Warner Bros. Officially confirms "Justice League" to follow MoS Sequel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nah because right after Aquaman does that, Martian Manhunter appears and goes "Yeah bitches, Martians are real and we are fucking scary."
But what are Martians?

Doesn't the audience need to understand that first? We haven't been to Mars. I'm not even sure half the audience knows there is any other planet apart from Earth. I think we'd have to spend a decent amount of time explaining the origin of Martians and how Mars fits into the Milky Way galaxy. After that science lesson, we can move onto the character and his own personal life story.

Maybe talk about his first love (Batman) or how he's trying to live properly in an improper world.
 
Dear god at anyone actually offended by that post.
Yeah, I think we're going to need a 2 hour movie explaining what God is first before we can truly understand your post.

Unless you meant Godzilla, then I know the perfect upcoming movie explaining that character's backstory and motivations. That will help us all understand your post that much more. We only have to wait a couple weeks.
 
Not like I can prove otherwise, but I think that without the buildup, it'd have been lucky to gross half of what it did.

Even for people who didn't see all (or any) of the first five MCU films, those films and the promotional blitz around them significantly elevated the cultural profile of the characters they starred, and coming over a span of four years, I believe that made Avengers seem like much more of an event to the average moviegoer than it would have been had it just been "hey, here's six superheroes in one movie."

I agree. The shared universe stuff is a damn fine marketing plan, and the media blitz surrounding the movie couldn't have happened without it. However, I still firmly believe the largest contributing factor to the Avengers' success was the fact that it was just a good, enjoyable movie. Had Whedon shit the bed and delivered a poor film, all that build up would have been for naught.

And it's worth saying that The Avengers grossing half of what it did would have still been ~$500 million gross. Normally, that's considered good. There are films out there that would have loved to gross $500 mil. However, it seems our standards for these superhero films have become somewhat inflated, to the point that Man of Steel grossing ~$600 million is seen as some great financial failure.

Yeah, I think we're going to need a 2 hour movie explaining what God is first before we can truly understand your post.
Fuck me, I laughed. lol

Nah man you can have a movie where Aquaman shows up and says "Yep, Atlantis is real and I'm its King, bitches. Now don't question my background, motivation or character at all and care about me."
If you think you need two hours to establish those things then...I don't even know what to tell you.
 
Yeah, I think we're going to need a 2 hour movie explaining what God is first before we can truly understand your post.

Unless you meant Godzilla, then I know the perfect upcoming movie explaining that character's backstory and motivations. That will help us all understand your post that much more. We only have to wait a couple weeks.
Lmao
 
Amazing post, Verendus, I genuinely lol'd at the mention of US Marshals.

Is it okay of me to say that I actually liked US Marshals and want to see a Snipes/Downey joint again?
 
lol there are rules now? i smell another thread brewing.

People will come up with whatever bullshit excuse they can to try and spin Man of Steel as a mediocre performance coming off of one the largest and most aggressive advertising campaigns ever seen. And all it cost was the integrity of the movie, because Kal-el vs Zod's fight was brought to you by 7-Eleven.
 
People will come up with whatever bullshit excuse they can to try and spin Man of Steel as a mediocre performance coming off of one the largest and most aggressive advertising campaigns ever seen. And all it cost was the integrity of the movie, because Kal-el vs Zod's fight was brought to you by 7-Eleven.

I think MoS did well financially all things considered. Coming from Superman Returns which did nowhere near what WB wanted and the whole boy-scout and superman is lame aura that surrounds the character, it managed to pulled nice numbers and it also put Superman on the public's mind. Nowadays I see a lot poeple rocking S shield shirts whereas before MoS I barely if ever saw any. I know anecdotal evidence, yeah. Thing is, the internet wants to convince everyone that MoS was a flop, critically it certainly was, but box-office wise it sure as hell wasn't.
 
It was actually the Smallville fight that was brought to us by 7/11 (and Sears.)

I didn't mind that kind of product placement, the only one that was blatant was the Windows Phone one complete with a worthless shot showing the OS and the cellphone, just lol. The others were alright.
 
I think MoS did well financially all things considered. Coming from Superman Returns which did nowhere near what WB wanted and the whole boy-scout and superman is lame aura that surrounds the character, it managed to pulled nice numbers and it also put Superman on the public's mind. Nowadays I see a lot poeple rocking S shield shirts whereas before MoS I barely if ever saw any. I know anecdotal evidence, yeah. Thing is, the internet wants to convince everyone that MoS was a flop, critically it certainly was, but box-office wise it sure as hell wasn't.
Audience reception was great too. Top 3 selling Blu-ray of 2013, and it's still doing well last I checked. People liked it.

Iron Man 3 did a billion at the box office, but not nearly as many cared to bring it home because it sucked.
 
"Man of Steel" grossed ~$688 million on a budget of $225 million. It was also the Top 3 Blu Ray of last year. Critics were divided on the movie if Rotten Tomatoes is anything to go by, with a score of 55% indicating that opinions were split down the middle. Audience reaction seems much the same, with people both loving and hating the movie in almost equal number.

