DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Grendelsbayne]

Here are some factors that may have come into play regarding attendance of Shazam: Fury of the Gods:

4. Movies like Scream VI, Creed III, and Quantumania are providing stiffer competition for Fury of the Gods than the original Shazam faced.

The original Shazam was sandwhiched in between Captain Marvel and Avengers Endgame with some significant competition from Dumbo, as well.

 

[Saul]

Here are some factors that may have come into play regarding attendance of Shazam: Fury of the Gods:

1. It has a much lower critical score than the first Shazam and a slightly lower audience score.
2. Shazam came out before the pandemic, and any movie coming out afterward is going to have a lot of people waiting to see it at home, if at all, due to wanting to avoid crowds in theaters for most movies.
3. We are just after the Oscars, and some people are wanting to see the big nominees from 2022 while they can.
4. Movies like Scream VI, Creed III, and Quantumania are providing stiffer competition for Fury of the Gods than the original Shazam faced.
5. The novelty factor is gone, and Captain Marvel/Shazam does not have the name recognition that one of the Justice League animated characters or WB TV characters does.

I would rather go and see The Super Mario Bros. Movie 5 times than see S: FotG once, just based on trailers.

After Black Adam the budget to promote this film was also cut.

 

[Set Harth]

Gone are the days when people would franchise or series as some blur of products, and say, "Star Wars? That's that show with the guy with the ears, right?"

"Star Wars? What is that, a movie version of Battle of the Network Stars?"

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

A little over a week ago, the host of the YouTube channel Our Movie News posted a video titled: The Problem With James Gunn's DCU | DC Films, which grew out of a tweet from Daniel Richtman (aka DanielRPK) about James Gunn's choices to retain DCEU elements or entire films:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

First, the Richtman tweet:

"So let me see if I got this right;

No DCEU movie is canon to the DCU except The Suicide Squad. Some parts from the first Suicide Squad movie that
connect to TSS are also canon, but the rest isn't. Peacemaker show is mostly canon except for the Justice
League cameo at the end."

Our Movie News' tweet:

"If Snyder was in charge of #DC & had only kept his character & rebooted everything else, sure my favorites would be staying, but that wouldn't be fair to the fans who loved the other DC characters & stories.

A full reboot is the only fair option for every DC fan."

Well, whether or not anything is "fair" is a debate for another time, but the OMN host's point is understandable regarding the cherry-picking Gunn appears to be doing where non-The Suicide Squad material is concerned. If Zaslav, Gunn, et al., decided DC needed a true clean slate, then the opposite of a sensible plan would be to retain any of the material created for the DCEU, lest fans might (read: will) complain about the forced "retirement" of well-loved/supported DCEU characters (the Big Three more than anyone else), while lesser creations might survive the universe reboot.

 

[JD]

The sad truth is that YLu is correct. I don't believe that there is a huge desire for superhero movies among the general public. There is a huge desire for Marvel movies, and that is the key difference. Marvel took the time to build its MCU--the WB tried to force their own cinematic universe into existence and the, after only two movies were released, cut their own nose off before anything resembling a cross-movie continuity could be established. Nobody outside people like us with a vested interest in comic book heroes ever cared about a DCU, or ever really had the opportunity to have something they cared about.

People like Marvel movies, but I think Quantumania proved that even with the MCU, average movie goers really aren't that interested in overall story arc. They made a huge deal all over the place about how Quantumania was setting up the big storyline for the next phase or two of movies, and introducing Kang, who's going to be the next Thanos, but with all of that, it still more or less ended up being a flop. If non-hardcore fans were really that investing in it as a cinematic universe, then it would have been another $1,000,000,000 movie.

I assume you're drawing a hard line between the moviegoing public and so-named "die-hard" fans--as if the former is not part of the audience who invest themselves into franchises, continuity, etc. and pay attention to names / actions producing the content & what pulls the strings behind the scenes. It is more connected and larger than you think, hence the mainstream news paying attention to the entire Cavill affair--from Johnson teasing Cavill's return (to some gleefully denying it would happen), to reactions when his Black Adam appearance was confirmed, to Cavill (and WB) saying he would return for more Superman appearances, and finally, to the unfortunate decision to cut ties with the actor. That was not hidden internet chatter, but well covered news by mainstream media, as it was of interest to more than "die-hards". That is the nature of a great deal of fandom and moviegoing today, hence the level of investment studios have in legacy properties like comic book characters. This isn't the 70s where a film such as--for one example-- Jaws 2 would drop with expected sequel publicity, receive reviews and few moviegoers--other than fantasy fans--barely sought out information in print media about the film, and certainly had no engagement with the creatives.

