DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
It will be. They're not going to do a 4 hour animated feature. It'll be the usual 90 to 120 Minutes, and the story will be adjusted to fit in that run time.
Really, what made that series so memorable was that for the first time we truly had ALL those characters interacting in such a big way. Usually it's 1 or 2 parallel Earths and casts in these stories, this had all of them and caused some lasting changes.
Otherwise...yes, dated.
Otherwise...yes, dated.
Crisis, as a story, was self-defeating. It was "hey look at all these great characters, and great history which we're just going to throw away."
The post credit scenes had amounted to nothing, because WB had decided not to follow up on them and instead, turn to Gunn to reboot the DC movies.
How did WB lose a lot of money from the Snyder Cut?
Last edited:
Not following up on Deathstroke was decided before Gunn was even working for WB.
His follow-up being ignored was due to Affleck taking his break from Batman and deciding not to direct the Batman solo movie (he had a lot of personal things going on as you might recall). Nothing to do with Gunn or the reboot which also wasn't conceived of yet.
don't think it was a big money loser...but didn't they spend like $40 million to finish it (and filming stuff like some Cyborg scenes, which were clearly made in a Covid-safe enviorment.
I don't think it was a huge money loser -- but also did NOT bring in hundreds of thousands of subscriptions... i think they might have broke even...something "new" to watch during the end o the Covid lockdown.
i think it might have been more worth it than Mulan or Wonder WOman 1984
How do you know? Do you mean scenes that are just Fisher and a lot of special effects?
Yeah...that TOTALLY felt like a Covid shoot... despite what FIsher said about Cyborg being the hear of the movie. (ANd even the Snyder cut didn't feel like that either)
The "great history" DC largely erased in COIE were the inane, relentlessly contradictory stories published between the mid to late Golden Age into the mid Silver Age, which were already being stepped over in favor of strengthening what worked from the Golden - Bronze Ages, but it was not enough to bring sense to the comic universe. COIE (and its follow up--History of the DC Universe) finally brought a coherent structure to its history, using its best work, hence it being a celebrated success when it was published.
Why are they still making movies out of comics from four decades ago, instead of telling new stories? Not to mention that neither of these sounds like a good idea. Crisis just doesn't make sense as a standalone story, since it's a culmination of decades of continuity-building. And we've already had a Watchmen film adaptation, one that was pretty faithful to (most of) the story and the visuals, so making another one seems redundant. And the original comic was so deeply rooted in the visual language and format and legacy of comics that any adaptation to another medium is going to be too diluted and only a pale reflection. The 2019 TV series had it right by telling a new story building on the original and tailored to its medium, rather than just trying to rehash the original. (I find the 2019 series fascinating -- I don't think there's ever been another screen adaptation of a comic that was a direct in-continuity sequel to the comic rather than a reimagined version of it.)
Seventy.
I heard that WB had paid at least $70 million dollars to get Snyder to finish his version. It made a profit of over $650 million.
That was the worldwide box office of Whedon's theatrical release.
Metrics for streaming are much different, and certainly not that profitable per movie.
I'm pretty sure DC announcing that none of their next batch of movies were canon because everything was about to be reset did them a lot more damage than the Snyder Cut ever did.
I really don't think the majority of casual moviegoers are so preoccupied with continuity as to worry about how one movie connects to future movies. That's something only the hardcore fans pay much attention to.
Besides, no DC movies are "canon." The comics are the canon, the original body of works, and even that continuity undergoes frequent reinvention. The movies are just adaptations, no more canonical than my Trek novels. And those adaptations have only occasionally shared continuity with one another. Why should it matter if Blue Beetle or Aquaman 2 is consistent with Superman Legacy any more than it matters whether Superman: The Movie is consistent with Batman Begins? The value of a movie is the movie itself, not just what it sets up in the future. Look how many movies failed because they prioritized setting up sequels over their own quality and coherence, like Amazing Spider-Man 2 and the Tom Cruise The Mummy. It's better if a movie isn't about setting up the future, if it's just about telling its own story. You can't do your best work in the here and now unless your focus is on the here and now.
I do wonder if it's possible that while they might not specifically care that it might filter down to them by a lack of buzz and excitement from such fans and the entertainment coverage that caters to them. I had no real interest in Oppenheimer and have not sought out any coverage but I am curious now as it's everywhere. I have no proof of this one way or the other but I don't think anyone actually knows though many claim to.
I think this is being a bit specious, I don't think there's any doubt as to what the original statement meant.