Comic Book Movies: Hollywood's New Westerns (1 Viewer)

[Steve_Tk]

Let's just flood the market with comic book movies, most of them gauranteed flops. Batman was good for a reason. It had a great story. They shove all those movies out over night you can gaurantee Catwoman quality. Wonder woman, are they serious? Just because the comic exist doesn't mean it will sell. Just wow at hollywood.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Of course, you could say the same thing about movies adapted from prose novels, and nobody seems to complain about those.

 

[JonZ]

Woman Woman can be a good movie.

Look at WW: Spirit Of Truth as a example of how to make the character seem less corny.

They have great writers available. I dont know why the hell they dont use them.

 

[Sam Favate]

Studios are concerned with selling a movie to the widest audience possible. That means, to them, sometimes going with the lowest common denominator -- which to us means "bad movies."

 

[dana martin]

well i see the Raimi reference, and tom cruise, but that is not what i want to hear about, Raimi, has the right stuff to truly bring about a pulp charater, that has not been done correctly for the big screen, TDK showed what can be done with a PG13 movie, so where is "The Shadow" that is a trilogy or more in its self, first would have to be vintage period 20's-30's, second could be based off of Chalkins take in the 80's , not he doesnt age but all of the other central players do, third would be modern take, all stories roughly 40 years apart.

and as for new westerns, well Jonah Hex is finished it is a comic book series that was a western

 

[DavidPla]

I agree about Sam Raimi and The Shadow. That's a film I'd like to see get made sooner rather than later. Now is the perfect time with the enormous success of The Dark Knight.

 

[Tim Glover]

Warner shouldn't panick and do anything knee jerkish with regards to Superman....The Dark Knight's success shouldn't get in the way. Singer's a proven director with vision. I hope they can see The Big Picture.

 

[TerryRL]

As the article stated, WB has pretty scrapped Singer's initial "vision" and want a more action oriented sequel, despite Singer's promises of 'Man of Steel' being similar to 'Wrath of Khan'. Singer also expected the writers to return, which isn't happening.

WB is seriously considering a complete reboot ala "Batman Begins", which Singer will probably want nothing to do with. WB still intends on this one going before cameras sometime in '09. We'll see what happens.

 

[Kachi Khatri]

If Singer doesn't alter his "vision" for 'Man of Steel' and turns Supes into another sorry-for-himself deadbeat dad type story than fans and critics alike will turn his so promised 'Wrath of Khan' on him.

His credibility will fall faster than the speeding bullet.

 

[TerryRL]

I agree with you, but WB seems intent on not allowing Singer to turn the next flick into a repeat version of the second film. They want more action and they want Superman to be more "God-like" (the words that are circulating the most among WB brass). They want to shy away from the brooding, sorry-for-myself qualities that Singer (intentional or not) used in 'Returns'.

Again, Singer will either get with the program or choose to leave the project. WB just doesn't want a good movie this time out, they want a great one. The next few months are going to be very interesting.

 

[Pete-D]

So, uh .... when's Michael Bay finished shooting Transformers 2 again?

I'm not a fan of the guy, but if I was running Warner Bros. and only concerned with $$$$, that's the phone call I'd be making right now.

 

[TerryRL]

Bay at one time was very high on the list of possible directors prior to Michael Bay coming aboard (after Brett Ratner and McG both walked off due to tensions with producer Jon Peters). Bay wanted a very American/apple pie take on the material (similar to what he did with "Pearl Harbor"), but WB balked at how much money he wanted to spend to make it ($200 million-plus), which is funny considering that Singer's movie ended up costing well north of what Bay intended on spending.

If you want an action packed movie, like him or not, Bay is going to deliver on that level. With Bay currently loving life directing the "biggest sequel in history" (his words according to rumors), WB is looking at other possibilities should Singer opt not to return. Again, the next few months are going to make for some very interesting theater over at WB.

