Good thing no one's done so.
Taylor has no involvement with Ragnarok, so those data points are entirely irrelevant.
Captain, you just went full Bayformers Apologist. Never go full Bayformers Apologist.
WB's Justice League 2017 movie pre-discussion thread
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
Thank you, but it's actually simple observation and deduction. In Norse mythology, Ragnarök foretells the death of the Asgardian gods and the universe as they know it, followed by a rebirth of a new one. Mix that with a cosmic road trip and elements of the Planet Hulk storyline, and it's the most reasonable thing in the world to expect an innovative and unique story, by comic book movie standards. Whereas Justice League appears to be about an alien invasion of Earth, i.e., the same basic trope as that behind The Avengers and last fall's CW "Invasion!" event, to name just two examples. The actual upcoming movies may not reflect the commonality of their core premises, but again, this is Prediction Techniques 101.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The Dark World has a Metacritic score of 54 and an RT score of 66%. Batman v Superman has a Metacritic score of 44 and an RT score of 27%. Before that, Thor beat Man of Steel 57/55 on Metacritc and 77%/55% on RT. Or maybe you wanna talk directors? Ragnarok helmer Taika Waiti has a career Metacritic score of 72 to Zack Snyder's 48, and on both Metacritic and RT, all three of his most recently directed movies scored higher than any of Snyder's.
In these sixteen different objective data points, Thor/Waititi beat DCEU/Snyder in my Probable Quality Winner game every single time, so yeah, I'd say it has the more promise based on past performance. If you have objective, numerical data supporting a different prediction, fire away.
I was just about to post something like this. The quality of the movies doesn't matter when it comes to box office results, and that is all I'm talking about here. Plenty of movies with good reviews have bombed at the box office, and plenty of movies with horrible reviews, like the Transformers movies, have made billions.
The thing to keep in mind with Ragnarok is it's about the least popular Avenger and it's coming from a relatively unknown director, JL on the other hand is from a director who has brought in the big bucks in the past, and it's about one of the most popular, well known superhero teams in comics.
Are you frigging kidding me? You're the one who brought up Alan Taylor's Thor: The Dark World with those ridiculous "data points":
Remember? So now that it doesn't suit you it's irrelevant? How convenient!
Captain, you just went full Bayformers Apologist. Never go full Bayformers Apologist.
Spoken like a true Disney fanboy. Troll harder next time.
Last edited:
No, I am not kidding you. As anyone who follows the development of MCU movies even a little bit knows, The Dark World is as much a Kevin Feige movie as an Alan Taylor one, as Feige was the one who oversaw the whole process, while Taylor was brought only after the first director left. Ragnarok is also a Thor-centric movie being overseen by Feige, which makes The Dark World a valuable data point for guessing at its quality.
Alan Taylor, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with any part of Ragnarok, so the rest of his work is indeed completely irrelevant to the quality of this upcoming Feige/Waititi movie. (Taylor's overall pre-Dark World filmography would be a useful data point for predicting that movie's quality, but seeing as it was released several years ago, I'm not sure why anyone in March 2017 would bother to do so.)
This board deserves better than baseless ad hominem attacks.
I was using the domestic numbers from Box Office Mojo. The grid for the MCU series only included the domestic numbers, and I did specify domestic in my original post.
Going with the worldwide numbers The Dark Word is the lowest grossing solo movie starring an Avenger after their first team up.
Iron Man 3: $1,214,811,252
Civil War: $1,153,304,495
The Winter Soldier: $714,264,267
The Dark World: $644,571,402
I'll admit CW is debateable as a solo movie, but even without that it's still on the bottom with almost half of Iron Man 3's take.
I'm sorry, but no matter how you hard you try you aren't going to convince me. Maybe if Ragnarok was being made by a bigger name director and had RDJ it might stand a chance, but even then I still think it would be close.
I'm not saying I expect Ragnarok to bomb or anything, but I'm thinking the JL name alone will be enough get it $1billion at least, and I just can't see Ragnarok doing those numbers.
It may be apocryphal but Lee's version is that the FF started with the idea they were not going to wear costumes, but that he made the decision to change this when sales didn't start out so well. Super-heroes are defined by their costumes to a large degree and Snyder's movies tone down the colors so much the entire universe just seems drab. I have liked all the DC movies so far, while recognizing their flaws, but I do want my heroes to look more like heroes.
Well, maybe I'm being too literal, but I still don't see what that has to do with bright colors. Marvel's non-superhero comics were colored just as brightly as their superhero comics. The printing process didn't really allow for anything else, as I said. If anything, the reason superhero costumes are brightly colored is because they were in comic books/strips and the limitations of color printing forced them to be bright. The Phantom was supposed to be in gray, but he ended up being in purple because it could be printed more reliably. The Hulk went from gray-skinned to green-skinned for the same reason. Batman's costume was originally meant to be black -- Bill Finger's narration often describes it as inky or shadowy -- but blue ink was used to represent glossy highlights on black, and eventually the inkers started using less black ink and Batman's cape and cowl became mostly blue. Similarly, Spider-Man's costume was originally meant to be red and black (like various species of spider are) instead of red and blue (which is not unheard of in spiders, but rarer). Of course, this is also why Clark Kent's suit was usually blue, and why Dick Tracy's hat and coat are yellow. And it's why there are so many more redheads in comics than in real life, because it was easier to print than brown.
So it's not that superheroes made comics more colorful -- it's that comics made superheroes more colorful.
Yeah, I think you are. Superhero costumes are noted for their bright, even garish colors, which was partially due to the limited printing palette of the times. A lot of red, greens and yellows. Purple and blues as well. And sometimes all in a single costume.
