Warners is riding high on a Dark Knight shaped wave at the moment, and Picture Group President Jeff Robinov has announced that the studio is changing its strategy to try to generate more such successes.
First of all, they're going to try to release six to eight big tent-pole releases per year, and cut production back overall from about 26 movies a year to about 22. Up to 2 of those tent-pole releases would be DC-based films, under the new plans.
Warners is also, crucially, going to aim to get more mileage from their DC Comics characters - including a reboot of Superman after 2006's Superman Returns. "'Superman [Returns]' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all." That also puts the Justice League of America movie on the back-burner: if that happens, it will probably follow on from standalone films in the same way that Marvel is planning with The Avengers.
The plan is to focus on single characters at first, and Robinov wants to "go dark to the extent that the characters allow" - even with Superman. Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, Green Lantern and Flash are all in active development now.
So is this a good thing? While dark, brooding and realistic is working brilliantly for Batman, will it work as well for the Big Blue Boy Scout? Or the Amazing Amazon? At least it means that Warners are finally getting serious about their DC characters - but can they catch Marvel's lead?
One thing's for certain: comic book movies are about to go to war, and that should mean more competition, and better films, for all of us.
. . . . and you know nothing about me! Your "Dolt" reply proves my point. Learn to see the world in more than black and white - it's much more interesting. As for the expression "Get A Life" - you're obviously an emotional sensitive sort with no sense of humour so I appologise . . . .
However, your pompus tone says more than I ] could. Just because you write on a forum a couple more times than others doesn't mean that you are exempt from being ridiculed! Jus... Read More
You're full of it mate. You entered this discussion by denigrating (some of) my 14 points as to why I think Superman Returns was fatally flawed as mere 'pet peeves' - which is totally fucking condescending*. You've used sophist arguments as to why the film's flaws weren't flaws at all (Luthor was stupid and unrealistic because he was meant to be that way? Bullshit. Stupid is as stupid does. He's i] to be a criminal mastermind (no matter how he's otherwise character... Read More
L: Stewie_Griffin
Max, You make some very interesting posts and frankly i would kill to have your grasp of the english language, But you really let yourself down when you get all pissy with someone who has the audacity not to agree with your views on any given subject (I don't think it's a coincedence that your thread for Speed Racer also turned into a slanging match with other forum members) Please try to be more accomodating to other people's opinions and try to counter those ... Read More
