And the next DC movie may be....

[TomStrong]

I think whatever they do they better start with a.darn good script. Look at the recent batman movies. What makes them so good is their good story. Any story about a man trying to be greater than himself will be.good.but.a.story about a man being a super hero might as well be a.cartoon.

[TomStrong]

Not that there's anything wrong with a cartoon because if there is my life has no meaning. He he he

[MIB41]

The Metal Men seems like a "hip" choice to try and take advantage of the current CGI standards. But once again, like Lantern, most people don't know anything about these characters. Another DC marketing blunder coming to a theater near you.

[madmarva]

^ I don't know. The problem with the Green Lantern film wasn't the public's understanding or knowledge of the character. The problem was that the movie was mediocre.

The Metal Men might work better on the big screen just because it doesn't carry the weight of tons of continuity and the expectations die-hard fans bring with it. I could see it working as a comedy adventure if they get a great script and the proper director. I doubt it would do Avengers business, but I don't think Warners would expect it to. I could also see it being lousy and forgettable, too. It's all in the execution.

Some have complained that the marketing was off on the GL movie, and maybe it was, but even if the marketing of the film had been dead, solid, perfect, the movie didn't work as well as it should have. Possibly the marketing was off because the movie didn't have a clear enough direction in the first place.

[ctc]

>The Metal Men might work better on the big screen just because it doesn't carry the weight of tons of continuity and the expectations die-hard fans bring with it.

It's true.... especially since you don't HAVE to play it up as part of something bigger. "From the people who brought you Superman, Batman, sometimes Wonder Woman.... it's THE METAL MEN!!!!!"

Don C.

[MIB41]

^ I don't know. The problem with the Green Lantern film wasn't the public's understanding or knowledge of the character. The problem was that the movie was mediocre.

The Metal Men might work better on the big screen just because it doesn't carry the weight of tons of continuity and the expectations die-hard fans bring with it. I could see it working as a comedy adventure if they get a great script and the proper director. I doubt it would do Avengers business, but I don't think Warners would expect it to. I could also see it being lousy and forgettable, too. It's all in the execution.

Some have complained that the marketing was off on the GL movie, and maybe it was, but even if the marketing of the film had been dead, solid, perfect, the movie didn't work as well as it should have. Possibly the marketing was off because the movie didn't have a clear enough direction in the first place.

I think the marketing, bad reviews, and a general unfamiliarity with the Green Lantern played a huge role in it's demise. When critics critiqued the movie, most of what they didn't like WAS the origin aspects itself. Thus a basic unfamiliarity with the hero. Typically in this genre what the general public doesn't recognize they lean to the critics to determine whether they go. So if the critics are in the dark, so is the public. And even had it been what the diehards wanted, it would not have changed that origin dynamic which the critics complained about. I see Metal Men headed the same way. With a library filled with familiar licenses, it's very odd that DC can not get behind any of them. They seem to either be ashamed of their product, or simply don't understand it. I tend to think the latter.

[madmarva]

^I get your point to a degree, but relatively few movie goers knew the ins and outs of Iron Man or Thor or Captain America's origins prior to the film. The Hulk is more recognizable and popular to the general public than all three of them, but both of the films with the character were considered lackluster at the box office.

Plus, no one knew what Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Avatar and on and on and on until they saw the movies. Something being recognizable is certainly helpful but not necessary for a film's success, if it is a quality picture.

I think you are really generalizing about the role of critics. As a newspaper man, I wish critics, reporters and columnists had that type of sway or control over readers whether on the printed page or the internet. The business might not be dying the slow death that it is.

My recollection of the criticisms of the Green Lantern film had more to do with the tone and direction of the film rather than the origin. The art design and CGI on OA and performance by Mark Strong as Sinestro were praised from my recollection. It was whether the movie was supposed to be heavy or a comedy, campy or serious that drew the barbs. Flat performances by Reynolds and Lively were also panned as were choppy editing and poor continuity, particularly in the climax. Some felt the film was going for an all-ages feel at points but then it got pretty dark with the Hector Hammond character. Of course, I didn't read all the reviews and everyone's memory is spotty. We tend to remember the things we either agree or disagree with most over an extended period of time.

