No press screenings...sigh
Well the DC fans will always have Wonder Woman (which i thought was overly long and violent)
shareWell the DC fans will always have Wonder Woman (which i thought was overly long and violent)
sharethis is a horrible sign.....
at this point every thing is pointing to WB having NO confidence in the film and it getting awful reviews....
The Embargo is literally being lifted at the last possible Minute...2 days before the film in out in theaters
it was just reported that WB is holding off on green lighting "Flash Point" because they are afraid Reactions to JL are going to be awful...so they are waiting for JL to come out to see how reactions are to see if they want to go forward with Flash Point and spend the money to bring The JL characters back...
theres no way around....waiting until the last second to lift the review embargo and Not screening the film...are Literally about the worst possible moves a studio can make, They truly are Desperate moves designed to HIDE the movie as along as possible in hopes of getting a Large Opening weekend before word gets out the film is awful...
Its also not a good sign the film is 119 mins long.....Snyder is notorious for making long Comic book movies....there is no way Snyder's cut of JL was that short...Its clear, Whedon and Johns has EDITED the hell out of this movie in post production...
Snyder first cut was reported to be "Unwatchable".......its clear based on the short run time, There has been Massive EDITS
I'm expecting JL to get awful reviews...
Somewhere between 25-45% on RT...
I'm expecting an Opening Weekend between 115- 135 Million
Domestic Gross between 275-320 Million
Total Gross Between 775 to 850 Million
all in all ....A Complete Trainwreck.....
How is $850 million a trainwreck?
shareAnything less than a billion is probably a poor performance for this film. 850 mil is a lot of money though.
sharenone of them have made a billion so why do they keep making them?
shareI think they were already committed to this one, Aqua man and WW.
shareI don't like Marvel characters or movies, I've only seen Age Of Ultron which was forgettable and Captain America Civil War which I had to walk out on because it was so terrible. I also saw Thor Ragnarok, I loved that one in spite having a bad script and looking pasty like all garbage digital films but it was fun and COLORFUL damn it, it was pretty to look at, and it was obvious to me that Marvel know what is their formula that somehow is true to the characters and that is why it works. DC are not being true to their characters ever since the charlatan of Christopher Nolan ruined their Batman and made him live in Chicago. They don't understand their characters anymore and they are too busy trying to do bench marketing with Marvel. It's not going to work, they are best off dropping everything, waiting for a few years and then rebooting these characters and go back to spectacular set and costume design and amazing music like Burton and Schumacher did.
shareAll of the films have been very profitable regardless of the poor reviews. Suicide Squad was total crap but it was a monster hit with great legs.
shareAt first I didn't understand profitability and all that, then I finally understood that one thing is American box office and another entirely different thing is international box office and sometimes the owners and distributors of a movie release in partnership so they do not get 100% of the international box office, that is why many hit films are still considered flops because in the US they bombed and I have to say that almost all of the DC films have bombed in the US.
shareNo...they did not "bomb" in the US at all...not one of them. Except for MOS they have all made over 300 million in the US.
Wonder Wman made over $400 million here and you call that a "bomb"?
"and sometimes the owners and distributors of a movie release in partnership so they do not get 100% of the international box office"
None of those numbers make any sense. If the business worked that way it would have been stopped ages ago.
shareNot at all (and that is, indeed, how the business works). When you're talking the sort of mega-numbers drawn by the tentpoles, that's still plenty to go around. And as a rule of thumb, a film actually costs twice the announced budget. It isn't always as mathematical as that--as I say, it's just a rule of thumb--but a major studio will spend that much to bring a movie to market and advertise it. The move away from film has helped with those costs but it's still a pricey proposition.
On the other end, though, don't take seriously anything those major studios say about their own profits. You can use that math and show a big theoretical profit but in Hollywood, nothing ever officially turns a profit--nothing. Hollywood's bullshit accounting is the stuff of legend.
