Warner Bros. Wants More Batman, and Superman and Sherlock, Too

We hear the cries about no originality left in Hollywood a lot. "Why are they remaking Slap Shot?" "A Pink Panther sequel?" You've thought the same thing yourself about a movie or two. So when you hear that Warner Bros. is looking beyond trilogies and will likely model several of its properties after Harry Potter, you're probably priming the bitch and moan engine again. But here's the deal: Warner Bros.' parent company, Time Warner, announced yesterday a net loss of $16 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008. Billion with a 'B.' In 2007, the company had a net income of $1 billion over the same period.So what are they supposed to do? Tackle the riskiest projects they can find and hope the majority of moviegoers fall in love with the less-than-mainstream direction, while leaving those familiar brand names consumers already know to the other studios? Or is Warner Bros. better off looking for ways to keep its moneymakers alive longer? Thought so. To that end, CEO Jeff Bewkes addressed the film division of Time Warner during its conference call with reporters yesterday, announcing that we'll see longer runs for franchises in the future.

"We look at Harry Potter. It's fantastic to have franchises that last that long. We want to do that with Batman and Superman and perhaps Sherlock Holmes. The sequels are as good, with new characters added, as were the originals. That wasn't the case years ago. Warners has more tentpoles as an on-going strategy that very much lifts its distribution and peformance. We think that's going to hold up our slate in the 2009 - 2010 period. We've got four more big tentpoles coming this year."

He's more optimistic about Sherlock Holmes than I am. It's clear the studio feels it's missing the boat with a non-competitive Superman, so I think we can safely bet that the property will become a priority in the next 12 months. As for Batman, what will they do after the third movie? Odds are, they'll ruin it, just like they did before. Bale likely wouldn't keep doing them, and Christopher Nolan certainly won't be on board for a fouth film. It's too limiting over the course of his career to just keep pumping out Batman movies. So that means big name villains to try to keep the money train on track, but they'll spoil it all. Just watch.

Comments

[Lengthy Johnson]

I don't know why Time Warner is so financially unsuccessful at the moment. I don't think it's because their movies are unsuccessful, though.

The problem is that the film producers are taking about what THEY want. They want to be able to make a lot of money by making the same film over and over again. It sounds more like they want a printing press for money rather than anything else.

They need to worry more about what the AUDIENCE wants. The time when people would watch any crap is over. The competition is too great.

Films are costing more and more to make and market. At the same time they look less and less remarkable. A regular drama can now cost 100+ million with noting to show for it. What they need is real creative talent that can make a unique and watchable movie for 25 million.

They are paying too much for too little and the audiences are not going to buy it for much longer.

[Get The Big Picture]

Tougher to license those $25 million movies for merchandising, though.

[Orinn]

Im all for this, there will still be new stuff, just not as much. Problem is, as Colin said is, they will frak it up, make no mistake. The only reason they have not fraked up Harry Potter is that there is a brilliant best selling book to model each and everyone after. Watch the greedy bastards try to make another movie after they finish the last book, and watch as it falls flat on it's face.

[MM]

I can see all the prequels&sequels to Watchmen...

[Lengthy Johnson]

Well, I'm not saying stop sequels or special effects movies with merchandising.

There has to be some of those too.

But when a dull drama like American Gangster is costing 100 million with absolutely nothing to show for it, something has gone wrong.

Also, there is failure to recognise that the Potter series of books and films is fairly unique. It's not something you can base your business on repeating whenever you like.

There is a serious shift of focus from talent to money in Hollywood and I think the industry would do better in the long run if it would embrace and encourage creativity.

Don't forget that Star Wars started on the cheap but with creative control.