It is actually stunning that this film might not make a profit in the cinema. (The line is, as I think you were saying, at roughly 800 million (it cost about 400 to make and market, and theatres keep maybe half of the gross).
Well, hang on. First of all, the 800 billion was an estimate that Variety made, and I don't think we should regard that as authoritative. I don't think the film won't turn a profit, as any amount of money above breaking even is a profit, and the film has recently passed the 800 million mark.
However, I don't think the film is ever going to make a billion dollars in the cinemas, and that's a big deal. Warner Bros. didn't invest hundreds of millions of dollars into this expecting the returns to be a small percentage of what they put in. They were looking for this movie to not only be a hit, but a megahit in the same vein as The Avengers, something that would not just be a popular movie, but the launching point of a multi-franchise extravaganza.
The result has been the exact opposite of that. Its poor performance has not only hindered Warner Bros.'s plans, it's actually damaged the DC movie brand and the franchises of the superheroes that WB wants to make movies of. Man of Steel was received poorly, and this movie was meant to correct that, and instead it has made the public perception of the recent incarnation of DC films even worse. This is a failure. A big one.
It is actually stunning that this film might not make a profit in the cinema. (The line is, as I think you were saying, at roughly 800 million (it cost about 400 to make and market, and theatres keep maybe half of the gross).
Well, hang on. First of all, the 800 billion was an estimate that Variety made, and I don't think we should regard that as authoritative. I don't think the film won't turn a profit, as any amount of money above breaking even is a profit, and the film has recently passed the 800 million mark.
However, I don't think the film is ever going to make a billion dollars in the cinemas, and that's a big deal. Warner Bros. didn't invest hundreds of millions of dollars into this expecting the returns to be a small percentage of what they put in. They were looking for this movie to not only be a hit, but a megahit in the same vein as The Avengers, something that would not just be a popular movie, but the launching point of a multi-franchise extravaganza.
The result has been the exact opposite of that. Its poor performance has not only hindered Warner Bros.'s plans, it's actually damaged the DC movie brand and the franchises of the superheroes that WB wants to make movies of. Man of Steel was received poorly, and this movie was meant to correct that, and instead it has made the public perception of the recent incarnation of DC films even worse. This is a failure. A big one.
Yeah, it's such a huge failure that Warner Brothers has added two more DC films to its line up.
Nothing they do makes any sense at all, especially given that Marvel has set a perfect template for them to follow that they've completely ignored. Idiots.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
Yeah, it's such a huge failure that Warner Brothers has added two more DC films to its line up.
I think the phrase is "sunk cost fallacy."
Nothing they do makes any sense at all, especially given that Marvel has set a perfect template for them to follow that they've completely ignored. Idiots.
I'm not sure I understand this sentiment that Marvel has figured out superhero movies while DC hasn't. It's not like Marvel hasn't made its share of duds, or that not too long ago DC was seen as the dominant force in comic book movies with its Dark Knight franchise.
Yeah, it's such a huge failure that Warner Brothers has added two more DC films to its line up.
I think the phrase is "sunk cost fallacy."
Nothing they do makes any sense at all, especially given that Marvel has set a perfect template for them to follow that they've completely ignored. Idiots.
I'm not sure I understand this sentiment that Marvel has figured out superhero movies while DC hasn't. It's not like Marvel hasn't made its share of duds, or that not too long ago DC was seen as the dominant force in comic book movies with its Dark Knight franchise.
WHAT?!?! Marvel has made a "dud" in the MCU? That's news to me seeing as their worst critically received film has double the rotten tomatoes numbers of Batman V Superman and we've not talked about any of them being financial failures. In fact, even the "bad" ones aren't talked about the way BVS is being talked about (except maybe Iron Man 2?).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
I'm not sure I understand this sentiment that Marvel has figured out superhero movies while DC hasn't. It's not like Marvel hasn't made its share of duds, or that not too long ago DC was seen as the dominant force in comic book movies with its Dark Knight franchise.
