Comic Book Movies: Hollywood's New Westerns (2 Viewers)

[Sam Favate]

Batman and his environment are more identifiable to people in hard times. Superman and his gleeming Metropolis and wholesome Smallville are a harder sell these days (maybe not so much in the 50s). So, it's kind of unfair and unrealistic to expect Dark Knight numbers from the Man of Steel.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Had SR been a huge success and TDK an underperformer the spin would have been "well naturally in stressful anxious times like these, a more optimistic, sunnier style would be more popular than a downbeat gritty one with murky moral choices. Who wants to wallow in that?".it all comes down to a good story, well told. I don't think SR was a good story (being more than 50% a beat for beat remake, with the remainder being inappropriate and, for many, unengaging accessorizing).
This is why I am not heartened by comments about wanting a god-like Superman. That implies a focus on action spectacle (god-like seeming to suggest bigger 'splosions I presume), rather than story and character. I know some would be satisfied with that, but spectacle for its own sake has a very short shelf life. Begins had legs theatrically and on video because the characters journey was engaging and satisfying
It isn't that Superman is an inherently uninteresting character, it's that the writers, producers and studio heads shepherding the property simply haven't put enough intelligent thought into the basic premise. A world with a Superman would be subtley different in a vast mulitude of ways from our own. Perceptions, values, culture, government, geo politics...so many aspects of daily life would be altered at the fringes, that I think it would be fascinating to speculate on. Simply changing the POV of the next film from an ominiscient or Superman centric one to that of another character would be a huge kick in the ass to the property and give it its own unique vibe (think Marvels or Cloverfield) as well as making superman himself more fascinating.

Memo to Warner/DC: Think smarter. Don't just think with $$$.

 

[TerryRL]

I think WB just needs to put the right people on the movie to start with. Jon Peters is a borderline lunatic and Bryan Singer was only interested in a rehash of the first Donner film. From what I understand the studio has had some pretty incredible pitches from various writers and all they have to do is pick the one that A) has the biggest hit potential and B) addresses all of the studios "needs" (i.e. action spectacle and merchandise friendly).

A studio is always going to think about the dollar signs first, that's just the nature of the beast, but Chris Nolan's two Batman movies have shown that a studio's financial needs don't have to stand in the way of a movie that has a great story and strong acting. WB just needs to find the right people who respect the character as much as Nolan obviously respects Batman.

I think Singer was more in love with Dick Donner's version of Superman and not the character as a whole, hence why his movie was somewhat disjointed in places. After 30 years "Superman: The Movie" is still the best of the best in terms of Superman on the big screen, with "Superman II" coming in a solid second. The material is there, WB just needs to put the right pieces together and hope for the best.

There are those in the studio that feel a Superman film done the right way can be a gigantic hit. Not necessarily as big as TDK, but something that can earn more than $300 million domestically. After all, "Iron Man" isn't nearly as known as Superman is and look how huge that movie was because Marvel put someone on it who respected the character and said character's history.

I may be way off, but at this point I'd be really surprised if Singer returned in light of where WB wants to go with the next movie. With TDK headed for a $1 billion worldwide haul, the studio won't be afraid to spend serious coin to put forth a spectacular movie. All that remains is who will they choose to guide the ship.

In the wake of TDK, WB is going to do their level best to out-spectacular every other big comic book flick (especially those from Marvel) on the horizon. "Watchmen" is already being talked about as among the greatest comic book movies ever made simply from the extremely positive reaction to the trailer, while "Green Lantern" looks to become one of the more ambitious efforts of the genre (judging by the script the studio latched on to).

Make no mistake, WB wants "Superman: The Man of Steel" to be EPIC in size, scope, and box office dollars. As far as a lot of execs at WB are concerned, Singer really dropped the ball with 'Returns' and either he's going to give the studio the movie they want or they're going to find someone else who will.

Stay tuned...

