Gatsby77

It's now at 67% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, down from 72% positive 48 hours ago.

Or production of The Flash, which - as you recall, was originally supposed to be released in 2016.

I'm getting drunk and watching it Monday evening with the same group of friends I got blitzed and saw Ghost Rider with. We expect to be thoroughly entertained.

I'm confused. I thought they basically shot all of Avatar 3 (the quote was "80-90%") already while shooting Avatar 2. Especially if a "9-hour cut" is either planned or already exists. So why push it back a year? Does Disney hate money?

Starbucks did the same type of thing 20 years ago - at the time, it was one of the few major companies that full benefits and health insurance for just 20 hours / week of work. The catch? It was nearly impossible to get scheduled for more than 18 hours / week.

False equivalence. Ezra Miller's alleged crimes (and still pending civil and criminal suits) are far more numerous - and arguably more serious, than those of more modern examples, like Kevin Spacey or Chris D'Elia. And yet mere accusations against those two led to them being replaced in major films at the eleventh hour and at great expense to the respective studios. To review: All of Spacey's scenes in All the Money in the World were re-shot with Christopher Plummer...after the finished movie trailer featuring Spacey had already been released. (And...Spacey was ultimately found not guilty of the specific charges that led to his being dropped from that film.) Following mere accusations of sexual misconduct, Chris D'Elia was digitally replaced by Tig Notaro in Zack Snyder's Army of the Dead. In contrast, Ezra Miller was first accused of assault (and on video, no less) in April 2020. Principal photography on The Flash didn't even start until a year later (April 2021) and wrapped in October 2021. Warner Bros. had ample time to replace - or significantly reduce the screen time of - Ezra Miller. And actively chose not to do so. Further, the studio is now doubling down - praising Miller's performance and attesting that he will continue in the role in an already in-development sequel -- all to prevent its star's negative publicity from costing them dearly at the box office.

Wow... https://midwestfilmjournal.com/2023/06/09/bonus-take-the-flash/ Full review in the spoiler.

Currently 71% on Rotten Tomatoes - not exactly Nolan Batman territory. A snapshot:

And never forget the double-page ads by Mile High Comics, where the grade promised was Fine/Mint.

Yes - I remember getting this early on as well, and how much more strict it was than the general standards at the time. But it was really good with photographs of the various grades - and also cataloging what specific defects did to grades of otherwise pretty books. Also that the book went hard on miswraps (what it called "bindery defects") - that they basically knocked a book down to VF. Which CGC notably does *not* do. I remember looking through my collection and having to mentally downgrade books with miswraps - like New Mutants # 94 & X-Men 269.

I think the weirdest thing about collecting in the late '80s/early '90s was how common Silver Age Marvels were (or at least, seemed). I started collecting right on the cusp of when Iron Man # 1 went from a $12 book to a $48 book in NM. And you'd go to conventions and see tables with literal piles of 20-30 copies per of high-grade Iron Man # 1, Silver Surfer # 48s & Conan # 1s. They were expensive - relative to other 1965-1975 books, but they were there, available and in-bulk. As stated, they were likely mostly strict 8.0-9.0 by CGC standards but still legit high-grade and common. My favorite articles in the Overstreet Updates were by Keith Contarino, who did an excellent job of chronicling the rise of Bronze Age books as collectibles - forget whether it was 1990 or 1991 that saw a bunch of Bronze keys jump from $8 to like $50 -- as well as real market recognition of such books as Iron Fist 14, Lois Lane 70 and - of course - Iron Man # 55. I remember making money mowing lawns and looking wistfully up at wall keys as Werewolf By Night # 32 ($24), Iron Fist 14 ($55) and Hulk # 181 ($250) and then plunking down my money on the Liefeld New Mutants issues - as well as slowly working my way backwards on the Wolverine (1988) and Batman runs, $3-$8 at a time.

We'll see where it is after July 4th weekend. June is tough, with: Transformers The Flash Indiana Jones And then Mission Impossible playing mop-up on July 7.

You can tell Warner Bros. is nervous due to how they're working overtime on the publicity for this film - pulling out all the stops, including: Additional trailers showing new scenes Leaking a surprise cameo, pre-release (for the *third* time in a row) Insisting that Ezra will keep the role for any sequel Announcing, pre-release, that work is well underway already for a sequel (i.e., finished --script) - recall they did this as well for Green Lantern & "Justice League Part 1" Announcing that, even if you've seen a preview (next one in my area is June 7), you haven't actually seen the "full" film

95% positive on Rotten Tomatoes. That seems really strong for a superhero flick.