WB/DC are really weird. They make such good animated movies, but can't seem to translate that spirit to the big screen.
shareMy guess is that even though it's as terrible as the studio seems to think it is, it'll make about a billion dollars at the box-office and be quickly forgotten by everyone except the geeks like me who will complain about it for a year or two.
Make no mistake, Warners' has come up with a winning formula here! Release terrible superhero films, rely on everyone's fondness for the superheroes and escapist entertainment to sell it, collect a billion dollars, repeat. I wish I could get away with something like that at my job.
Otter...LOL...so true.
Has everyone forgotten Suicide Squad already? Unbelievably crappy and yet...unbelievably successful...and leggy!
Especially domestically.
The USA has fallen victim to unchecked capitalism. All people believe is marketing now.
shareThe "leggy" part was only because it was released when it had no real competition.
shareSuicide what?
shareI would like a source that says "Snyder first cut was reported to be "Unwatchable". That sounds like BS to me.
shareHaving seen BvsS, I suspect "unwatchable" was an understatement!
shareAfter the disastrous BvS, WB cancelled Snyder's planned JL sequel and put two babysitters on him. Not long ago, there was a report that large portions of his JUSTICE LEAGUE had to be completely remade. He's been off the project for some time now; the official reason was a death in his family, and Joss Whedon--a better filmmaker by galaxies--took over. The wise course is to expect a total shit-show but there are downsides to that as well--WONDER WOMAN was a pretty lousy movie that was praised to high heaven simply because it wasn't as godawful as all of the other DC films to date.
shareYou lost me at whedon being a better film maker. His paint by numbers approach to movies is little more than chewing gum for the eyes. Snyder at least tried to do something different that just crank out safe by the numbers movies. Didnt work very well as he might have hoped but at least he tried.
shareCertified Turkey. They were showing that new Thor movie to everybody. They knew it was a home run.
shareMashable posted a graph showing films with late embargo lifts almost always end up with a Rotten score on RT:
http://mashable.com/2017/11/07/justice-league-embargo-critics-reviews-rotten-tomatoes/#HZrTvv_dwiqo
There's always a chance JL could buck the trend and surprise everyone, but the statistics are not in their favor. And judging from what I've read about the movie from those who went to screenings, it doesn't sound like it's going to score like Wonder Woman (90% and above on RT).
Justice League will probably be 60% and below.
What do they consider late? It's Wednesday, like most are.
shareTwo days is considered late. It's actually not a normal embargo lift for these big movies. Usually 5-7 days is ideal.
Here's the graph they made: https://i.imgur.com/3QlyghR.jpg
Wonder Woman was 13 days before release, War for the Planet of the Apes was 17 days (the studios had immense confidence in these movies based on enthusiastic early screenings).
2 days and under is bad (score wise).
3 days is iffy. Almost like a 50/50 gamble.
The movie could have a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and I'll still go see it. I want to see the movie anyway. I don't care what critics say. The trailers got me excited for the movie and I have liked everything I've seen so far. So I'm listening to my reaction to the trailers instead of the critics and will judge the movie myself. Plus ever since BvS and Suicide Squad, I don't really pay attention to Rotten Tomatoes anymore when it comes to movies I REALLY want to see. I disagreed with the critics when it came to BvS and Suicide Squad. Since then I only go to RT if it's a movie I'm iffy on or don't want to see. For iffy movies, it persuades me to possibly go see them if the RT percent is "Fresh," and if "Rotten" I'll just wait for Blu-Ray or rent it.
As for movies I don't want to see anyway, I'll go check out RT because maybe a "Fresh" rating will change my mind. It did that with Mission Impossible 5. I was originally going to skip the movie altogether. Trailers did nothing for me and it looked like Tom Cruise being an adrenaline junkie. MI5 got good reviews and a "Fresh" rating. I then decided to go see it and I ended up liking it.
But if it's a movie I want to see anyway, I'll just ignore RT. I might swing by the site AFTER I see the movie to see what critics said though. But I really don't care about the site anymore unless it's a movie I'm iffy on or don't want to see.
