Would you be okay with smaller budgeted Batfamily movies?

[ngroove]

Why would a smaller budget mean going back to campy 60's Batman?

The camp was part of its charm.

Such as, Old Doctor Who, rather than New, computer special-effects dependent Doctor Who. I could tell its sets of cardboard, spray-painted metal paint to give it "science fiction", even occassional rubber-or-cardboard suited monsters or robotic menaces, people could say "looks like crap", but I say "Use your imagination". Just watch, keep eyes open, smile, and laugh in the pure entertainment of it all.

[Vakanai]

The camp was part of its charm.

Such as, Old Doctor Who, rather than New, computer special-effects dependent Doctor Who. I could tell its sets of cardboard, spray-painted metal paint to give it "science fiction", even occassional rubber-or-cardboard suited monsters or robotic menaces, people could say "looks like crap", but I say "Use your imagination". Just watch, keep eyes open, smile, and laugh in the pure entertainment of it all.

Oh, I wasn't knocking camp and I agree with it being part of the old series charm, I enjoy that show too, I was just curious why you thought a lower budget would mean going back to that. More a question of curiosity, not criticism.

[Aahz]

It doesnt matter if people outside of the fandom know who she is. I mean, who the hell knew who Rocket Raccoon and Groot were before the movies?

But Marvel has the advantage of a super popular cinematic universe. I guess they could at this point even make a movie with a completely new character that doesn't even exist in the comics and be successful.

I mean honestly just as solo movies without the MCU I don't think that movies like Guarians of the Galaxy, Captain Marvel or maybe even Thor would have made that much money. (And i wouldn't be surprised if now post endgame we would see the Box office slowly go down).

And the DCEU just doesn't have that pull. Shazam for example didn't even made it to 400 Million, despite being a pretty fun movie.

[Korath]

But Shazam lacked epicness. Really, it was the one and only flaw I could really feel while watching the movie. I waited for just five minutes of pure epicness, even just a brawl between Shazam and Sivana, and it never truly came.

With The Rock as Black Adam and the foundations set for this cast however, the sequel should have that, and it would do very well for it.

[Aahz]

But Shazam lacked epicness. Really, it was the one and only flaw I could really feel while watching the movie. I waited for just five minutes of pure epicness, even just a brawl between Shazam and Sivana, and it never truly came.

Than look at Ant-Man as example. That movie was also not that epic and made way more money than Shazam.

[Korath]

But it's part of the MCU. Without the backing of such a franchise, would have it done as well ? I don't think so, considering that the character doesn't seem able to up his appeal much even with a second film.

The first Ant-Man did 519,3 millions USD; Ant-Man and the Wasp 622,7 millions USD, which is really low for the MCU.

Captain America did 370,6 millions USD and Winter Soldier more than doubled it at 714,3 millions USD. Thor did 449,3 millions USD, Iron Man 585,2 millions USD.

Shazam made more than 362,76 millions USD, so he's in the range of most Origin stories for relatively unknown heroes. Adding more budget to the movie, a winning streak for DC (with potentially -and hopefully- Joker, BOP, WW84, Black Adam and The Batman -potentially Suicide Squad, even if I think they'll want to make the sequel of SHAZAM! soon) the character should bring a lot more money.

[Vakanai]

And the DCEU just doesn't have that pull. Shazam for example didn't even made it to 400 Million, despite being a pretty fun movie.

But luckily as I've heard it that was still enough for it to make profit. A small profit, and you could argue whether you think the studio execs consider it a tiny success or a tiny disappointment, but it did not lose them money. As long as they make money off of it, then there's an argument to be had to continue forward with it. That could apply just as easy to a small Batgirl movie.

[phonogram12]

I'd actually like to see a low budget Batman flick. No flashy special effects.

I agree. Batman Year One is one of the best Batman stories ever and you could totally do that on the cheap with a minimum of special effects (if any).

[phonogram12]

I think smaller budget films would absolutely work, when you look at what the daredevil netflix show or the first John Wick movie was able to pull off as far as action sequences you could certainly do movie quality fights on a budget, having Nightwing have a hallway fight like daredevil or a red hood movie with John Wick style fights would be amazing.

It really would. DD's kind of ground-level street fighting has quickly become a favorite of mine in action/superhero movies.

[Aahz]

But luckily as I've heard it that was still enough for it to make profit.

Yeah but as part of the MCU it would have very likely made more the 500 Million.

And until doesn't doesn't get their big movies fixed, I don't think that they can make like Marvel successful movies with their lesser know characters.

[Vakanai]

Yeah but as part of the MCU it would have very likely made more the 500 Million.

And until doesn't doesn't get their big movies fixed, I don't think that they can make like Marvel successful movies with their lesser know characters.

But Shazam was one of their lesser known characters, and it was successful. Not MCU successful, but does everything need to be that successful to be worthwhile? I say take the small successes as a win. No reason they can't make profit off these characters, and if they don't blow up like Marvel characters, well, so what?

[godisawesome]

But Shazam was one of their lesser known characters, and it was successful. Not MCU successful, but does everything need to be that successful to be worthwhile? I say take the small successes as a win. No reason they can't make profit off these characters, and if they don't blow up like Marvel characters, well, so what?

Agreed. The idea behind a smaller budget approach would be to increase the likelihood of profit, with a corresponding loss in pressure on the film to be anything besides a fun, decent film.

Since the Batman universe can and has at times been more restrained and down to earth, it’s possible to exploit this approach with the Batman spinoffs if you had the right directors and story.

[Ascended]

And the DCEU just doesn't have that pull. Shazam for example didn't even made it to 400 Million, despite being a pretty fun movie.

I think there's two things to take into account with Shazam's box office. First, it was squeezed in-between two highly hyped MCU films. After seeing Captain Marvel (possibly more than once) and with Endgame tickets already pre-ordered, how many people decided to pass on Shazam? Second, WB has an awful track record with DC films right now. I think WB should consider it a gift if any of their superhero movies so much as break even these days. The DCEU does not have any kind of brand loyalty or faith, a lot of people got burned by previous films and have walked away. It's unfair to WB to expect their films to match Marvel's. The MCU has been a gem of summer blockbusters for eleven years. WB can barely make half of their movies watchable.