It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The battle I'm interested in is to see whether Ragnarok can take out Wonder Woman in world wide gross. It's at $790M currently and has just $31M to go to do it. It's doable, but will be close.
SP still made money at the end of the day, but not much. If that budget was cut by $50-100 million, it would've been much, much better off. I foresee them doing this for B25, but who knows.
Jesus, THAT much?
Some places report it as between 18-20 for the 'stache, others 25. Some mention it may have been 25 including the reshoots - however, having seen the film, the latter does not ring true in the slightest as Whedon very obviously reshot nearly 40% of the film.
Either way, it was way too much.
I wish they had just put Kal in a regeneration chamber and given him a beard
You should see the rest of the film. It's one of the worst looking $300m films I have ever seen. They threw money at it without giving themselves the appropriate time to properly finish it. And time is as valuable as money with these things.
It's good job the performances by the cast are strong across the board because that's what I would recommend it for.
So do I. I'm very interested in seeing Snyder's original Superman footage. Nearly every Superman scene in the film is Whedon.
The many millions these films do or don't make, are not a useful barometer in my opinion to either judge their quality or longevity. X-Men First Class is one of the least successful X-Men films, while many fans will tell you it's also the best of the series. And take Stanley Kubrick films for example. Film students and film fanatics continue to explore them, love them, praise them, buy them. But few of those films were ever overwhelmingly successful financially speaking.
Obviously my comparison is flawed. Kubrick didn't pull characters or stories from famous and long-running comic book titles very much ingrained in pop culture. In that sense, yes, DC should have a head start. That said, many people know some of the characters of the JLA, but not so many people have actually seen them in action instead of merely on a t-shirt or coffee mug. People "know" Batman but then again not that many people "really know Batman" other than those two or three films they have seen once or twice in the past. The Justice League you say? Never heard of it. So perhaps the head start one might expect DC to have over Stanley Kubrick, is not all that large.
But then the same should hold for the Marvel films, and they sell everything these days, including B-listers like Black Panther and Guardians Of The Galaxy. To be fair, Phase 1 hadn't exactly been that successful if you remove Iron Man and Avengers from the list. But since that Avengers party has started, the place continues to rock. It's amazing how that brand of "fun" keeps us going. So, Marvel is doing something right that DC isn't. Marvel sells the tickets even on some of its lesser known characters, while DC struggles to make a movie with Batman AND Superman AND Wonder Woman AND Aquaman AND Flash AND Cyborg appealing to the larger crowds. Then again, there's Marvel and there's Marvel. The X-Men films do well on average, but the last time we saw Daredevil, Blade, The Fantastic Four, Ghostrider, ... in theatres, they weren't such hot properties. So when we say "Marvel", we usually mean the Disney part of a heap of titles that is otherwise struggling to survive, not counting the X-Men of course. Compared to some of those, DCEU is doing considerably better, if not exactly going strong.
Fortunately, these titles generate enough interest from audiences, even long after their theatrical release, that they will still be bought and watched ten, twenty, ... years from now. These movies will continue to make money, only not as fast as Marvel's output. Their costs probably needn't be that high, and WB is legendary in its problematic involvement with its superhero films, often demanding cuts that trouble filmmakers and fans alike. As an example, I find both the Ultimate Edition of BvS and the Extended Cut of SS vastly superior over what was shown in theatres. Perhaps if DC could move to another studio, things might work out for the best, who knows. Either way, I'm convinced there's a cascade of negative sentiments coming from two false ideas; a) that every superhero series has to be Marvel, b) that when it isn't doing Marvel money, it's somehow not good.
Or perhaps it's "universe" fatigue kicking in. The comic crowd loves teams and crossovers, cinema audiences maybe not so much. Avengers is more an exception than a rule it seems. Take Universal's more recent efforts to bring back its monsters from the 30s and 40s. Dracula Untold was a first attempt, but it failed. The Mummy barely broke even, and some of that money is probably earned on Tom Cruise's shining teeth alone. The important part is knowing how to do it, and maybe that's what DC and Universal struggle with most. Maybe BvS came too soon after MOS; maybe JL came too soon after WW; or maybe JL should have been the first film; or maybe a standalone Batman film should have come first. Who knows. And The Mummy spent so much time trying to set up a larger universe, the film itself lost interest in its own plot.
