Warners screws with Marvel…

Updated on February 25, 2009 By Ken Begg 22 Comments

Except for Nolan’s Batman movies–Dark Knight just became only the fourth movie ever to cross the $1,000,000,000 at the worldwide box office–film studio, Warner Bros. (which owns DC comics and all their character rights, including for movie adaptations) has been floundering over the last several years.  Superman Returns satisfied few, and its gigantic budget (reportedly over $300,000,000) kept it from making overmuch money.  Meanwhile, adaptations of other fairly marquee DC characters like Wonder Woman, the Flash and Green Lantern keep dying on the vine.  Sooner or later one of these will probably make theaters (a Green Lantern flick as of now supposedly will hit theaters as soon as Christmas of 2010), as could a Superman sequel, but there’s little doubt that there’s a lot of chaos and second guessing going on other there.

In contrast, at least so far, Marvel seems a study in careful long-term planning.  Tired of getting peanuts from mega-successful movie franchises like Spider-Man they rented out to established studios, Marvel established a line of credit and have started making their own film adaptations, meaning that the risks and rewards are now entirely theirs.

So far, so good.  They of course lucked out with the success of Iron Man, but this is at least partly due to their strategy of actually hiring top-notch filmmakers and appropriately cast actors rather than whoever is on that week’s “A-list” or whoever the flavor of the month is.

They’re still rolling some huge dice, though.  Last summer’s The Incredible Hulk did just OK. And while the summer of 2010 starts out with a seeming slamdunk hit in Iron Man II, that summer’s follow movie Thor seems a much bigger question mark.

The same can easily be said for 2011’s Captain America and The Avengers movie, the latter of which will unite the star characters of each independent film (Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk, Captain America, and maybe Giant Man and the Wasp to boot) in a literally unprecedented cinematic experiment.  This could all blow up in Marvel’s face, or it could hit as big as Star Wars or the Lord of the Rings trilogy.   We just don’t know.

Anyway, Warners, in lieu of getting their own act together, has instead taken the venerable Hollywood path of trying instead to shiv the competition.  Marvel announced the release date for The Avengers quite a while ago, but only now has Warners just coincidentally decided to release the finale of their Harry Potter series on the same day. This Potter film will in fact be the second part of another Potter film released during the Christmas season the year before.

There seems little doubt that these scheduling decisions are almost purely an attempt to rain on Marvel’s fiscal and popularity parade, or at the very least embarrass them by forcing them to decamp from their previously announced release date.  Time will tell if Marvel seems enough heat to do so, although I wouldn’t be surprised.

Since their motives are so obvious, Warners apparently feels little need to disguise what they’re doing.  As such, they’ve also announced that they will be releasing Inception, an original sci-fier by Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan, next summer on the exact same date Marvel has staked out for Thor.

Other big titles Warners announced release dates for include Jonah Hex, a DC western comic about a scarred bounty hunter and starring Josh Brolin; the Guy Ritchie / Robert Downey Jr. action-oriented Sherlock Holmes will open on Christmas day this year (moved from November); and March 26, 2010 will see their remake of Clash of the Titans.

Pin It



Related Posts

  • Ericb

    I’m not really knowledgable about how the movie market works so I need to ask: What does Warner get out of this? How do they profit from trying to spoil the competition? You’d think with the industry in crisis as it is now that the studios would try to pull together to get people out of their house to see movies. Relesing your top product at the same time as your compitition’s top product just seems like suicide.

  • Reed

    Wait, they’re re-making Clash of the Titans?

    I’m trying to let that sink in.

    They’re re-making Clash of the Titans.

    I saw that movie at a drive-in movie theater and thought the monster action was great and all that, but there were really only two reasons that we loved that movie: Boobs. It was a PG-rated monster movie with some really beautiful women naked. I wonder if the sequel will follow that winning formula?

  • EricB–Bragging rights…market share…they may consider that they’re in the same market as Marvel since they’re the two big comic book sources, and just want to jam a stick in Marvel’s spokes.

    Your questions are quite apt, but Hollywood’s never been a place that looked too far ahead.

