Jump to content

Justice League movie thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can’t tell if this is parody or not. 

I don't care at all about these ratios of aspect, I'm just happy the trailer finally answered one of my most lingering questions...     We do in fact live in a society. 

There’s some serious comedy gold surrounding this film.    This guy has never actually seen a Terrance Malick film, has he?

On 11/24/2020 at 7:28 AM, AC1 said:

Rumor: If The Snyder Cut is successful (and we know it will be), then HBO is looking for a Justice League trilogy.

 

https://www.geekositymag.com/post/scoop-hbo-max-wants-a-justice-league-trilogy

 

I know Netflix has radically changed the game in terms of streaming movies. But apart from getting new subscribers, how can streamers like Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max make money on pricey nine figure movies? While they can swallow the costs of moving titles during a pandemic, how can they sustain that after moviegoing resumes in earnest?

 

Snyder's JL cut would have to get rave reviews and unprecedented streaming numbers to warrant spending money on two HBO Max exclusive sequels. And even then WarnerMedia would aim for a theatrical release first to recoup the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Matt C said:

 

I know Netflix has radically changed the game in terms of streaming movies. But apart from getting new subscribers, how can streamers like Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max make money on pricey nine figure movies? While they can swallow the costs of moving titles during a pandemic, how can they sustain that after moviegoing resumes in earnest?

 

Snyder's JL cut would have to get rave reviews and unprecedented streaming numbers to warrant spending money on two HBO Max exclusive sequels. And even then WarnerMedia would aim for a theatrical release first to recoup the money.

 

By raising subscription prices? Netflix seems to be rather good at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

By raising subscription prices? Netflix seems to be rather good at that.

 

I don't think doing nine figure movies is sustainable in the long run for streaming services. And there's only so much they can  increase monthly pricing before people cancel. Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max might do the occasional splashy big budget film rollout -- but the bread & butter are their original series. Folks are subscribed to D+ for shows like "The Mandalorian" and their MCU limited series like "Loki" and "WandaVision."

 

People crave social gatherings and when they can congregate safely after the pandemic, moviegoing is going to ramp back up. There's going to be pent-up demand for theatrical releases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2020 at 9:18 PM, Matt C said:

 

I don't think doing nine figure movies is sustainable in the long run for streaming services. And there's only so much they can  increase monthly pricing before people cancel. Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max might do the occasional splashy big budget film rollout -- but the bread & butter are their original series. Folks are subscribed to D+ for shows like "The Mandalorian" and their MCU limited series like "Loki" and "WandaVision."

Yup. I wonder if the $200-300M budget blockbuster is not finally past its prime generally. Not only do most of those films tell silly, forgettable stories, but they usually only make 3 to 5 times their budget at the box office if they hit it big. If I were a studio exec, I feel I’d be more interested in low to mid-budget films that have a chance at revenues at much higher multiples. 

 

We all know the most worthwhile filmed storytelling over the past decade has been found on television/streaming. When your budget doesn’t allow for hiring an army of computer artists to render your eye candy, you’re motivated to tell better stories that can entertain without that candy. Filmmakers might move in that direction again, who knows. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bayesian said:

Yup. I wonder if the $200-300M budget blockbuster is not finally past its prime generally. Not only do most of those films tell silly, forgettable stories, but they usually only make 3 to 5 times their budget at the box office if they hit it big. If I were a studio exec, I feel I’d be more interested in low to mid-budget films that have a chance at revenues at much higher multiples. 

 

 

I would love it if studios focused on making tighter, leaner blockbuster movies. They can still have an entertaining plot and engaging characters, but show the characters doing more rather than tell it through exposition. 

 

Michael Bay is a big offender on this aspect (his awful Transformers movies), but directors like Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan are guilty of it too. Movies like Tenet and Man of Steel have no business being 2.5 hours apiece when they could've been much better with 15-20 minutes cut.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Matt C said:

 

I would love it if studios focused on making tighter, leaner blockbuster movies. They can still have an entertaining plot and engaging characters, but show the characters doing more rather than tell it through exposition. 