 

[DavidPla]

I get the feeling that WB also saw how The Dark Knight did relative to the first in terms of Box Office and want the same for Superman. Maybe not to the same extent but there should be no reason in their eyes why Superman 2 shouldn't gross over 300 M domestically if Batman can go from 200 M to 500 M.

 

[TerryRL]

Exactly. WB is now desperately trying to find someone that can install the same sort of "magic" into Superman that Nolan did with Batman. WB knew TDK was a great movie, but they had no clue that it could do the sort of business its done.

Neither did Marvel who sort of relished the fact that they were "winning" their undeclared war, especially former Marvel head-turned-producer Avi Arad who balked at the success of "Batman Begins" back in '05. He stated something along the lines of how their (DC's) "big movie" earned only about half what "Spider-Man" did and wasn't as big a hit as Spidey 2 or two of the three 'X-Men' pictures.

TDK becoming the most successful comic book/superhero film in history took Marvel by complete surprise (as it did everyone else). The company thought they had the top spot at the summer box office all wrapped up with "Iron Man" and TDK is going to end up earning more than $200 million more than what IM did.

Marvel now is bound and determined to counter with blockbuster showings from "Iron Man II", "Thor", "The First Avenger: Captain America", and "The Avengers". Ain't nothin' like a little competition.

If WB delivers the goods with 'The Man of Steel', this little rivalry will get a little more...interesting to say the least. I know I throw that word around a lot, but damnit it fits the situation.

 

[Tim Glover]

Good stuff Terry. As someone who loved Superman Returns I do see where some had issues with it and do understand WB wanting to get more from it. SR should have made more money especially considering how much I loved it

But it was kind of a hit/miss with the masses.

WB does have the 'right' to want results....I just hope Singer can swallow some pride and they can find a common ground.

 

[Pete-D]

Batman is just such a different type of character, as I've said, I feel like Batman is pretty much a separate subset of the comic book industry onto himself.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I think both studios are fooling themselves if they think they will see a number like this again. Spidey 3 left a terrible taste in many folks' mouths, so 4 will have to be GREAT to get by $300M, in my opinion. Superman 2 also needs to be something special to get by $300M. The only sure things are IM2 and Batman 3. TDK has a razor-sharp script following a very well respected original film. They gave the production exactly the right amount of oversight and it had a direction with vision.

There aren't that many directors or opportunities.

The $500M+ is not just that the film is Batman.

I'd like to think these are the salad days, but I'm skeptical. Especially with WB's attitude towards The Man of Steel.

 

[TravisR]

Even if everyone loved Spider-Man 3, I think Spider-Man 4 will still have trouble hitting a number like that since it'll be the fourth time to the well.

 

[Andy Sheets]

Regarding Superman, I'm at the point where I really wouldn't mind if they just gave it to Michael Bay and let him reboot. I know it sounds crazy but Bay's broad, play-to-the-crowds, America-Fuck-Yeah vision would be an appropriate antidote to Singer's self-flagellating, joyless take. At least with Bay, you'd get a brightly colored, unapologetic film that would feature lots of punching and collateral damage.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Superman + "god-like" = meh.
Singer, as much as I find fault with his 'vision' and film, I think was still smart enough to realize that the powers and abilities of the character are now an impediment to telling stories with egaging, captivating conflicts. I understand the reason for White (a romantic obstacle) and the son (an emotional obstacle). Singers heart was (more or less) in the right place, but the way these issues were adressed, I simply found banal.
To me, a downbeat Superman is actually a viable and engaging concept...but being depressive or self-pitiying in and of itself is not. In a way, the big thing I hate about Singers work is the way it is going to stamp these kinds of explorations into the characters pysche as 'INVALID' . I also hate Smallville with a passion, but find the idea they (ineffectually) explored- of Kal being sent to earth to rule rather than serve to be a truly meaty one. To me that is a great conflict to explore (and rousingly resolve) in a 2 hour movie. Action for it's own sake is not what the property needs so much as a better understanding of the core of the character. Batman Begins did that for its character. Returns didn't. If anything Superman seemed a weaker, more passive character at the end of that film. Not good.