Gatsby77

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.

Except...this is for Best Picture nominations only - and the inclusion categories are *incredibly* broad. I'd like to see an analysis of what % of Best Picture nominees from the last 5 years *wouldn't* have qualified given the criteria. I look at this as akin to the Bechdel test. Useful, but not a magic bullet. What was most interesting about the Bechdel test was the surprising films that qualified or did not. Films with all- or nearly all-male casts? Like Reservoir Dogs or Glengarry Glen Ross? Sure. Easy "did not pass." But apparently in the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, there were only two short conversations that qualified (i.e., featured two women talking to each other about a topic other than a man).

This. It's been 6 years since Vol. 2. I could absolutely see them bringing back the cast for a "reunion" or semi-reboot (introducing the next generation) in 7-8 years. We're talking 2030...

So...opening to $114 million domestic - and probably closer to $117-$118 million actuals due to the positive WOM. Is that good or bad? Honest question, because I'm not sure what the expectations were for this film. But it's $30+ million less than both Guardians 2 and Super Mario Bros.

An example of when over-long, pretentious, poorly plotted and overstuffed is forgivable, because it's still well-done overall? Return of the King - Extended Edition. Nobody needed this 4+ hour long cut, but it was still a phenomenal movie even at that length.

What facts have I ignored? I've watched both BVS UE and ZSJL (although not "Justice is Grey"). And I found them to be pretentious, poorly plotted and overstuffed - all of which are forgivable, mind you, if done well. But those films' primary sins were in their terrible characterizations of Superman, Luthor, and Lois Lane (who was *so* well done in Man of Steel) - as well as the weak villains and laughable plots - that made these essentially "bad...but longer." At the end of the day, it comes down to the writing for me - plotting, pacing and dialogue. And these films (theatrical or "Director's Cuts" - as you refer to them) failed spectacularly on those marks.

That is my opinion - yes. But it's not false, because you're presuming that the BvS Ultimate Edition and/or Justice League Snyder Cut are markedly better films. They are each better than their respective theatrical versions, but remain absolute abominations to the characters depicted - and still *shockingly* mediocre. I'd call them failures - thus the fault lies with Snyder himself - his vision and execution, even when given a few years (and $70 million more) to complete his version of Justice League. As Elseworlds one-offs? Cool, glad they exist and - as above, his vision and style is certainly...unique. But as canonical depictions of Superman, Batman, and the rest of the Justice League - meant to lay the foundations for the DCEU? Hot garbage.

Well-said and totally fair. I, for one, don't hate Zack Snyder - he has an original style and I think he did as close to perfect adaptations of Watchmen and 300 as were possible. That doesn't mean, however, that his vision for the DCEU wasn't both inane and poorly executed. Man of Steel was solid through 80% - and *easily* the best Superman film since Superman II. But the primary fault for the abject critical and commercial failures of BvS and Justice League lies squarely with him - not the editor, other writers or studio interference. See also David Ayer - I was inclined to give him a lifetime pass for writing Training Day alone, but then he went and screwed up Suicide Squad in an impressive number of ways - which was *really* hard to do given the strength of the concept itself and the stories and storyboards provided by the first 30 issues or so of the '80s Ostrander run. I'll still watch Ayer's work - especially other crime thrillers like End of Watch and Sabotage - but will remain forever mystified at how he so thoroughly sh88 the bed w/ Suicide Squad.

Media illiterate? Please explain

It's bad. But worth it to see Eddie Redmayne's Razzie-winning performance, where he bizarrely shouts roughly every third word or so. One reviewer (accurately) referred to his speaking cadence as "soft, soft, LOUD." Redmayne won the Worst Actor Razzie for this the same year he won the Best Actor Oscar for The Theory of Everything. Also, Mila Kunis's line, "I love dogs. I've always loved dogs." is...amazing.

That's moronic.

Anyone validate this reported $220 million production cost? So...that puts theatrical break-even at like $750 million? Is it a bust at $650 million worldwide theatrical? A success at $700 million?

But like...it couldn't be worse than Zack Snyder's absolute inability to understand Superman. Sure...I get an Elseworlds Superman take inspired by Injustice - but instead he gave us a canonical DCEU Superman that was depressed, sullen and vengeful - absolutely antithetical to the 80+ year ethos of Superman as a character - an alien who took his adopted planet as it was and believed that mankind is inherently good, and constantly strove to appeal to the better angels of our nature, with an almost Ted Lasso-like optimism in the face of evil and adversity. Instead, we got constipated McMustache face...

I think I'd be more onboard with a female Doctor Doom than a female Thing.

Yeah - but the Warlock speculation's been interesting to watch. The Guardians vol. 2 cocoon cameo and name-check aside, both Warlock and Moon Knight keys have been on a speculative tear for like 7 years each, mostly because of the lack of confirmed media. At a certain point, folks realized they were basically the two biggest Marvel Bronze heroes left that *hadn't* had definitive MCU appearances, so the books just kept increasing because they had to appear sometime, right? (see the last 2-3 years with Silver Surfer as well.) I haven't tracked Werewolf 32's value since Moon Knight Season 1 has now come and gone, but I imagine it's fallen a bit from its peak. Infinity Gauntlet and its related books were fundamental to my childhood comic collecting, and Warlock 1-15 was probably the first Bronze title I completed in high school - I *loved* those books - and regret selling my CGC 9.6 copy of Marvel Premiere 1. So...after all that (and his notable omission from Infinity War), we finally get Warlock in Guardians 3 and - per the Mashable reviewer - he's played for *laughs*?

Also - from the early reports about Adam Warlock, I have zero FOMO about selling my minty Marvel Premiere / Warlock set 8 years ago. Feel like a lot of Warlock speculators are going to be sorely disappointed.

I thought it was well-written and well-reasoned, even though it's highly negative of the film.

https://mashable.com/article/guardian-of-the-galaxy-volume-3-review

Honestly, the casting of Reed Richards is the least of my concerns re. an FF movie. And...It's not like Ioan Gruffudd or Miles Teller were bad (although Teller was arguably too young). The role calls for portraying intelligence and gravitas - that's it. The challenge with an FF film is nearly every other aspect of the team is goofy. I was excited for the 2015 film because the trailer promised its leaning into the body horror aspects in a serious manner - only for the film to entirely ditch that tone in ~15 minutes. The issue, 100%, was the writing - not the cast.

Yup! Nowhere to go but up.

I *appreciate* that Zack Snyder will have zero to do with DC films going forward because his films were garbage - and (Wonder Woman aside) set back the DCEU a solid 8 years.