Axelrod

Since you didn't have anything for #30 yet, I just spent a little bit of time scanning series to see. Superman #30 - first appearance of Mr. Mxyzptlk - is the best I have come up with so far.

I would be surprised if they did a WWIII with Gal Gadot, but I guess it's still possible. Despite the fiasco that was WWII, there's probably still enough residual goodwill from the first film that - if they had a good, stand alone, story - they might consider making it. Wonder Woman doesn't appear to even be in the "first wave" of new DC projects anyway, so, they could do a Gal Gadot stand alone thing, and then, in a couple years, introduce the "new" Wonder Woman of their new continuity. Again, don't think it especially likely, but remotely possible.

It's got to be better than the though. I got that one last round. 15 points

You are not! Plus, I was rushing, but in the lighting I had, they looked pretty good to me.

Oh no. Worst round ever.

Well, I’m on vacation and had like 10 minutes on a computer with bad lighting to make my guesses. this is my excuse.

Legit more looking forward to this than probably any other movie until Dune II. Something to be said for lowered expectations.

I am, perhaps, not being fair to Gunn in the sense that, he has made it clear early on that he wants his Superman movie to take place in "a world where Superheros already exist." i.e. Superman isn't the only Superhero around. And in such a world - especially one where Superman is works undercover as a newspaper reporter - other Superheros are going to get mentioned. So, like, that's fine and all. I'm mainly concerned about what looks to be too much focus on "universe building" as opposed to just telling a good Superman story. Like focusing on the fries and not the steak.

There's still Aquaman!

Not unlike athletes in that regard. The counter is, well, who should be getting the money? The corporations/owners? I think most people would say not. The real answer is, yes, they are seriously overpaid and we, the plebs, pay for it in every single thing we buy. Not even just the price of tickets. What would be really great is if some of these overpaid people weren't so overpaid and everyone's hamburger cost $.05 less. But that can't happen because free market and socialism or something. I don't know enough about the Writer's strike to weigh in on whether their demands are actually unreasonable or not.

Oh no no no no no.... Sorry, not here to argue. Just have to disagree with completely incorrect take and run away. On topic: this movie was very medium-minus. I liked the opening. I actually thought the de-aging effect on Harrison Ford was some of the best I've seen. Quickly started going downhill with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's completely awful and amoral character. Pretty good chase scenes. Nazi's popping up everywhere got a bit eyerolling. Villain's master plan dumb. Ending twist was at least somewhat interesting. But then the final resolution was back to dumb. And I was particularly annoyed with: So, not a complete disaster, but far from a triumphant return.

Looks like they didn't learn the lesson. I'm sure these aren't going to be main characters, and might only appear very briefly, akin to how Aquaman/Cyborg/Flash "appeared" in Batman vs. Superman. But that kind of character "seeding" (look, it's an expanded universe!) just isn't effective. We, the audience, are over it. They really need to focus on the story at hand, and not try to amaze us with the whole expanded universe thing they are trying to create right out of the gate. Like, if they think this announcement is supposed to get people excited about their movie, it suggests they still have no clue what an audience actually wants. Which is sad, because I think Gunn usually does know what an audience wants, at least most of the time. But he's certainly not perfect. Maybe he can still pull it off. I do hope so.

Counterpoint: Top Gun: Maverick/Spider-Man: No Way Home No one really knows when the nostalgia money train is going to roll into town. But they're going to keep trying.

I don't know the guy actor, but when I saw the list of the "top 3' finalists I kind of pegged him as the most "Superman looking" of the bunch. Brosnahan is great. I was worried that someone, somewhere, might have a freak out that she's older than the man (in her 30's *gasp*) and go young, young, young! (I mean, Cavil was "too old" at 40, and movies always want their ladies to be younger than their men). But I think genuine talent won out in that discussion. I also agree that going straight to Luthor as the main villain in this movie is a disappointment. They should have taken a cue from Nolan's Batman films where he didn't use the Joker in the first one and picked two previously unused villains (Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul) for the initial outing, Then, when that worked, bam, hit them with the Joker for the sequel and made it one of the best movies ever.

I'm glad this show is getting a second season, but I worry a bit that the next group of stories (at least as they were published) aren't nearly as compelling as the opening bunch. The first season was, I thought, remarkably faithful to the source material, even to the point of adapting the "bonus" stories that didn't really fit the primary narrative. But I don't quite see how they do that for season two without taking some much larger liberties, and probably skipping a bunch of the "stand-alone" stories. Maybe not. I guess we'll see.

I mean, you do realize that the reason for this movie's failure is less about the quality of the film itself than it is about the lead actor's troubles/scandals and the lame duckness of the current DC universe, yes? It's not a "bomb" because it's bad and a "waste" of the character.

To be fair to Superman Returns, my understanding is that a large part of that inflated budget number came from expenses having nothing to do with the movie itself (like a lot was "development" for other projects that ultimately failed, like the Nic Cage Superman where they paid him something like $20 million and then abandoned the project). I think that's right.

Mildly curious, as someone who really knows nothing about the Kraven character or his origins (I was not a Spider-man reader in my youth) how canonically accurate this trailer was. I take it from reading these reactions it was...not. Kind of makes one wonder why they wanted to adapt the character at all if they're just going to do something completely different. I mean, I know the answer to that, but still. Is making a film true to the character impossible, so to get a movie out of him they have to just make something up?

Very different experience here. Overall, I thought it was pretty good, but I particularly enjoyed the first part and was quite disappointed with the ending. I feel like I can see why this movie isn't going over as well as it might have. The beginning was just fun. I mean: Ezra Miller, whatever else you say about them, makes a pretty good flash. Keaton was great. Sasha Calle was very good. There were some genuine heartfelt moments. But then (forgive my small rant): And then, that final scene: Though I'm ranting a bit, like I said, I mostly enjoyed it. My overall feeling is positive. The really enjoyable beginning/middle outweigh the disappointing ending. But I'm not at all surprised it's not getting universal praise. And it's not even close to the "best superhero movie ever."

Might have to downward adjust my earlier prediction for this. Seems like Ezra/controversy is still getting most of the press, and the early hype of "best super-hero film ever" seems overblown. I still think it can do 500WW, but that's definitely not the floor. And getting as high as 700WW looks to be a struggle. So, call it 400-600 range with a guess at something closer to 500 in the end.

Isn't that basically what happened in the 90's? Huge crash in the market after years of over-hyped books?