The designs could be a bit garish as well. In the first couple of FF issues, the FF wear street clothes: suits, dresses, slacks and jumpsuits. Which are colored for the most part in the more muted colors available at that time. The Thing wears brown trunks though.
On the box office front, we should also remember that unlike last year, when BvS beat the similarly-themed Civil War to theaters by over a month, this November, Justice League will be opening a mere two weeks after Thor: Ragnarok.
Now, given its director, wild cast, and apparently mold-breaking story structure (Thor and Hulk on a cosmic road trip, with gladiator fights, Loki, Dr. Strange and Jeff Goldblum?!), Ragnarok is likely to be praised by audiences and critics for its humor, orginality, personality, and generally being tons of fun. And then, when the ink on most Ragnarok tickets has barely dried, Snyder will be giving us... this.
If you don't think the most likely conventional wisdom among movie critics and fans alike will be that Marvel and Taika Waititi put Justice League to shame, then, uh, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. Which do you think is going to appeal to Thanksgiving family crowds? (Especially with a Pixar entry opening less than a week later!) Hell, when all's said and done, Ragnarok out-grossing Justice League would not surprise me one bit.
Don't get too sentimental about your WB stocks, folks.
I think at least the 2 of us can agree to agree that at least you & me will enjoy Thor: Ragnarok more than Justice League.
I must note that I ignored Thor in theaters because I thought it would be dumb. But I enjoyed it a lot on Redbox, and was enthusiastic for the sequel. And for me, it did not disappoint...it felt more cosmic, and I am most certainly in for the 3rd movie.
But I will have to agree with the others that JL will probably make more money than Thor. Here's why (in my opinion, in addition to some of the reasons mentioned)
- The name: Rangarok. I have no idea if I am pronouncing it right, and I actually care about the movie. At least for Americans, I bet a number will have no idea what it means, won't Google it (or misspell it immensely if they even try), and will just pass on it.
- No ads of any kind for Thor (others mentioned this)...especially if it's as big you describe (in terms of scope)
- JL has Superman, which everyone knows, and many have fond memories. Though he hasn't been featured yet, once they do, the hype will jump more than ever. And ESPECIALLY is they put out the Superman SYMBOL in various marketing ways.
- Speaking of Symbols...Thor doesn't have a recognizable one, at least not like Superman & Batman. That might hurt
- I am sure at least a few people my age will be talking, mostly OFFline, about how they will go see the "SuperFriends" movie, probably with their kids.
- JL will come out Just as Thanksgiving break starts up for people. So it has that freshness, plus a lot of people with spare time. Thor comes out right after Halloween, when people have already just gone out for various activities.
- If Wonder Woman is really good, that would certainly fuel hype for Justice League, and she will also star in JL as well. Spider-Man will come out after Wonder Woman, but other than maybe a post credits scene, there won't be much of a tie-in to Thor, probably. So Thor loses out on that momentum,
So unless Thor is incredibly groundbreaking AND JL is incredibly bad, I think Thor will lose out (even if just barely).
With respect to Thor, keep in mind that we are now poised for a lot of Norse Mythology to be re-introduced to popular culture. Gaiman has just released his Norse Mythology, and is accredited Marvel comics with his introduction to Thor. Rick Riordan's Norse Mythology series is taking off. It might not beat JL but the next Thor movie is set to be a big success for Marvel.
I think so, too. I'll give Ragnarok a 35% chance of beating JL in global ticket sales - unlikely, yes, but not at all unthinkable.
Now, which will be more profitable? Here are some various rough multipliers (global take / production budget; all numbers according to Box Office Mojo)...
Batman Begins: 2.49
Thor: 2.99
Man of Steel: 3.06
BvS: 3.49
The Dark World: 3.79
Suicide Squad: 4.26
The Dark Knight Rises: 4.33
My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2: 4.94
The Dark Knight: 5.42
Age of Ultron: 5.62
Avengers: 6.9
Get Out: 34.44
My Big Fat Greek Wedding: 73.6
Gaith, you've been engaging in an endless argumentum ad populum for like a page and a half. Box office, profitability and critic scores don't mean jack shit when it comes to the quality of a movie, television show or any other work of art.
Stop it.
Stop it.
True, those factors aren't the final decision on quality...But that's also somewhat subjective. Those factors re indicators, and the higher on all of those, the Greater chance SOMEONE (maybe not you) will like it.
And certainly the profitability will indicate if MORE of that type of production will be made
Ragnarok (i.e. the Norse end times of the Gods/world) is a concept/storyline that Marvel has done multiple times in their Thor comic books.
Thor #200
Thor #274
Thor #80
It represents the never-ending cycle of world-ending prophecies and Theogony & succession myths.
Now combine the totally irrelevant and dissociated Planet Hulk storyline where Hulk is a gladiator in an alien world (?) and…
…why are we still talking about Thor: Ragnarok in WB's Justice League 2017 movie thread? Doesn't the MCU/Thor have it's own thread?
Let's just enjoy the Justice League trailer once again!
Thor #200
Thor #274
Thor #80
It represents the never-ending cycle of world-ending prophecies and Theogony & succession myths.
Now combine the totally irrelevant and dissociated Planet Hulk storyline where Hulk is a gladiator in an alien world (?) and…
…why are we still talking about Thor: Ragnarok in WB's Justice League 2017 movie thread? Doesn't the MCU/Thor have it's own thread?
Let's just enjoy the Justice League trailer once again!
Last edited:
Not sure this is worth a new thread yet, do. posting here:
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/batgirl-movie-joss-whedon-warner-bros-1202018544/
Joss Whedon wants to make a Batgirl Solo movie, in the DCEU presumably.
Very cool if true .
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/batgirl-movie-joss-whedon-warner-bros-1202018544/
Joss Whedon wants to make a Batgirl Solo movie, in the DCEU presumably.
Very cool if true .