 

[Paul_Scott]

when I used the "$$$" in my last post, I wasn't implying that studio frugality would be an impediment to a good Superman film- just the opposite actually. Throwing bushels of money at it and ladling on the Epic establishing shots (or epic podering poses) does not neccessarily make an epic movie or translate to a 300+ million take. Story, story, story. The plays the thing. That's why I don't understand the attitude with properties that could support Bond or Godzilla sized series, of strategizing home runs every time at bat. If you use a film or two that is light on spectacle but strong on character and plot, you may not see an inital huge return, but you have laid the groundwork for a bombastic future installment (BB-TDK). What the studio wants is a marathon running franchise, yet at the same time they have a sprinters mindset.

One more thing about Supes. They definitely need to reboot to get away from a big weaknesses that Donner introduced (that was fine at the time for that story, but very inhibiting now)- and that is the idea that Superman has laid out out every aspect of himself in his debutant interview with Lois. That degree of familiarity is crippling to the character. Just like you wouldn't go on a first date and proceed to tell them your life story. Remove that degree of public familiarity and you've ratcheted up the interest level of the character quite a bit already.

 

[TerryRL]

I agree with what you're saying, and yes the studios do have a sprinters mindset. It's just that they feel that if they're going to spend upwards of $150-$250 million on a movie they want to make sure they not only get their money back, but also make a huge profit. Not to mention they also want to sell lots of merchandise (i.e. toys), as well as DVDs.

Story is the most important aspect, but with so much coin involved its really easy to lose perspective and get lost in putting as many "money shots" as possible in said movie to ensure they reach their financial goals. BB and TDK proves that they can get things really right when they give the material to the right person and simply get out of the way.

I'm really hoping that BB, TDK, and "Iron Man" represent more of what we're going to get in the future from these films and don't end up becoming the exceptions not the rule.

 

[DavidPla]

Well it looks to be all but confirmed on a Superman reboot.

Warner Bets on Fewer, Bigger Movies - WSJ.com

 

[Andy Sheets]

*L* Leave it to a studio exec to totally miss the point of a film's box office success. "Film needs more EVIL in it." Besides, I thought Superman Returns already did have a dark-and-brooding take on the character.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Dollar signs have a way of impeding comprehension and this is exactly what I was afraid of (and why I haven't been dancing jigs over TDKs astounding success).
This is looking just like 1989, where every new comic property is going to be yoked to the aesthetic of one with the greatest monetary return. Goodbye to a dream of another 10+ years of comicbook hero tales that range in flavor, scope, and sensibility and hello to a numbing stream of interchangable costumes and same note dramatics. I wish I could find a job that rewards the most superficial conclusions with a million $ income.

 

[TerryRL]

"Iron Man" being a huge hit this summer (despite the character not being as well known as bigger superheroes), was one of the reasons why WB abandoned the JL project right now. It's also why they're moving forward with "Green Lantern", "The Flash", "Green Arrow", and "Wonder Woman". The only reason JL was going to be made was to introduce these characters to the movie-going public.

A JL movie will happen, but not until all of these characters have at least one movie under their belts. You can't really be surprised by how WB has reacted to the success of TDK, studio brass is quite infamous for knee-jerk reactions like this. Still, it means that moviegoers are going to be getting a whole slew of films from the DC universe, on top of WB putting filmmakers like Chris Nolan in charge of them.

Comic book/superhero movies are so big right now that A-list performers are chasing down whatever properties they can get their hands on, especially in light of the massive success of both TDK and "Iron Man", which are currently the two biggest hits this year (TDK becoming the #2 film in history).

WB brass understands that they've been getting their asses kicked by Marvel and with TDK blowing the hinges off the box office, they're going to look to reverse their fortunes. From what I've heard the studio has been contacted by representatives of several "major" stars in regards to starring in "Green Lantern" and "Green Arrow" a.k.a. "Supermax". Actor Ryan Reynolds has long been rumored to be a top candidate for the lead in "The Flash", while several big-name "twentysomething" actresses have been vying the lead in "Wonder Woman", which still doesn't even have a script. The studio has also been fielding offers about the yet-to-be named villains in the next Batman feature. Most are assuming it'll be Riddler and Catwoman.

Because of TDK's success both critically and commercially, WB now finds itself in a great position to "strike while the iron is hot". The studio is being besieged with pitches and this time next year expect them to have at least three (maybe four) of these films either filming or in active pre-production.

