itt: consternation and wailing about Zach Snyder's upcoming SUPERMAN/BATMAN film/sequel to MAN OF STEEL -- official title: BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE

yeah, but a well-made, incredibles-level animated shazam movie could do okay, i think. and sparkle motion otm.

oh I agree. tbh I've learned that I infinitely prefer superhero stuff in animated form, the DC Universe stuff is p much better than any of the recent blockbusters imo

May 2016 – All our at-best half-baked eggs in one basket
July 2016 – A kid says "shazam!" and becomes a guy named "shazam!"
Xmas 2016 – Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a magical pick-up artist code-named "Dream King"
May 2017 – Our eggs, fully baked god-willing!
July 2017 – Loved our eggs? Here's the lady egg again! Three months!
Xmas 2017 – MMMM, STILL HUNGRY FOR EGGS!?!?! Here's the one you puked up six years earlier, hanging out with the one from the CW (fingers crossed!) Don't thank us, thank Santa!
May 2018 – Superman celebratin' the year of the egg with a victory lap!

The only reason I can even half-believe this is that a) as goofy as she is you'd think Nikki Finke wouldn't lead her new site with complete bullshit and b) WB has been fucking up left and right as it is

Also no one wants to see a live action Shazam.

― lauded at conferences of deluded psychopaths (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:13 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

much less a "dark" shazam that ends in some quasi-apocalyptic climax

I'd be up for an animated shazam set in the 30s

keep thinking it would be smart if w/ one of these comics properties they went animated and maybe (brace yrself) pitch it more toward kids (albeit more 'kids and adults' a la all animated movies today). incredibles was a huge hit, captain marvel would be perfect for this, it'd be a way to monetize that property and not overcrowd the market even more, make it happen already.

― balls, Friday, June 13, 2014 12:07 AM (19 minutes agpo) Bookmark

well Disney are sorta doing this (albeit with a lesser known property) with Big Hero 6. Could be testing the waters

this slate is 100% reliant on the idea that superman v batman not only does well but does so well that people want three movies about the same characters THE VERY NEXT YEAR

honestly they should have gone that route w/ the spider-man reboot

xpost

that's a good idea though i do have to remind myself that those new spidermans are making a ridiculous amount of money.

yeah (sigh)

you could make fan movie?

the international on spidey-films is insane but the domestic numbers have been waning enough that i wonder if they're really gonna go through with the villain movies.

Only if it's a solo Mysterio joint with no dialogue

and of course SHAZAM itself itself is just a ridiculous anagram

― Οὖτις, Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:06 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for what? MASHAZ?

Um I mean acronym lol

http://comicslust.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Captain-Marvel-%E2%80%A2-05.jpg

lol

May 2016 – Batman v Superman
July 2016 – Shazam
Xmas 2016 – Sandman
May 2017 – Justice League
July 2017 – Wonder Woman
Xmas 2017 – Flash and Green Lantern team-up
May 2018 – Man Of Steel 2

this is seriously the funniest thing i've read today. and that includes the debut of clickhole so the bar is high.

feige must be pissing himself laughing

omg i didn't realize that was real

lol i know it reads like something a 12-year-old scribbles to himself under the covers at night

also apparently captain marvel is straight up named shazam in the comic books now, can't wait to see what actor signed up to play shazam in the movie shazam where everyone will say "shazam" a lot

― da croupier, Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:40 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this has been true for as long as DC comics purchase the character. since the 1980s I think?

― I dunno. (amateurist), 13. kesäkuuta 2014 2:00

no billy batson was captain marvel, shazam was the wizard. they just couldn't name the comic 'captain marvel'.

― balls, 13. kesäkuuta 2014 2:03

The way I understand it, at one point Marvel acquired the trademark for "Captain Marvel", even though the Billy Batson Captain Marvel far predates Marvel's Captain Marvel. Apparently Marvel managed to do this because at the time no one was publishing comics featuring the Billy Batson Captain Marvel. This doesn't mean DC can't have a character called Captain Marvel (there are several DC characters who share their name with a Marvel character), only that they can't market him with that name, so the Captain Marvel comic books DC has published have been called "Shazam"/"The Power of Shazam"/etc. Apparently they've now decided that for clarity's sake the character should be called Shazam too, though I admit it's a pretty silly name for a live-action movie protagonist.