I think Metal Men could work in the right hands, and I'll admit I'm generally optimistic about projects until they are proven to be stinkers.

However, based on Warner's track record —if the film even gets made which I think is a long shot in the first place — it probably won't work if it follows Warner's track record. Catwoman was ridiculous, having absolutely nothing to do with character other than the name. Why not just make a solid Western with Jonah Hex, instead of making a super-natural Western? Why try to tell a story about how surrogate fathers can be better for the child than the biological father when your making the first Superman movie in two decades with Superman Returns?

The Green Lantern film was in the production pipeline prior to Diane Nelson taking over Warner Entertainment. It seems Johns got really involved as a producer and new CCO and tried to graft too much of his reboot onto a script that had already been worked and reworked for about five years. Hopefully, Johns learned his lesson and more importantly, Nelson can get things straightened out. She got the right people to work on the Harry Potter series and despite some valid criticisms, it was both an entertaining and successful franchise.

While it's a matter of taste in many cases whether Marvel's heroes are better than DC's, I know if successful films featuring Iron Man, Thor and the Avengers can be made the same can be done with Superman the Justice League, Flash, Wonder Woman and, yes, even Green Lantern. Warner's just has to do it, and of course that is the hard part.

[MIB41]

^I get your point to a degree, but relatively few movie goers knew the ins and outs of Iron Man or Thor or Captain America's origins prior to the film. The Hulk is more recognizable and popular to the general public than all three of them, but both of the films with the character were considered lackluster at the box office.

That's a very fair statement. But I think its worth mentioning that Green Lantern's failure was promoted more by it's cost to make, which after marketing expenses, was rumored to be near $300 million. It is likely that both Thor and Cap failed to profit domestically either with marketing dialed in. So overseas grosses and DVD sales helped push those into the black. Both Hulk movies were box office flops. And for all the praise the second one got, it fared even worse than the first financially. Of all the tie-in movies, only Iron Man has been a true unmitigated hit. So it was a great relief to see the Avengers lay waste to the box office landscape. But it's also worth noting that while Cap and Thor did marginally better than Lantern they also had the added boost of favorable reviews which Lantern did not. Lantern was creamed. So I think that kept many folks away in a crowded summer market.

Plus, no one knew what Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Avatar and on and on and on until they saw the movies. Something being recognizable is certainly helpful but not necessary for a film's success, if it is a quality picture.

True, but those are not superhero films. In the hero genre, the public typically leans on critical favor for second tier heroes as demonstrated by Cap and Thor. And as you can see, the difference was not huge when compared to Lantern. But it certainly helped to get people in the seats to see for themselves. That first weekend is everything to movies. And Lantern couldn't benefit as Cap and Thor did. So as much as reviews should never matter, I think they have proven to be the case when people know less about their heroes. Other subjects, maybe not as much. Conceptually heroes are in a more defined box for expectations. Where as a general science fiction film can be find it's own audience beyond the reach of critical approval.

While it's a matter of taste in many cases whether Marvel's heroes are better than DC's, I know if successful films featuring Iron Man, Thor and the Avengers can be made the same can be done with Superman the Justice League, Flash, Wonder Woman and, yes, even Green Lantern. Warner's just has to do it, and of course that is the hard part.

I agree completely. But does Warner/DC Comics understand that? Marvel seems to have a good handle on translating it's heroes to film without losing their core values. But DC is in the midst of giving away everything known about it's heroes in the comics, so that places them at odds for what they do to film. I would say it's a very difficult time for anyone trying to bring a DC hero to life outside of Batman. Conceptually DC is all over the place, so the message has got to be confusing for their customers. And on the movie front, DC only has the Batman franchise to anchor anything to. So when I hear news of a Justice League movie being plotted out, it is met with great trepidation given the disarray the company seems to promote. Are they going to make their own movie or are they going to clone the Avengers by only changing the heroes? Relevant points to consider given their current track record.

