Your pretty much saying the Lakers and the Dream Team are similar cause they play basketball....
That's not what I said at All. Although that IS a similarity between them, yes...
The fact of the matter is, if a movie is advertised well enough, and if it ends up actually being a good enough movie, it will make money. These characters were cool enough and interesting enough to maintain popularity in comic books for decades, there's no reason they cant do the same in film given the chance.
Here's the thing. INDIANA JONES...STAR WARS...those movies didn't cost 200 million dollars a pop. Or anything close to it, even adjusting for infation.
Yeah, i guess you could... But it's really not so much about what will work, as it is what will work best. You could briefly throw out explanation, audiences will kinda get it and they'll accept it, but it wont be as good as it can be.
That's why you spend the entire movie BUILDING the characters. Showing their motivations. Hints at their origins.
It wont be as good as it would be if all these characters had an entire movie, or more, to be developed and explored on their own, before being thrust together.
How so? A character is a character. Did we need an entire movie about Pippin and his origins to appreciate him in LOTR? I've read JLA stories that make me not CARE where Flash came from, because the way he's written is more interesting than when he's on his own. it's all in the writing.
Actually Thor is being directed by Matthew Vaughn, Captain America is next on the slate, and an Avengers script is already being written.
Ok, Matthew Vaughn is attached to THOR. Can you tell me the plot? How about a release date? Sam Jackson is being set up as Nick Fury, and I mentioned that earlier. CAPTAIN AMERICA gets talked about, but again, tell me the plot and the release date. As far as THE AVENGERS, it's being written by Zak Penn (Wow, it's guaranteed to be Oscar-caliber). Do you know how many superhero projects he's worked on that simply died, or were taken over later? Again, no release date, no director, no plot details. None of those three films seems to be casting right now.
They beauty of Marvels plan is that they give themselves alot of time to really create a full rounded universe and hammer out any problems with the script.
Funny how movies about Marvel characters keep turning up chock full of script problems, isn't it?
Here we go, the classic "let me take your post and break it apart so we can go back and forth" game played on so many times on Hype. Aight, lets play tennis.....
So you have a problem with me addressing each of your points? Giving each of your points the time and respect it deserves? Fair enough. Just for you, I'll make my next response to you an enormous block of text.
How will a JLA film if unsuccessful help future DC projects? That's kinda my point.
Yeah. I know. Your point seems to assume JLA will be a failure. here's the thing...how will ANY failed DC superhero film help any of the heroes? I would much rather be GUARANTEED to see a film in 2009 with all my heroes in it that fails...than see one in 2008 with say, Wonder Woman that fails, and see none of the other heroes because WB is afraid to risk it. It's that simple. At least with JLA, we get to see those other heroes.
Superman Returns made less than $200 mil in it domestic cinema run and that put the sequel (which was a gaurnteed thing) in question even now. One day its one, the next its off, then its on, now its off...So you can imagine what all future projects status will result in...The fact that it took them this long to be in limbo with other DC characters movies speaks volume.
Perfect example. But in this fairly uncertain market, you want them to commit to MULTIPLE solo films, each at a huge price tag, in the hopes they'll all be wildly popular and then JLA can happen? Seeing SUPERMAN RETURNS box office issues, you should understand why WB is reluctant to make, say, GREEN LANTERN. To be done right, you're talking at LEAST 180 million dollars. Now, if SUPERMAN RETURNS barely made back it's money, and this is SUPERMAN, we're talking about, the most famous and revered hero of all time...can you see why WB would be reluctant to drop a similar amount of money on Green Lantern?
Well if you read my post, I said its gonna be hard to introduce the characters without an introduction. Movies with too many characters is always a problem, its even a bigger problem with too many good guys, so pacing is everything and you have to knock out a hell of a story. This goes to my point that if there gonna do that, then it would be best to get someone who knows about the characters like Dini, Beeman or even Goyer (People who know the comic book world/fantasy world and bridge adaptions to film and TV) and I simply have no vote of confidence on a team who's only writing credit is a redraft of Mr and Mrs. Smith. And I'm one of the most leinent dudes. Its askiing a lot for that much of an inexperienced duo. I aint buying no magic beans just to hope for a beanstalk.
Good writers can make it work. Easily. Why would the film introduce the characters without an introduction? That's what films are for. Introducing characters. X-MEN introduced several of them, and people handled it just fine.
Oh yeah? Excuse me I forgot about that blockbuster Flash movie....that era defining Green Latern Franchise and of course of that successful Aquaman show? What's that? They didnt happen?
I didn't say individual films of these heroes would be an easy sell...I said these heroes, period, are not hard to make people like. Which is why WB is putting them all together in one film.
The biggest attempt to bring the DC universe to a wide audience was Justice League Unlimited and that **** got cancelled after 2 years.
Try four seasons. Two seasons of JL and two of JLU. It maintained decent ratings in a difficult slot, and still sells very well for a cartoon. It also had massive toy and merchandise sales.
The Flash TV show flopped so did the Aquaman. Why? Because there's no rich mainstream history.