  • fish eye no miko

    “Warners crews with Marvel…”

    Don’t you mean “screws”? Cuz “crews”, to me at least, makes it sound like they’re joining them (as in, “on the same crew”), which is pretty much the opposite of what they’re doing…

    Really, the only case where I see Warner actually having the advantage with with HP… I’m sure the last move(s) will do quite well, with many people wanting to see it (them… whatever) on opening day.

  • Tim

    With the industry in crisis? Does the B in ericb stand for barack? The movie industry isn’t in crisis. From the imdb this week:
    “Overall, the box office tallied $119,620,161 in ticket sales, versus $90,028,794 a year ago, a 32.87-percent increase. For the year, box-office revenue is up 23.2 percent, while attendance is up 21.4 percent.”
    Warner Bros wants to hurt their competition. Batman is their only superhero franchise doing anything, while Marvel has had at least as many hits as misses, and the hits have generally been big enough to offset the misses. Even as bad as Daredevil and the first Hulk movies were, they still made money. I think DC’s problem is their franchises just aren’t that marketable. Personally I find most of their characters boring. Also, a lot of their characters have already been done, and in some cases done really well. Good luck finding anyone for Wonder Woman that’s going to make me forget Lynda Carter.
    I actually think they might come out on the losing end of the harry potter faceoff. People are stoked about the avengers movie. The half blood prince has gotten bad buzz from some preview showings, and they’ve REALLY pissed off some of their audience by moving it back. If the other movies in the avengers mythos are comparable to Iron Man, avengers could be rising just as harry potter is falling. It could be interesting.

  • Mr. Rational

    Actually, Warner may have the right idea. I’ve read some business research which says that chain stores which sell similar products (e.g., Home Depot and Lowe’s) often open stores within a couple blocks of each other. They do this because in the event that their competitor doesn’t have a specific product (or a specific brand), customers looking for that product will head to their store instead. Maybe Warner, using similar reasoning, is banking that people who are iffy on the Marvel title, yet are itching to see a movie of that general type, will head for their flick instead.

  • Ericb

    I would think that it would make more sense for the two companies to stagger their releases to keep their target audiences going out to the theater on a regular basis. It seems rather high risk to pit a million plus dollar project directly agains another studio’s milion plus dollar project that’s going for the same audience. It’s more probable that the studios would split the diffference rather than one winning a knockout blow so they end up both making less money than they could if the released were a month or even just two weeks apart.

  • Tim, the movie business IS is crisis, at least in a long-term sense. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but there’s been a pretty steady decrease in number of tickets sold for decades now. The uptick you cite appear to be a blip, following a really bad year last year. More importantly, the cost of making films keeps rising faster than inflation. If you make 10% more at the box office (and largely because of increased ticket prices) but are spending 15% more to make films, you’re in trouble.

    Moreover, Hollywood has been HEAVILY dependent on DVD sales (which have generated more money than worldwide box office receipts for a while now) for the last ten years and more. DVD sales are now in rapid decline. Why do you think SAG hasn’t gone on strike yet? Because there are just enough members of it smart enough to realize that they could literally kill the (increasingly tarnished) golden goose out of business if they do so. The effects of the writers’ strike a few years ago are still be felt.

    Marvel is vulnerable right now because they’re basically living on the revenues from one hit film, Iron Man. (That includes DVD sales.) If Warners can hurt their upcoming releases, even at the cost of some money to themselves, they could drive Marvel out of the film business, and get rid of a direct competitor.

  • Ericb

    “With the industry in crisis? Does the B in ericb stand for barack? The movie industry isn’t in crisis”

    Geez, does everyting have to be political? If you have been reading this blog for any amount of time you will now that Ken has written many articles on how the movie industry is enting troubled times because of changing methods of distribution brought on by evolving technology. If you’ve noticed Ken is no “liberal.”

  • Ericb

    oh, sorry, I missed Ken’s last post.

  • Ericb

    ” If Warners can hurt their upcoming releases, even at the cost of some money to themselves, they could drive Marvel out of the film business, and get rid of a direct competitor.”

    I guess this is the part I’m just not getting. Perhaps I’m mistaken in the beleif that it’s not a zero sum game.

  • I’m not saying I agree with it, just that this is the sort of thinking that may be motivating Warners to stick their thumb in Marvel’s. Hell, maybe it’s just payback for Marvel making Warners/DC look disorganized.