Not all of the films in the MCU have been smash hits but not one of them have been flat out bad like several DC films have been. There is no Green lantern level bad in the MCU there is not Batman and Robin level bad in the MCU there is no BvS level bad in the MCU. Heck I think you'd have to stretch it to say there is a MCU film as bad a MoS but which is close to being a okay-ish film but not quite.
The worst films in the MCU are still better than the everything but the best DC film (the dark knight)
WHAT?!?! Marvel has made a "dud" in the MCU? That's news to me seeing as their worst critically received film has double the rotten tomatoes numbers of Batman V Superman and we've not talked about any of them being financial failures. In fact, even the "bad" ones aren't talked about the way BVS is being talked about (except maybe Iron Man 2?).
To be honest? I liked Batman vs. Superman better than Age of Ultron. BvS at least had a distinct creative vision, misguided as it was. AoU was the epitome of committee-designed nonsensical mediocrity.
Also Wonder Woman >>> Scarlet Witch.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not all of the films in the MCU have been smash hits but not one of them have been flat out bad like several DC films have been.
The Amazing Spider-Man franchise was, prior to the recent Superman films, the go-to example for a superhero film franchise gone horribly wrong. As was X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3 before it. I've not heard good things about X-Men Origins: Wolverine either.
And let's face it, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, and Age of Ultron were awful.
Not all of the films in the MCU have been smash hits but not one of them have been flat out bad like several DC films have been.
The Amazing Spider-Man franchise was, prior to the recent Superman films, the go-to example for a superhero film franchise gone horribly wrong. As was X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3 before it.
And let's face it, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, and Age of Ultron were awful.
Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man and X-Men are Sony and Fox properties respectively and not part of the MCU. I think awful is but harsh for Iron man 2, 3 and ultron. They were not perfect but they were far from MoS levels of bad and nothing close to BvS levels of bad.
Not all of the films in the MCU have been smash hits but not one of them have been flat out bad like several DC films have been.
The Amazing Spider-Man franchise was, prior to the recent Superman films, the go-to example for a superhero film franchise gone horribly wrong. As was X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3 before it.
And let's face it, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, and Age of Ultron were awful.
Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man and X-Men are Sony and Fox properties respectively and not part of the MCU. I think awful is but harsh for Iron man 2, 3 and ultron. They were not perfect but they were far from MoS levels of bad and nothing close to BvS levels of bad.
This exactly. I am not a fan of Age of Ultron at all, but at least I know what the heck is going on in that movie. At least there's not half a dozen dangling ideas in that movie. It's emotionally empty, but the paper thin plot is far more than what BvS has going on.
Despite anyone's personal gripes against the worst of the MCU, there's no universal backlash to any of those films like we're seeing with BvS. Also, Spider-man and X-men aren't the MCU. I was specifically referencing the MCU films only which, again, are all more favored by critics and have all been financial successes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
Nothing they do makes any sense at all, especially given that Marvel has set a perfect template for them to follow that they've completely ignored. Idiots.
Marvel's "template" really only works because they have Kevin Feige.
Other studios are going out of their way to make their own cinematic universes but you need someone like Feige that acts as the ultimate stabilizer for the entire thing. Marvel should be thanking their lucky stars they have the guy because the MCU wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is without him.
Not all of the films in the MCU have been smash hits but not one of them have been flat out bad like several DC films have been.
The Amazing Spider-Man franchise was, prior to the recent Superman films, the go-to example for a superhero film franchise gone horribly wrong. As was X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3 before it. I've not heard good things about X-Men Origins: Wolverine either.
And let's face it, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, and Age of Ultron were awful.
