DC Extended Universe (POST NO SPOILERS HERE!)

[Triple J]

Warner Bros are trying to cash in on the Successes of Marvel and if they thought that the Marvel formula would be the success it has been they would have done it years ago, especially as they have the advantage of having there properties under one umbrella unlike Marvel who have their properties across three studios (20th Century Fox, Disney and Sony Pictures). No Warners are not the innovators here, Marvel trumped Warners brilliantly and Warners are copycats.

Then they serve up rubbish titles like Superman v Batman. Don't get me wrong I hope the movie works as I am a DC reader but they are copying the Marvel formula.

I am merely suggesting that they might be too late to the party.

20th Century Fox and Sony both entered the Superhero game before Marvel Studios and some how WB/DC is copying Marvel? Lol trolling much?

Warner Bros didn't need to enter the Superhero business earlier because they had franchises to run. 8 Harry Potter films, 3 Matrix films, 6 LOTR/Hobbit films being WB's biggest franchise. Add in their non franchise movies, Nolan's projects like Inception, The Prestige), Snyder's projects (Watchmen, 300), Affleck's projects (The Town, Argo) etc. WB knows how to build franchises and have their films make money.

Marvel can't have trumped WB because WB is only now getting into the game.

^^ What he said.

And it's not like they haven't tried. They have, with the JL: Mortal back in 2007 (long before Avengers or Iron man)....the project was deserted for a couple of reasons, including the writers strike (which I doubt was WB's fault).

Oh, and yes, they were planning to convert that into an actual franchise with sequels (solo movies and such). You can look it up if you want.

Circumstances forced WB to abandon that project...I can only imagine what would have happened if the movie was made and released (perhaps, in another universe, it did!).

Superman v. Batman isn't a rubbish title (okay, that's subjective). But, from a marketing standpoint, it's a pure gold. Batman alone can guarantee a big box office draw (Superman could do too, but that didn't quite work out for MOS. It made money, but not enough for a Superman movie).

[Robotman]

Someone tell this guy to stop copying Marvel Studios!

[Doctor Know]

Superman v. Batman isn't a rubbish title (okay, that's subjective). But, from a marketing standpoint, it's a pure gold. Batman alone can guarantee a big box office draw (Superman could do too, but that didn't quite work out for MOS. It made money, but not enough for a Superman movie).

How much is not enough?

MOS made more domestically than either Thor 2 and Captain America 2, and both of those had a previous solo film and Avengers to add wind to their sales. Where MOS underperformed (if you want to call it that) is in foreign markets. I'm willing to bet most people didn't know what to expect when they heard and another Superman movie was coming, and given that the previous film (Superman Returns) didn't really wow audiences. May have affected MOS foreign BO draw.

When you look at the totality of MOS though. It was a big success.
Budget of $225 million (including advertising)

Worldwide Gross of $668 million
+
$100 million on bluray and dvd sales
+
$180 million paid to WB to have their products advertised in the film (all those annoying product placement shots now make sense)

MOS proved Superman is a cash cow again. Something no other Superman film since Superman II (1980) can claim.

[colonyofcells]

Warner brothers is probably trying to cash in on the current superhero movie fad before the consumers get sick of superhero movies. After the superhero movie fad fades away, warner brothers can probably make more magic movies and vertigo movies.

[Marvel_Is]

Someone tell this guy to stop copying Marvel Studios!

DC just needs to bring this guy back, period!

[Doctor Know]

DC just needs to bring this guy back, period!

They tried in 2006, remember? Bryan Singer managed to torpedo the Superman franchise for 7 years until MOS came out. Then theX-Men movies had to be retconned by DOFP. After X3 turned in to a disaster by Singer leaving Fox for WB; taking his writing and production team from X2 with him to WB.

The Reeve era Superman is a well that dried up back in 1983. Best to leave him there.

[nathdog]

How much is not enough?

MOS made more domestically than either Thor 2 and Captain America 2, and both of those had a previous solo film and Avengers to add wind to their sales. Where MOS underperformed (if you want to call it that) is in foreign markets. I'm willing to bet most people didn't know what to expect when they heard and another Superman movie was coming, and given that the previous film (Superman Returns) didn't really wow audiences. May have affected MOS foreign BO draw.

