August
15
Marvel vs. D.C.
[Posted by David S. Cohen]
In a front page story in this Sunday’s Weekly Variety, Marc Graser explores Warner Bros.’ plans to get its classic DC characters onto the bigscreen. Or rather, its plans to make plans.
Batman is soaring, but the future of Superman on film is uncertain. The Justice League movie has been pushed back and it’s hard to imagine this Batman team being too enthusiastic about seeing their gritty, realistic take on the character alongside Superman and Wonder Woman. Greg Berlanti’s Green Lantern script has been well-received at the studio, but not yet greenlit.
Meanwhile, rival Marvel has launched its own studio, had a smash with Iron Man and a successful reboot of The Incredible Hulk, and announced four more pictures, introducing film versions of at least two more of their star characters, Thor and Captain America.
This begs the question: Why has Marvel been able to move so decisively to put its properties on film while Warner Bros seems to be stuck in a perpetual ponder? The answers are sometimes paradoxical.
Paradox #1) Marvel is better off without a studio cousin. DC seems to have a natural advantage, given its corporate relationship with Warner Bros. That was one reason Warner invented the modern comicbook movie in the 70s, with Superman, and re-established in the 80s with the Batman franchise.
But Warner has to pass on any DC character before it can go to another studio, and since no Warner exec wants to be the one who passed on a property that becomes a blockbuster for another studio, they almost never pass.
Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman have all been successful in primetime TV, but only Superman has been a perennial on TV.
Marvel, on the other hand, had only one TV hit, Bill Bixby in The Incredible Hulk. And for film, it could only license its characters, getting poor results at first with cheapie Captain America and Fantastic Four films.
But as visual effects improved and it became possible to make these films look great, better filmmakers came to the material: Sam Raimi to Spider-Man at Sony; Bryan Singer to X-Men at Fox. Those films, along with Fantastic Four and even Hulk at Universal, revealed a trend.
“I was an investor in Marvel,” Marvel chairman David Maisel told Variety, “and realized that with the films that had been released through 2003, there were nine PG-13 movies that had averaged $200 million in domestic box office.”
By licensing the characters, Marvel was able to prove the worth of its intellectual property and act on that information.
Now, says Maisel, “We don’t need anything from a third, outside party. We get to just focus on making the best movies possible.”
Which brings us to the next paradox:
2) As the smaller company, Marvel has the size advantage. Getting Warner Bros. going is like turning an oil tanker. Marvel is much more nimble. Also, as a smaller company, it has more to gain from hit films. Maisel says that with a loyal fan base and a rich trove of characters and stories, “I realized that if Marvel was able to get the financial upside, the company could double or more its market value just through that move and good execution.”
He was right. At the beginning of August 2006, Marvel stock was at 17.54. That month Maisel presented his plan to launch a studio. Two years later, the stock had more than doubled, though it has fallen back slightly since. Its market cap is now around $2.7 billion.
By contrast, Time Warner’s market cap is more than $52 billion — so huge it’s hard for any movie, or even a franchise, to move its stock.
Paradox #3) Being young and inexperienced as a movie company, Marvel has no fear. Or less fear, anyway, than the studio that gave the world Catwoman and Batman & Robin.
They were aware that an Iron Man movie and a Hulk film were not sure things, so they hedged their bets with conservative “no-recourse” financing. It’s a structure usually used for projects like real-estate development, where the property being developed also serves as collateral for the loan, but the lender can’t come after any other assets if the project fails.
Even if its own Iron Man and Hulk pics had failed, they’d still have franchses licensed to Sony and Fox. But when Iron Man opened strong, they announced their own four-picture slate, with each film tied to the next, climaxing in the July 2011 bow of The Avengers.
They’ve never experienced the humiliation – not to mention the recriminations and career consequences – of a high-profile flop. Warner has, and so is more careful.
Paradox #4) Marvel is in a better position to make good comicbook movies because they’re a comicbook company first, a movie studio second.
Until The Dark Knight, Warner showed all the signs of old-fashioned thinking about comicbook pictures. Comicbooks started as kid stuff. Batman began on film as a cheap serial. Superman began as cartoons. They were not the stuff of A-pictures. Nor did Warner think in terms of building a universe in which the characters could cross over.