Age of Ultron and Ironman 3 are fine. Not great, but fine. Both needed some fixing but..eh. (Ultron in particular has some excellent moments, although I do agree with Blink that it is the camel to the Avengers horse)
The Incredible Hulk should be your go-to failure for Marvel films. It's bad enough they pretend it was never really part of the MCU buildup. (also as noted, none of the other films you mentioned are actually marvel films by marvel so they don't really count).
Nothing they do makes any sense at all, especially given that Marvel has set a perfect template for them to follow that they've completely ignored. Idiots.
Marvel's "template" really only works because they have Kevin Feige.
Other studios are going out of their way to make their own cinematic universes but you need someone like Feige that acts as the ultimate stabilizer for the entire thing. Marvel should be thanking their lucky stars they have the guy because the MCU wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is without him.
Kevin Feige isn't the only person in Hollywood who can do what he's doing. The problem is not a lack of a Feige, it's the fact that DC put Zack Snyder in charge up front.
What's with all the Iron Man 3 hate? I've never understood this. Iron Man 3 is literally the only film in the franchise where events in a previous film have an emotional impact on a character and it's the only film in the franchise where the main character goes through an actual story arc. And, in true MCU BS fashion they completely abandon Stark's story arc in the next film they release because to hell with good story telling. Fans, IMO, have this completely wrong. Iron Man 3 is the best of the entire MCU because it's the only film with more going on than just trying to stop the bad guys. It's the only film where Tony Stark is actually a relatable human with emotional stakes instead of an over-the-top caricature.
The Incredible Hulk is tied for lowest rated film in the franchise on Rotten Tomatoes and made about $160 million more than its budget. While it's not a smash success, I have trouble calling it a "failure."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
What's with all the Iron Man 3 hate? I've never understood this. Iron Man 3 is literally the only film in the franchise where events in a previous film have an emotional impact on a character and it's the only film in the franchise where the main character goes through an actual story arc. And, in true MCU BS fashion they completely abandon Stark's story arc in the next film they release because to hell with good story telling. Fans, IMO, have this completely wrong. Iron Man 3 is the best of the entire MCU because it's the only film with more going on than just trying to stop the bad guys. It's the only film where Tony Stark is actually a relatable human with emotional stakes instead of an over-the-top caricature.
I don't get the hate on Iron Man 3 either. I think it showed a very realistic side to Tony Stark and very appropriately dealt with the elephant in the room regarding the mandarin's extremely racist character portrayal in the comics. It also showed us how Tony can deal with problems without having access to all of his arsenal of tech which was a huge breath of fresh air. Even if you disagree with that the movie is still well organized and has nice pacing and flow which sets it ahead of both Mos and BvS in terms of watchablity right off the bat.
Age of Ultron and Ironman 3 are fine. Not great, but fine. Both needed some fixing but..eh. (Ultron in particular has some excellent moments, although I do agree with Blink that it is the camel to the Avengers horse)
Hey! I would never say that. The camel is a noble beast.
The Incredible Hulk should be your go-to failure for Marvel films. It's bad enough they pretend it was never really part of the MCU buildup.
I think they pretend it was never part of the MCU buildup because of the awkward actor change between it and The Avengers. Yeah, it's the worst-reviewed movie, but it's not bad. It tells a coherent story entertainingly and with some decent action scenes. It's functional.
Also, they do occasionally drop references to Emil Blonsky on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The movie's still "canon", just deemphasized.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Age of Ultron and Ironman 3 are fine. Not great, but fine. Both needed some fixing but..eh. (Ultron in particular has some excellent moments, although I do agree with Blink that it is the camel to the Avengers horse)
Hey! I would never say that. The camel is a noble beast.
The Incredible Hulk should be your go-to failure for Marvel films. It's bad enough they pretend it was never really part of the MCU buildup.
I think they pretend it was never part of the MCU buildup because of the awkward actor change between it and The Avengers. Yeah, it's the worst-reviewed movie, but it's not bad. It tells a coherent story entertainingly and with some decent action scenes. It's functional.