When you look at the totality of MOS though. It was a big success.
Budget of $225 million (including advertising)

Worldwide Gross of $668 million
+
$100 million on bluray and dvd sales
+
$180 million paid to WB to have their products advertised in the film (all those annoying product placement shots now make sense)

MOS proved Superman is a cash cow again. Something no other Superman film since Superman II (1980) can claim.

Superman is not a cash cow in the movie business and when quoting figures you need to reference the material so they can be verified. The reality is that Marvel took a gamble on characters that were not as well known as DC's characters and it paid off and now Warners are trying to ride onMarvel's coat tails.

You will also need to provide references to your comments on documented evidence that Warners were plotting a shared film-verse again for verification.

As I have said I am a Batman and Superman fan but what Warners are planning is probably too late in the game and audiences could very well tire of the flooded market that is superhero movies, he'll the world may go to $&@?! By 2017.

having said that like Marvels risk taking with less known characters perhaps Warners are happy with a movie that has not bettered its Disney peers.

[nathdog]

^^ What he said.

And it's not like they haven't tried. They have, with the JL: Mortal back in 2007 (long before Avengers or Iron man)....the project was deserted for a couple of reasons, including the writers strike (which I doubt was WB's fault).

Oh, and yes, they were planning to convert that into an actual franchise with sequels (solo movies and such). You can look it up if you want.

Circumstances forced WB to abandon that project...I can only imagine what would have happened if the movie was made and released (perhaps, in another universe, it did!).

Superman v. Batman isn't a rubbish title (okay, that's subjective). But, from a marketing standpoint, it's a pure gold. Batman alone can guarantee a big box office draw (Superman could do too, but that didn't quite work out for MOS. It made money, but not enough for a Superman movie).

The LotR movies were Znew Line productions, New Line was taken over post LotR.

Whether WB needed a shared movie-verse is irrelevant to this debate. Marvel took a risk on lesser known characters unlike DC who did not. It is probable that audiences will have tired of superhero movies by the end of this decade and whether you want to admit it or not Warners are copying Marvel.

[Triple J]

Superman is not a cash cow in the movie business and when quoting figures you need to reference the material so they can be verified. The reality is that Marvel took a gamble on characters that were not as well known as DC's characters and it paid off and now Warners are trying to ride on Marvel's coat tails.

You will also need to provide references to your comments on documented evidence that Warners were plotting a shared film-verse again for verification.

As I have said I am a Batman and Superman fan but what Warners are planning is probably too late in the game and audiences could very well tire of the flooded market that is superhero movies, he'll the world may go to $&@?! By 2017.

having said that like Marvels risk taking with less known characters perhaps Warners are happy with a movie that has not bettered its Disney peers.

The LotR movies were Znew Line productions, New Line was taken over post LotR.

Whether WB needed a shared movie-verse is irrelevant to this debate. Marvel took a risk on lesser known characters unlike DC who did not. It is probable that audiences will have tired of superhero movies by the end of this decade and whether you want to admit it or not Warners are copying Marvel.

You do realize that Marvel didn't have a choice, right? They didn't have their biggest heroes..that's why they took the risk. If they had the rights to Xmen and Spidermen, there would never be an Avengers movie.

Oh, so it's about taking a risk on lesser known characters? What makes you think that WB/DC needs to do that? These companies are not working to make the fandom happy..they are doing it to make money. And as long as they make that, they are fine (doesn't matter if the only rely on their flagship characters).

Yeah, sure, it is probable....But, as long as WB sticks to adapting quality stories (DC has a lot of those), they will be fine. I love Marvel's films, but they are just plain simple...not much substance (I like fun movies, but prefer movies that make me think - which is what DC is good at).

Okay, how is WB copying Marvel? Please do tell me what they are copying?

Did Marvel invent something new? No, they just took an idea from comics (single cohesive universe) and put it on movies...that isn't necessarily innovation (granted no one had successfully tried it before).