All that means is that people are interested in what Henry Cavill is doing, that doesn't automatically mean people care which movies are part of which shared universe.

The business does not work that way anymore, J.D. The entire game has changed in favor of working that reciprocal, immersive relationship between studios and fans to the point where creatives do engage with / promote with as many individuals as possible on a level unlike anything ever seen in entertainment history before. Its deliberate, because studios know there's a significantly larger group to tap into than just that old-school, comic-book character t-shirt wearing geek who actively card about / follow media about movies. No studio would survive on "die-hards" alone.

Yes, people do pay closer attention to that kind of stuff these days, but again just because they're interesting who's doing what, that still doesn't mean that the average person cares if a DC movie is set in the DCEU or the DCU. All they care about is that there's a new Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman movie coming out.

Just as the Cavill example proves, audiences are aware, and as a result, their taste dictates what they pick and choose, including work based on content, casting and who is behind the work. Gone are the days when people would view a franchise or series as some blur of products, and say, "Star Wars? That's that show with the guy with the ears, right?".

I'm not so sure about there, I'm pretty sure there are still a lot of non-sci fi fans out there who would say exactly that if you asked them a question about Star Wars.
I think the problem here is that people who are part of a group and have special knowledge unique to that group, tend to assume that everybody has that knowledge too, when in fact most people outside of that group don't. I'm an big animal person, and I'm constantly shocked how much stuff I've known forever and I assumed everybody knew, that most animal people actually don't know.

 

[Noname Given]

People like Marvel movies, but I think Quantumania proved that even with the MCU, average movie goers really aren't that interested in overall story arc. They made a huge deal all over the place about how Quantumania was setting up the big storyline for the next phase or two of movies, and introducing Kang, who's going to be the next Thanos, but with all of that, it still more or less ended up being a flop. If non-hardcore fans were really that investing in it as a cinematic universe, then it would have been another $1,000,000,000 movie.
All that means is that people are interested in what Henry Cavill is doing, that doesn't automatically mean people care which movies are part of which shared universe.

Yes, people do pay closer attention to that kind of stuff these days, but again just because they're interesting who's doing what, that still doesn't mean that the average person cares if a DC movie is set in the DCEU or the DCU. All they care about is that there's a new Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman movie coming out.

I'm not so sure about there, I'm pretty sure there are still a lot of non-sci fi fans out there who would say exactly that if you asked them a question about Star Wars.
I think the problem here is that people who are part of a group and have special knowledge unique to that group, tend to assume that everybody has that knowledge too, when in fact most people outside of that group don't. I'm an big animal person, and I'm constantly shocked how much stuff I've known forever and I assumed everybody knew, that most animal people actually don't know.

Yeah about that, in the end Ant-Man Quantomania is still going to net about $500 million worldwide via it's box office run. Unlike the last two DCU outings, it's still turning a profit for the studio overall even with many moviegoers feeling it misfired in a couple of areas. Not every MCU film was going to be a billion dollar plus box office Blockbuster. (Eternals was more expensive, but performed worse. And being the FrontRunner everyone's going to take a pot shot at Marvel when one of their films doesn't break the box office.) But I can guarantee you Warner Bro would kill to get even Ant-Man Quantomania box office numbers for any of its more recent DCU films.

 

[JD]

Sure, but it still didn't make the massive money a lot of the other big MCU movies were made, and if average movies goers were really invested in the whole arc of the MCU, then it probably have made a lot more money.

 

[Dee1891]

Well, whether or not anything is "fair" is a debate for another time, but the OMN host's point is understandable regarding the cherry-picking Gunn appears to be doing where non-The Suicide Squad material is concerned. If Zaslav, Gunn, et al., decided DC needed a true clean slate, then the opposite of a sensible plan would be to retain any of the material created for the DCEU, lest fans might (read: will) complain about the forced "retirement" of well-loved/supported DCEU characters (the Big Three more than anyone else), while lesser creations might survive the universe reboot.