 

Michael Bay is a big offender on this aspect (his awful Transformers movies), but directors like Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan are guilty of it too. Movies like Tenet and Man of Steel have no business being 2.5 hours apiece when they could've been much better with 15-20 minutes cut.

 

And to think that Snyder actually broke the mold by delivering a unicorn - a midbudget action R rated blockbuster priced at a mere 60 million yet earned half  a billion dollars with 300.

 

Why not make movies like that, at better price point.

 

Think Joker. Made at 55 million pricepoint and made a billion. Apparently Todd Philips the director took him over 200 mil for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

And to think that Snyder actually broke the mold by delivering a unicorn - a midbudget action R rated blockbuster priced at a mere 60 million yet earned half  a billion dollars with 300.

 

Why not make movies like that, at better price point.

 

Think Joker. Made at 55 million pricepoint and made a billion. Apparently Todd Philips the director took him over 200 mil for it.

 

I definitely agree on the price point. Not just the midrange budget, but they can spend less than $200M apiece on big movies.

 

WB was all in on filming in Australia for several films in the early Noughties because they saved tens of millions of dollars -- just on the exchange rate alone. And during Tom Rothman's last decade at Fox, a lot of their movies were filmed in Canada. And some of those films still look well-budgeted despite the lower price.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

And to think that Snyder actually broke the mold by delivering a unicorn - a midbudget action R rated blockbuster priced at a mere 60 million yet earned half  a billion dollars with 300.

 

Why not make movies like that, at better price point.

 

 

Army_of_the_Dead-475605639-large.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

Army_of_the_Dead-475605639-large.jpg

 

If I am not mistaken this is 100 million dollars too.

Edit: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/zack-snyder-returns-movies-zombie-pic-army-dead-1178979

 

This says 90 mil but that will undoubtedly soar above 100 given they are reshooting an entire character because of the comedian guys turned out to be creep.

 

This isn't really mid-budget either.

 

Neither was Sucker Punch. 

 

300 was the last mid-priced Snyder joint. Also apparently his last truly profitable film.

 

--

 

These studios don't understand simple math. Keep price down and reap profits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They won’t stop making huge budget movies.  “Only making 3-4x budget” on a $300,000,000 movie means that they’ll make $990,000,000 to $1,200,000,000.  This is much more profit than they’d make on a much smaller budget mid-range movie even with a bigger multiplier.  Plus, that doesn’t include just the incredible amount of merchandise that they sell from these movies.  Home video, streaming/Tv rights, books, comics, action figures, statues, Funko Pops, plushy dolls, Happy Meals, t-shirts, glassware, etc etc etc.  The box office is never the final word on profitability for a movie, but ESPECIALLY not in these billion dollar franchises.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

 

These studios don't understand simple math. Keep price down and reap profits.

 

Gravity was one such big-budget experiment, it looked more expensive than $100M-130M but remarkably brief (91 minutes), which meant exhibitors could pack in 5 showings a day in each auditorium. Like Joker, also released in October and it was a box office wild card.

 

And they reaped in the profits and critical accolades.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Are people really that obsessed about Batman?

 

Who cares if he swears?

 

I’d gladly spend my money on getting movies for the other members of JL: Wonder Woman, Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg and Superman.

 

(And what happened to that movie about “The Trench”?)

 

And preferably not directed by Znyder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that makes me groan about most superhero movies from the last couple decades is the way the filmmakers try to make the notion of superhero powers compatible with the world we actually live in. They are NOT compatible. The first couple times seeing this, your suspension of disbelief handles things for you. After the next few times, suspending your disbelief becomes tedious. By the time something like Snyder’s JL comes around, it’s just pointless to keep pretending there’s any reason to care about what’s happening on screen. Snyder’s transparent attempt to build relevance for his movie by making some super-duper-epic-for-the-ages just proves how vacuous the whole superhero genre has become. 
 

I totally get why some folks here are so stuck on Batman ‘89 and ‘92. Those were brilliant movies because they took place in a comic book world that didn’t try to make us swallow real world settings, politics, etc. at the same as patently impossible things like flying SHIELD aircraft carriers or impossible-to-injure captain marvels or the destruction of entire financial districts with nary a consequence whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.