They are going ahead with a Justice League movie

[Nerys Myk]

Dream wrote:

---

Yes, because Superman Returns and Batman & Robin did so well?

Superman Returns grossed $391,081,192 worldwide. ( compared to the more "popular" Batman Begins which grossed $372,710,015 worldwide).

[Dream]

Zombie Cheerleader wrote:

---

Superman Returns grossed $391,081,192 worldwide. ( compared to the more "popular" Batman Begins which grossed $372,710,015 worldwide).

They might have made near the same around worldwide, but Superman Returns didn't make enough for a sequel and reviews were mixed. Also BB had a smaller budget which is why that got a sequel.

Batman & Robin made more than double its budget, but no one wanted a sequel to that. People mistakenly believe that movie was a flop or something.

[Nerys Myk]

Dream wrote:

---

They might have made near the same around worldwide, but Superman Returns didn't make enough for a sequel and reviews were mixed. Also BB had a smaller budget which is why that got a sequel.

Batman & Robin made more than double its budget, but no one wanted a sequel to that. People mistakenly believe that movie was a flop or something.

Still both films made about the same about of money. So they did equally "well".


People like you?

[Dream]

Zombie Cheerleader wrote:

---

Still both films made about the same about of money. So they did equally "well".


People like you?

Determining how successful a movie is depends on both how much it makes and also the budget.

Batman Begins cost $150 million to make

Superman Returns cost $270 million to make

As a rule, movies need to make more than double their budget in order be profitable.

Batman Begins definitely made more than 300M worldwide. While I'm sure Warners hoping for more, BB did good enough for a sequel.

Superman Returns needed to make more than $540 million worldwide to be profitable. Obviously that didn't happen. It didn't do well at all.

[Nerys Myk]

Dream wrote:

---

Determining how successful a movie is depends on both how much it makes and also the budget.

Batman Begins cost $150 million to make

Superman Returns cost $270 million to make

As a rule, movies need to make more than double their budget in order be profitable.

Batman Begins definitely made more than 300M worldwide. While I'm sure Warners hoping for more, BB did good enough for a sequel.

Superman Returns needed to make more than $540 million worldwide to be profitable. Obviously that didn't happen. It didn't do well at all.

Yeah I know. That's why "well" is in quotes. Profit and popularity aren't the same thing.

[theenglish]

Dream wrote:

---

Determining how successful a movie is depends on both how much it makes and also the budget.

Batman Begins cost $150 million to make

Superman Returns cost $270 million to make

As a rule, movies need to make more than double their budget in order be profitable.

Batman Begins definitely made more than 300M worldwide. While I'm sure Warners hoping for more, BB did good enough for a sequel.

Superman Returns needed to make more than $540 million worldwide to be profitable. Obviously that didn't happen. It didn't do well at all.

But wasn't a lot of that Superman budget due to pre-production waste and the failed attempts previous to the movie that finally got made?

[Nerys Myk]

theenglish wrote:

---

But wasn't a lot of that Superman budget due to pre-production waste and the failed attempts previous to the movie that finally got made?

I wonder what the numbers would look like with out those costs?

[Set Harth]

Dream wrote:

---

Superman Returns cost $270 million to make

HOLY JEBUS!

[FPAlpha]

Christopher wrote:

---

Is it really? The target audience for your typical superhero feature film these days is in the 15-30 age range, more or less. Most of them wouldn't even have been born when the Carter series went off the air, and it's been quite a long time since it was in regular syndication. I think the generation that the movies will be targeted toward is more likely to know Wonder Woman from the Justice League animated series if at all.

I'm not so sure.. i believe the main audience of today's superhero movies consists of about 80% general audience who just want to see some hyped up, cool action movie with big scenes and cool special effects.

Apart from the biggest heroes like Superman, Batman, Spiderman and maybe X-Men they will know precious little about the backstories of characters beforehand.. ask any non-comic reader prior to Iron Man what they knew about Tony Stark and his main characteristics (i bet they wouldn't even know that in the comics he's an alcoholic which also was one of his most major storylines).

This is what Marvel absolutely did right.. take Captain America for example. Most people know about this guy in the star spangled uniform and his shield but that's about it. Maybe some remember a bit more if they read comics as a kid but it's not the majority.
So they made his intro movie complete with backstory and connected him to the greater Marvel movie universe (in fact.. his movie is essential if you want to get the whole Avengers picture) so we knew why Captain America was such a big deal and why Coulson was such a fangirl about him.

Depending on how they want to portray Wonder Woman and how important she is to the storyline it could take away from the whole movie if they have to spend time to introduce her and not let her be just this superstrong woman who could stand up to Superman in a fight.

Set Harth wrote:

---

HOLY JEBUS!

I believe that number is a bit skewed because they included the money spent on the decade long development process including several team/director/producer changes and rewrites/test shots. Actual movie costs would most likely be in the "standard" range for movies this size.. i guess somewhere around the 150 million mark (and i still always wonder where all this money goes).

[trekkiebaggio]

Dream wrote:

---

Yes, because Superman Returns and Batman & Robin did so well?

It's a chance to see Superman and Batman in the same movie, who's not going to want to see that?!

[Turtletrekker]

^That's a good point. I'd certainly go to see such a movie. Once, at least. Repeated viewings (Saw Avengers five times) would depend upon the quality of the product. I sat through Batman and Robin and Superman Returns in the theater as well. Once.

They can't just depend upon the concept of a good super-hero movie becoming a good mega-successful super-hero movie. I mean sure, a lot of people will see it anyway.

Once, at least.

[trekkiebaggio]

Exactly, I mean I don't want Superman and Batman to overshadow the rest of the League, but to generate excitement without building the movie universe I think they're going to have to go the "iconic legends meeting for the first time" route.

[Christopher]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

I'm not so sure.. i believe the main audience of today's superhero movies consists of about 80% general audience who just want to see some hyped up, cool action movie with big scenes and cool special effects.

Which only reinforces my point. Most of the target audience would have little prior perception of Wonder Woman at all, and those that did are more likely to know her from the JL animated series than from the old '70s show. So it doesn't make sense to assume that the '70s series will dictate how the movie's audience perceives Wonder Woman.

Depending on how they want to portray Wonder Woman and how important she is to the storyline it could take away from the whole movie if they have to spend time to introduce her and not let her be just this superstrong woman who could stand up to Superman in a fight.

Well, the premiere episode of Justice League managed to cover her origins pretty well in about two minutes, although they trimmed out the traditional contest sequence.

[the G-man]

Zombie Cheerleader wrote:

---

both films made about the same about of money. So they did equally "well".

Profit: The positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses.

Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/3880/pr...#ixzz289T8d2bl

[Sindatur]

the G-man wrote:

---

Profit: The positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses.

Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/3880/pr...#ixzz289T8d2bl

But what's being pointed out is that Superman Returns didn't fail on it's own merit. Before a dime was actually spent towards the movie, it was already carrying about a $150Million burden from previous false starts. If it wasn't burdened with that previously spent budget, it would have performed a slight bit better than Batman Begins. It was front loaded to fail