Justice League - restarting the thread 1 1

[Lucky Baru]

So, do the figures tell you that the general public thought that the movie stunk, that the general public is tired of comic book movies, a combination of the two, or something else?

[Wall-Crawler]

15 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

There was plenty to like in this movie. So I'm not calling this a loss. But that's the bummer is there was plenty to like, such as the Superman vs JL fight scene or funny scenes such Aquaman sitting on Wonder Woman's lasso. And loads of people enjoyed the Ezra Miller character and his lines, versus your experience.

But it is all the missed opportunity to make this great by meddling late in the process that detracts from the movie. That's why the CGI looked so unfinished.

Yes there were enjoyable parts (hence my  6 out of 10), and I am not "trolling" here but there was plenty to dislike too.  If we give reviews based on "what could have been", all movies would be awesome.  The "finished product", what we all saw, was a big let down.

As I said earlier, hopefully WB wakes up, learns from this and they can figure out a way to "right the ship".  

I did see flashes (no pun intended) of what could have been. The moment between Supes and Flash. The first end credit scene.  That scene showed "heart" and something I think that as a whole, JL was missing.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Wall-Crawler

[Gatsby77]

27 minutes ago, Lucky Baru said:

So, do the figures tell you that the general public thought that the movie stunk, that the general public is tired of comic book movies, a combination of the two, or something else?

I don't think it's that the general public is tired of comic book movies.

Look at the reception to Homecoming, Wonder Woman, Logan, and Thor:Ragnarok this year alone.

I don't even think Justice League's poor reception is because folks thought it stunk -- because most folks didn't see it and thus aren't able to make that judgement.

Rather, I think Justice League's poor performance is a lagging indicator that the general public didn't like BvS or Suicide Squad -- so they simply stayed home rather than see Justice League (which is arguably better than Suicide Squad).

Likewise, if folks _truly_ don't like The Last Jedi, that won't show up in its box office results -- because they will have had to seen it to make that judgment. The public's (potential) distaste for The Last Jedi will show up in the box office for Episode IX if a large swath of people simply stay home.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Gatsby77

[Bosco685]

8 minutes ago, Lucky Baru said:

So, do the figures tell you that the general public thought that the movie stunk, that the general public is tired of comic book movies, a combination of the two, or something else?

Since the financial results are below the assumed billion-dollar (+) this movie should have achieved, someone would assume those that saw it perceived it as 'stinking' (in your words). But even with the studio tampering, movie-goers that saw this film gave it a 'B+' CinemaScore meaning they enjoyed it - but didn't love it.

Those that contribute to scoring sites, meanwhile, gave it a 4.0/5.0 based on RTAS, and 6.9/10.0 via Metacritic.

So no, they didn't consider it as the movie stinking. But it is clear they felt it was flawed and obviously could have been much better. And financially, there is no question this is a black eye for WB.

 

[drotto]

12 minutes ago, Lucky Baru said:

So, do the figures tell you that the general public thought that the movie stunk, that the general public is tired of comic book movies, a combination of the two, or something else?

I think the general public is tired of comic book movies provided they do not bring something new to the equation.  Without getting into great detail, JL had a very standard plot and formula.  Big bad threatens the world the big heroes need to team up plot, big CGI battle scenes, and funny banter. Regardless how this movie got there, it was very similar to what Marvel has already done, it is their basic formula. So part of the issue is it did not feel new, it felt like emulation ( from a general audience perspective, they do not have the comic geek knowledge to spot differences). Then add there was little to no goodwill from BvS, and poor reviews and it was the perfect storm. I would even argue that WB had so little momentum coming into JL (despite WW for some reason), that even if JL was near perfect it may have still underperformed in the eyes of this forum. So many had a bad taste left over from SS and BvS.

 

If studio bring a new twist to the formula the public still seems to want more.  So we have movies like WW, Logan, Deadpool, and the latest Thor that mixed up the formula and despite similar plot issues, felt fresh.  All of these movies exceeded expectations.   All did it by not being just a comic book movie, but by pulling in heavily from other genres. 