But the real question is...did @Jaydogrules like it?

I don't remember negative buzz about this movie with regard to the delays and reshoots. Because the narrative was always that Tom Cruise himself wanted to delay the film a full year+ to ensure they got the aerial shots right. As you point out, the buzz for this film on this forum was mostly positive as soon as the teaser was released in December 2019. The more mainstream general audience buzz began with the Super Bowl spot in Feb. 2020. And this film, not the last Bond film, was cast as the true bellwether for film blockbusters - whether audiences were really ready to return-to-theaters post-pandemic. While that question was solved months early by the theatrical successes of both No Time to Die and Spider-Man: No Way Home, Top Gun: Maverick was still seen as that litmus test even months before its eventual release. Did that mean everyone thought it would do $1 bn.+ theatrical? No. But any critic who now tries to characterize its success as a surprise, unanticipated or shocking - either wasn't paying attention or (more likely) is just willfully engaging in revisionist history now for clicks.

Too young. Damn!

"Go-forward" from when? Martian Manhunter never appeared (even in the Snyder cut) *as part of* the Justice League. Hence, while there are 8 characters shown, "Unite the Seven" never referred to (nor meant to refer to) him. The phrase did include the inclusion of GL and Superman - because the movie posters w/ the tag line came out when GL was still planned for inclusion.

? My (admittedly hazy) memory of the last scene of the Snyder cut was Martian Manhunter showing up and offering his assistance if needed in the future. But he was never planned (or counted) as a member of the Justice League in the film. Hence "Unite the 7" - it counted Green Lantern (who didn't appear) and Superman (who was "dead") but did not count Martian Manhunter.

'Cuz they've got to justify that "Unite the Seven" tag line on the early movie posters somehow, even nearly a decade later.

Anyone else watching this? Unrelated to the MCU character - it's more dystopian science fiction from South Korea. I'm on episode 2 and it's really good so far - sort of Mad Max meets Snowpiercer.

I think companies are waking up to streaming's being - maybe - a necessary investment -- but not an automatically profitable one. Netflix not only had a huge head start, but now stands with the largest library of content -- and the brand recognition of being the category leader (with such memes as yesterday's "Make it a Blockbuster night" giving way to today's "Netflix & chill.") Fox and MGM, realizing they couldn't compete alone in this new landscape, opted to sell entirely. Even Disney+ has failed to find significant traction - and combining Hulu and Disney+ into one reflects this -- the Disney+ library (even with Marvel, Star Wars and legacy Disney cartoon characters) simply isn't enough to compete on its own. Even Paramount's stock is sitting at ~50% of Warren Buffett's average buy price last year, when his investment thesis was essentially that Paramount had solved the hard technical part of building the streaming infrastructure, and it would really take off on the content & subscriber side by 2024. Net/net: I think we're going to see more consolidation going forward. Frankly, I don't see Peacock or CBS All-Access surviving long-term, as I imagine both their content libraries and subscriber bases lag well beyond those of Netflix, Amazon, Hulu/Disney+, Max and Paramount+. And Max was absolutely correct to start selling off content to the likes of Roku and Netflix - that helps save bandwidth costs and frees up some cash for additional, more current content.

Hope so! I’d love to buy back a high-grade copy (or three) of Marvel Premiere # 1.

Maybe...but if he's still considered a box office draw, he might keep the role. Remember: Robert Downey, Jr. was temporarily released from prison so he could film "U.S. Marshals" - then they sent him right back to complete his sentence.

Yes - and not one of those films mentioned came out in the last 25 years, during which U.S. demographic standards have shifted dramatically. I could see entire genres of historical films being excluded due to the new criteria, however (westerns and WW 2 films being the obvious ones). For instance, I suspect there's no way "All Quiet on the Western Front" would have made the Best Picture cut last year. But the Academy President is on the record that not only would "All Quiet on the Western Front" have qualified, but literally all the past Best Picture nominees would have (I'm skeptical). https://news.sky.com/story/oscars-2023-academy-president-says-new-diversity-rules-next-year-wouldnt-change-a-single-film-in-contention-even-historically-12829563#:~:text=Additionally%2C the Academy's new diversity,diverse racial or ethnic groups.