Gatsby77

? Kathleen Kennedy was promoted to President of Lucasfilm and brand manager of Star Wars in 2012 -- she is the architect of these movies -- far more responsible for their story and direction than any of the individual directors or writers so far. In fact, she has far more control of the Star Wars films than Kevin Feige did over the MCU films so far. As such, it was on her say-so that a) Josh Trank was fired from the Han Solo movie; and b) the rumored editing and re-shoots of Rogue One happened under Tony Gilroy rather than Gareth Edwards.

Why? She's done a masterful job with the Star Wars franchise so far. 3 movies. 3 wins. Han Solo might falter, given the director musical chairs, but I've got faith in her vision and Ron Howard's ability to execute.

Why are folks so afraid that Disney won't produce R-rated superhero films? If their approach to the MCU so far has demonstrated anything, it's that they are very very smart about how they approach superheroes. Also - Disney's produced R-rated film literally for decades, esp. through their Touchstone Pictures and Buena Vista imprints. A short list includes: Pretty Woman Crimson Tide Con Air The Rock Dead Poets Society Starship Troopers All Rated R, all Disney.

Respectfully disagree. I think spoiler tags should last at least through the weekend. I'm a _huge_ Star Wars fan, but for various reasons won't get to see it tonight or tomorrow. To presume that the die-hard fans on a comic book message boards all got to see it Thursday or Friday is ridiculous.

Great analysis! But I disagree on two salient points that you may not have considered: 1) Domestic take is more important than international take, because studios earn a greater percentage of the dollar than they do overseas. So in terms of profitability, it's far better to do 60% of your business domestically than 60% of your business overseas. 2) My take on Justice League's performance is that it's a lagging indicator of the general public's dissatisfaction with Zack Snyder's take. Folks showed up for BvS. -- And many were turned off. Folks gave it another shot with Suicide Squad -- And many were still turned off, despite that movie's relative financial success. So they simply decided to sit out Justice League when the marketing made it look like more of the same. After all, "Fool me once..." But we see this a lot with franchises. Perfect example is The Matrix. The Matrix was awesome, blew people away. Made $171 million domestic / $463 million globally. Cool. On the strength of The Matrix, many more people went to Matrix Reloaded. It made $281 million domestic / $742 million globally. The problem? Matrix Reloaded sucked. To anyone who saw both movies, it was no surprise when Matrix Revolutions fell flat -- performing the worst of the trilogy -- $139 million domestic / $427 million globally. Matrix 2 succeeded because audiences loved The Matrix. But Matrix 3 failed because audiences hated Matrix 2. Yet to an outsider, it _looks_ like Matrix 2 was the best movie of the bunch. I see the same dynamic at play with Justice League, which means Wonder Woman was an outlier. And to me, it was -- because it had a totally different look and feel than the three Snyder films, and a decent plot that could almost have stood alone as a spy thriller even if you omitted the Wonder Woman elements (Winter Soldier did this as well -- produced a good movie despite also being a superhero film).

This also means that Disney now virtually owns science fiction. Star Wars Avatar Aliens Predator Planet of the Apes Independence Day The Martian

Sigh... Good morning! 1) You quoted Mendelson at Forbes only to then try to discredit him by pointing to a then three-week old Variety piece to try to validate you're uber-minority view. Which is particularly amusing because every subsequent Variety piece cites the higher budget number. 2) You are assuming (as in, guessing) that the single WSJ article is the ultimate source for all the subsequent quotes and coverage citing ~$300 million. We don't actually know that to be true. I, for one, trust the reporters at Forbes, Variety and Deadline to have their own reliable sources. 3) You've essentially staked your claim that the _only_ figure you'll accept is one posted by Box Office Mojo, despite far more reputable financial trades and financially-minded Hollywood trades already having weighed in. Add to this your own admission that Box Office Mojo first mis-reported Guardians of the Galaxy's budget of $170 million, later revising it to $200 million. (Which, by the way, is considered the appropriate budget because the very Forbes article you cite giving it the $230 million budget notes the final budget for that film was $232.3 million minus $36.4 million in UK tax rebates. Hence, ~$200 million) 4) I wasn't joking about your going in to correct Wikipedia. If you're going to continue to publish false information here -- and holding this particular film's budget to a vastly different standard than any other in either of your DC or Marvel charts -- you should absolutely correct the record for the public at large.