I didn't know that only "The Suicide Squad" will remain canon in the new franchise. It's bad enough that it was considered canon in the old DCEU franchise. Yikes. I see that I was right to put this whole thing behind me.

People like Marvel movies . . .

Not everyone does. And less people are beginning to like that franchise.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

People like Marvel movies, but I think Quantumania proved that even with the MCU, average movie goers really aren't that interested in overall story arc. They made a huge deal all over the place about how Quantumania was setting up the big storyline for the next phase or two of movies, and introducing Kang, who's going to be the next Thanos, but with all of that, it still more or less ended up being a flop.

Perhaps this is the result of the MCU train slowing down due to rinse-and-repeat formulas, such as Kang being the next Thanos, and yes, there will be another massive fight across a number of films with the latest and yet to be introduced heroes, a few deaths, re-casting...rinse-and-repeat. Moviegoers of all stripes were well aware of the MCU plots & formula and Ant-Man 3--the film kicking off Kang's version of Thanos--with its reportedly disappointing returns stands as evidence of audiences becoming fatigued with the all too familiar pattern.

All that means is that people are interested in what Henry Cavill is doing, that doesn't automatically mean people care which movies are part of which shared universe.

Cavill is best known as this generation's Superman. The news coverage was about his returning to the Superman role, not any random "what's Cavill up to these days?" piece, hence the interest from the coverage perspective and knowing there's an interested audience in Cavill as Superman proved the opposite of what you're saying.

Yes, people do pay closer attention to that kind of stuff these days, but again just because they're interesting who's doing what, that still doesn't mean that the average person cares if a DC movie is set in the DCEU or the DCU. All they care about is that there's a new Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman movie coming out.

Viewers are more cognizant of the details and subjects of content than that which you're assuming. They're not seeing fantasy films as some noisy smörgåsbord with no defined faces or chapters. No one is seeing the Reynolds Green Lantern as being a part of, or considered the same (in any category) as the DCEU. No one sees the Ang Lee Hulk film as having anything to do with the MCU Hulk outings--the same with Singer's Superman and audiences knowing it was not part of Snyder's film series at all. Its not a stretch to say audiences would not have been pleased to see the then-next Hulk or Superman film if they had any connection to the Lee and Singer films, and that disappointment only stems from their being aware.

Again, audiences just do not swallow content as one, big "its all the same" cocktail, unable to know which actors, directors and writers they accept or reject.

I'm not so sure about there, I'm pretty sure there are still a lot of non-sci fi fans out there who would say exactly that if you asked them a question about Star Wars.

Not since 1977 or '78.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I didn't know that only "The Suicide Squad" will remain canon in the new franchise.

If that turns out to be the case, its just letting the moviegoing public know Gunn is cherry-picking what part of the DCEU survives (starting with his work, or course), which--as noted yesterday, will not go over well, since the most appreciated / supported actors behind the biggest characters have been forced into early "retirement".

Yikes. I see that I was right to put this whole thing behind me.

I'm hearing an increasing number of DC movie fans sharing that same sentiment.

Not everyone does. And less people are beginning to like that franchise.

Agreed.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Cavill is best known as this generation's Superman. The news coverage was about his returning to the Superman role, not any random "what's Cavill up to these days?" piece, hence the interest from the coverage perspective and knowing there's an interested audience in Cavill as Superman proved the opposite of what you're saying.

Wasn't most of the news framed around his other super famous role, "The Witcher"?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

There has never been a full reboot with DC. With Crisis on Infinite Earths, some characters rebooted completely (Superman, Wonder Woman), some slightly (Batman), and some carried their pre-Crisis history over (The Flash). With the New 52, Batman, Green Lantern and Legion of Super-Heroes were exempt from being fully rebooted.

 

[theenglish]

I would argue that that has been DCs biggest mistake-- DC has been dealing with the fallout from COIE for nearly forty years and can never seem to be happy with their universe. The New 52 should have been clean reboot but exceptions were made for titles that were selling well and for creators who didn't want to get on board with the new status quo.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I would argue that that has been DCs biggest mistake-- DC has been dealing with the fallout from COIE for nearly forty years and can never seem to be happy with their universe.