Who knows, maybe the crossover wave is over for now, and we need to go back to the simpler stories for a while. Maybe people are "branded out" and want quality first and foremost. Maybe people don't want to be locked up in that "loyalty" jail where you watch a movie because, ah well, you've seen the others in the series so surely you're not going to miss out on this recent one, are you? Whatever the case, DC seems to have missed the momentum that was propelling Marvel's Avengers forward between 2008 and 2012. Perhaps Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy was a blessing and a curse, leaving too high a bar and too fresh memories behind for another series to start up immediately. Or maybe Batman Begins set a beautiful example of how a film can be more or less ignored during its theatrical run but then suddenly spark enough interest to earn an incredibly successful sequel three years later...
Yes, three years later. Perhaps THIS is the real issue: too many films in too short a time span. Even cinema audiences need to breathe... And here too, Marvel's The Avengers may very well be a fluke, an exception, a case of really good luck. I don't know, but these certainly are interesting times for a comic book fan. :)
There must have been alot of Superman scenes, the black Superman suit tease surely was legit?
I'm not 100% sure on that one, but I know that Snyder originally conceived Superman's return to be more of a big deal than it ended up being. One of the lists suggested that Bruce Wayne was worried that Steppenwolf may use the Mother Box to revive Superman and use him himself. The League resurrecting him first was a way around that, rather than it simply being "we're too weak without Superman".
The way it's presented in the film works. They are too weak without Superman, I suppose. But I think Snyder was probably just giving it a bit more oomph, and allowing some fallout from BvS to bring the characters together a bit more slowly.
Also, @DarthDimi, excellent post. Interesting times indeed.
First time I have seen this :))
Good post, @DarthDimi
For me it's 'superhero fatigue' from all these films. I couldn't wait to see Avengers Assemble and I literally ran to see the Nolan Batman films. I loved Iron Man and all the Captain America films have been first rate.
I've seen Age Of Ultron once and the desire to see it again eludes me. Same with BvS. I've yet to see Thor: Raganok although the reviews are encouraging. Spider-Man Homecoming had it's moments but much of it was annoying and tiresome. The thought of seeing Justice League just feels me with exhaustion to be honest. After seeing how fake everything looks in the trailer I just can't be bothered with yet another round of CGI beat em' ups. I will see it eventually but a few years back I would have seen it in the first week of release. These films leave me with the feeling of having too much candy. Undernourished and forgettable.
You hit the nail on the head, sir. What keeps me going most of all is my almost irrational and insatiable hunger for everything superheroes, but I too acknowledge that a good three dozen superhero flicks in under a decade is perhaps too much of a good thing. Most of these are expensive blockbuster wannabes, expecting us to drop some hard earned cash three or four times a year, and that's when we aren't rushing to theatres for Star Wars, Bond, Hobbits, Potter, Fast And Furious, Apes ... The number of films that "everyone" claims you just have to see, is growing faster than Harvey Weinstein's list of sex victims. At some point, most rational people--and I'm not rational in this matter--give up on trying to stay up-to-date. They might catch the big team-ups, but Ant-Man and Dr. Strange already demonstrated an increasing lack of interest from audiences. Some people may have flat-out decided that Marvel gives enough superhero stuff for them and that's why they show little to no interest in anything DC.
Say Marvel wasn't putting anything in theatres these days, would the DCEU benefit from that?
Great pic of The Terminator
@DarthDimi
You're right. The amount of genre films being released is incredible. And it's hard not to get jaded by all these big franchise films. as well as stay up to date.
I've always loved superheroes but we're being saturated with them and it's getting towards overkill. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved Logan it was both gripping and heartfelt. It had a soul. As did Wonder Woman. But I'm finding myself veering towards smaller intimate films lately. Logan Lucky, Wind River, Colossal, Baby Driver, Ingrid Goes West, Get Out are films I've most enjoyed lately.
I think the Marvel and DC universe are having trouble keeping things simple. Spider-Man Homecoming was guilty of throwing in everything and the kitchen sink which is a shame as I thought there was a good little film in there struggling to breathe.
I would just love to see a Batman film done like The Raid or Dredd. Just a streamlined adrenaline rush of Batman being the badass vigilante he should be. No uncertain angst or social messages. Just lean, mean and brutal.
DC can have my idea for free.....
This isn't even funny. What an absolute disaster.
It's not really Snyder's trilogy anymore. There's enough Snyder in Justice League for you to recognise he was involved, but there's also enough Whedon in it for it to not be a Snyder film.
I am disappointed that JL is going to disappoint financially, but in many respects, WB deserve it.
Agreed way too much meddling which has made things even worse, if Aquaman was not on its way I would suggest WB DC take a break and start again.