I don't understand why you're continuing to lean on that single Variety piece from Nov. 16, when virtually every other source _since then_ notes "$300 million" or "near $300 million." Mendelson at Forbes has revised his estimate upwards. And -- more importantly, so has Variety: See here (Nov. 19), here (Nov. 20) here (Dec. 1 -- "believed to be as much as $300 million"), and Dec. 7 (“reported to be as high as $300 million”) Add in the Wall Street Journal, IMDB, Wikipedia, Deadline, Forbes, Hollywood Reporter, etc. Seems pretty simple.

While it's technically possible that Warner Bros. could bring anyone in as Batman, one current theory is that Ben Affleck would play Batman in Flashpoint's framing sequence, but potentially be replaced (permanently) in the Flashpoint re-set by Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who placed Thomas Wayne in BvS. Since in the Flashpoint storyline it's Thomas Wayne who becomes Batman.

Justice League is primed to pass Logan's take internationally this week to become the year's 5th-highest grossing superhero film!

Somebody please buy these so I can slide on up into the # 2 registry slot!

Possibly - I haven't seen Ragnarok, but what I've heard, Thor in the movie is not the Thor from the comics. I'm okay with changes that improve the character -- a perfect example is Nick Fury. I'm not talking about the race change, but that the Nick Fury I grew up reading was still an in-the-field-007-style operative, not primarily an administrator as he is in the movies. I'm okay with the character change because it fits the story. The Hulk change in The Avengers ("I'm always angry") was well-done as well. I might even be okay with a light-hearted Thor, as I thought his first movie was among the weakest of all the Marvel films, and Thor 2 was even worse -- only movie I've seen in the theater in 13 years where I fell asleep. But changing The Flash and Green Lantern into jokesters doesn't work for me. Maybe we'll see the screen portrayal of the Flash evolve in later films, but for me I'd have a hard time seeing that Barry Allen as the world weary veteran who willingly sacrifices himself to destroy the Anti-Monitor's cannon.

Exactly. And I don't buy that WB changed direction mid-stream and mandated a 2 hour movie at the 11th hour. I don't doubt that they required it, but can't imagine they'd be so stupid as to not set that guideline beforehand. Granted, this could be a special case where production on Justice League might have begun with the understanding that it was Part I of II, so there's more room to play in that 2 hours. So cutting it to one movie creates narrative problems. Point is, it is eminently possible to produce a good superhero movie in two hours. Example: X-Men -- more characters, shorter than Justice League, under 1:45. Guardians of the Galaxy - just two minutes over two hours at 2:02.

? Quotes don't work like that. You literally copied my already-edited quote to imply that I hadn't read -- let alone already highlighted myself -- the end of the article. It's cool, just amusing to me.

This goes to a lot of it for me -- that Justice League just got the characters wrong. Aquaman's not a frat boy -- he's a god. Wonder Woman -- who was portrayed so perfectly in her solo movie -- is here reduced to a de-powered supporting player who is needlessly (and inappropriately) sexualized. Batman would never cede leadership of the team the way he does. Worst of all -- yes, Flash was entertaining. But he wasn't Barry Allen. Rather, he was a mashup of Wally West or even Impulse (Bart Allen). It's one thing to present him as an inexperienced goofball, but when you already have inexperienced goofballs in the universe, why not simply change his name to one of them? Not quite as egregious as what they did to Hal Jordan in the Green Lantern movie (as I recall, Guy was the smart foil to Hal's serious take), but close. With both characters (Flash & Green Lantern) they sacrificed core characterization for short-term entertainment.

? Umm...I did. In fact, I quoted the end of the article -- nearly the same quote you posted above.

Damn. While not unexpected, portions of that article are brutal: "Joss Whedon, who had been brought on the punch up the dialogue, took over directing, but studio brass recognized that so much footage had been shot already that there were limits to what could be done to improve the picture. Studio executives realized early on that Snyder’s decision to have Steppenwolf, a god-like, all-CGI creation, as the principal antagonist was faulty. In fact, many reviews were particularly harsh about Steppenwolf, criticizing the character for being one-note and the product of unconvincing visual effects." "Time Warner is said to be frustrated that Warner Bros. leaders continue to bring the director back, especially after “Batman v Superman” was excoriated by critics even though it made money. They are also upset that each new DC film seems to be making less money than its predecessor. Only “Wonder Woman,” with its optimistic heroine, managed to be both a critical and commercial success." That said, this is the first official-ish confirmation I've seen that Flashpoint is still in the cards: "A solo “Aquaman” is due out in 2018 and Warners is still developing a standalone Flash adventure. Going forward, Warner Bros. is planning a sequel to “Wonder Woman” that’s believed to be set in the Cold War, and New Line has greenlit a “Shazam” feature."

