DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[YLu]

You can argue what the earliest version of Superman was or was not, but that is irrelevant to what audiences today think of as Superman. It is certainly possible to make a version of Superman that subverts or upends expectations, but unless that version also connects with audiences it will be for naught. Snyder's problem was not that he didn't make a Superman who was similar to Donner's, etc., but rather that his Superman simply did not connect with a large enough audience. Hopefully Gunn will do better.

Invocations of 'the original intent' feel disingenuous nine times out of ten. People only seem to care about that when the original version just oh so happens to much what they prefer. How many people proselytizing their preferred version of the character under the banner of original intent are also in favor of getting rid of flight and heat vision, of making him a reporter for the Daily Star, of having him raised at an orphanage instead of by the Kents? All of which were true of the original version.

This is true not just of Superman but fandoms in general.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

The movie's been out less than 24 hours. It's a bit premature to call it a failure.

Except that it's failing to match its projections which were already low-balled and its reviews are mediocre at best which doesn't paint a picture of it potentially being saved by great legs.

 

[The Knappos]

It’s all still estimates until at least Tuesday.
And next to zero films hit break even point on opening weekend so that’s a premature fallacy too.
And all films have an economic lifetime far beyond the theatrical window anyway, which is a perpetual fallacy of film success commentary (we had a bit of a break from it back in the ‘got a sequel cos the dvd sold well’ days).
All this really means is its arrival at break even will be later than sooner.

 

[Rich Watson]

There is no earth in the multiverse where The Flash makes money.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It’s all still estimates until at least Tuesday.
And next to zero films hit break even point on opening weekend so that’s a premature fallacy too.
And all films have an economic lifetime far beyond the theatrical window anyway, which is a perpetual fallacy of film success commentary.
All this really means is its arrival at break even will be later than sooner.

It's all estimates to a certain extent, but there is a huge difference between pre-sales estimates and sales estimates once the movie is actually in theaters. The second category is far more accurate.

And no one is saying it had to break even on opening weekend. The issue is that it seems to be developing a shockingly small opening weekend for a massive tentpole movie that supposedly cost upwards of 300m to make, while also having tepid audience responses at best (I just saw it received a 'B' cinemascore, which is really bad). It absolute does mean there is a real chance - though not yet a hard guarantee - that this movie won't make a profit in theaters at all. Not just break even later.

And since nobody makes a movie like this just to break even, anything that isn't well above the break even point before it leaves theaters is certainly a failure, even though there are of course different levels of failures and different reasons behind different circumstances.

 

[The Knappos]

I didn’t say movies were a not-for-profit business.

But they’re a business with several revenue streams though. Theatrical is the major one but it’s also a short term one and nobody investing money professionally is doing so for the short term. And definitely not for the duration of a theatrical release window.

The only people who need to be shocked at a poor showing at the theatrical box office are those with gross points in their contracts.

The worst thing that will happen to any other investors is a tax write off.

 

[DigificWriter]

Except that it's failing to match its projections

It's still too early to claim that.

and its reviews are mediocre at best

Not according to what I've seen.

And reviews are meaningless anyway.

I'm not saying that it won't end up failing in the end (and WBD will only have itself to blame if it does); I'm saying that it's too early to claim that it has in fact failed.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I didn’t say movies were a not-for-profit business.

But they’re a business with several revenue streams though. Theatrical is the major one but it’s also a short term one and nobody investing money professionally is doing so for the short term. And definitely not for the duration of a theatrical release window.

The only people who need to be shocked at a poor showing at the theatrical box office are those with gross points in their contracts.

The worst thing that will happen to any other investors is a tax write off.

You could say that about any movie. Hell, even Cutthroat Island and Waterworld probably broke even eventually. Doesn't make them succesful. The entire point of Hollywood as an industry is to make movies that are profitable in theaters, not movies that will maybe creep into the black after years of media sales and broadcast/streaming licenses. These revenue sources are considered ancillary for a reason.

It's still too early to claim that.



Not according to what I've seen.

And reviews are meaningless anyway.

I'm not saying that it won't end up failing in the end (and WBD will only have itself to blame if it does); I'm saying that it's too early to claim that it has in fact failed.

B cinemascore, 66% fresh, 56 on metacritic. The overall picture is mediocre at best.

 

[Rich Watson]

With the almost complete death of physical media (I'm the only person I know who buys 4Ks) and the rise of studio owned streaming services the post-theatrical earnings prospects for movies are a shadow of what they were.

And beyond its own budget and marketing costs, "The Flash" will also have had the development costs for all the failed attempts to make it lumped in as well.

Plus it missed out on millions in tie-in money as lots of Brands didn't want to be associated with Miller.

 

[Rich Watson]

And to clear I'm not picking on 'The Flash', there's been plenty of failures this year and more to come. Indiana Jones is going to crash and burn because you're not going to find many teens/20-somethings who care about the character.

