DC dvd movies: Low-budget live action instead of animated?

[Sketcher]

So I watched Batman: Under the Red Hood the other night and for the most part I thought it was fantastic. After watching it I thought - man, I wish this was done in live action instead of animation. It'd be interesting if instead of doing animated films, DC went the route of making them live-action. Obviously they would have lower budgets than The Dark Knight or Superman: Returns, but they could still be done well, and possibly in a more comic-book like style than what's presented on the silver screen. Thoughts?

 

[Jetfire]

I think it can be done and should...but won't.

 

[Professor Zoom]

They certainly wouldn't do them for high profile characters like Batman and Superman--there's FAR more money to be made with a theatrical release.

And, to be honest, I think it would be disappointing. To make money in a direct to DVD, you'd have to have a really small budget. Which would make things either look cheap or small.

Which might lead to a disappointing product... which leads to no one buying.

I think the cartoons are the best way to go.

 

[Dream]

It's a bad idea. Doing this only devalues the characters and makes it less likely for people to go see the big budget movie versions.

 

[Jetfire]

What about when a movie does awful at the box office & has huge DVD sales...I can't think of an example but I have heard of this...someone back me up.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

Terrible idea. The animated movies are very well done and I am happy and appreciative to have a steady stream of them. I don't want anything to mess that up.

 

[Jetfire]

I don't think it is terrible and low budget now...isn't like low budget 10 years ago or 20 when it would have seemed like a ridiculous idea. And there are TV actors who could easily be used...and work...just like getting them to do voice work.

[edit] Superman Returns costing $209 M...really? A Superman film could be done for way less...I mean Smallville does it every week.

 

[Dream]

I don't think it is terrible and low budget now...isn't like low budget 10 years ago or 20 when it would have seemed like a ridiculous idea. And there are TV actors who could easily be used...and work...just like getting them to do voice work.

In general, it costs much more to make movies these days. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight took 150-200 million to make compared to Batman (1989) which only cost 48 million to make.

Studios can't afford to cheap out, or people will be disappointed.

The good thing about animated movies these days is that they can put in all kinds of action that looks good, but also keep it under budget.

 

[Jetfire]

That's bullshit. It takes vision and the will to make a movie on budget...and fans won't be disappointed...you might...but a lot won't.

 

[Captain Mike]

I don't think it is terrible and low budget now...isn't like low budget 10 years ago or 20 when it would have seemed like a ridiculous idea. And there are TV actors who could easily be used...and work...just like getting them to do voice work.

[edit] Superman Returns costing $209 M...really? A Superman film could be done for way less...I mean Smallville does it every week.

And I think that is the point. I would have preferred Romano had stuck with at keast one actor for all the Superman vocalizations..(Daly and Baldwin) being my faves,...but going for how many "serious" actor(ess)'s are doing voiceover work because they respect the materrial nowadays is gonna pull in a hefty price tag as it is.

 

[Jetfire]

Another problem is a lot of "ego" is involved with comic book movies...from the studios & producers...they are usually short sighted. IMHO.

[edit] What I mean they underestimate a generally large and loyal fan base.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

They do this now, it's called Smallville.

 

[Kelthaz]

What's wrong with animation?

 

[Captain Mike]

Another problem is a lot of "ego" is involved with comic book movies...from the studios & producers...they are usually short sighted. IMHO.

[edit] What I mean they underestimate a generally large and loyal fan base.

I tend to think they LOVE playing around with the "fanbase" as if they conduct polls amongst themselves in prep for a new DVD.

 

[Professor Zoom]

What about when a movie does awful at the box office & has huge DVD sales...I can't think of an example but I have heard of this...someone back me up.

Being "huge" in DVD sales I would bet STILL pales in comparison to theatrical box office for a successful franchise picture.

I don't think it is terrible and low budget now...isn't like low budget 10 years ago or 20 when it would have seemed like a ridiculous idea. And there are TV actors who could easily be used...and work...just like getting them to do voice work.

[edit] Superman Returns costing $209 M...really? A Superman film could be done for way less...I mean Smallville does it every week.

Smallville is crap.

That's bullshit. It takes vision and the will to make a movie on budget...and fans won't be disappointed...you might...but a lot won't.

It takes a LOT of money to make a movie.

Here's a quote I finally found:

The average negative cost on a feature released by an MPAA-member studio in 2007 was $70.8 million, with an additional $35.9 million in marketing expenditures, for a total of $106.6 million.

And that was three years ago.

But, if you want direct to DVD, you should check out The Asylum movies. Live action, action adventure films. Mostly knock offs of Hollywood films.

I tried watching their version of Sherlock Holmes the other day on Netflix. Lasted 10 minutes. It was SO screamingly bad and cheap looking.

You don't want Batman looking like that.
You don't want Superman looking like that.
You wouldn't even want BOOSTER GOLD looking like that.

