I honestly don't think there's any point in doing a Solo movie for everyone first at this point. I mean is one of those movies going to be GL? What if the Flash or WW flop that bad?? People won't like a Batman reboot at this point.
And it would just seem like a second class copy of the Avengers formula. It certainly wouldn't have that feel of something Original like Avengers pulled off.
They just need to build hype for it somehow (on top of having a good Director, Cast and Plot), and TV could be a good medium to get people excited for some of these characters. Whilst in the process they could at least dominate the small screen medium for superheroes.
Yep. Supposedly the movie focuses on the trinity. Batman supes and ww. Well they just had a huge batan trilogy, man of steel comes out next year and ww will have her own tv show. It doeant make sense to have solo moviea now. Not to mentiin that they want to keep a good distance from the gl movie that came out not too long ago.
The batman reboot will come out in 2016, so the movie will set the tone for the solo movies.
god no.
Originally posted by Golgo13
Not all of their movies are failures either. They got lucky with nolan, but that doesnt mean they cant duplicate another success. The script has been in the works for awhile, even before the avengers was launched.
green lantern and superman returns are two of the biggest offenders. and now their deal with nickelodeon or whatever kids channel it is, is in trouble.
in the works for that long usually means they haven't been able to nail down or decide, probably because twenty executives are all trying to get their way. being in the works that long is a bad thing.
Originally posted by -Pr-
god no.green lantern and superman returns are two of the biggest offenders. and now their deal with nickelodeon or whatever kids channel it is, is in trouble.
in the works for that long usually means they haven't been able to nail down or decide, probably because twenty executives are all trying to get their way. being in the works that long is a bad thing.
Superman Returns wasn't a complete failure, because it made it's money back.
What deal with Nickelodeon are you talking about?
This is why they are hoping MOS will lead the way to a JL movie, which sets the tone for future solo movies. Robinov has a plan, he just needs to stick with it.
Originally posted by Golgo13
Superman Returns wasn't a complete failure, because it made it's money back.What deal with Nickelodeon are you talking about?
This is why they are hoping MOS will lead the way to a JL movie, which sets the tone for future solo movies. Robinov has a plan, he just needs to stick with it.
It made it's money back, but didn't do nearly as well as they'd hoped it would. not to mention it being, well, crap.
How all the shows suddenly went on hiatus until the new year.
WB has had plans before. I'm going to reserve judgement, and i see no reason to be optimistic just yet.
Originally posted by juggernaut74
Yea, Superman Returns grossed more than Captain America and Thor adjusted for inflation, though it did have a higher budget. Heck I think it even grossed more than X-Men: First Class, Ghost Rider: SOV, Wolverine and The Inredible Hulk so I don't get why people say it's a failure.
because it had an obscenely high budget, and was a critical failure.
A lot of movies don't do as good as the executives hope, but at least it made it's money back and thus not a total failure. I'm not being optimistic yet, either, I'm more interested than anything, because WB has put a tight lid on things.
Once I know the cast, look/feel of the movie, and director, than I'll start to judge things and even then, it can still turn out good. There were tons of negatives when people first saw Heath and Hathaway as Catwoman, but it turned out well.
Originally posted by juggernaut74
Yea, Superman Returns grossed more than Captain America and Thor adjusted for inflation, though it did have a higher budget. Heck I think it even grossed more than X-Men: First Class, Ghost Rider: SOV, Wolverine and The Inredible Hulk so I don't get why people say it's a failure.
👆 Some of those like X-Men First Class didn't do as expected in box office either, but it was still awesome. I actually prefer X-Men First Class to Avengers. It was much more memorable.
Ghost Rider and Punisher were also failures, along with the last Blade movies.
Like I said before, there is a rumor going around that Gina Carano will have a cameo in MOS. They are still casting for WW for the TV show.
Just a rumor, but seeing as Supes and WW are going out in the comics, they might do the same in the movies.
I don't think Superman Returns did make it's money back. I've heard movies have to make considerably more than their production cost to break even because the Cinema's take their share of the ticket price.
And SR's production cost was around $250mill and it did not even make $400mill.
But the real reason SR was a complete failure is because whatever money it made was just from having the name Superman. I mean jeez can you imagine if The Amazing Spiderman made less than $400mill!
Whilst something like Thor did incredibly well because besides tripling it's budget cost it had to fight the fact that not many people knew who Thor even was!
Originally posted by DARTH POWERWhilst something like Thor did incredibly well because besides tripling it's budget cost it had to fight the fact that not many people knew who Thor even was!
That's why people need to be more open minded to new comic book characters besides relying on the same old ones they all know and love.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I don't think Superman Returns did make it's money back. I've heard movies have to make considerably more than their production cost to break even because the Cinema's take their share of the ticket price.And SR's production cost was around $250mill and it did not even make $400mill.
But the real reason SR was a complete failure is because whatever money it made was just from having the name Superman. I mean jeez can you imagine if The Amazing Spiderman made less than $400mill!
Whilst something like Thor did incredibly well because besides tripling it's budget cost it had to fight the fact that not many people knew who Thor even was!
http://www.cracked.com/funny-758-superman-returns/
Nice article and on the bottom they address if it actually made any money. If you count WW, it made money. Close to or about 400 M.
Originally posted by Golgo13
http://www.cracked.com/funny-758-superman-returns/Nice article and on the bottom they address if it actually made any money. If you count WW, it made money. Close to or about 400 M.
"So did it make money? Yes, of course it did.
But not that much..."
The underlined part is Key.
For the first Superman movie in decades not to make much money is abysmal. Can you imagine if the new Spiderman movie made only $400mill worldwide?? That would have been a disaster! And that was a reboot after only 5 years!
And btw Iron Man even in "gross earnings" did a heck of a lot better than SR. And Iron Man was pretty much an unknown so had very little hype/excitement to it.
Yep. SR being what it was set DC movies back years. Then GL came along and didn't help either.
I honestly think that without Nolan's Batman, we wouldn't have Man of Steel, or what might come after it.
It's sad how the near future of DC movies rests on Superman's shoulders. Though oddly fitting, in a way.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
"So did it make money? Yes, of course it did.But not that much..."
The underlined part is Key.
For the first Superman movie in decades not to make much money is abysmal. Can you imagine if the new Spiderman movie made only $400mill worldwide?? That would have been a disaster! And that was a reboot after only 5 years!
And btw Iron Man even in "gross earnings" did a heck of a lot better than SR. And Iron Man was pretty much an unknown so had very little hype/excitement to it.
But you said it didn't make it's money back, all I said is it did. End of story. 250 compared to 400.