DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Grendelsbayne]

I'm still not clear on what this supposed terrible financial harm to 'a lot of other people' is supposed to be.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FX team doesn't get residuals, yes? The camera crew? Casting, costuming, catering, etc?

As far as I can see, the *financial* success of this movie only matters (outside of matters of professional pride, at least) to the producers/executives, the director, the writers and the actors. And, if I understand correctly, the actors aren't even guaranteed a cut unless they have the right type of contract.

Personally, I hold all the producers and the director at least partly responsible for the situation since they're the people in charge of the project at the end of the day. They either openly agreed with WB's strategy or tacitly went along with it, or else their name wouldn't still be on the movie.

That leaves just the writers and some of the actors, and the only actors I actually know with a 100% certainty would actually stand to make a significant amount of money from that are Keaton and Miller. Keaton doesn't need it, and Miller is the whole problem in the first place. Probably Shannon, Affleck and Calle might stand to lose something, but again Affleck and Shannon aren't dependent on a single film's success either.

So I'm not seeing how this film failing would be a terrible blow to 'a lot of other people'. And it's also still not different to a film simply failing for any other reason, either, which means everyone expected at least a possibility that they wouldn't see money from it.

 

[Noname Given]

Anything less than $700 million will be seen as a failure of the film by Warner Brothers. And I say that because the latest Guardians of the Galaxy is going to end up coming in around that figure.

They love another billion plus box office success like Aquaman in their DCEU: but the way they're going about it I doubt they'll get that level of success again unless James Gunn's DC Universe reboot does something really spectacular. They see every character in the Justice League as a main character and they can't understand why a number of Marvel's secondary characters have had films that just bring in the box office bucks.

Gunn has at most two films in his new DC Universe and at least one will have to do as well as his Guardians of the Galaxy stuff has done for Marvel, or I'm pretty sure the WB studio heads will just abandon anything further with the DC brand and shift to another franchise like Harry Potter figuring that Disney/ Marvel has a lock on anything superhero related going forward.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I mean, they're definitely not giving up on Batman in general regardless. They might or might not scale back on other DC characters if Gunn's DCU fails to impress people, but as long as Marvel keeps making money they're not going just go 'well, Disney wins superheroes' and stop trying, either.

If the superhero genre as a whole collapses, then maybe they won't put out any non-Batman related superhero movie for a decade or so. But they'll try again on Superman eventually, at least. Probably Wonder Woman, too.

 

[Mage]

It is not about "not caring" about the job. It is employees not having their careers fall because one film under-performs or fails. Browse the credits of box office failures and see if any of the same employees moved on to work after the failed film. I'm suspecting they have, so JD's all-or-nothing theory was not built on a solid foundation.

Yes they found new jobs. But YOU do not get to decide whether or not they want recognition for that job. Or feel pride for that job. Just as I do not know for a fact they care about it, you do not get to decide if they don't. I fully agree they found a new job. That was not my point, and you are more than quite aware of that. We've discussed, agreed AND disagreed in the past before, and we're both more than mature AND smart enough to be aware of what the other person was saying.

 

[thribs]

Disappointed they’re not using the Flash theme from Justice League in this new Batman movie. Usually DC are more consistent with their themes.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yes they found new jobs. But YOU do not get to decide whether or not they want recognition for that job. Or feel pride for that job. Just as I do not know for a fact they care about it, you do not get to decide if they don't. I fully agree they found a new job. That was not my point, and you are more than quite aware of that. We've discussed, agreed AND disagreed in the past before, and we're both more than mature AND smart enough to be aware of what the other person was saying.

You are arguing against something never said. To repeat: "It is employees not having their careers fall because one film under-performs or fails. Browse the credits of box office failures and see if any of the same employees moved on to work after the failed film. I'm suspecting they have, so JD's all-or-nothing theory was not built on a solid foundation."