Bizarrely 'Quantumania' could end up as the fifth or sixth highest grossing movie of the year worldwide.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, I guess it's time to play my violin as Rome, I mean, Hollywood burns.

 

[Rich Watson]

Well, I guess it's time to play my violin as Rome, I mean, Hollywood burns.

Basically the best way to earn money in Hollywood is to make a horror movie. Tiny budgets vs big returns. 'Evil Dead Rise', which was once destined for streaming, has made about $100m in profit.

 

[fireproof78]

Basically the best way to earn money in Hollywood is to make a horror movie. Tiny budgets vs big returns. 'Evil Dead Rise', which was once destined for streaming, has made about $100m in profit.

Good to know. If ever I decide to make a movie I will certainly consider doing that.

RIP DC. RIP.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

Good to know. If ever I decide to make a movie I will certainly consider doing that.

RIP DC. RIP.

When George A. Romero and John Russo were deciding what type of film they could make for the budget they had, they chose a zombie/horror movie because it offered the best return on investment.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

Deadline Hollywood has 'The Flash' losing momentum after a strong opening. Current projections have it $60 million over the four day period.

 

[Anwar]

Basically the best way to earn money in Hollywood is to make a horror movie. Tiny budgets vs big returns. 'Evil Dead Rise', which was once destined for streaming, has made about $100m in profit.

That's basically Blumhouse's MO. Low Budgets on Horror = High Returns.

 

[Samurai8472]

Screentests for "Superman:Legacy" being done right now for Superman and Lois

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670150846019936257


• Nicholas Hoult, David Corenswet & Tom Brittney for Superman

• Emma Mackey, Phoebe Dynevor & Rachel Brosnahan for Lois Lane


It seems like the big favorite is Corenswet and Mackey.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Screentests for "Superman:Legacy" being done right now for Superman and Lois

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670150846019936257


• Nicholas Hoult, David Corenswet & Tom Brittney for Superman

• Emma Mackey, Phoebe Dynevor & Rachel Brosnahan for Lois Lane


It seems like the big favorite is Corenswet and Mackey.

Didn't get a call. Might have to fire my agent.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Any writer who creates a character for an ongoing series is going go in aware that the character is going to change and grow as the series goes on.

Patently false. Superhero creators--particularly in comics of that time--did not foresee their creations living on for decades with the hands of others altering their vision in various media interpretations. Where are you getting that from?

And this is my whole point right here, the early Superman was written to match the attitudes and expections of the 1940s, and I don't know if you've looked at a calendar lately, but it's not actually the 2020s now, and those kind of attitudes and expectations have changed a lot in almost 90 years

Your every position contradicts your statement above, as I will ask if you've looked at a calendar lately, but the 21st century audience is not seeking or longing for a Superman based on the interpretations you seem to champion, whether its Weisinger's Golden - Silver Age comics, a 70s/80s hack cartoon, or the Salkind's movie version--the latter proven with the response to Singer's love letter to the Salkinds in the form of Superman Returns.

Yes I am writing to steer it away from the original version

You are selectively steering it away from the original intent for the character, and right into Santa Daddy territory--an antiquated interpretation no modern audience is asking to see. So, your issue is that Superman only draw from the past which floats your boat--a hypocritical position, since you've claimed to want the character to avoid taking inspiration from the past.

 

[JD]

Patently false. Superhero creators--particularly in comics of that time--did not foresee their creations living on for decades with the hands of others altering their vision in various media interpretations. Where are you getting that from?

All I meant was that they knew going in that this was not going to be a finite series that only last 3, or 12, or however many issues, and when you are writing an ongoing series, even if it only lasts a year or two, you are still going in expecting the character to change or evolve.

Your every position contradicts your statement above, as I will ask if you've looked at a calendar lately, but the 21st century audience is not seeking or longing for a Superman based on the interpretations you seem to champion, whether its Weisinger's Golden - Silver Age comics, a 70s/80s hack cartoon, or the Salkind's movie version--the latter proven with the response to Singer's love letter to the Salkinds in the form of Superman Returns.

All I meant is that people tend to have a particular idea of what a character is like, mostly built off of whatever version of the character they have seen the most, whether it's in the recent comics, or other adaptations. Especially with big fans, they will get annoyed when they go in expecting that version and given something that takes a very different approach, that at times to purposefully contradict how the character is usually portrayed. People expect to see a version of the character that they can recognize from the comics they've read or other adaptations they've seen.

You are selectively steering it away from the original intent for the character, and right into Santa Daddy territory--an antiquated interpretation no modern audience is asking to see. So, your issue is that Superman only draw from the past which floats your boat--a hypocritical position, since you've claimed to want the character to avoid taking inspiration from the past.

I'm not necessarily going for the overly cheesy 50s/60s version, but I absolutely 100% trying to steer it away from the "original intent for the character" because the character has changed and evolved a lot since 1938, and people are going to go into a new, modern adaptation expecting to see a modern version of the character, not one that stopped being relevant almost a century ago.