THE FLASH starring Ezra Miller 2022 10 10

[Artboy99]

On 6/19/2023 at 6:03 AM, Ken Aldred said:

A now very obscure Back to the Future reference.

Yes I get the reference, I just thought it was a lame scene, and lame scenes tend to ruin movies for me.

They spend 265+ million dollars on the movie and some dillweed thinks this is extremely important to include. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 6/22/2023 at 2:36 PM, Artboy99 said:

Yes I get the reference, I just thought it was a lame scene, and lame scenes tend to ruin movies for me.

They spend 265+ million dollars on the movie and some dillweed thinks this is extremely important to include. 

The least they could've done was come up with a reason for the joke, like, "he lost a bet with me and has to show the tattoo every time BTTF comes up". The Iron Man 3 tattoo joke was self-referential and needed no explanation.

[eastriver400]

On 6/22/2023 at 2:05 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Looking at box office returns over the past 5 years, you'll have to convince me otherwise.

 

Because everything depends on Superman Legacy being a mega hit at the box office.   If it isn't, I can't see much more $ being pumped into the Universe.

[Bosco685]

On 6/22/2023 at 3:24 PM, eastriver400 said:

 

Because everything depends on Superman Legacy being a mega hit at the box office.   If it isn't, I can't see much more $ being pumped into the Universe.

Agreed! DC Studios needs Superman: Legacy to be a hit or they are coming out of the gate swinging at thin air.

For the longest time, the Superman brand was a diminishing returns brand investment. Anyone knocking Man of Steel as not landing at a much higher box office has no idea what they are talking about when you look at the historic pattern before this. Even when WB threw a bunch of money at Superman Returns, it got the smallest bump for such a massive investment.

So now you have years of people detracting from DC properties as "not doing it like the MCU" or the "non-smiley Superman" narrative that they convinced themselves nothing of late met their unrealistic expectations. Along comes Gunn trying to right-side all that angst and forced assumptions. And after the last few missteps leading to failures at the box office, he has no room to grow.

[Axelrod]

On 6/22/2023 at 3:46 PM, Bosco685 said:

Even when WB threw a bunch of money at Superman Returns, it got the smallest bump for such a massive investment.

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.  

[Bosco685]

On 6/22/2023 at 4:36 PM, Axelrod said:

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.  

It's not.

NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE: A Flying Leap: An Interview With Bryan Singer (2006)

Quote

BRYAN SINGER: My production budget on "Superman Returns" was $204 million. The approved budget was $184.5 million. We had projected overages for visual effects, and there was a sequence that I wanted that was going to cost an extra $2.3 million. So the hard, honest number is $204 million. It's aggravating, because all of my movies have been fiscally responsible. If anything, I go out of my way to figure out how to operate with financial constraints because I think good ideas come out of that. I heard a story about the making of "Rocky"--that they couldn't afford extras for the ice-skating rink, so they changed the -script so that on Rocky and Adrian's first date, Rocky paid the guy $10 to let them use the rink for 10 minutes. And that's one of the most magical dates in film history. Now, that being said, I still have to make Superman fly.

THE DAILY BEAST: Studios are hunting the next big property (2007)

Quote

The future of the studio's recent comic book adaptation, 2006's "Superman Returns," is somewhat more dubious. That film cost $209 million (even after various tax rebates) and marketing costs sent expenses upward of $300 million, but director Bryan Singer's Man of Steel picture made only $201 million domestically. While insiders say the movie was profitable, the studio mandated major cost cuts before proceeding with a sequel.

 

"If we do a sequel to 'Superman,' we want it to be less expensive," Horn acknowledges. "I have to see a screenplay before I say yes to anything. But the studio would be willing to spend as much as $175 million if the screenplay and other factors warranted it."

His VFX overage is what drove the film up. To say this was $160M when the actual director states in an interview he started at $204M production budget would be some questionable research.

[Bosco685]

Unfortunately, those overages got out of control.

[The humble Watcher lurking]

I haven't seen this yet, but plan to as I am  a big Michael Keaton fan.

I just hope the CGI is good. That's been my biggest complaint with a lot of these modern super hero movies like Antman 3 and Shazam 2. Give me the 1994 Crow or Punisher movies from 2004 and 2008. Those older movies looked real and not fake. 

[Bosco685]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:09 PM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

I haven't seen this yet, but plan to as I am  a big Michael Keaton fan.

I just hope the CGI is good. That's been my biggest complaint with a lot of these modern super hero movies like Antman 3 and Shazam 2. Give me the 1994 Crow or Punisher movies from 2004 and 2008. Those older movies looked real and not fake. 

My the promotion discount I received I am definitely still going to see this movie. I'll make my own decisions on if a movie works for me or not.

[The humble Watcher lurking]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:10 PM, Bosco685 said:

My the promotion discount I received I am definitely still going to see this movie. I'll make my own decisions on if a movie works for me or not.

