Gatsby77

This. One example that's been jangling around in my head is the series of "first Silver Age" Batman villain appearances. Why should a modern collector care about Lois Lane 70 when that book itself is more than 50 years old and the character's been retconned serveral more times since? Even for my generation, Catwoman mini # 1 (or even Batman: Year One) had more impact on portraying a current/modern Catwoman than did Lois Lane 70. See also Batman 155, Batman 171, etc. My conception of the modern Riddler was formed by reading Batman 452-454 off-the-stands. Why does it matter? It's the first time we see a *truly* psychotic Riddler - one that puts Batman in the position of delivering a back-alley tracheotomy to a baby. Those "first Silver Age" appearances seemed to matter when the books were 25 years old. Now that they're 50 years old? Zero relevance - and, with a few exceptions (like Deadshot) the Silver Age versions have far more in common with the Golden Age versions than with today's.

This. And thanks for pointing out that video games have been hurting movie ticket sales nearly as much as streaming has. The blockbuster releases -- as you pointed out in your example -- dwarf Hollywood releases.

This. I really don't see any PC, feminist or anti-white agenda with this film. Rather, I think folks just weren't interested in a sixth (!) Terminator film. Also, it cannot be worse that Genisys, which

This -- and Andy Serkis as Alfred -- are the first casting announcements I'm actually excited about. Farrelll has matured over the last 15 years and evolved from a one-time to leading man to essentially an A+ character actor with range who improves everything he's in. I'm also *convinced* that WB offered Jonah Hill the Penguin initially -- but he held out -- unsuccessfully -- for the Riddler instead. Fits with the timing -- that Dano is announced as the Riddler within 48 hours of reports that Hill's out of negotiations.

Well - it’s hard to spin the fact this movie made less its opening weekend than T2 did in its opening weekend nearly 30 years ago. Given the choice of The Joker, this film, Zombieland 2 or Motherless Brooklyn this weekend, I saw Zombieland 2 & I don’t regret it. i also think Ruben Fleisher made the right choice to direct Zombieland 2 rather over Venom 2 - and that other film won’t be out for another year or so.

Interesting. I'm surprised by the weak box office. Then again, the last Terminator film I went to see in the theater was T3, and it was basically mediocre, but redeemed by the last 3 minutes.

Well deserved!

Good. The only way this will work is if they go Battlestar Galactica-style. I have no idea what the budget was on that show, but watching it on a (very) big screen TV 15+ years ago was the most "cinematic" experience I've had on the small screen prior to Game of Thrones.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but y'all are crazy if you think The Last Jedi was worse than The Phantom Menace or (especially) Attack of the Clones.

? What movies have you been watching? This trilogy's focus is on Rey, Kylo, Poe and Finn. Luke/Leia/Han/Chewie are "basically just along for the ride" -- in it effectively for extended cameos.

This. Even if history ends up seeing Rian Johnson as the fall guy, he did what was required -- moved Star Wars beyond the Luke/Leia/Vader trope and focused on a new generation of heroes as necessary to move the universe forward. And - unlike JJ - did it without simply rehashing the first film. Surprised (I believe) no one's mentioned a key part from the trailer - in the shot of the Millennium Falcon leading the armada of ships we can clearly see The Ghost!

Wow - horrible news if true. I've seen Alien twice on the big screen in the last 20 years and The Princess Bride twice in the last three, as it's a staple among the outdoor summer movie screenings throughout DC.

Except... *I've* never said a superhero film should fit the Marvel template. I'm for quality. Full stop. - Even if it has a limited audience. Example - I thought Watchmen (the movie) was superb. And had an extraordinarily limited audience *because* it was made for fans, not the general audience. (And that they did away with the godawful squid.) And sure, DC has certainly found its way - with Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam, certainly. But that still doesn't justify their atrocious missteps in going from The Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises to the wretched abominations that were BvS, Justice League and Suicide Squad. Especially because the solo Flash movie seems to be collateral damage of those former two. Or maybe Warner Bros. is still gun-shy a full decade after Green Lantern. Here's hoping Joker's success paves the way for The Flash. The fact remains - we went from planned films including "Justice League Pt. 2," "Cyborg" and "Flash" to "just kidding scratch all that -- here's Robert Pattinson and his not-so-amazing friends."