Also, they do occasionally drop references to Emil Blonsky on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The movie's still "canon", just deemphasized.
William Hurt is Thuderbolt Ross in Captain America 3. I don't think it's "sort of" a part of the MCU. I'd call it a full part. Plus, Tony Stark shows up in The Incredible Hulk. It counts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
Kevin Feige isn't the only person in Hollywood who can do what he's doing. The problem is not a lack of a Feige, it's the fact that DC put Zack Snyder in charge up front.
Zack Snyder is a problem, but you have to look at the bigger picture. The hiring of Zack Snyder likely wouldn't have happened in the first place if DC had a guy that was their equivalent of Kevin Feige. DC doesn't have the same control as Marvel does. They are at the mercy of WB and their executives, whereas Disney execs don't get in the way of Marvel. If it was WB who wanted Snyder and DC didn't (which wouldn't surprise me because Snyder's wife has ties with Hollywood), then too bad for DC because they have to live with it.
WB's way of managing their properties and studios is very different from Disney's way of doing things. Disney buys a studio and basically leaves the creative teams alone to do what they do best. All Disney does is asks for numbers, gives deadlines, supplies money, and distributes the product. Marvel is left to handle the creative work on their own. WB meddles. Every WB executive has to have a "piece" of each movie. They each have their own input, their own suggestion for how to make it better, and they have their heads so far up their own asses it's not even comedic... it's just sad. Instead of assigning someone to be in charge of the creative direction of the series, they butt in and it results in a too many chiefs situation.
Marvel's genius -- and Disney's -- is that Kevin Feige is the authority when it comes to Marvel Studios productions. Everything about Marvel movies begins and ends with Feige. He is in charge of castings, directors, writers, marketing, production, EVERYTHING. Disney's suits don't get involved, and as a result Marvel Studios cranks out hit after hit. The creative people aren't having their hands tied by uncreative, talentless schmuck executives from their parent company. If the worst Marvel can do is Incredible Hulk and Thor 2, that's pretty damn impressive.
This isn't just a WB thing though. The same thing happened at Sony when Amy Pascal decided to freeze out both Dan Aykroyd and Ivan Reitman from the creative end of Ghostbusters in favor of her and Paul Feig's terrible pet project. The way they treated Reitman was deplorable, and the result is a movie that is going to be DOA and flop as soon as it gets released.
People complain about Disney whenever they buy some studio, but so far pretty every studio they've owned has made some fantastic stuff. Miramax gave us Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction while it was owned by Disney. Pixar continues to make amazing movies. Marvel Studios hasn't stumbled yet. Lucasfilm was triumphant right out of the gate. This is all because Disney is run by people who are smart enough to leave the creative work to the studios they purchase, and just worry about the business end of things on their part. They're almost like the anti-EA in this regard. While EA buys up studios just for their property and names and then cranks out ***** made by entirely new teams of people with 1/4 the creativity of the original studio, Disney buys up studios and throws money at the existing teams and says, "Now go do what you do best."
DC deserves better than WB. They really do. Their characters are iconic, and they're being pimped out and "re-imagined" by board rooms full of people who don't know about storytelling, DC comics, or what audiences want from these sorts of movies. Then you combine that with directors who make their own unique visions for the films and it turns into a big mess. Pretty much every superhero movie that has been unsuccessful in the 21st century (either financially or critically) has had some sort of higher-up meddling. This is what all studios need to understand. If your suits keep getting in the way, your films are going to suck. Only Marvel and Disney seem to get it.
Kevin Feige isn't the only person in Hollywood who can do what he's doing. The problem is not a lack of a Feige, it's the fact that DC put Zack Snyder in charge up front.
Zack Snyder is a problem, but you have to look at the bigger picture. The hiring of Zack Snyder likely wouldn't have happened in the first place if DC had a guy that was their equivalent of Kevin Feige. DC doesn't have the same control as Marvel does. They are at the mercy of WB and their executives, whereas Disney execs don't get in the way of Marvel. If it was WB who wanted Snyder and DC didn't (which wouldn't surprise me because Snyder's wife has ties with Hollywood), then too bad for DC because they have to live with it.
