Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by dahj, Aug 5, 2018.
Okay . . . this has to be a joke. Right?
No. He linked to that article, yes, but he also stated that he had personally confirmed the numbers he was putting forth and that were cited by Deadline's article, which, if you read it, is less a report on the fact that the film will turn a profit and more of an analysis of the 'whys and hows' behind that fact.
I don't think I've ever seen a movie's balance sheet pushed so hard to the public. "No, it's profitable, really, trust us!"
It's bad news for those who liked the first 2 movies.
It's ironic when you consider that most Hollywood Accounting involves jumping through hoops to prove your movie wasn't profitable.
Whereas those of us who liked the first but not the second are unsure what to think... (Speaking just for myself, of course.)
Well, you know some are of the teeth gnashing mentality, so trying to sweep away facts related to the existing DC productions is to be expected.
Yep. A glaring example was when Paramount tried the claim they lost tons of money with the film Forrest Gump to get out of a profit sharing clause in the film writer's contract. They tried to claim it was actually one of their largest Box Office bombs up to that point in time.
To put the Box Office situation in perspective:
All this for a guy she knew for...what, a few days in WW2?
This isn't love, it's psychotic obsession.
Of course, the BTS reason is that studios think Gal Gadot can't hold a movie on her own and she needs her chemistry with Chris Pine to be entertaining.
He stated he personally confirmed the movie made a profit and linked Deadline's article. The only *actual information* about how much of a profit the movie can expect to make he offered is the information in the Deadline article. Which I already said. And which is very much not a good profit for a movie of this type.
I don’t have shares in Warner Brothers (or whatever they’re calling themselves this week), so their profits and losses are largely irrelevant to me. However, in a methodology course, I have a few students doing research papers on post pandemic economic effects on cinema (one on cinema houses and two on studios and global revenue), so I have a temporary interest in the topic.
I don’t really care about the pissing contests over box office (certainly has zero effect on whether I watch, let alone like, a film), in this instance I think it’s important to account for the anticipated revenue from China that, at least in the short term, seems to be forgone. If the filmmakers have to pivot away from Chinese box office for a sequel, then an unusual focus on profit in the discussion of Black Adam is at least comprehensible, if not necessarily persuasive.
Pine is still a good actor but he is not ageing as well as Pitt or Cruise.
Maybe Paul Wesley should be brought in to replace Pine again?
In 1984, I would have used Linda in the flash back, she is the crazy old exile on the island who lives in a shack and the other lesbians don't like her any more since got contaminated from touching a dick the last time a Greek Fishing trawler got too close to Paradise Island.
So 10 year old Diana (they need to explain how she ages, is she clay imbued with the breath of Zeus or did Zeus actually bang Hippolyta? Is she made from the mud of a Lazarus Pitt? Is she 30 years old in 1917 or 3000 years old?) sneaks into the old unclean pariah's hut to hear ghost stories about the horrible penis monster that waits out there on the sea, to smack her around and tie her up, unless she smacks it around and ties it up before it bites her with its gnashing teeth.
Meanwhile Hades lord of the underworld is her uncle. Going downstairs to get Steve is not a problem. Although he is a mortal idiot. Maybe she's gone down to Elysium a dozen times to get him, but he keeps dying from folly, and she's
just sick of the karmic wheel.
Problem with Patty's idea...
The Lazerus Pitt does not bring your soul back.
So the Steve Trevor she brings back, is going to be wrong, and she'll need to put him down.
They had it right in the 70s.
Wonder woman just started banging Steve Trevor's son, and if there had been another time jump she would have started banging Steve Trevor's grandson.
A family of thoroughbreds.
What people forget is that Steve II from season 2 on, was also Eta Candy's kid.
Was 70s wonder Woman having sex with Eta's child because she had always wanted to, or just really did enjoy having sex with Eta Candy?
"Look guys, Eta, Steve, I love both of you, but unless you're good with a three way now and then, the only way I see out of this, is if the two of you have a child, fill it with the best characteristics of both of you, and then in 30 years, when I still look like this, because I'm immortal, I can start fornicating with your grown up adult child. Thanks."