That is the point--recognition has absolutely nothing to do with the myth of an under-performing film hurting the careers of innumerable employees on a film at every conceivable level who 1) were already contracted for a job and paid. 2) have moved on to other jobs long before the would-be under-performing film is released and 3) I've yet to hear of some widespread case of all of those workers being torpedoed due to the failure of a specific film. JD's point simply did not make sense--unless he can provide examples.

I'm still not clear on what this supposed terrible financial harm to 'a lot of other people' is supposed to be.

That's the point: where's the evidence for " a lot of other people" having their careers hurt by the failure of one film? For example, 2022's Bros was a box-office disaster, but those sitting at the very top of that production--Nicholas Stoller (director / co-producer) or Billy Eichner (writer / actor) did not see their careers come to an end due to the film's failure. I dare say none of the other numbers of people employed by Global Solutions or Apatow Productions took a hit to or lost their jobs because of that one film....unless there's some evidence for said job loss.

That leaves just the writers and some of the actors, and the only actors I actually know with a 100% certainty would actually stand to make a significant amount of money from that are Keaton and Miller. Keaton doesn't need it, and Miller is the whole problem in the first place. Probably Shannon, Affleck and Calle might stand to lose something, but again Affleck and Shannon aren't dependent on a single film's success either.

Yes--Affleck or Keaton (more than anyone else appearing in The Flash) are not dependent on a single film's success, nor are they going to take a hit to their careers if The Flash is a bomb, or simply under-performs.

 

[JD]

IMO, this line of thinking is really just a massive red herring. The truth is people never have the slightest concern about not going to see a movie they think will be bad just because there might be some people involved who actually did a good job and don't deserve to fail.

What Ezra Miller (and WB in response) has done is way worse and way more deserving of rebuke than a lead actor just not being very convincing or a writer being kind of cliche and boring, so if one is ok 'not supporting' good actors, fx people, etc who did their job well even though their film had a terrible lead or writer, one should not have a problem doing the same here.

And really, if this movie clearly bombed as a result of Miller's situation, that's not going to seriously harm anyone's career (other than Miller, and one can hope at least, the people who decided to bet the whole film on Miller).

The crew, fx crew, etc aren't really judged by box office either way, the writer and director are already established (and DC already hired Musschietti for further work) and the majority of the actors are either big enough not to actually need this film or playing too small a role to actually get a huge boost even if it's a hit.

The worst case scenario is that Sasha Calle's career takes longer to take off than would otherwise be the case. Even then, assuming her performance truly merits a major career boost from this film, that performance will still be seen by casting directors and the various people in Hollywood who actually matter, even if the movie doesn't hit.

And sad as it is for her debut to be overshadowed by Miller, it still wouldn't be any different for her than if the movie bombed due to a terrible script or awful FX, all of which would have been entirely not her fault.



Eh, people put too much certainty in this kind of logic. If the movie is a modest hit, Miller probably isn't worth the risk (still, the less successful, the better as far as that goes). If it makes a massive splash (1b, 1.5b, etc) then the studio simply isn't going to throw that away. Even if Gunn wanted to stick to his guns for a full 100% reboot (which he already isn't doing, Viola Davis is sticking around too), Zaslav can overrule him whenever he likes. And DC is already running 'elseworlds' titles, like The Batman 2 and Joker 2 (another movie everyone swore would never happen no matter how succesful the first movie was) so nothing prevents them from just making The Flash 2, anyway.

Even if they don't, if they genuinely decide Miller is the reason the movie was such a hit (which has been a significant theme of all their behind the scenes buzz) then they will keep Miller around in some capacity or other regardless of whether that's in the role of the Flash or not, and whether it's in DC movies or in some other movies instead.

"Don't deserve" Think about that one, JD. Anyone working on a film is merely a employee who were paid for services provided, and typically, they move on. A film--whether it succeeds, fails, or falls somewhere in-between--is not (in the grand scheme of things) going to harm the careers of those "lot more people" you refer to (assuming you're not talking about the director, writers and producers). Shareholders (the true string-pullers in all of this), and audiences are not going to attempt to end the careers of the random people employed to work on a film due to the failure of The Flash and/or a reaction to Miller. They (the employees) have already moved on, and will not suddenly have their livelihood snatched out from under them if this one film fails.

