public since there wasn't enough of an uproar after the suspension of the series to have it either continued on, restarted, or even picked up by another network.

WW didn't get picked up because a WWII period setting was very expensive for a show to pull off week after week, despite the ratings. That's why when it was given a second life it was updated to a contemporary period.

There are tons of shows that would like to get three seasons. Heck, Adam West's Batman, despite it's long lasting appeal, only lasted three seasons before burning out.