Given that it was a quote from Mendelson that was used as the basis for the erroneous "$275 million" quote in the first place, he has a point.

You're not wrong, but the fact remains that Warner Bros. opted to scrap MoS 2 in favor of BvS specifically because of its lackluster box office take. And, to quote Mr. Mendelson: "If you recall, Warner Bros. began on this path, with Man of Steel 2 becoming Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, after Man of Steel "only" made $668 million worldwide. And now Justice League will indeed struggle to match that global total while not coming anywhere close to the first Superman movie's $291m domestic cume." "...And yeah, as shocking as it is in hindsight, we have a situation where the studio threw Batman into the Man of Steel sequel and turned it into a backdoor Justice League pilot only to now have a Justice League that will probably make less than Man of Steel. The only thing more ironic than Wonder Woman outgrossing Justice League would be Man of Steel outgrossing Justice League, since that film's "meh" reception is what got this crazy ball rolling in the first place. Well, that and the skewed notion of the DC Films brand being saved, not by Batman and Superman, but by Wonder Woman and Aquaman."

I liked it. Phenomenal acting by Gyllenhall.

In on of his pieces last week Forbes' Scott Mendelson noted the irony that the whole DC connected universe came directly out of Man of Steel's "disappointing" box office performance of $291 million domestic / $668 million worldwide. (Particularly coming just a year after The Dark Knight Rises' $448 million domestic / $1.08 billion worldwide.) So Man of Steel 2 was scrapped in favor of BvS as DC decided to go all-in on Batman and lay the groundwork for a DCEU Justice League. Now there's a chance that Justice League may not even hit Man of Steel's $668 million worldwide. Further, even if it hits $250 million domestic / $700 million worldwide, it will be far less (as in, negatively) profitable for Warner Bros than Man of Steel. Remember, the domestic/international split matters too -- $300 million domestic / $700 million total is far better than $225 domestic / $750 million total.

True. Also - X-Men (2000) had more characters than Justice League, had the same sort of "gathering the team" origin ethos (without the benefit of earlier films), and clocked in at just 1:44 -- more than 15 minutes shorter than Justice League. So it's not like it can't be done.

Agreed. I couldn't care less about Director's Cuts. The only ones I remember seeing and/or thinking were superior to the theatrical version were Blade Runner (I forget which version) and Aliens (the TV version with the 18 extra minutes or so). I've never seen (nor sought out) the Donner cut of Superman II, the Daredevil movie, BvS, etc. These are fanboy curiosities -- cute little addenda to the *true* versions that most folks saw the first time in the theater. Further, the few times I saw actual director's cuts in theatrical re-releases, I found them to be inferior to the original versions (looking at you: Star Wars Original Trilogy and Donnie Darko). Donnie Darko was particularly egregious, as it over-explained everything as if the audience wasn't smart enough to get it the first time. (Which we were.)

There's another, subtler aspect to this too. Beyond whether enough of a different finished cut exists, and how it would look to feature a now-recast Iris West. If it becomes clear at a certain point that Justice League will ultimately lose money (particularly in this fiscal year), Warner Bros. may want to maximize that on-paper loss for tax purposes. The tax advantages of writing off the project as a major loss may well outweigh the projected profits from polishing and releasing an alternate version.

Agreed. We're dealing with lagging indicators. I think the audience for Justice League stayed away because they'd felt burned by BvS and Suicide Squad. And I feel the same way about the Netflix Marvel series -- Iron Fist had (by far) the highest first weekend viewership of any of the Marvel shows to that point, because audiences trusted the brand -- after Daredevil 1 & 2, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage. And yet, Iron Fist sucked donkey balls, and Defenders was merely mediocre. My fear then is that audiences will largely pass on The Punisher (which was arguably the strongest Marvel Netflix show this side of Daredevil) based on having been burned by Iron Fist & The Defenders.