WB's way of managing their properties and studios is very different from Disney's way of doing things. Disney buys a studio and basically leaves the creative teams alone to do what they do best. All Disney does is asks for numbers, gives deadlines, supplies money, and distributes the product. Marvel is left to handle the creative work on their own. WB meddles. Every WB executive has to have a "piece" of each movie. They each have their own input, their own suggestion for how to make it better, and they have their heads so far up their own asses it's not even comedic... it's just sad. Instead of assigning someone to be in charge of the creative direction of the series, they butt in and it results in a too many chiefs situation.
Marvel's genius -- and Disney's -- is that Kevin Feige is the authority when it comes to Marvel Studios productions. Everything about Marvel movies begins and ends with Feige. He is in charge of castings, directors, writers, marketing, production, EVERYTHING. Disney's suits don't get involved, and as a result Marvel Studios cranks out hit after hit. The creative people aren't having their hands tied by uncreative, talentless schmuck executives from their parent company. If the worst Marvel can do is Incredible Hulk and Thor 2, that's pretty damn impressive.
This isn't just a WB thing though. The same thing happened at Sony when Amy Pascal decided to freeze out both Dan Aykroyd and Ivan Reitman from the creative end of Ghostbusters in favor of her and Paul Feig's terrible pet project. The way they treated Reitman was deplorable, and the result is a movie that is going to be DOA and flop as soon as it gets released.
People complain about Disney whenever they buy some studio, but so far pretty every studio they've owned has made some fantastic stuff. Miramax gave us Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction while it was owned by Disney. Pixar continues to make amazing movies. Marvel Studios hasn't stumbled yet. Lucasfilm was triumphant right out of the gate. This is all because Disney is run by people who are smart enough to leave the creative work to the studios they purchase, and just worry about the business end of things on their part. They're almost like the anti-EA in this regard. While EA buys up studios just for their property and names and then cranks out ***** made by entirely new teams of people with 1/4 the creativity of the original studio, Disney buys up studios and throws money at the existing teams and says, "Now go do what you do best."
DC deserves better than WB. They really do. Their characters are iconic, and they're being pimped out and "re-imagined" by board rooms full of people who don't know about storytelling, DC comics, or what audiences want from these sorts of movies. Then you combine that with directors who make their own unique visions for the films and it turns into a big mess. Pretty much every superhero movie that has been unsuccessful in the 21st century (either financially or critically) has had some sort of higher-up meddling. This is what all studios need to understand. If your suits keep getting in the way, your films are going to suck. Only Marvel and Disney seem to get it.
I should have been far more specific. It's not just that there could be another Kevin Fiege type handling the DC franchise. I also meant there should be that type of person if DC and Warner's would pull their heads out of their butts and follow the Marvel model. I didn't just mean following Marvel's film style, I meant follow the behind the scenes model as well. My friend says DC should let Bruce Timm be that person for the DC franchise, but, like you point out, it won't happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
What dc desperately need is someone who actually likes the characters from the comics, not some vague basics and then changes the character and background radically. Also to fire zac, preferably out of a cannon into the sun.
But murder batman isn't batman, and depressed angry superman isn't superman.
People complain about Disney whenever they buy some studio, but so far pretty every studio they've owned has made some fantastic stuff. Miramax gave us Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction while it was owned by Disney. Pixar continues to make amazing movies. Marvel Studios hasn't stumbled yet. Lucasfilm was triumphant right out of the gate.
Um... Lucasfilm had someone with Feige-level supreme power. His name was George Lucas. Disney handed him a fat check and showed him the door.
