So now the studio (along with Nolan as producer) is focusing on Superman and bringing that character back. Not only is the film an easy sell, the character is big enough to carry a film trilogy on his own. The reason why Marvel is able to get away with doing things like Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy is because they use The Avengers as justification. The big payoff makes it worth sitting through all those solo films featuring secondary characters. If Marvel just put out Ant Man by itself, they would be ridiculed. But because its part of something bigger, they can get away with it. Warner Bros. doesnt have to do this. They can market a film franchise around Superman and get huge numbers. The Dark Knight Rises made over $1 billion last year because everybody loves Batman. That character, like Superman, can sell on his own. When youre in this position, it makes more sense to roll with the easy cash cow than to risk the entire future of a genre by going all in on a shared universe. Sooner or later, Marvel is going to have a flop (Guardians is a leading contender) and thats going to have a domino effect on ALL Marvel movies. When Green Lantern bombed, it only impact Green Lantern 2. The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel were unscathed. This brings me to my next point. By going with the standalone series route, WB is actually freeing the filmmakers to do whatever they want with the characters. Marvel has gotten a bad reputation as a controlling studio that does not promote a healthy filmmaking environment. All of their Phase I directors (save for Joss Whedon) have been phased out due to creative differences. When you direct a Marvel movie, youre a puppet director being forced to mold your movie into the film Marvel wants you to make. Iron Man 2 is the most egregious example of this. If Jon Favreau had complete control over that, it could have been awesome. But Marvel got in the way and the overall product suffered. That creative freedom (potentially) allows for a better quality film to be made. Nolan was handed the keys to the Batmobile when he was an unproven filmmaker and look at the results. He was allowed to do whatever he wanted to do with Bruce Wayne and Gotham City. He didnt have to find a way to allow Wonder Woman to make a cameo or compromise a thematic element he wanted to tackle because The Dark Knight had to lead into Justice League 2 or something like that. He was given free reign and that promotes a healthy filmmaking environment. Most likely, Zack Snyder will get to do the same thing with Superman. By keeping the heroes separate, it also allows the studio some freedom too. I mentioned earlier that when Green Lantern flopped, it only affected the one franchise. WB was able to pursue the Superman reboot and just pretend Green Lantern never happened. That wouldnt be able to happen in the Marvel world, where all of the films are intricately tied together. If Guardians bombs, Marvel will still have to acknowledge elements of that film in their future projects, not just push it aside. Crafting a shared cinematic universe is a huge gamble and its paying off for now, but eventually the well will run dry for Marvel. Theyre not untouchable. The bottom line is WB is doing what they feel is right. Its not like theyre in dire need of a big hit. Man of Steel is generating positive early buzz and will almost definitely get two sequels. Thats a blockbuster franchise for the next half decade at least. On top of that, they also have two more Hobbit films and a third Hangover that will generate mass revenue. On top of that, theyve got Chris Nolan and Ben Affleck (two of the industrys most respected directors entering the primes of their careers) in their corner. Those two guys make films that give the studio tons of profit. WB is in good shape. For Gods sake, their Godzilla remake is attracting top-notch talent for behind and in front of the camera. Production budgets may also be playing a small role in this. The Dark Knight Rises cost $250 million to make and Man of Steel boasts a $225 million price tag and they are solo superhero films. It would cost an insane amount of money just for the special effects in Justice League. A film like that would have to make Avatar type numbers at the box office to justify its existence. If it didnt, heads would roll. At WB, it makes more sense to go ahead with a cost-effective film like Argo (which cost $44.5 million to make, and grossed over $200 million worldwide) than risk major losses on a superhero film with characters that may or may not connect with the public. Whatever the case may be it seems like we will have to wait a long time before we see a Justice League film (IF it even gets made, I was skeptical from the start). Thats not such a bad thing, as Ive illustrated here. Besides, whats the point of complaining about a movie thats not happening when there are so many great films that come out every year? Just sit back and enjoy what Hollywood gives us and appreciate the fact that a guy like Nolan is putting his time into reinventing the Superman film franchise.
What do you think? Do we need a Justice League movie? Let us know in the comments section below.