I wasn't really thinking about money or getting other jobs, I just meant that there were other people besides Miller involved in the movie, and by not seeing the movie you're punishing them for stuff they weren't involved in.
And as Miller themself, they have said that they have recongized they were having problems and were getting help, and so far seem to have cleaned up their act, so I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt, and have no problem supporting them by seeing the movie.
I will admit to not seeing movies in the past because of one person's involvement, mainly Ender's Game because of Orson Scott Card, and the last Fantastic Beasts because of JK Rowling, but I have since reconsidered things. And in those cases my choosing not to go was more about showing support for the LGBTQ+ community more than Rowling & Card's involvement.

 

[Christopher]

I wasn't really thinking about money or getting other jobs, I just meant that there were other people besides Miller involved in the movie, and by not seeing the movie you're punishing them for stuff they weren't involved in.

Also, the buzz is that the movie is quite good. Should a good movie be scrapped just because it happens to intersect with the life of a person who did something bad unconnected to the movie? If you erase the good things a person was involved with because of the bad things they did, doesn't that just make things worse overall?

And as Miller themself, they have said that they have recongized they were having problems and were getting help, and so far seem to have cleaned up their act, so I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt, and have no problem supporting them by seeing the movie.

Yes. It's one thing if people double down and refuse to admit the harm they're doing, like Rowling or Card. But if someone repents and makes amends, they deserve forgiveness, or at least the benefit of the doubt.

I will admit to not seeing movies in the past because of one person's involvement, mainly Ender's Game because of Orson Scott Card, and the last Fantastic Beasts because of JK Rowling, but I have since reconsidered things. And in those cases my choosing not to go was more about showing support for the LGBTQ+ community more than Rowling & Card's involvement.

I saw both movies, but only borrowed from the library, so I didn't spend any money on them. Anyway, I think Ender's Game is a story that should be embraced, because it was written when Card was a very different person than he became later in life, and it's a marvelous counterargument to what he later came to believe, a celebration of empathy and acceptance of the other. Using his own words to counter him has a marvelous irony to it.

EG was also a good movie, which I can't really say about the last Fantastic Beasts film or two.

 

[JD]

I have been thinking about watching the EG movie since it's on Amazon Prime now, but I haven't gotten around to it. That was one of the few books I read for school and actually really enjoyed it. I was really disappointed when I found out Card was such a gigantic douchenozzel.

 

[Christopher]

That was one of the few books I read for school and actually really enjoyed it. I was really disappointed when I found out Card was such a gigantic douchenozzel.

From what I've read about him, he wasn't that person yet when he wrote Ender. He changed in his views later in life, apparently catalyzed by the September 11, 2001 attack.

Anyway, a lot of people who create great fiction are jerks in real life. And there are very nice people who create really mediocre fiction. The art is not the artist. Sometimes it embodies the artist's ugly beliefs, but sometimes they put the best of themselves into it, so their work represents something better than their real-life behavior, something aspirational. Goodness knows, I know I'm not always good at living up to the ideals I express in my fiction. But the ideals have meaning of their own independent of me.

 

[thribs]

From what I've read about him, he wasn't that person yet when he wrote Ender. He changed in his views later in life, apparently catalyzed by the September 11, 2001 attack.

Anyway, a lot of people who create great fiction are jerks in real life. And there are very nice people who create really mediocre fiction. The art is not the artist. Sometimes it embodies the artist's ugly beliefs, but sometimes they put the best of themselves into it, so their work represents something better than their real-life behavior, something aspirational. Goodness knows, I know I'm not always good at living up to the ideals I express in my fiction. But the ideals have meaning of their own independent of me.