I will wait for your review before I go see it. Usually we have similar tastes. 

[Bosco685]

The rumor that Superman Returns had a higher budget due to billing from other films came from a contributor to Den Of Geeks. He was trying to explain what he assumed took place in defending the film, and what he thought may have occurred leading to the $270M estimated budget.

Superman Returns: What Went Wrong? (2019)

Quote

But the deck was stacked against Superman Returns from the outset. When you consider that the budget for the movie was reportedly $270 million, something doesn’t add up.

 

Superman Returns was likely “billed” for pre-production work done on the many iterations of the development hell cautionary tale, Superman Lives, and the J.J. Abrams penned Superman: Flyby. My theory (and it’s one that I’m certain will never be confirmed) has long been that Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns pitch was so appealing to Warner Bros. at the time precisely because it meant that it could be brought in on a relatively modest budget (by superhero movie standards), and the accountants could be kept happy. Even the movie’s best action sequence, the universally acclaimed space plane rescue, was fairly similar to an Air Force One rescue in Abrams’ Superman draft, right down to a landing in a baseball stadium. I’ve long suspected that some of the visual work had been bought and paid for by that earlier version of the project.

People walked away from the article assuming this was all confirmed details. Not assumptions.

[Bosco685]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:14 PM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

I will wait for your review before I go see it. Usually we have similar tastes. 

I had to knock out some projects the past few days. So maybe I can even sneak out early tomorrow and get a screening in.

[valiantman]

Saw it today. There were definitely parts where I was thinking, "this is great!" and then there were parts where I was thinking... "let's move it along here".

So, anyone saying it's totally bad is wrong, and anyone saying it's great all the way through is also wrong.

In other words, people who rate things 1 or 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 are rarely worth any beeves.

[Bosco685]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:27 PM, valiantman said:

Saw it today. There were definitely parts where I was thinking, "this is great!" and then there were parts where I was thinking... "let's move it along here".

So, anyone saying it's totally bad is wrong, and anyone saying it's great all the way through is also wrong.

In other words, people who rate things 1 or 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 are rarely worth any beeves.

Whomever it was at WB Studios that tried to push a marketing campaign "GREATEST COMIC BOOK MOVIE EVER" only did a disservice to moviegoers, as now you set the bar extremely high what to expect.

Agreed on tossing out 1's and 10's, as they are usually biased fluff outliers either way.

[DiamondCityComics]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:09 PM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

I haven't seen this yet, but plan to as I am  a big Michael Keaton fan.

I just hope the CGI is good. That's been my biggest complaint with a lot of these modern super hero movies like Antman 3 and Shazam 2. Give me the 1994 Crow or Punisher movies from 2004 and 2008. Those older movies looked real and not 

Just an opinion,  but you shouldn't go then.  The CGI is all you hear about.

[The humble Watcher lurking]

On 6/22/2023 at 6:32 PM, DiamondCityComics said:

Just an opinion,  but you shouldn't go then.  The CGI is all you hear about.

I am a big video game fan. Last few super hero movies were snooze fests for me like Shazam 2 and Antman 3. I rather play the games than watch the movies.  Hoping Flash will break the cycle of bad CGI. Marvel has stunk lately with CGI like She Hulk. Looks so fake.

Like I said give me 1994 The Crow.

At least that told a good story and didn't rely on cheap CGI. 

Fandom has gotten wise as a lot of these movies have bombed recently.

Hopefully , The Flash breaks the mold. I look forward to seeing Michael Keaton.

Edited June 22, 2023 by The humble Watcher lurking

[media_junkie]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:58 PM, Bosco685 said:

Whomever it was at WB Studios that tried to push a marketing campaign "GREATEST COMIC BOOK MOVIE EVER" only did a disservice to moviegoers, as now you set the bar extremely high what to expect.

As I noted earlier, I think it was a huge mistake for Gunn to come out and say "This was the greatest Superhero movie ever".  As the head of DC Studios how does anyone (movie viewing public) take him or his upcoming movies seriously at this point?  I don't.  I'm sure his new WB bosses said to him "you gotta say this to try and rescue this turkey", but damn, he should have refused, said something like "I really enjoyed the movie".  To me he seems like a clown now.

[Straw-Man]

going with the grandsons saturday!   will post a li'l review...

[Ken Aldred]

On 6/22/2023 at 7:36 PM, Artboy99 said:

Yes I get the reference, I just thought it was a lame scene, and lame scenes tend to ruin movies for me.

They spend 265+ million dollars on the movie and some dillweed thinks this is extremely important to include. 

My comment's more about the small minority of the public watching it that will get a near 40-year-old film reference or care about it in the slightest, let alone find it humorous.  Lame is a good description.

[ganni]

Not remember seeing them in the movie...