[thunderbolt]

^^^ 60 million more is marginally better?
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm

[Figuremod73]

I still get the feeling WB just doesnt want people to completely like the films. It would explain why they will put some good elements in one film and then make it lackluster in another. Thats how I feel about the Superman and Batman films all the way to Batman '66 and the first Superman film. Not that they arent good films, just not perfect.

WB just doesnt seem to want to allow the right people involved in the Superhero francises. Im one of those who really wasnt thrilled with the Nolan Batman. (I think I would have enjoyed Whedons take, however.). I guess you could say they try and milk it based on the popularity of the main characters.

Thats just my opinion, of course, based on years of not being totally happy with WB's superhero offerings.

[madmarva]

^MIB41, I really think you are giving critics too much credit. I think both the critics and the general audience had a bit of super-hero fatigue by the time the GL movie came out last year, following Thor and X-Men and with films like Cap and Harry Potter to come. And, yeah, I throw sci-fi and fantasy and any big-concept film that deal with unrealistic adventures into the same bucket. I don't think you have suspend any more belief for Green Lantern than for Star Wars or Avatar or Flash Gordon or Superman or even Batman. It's all pretty silly juvenile stuff. But a good film allows a viewer to suspend belief and go with it, while a poor ones doesn't. Again it's about quality.

After the critics grudgingly liked Thor and were genuinely surprised by X-Men First Class, I think they were ready to make a statement about so many super hero films clogging up the multiplexes and the production pipelines, and Warners served them up a great big ol' meatball right over the plate with Green Lantern. Critics noted GL for going overcost, running behind schedule and reshoots prior to the film coming out, and then when it was blah or mediocre or boring or terrible — however one would characterize it — they justly continued to blast it. Had it been a "good" film like other movies that were delayed and overbudget and had reshoots — Jaws, Titanic, Avatar — those sins would have been forgiven by the critics. Had GL been an entertaining, unflawed film rather than what seemed to be an unpolished product in many ways, critics might have liked it, but we don't know if it would have opened better. However, films that get good word of mouth tend to do business over a longer period, have multiple ticket sales from the same customer, generate sales of merchandise and so on. But that kind of extended business is only generated by good movies or something like Twilight which somehow enthralled females of all ages.

Good movies have legs, not marketing campaigns. If Warner's makes a good Metal Men movie, I think it could be successful if it doesn't bust the bank trying to make it. If it can't make Metal Men for around $100 million, it probably should develop a different property.

Like you, I don't have a lot of confidence in Warner's and its super hero films and won't until they make something of quality and that is on point, other than Batman movies.

Figuremod73, I feel you on the Nolan Batman issue. I think his take on Batman is valid and the films are good, but they aren't really the type of Batman films I'd like to see in all areas. In trying to reach as broad an audience as possible, I do think the studios can make mistakes and allow the character to drift away from its core.. After the success of the Dark Knight, though, no one at Warner is going to send Nolan notes on Batman, but you better believe the next director will get them, until he proves himself.

One of the main conundrums with the movie business is that the suits want to make money, but no one really knows what is going to work in the film business before it does, so the studios hedge their bets as much as possible with adaptions, remakes and sequels and prequels of successful films. Even when adapting a product, they will try to make it similar to something already successful. How much Matrix rehash have we had to endure over the last decade? In one way it's good for fans of comics, because the studios and producers like the built-in audience and name recognition. But sometimes they don't understand the concepts and hire screen writers and directors who don't get it either. Unfortunately, Warners seems to become an expert at doing this with its comic book properties on a lot of levels.

[MIB41]

After the critics grudgingly liked Thor and were genuinely surprised by X-Men First Class, I think they were ready to make a statement about so many super hero films clogging up the multiplexes and the production pipelines, and Warners served them up a great big ol' meatball right over the plate with Green Lantern. Critics noted GL for going overcost, running behind schedule and reshoots prior to the film coming out, and then when it was blah or mediocre or boring or terrible — however one would characterize it — they justly continued to blast it. Had it been a "good" film like other movies that were delayed and overbudget and had reshoots — Jaws, Titanic, Avatar — those sins would have been forgiven by the critics. Had GL been an entertaining, unflawed film rather than what seemed to be an unpolished product in many ways, critics might have liked it, but we don't know if it would have opened better. However, films that get good word of mouth tend to do business over a longer period, have multiple ticket sales from the same customer, generate sales of merchandise and so on. But that kind of extended business is only generated by good movies or something like Twilight which somehow enthralled females of all ages.