Is that including you?
I joke of course

 

[JD]

From what I've read about him, he wasn't that person yet when he wrote Ender. He changed in his views later in life, apparently catalyzed by the September 11, 2001 attack.

Anyway, a lot of people who create great fiction are jerks in real life. And there are very nice people who create really mediocre fiction. The art is not the artist. Sometimes it embodies the artist's ugly beliefs, but sometimes they put the best of themselves into it, so their work represents something better than their real-life behavior, something aspirational. Goodness knows, I know I'm not always good at living up to the ideals I express in my fiction. But the ideals have meaning of their own independent of me.

My issue is it just feels like I'm supporting their opinions and saying I agree with them if I buy their stuff.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I wasn't really thinking about money or getting other jobs, I just meant that there were other people besides Miller involved in the movie, and by not seeing the movie you're punishing them for stuff they weren't involved in.

No, I'm not. That's the whole point. Film-making is a fundamentally collaborative activity. Therefore one person actually can ruin it for everyone else. It makes no difference whether that happens because of a situation like the one with Miller or because someone on the movie just did their job poorly. Either way, there is no reason to expect anyone to ignore whatever they dislike about the situation, trailers, story description, etc and go see the movie anyway 'to support all the other people who didn't cause the problem'. None of these people are entitled to success without regard for the whole package of everything going on with a movie, and that includes whether the lead actor is a creep people don't want to see and the behavior of the studio relative to said creep. That has nothing to do with 'punishing' innocent people for Miller's actions.

And this repeated, vaguely defined indignation about 'great harm' being done to 'lots of other people' is completely baseless. Whether some want to admit it or not, the vast majority of people who worked on this movie already got paid everything they were ever going to get paid for their work on The Flash. Of those who haven't, the clear majority either don't desperately need the money or are actively part of the problem, anyway. And whether some want to admit it or not, there is no logical scenario in which the failure of this movie can possibly have any serious career consequences for anyone other than Miller and (maybe, hopefully) some of the producers and executives who supported Miller.

The only thing that could seriously be harmed across large numbers of people here is their professional pride, and I'm sorry but nobody's pride is more important than the larger issue at stake in this situation.

And as Miller themself, they have said that they have recongized they were having problems and were getting help, and so far seem to have cleaned up their act, so I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt, and have no problem supporting them by seeing the movie.
I will admit to not seeing movies in the past because of one person's involvement, mainly Ender's Game because of Orson Scott Card, and the last Fantastic Beasts because of JK Rowling, but I have since reconsidered things. And in those cases my choosing not to go was more about showing support for the LGBTQ+ community more than Rowling & Card's involvement.

As I've said here before, I absolutely do not believe a word of Miller's 'rehabilitation'. If this were all above board, Miller wouldn't have to have been forced along by WB every step of the way and we wouldn't still be waiting for either Miller *or* WB to even so much as acknowledge the severity of what Miller actually did. Not to mention maybe, y'know, in any way apologize to Miller's actual victims.

The only thing this 'rehabilitation' actually consists of is Miller apologizing for 'upsetting people' and 'endangering the success of The Flash', WB claiming we'd all understand Miller as soon as we heard their side of the story (which was subsequently never provided), and a bunch of obviously manipulated public soundbites about how likeable Miller is and how sad their issues have been. It's a blatant PR tactic, not a genuine turnaround.

 

[Christopher]

My issue is it just feels like I'm supporting their opinions and saying I agree with them if I buy their stuff.

I don't see that. Look at DC editor Julius Schwartz, who was a terrible sexual harasser and abuser for decades. Schwartz was a pivotal figure behind the creation of the entire Silver and Bronze Age DC Universe. Does that mean you're agreeing with sexual harassment by reading or watching DC material? I don't believe that. The work is a separate thing from its creators. The same individual can be responsible for both good and bad things in the same life, and embracing the good does not endorse the bad. I think that denying the good things someone did because of the bad just lets the bad win.