Even if JL gets a Rotten score, I'll still see it, just out of curiosity. I still saw SS and BvS
And movies with iconic characters like Batman, Superman, Joker and Wonder Woman (who is now very popular) will be critic proof when it comes to Box Office returns. JL should still do rather well.
But there are still concerns. Ben Affleck almost hinted he wants to exit the franchise. And if these movies keep getting mixed reviews and do not score like Wonder Woman, then future DCEU movies could be impacted. Right now they are doing well at the Box Office, but if DCEU wants this universe to go on for a long time for the next 10 years, the quality needs to improve. Can't keep having a majority of the films being mixed (with some good elements/bad elements).
Reaperscout...man, I like your post!
shareRottentomatoes is a reliable indicator. You are not. You think trailers are!
shareWONDER WOMAN was also shit--basically a bad, beat-for-beat remake of CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (which was, itself, one of the only really awful Marvel movies--if you're going to steal, why steal that one?).
shareHey, CAtfA was entertaining! And Chris Evans just IS the Cap.
shareI agree, Evans IS captain America, as much as Downey is Iron Man.
Though I didn't like his first movie at all [never been a fan of Cap] and couldn't help but laugh with the obvious copy paste of is head on a kids' body, the dude gave the character some modicum of likeability. "I can do this all day" has become his staple.
It's nothing like Captain America, WTF? Other than both have a war setting, what is the similarity?
shareThey're the same movie. Diana wants to learn to fight but she's denied this, resorts to subterfuge (Rogers trying to sign up under fake identities). She learns she has extraordinary powers, Rogers was given them. Both then go off to war, recognizing it as a moral necessity, but both are initially kept out of the fighting until they each decides to throw off these restrictions and get involved; both use a shield, both defensively and as an offensive weapon. Diana faces Peggy Carter's dilemma of being uber-capable but not taken seriously in a sexist society; both Diana and Steve have similar romances with uber-capable people like themselves. Both put together a multinational group of endearing misfits to act as their merry band. In both, the war is theoretically against the Germans but it turns out there's a bigger villain with bigger plans and tied to the heroes' own origins; both villains have an evil sidekick who is creating super-weapons. In both cases, the love interests--both coincidentally named Steve--appear to die while trying to prevent that ultimate weapon from reaching its destination, the capitol of the antagonist power (Washington D.C. in one case, London in the other). Both begin then end with a wraparound story set in the present.
There's plenty more, of course--in cloning THE FIRST AVENGER, WONDER WOMAN doesn't miss a beat.
That way you can find similarities between just about all superhero movies, as much of that is generic tropes. Does that make the movie generic? I guess so, but it's an old school superhero story relatively close to the comics. The actual story and plot is completely different, it's not even remotely similar. The connection between the god and Diana and the choices she has to make, are completely different themes compared to Captain America.
It has SOME elements which are similar, such as juxtaposing modern and old views of women, but in WW it's much more of a major theme often played for laughs, especially as it's the naivete of the ancient being, Diana, which represents the modern woman's views in WWI - she's an Amazon (sort of) after all.
Diana, an ancient magical being lives on an island which is protected from view by magic, where people live extremely long lives. An escaped British spy crash on the beach of this place; then they are attacked by the Germans. They fight and they win. Diana follows him and then the story starts with the WWI stuff and the villain - who is not at all the true villain, because that is the GOD Ares, who is revealed to be someone else than what she assumed. Turns out she is a demigod and that she has powers which she learn to unleash only when she confronts Ares, whom she destroys. Turns out that humans have the capability to do all the things she imagined was caused entirely by Ares, but humans also have the capacity for good and love. That is NOTHING like the story of Captain America, they are not similar at all.
So, does the movies have some themes in common, some themes which are common in modern superhero movies, YES. Does that make WW a version of CA, no not at all, the stories are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Take one example, they both use a shield - well guess what, they use the shields they used in the bloody comics.