The supreme power model is not always successful. Sometimes more intervention is better than less.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
However, I don't think the film is ever going to make a billion dollars in the cinemas, and that's a big deal. Warner Bros. didn't invest hundreds of millions of dollars into this expecting the returns to be a small percentage of what they put in. They were looking for this movie to not only be a hit, but a megahit in the same vein as The Avengers, something that would not just be a popular movie, but the launching point of a multi-franchise extravaganza.
The result has been the exact opposite of that. Its poor performance has not only hindered Warner Bros.'s plans, it's actually damaged the DC movie brand and the franchises of the superheroes that WB wants to make movies of. Man of Steel was received poorly, and this movie was meant to correct that, and instead it has made the public perception of the recent incarnation of DC films even worse. This is a failure. A big one.
Yeah, it's such a huge failure that Warner Brothers has added two more DC films to its line up.
Nothing they do makes any sense at all, especially given that Marvel has set a perfect template for them to follow that they've completely ignored. Idiots.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
I'm not sure I understand this sentiment that Marvel has figured out superhero movies while DC hasn't. It's not like Marvel hasn't made its share of duds, or that not too long ago DC was seen as the dominant force in comic book movies with its Dark Knight franchise.
WHAT?!?! Marvel has made a "dud" in the MCU? That's news to me seeing as their worst critically received film has double the rotten tomatoes numbers of Batman V Superman and we've not talked about any of them being financial failures. In fact, even the "bad" ones aren't talked about the way BVS is being talked about (except maybe Iron Man 2?).
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
The worst films in the MCU are still better than the everything but the best DC film (the dark knight)
Also Wonder Woman >>> Scarlet Witch.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And let's face it, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, and Age of Ultron were awful.
This exactly. I am not a fan of Age of Ultron at all, but at least I know what the heck is going on in that movie. At least there's not half a dozen dangling ideas in that movie. It's emotionally empty, but the paper thin plot is far more than what BvS has going on.
Despite anyone's personal gripes against the worst of the MCU, there's no universal backlash to any of those films like we're seeing with BvS. Also, Spider-man and X-men aren't the MCU. I was specifically referencing the MCU films only which, again, are all more favored by critics and have all been financial successes.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
Marvel's "template" really only works because they have Kevin Feige.
Other studios are going out of their way to make their own cinematic universes but you need someone like Feige that acts as the ultimate stabilizer for the entire thing. Marvel should be thanking their lucky stars they have the guy because the MCU wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is without him.
Age of Ultron and Ironman 3 are fine. Not great, but fine. Both needed some fixing but..eh. (Ultron in particular has some excellent moments, although I do agree with Blink that it is the camel to the Avengers horse)
The Incredible Hulk should be your go-to failure for Marvel films. It's bad enough they pretend it was never really part of the MCU buildup. (also as noted, none of the other films you mentioned are actually marvel films by marvel so they don't really count).
Kevin Feige isn't the only person in Hollywood who can do what he's doing. The problem is not a lack of a Feige, it's the fact that DC put Zack Snyder in charge up front.
What's with all the Iron Man 3 hate? I've never understood this. Iron Man 3 is literally the only film in the franchise where events in a previous film have an emotional impact on a character and it's the only film in the franchise where the main character goes through an actual story arc. And, in true MCU BS fashion they completely abandon Stark's story arc in the next film they release because to hell with good story telling. Fans, IMO, have this completely wrong. Iron Man 3 is the best of the entire MCU because it's the only film with more going on than just trying to stop the bad guys. It's the only film where Tony Stark is actually a relatable human with emotional stakes instead of an over-the-top caricature.
The Incredible Hulk is tied for lowest rated film in the franchise on Rotten Tomatoes and made about $160 million more than its budget. While it's not a smash success, I have trouble calling it a "failure."
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
I think they pretend it was never part of the MCU buildup because of the awkward actor change between it and The Avengers. Yeah, it's the worst-reviewed movie, but it's not bad. It tells a coherent story entertainingly and with some decent action scenes. It's functional.