Mavel, though, owned these characters, loved them, and had a creative vision for them.
“I think the huge advantage,” says Maisel, “is that this is our complete focus. We’re people who love our jobs and plan to be in the jobs for many many years, if not decades. And our characters come from a universe that’s so connected, and now that we have control of actually creatively making the films and greenlighting the movies.
“We’re able to plan out the future in that way. It’s was an idea that Kevin and I came up with a couple of years ago, let’s try and make all the movies not stand alone but connect in the same continuity and the same universe, which was a new idea for superhero films. That wouldn’t have been able to accomplish that if we didn’t have the studio created the way it has been.”
That also means they get to function like an old-fashioned studio, putting the company’s agenda ahead of any star or filmmaker. So though Jon Favreau might like to direct both 2010’s “Iron Man 2” and 2011’s “The Avengers,” Marvel won’t spread the films out to accommodate him.
A.O. Scott in the NYT has wondered if the superhero film may have peaked this summer. Perhaps. But if we have learned one thing from the growth of Comic Con, it’s that there are vast numbers of fans of these properties who have so far only been able to see them in their minds’ eye. When a first-rate filmmaker puts a superhero in a movie, they will show up to watch.
Oh, and by the way, there is one other, oft-neglected “universe” of characters under a single studio’s auspices: The Universal horror characters.
The problematic Van Helsing left Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolf Man needing a reboot and now the Mummy franchise seems to be sputtering. But a new Wolf Man is on the way, with Benicio del Toro in the title role.
As for any corporate strategy for the characters, a U spokesman could only say “I don’t think we’re at a place where we can confidently articulate that.”
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Another solid column, Anne, but it all comes back to the same question doesn't it? When are we going to get the Superman Returns sequel? That front page article sounds great, and now I hope WB puts its plan in place. The Watchmen would be a prime place for a teaser trailer for the SR sequel. And Harry Potter would be ideal for a trailer. With Valkerie buzz on the upswing and TDK lighting up the box office, now is the time to make the announcement that the sequel is coming.
Posted by: Aeros_Fan | August 15, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Hopefully we will hear within a month more details about the Superman sequel. It's time to put this reboot talk to rest.
Posted by: Rogelio | August 16, 2008 at 12:32 AM
The real scoop is going to go to whoever can get to the bottom of what's going on with Superman right now.
-Is Bryan Singer on or off the project? Is the studio waiting to see how Valkyrie is received?
-WB and Legendary have stated their commitment to a "Superman Returns" sequel, and not a reboot, several times. Do they now respond differently, or are they still committed to that idea?
-What is the status of Orci and Kurtzman's treatment for the sequel? How has it been received by the studio and Singer?
The suspense is killing me! I can't stand the thought of Superman ending up in development hell AGAIN. Seventeen years of false starts was quite enough for me. I am encouraged that WB may finally be kicking it in gear and exploring some of the other promising DC properties, but I don't want Superman to be shelved in the process.
Posted by: Superfan | August 16, 2008 at 03:48 AM
Reboot Reboot Reboot Superman.
Nolan's Batman Begins and Dark Knight are the result of a REBOOT, not a skewed rehash of a thirty year old franchise out of step with the times.
Are you folks even READING the news articles on what's going on between Warner and DC?
Posted by: Jerry | August 16, 2008 at 03:55 AM
Spiderman4 ironman2 and wolverine are my top moives to see.
Posted by: jimmyboy | August 16, 2008 at 07:16 AM
Superman needs to be Rebooted.
Singer had his shot and it didn't work. The good parts of the movie were mainly rehashes of the earlier Donner films ie the music, Brando's Jorel.
among bad parts was remaking the Donner film, and the central premise.
1. Superman went away for 5 years.
2. Left Lois a single mom.
3. Superman fights a big rock.
That the movie did ok, despite this proves Superman is beloved character.
Superman needs to be reinvented. Not powered down,.. he's an alien on earth. he represents the best of Krypton, the best of earth, and he's better than both because of that.
Superman is a sci-fi character - give him superhuman enemies and superhuman challenges.