We don't blame children for the sins of their parents. Artistic creations are brainchildren. The work is its own thing, and it doesn't automatically carry the taint of its creator's actions -- not unless the creator specifically uses it to advocate their toxic ideas. Even then, it can be redeemed. H.P. Lovecraft was horrifically racist, and his racism pervades his writing, but there are people of color today -- people that Lovecraft would have seen as subhuman monstrosities and wanted to exterminate -- who are fans of his work and have written tales with his concepts that confront and counteract the racism that tainted them (like the TV series Lovecraft Country, though that was based on a novel by a white author). Rather than just avoiding the problematical work, they engage with it and transform it, using its good ideas to denounce its bad ideas. Engagement is not blind acceptance.

 

[Dee1891]

They love another billion plus box office success like Aquaman in their DCEU: but the way they're going about it I doubt they'll get that level of success again unless James Gunn's DC Universe reboot does something really spectacular. They see every character in the Justice League as a main character and they can't understand why a number of Marvel's secondary characters have had films that just bring in the box office bucks.

It really is a shame that the only way people can judge the quality of a film is by box office performance. I have to be honest. The quality between the DC and Marvel films in the past 15 years or so is not at all different to me. Not really. I think Marvel had the advantage of creating a shared universe first and being controlled by the Disney publicity machine.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

It really is a shame that the only way people can judge the quality of a film is by box office performance. I have to be honest. The quality between the DC and Marvel films in the past 15 years or so is not at all different to me. Not really. I think Marvel had the advantage of creating a shared universe first and being controlled by the Disney publicity machine.

Not people.
The studio.
They won't find it successful unless THEY see that level of money. Really the biggest reason for the reboot. Low budget and quality with a modest profit is not in their equation unfortunately. Giant profit only. No room for anything else as far as they're concerned.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Miller is here to stay for any sequels, if Muschietti has his way (and if he’s to be believed and, of course, if there are any sequels) https://variety.com/2023/film/news/...f8lYqbaHvnawQP8sEGMslYaVHt2TjKGTXCrac6m_uvCWg

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

And this repeated, vaguely defined indignation about 'great harm' being done to 'lots of other people' is completely baseless.

True, and amidst the selective "indignation", as of this date, no one supporting that idea has provided evidence of "lots of other people" in a film's production having their careers harmed by an under-performing film (no matter the cause). Yesterday, I provided the example of a box-office disaster in Bros, yet its director/co-producer, lead actor/writer or anyone else have not witnessed their careers take a hit because of that colossal flop. That was not myth, but a fact.

Whether some want to admit it or not, the vast majority of people who worked on this movie already got paid everything they were ever going to get paid for their work on The Flash.

Again--true. Most of a film's production crew are not waiting to be paid at some time in the future (e.g., getting profit percentage points), but a fixed payment, so no matter how a film performs, most have already received payment. The Flash's production crew have moved on to other jobs and are not living and dying by that one job in their career rear-view mirror.

there is no logical scenario in which the failure of this movie can possibly have any serious career consequences for anyone

More than likely at this point.

 

[kirk55555]

Miller is here to stay for any sequels, if Muschietti has his way (and if he’s to be believed and, of course, if there are any sequels) https://variety.com/2023/film/news/...f8lYqbaHvnawQP8sEGMslYaVHt2TjKGTXCrac6m_uvCWg

I don't know if that's quite the right interpretation, or at least I don't think so. To me, its a very corporate non-commital thing. He says "If a sequel happens", and that's far from guaranteed. Even another Flash movie wouldn't necessarily be a direct sequel to this one. Plus, if Miller is still in treatment WB (from what I understand) can't directly fire him or imply he's out of the job until the treatment is complete.

So with that in mind what this guy has said, to me, reads like a PR safe comment that doesn't really say anything when you think about it.

 

[The Knappos]

It took 9 years for this to actually get to screen. So if they do announce a sequel, I’ll expect to be travelling to see it from the retirement home.