Also, Marvel comics has had at least four or five different character called "Captain Marvel"... I'm not sure about it, but I think it has to do with the trademark situation: in order to keep the trademark, they have to keep publishing comics with a character named "Captain Marvel", so when one Captain Marvel becomes less popular, they just give the name to a new one. If I've understood it correctly, if Marvel wouldn't keep using that name, at some point the trademark would be considered as having fallen into disuse (that's how Marvel managed to acquire it in the first place), and DC could reclaim it.

yep

To retain their trademark, Marvel has had to publish a Captain Marvel title every year or two since, leading to a number of ongoing series, limited series and one-shots featuring a range of characters using the Captain Marvel alias.[3]

oh man, that schedule. this could take down TimeWarner.

they need to make ONE movie that really, really connects w/ people before they go all in like that.

The Batman movies and the new Superman one have made loads of money, right? That's all that matters, I doubt they really care about "connecting with people".

the new superman made money, not sure it met expectations though?

there's loads of money and then there's loads of money. Man Of Steel, a resurrection of the most popular superhero ever, made less money at the US box office than the first Iron Man, and only slightly more internationally, despite the intl market being bigger today than it even was in '08 when IM came out. And it made about half as much as Iron Man 3.

It did pretty good, and considering The Dark Knight did megabucks following a modest rebooting, there's no reason to assume Man Of Steel 2 could blow up as well. But they're not doing Superman 2. They're making a Superman v Batman movie despite having a wholly different Batman 2 years ago who either died or faked his death to go on a sex vacay with Catwoman. Instead of a sequel that reintroduces a big hero's most legendary, charismatic nemesis (which worked for The Dark Knight!) they're making a sequel that has to do that AND reintroduce a hero big enough they're putting his name first in the title.

That's a lot for a movie to handle, without putting money down that it will do well enough to merit (if this slate can be believed) a superhero team-up movie and two related spin-offs ALL IN ONE YEAR. Compare this to Marvel, who had two Iron Man movies, two hulks, one thor and one captain america before making the team-up. What DC is allegedly doing is like if Marvel made Iron Man, then Iron Man vs Hulk, then the Avengers, then Black Widow and then Captain America & Thor's Excellent Adventure.

Oh, and they're also making Shazam and Sandman.

You can say "well they make a lotta money" but they also cost a lot of money, and DC is setting up a slate where each component has to do CRAZY good to justify the next components...which come only a year later. It's not a lot of time to put on the brakes.

sorry that should be "there's no reason to assume Man Of Steel 2 couldn't blow up as well"

and actually, my comparison re: "iron man v hulk" flatters DC because in no way is henry cavill's superman as popular as robert downey jr's iron man. And we don't know yet whether Ben Affleck's Batman will be as popular anybody's Hulk (ditto Gal Gadot vs ScarJo, whoeverthefuckisplayingGL&Flash vs the Chrises)

(batman) faked his death to go on a sex vacay with Catwoman.

― da croupier, Friday, June 13, 2014

now there's a dc-comics movie sequel worth making.

i bet christian bale would come back for that, definitely

Okay, I get your point... It's interesting that despite having recognizable brand names and a template for widescreen action, it all still seems to boil down to casting the right actors for key roles. The first two Hulk movies weren't successful, the first Thor movie wasn't a big hit either, but the Iron Man movies were, and I guess that was mostly due to Robert Downey Jr.'s charisma. And that charisma seems to have done a lot of the carrying for the Avengers movie, as well as Tom Hiddleton being the perfect choice for Loki. (As I've understood it, he's become more popular a character than Thor himself.) Similarly, a lot of The Dark Knight's success was seemingly built on Heath Ledger. So yeah, I guess good actors and memorable characters are the thing where the DC movies haven't been quite as successful as the Marvel ones, they still need to tackle that one, and I'm not sure casting Affleck at this point in his career is gonna help... Who's gonna play the villains in Batman & Superman?