Well not all movies get a chance to have legs in a crowded movie schedule. Jaws, Titanic, and Avatar were phenomenons. So that comparison is a loaded suggestion on your part that I'm making a bigger claim to Lantern than I'm stating. It's apples and oranges. But if you feel they are worth comparing for the purposes of scheduling, let's do so. Titanic and Avatar were released in December, not a packed summer schedule. So they had the advantage of growing on the general public without theaters having to make room for other high profile films each week. Jaws came out in June of 1975 in the widest release of it's day with plenty of hoopla and minimal competition. None of these films were crammed into the kind of insane schedule the Lantern was. The week before Lantern's release, theaters had Super 8 opening with Hangover II, X-men First Class, and Pirates still packing theaters. The Week after Lantern, theaters brought in Cars 2 and Transformers Dark of the Moon. And like so many movies, Lantern never got to keep the seats to grow legs. In total there were 21 movies released in June before Lantern, six movies the day of Lantern's release, and eleven more after it's release just for June alone (one of which was the biggest movie of the year). So Lantern lost 536 screens on the fourth of July weekend and the following weekend a whopping 1265 screens. The weekend after that 1042 screens. So in a three week period it had lost almost half it's screens. One week later it had lost three quarters of it's screens. That' s a total of 2,843 screens of lost revenue in a month's time. Cap's screen loss was slightly over 60% in the same period. X-Men roughly 57%. But Thor only lost 30% of it's screens. Once you run the math, you can see how it impacts tickets receipts. Thor's average weekend to weekend loss was 40%; Cap's 49%; X-Men 51%: Lantern 57%. So as you can see a film's ability to make money is only as good as it's retention of available screens.

So should Lantern have made money like Jaws, Avatar, or Titanic? Of course not. There's a reason why they are the top grossing films of all time. But there are SCORES of good films that never receive their day in the box office. There are also scores of bad films that manage to find box office glory too. So it surprises me that you would simply lay claim to the box office as the final measure of a film's quality since your a media guru. Lantern's quandary is pretty simple. In a crowded market, this movie was handed ALOT of bad press that scared off potential ticket buyers. And there were plenty of people here who heard that criticism, passed at the theater, who then saw it on DVD and thought better of it. And then there are some who watched it on DVD and still didn't like it. But what do those two still have in common? They didn't go to the theater because they listened to the media hype. So all I'm saying to you is that if Lantern had managed a positive marketing campaign, it would have enjoyed a bump in tickets that would have placed it right with Thor, Captain America and X-men. Percentage wise it was not far away. Profit wise, it still would have bombed because it just cost too much money. And it's also worth nothing that Green lantern merchandise was successful. New product continued to come out until Christmas of last year.

[madmarva]

No, my point simply is quality movies generally find an audience at some point, and it Warners makes a good Metal Men movie, it will likely find an audience. If it's a good movie and Warners doesn't bust the bank making it, it should be successful in some monetary sense, even if it shows 0 or negative profits on the books.

Avatar, Titanic and Jaws did not make money because of when they were released or because of their marketing campaigns. They made money because they were well made films that struck a chord with the public. Jaws could have been released in January and it would have found an audience. Certainly, releasing it in the summer and giving people more access to the film by booking it wider than any film up to that point allowed it to make more money and become a phenomenon. I'm not arguing that time, circumstance and marketing do not have a bearing on a film's success with the public or at the box office. And the marketing strategy for Jaws was great and it certainly was a part of the film's success. But, if Jaws or Titanic or Avatar had been crappy movies the other circumstances that helped them gross so much money would not have mattered.

