Why are there not more DC superhero movies?

[agro23]

Meanwhile Marvel continues to print money in their basement. I honestly can't wait for Edgar Wright's Antman movie!

 

I pitched an Ant-Man movie to Artisan Entertainment back in 2000, when they had the rights to 15 Marvel characters. That would've been a fun one to develop.

Weren't you pitching something to DC recently?

 

There was a rumor just before the writers' strike that Warner Brothers was listening to pitches for the next Superman movie. We had a fun thread where a bunch of us came up with some cool ideas. Alas, the rumors were exaggerated.

The Bizarro and Brainiac ideas were kicking butt.

[adamstrange]

And another thing:

 

Marvel properties take place in the real world. A threat to Manhattan gets attention whereas a threat to Metropolis is . Where's Metropolis? Central City? Gotham? Coast City?

 

Movie studio's will change anything about a character/concept in order to dramatize it for movies so I'm not sure how this is a limitation. There is nothing "essential" to the Flash or GL story that makes it imperative to place it in a mythical setting, nor has it prevented Batman (Gotham) and Superman/Superboy (Metropolis/Smallville) from being successful on TV and in the movies. Some of the best movies have been made from lousy books and any comic book work can be made to work or screwed up for the big screen. That, and my consulting experience, is why I believe the difference in the small company vs. large company is the driving factor in the success of Marvel. Just my

[cd4ever]

2 words: Superman Returns.

[cd4ever]

Well for DC you have Superman, Batman, Flash and the Justice League. After that, the well known characters go down the tubes.

 

For Marvel you have Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Wolverine, Silver Surfer, Avengers and so on. There are just more mainstream characters on the Marvel side.

 

Can't really agree with that. For DC you need to add Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and maybe Green Lantern.

 

I'd say those pre-movie characters are more well known the Surfer or the Avengers, not to mention Daredevil and Iron Man.

 

 

[nearmint]

2 words: Superman Returns.

 

I can't imagine what they were thinking going with a Luthor story that so closely mirrored the first Superman movie. It felt so dated. There's much that I like about the movie, but they should have gone with a different villain, or an all-out alien invasion.

[cd4ever]

2 words: Superman Returns.

 

I can't imagine what they were thinking going with a Luthor story that so closely mirrored the first Superman movie. It felt so dated. There's much that I like about the movie, but they should have gone with a different villain, or an all-out alien invasion.

And I think I read that Luthor will be in the next Superman movie as well. Perhaps not the primary villain but he'll be there. I don't get why they feel they can't make a Superman movie without Luthor.

[DrWatson]

2 words: Superman Returns.

 

I can't imagine what they were thinking going with a Luthor story that so closely mirrored the first Superman movie. It felt so dated. There's much that I like about the movie, but they should have gone with a different villain, or an all-out alien invasion.

And I think I read that Luthor will be in the next Superman movie as well. Perhaps not the primary villain but he'll be there. I don't get why they feel they can't make a Superman movie without Luthor.

Agreed. Luther=human=no powers=cheap.

[dekeuk]

 

Companies are motivated to make movies for one reason..... PROFIT

 

A good superhero movie is a goldmine because there are so many revenue streams - US box office, foreign box office, increased comic sales, licensed toy sales, fast food restaraunt rights, etc, etc.

 

There is a ton of money to be made. That is why it makes no sense for Warner not to make movies.

 

Marvel does not own their movies. The studio does. Marvel gets only 5% of the profits from all those movies. That is why Marvel wants to start taking the financial risk of making their own movies.

 

Warner on the other hand would get 100% of the profits as opposed to Marvel's 5%. Now is it is good business for Marvel to make a lot of movies for 5% of the profits, how can it not be a great business decision for Warner to make a movie for 100%. They get 20 times for box office (in theory) for a movie than Marvel does.

 

The guys running Warner are dummasses. But we all knew that after they decided to merge their company with AOL right before the Nasdaq plunged.

 

And I still think you could get a great movie out of characters like Green Lantern. He could meet up with Green Arrow and his singing blond companion Black Canary. (They could get some blong singing hottie like Gwen Stefani to play Black Canary).

 

 

 

[Aman619]

youve got the marth backwards. Dont look just at ownership - - look at RISK! Thats what studios are focussed on. When you own 5% of a movie, that means you arent putting up the casash. The money side is risking their dough in return for the lions share of profits. Warners wasnt willing to risk their money on superhero films for a long time. But 2 things changed: Marvel films started to make some serious noise, and Legendary came up with some serious coin. THEY are the ones who lost on SR and many of WBs biggest releases last year.

 

So while it sounds paradoxical to say that its easier for Marvel to get movies made lately because its other peoples cash, they only have to convince some hungry backers to make the films. There are lots of pools of money available hoping to get into Hollywood. But WB is hesitant to greenlight superhero films because they see better risk potential in other genres.

[nearmint]

Green Arrow is in the works with David Goyer producing. It's called "Supermax".

[cd4ever]

youve got the marth backwards. Dont look just at ownership - - look at RISK! Thats what studios are focussed on. When you own 5% of a movie, that means you arent putting up the casash. The money side is risking their dough in return for the lions share of profits. Warners wasnt willing to risk their money on superhero films for a long time. But 2 things changed: Marvel films started to make some serious noise, and Legendary came up with some serious coin. THEY are the ones who lost on SR and many of WBs biggest releases last year.