No, my friend. That is not why those shows flopped. Much as I hate to say this, THE FLASH was just a subpar show, period. Unimaginative, formulaic writing. AQUAMAN, the unaired pilot, was just utter ****e. Poorly written and terribly acted. There's a reason it's unaired.
Really outside of the big 3, non-comic book fans dont care about the DC Universe and only Batman has sustained a long level of intrest.
You say this, and yet you clamor for individual hero films? I don't get that logic.
Again had you read my original post, what WB should have done was bring these characters up individually, read the years of comic book history and market them as franchises on there own. They are a major pedigree blockbuster studio and it shouldnt have been hard. All they had to was market them and produce stories that focused on the heroes indvidually. But they didnt, and there still not doing it.
Another person who thinks money grows on trees. Do you have 1.4 billion dollars you're willing to lay out so they can make a few solo films?
Because one rebooted Batman franchise, an in-limbo Superman franchise and ONE Justice League film is too many projects......Stop the floodgates Mr. Didio and Mr. Horn!
Three movies in a three or four year period is too many? But it's cool to see 3, 4 Marvel movies a year?
But again this is my point, a 2 hour film is not gonna make people gonna care about them if they didnt have anything outside of comics and a short lived animation to care about them enough. Like I said the WB has a studio showed have grown these characters into franchise the natural way.
You really think people won't care about these characters unless there are solo films, don't you? But good writer can make people care about characters, period. For instance, before SCHINDLER'S LIST, I'd never heard of the man. After the movie, I certainly cared. Ditto ANY movie that has good characterization and an interesting plot.
First of all no business whatsoever operates on luck. Ball your fist up and hit yourself in the face repeatedly for thinking like that.
Yes, luck is a part of business. Not the biggest part, but in Marvel's case, definitely.
What they did was pitch the characters to the studios that saw a market for these type of films and wanted a piece of them so they could have there own franchise tentpoles. They did that successfully, they showed the appeal and history of the characters in the books and the sales from it.The result was big studios like New Line, Columbia and Fox picking projects up. if the films were not good, at least Marvel had the money from the sold rights and from the other sales of comic books and merchandise to finance there own studio( the results of which come next summer).
Marvel got screwed. And they know it. Why do you think they're forming their own movie studio?
DC didnt even have to go through all that they had a studio ready who had the rights. And WB in turn ( like I said in the post before) has a history of diverese blockbuster franchises from Matrix, to Harry Potter, to Dirty Harry to even the friggin Police Academy ( I dont care how bad they were, in the 80's they were good enough to make money for 6 sequels!), so how hard could it be? Could they not look at the comics and see the popularity of Green Arrow, Flash, Aqua, GL etc.?
POLICE ACADEMY movies don't cost $200 million a pop. Neither do most of WB's films.
That's my point, outside of Superman and Batman what have they done? Not too much.
Several HARRY POTTER films, which eat up a LOT of WB's budget (and give back, obviously). They also made BATMAN BEGINS, SUPERMAN RETURNS, and
CONSTANTINE. And here comes WATCHMEN.
Not enough to warrant holding a company for over 30 years.
Superheroes have only been this popular as movie items in the last seven years or so. It's like like people were clamoring for a GREEN LANTERn movie in 1980.
Marvel at least knocked out more with no owned studio. You dont need 300 million for a Green Latern film. Superman Returns, All the Batman films, Spider-Man didnt need that kinda money, Firefly didnt.
BATMAN BEGINS needed 170. SUPERMAN RETURNS cost about the same. GREEN LANTERN would take effects FAR BEYOND what those films require. Far beyond.
You can also make a decent Green Arrow movie for the same price as the first Blade film.
And they're planning one, aren't they?
But lets say hypothetically your coked-up theory that the WB would make a 300 mil GL film. That still doesnt make the JL movie an accurate indication of intrest in him if he's in the supporting role.
I thought I said 200 mill. It makes JLA an indication of lighter, more fun superheroes in general.
That is my point, people arent gonna give a flying phuck. You gotta make individual movies and projects and sell them on the appeal of why they were popular in the comics. Your the WB, have confidence in your project instead of balling them together and throwing them out there. Do you read my points? And if a movie is oversaturated with too many characters and no direction and groundwork origin, then it IS going to be a bad film.
Of course I read your points. Doesn't this whole "breakdown" tend to point in that direction?
Good enough to have its own franchise though and a spin off show.
It was decent, nothing spectacular. it had a niche market, but then, so does ALIENS VS. PREDATOR. The show, however, was terrible, and was quickly cancelled? Why? There was little to no demand for it.
I had to skip some of the end of your post because I'm on a library computer. Apologies. If you want me to address something I missed, I will.
Which again proves my point that Marvel is more smart enough to launch the characters alone then making a movie with them all first. Thor already has a director and there jus thinking about casting. WB looks even stupider for not doing it this way at least.
Do you know how long Marvel has been "talking" about doing THOR, SUB-MARINER, CAPTAIN AMERICA, etc? Over eight years. Eight. They've also talked about ANT-MAN, IRON FIST, NICK FURY, BLACK WINDOW, HAWKEYE, DEADPOOL and THE AVENGERS. They've managed not to make any of those. In eight years. They do have IRON MAN and THE INCREDIBLE HULK in the works, I guess.