 

[Pete-D]

Well technically "the studio" is not fielding offers for who will be the next Batman villains.

That's entirely up to Nolan at this point, down to which characters it will be and who he wants cast.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Since a reboot of the Superman franchise is underway, I've started a separate thread for it. Please use it for discussion of "Superman Begins"

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...-rebooted.html

 

[TerryRL]

I'm assuming the other two projects WB will put into active pre-production with be "Green Lantern" and "Green Arrow" (a.k.a. "Super Max") since their respective scripts are the farthest along compared to "The Flash" or "Wonder Woman".

Judging from what I've heard about the GL script, I'm really excited to see that one. As many have alluded to, its a full scale sci-fi epic on the written page. This is exactly the right avenue to follow with this character.

 

[TerryRL]

Five pieces of very cool concept art for "Green Lantern".

C2F - Movie Photos - Brian Murray pitch designs/Hal missing Carol from Oa

 

[Brian Borst]

That artwork does look very good. I'm just hoping the audience would view a film like this. The recent successes (Iron Man and The Dark Knight, obviously) were rooted in realism, and The Green Lantern isn't anything like that at all.

 

[JonZ]

That art does look interesting.

I dont know much about GL though.

 

[John Doran]

i'm going to have to say that i think a Green Lantern film is better suited to pure CG, like Advent Children or Appleseed (or the ridiculous new trailer for the new Armored Core video game); since the ring's power is based on the imagination of the wielder, it is used to maximum effect only when it's doing visually nutty things like generating dinosaurs and aliens and giant robots and legions of soldiers and shields and spaceships and the like, and i just think that it would be unnecessarily jarring to attempt an integration of those kinds of visual effects into a live-action movie.

not only that, but most of the green-lantern corps are basically non-humanoid aliens, which, again, would be more believably realized in a CG film (CG characters with real actors still doesn't look good enough, in my opinion, and neither do prosthetic effects).

i'd love to be proved wrong, though.

 

[TerryRL]

From Variety...
"Though Fox has no plans for a major overhaul, the studio has scheduled a strategy meeting to assess the status of its superheroes, a group sorely missed this summer. On the agenda, Fox will mull the possibility of more "X-Men" spinoffs, including a young-X-Men project as well as "Deadpool," based on a character played by Ryan Reynolds in "Wolverine." The studio is even considering reviving the "Daredevil" property."

Read the full article here...
Fox's not-so-hot summer at the movies - Entertainment News, Weekly Film, Media - Variety

 

[JoshuaB.]

I would be very interested in seeing another crack at Daredevil. I found the Director's Cut a big improvement over the theatrical version, but still very lacking. Daredevil has always been the gritty "Batman" character for Marvel (and the current Daredevil book is very dark), so if any superhero character deserves a "Dark Knight" take, it's him.

 

[Brian Borst]

Absolutely. I just hope they get the Kingpin right this time. Not because Michael Clarke Duncan was black, or anything, but because he was just plain wrong for the character.

 

[TerryRL]

In the wake of what TDK did at the box office. Here is what WB/DC's future will look like (at least this is what the studio is hoping)...

"Superman: The Man of Steel"
third Nolan Batman
"Green Lantern"
"The Flash"
"Green Arrow" a.k.a. "Super Max"
"Wonder Woman"
"Teen Titans"
"Justice League"
"Shazam!"
"Jonah Hex"

Here is what Marvel will counter with...

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (Fox)
"X-Men Origins: Magneto" (Fox)
"X-Men Origins: Gambit" (Fox)
"Generation Next" a.k.a. "X-Men 4" (Fox)
Daredevil reboot (Fox)
"Thor" (Marvel/Paramount)
"Iron Man II" (Marvel/Paramount)
"Iron Man III" (Marvel/Paramount)
"The First Avenger: Captain America" (Marvel/Paramount)
"The Avengers" (Marvel/Paramount)
"Ant-Man" (Marvel/Paramount)
"Ghost Rider 2" (Sony)
"Spider-Man 4" (Sony)
"Spider-Man 5" (Sony)
"Namor: The Sub-Mariner" (Universal)