Also, they do occasionally drop references to Emil Blonsky on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The movie's still "canon", just deemphasized.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
William Hurt is Thuderbolt Ross in Captain America 3. I don't think it's "sort of" a part of the MCU. I'd call it a full part. Plus, Tony Stark shows up in The Incredible Hulk. It counts.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
Zack Snyder is a problem, but you have to look at the bigger picture. The hiring of Zack Snyder likely wouldn't have happened in the first place if DC had a guy that was their equivalent of Kevin Feige. DC doesn't have the same control as Marvel does. They are at the mercy of WB and their executives, whereas Disney execs don't get in the way of Marvel. If it was WB who wanted Snyder and DC didn't (which wouldn't surprise me because Snyder's wife has ties with Hollywood), then too bad for DC because they have to live with it.
WB's way of managing their properties and studios is very different from Disney's way of doing things. Disney buys a studio and basically leaves the creative teams alone to do what they do best. All Disney does is asks for numbers, gives deadlines, supplies money, and distributes the product. Marvel is left to handle the creative work on their own. WB meddles. Every WB executive has to have a "piece" of each movie. They each have their own input, their own suggestion for how to make it better, and they have their heads so far up their own asses it's not even comedic... it's just sad. Instead of assigning someone to be in charge of the creative direction of the series, they butt in and it results in a too many chiefs situation.
Marvel's genius -- and Disney's -- is that Kevin Feige is the authority when it comes to Marvel Studios productions. Everything about Marvel movies begins and ends with Feige. He is in charge of castings, directors, writers, marketing, production, EVERYTHING. Disney's suits don't get involved, and as a result Marvel Studios cranks out hit after hit. The creative people aren't having their hands tied by uncreative, talentless schmuck executives from their parent company. If the worst Marvel can do is Incredible Hulk and Thor 2, that's pretty damn impressive.
This isn't just a WB thing though. The same thing happened at Sony when Amy Pascal decided to freeze out both Dan Aykroyd and Ivan Reitman from the creative end of Ghostbusters in favor of her and Paul Feig's terrible pet project. The way they treated Reitman was deplorable, and the result is a movie that is going to be DOA and flop as soon as it gets released.
People complain about Disney whenever they buy some studio, but so far pretty every studio they've owned has made some fantastic stuff. Miramax gave us Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction while it was owned by Disney. Pixar continues to make amazing movies. Marvel Studios hasn't stumbled yet. Lucasfilm was triumphant right out of the gate. This is all because Disney is run by people who are smart enough to leave the creative work to the studios they purchase, and just worry about the business end of things on their part. They're almost like the anti-EA in this regard. While EA buys up studios just for their property and names and then cranks out ***** made by entirely new teams of people with 1/4 the creativity of the original studio, Disney buys up studios and throws money at the existing teams and says, "Now go do what you do best."
DC deserves better than WB. They really do. Their characters are iconic, and they're being pimped out and "re-imagined" by board rooms full of people who don't know about storytelling, DC comics, or what audiences want from these sorts of movies. Then you combine that with directors who make their own unique visions for the films and it turns into a big mess. Pretty much every superhero movie that has been unsuccessful in the 21st century (either financially or critically) has had some sort of higher-up meddling. This is what all studios need to understand. If your suits keep getting in the way, your films are going to suck. Only Marvel and Disney seem to get it.
I should have been far more specific. It's not just that there could be another Kevin Fiege type handling the DC franchise. I also meant there should be that type of person if DC and Warner's would pull their heads out of their butts and follow the Marvel model. I didn't just mean following Marvel's film style, I meant follow the behind the scenes model as well. My friend says DC should let Bruce Timm be that person for the DC franchise, but, like you point out, it won't happen.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
But murder batman isn't batman, and depressed angry superman isn't superman.
The supreme power model is not always successful. Sometimes more intervention is better than less.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.