Green Lantern opened wide, Warners spent a ton marketing and advertising it, it was based on a relatively well known comic character, featured a good cast, was helmed by a successful director, had great art direction, imo. Despite a crowded summer schedule, it had good mid June opening date. It had everything Warners could give it to be a success. It was not a dud because Warners didn't try. It was a dud because the movie was mediocre at best.

I'm not denying your points. The slate of genre films that was released last summer was relentless and it certainly divided the money, but even if Green Lantern had somehow made $500 million in some fantasy world, it still would have been a mediocre movie and unsuccessful to me. I only casually pay attention to box office receipts because they mean nothing to me as a viewer. I don't see profits from them and how much a movie makes has no effect on my enjoyment of a film. But, I have no issue with those who do follow box office numbers, though. To each his own.

As competitive as last summer was at the box office, I still believe if you had dropped a quality new blockbuster or tent pole in the mix, it would have thrived because Hangover II, Cars 2, Pirates IV, Transformers 3 were all relatively tepid rehashes of concepts that had seen better days. There was a lot I liked about Super 8, but it really had nothing to do with the space monster. I would've have enjoyed the film more if it had just concentrated on the kids making the film and the struggle between the two men to deal with the loss of the woman they loved. But, I'm sure it made more cash because of the monster. Heck, without the monster it probably wouldn't have been made.

So it surprises me that you would simply lay claim to the box office as the final measure of a film's quality since your a media guru.

I never said Green Lantern wasn't a good movie based on how much money it made. It wasn't a good movie for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with box office receipts. But, I do believe had it been better, it would have been more successful at the box office. How much more successful? Who is to say.

I also never claimed to be a media guru, whatever that is. I've worked as sports reporter, sports editor and a free lance reporter for 20 years and I know the professional print media has lost traction, influence and importance throughout that period of time for a variety of reasons. At one time critics could make or break a movie, but that hasn't been the case for a very long time.

As for those who chose to watch the film at home rather than in the theater, to say that they made that decision based on the critics is too simple. I'm sure some did, but I'm sure you know people who enjoy movies but don't go to the theaters much or even at all, and it has nothing to do with movie reviews. I certainly know folks like that. I also know people who read reviews almost religiously but would never spend money to see a super-hero film no matter how well received it might be.

But, again, if Warners makes a good Metal Men film for a "reasonable" cost, I think it could be successful, not like Avatar or Jaws or Titanic, but it could make money and sell some toys.

[ctc]

>I think Metal Men could work in the right hands,

But that’s true of anything, really.

>no one knew what Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Avatar and on and on and on until they saw the movies.

Well.... that’s ESSENTIALLY true, but there are caveats. Avatar is an example; folks went in with a fair bit of knowledge of what they were getting because of the astronomical amount of hype ahead of time. Saturation bombardment of the potential audience is the standard these days. Between the ads, making ofs, leaked footage, endless interviews.... you almost don’t need to actually see the movie.

‘Course there IS a price to pay for that: a lot of this stuff becomes disposable for the audience. There’s no sense of discovery, or surprise; so there’s little lasting effect. Hence why so many newer films have huge, record smashing runs and are then forgotten weeks later. (Anyone mention the Hunger Games any more? Probably not until the next sequel....)

>and it Warners makes a good Metal Men movie, it will likely find an audience.

That’s true.... but will it be that audience the studio wants? Success is measured on all sorts of sliding scales, and it’s possible for a movie to succeed. But not enough to keep the suits happy. It’s also possible for a movie to succeed in different ways: “Cars” made way more money on merchandising than as a film, which factored into wether or not there’d be a sequel. Green Lantern sold a fair bit of product, which could mean a sequel.... even though it seems NOBODY liked it. (IF it sold ENOUGH product. I don’t have the numbers, and don’t know what sort of margins the studio was hoping for.)

>Jaws could have been released in January and it would have found an audience.

Probably, but would it have found as much of one? Jaws is considered the first summer blockbuster, and it benefitted a great deal from the accidental viral marketing of timing: a movie about terror at the beach during a time when people were going to the beach. I can remember endless news reports, specials, etc about shark attacks, their plausibility, false alarms, history....

Don C.

[Boshek]

I want a Doom Patrol movie.