And like I mentioned earlier, WB was trying to do that, long before Iron man.

[The Darknight Detective]

Whether WB needed a shared movie-verse is irrelevant to this debate. Marvel took a risk on lesser known characters unlike DC who did not. It is probable that audiences will have tired of superhero movies by the end of this decade and whether you want to admit it or not Warners are copying Marvel.

Fine. If that's the case, then Marvel tried to copy DC for decades and failed miserably (much worse than DC has done these past 15 years during the Marvel ascendancy). Now can we stop this silly playground squabble and actually root for both companies to put out good movies that people will want to watch?

[Air Wave]

You do realize that Marvel didn't have a choice, right? They didn't have their biggest heroes..that's why they took the risk. If they had the rights to Xmen and Spidermen, there would never be an Avengers movie.

This.

They also had the luxury of sitting back and watching the success of characters they had licensed out having very successful movies made, which in turn had been inspired by earlier successful WB superhero franchises of the late 20th century, a period during which those characters were the only ones well known enough to actually get movies made about them when superhero movies were not yet a thing.

Look, Marvel obviously made the current craze happen and pioneered the whole shared-universe thing and WB is obviously playing catchup. But everything is more complicated than Marvel rules/DC sucks.

[nathdog]

You do realize that Marvel didn't have a choice, right? They didn't have their biggest heroes..that's why they took the risk. If they had the rights to Xmen and Spidermen, there would never be an Avengers movie.

Oh, so it's about taking a risk on lesser known characters? What makes you think that WB/DC needs to do that? These companies are not working to make the fandom happy..they are doing it to make money. And as long as they make that, they are fine (doesn't matter if the only rely on their flagship characters).

Yeah, sure, it is probable....But, as long as WB sticks to adapting quality stories (DC has a lot of those), they will be fine. I love Marvel's films, but they are just plain simple...not much substance (I like fun movies, but prefer movies that make me think - which is what DC is good at).

Okay, how is WB copying Marvel? Please do tell me what they are copying?

Did Marvel invent something new? No, they just took an idea from comics (single cohesive universe) and put it on movies...that isn't necessarily innovation (granted no one had successfully tried it before).

And like I mentioned earlier, WB was trying to do that, long before Iron man.

WB are copying what Marvel/Disney did by releasing a string of movies of based on characters that will end up in a bigger teamup movie. I remember reading a piece on IMDB where a WB executive admitted they were going to follow then established model had been a success. I would even go further and suggest that the success lead to Marvel being acquired by Disney as Disney lacked assets that appealed to boys, their subsequent purchase of Lucas Film is also suggestive of that. Single cohesive universes have been part of comics but not movies. It had not been done before and a reference to a flying man in Metropolis in a bad Schumacher Batman movie is not evidence of a plan to have a Justice League movie.

Where is your evidence that WB were trying it? All your point suggests is that I am correct as DC are trying it now because someone else tried it and it worked, ergo WB is copying Marvel (actually Disney). it is innovative Releasing a string of movies about lesser known characters that would lead up to a tea up movie was indeed innovative as it had not been attempted before. In economics there is an innovation, then others jump on the band wagon and free rides on the successes of the innovation e.g. Apple iOS v Android, iPad v Galaxy

You raise an interesting point about Marvel having to try something as its now parent company had a lot of properties for girls with their princess assets e.g. Frozen and the other princess movies but very little for boys. Perhaps this is why they acquired Marvel and Lucas Film?

[Baggie_Saiyan]

When do you guys think the supposed teaser for BvS: DoJ will be out, Interstellar or Hobbit?

[Hilden B. Lade]

When do you guys think the supposed teaser for BvS: DoJ will be out, Interstellar or Hobbit?

given that the movie isn't out until March 2016, a teaser attached to movies released in like one or two months would only make the wait more torturous.

but I suppose I'd rather see it attached to Interstellar, cause out of those two that's the one I'm actually planning to see instead of rental waiting.

[DebkoX]

With Marvel I feel that they enjoy making the movies and whilst yes, they ovbiously do want money. You can tell they love it. WB just see DC as $$$$$.