Warner Brothers won't do that, they won't tarnish their gold mine like that.

Remember Marvel TV movies in the 1990s?

No? There's a reason you don't remember Generation X or the Hasselhoff Nick Fury. Because they were cheap crap.

 

[Jetfire]

^
1. Hate Smallville all you want...it pulls in an large audience and DVD sales are usually better than actual TV numbers.

2. Generation X? Whatever...there was a show called Mutant X and the effects were not the problem...it was the stories they told with an attractive cast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutant_X_(TV_series)

3. "It takes a lot of money to make a movie" is BS and you know that...it is about ego. Spending $200 M and making 3-4 time that at the box office makes the studio E & Producers look good...God forbid they spend half that & make 3-4 times what they put into it.

 

[Stevil2001]

2. Generation X? Whatever...there was a show called Mutant X and the effects were not the problem...it was the stories they told with an attractive cast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutant_X_(TV_series

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116401/

 

[23skidoo]

What's wrong with animation?

I have to ask the same thing. People want movies to be exactly like the comic books, and yet 9 times out of 10 they're disappointed because changes are made either for the purposes of storytelling or logistics. For me the big disappointment has been Smallville which has simply messed about with the mythos too much - so much so that not even the occasional deadly accurate portrayal such as Zatanna and arguably Supergirl can make up for it.

The only way to truly replicate the comic book experience is through animation. And frankly the animated films I've seen from DC are going places they could never have gone in live action. Certainly not live-action TV.

If they can get away with doing it well in live-action, then more power to them. Dark Knight being Exhibit A and more power to the sequel. I happened to like Superman Returns, however, and it was rejected despite being in my opinion very well done. I also felt the Watchman movie worked, but it was heavily criticized for being - wait for it - too close to the comic book (that was in one of the big reviews, because the director reportedly used the comic as the storyboard which I guess is a no-no?). I really am not interested in a Wonder Woman movie if they decide to fart around with it as much as early reports suggested -- if it's not going to be Wonder Woman as we know it from the comics, I don't see the point and they might as well just invest in more animated films. And this isn't just from a purist perspective - look at the Halle Berry Catwoman to see how badly they scan screw it up if the take a character too far away from the comic.

What I'd like to see is DC and Warner invest in making one of these movies for theatrical release. So far there have been several that could easily have done well on the big screen (raking in more money than just a DVD/BD release would).

And people would go to see this. Animated films, especially of the 3-D variety (a 3-D Crisis on Infinite Earths? Think about it) would do well. And a big-screen animated would allow big-screen stars to be brought in to do the character voices. Imagine Brad Pitt as Superman, Angelina Jolie as Wonder Woman, Bruce Willis as Batman (why not?), Johnny Depp as Martian Manhunter, Sean Connery as Darkseid. The sky would be the limit.

Alex

 

[Professor Zoom]

^
1. Hate Smallville all you want...it pulls in an large audience and DVD sales are usually better than actual TV numbers.

Smallville gets around 3 million. It wouldn't last on a network. More people live in Brooklyn.

2. Generation X? Whatever...there was a show called Mutant X and the effects were not the problem...it was the stories they told with an attractive cast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutant_X_(TV_series)

Someone else has pointed out Generation X was a 1996 made for TV movie.

3. "It takes a lot of money to make a movie" is BS and you know that...it is about ego. Spending $200 M and making 3-4 time that at the box office makes the studio E & Producers look good...God forbid they spend half that & make 3-4 times what they put into it.

What kind of production values will you get for 5 million dollars? And then marketing? It will look crappy and only devalue your product. Look at the direct to dvd B5 movie. Look at the Asylum stuff. These are cheaply done movies in order to make a profit in the direct to dvd market.

It's NOT BS. It takes MONEY, to make and then MARKET. It's the reality. I'm sorry if you don't think so. But, it's true. ESPECIALLY for high concept films (which super heroes ARE). You want to see Batman swing on a rope, Superman FLY. These things cost money to make it look believable.

Consider you're own math. 200 million gets you say, 600 million, profit 400 million. 100 million (you're half) gets you 300 million, profit 200 million. Which would you choose?

And besides 100 million dollars (you're number) is a LOT of money. You're NOT going to spend that kind of money for a direct to DVD release. That's INSANE. You wouldn't even spend 50 million on a direct to dvd release.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Yeah, I'm with the above school of thought. The reason why a lot of comic adaptations are only able to be made now is because of the advances in CGI and other SFX. But even still, these cost a fair bit of money.

People expect superhero adaptations to look spectacular. That required big bucks. The likes of the Roger Corman Fantastic Four, the Hoff Nick Fury and Generation X just won't cut it, now that we've seen The Dark Knight, Iron Man or Spider-man.

You could maybe do the likes of The Punisher on a budget, non-superpowered heroes but even the movie versions of Punny to date have all been pretty crap, so I'm not sure I see the point of that either.