Batman can save Gotham from the Joker, but only Superman can save the whole planet Earth from a beyond human threat, and given the size and age of the universe really the only limit on the challenge is the writers imagination, which to date has been sadly lacking.
Posted by: Charles | August 16, 2008 at 09:59 AM
Hey Jerry,
While the Singer Superman could definitely have been better, does anyone want to sit through another movie explaining the origin of Superman? Is there anyone that doesn't know the story? I think that was a main reason to keep going with elements of the prior series and it's reasonable. Of course, having a good script and a less emo Superman is a good idea, too.
Posted by: Brian Woods | August 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Not only do I not want to see the origin again, I guarantee you I would not see a reboot. We were told we would get a sequel. It's time to deliver on that promise.
Posted by: Sean | August 16, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Seriously, WB, I'd like to see the superman sequel while I am young. I loved Brandon Routh as Superman and I want to see what Singer has in store for us next.
Posted by: bd | August 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Superfan...
Orci and Kurtzman are NOT writing a treatment or anything for a sequel. They both said so within 48 hours of IESB making the claim, thus debunking the rumor. We also debunked the recent casting rumor and the agency had the ad on Craigslist removed.
According to Legendary Pictures' Thomas Tull, any Superman film regardless of sequel or reboot is "several" years away. There are still no writers for Singer's idea as of Weds last week. So far, Singer's first two pitches were declined as were three pitches for a reboot. So WB is showing no signs on ANY movement with Superman.
Starting next week, we have some exclusive interviews coming. The first is with Mark Waid expanding on his comments to MTV, his thoughts on a reboot vs sequel and what's up at Boom Studios.
Visit SaveSuperman.com for more!
Posted by: Archangel | August 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Hey aeros, to give proper credit, David Cohen wrote this story...
Posted by: anne thompson | August 16, 2008 at 04:15 PM
Apologies. Thanks, Anne. I was thrown by the page header with your name on it. I know it said "posted by," but at our paper's online site, the posted by credit goes to the person who put it on the web. (Confusing, I know.)
I still want a sequel, though. ;)
Posted by: Aeros_Fan | August 16, 2008 at 05:15 PM
Bad iPhone! Sorry to all.
Posted by: Aeros_Fan | August 16, 2008 at 06:21 PM
for more info about THE WOLFMAN and Benicio Del Toro visit www.beniciodeltoro.ca
Posted by: Amiga | August 17, 2008 at 08:09 PM
Jamie Williams of Screen Rant has been saying for months and months that Orci and Kurtzman have been working on the Returns sequel script. Other webmasters have said so too in forums. It sounded like they were backing him up, but maybe they were just repeating his rumor? I don't know. It's hard to know what is genuine and what is B.S. when they're all citing secret sources. Are they all using the same source, or verifying with different sources, or is it just a big circle of webmasters talking to webmasters and passing on the same rumor until it becomes "true" to them because they're hearing it from two or more webmasters? How many of these webmasters' sources are just other webmasters? How many have any real sources at all? Is the Orci and Kurtzman info real or just Jamie Williams lying to promote himself?
Posted by: Dana | August 18, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Thomas Tull of Legendary said no one was working on the script, they were still taking pitches, just before Comic-Con. http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/07/snyder-reveals.html
Posted by: Anne Thompson | August 18, 2008 at 05:52 PM
The Orci/Kurtzman rumor started at IESB and Screen Rant picked it up and spread it around. However, Screen Rant also reported when Chud and Obsessed With Film both debunked the rumor within 2 days. IESB then backed off the story. Michael Bay then said he had Orci and Kurtzman locked in a hotel room where they'd be working on TF2 all the way through final filming in case of any rewrites and that they would be working on his next project after that.
There are NO writers for a Singer sequel and there won't be a Singer sequel. Reality needs to settle in folks. Nothing that has come out from WB or Legendary has shown otherwise.
Posted by: Archangel | August 19, 2008 at 03:47 PM
Just make Superman fun again...the last one wasn't fun, just scenes of him flying and nearly crying (ridiculous), he was turned into a peeping tom (stupid) and he had a superkid who hopefully will be at summer camp for the next film.
Make it fun...I say if not routh than Welling or Ben Barnes as Supes.
Posted by: bill | August 26, 2008 at 01:28 PM