COIE was a masterclass in creatively and effectively correcting a franchise's once-silly, muddleheaded course (more often than not). The guide for both readers and creatives to handle the post-COIE DC Universe going forward was laid out in the two-issue TPB History of the DC Universe (1986, by Wolfman and Perez), which recapped the history of the new universe and how its players existed at that time. That was the plan, but some editors/writers ended up trying to do their own thing despite the company-wide mandates for specific changes post-COIE, or thought a clear restructuring was confusing, hence the Zero Hour miniseries and tie-in titles, and from that moment of unnecessary self-imposed confusion, its been a company going off of the rails ever since.

 

[Gaith]

As someone who hasn’t seen Shazam, I suspect this new sequel should have been a buddy flick between Shazam and Superman, especially given the end credits tease last time around. Clark is a tough character to make work on his own for a feature-length movie, so having an awestruck sidekick whose help he reluctantly finds that he needs could have been a neat, fresh angle for him.

 

[The Lensman]

The biggest snag regarding COIE and a total reboot was New Teen Titans, DC’s most popular book. The original Titans were all sidekicks, so a reboot would’ve had their mentors solo for awhile before they took on sidekicks. Then they would’ve needed a few years as sidekicks before forming the original team and DC wasn’t going to do that.


They also should’ve put a moratorium on characters who had not yet had updated origins. Classic Hawkman appeared, post Crisis, in Action with Superman, but was radically different when Hawkworld rolled around.

Supes and Bats were portrayed as relatively new with a couple of years under their belts, but Perez’ Wonder Woman was started from scratch which meant they had to explain who was in her place as a JLA founder.

 

[theenglish]

COIE was a masterclass in creatively and effectively correcting a franchise's once-silly, muddleheaded course (more often than not). The guide for both readers and creatives to handle the post-COIE DC Universe going forward was laid out in the two-issue TPB History of the DC Universe (1986, by Wolfman and Perez), which recapped the history of the new universe and how its players existed at that time. That was the plan, but some editors/writers ended up trying to do their own thing despite the company-wide mandates for specific changes post-COIE, or thought a clear restructuring was confusing, hence the Zero Hour miniseries and tie-in titles, and from that moment of unnecessary self-imposed confusion, its been a company going off of the rails ever since.

I agree that COIE as a story is great. I still have my original copies. I probably still have the Histories somewhere. It is a shame about what happened afterward.

 

[YLu]

The biggest snag regarding COIE and a total reboot was New Teen Titans, DC’s most popular book. The original Titans were all sidekicks, so a reboot would’ve had their mentors solo for awhile before they took on sidekicks. Then they would’ve needed a few years as sidekicks before forming the original team and DC wasn’t going to do that.

This is the issue with reboots. It's ostensibly a fresh start, but in practice writers still want to play with all the old characters and concepts that are now erased. So now they have to busy themselves with re-introducing all that stuff instead of doing something new, which is kind of the opposite of a fresh start.

They can get around this by going all in with in media res, start with the characters already in the middle phase of their careers. But if you're going to do that, why not just not reboot in the first place?

 

[Nerys Myk]

The biggest snag regarding COIE and a total reboot was New Teen Titans, DC’s most popular book. The original Titans were all sidekicks, so a reboot would’ve had their mentors solo for awhile before they took on sidekicks. Then they would’ve needed a few years as sidekicks before forming the original team and DC wasn’t going to do that.

Especially with the guys who created the NTT also in charge of COIE.

 

[Christopher]

They can get around this by going all in with in media res, start with the characters already in the middle phase of their careers. But if you're going to do that, why not just not reboot in the first place?

That's why post-Crisis DC did a two-pronged approach -- they did miniseries like Superman: The Man of Steel and Batman: Year One/Year Two to backfill the new origin stories in flashback while the main comic storylines continued in the present. That's why The Man of Steel jumped forward in time with each issue, fast-forwarding through Superman's new backstory to catch up with the present in six issues. On the other hand, I think Wonder Woman did a full from-scratch restart.

So there was no "snag" with the Teen Titans, because the main continuity did not start over from scratch, mostly. The books just carried on in their respective present with a few continuity adjustments as necessary. The point of Crisis was not to start everything over from scratch, just to streamline the characters' past and get rid of the goofy Silver Age baggage and backstories.