It's what happened.
Ah, but in this thread, certain people having an intense focus on the lack of box office performance (as if they were fully aware of studio expectations) is another way of saying if Black Adam--a film part of the existing DCEU (read: anything connected to the ever-so-despised Snyder) was some sort of failure, then its the final bit of "weight" necessary to justify wiping away the existing film universe in favor of a reboot. Yeah, nevermind WB+D's 2023 release schedule includes four new films set in that same universe, and with their release, essentially telling the movie going public that said universe still lives on to varying degrees. But naaahh, get rid of it all.
Sigh x infinity.
Box office dictates Sequelability.
Green Lantern was awful, and it made no money, but I still want to see Blake Lively dressed up as Star Sapphire putting a boot on Hal Jordan's neck.
Sarah Shahi played a great human being turned upside down by Gods and Monsters, but something is supposed to happen that turns her into a superhero Goddess called "Isis", and it's almost been long enough that they might be able to get away with using that name.
It seems Sarah thought that she was going to be a Superhero too in movie 1?
She must have looked up the character name, before they gave her the script to read.
So it seems James Gunn has tweeted:
Which is, of course, only as it should be, but it clearly hasn't always been the case, so it's nice to get that reassurance.
This was my biggest issue with WW84. Diane is a powerful, strong person that seems overwhelmed by the world outside of her home but is still in control of herself and her feelings and is capable of dealing with them in a healthy manner.
Then she meets a guy, have sex once I believe, looses him and spends decades not getting over it properly? I'm sorry but no.
I think they spend months together, and if the movie had been set 5 years later with a Diane who seems over it, realises there is still some things left to proces, does so and moves on....
That MIGHT have worked a bit better. But even so....
The problem I have with this is that I don't think anyone can measure how long it would take to become emotionally connected to another person. Not really. There is no standard length for the formation of any romance, let alone relationship. I think it all depends upon the individuals involved.
I don't know if I trust his reassurance.
I don't think the vast majority of the public will care who the director/writer of WW3 is as long as its a good movie. I love the first Wonder Woman, and enjoyed the second despite its issues--but there are other writers/directors who can do just as good or a better job on the next film.
Todd Philips has posted the first look at Joker: Folie a Deux https://www.instagram.com/p/CmAGaZcyNFP/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
@TREK_GOD_1 who exactly are those people who are such Snyder haters on this board, that they hate the whole thing and want to start over completely from scratch?? I mean, finding some loud voices on the internet who would say such things is easy. To quote Perry White form the Snyder movies “And in other news, water is wet!”
And Is there anyone here on TrekBBS, or even on the internet, that REALLY thinks Henry Cavill was miscast as Superman??? Cavill himself isn’t the problem….but HOW they have developed him, narratively.
But what really gets people is the misdevelopment of Clark/Superman.
They had a couple of good scenes with Martha helping Clark like a special needs child, and Jonathan challenging Clark about what kind of man he would be. But then they dropped those potentially great narratives. Martha SHOULD have become a therapist, who inspires Clark as HIS hero (and we can see why he cares about the "weak"), and JOnathan's "sacrifice" seemed kinda wasteful. And then Clark learns "superheroing" by doing the TV Incredible Hulk thing of helping someone with his powers, and then moving on. Blech.
Then we have Batman vs. Superman , which happens like 3 or 4 times. The first, was of course the movie. OK cool. But then the next movie, you have Batman (and the League) vs. newly resurrected Superman. (see below for comments on that). Then we have the Knightmare, which AGAIN is Superman vs. Batman. And not sure if that was a variation or a “preview” of the planned JL2 with the anti-life equation. But it is a rinse and repeat move.
And narratively, Superman’s death in the 2nd movie was meaningless, as we all knew he would be back for more (as opposed to Spock, who had several years leading up to him dying in his second movie). And not just the real life audience, but also, how long had Superman been active as a Superhero in the DCFU at that point?
