And the next DC movie may be....

[madmarva]

But that’s true of anything, really.

That's been my primary contention from the beginning. But, considering Warners' track record with DC's intellectual property, it's hard to imagine it or really anything else being a success other than Batman, but it could be. I say let's see it and then decide.

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.

Prior to Avatar's release, it was considered a huge risk by Cameron because of the delays, money he spent producing it and a mixed reaction to 3D films up to that point. Very similar criticisms were leveled against the Green Lantern film prior to release. Avatar, however, hit the sweet spot that captivated movie goers. I'm going on memory here, but I believe it actually made more money in its second week of distribution than its first because of good word of mouth. That is very rare these days. Conversely, Green Lantern was DOA because not only was there "bad buzz" going in, but it also was a very mediocre product. Quality (Avatar) built an audience; mediocrity (GL) lost one at an alarming rate.

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.

Certainly, but none of that can be measured until after the fact. Making movies is high risk. I don't know what the percentage is, but I would guess many more fail to make their money back than actually do. It's the very reason we see so many sequels and adaptions because the studios want to hedge on their investments as much as possible.

If I were a studio head, would I put money into a Metal Men movie? Only if there was a talented, proven producer and/or director with a passion to make the film were behind it. They would also have to have a heck of a pitch or a great script. I don't think it is a strong enough property to go into development unless someone had a passion for it. Characters like Wonder Woman, Superman, Flash and Green Lantern are stronger and more identifiable with the public but still huge risks. But, Warners may very well have a director or producer who has that kind of passion for the Metal Men already in place.

Jaws is considered the first summer blockbuster, and it benefited 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....

That is all true, but had Jaws been just an average film or a mediocre film or a bad film — like many of the other menace or monster movies made prior to it and after it — all those marketing efforts would have failed. The quality of the film incited the feeding frenzy around it, not the other way around.

Again my simple point is make a quality movie and it will find an audience. With an audience the film then has a better shot of meeting whatever definition of success any of us would like to assign to it. There are tons of mitigating factors or reasons why a movie connects with a large audience, but I think quality (and yes quality can be defined in many different ways) is the overriding one.

[thunderbolt]

I see the new Superman movie being the make or break for the rest of the DCU in WB's eyes. If Superman fails again, it will be all Batman all the time for DC Movies.