In an interview with newly-minted head of DC Entertainment, Diane Nelson, she spoke of the many projects the revamped company has in the pipeline. Recently, the company’s moved forward on developing properties like “Lobo” and “Green Lantern” and yet there is no movement on another Superman picture. With the flurry of activity at the new company, many have predicted that they would be reassessing their previous work and seeing where partners like Legendary Pictures’ “Superman Returns” went wrong.
Not so, says Ms. Nelson, who summarizes as such, “We actually don’t have any current plans for Superman.” This seems odd, since “Superman Returns” grossed $391 million worldwide, and the character of Superman himself is still a marketing slam dunk from a merchandise and pop culture icon perspective. However, the bean-counters were not pleased with the film, as it reportedly set the studio back upwards of $400 million, which included an ill-shaped ad campaign. And of course it’s not always success as it is perception- “Superman” fell in its third weekend behind its direct competitor “The Devil Wears Prada” and never recovered.
With the Siegel lawsuit threatening to pry the intellectual property of Superman from DC’s hands (which will no doubt be resolved bloodlessly), the character is something of a toxic entity amongst DC management. And that really shouldn’t be the case. As positive or negative some of us were about Bryan Singer’s relaunch, we dislike studios making bad, egocentric decisions. The decision to shuffle Superman to the side has everything to do with execs with no fiscal responsibility. Keep the costs on a Superman movie down, and $390 million worth of ticket buyers intrigued by a story that isn’t action-light.
People continue to show they’ll go to these superhero movies, and shit like “Transformers” only confirms that audiences will show up for the promise of dumb, sloppy action, as opposed to the relationship strife of the previous Superman film. Obviously, the character is more than just hitting, punching and flying, but we’re talking about a major cultural icon. If you can’t make money off “Superman,” then you shouldn’t be trusted making a movie for anyone.
"we're talking about a major cultural icon. If you can't make money off "Superman," then you shouldn't be trusted making a movie for anyone."
— Hear hear
i for one would much rather that they drop the game because they can't think of a really great way to continue the story, than try to slam out one more movie before they lose the rights and end up with a disaster not worth the cost.
I'm not the only person who though Superman Returns was a far superior film to The Dark Knight?