  • I’d have to say that the primary issue here seems to be the assumption that, on some level, what Warners is doing must actually make sense. Yes, sometimes Hollyweird can demonstrate actual responsible behavior, like the SAG realizing that a rerun of the writer’s strike could well become their own fatal brain-bullet, but most of the time it’s better to think of the entire politico-entertainment complex as a bunch of maladjusted five-year-olds in the playground, kicking sand at each other and trying to give the other kids wedgies.

  • Hasimir Fenring

    The movie industry isn’t in crisis. From the imdb this week:
    “Overall, the box office tallied $119,620,161 in ticket sales, versus $90,028,794 a year ago, a 32.87-percent increase. For the year, box-office revenue is up 23.2 percent, while attendance is up 21.4 percent.”

    How much of that was The Dark Knight, the second highest-grossing film of all time?

    Also, I couldn’t find the information you’re citing here. Box Office Mojo tracks 2008 as .3% down from 2007, which is quite a big difference from the 23.2% increase you’re noting.

  • Hasimir Fenring

    Update: I found the story Tim was referring to. It’s talking about the box office for 2009. I think it’s a bit early to claim 2009 is more successful than 2008 just because the first two months were. Don’t you?

  • Mr. Rational

    Ericb sez:

    “It seems rather high risk to pit a million plus dollar project directly agains another studio’s milion plus dollar project that’s going for the same audience. It’s more probable that the studios would split the diffference rather than one winning a knockout blow so they end up both making less money than they could if the released were a month or even just two weeks apart.”

    Oh, I agree. That’s why I wouldn’t do it were I in charge of Warner. But as Ken points out, Marvel is fairly new to filmmaking…new enough that if Warner is able to take a sizable percentage of their audience, that might be the end for them for a while.

    “Perhaps I’m mistaken in the beleif that it’s not a zero sum game.”

    You’re not…over the long term. Economic pies do grow, after all, and they also shrink. But in the short term, there’s only so much pie to go around — that is to say, only so many people interested in ponying up for a sci-fi/fantasy film — and Hollywood has become so engaged in the search for a hit that now, it’s ALL about the first weekend.

    Then again, I suppose it’s possible that the buzz for these films could end up feeding off each other, and make them all smash successes…and Warner is HOPING for that to happen. After all, I have a Home Depot and a Lowe’s within blocks of each other in my town (where do you think I got my example?), and neither of them seems to be hurting for business.

  • joliet jake blues

    I dont remember any boobs in Clash of the Titans, and I was a 10yo boy when I saw it, I would if there had been any.

    Skimpy constumes yes…boobs no. Unless you mean the medusa or the hags?

  • JoshG

    The Green Lantern is one of my favorite superheros and I can a movie based on him could be interesting.

    The problem I’ve had with the Superman movies is that except for 2 he hasn’t really faced any interesting enimies. Lex Luthor is ok as the brains behind everything but he can’t really go toe to toe with Superman.

  • Grumpy

    What I hate about release date poker is the underlying assumption that moviegoers will see only one show per week — or that if they see it the following week, it doesn’t count.

    “…their strategy of actually hiring top-notch filmmakers and appropriately cast actors…”

    Some would say this was precisely the strategy employed by “Spider-Man,” predating Marvel Studios.

    As for boobs, maybe Reed is thinking of “Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger” from 1977 (Harryhausen’s last film before “Clash” in 1981), which featured toplessness by Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman herself. And was still rated G.

  • Sandy Petersen

    Well I don’t know how it works for films, but in restaurants and video games, a successful case usually boosts others. Example: restaurants cluster together, even restaurants of the same type (example – the Chinese restaurant “ghetto” in most big cities). All those restaurants feed off each other.

    In video games it happens as well. A hugely successful game in a particular genre tends to boost other, similar, games in the same field.

  • ZDykstra

    If I may contribute to this intellectual discussion, I’m relatively sure that their is at least one pair of breasts in Clash of the Titans towards the beginning. I remember because we watched the movie in class and there was a good deal of snickering.

  • JoshG

    I actually just started to read the novalization of “Clash of the Titans” that I had bought at a used book sale last year. Was Perseus a real Mary Sue type character in the movie? I haven’t seen it in years so I don’t really remember.