Or...maybe we love comic books and want to see our childhood favorites done justice. Not everything needs to follow the (usual) Marvel template. Nor should it. But what I hate more than anything else is the blatant missed opportunities showcased by projects. Superhero films can be done right (and well) on a shoestring. Example? Dredd. It lost the studio tens of millions but was faithful to the character and a fun 95 minutes. But this looks like a B-movie knock-off of Upgrade, which, despite itself being a B movie and about as small a film as one could get (reported $3 million production cost), was *exceedingly* well-written and well-done. *Highly* recommended for anyone who liked (or even didn't like) but watched / plans to watch Venom or Bloodshot.

The series also features really early Portacio art (issues 1 & 10).

I was curious, so I checked. The month of release, the original Bloodshot # 1 ranked # 30 on Diamond's top 100 comics chart. Still was an instant (48 hour sell-out) at my LCS, even with a "limit 1 per customer" restriction, and was selling for $8 within a week; $12 within a month. Hard to call it "best-selling" by any stretch, even though that issue, with the amazing BWS cover, was probably the high-water mark for the character.

That too. i doubt any issue came close to the 600,000 copy print run of Bloodshot # 1 back in 1992, and even then we know Superman 75 outsold it by a factor of 5-6x that month. Have any of the VEI issues broken even 40,000?

Maybe so, but they're still a decent gauge of first impressions among the general public. And it's telling that most of the trailer uploads on YouTube now have restricted comments. I don't know what this cost to make, but I'd say a better comp than Robocop is probably XXX 3. Budget: $85 million Release: 3,600 screens domestic Domestic: $45 million Worldwide total: $347 million Something like that would be enough in and of itself, but not enough to launch a franchise, let alone the type of numbers needed to both launch Valiant into the mainstream. Maybe Paramount will do something better w/ Harbinger.

This. I've been with Bloodshot since the beginning (well, Eternal Warrior 4/Rai 0 through the first few issues of the 2012 series). And the trailer killed my enthusiasm for this. The YouTube comments so far on the main trailer are really telling. Two major categories are: 1) Folks noting how the trailer showed so much that it's a "wait 'til Redbox;" (specifically the "kill list" twist; and 2) Noting how derivative it looks of recent films, including: Robocop remake (2014) Upgrade (2018) Hobbs & Shaw (2019) (specifically, Idris Elba's character -- not just the Fast/Furious Diesel tie) Not good. If I'd speculated on additional copies of Rai 0, I'd be putting them on the 'bay tonight.

Umm... Huh.

Hard to believe these books are all more than 25 years old!

Dano's okay, but I'm *far* less excited to see him as Riddler than I would have been to see Jonah Hill in the role. Other than Matt Reeves himself, this seems really b-list. To go from Bale / Caine / Hardy / Hathaway / Oldman to Pattinson / Wright / Kravitz / Dano (so far) It's just...uninspiring.

Nah...Mackie's just sore from that time B-Rabbit publically humiliated him back at the shelter. Old wounds heal slowly, man...

The fact that Scorsese had to go to Netflix to do this helps "shine a light" (heh) on why he so dislikes superhero movies. Guarantee you he couldn't get a major theatrical studio to finance this at $150+ million, despite several years of trying. The state of Hollywood today is that, unless you're Christopher Nolan, there's no place for adult dramas that cost $60+ million, let alone $100+ million dollars. Even Dunkirk, at ~$100 million, cost more than 30% less than The Irishman. The fact that Edward Norton was able to secure financing for a theatrical release of Motherless Brooklyn (which is now tracking for an opening weekend of ~$6 million) is amazing. And that's just sad. We need more films like The Irishman, Motherless Brooklyn, Michael Clayton, even The Post (which I disliked and is minor Spielberg at best) that play in theaters and that audiences continue to see.

They could just...re-cast him.