WB to announce Batman/Superman movie for 2015

~~Leo656~~ · 08-24-2013, 09:29 AM

I agree; that's why I wished they'd started the build back around 2006. But WB got timid after "Superman Returns" fell short of its hoped-for $6 or 700 million gross worldwide (while STILL being one of the Top 10 highest-grossing films in theaters and on DVD that year), and started ignorantly believing that the only "safe" thing to do was focus on Batman exclusively. Even then, they planned to branch out into JLA territory, but then as now, they had no plans to build it up like Marvel was already doing with Iron Man and the rest. The plan even back then was to still rush it out and hope everyone was awestruck by the spectacle of seeing a half-dozen super-heroes in one movie. Now they won't even be able to claim that, since it's already been so long since "Avengers" came out.

They absolutely have to do a JLA movie. NOT doing one would be the stupidest decision ever. But they're kind of stuck, because no matter what, they'll be compared to and accused of "copying" Marvel. I almost feel like that's a huge reason they WON'T do the "slow build" like Avengers' individual films. If they do it that way, the internet laughs and says "They're copying Marvel", and everyone knows that Hollywood, while being nothing at all original, hates to be portrayed as "copying" anyone. So WB, in its haste to be "different" while still carbon-copying a proven formula for success, subscribes to a shoddier model of planning and execution for the sole sake of cashing in quickly while not being compared *too* much to the competition.

They're stuck in a no-win situation. They have to do the movie, and they no longer have the luxury of doing it like Marvel did Avengers. It's a shame. I haven't given up hope, though; as fun as it was, "Avengers" was no classic of modern cinema, and even a weak JLA film would easily compare favorably as long as the effects were good.

08-24-2013, 09:29 AM	#25
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	I agree; that's why I wished they'd started the build back around 2006. But WB got timid after "Superman Returns" fell short of its hoped-for $6 or 700 million gross worldwide (while STILL being one of the Top 10 highest-grossing films in theaters and on DVD that year), and started ignorantly believing that the only "safe" thing to do was focus on Batman exclusively. Even then, they planned to branch out into JLA territory, but then as now, they had no plans to build it up like Marvel was already doing with Iron Man and the rest. The plan even back then was to still rush it out and hope everyone was awestruck by the spectacle of seeing a half-dozen super-heroes in one movie. Now they won't even be able to claim that, since it's already been so long since "Avengers" came out. They absolutely have to do a JLA movie. NOT doing one would be the stupidest decision ever. But they're kind of stuck, because no matter what, they'll be compared to and accused of "copying" Marvel. I almost feel like that's a huge reason they WON'T do the "slow build" like Avengers' individual films. If they do it that way, the internet laughs and says "They're copying Marvel", and everyone knows that Hollywood, while being nothing at all original, hates to be portrayed as "copying" anyone. So WB, in its haste to be "different" while still carbon-copying a proven formula for success, subscribes to a shoddier model of planning and execution for the sole sake of cashing in quickly while not being compared too much to the competition. They're stuck in a no-win situation. They have to do the movie, and they no longer have the luxury of doing it like Marvel did Avengers. It's a shame. I haven't given up hope, though; as fun as it was, "Avengers" was no classic of modern cinema, and even a weak JLA film would easily compare favorably as long as the effects were good.