That's the story of Man of Steel as objectively as I can state it. Whether this makes the movie a success or failure really comes down to perspective.
 
Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 don't work for me. President gets kidnapped and a bunch of 'mutants' are running around blowing up and Shield doesn't get involved. Aliens then invade London and once again Shield doesn't help.

I know that we can't have the Avengers together in every movie, but if they're going to have plots that have that high of stakes you can't just have one hero.
 
It only gets worse when you look at the combined Blu-ray/DVD chart. Man of Steel sold like double the units. It also came out a couple months later.
 
While we're talking about the money that these movies grossed or sold, how on Earth did Iron Man 3 only barely cross 400 million in the US while having the second highest opening ever? Were the legs of the movie that shitty when it was released?
 
Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 don't work for me. President gets kidnapped and a bunch of 'mutants' are running around blowing up and Shield doesn't get involved. Aliens then invade London and once again Shield doesn't help.

I know that we can't have the Avengers together in every movie, but if they're going to have plots that have that high of stakes you can't just have one hero.
Except the government was involved in Iron Man 3. But after The Avengers, they wanted to be seen stopping The Mandarin to "look strong", not relying on a super secret spy agency that most people don't know about.

And Thor 2's climax takes place in 8 minutes. What were they going to do?
 
To be fair, or whatever

Man of Steel actually outsold ALL Marvel movies sans the Avengers in 6-7 weeks

Before or after the holidays, still kind of impressive.

http://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart

Yeah and again, take a look at total consumer spending. Nearly 3 million units for barely 60 million dollars. Iron Man 2 sold half a million less and made 56 million. Captain America 2 million units for 56 million as well.
 
Yeah and again, take a look at total consumer spending. Nearly 3 million units for barely 60 million dollars. Iron Man 2 sold half a million less and made 56 million. Captain America 2 million units for 56 million as well.

Maybe I don't get what I'm looking at but in what way does that matter? Seems to me (unless I'm misinterpreting) that MoS still sold more copies. What does the amount of money spent matter? Were you guys discussing profits or which movie was favored more? Pretty sure it was the latter.
 
"Man of Steel" grossed ~$688 million on a budget of $225 million. It was also the Top 3 Blu Ray of last year. Critics were divided on the movie if Rotten Tomatoes is anything to go by, with a score of 55% indicating that opinions were split down the middle. Audience reaction seems much the same, with people both loving and hating the movie in almost equal number.

That's the story of Man of Steel as objectively as I can state it. Whether this makes the movie a success or failure really comes down to perspective.

Financially it was a home run. You don't get to 600 + million from an opening weekend and not all summer blockbusters make that much.

Sequel should only create that much more interest. Keep in mind Batman Begins didn't do the best #s but it was a clear indication of a success which led to TDK. Of course those movies were that much better and its yet to be seen how the down the middle critical response manifests itself in a sequel. Inclusion of Batman plus friends might make up for it .

Who exactly are you responding to here? I reread the last few pages, and while there's of course a lot of comparison to Marvel Studios films going on, no one seems particularly focused on how Justice League fares at the box office versus Avengers 3 or whatever Marvel is putting out that year.

It wasn't directed to anyone in particular and I realize it might be some pages too late.

I read the first couple of pages and like every thread related to WB and their projects going forward, the initial discussion seems to be centered around financial success as opposed to actual quality of the movie.

Its rather annoying. I know as a rule of thumb on the internet every new project is already proclaimed as "doomed" or "raping my childhood" but this nonsense about Marvel v DC or how success is now only measured by if you make as much or more as the Avengers is stupid.
 
Was this already posted
9 DC movies?
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/04/29/warner-bros-may-be-developing-nine-more-dc-comics-films
The Wall Street Journal reports that the studio and DC Comics seem to be trying to rival Marvel's big plans: They're planning to develop at least nine more films based on comics. That sounds like quite the commitment, but if they want to make a splash in the world of comic book movies, it's almost necessary. Quantity doesn't equal quality, but the more films there are, the better the chance that more of them will be solid.

As far as which titles are included in the additional nine films, the number presumably doesn't count the upcoming Man of Steel sequel or the Justice League flick that was just revealed this weekend. The Sandman is already in development with Joseph Gordon-Levitt producing, and The Wall Street Journal mentions The Metal Men, Shazam, 100 Bullets, and Fables as four of the films Warner Bros. has in the works.

That leaves at least four more possibilities. Since Arrow and Flash are on television, does that mean they're out? Maybe we'll see an Aquaman flick?
 
Off the top of my head, here's what DC has or had in some stages of development in the last year or so (outside of the main heroes):

Sandman
Fables
100 Bullets
Metal Men
Shazam
Booster Gold
Lobo
Deathstroke
Team 7 (don't even know what this is)
Suicide Squad
Supermax

So the nine in question are probably somewhere among that list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom