DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Dee1891]

Very much the case. Whether it was the Ely Doc Savage, the Matt Salinger Captain America (1990), or Corman's unreleased Fantastic Four (1994), there were--and are some superhero productions that were never going to live up to expectations (from a studio and/or fan perspective) or capture the best of a character. Some will need to accept that might have been the case with Batgirl.

Why would people have to accept this? We haven't seen the movie. I'm not in the habit of judging a film based on someone else's comments. And there are rumors going around that the movie was scrapped for reasons other than its quality. I'm going to be brutally frank. I believe most of the comic book films released in the past four to five years have been mediocre or just simply crap, with the exception of a few films. Very few. The idea that "Batgirl" was shelved because it might be bad is just laughable to me, considering I feel as if I have been subjected to bad or mediocre comic book movies for the past five years.

 

[DigificWriter]

Some movies really are bad enough to not get released, no matter how much one might love the characters they're based upon

While this statement is true, it doesn't apply to Batgirl.

 

[UssGlenn]

I remember eleven year old me being bitterly disappointed that the Ron Ely "Doc Savage" movie never made it to any movie theater near me, thinking I'd missed something wonderful. When I finally saw it on TV, I could see why at least one distributor called it "unsellable."

I really want to see the Doc Savage movie, as a fan of the character, but I can't bring myself to spend the $3 to rent it, because I've heard so many bad things about it.

 

[Christopher]

The idea that "Batgirl" was shelved because it might be bad is just laughable to me, considering I feel as if I have been subjected to bad or mediocre comic book movies for the past five years.

What I've read is that the test audience score was relatively low, but not unexpectedly low for a rough workprint without effects or sound editing or the like, and not even remotely low enough to be a credible justification for accepting a 90 million-dollar loss. It seems clear to me that they're just using the test score as an excuse for a decision made purely for monetary reasons.

 

[the G-man]

While this statement is true, it doesn't apply to Batgirl.

You've seen it?

 

[the G-man]

I really want to see the Doc Savage movie, as a fan of the character, but I can't bring myself to spend the $3 to rent it, because I've heard so many bad things about it.

There's a certain 'so bad it's good" charm to it and Ron Ely (along with Paul "Breakfast Club" Gleason) acquits himself pretty well, given what he had to work with.

 

[DigificWriter]

You've seen it?

Most of the major Hollywood Trades independently confirmed that the shelving of Batgirl was not related to the film's quality.

 

[crookeddy]

Most of the major Hollywood Trades independently confirmed that the shelving of Batgirl was not related to the film's quality.

I don't know why so many posters continue to ignore that fact.

Because we're smart enough to not fall for meaningless pr statements?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Why would people have to accept this? We haven't seen the movie.

Hence the use of "might". As you point out, so many comic book movies of past few years have been awful, so one cannot assume that another was somehow going to be the outlier of quality. The genre of superhero films has spiraled into a very deep pit of loud, cartoonish nonsense that its a shock when a production actually works. They are the exception, never the rule.

 

[DigificWriter]

Because we're smart enough to not fall for meaningless pr statements?

How, exactly, does independently sourced reporting from Variety, Deadline Hollywood, and The Hollywood Reporter equal "meaningless pr statements"?

 

[crookeddy]

How, exactly, does independently sourced reporting from Variety, Deadline Hollywood, and The Hollywood Reporter equal "meaningless pr statements"?

Who would the sources be? The only people who really know the reason are the decision-makers - a small group of people with extensive PR training. The trades HAVE to report on what these official sources say.

Please use your head at least once in a while. Blind belief in media is scary.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Most of the major Hollywood Trades independently confirmed that the shelving of Batgirl was not related to the film's quality.

They didn’t confirm anything of the sort. They reported that the studio was saying so.

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/batgirl-not-released-warner-bros-hbo-max-1235331897/amp/

Studio insiders insist the decision to axe “Batgirl” was not driven by the quality of the film or the commitment of the filmmakers, but by the desire for the studio’s slate of DC features to be at a blockbuster scale.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...marvel-kevin-feige-james-gunn-1235193606/amp/

Batgirl did an audience test screening where it scored in the low 60s, sources previously told The Hollywood Reporter — not stellar, but still far from a number that would typically result in a film not being released at all.

The trades are reporting what the studio is telling them. They can’t independently confirm anything because they haven’t seen the film. The quality of the film may well be perfectly good but it’s equally possible that WB just doesn’t want to kick the makers while they’re down. Seriously; why is it so hard for you to understand that companies and corporations don’t always tell the truth?

 

[DigificWriter]

Variety, Deadline Hollywood, and The Hollywood Reporter's articles debunking reports that the decision to shelve Batgirl was not related to the film's quality preceded an official statement from Warner Bros. Discovery on the matter by almost 24 hours.

Acknowledging that fact and giving their reporting credence is not demonstrating "blind faith in media"; it's acknowledging the veracity of those outlets' reporting and respecting their value as organizations whose job it is to report Entertainment-related news.

 

[crookeddy]

The quality of the film may well be perfectly good

Seems like its not, based on a score of 61 from the test screening. Would have required reshoots (like pretty much all the other upcoming DC movies) but it seems WBD didn't want to spend any more money on this movie because its a Max Original. Apparently a theatrical release was out of the question because the movie wasn't made for that - whatever that means.

 

[crookeddy]

Variety, Deadline Hollywood, and The Hollywood Reporter's articles debunking reports that the decision to shelve Batgirl was not related to the film's quality preceded an official statement from Warner Bros. Discovery on the matter by almost 24 hours.

Acknowledging that fact and giving their reporting credence is not demonstrating "blind faith in media"; it's acknowledging the veracity of those outlets' reporting and respecting their value as organizations whose job it is to report Entertainment-related news.

They called their sources at the studio. Their sources are either the board members themselves, or their PR representatives. Either way, they ended up getting the company line because there is nothing else they COULD get. Nobody else would know.

 

[DigificWriter]

Their sources are either the board members themselves, or their PR representatives.

If you say so.

 

[crookeddy]

If you say so.

You're hopeless.

 

[Christopher]

The quality of the film may well be perfectly good but it’s equally possible that WB just doesn’t want to kick the makers while they’re down. Seriously; why is it so hard for you to understand that companies and corporations don’t always tell the truth?

That's a strange question, since both interpretations require someone to be lying. It's just a question of which one you consider to be the lie. The fact that Batgirl and Black Adam both reportedly scored the same makes it hard to believe that it was about quality.

 

[Captaindemotion]

That's a strange question, since both interpretations require someone to be lying. It's just a question of which one you consider to be the lie.

I don’t agree. If the film is perfectly good, this doesn’t contradict the claim that cancellation has nothing to do with its quality. The official story is that it was cancelled due to a change in corporate strategy. I don’t see how saying that the film was good belies this.

The fact that Batgirl and Black Adam both reportedly scored the same makes it hard to believe that it was about quality.

Because one has a proven box office star in the lead and one doesn’t? And one has, sad to say, a male lead and one doesn’t?

I have no view on whether the film was good or not, or why it was cancelled, I simply think that the claim that it can be “independently confirmed” that its cancellation has nothing to do with quality is nonsensical.

 

[O'Dib]

I would bet money that it's not as bad as that, and that the recent string (and maybe future outings) of movies from both WB and Disney might even be worse. I mean. There aren't annoying screaming goats in Batgirl (I have to assume), so it's already ahead of the recent pack.

I enjoyed the goats. The way they were incorporated felt like the GOAT rendition of Thor's mythical steeds and chariot.