 

So while it sounds paradoxical to say that its easier for Marvel to get movies made lately because its other peoples cash, they only have to convince some hungry backers to make the films. There are lots of pools of money available hoping to get into Hollywood. But WB is hesitant to greenlight superhero films because they see better risk potential in other genres.

And all it will take is 1 major flop for Marvel to put the brakes on everything.

 

Isn't the new Hulk movie the first true Marvel movie, financed by them?

[lizards2]

If it were done correctly, you could even have a hit with an Aquaman movie and all he can do is talk to fish.

 

Personally, I would love to see SpongeBob and Aquawad square off in a battle royale on the bigscreen. SpongeBob would probably be the recognizable character which would actually draw the movie going populace, and he would probably kick Aquatard's @ss out of the ocean.

 

Back to the original question:

 

Why are there not more DC superhero movies?

 

Because...., as much as you and I love the DC characters..., they're pretty darn lame.

[cd4ever]

If it were done correctly, you could even have a hit with an Aquaman movie and all he can do is talk to fish.

 

Personally, I would love to see SpongeBob and Aquawad square off in a battle royale on the bigscreen. SpongeBob would probably be the recognizable character which would actually draw the movie going populace, and he would probably kick Aquatard's @ss out of the ocean.

 

Back to the original question:

 

Why are there not more DC superhero movies?

 

Because...., as much as you and I love the DC characters..., they're pretty darn lame.

Dude, don't make me go all Matter Eater Lad on your azz!

[DrWatson]

If it were done correctly, you could even have a hit with an Aquaman movie and all he can do is talk to fish.

 

Personally, I would love to see SpongeBob and Aquawad square off in a battle royale on the bigscreen. SpongeBob would probably be the recognizable character which would actually draw the movie going populace, and he would probably kick Aquatard's @ss out of the ocean.

 

Back to the original question:

 

Why are there not more DC superhero movies?

 

Because...., as much as you and I love the DC characters..., they're pretty darn lame.

Dude, don't make me go all Matter Eater Lad on your azz!

That's a horrible mental picture!

[trmoore54]

They "made" an Aquaman movie in the tv series Entourage (HBO) and the director (in the tv show) was James Cameron of Titanic fame...

 

The JLA movie is in the works and scheduled for a summer 2009 release if I'm not mistaken...

 

I would look for just about every Superhero/Title mentioned for a movie to be made in the next 5-6 years...as we all know, Hollywood loves nothing more than trying to develop something that's already been developed...just a matter of time and the right scripts crossing the right desks...

 

(Attn. all would-be -script-writers!!!)

[lizards2]

If it were done correctly, you could even have a hit with an Aquaman movie and all he can do is talk to fish.

 

Personally, I would love to see SpongeBob and Aquawad square off in a battle royale on the bigscreen. SpongeBob would probably be the recognizable character which would actually draw the movie going populace, and he would probably kick Aquatard's @ss out of the ocean.

 

Back to the original question:

 

Why are there not more DC superhero movies?

 

Because...., as much as you and I love the DC characters..., they're pretty darn lame.

Dude, don't make me go all Matter Eater Lad on your azz!

 

Legion......,

[Zonker]

The fact that Marvel is a small independent company means that they are hungry for any incremental revenue that they can generate from film and they can nimbly and aggressively pursue opportunities. Being part of a giant corporation actually makes it less likely for DC to pursue film opportunities because of the difficulty of assigning who gets "credit" for the film. The Batman film rights are owned in whole/part by Michael Uslan and so have a different decision-making process.

You win the prize.

 

DC's parent Warner can't get out of their own way. There are too many people involved and the company is terminally trepidatious. There is more corporate CYA going on that there is any forward movement to the point it's a wonder anything gets made by those guys.

 

Warner won't move on a DC project unless it's guaranteed to be a box office hit in their eyes whereas Marvel doesn't care. Ever see the Captain America movie? Ever see the Power Pak pilot? Even when Marvel fails they dust themselves off and start again. With Warner only Batman has been given this sort of latitude (after the failure of the last couple they still did Begins). And to a lesser extent Superman if the post-strike Singer rumors are true.

 

Sadly, Warner also still keep their foot on DC's neck anyway when it comes to continuity of their characters. Plot lines for Batman, Superman and others have been shot down by corporate because it would "harm the franchise" even if there was no movie to speak of.

 

Meanwhile Marvel continues to print money in their basement. I honestly can't wait for Edgar Wright's Antman movie!

 

Yep. Way too many suits involved at Warners. And way too risk-averse. I remember the reason they canned Wolfgang Petersen's proposed Superman-Batman crossover was they were afraid that if it bombed, it would torpedo two franchises rather than just one.

 

Way to plan for success guys.

[MutantKeys]

what's the latest on the Wonder Woman movie ?

?

 

Who's playing the lead role?

[dekeuk]

what's the latest on the Wonder Woman movie ?

?

 

Who's playing the lead role?

 

I'm sure Linda Carter will think she should be the lead.

 

After all, Adam West and Jack Nicholson thought they deserved to reprise their famous roles. And William Shatner and the gang DID reprise their roles.

 

 

[nearmint]

what's the latest on the Wonder Woman movie ?

?

 

Who's playing the lead role?

 

My understanding is that it's on the back-burner now.