(xxx-post)

Jesse Eisenberg is Lex Luthor in Bat vs Sup, which feels like it could go either way. but it's not like anyone gives a fuck now that batman's in it.

Thor 1 and Cap'n 1 weren't huge breakout hits like Iron Man but they did well with audiences, established the (relatively unfamiliar) characters and the sequels did money equal to Man Of Steel following the Avengers.

Honestly, Marvel has done a sterling job building a "universe" and everyone else is rushing to keep up, esp DC, which is diluting the Marvel template with the "hey just reboot it 2 years later" Sony/Spidey mindset (which is getting them diminishing if still impressive-in-china returns) and their own "uhhh dark knight made money be like dark knight" deal.

Okay, wtf, I checked it, and apparenly Luthor will be played by some guy who's 4 years younger than me! Are they gonna go for the Silver age "Clark Kent and Luthor used to be childhood buddies" angle? IMO the Byrne reboot where Luthor is older and more experienced than Superman made him into a better villain, but I guess they won't be doing that with this Eisenberg dude.

(x-post)

if this slate is real there is no way marvel is backing off from the chicken run of both Bat vs Supes and Cap'n 3 opening the same weekend (May 6, 2016 until somebody flinches!). In a world where both are dropped the same day and there's mutually assured destruction, Marvel still has umpteen other franchises while DC has put everything they have in this movie.

is batman still the "villain" in this new movie, or have they gone in a different direction?

but it's not like anyone gives a fuck now that batman's in it.

I dunno, I'm sure the majority of people who saw The Avengers didn't give a fuck about Loki or Tom Hiddleston (comic fans and those who saw the first Thor movie being the exceptions), but he made a such impact that they had to rewrite Thor 2 to give him bigger role than the main villain of that movie.

considering they're superfriends a year later, one must assume bats and supes hug it out and start dealing with lex pretty early on in the film.

i think lex luthor is way more interesting as this experienced, cynical mega-capitalist corruption of the american dream that superman can't just shoot laser eyes at, too. but then i haven't seen smallville.

and yes, it's possible jesse eisenberg will find some new angle rather than just do Mark Zuckerberg With A Laser Gun and blow everyone's mind. My point is just that it's going to be a lot harder when the movie has so much far important stuff to do.

i mean jesus, at this point I'm WAYYYYY more curious about Belle vs Sebastian: Department Of Justice than I am about this Ultron fellow

also thor made 180m in the US alone! that the majority of people who saw The Avengers didn't care about loki previously is just because that movie was the third biggest film ever!

also thor made 180m in the US alone!

With a budget of 150 million (which doesn't include marketing, I think), this wasn't a huge success.

jesse eisenberg

Keep parsing this as Pinefox trying to refer to Aaron Paul.

tuomas you're moving the goalposts around. thor made $450m globally (and 2x the budget is the traditionally perceived breakeven point for a movie like this), which while not a mindblowing success, was still A Profitable Movie Lots Of People Saw and quite good for a film that introduced a norse god played by an unknown as a superhero. And with a boost from the avengers, the sequel made $644m (while only raising the budget to $170m - marvel's tight like that).

Er, my only point was that the Iron Man movies were huge successes mostly because of Downey, while Thor wasn't. I wasn't saying it didn't make profit, just that it wasn't a big hit in the way Iron Man was.

actually iron man 2 and thor 2 did about equal numbers, and i don't think it was just because they decided to shoot more loki footage

def not denying that downey's charisma and surprise success was the engine of the whole marvel kaboodle, just that you're overstating the alleged lack of charisma/success of the viking

actually got thrown off - thor 2 and iron man 2 did the same globally, but 100m more of iron man 2 came from america. so yeah, thor is definitely smaller scale, though not unpopular.

and here's the thing, they went into the avengers with four heroes who at the very least had films that made north of 200m globally (one with new actor). they're going to into supes/bat/justice league with two heroes in that league, one with a new actor.