The WB management, both past and present, remind me of Sony and how they have handled Spiderman. In their case, they might have let Raimi do his own vision for Spidey at first, which connected to fans past and created many new ones. But by the 3rd one, Sony execs had shown their greed, and driven off the director, and subsequently, the star. So they destroyed momentum that had been created.
It was obvious to a number of us that the new Spiderman was done mostly to keep the profit-making license, and NOT with a love for the character or fandom. So that’s why it bombed by the 2nd ASM.
They were smart enough to let Marvel run with it… and by THEIR 3rd movie, was then able to bring in even old fans of ASM, and in fact made fans like me even appreciate Andrew Garfield and his time as ASM, such that I would be happy to see him again.
A “clean slate” worked to do a 3rd version of Spiderman because ASM was only 2 films, so not much to worry about .
The thing is Zaslav has some good points… mainly about how Superman OUUGHT to be the premier live action hero (even beyond Marvel) , as well as how the various forms (TV & movies) really need to be brought together.
But Zaslav has also proven that he is all about the money, and just doesn’t understand the fan culture, nor how to organically develop it.
With Gunn involved… I had mentioned him being “comic book-y”. So for me, at the right time, it can work, such as the Hulk punching Thor/Hulk slapping around Loki scenes, were laugh out loud moments that really work without making the movie feel too goofy. Productions like Guardians, THE Suicide Squad and Peacemaker work within themselves…but going into the bigger universe??
(By the way, I would describe Snyder as being “graphic novel-ish” –being too serious and/or negative in areas where it’s not necessary… so the coloring in Man of Steel and his “development” into the role. It was a perfect style for 300, but the 7 minute montage in Up made Carl far more likeable/understandable, or a few establishing scenes and Montage in Captain AMerica The First Avenger for us to embrace Steve Rogers as not just a superhero but a leader of people)
My other concern with Gunn is that he is knee deep into finishing Guardians, while now tasked with he future of the DCFU (a heavy load that needs exclusive concentration). He’s a guy who seems to go against the grain of a “mainstream” culture (i.e. the overall tone of the DCFU / MCU), and now he is tasked to create his own?
I am skeptical, but open to be proven wrong on it.
For some of the other DCFU stuff going on:
regarding The Rock & black Adam – I think he was doing his wrestling hype of it. It didn’t “save” or resurrect the DCFU, but also didn’t kill it. A solid entry, but I don’t see it revolutionizing anything. I would love to see Black Adam vs. Superman – but he also needs to go against the Shazam family.
Is the treatment being reported of WW3 REAL???? Seems kinda off for them. Not sure if they have NDA’s that prevent them from speaking on the truth. (I assume those are big with WB… because we haven’t had much talk about Geoff Johns’ tenure…. It seems like he was the perfect Kevin Feige – type , but no one seemed to listen to him at the WB; feels like a whole story there...more than what Ray Fisher would want us to believe)
I am too lazy to find the link right now…but a rumor that Jason Mamoa will switch to Lobo rather than Aquaman. (any truth to this????) While I can totally see him in that new role…any reason why he can’t do both? Lobo has enough makeup that they can make him different. The first was so successful (i.e. how Superman SHOULD have done financially), that unless the sequel is soooooo bad and money-losing, and Mamoa has Ezra issues, it would be foolish to stop.
And the Flash?????? While I think Ezra Miller’s character was a perfect contrast/fit for the other characters of the League…. Way back then, they could have EASILY integrated Gustin’s version. Centering him in Central City is just fine, and pull him out when needed. (And have excuses why he isn’t calling on the League and/or have the JL set some time after the series is initially set). Gustin’s character started as socially inept as Ezra’s character, and could have built on it. The positive hype the series had gotten from fans could have easily transferred over to the movies. We will see what happens with his movie… but it has been an unforeseen mess, between Ezra & Covid.
And I don’t have time to talk about the TV shows that are all over the place, and divide people rather than move a core fanbase from show to show (in addition to show-specific fans)
Separate names with a comma.