 

So the overall lesson is the public does not want just another comic movie.  They are craving for comic movies that are trying to push the genre, and be brave in trying something different.

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

I don't think it's that the general public is tired of comic book movies.

Look at the reception to Homecoming, Wonder Woman, Logan, and Thor:Ragnarok this year alone.

I don't even think Justice League's poor reception is because folks thought it stunk -- because most folks didn't see it and thus aren't able to make that judgement.

Rather, I think Suicide Squad's poor performance is a lagging indicator that the general public didn't like BvS or Suicide Squad -- so they simply stayed home rather than see Justice League (which is arguably better than Suicide Squad).

Likewise, if folks _truly_ don't like The Last Jedi, that won't show up in its box office results -- because they will have had to seen it to make that judgment. The public's (potential) distaste for The Last Jedi will show up in the box office for Episode IX if a large swath of people simply stay home.

Ummm...you mean we are slightly in agreement? Shocking!

[Lucky Baru]

Just now, Bosco685 said:

Since the financial results are below the assumed billion-dollar (+) this movie should have achieved, someone would assume those that saw it perceived it as 'stinking' (in your words). But even with the studio tampering, movie-goers that saw this film gave it a 'B+' CinemaScore meaning they enjoyed it - but didn't love it.

Those that contribute to scoring sites, meanwhile, gave it a 4.0/5.0 based on RTAS, and 6.9/10.0 via Metacritic.

So no, they didn't consider it as the movie stinking. But it is clear they felt it was flawed and obviously could have been much better. And financially, there is no question this is a black eye for WB.

 

I think you got defensive and didn't answer the question I asked.  The other two posters, Gastby77 and drotto provided the information I was seeking.

[Bosco685]

Just now, Lucky Baru said:

I think you got defensive and didn't answer the question I asked.  The other two posters, Gastby77 and drotto provided the information I was seeking.

I got defensive? I think you read into things since I clearly and professionally answered your question with the right details. I just made reference to your 'movie stunk' need. So if anything, take your own language into consideration.

Movie-goers rated it as entertaining. But not loving it.

[drotto]

12 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

I don't think it's that the general public is tired of comic book movies.

Look at the reception to Homecoming, Wonder Woman, Logan, and Thor:Ragnarok this year alone.

I don't even think Justice League's poor reception is because folks thought it stunk -- because most folks didn't see it and thus aren't able to make that judgement.

Rather, I think Justice League's poor performance is a lagging indicator that the general public didn't like BvS or Suicide Squad -- so they simply stayed home rather than see Justice League (which is arguably better than Suicide Squad).

Likewise, if folks _truly_ don't like The Last Jedi, that won't show up in its box office results -- because they will have had to seen it to make that judgment. The public's (potential) distaste for The Last Jedi will show up in the box office for Episode IX if a large swath of people simply stay home.

This lagging indicator is multiplied by MOS also being divisive.  People saw MOS and decided to still give BVS a shot.  After that is was fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me so screw JL.  It was not really JL fault in some ways, but was built up anger.

 

We will see how TLJ affects SW overall.  Most liked TFA, but many felt burned this time, the backlash may again lag and apply to episode 9,  like JL suffered from accumulated backlash.

Edited December 22, 2017 by drotto

[Bosco685]

8 minutes ago, Wall-Crawler said:

Yes there were enjoyable parts (hence my  6 out of 10), and I am not "trolling" here but there was plenty to dislike too.  If we give reviews based on "what could have been", all movies would be awesome.  The "finished product", what we all saw, was a big let down.

As I said earlier, hopefully WB wakes up, learns from this and they can figure out a way to "right the ship".  

I did see flashes (no pun intended) of what could have been. The moment between Supes and Flash. The first end credit scene.  That scene showed "heart" and something I think that as a whole, JL was missing.

Who said you are trolling? I certainly didn't accuse you of that.

You felt Ezra Miller and his lines didn't work for you at all. I was noting if you go read many of the reviews, even those that disliked the movie most-times make mention how Ezra Miller and his humor worked for them. So not sure that is 'plenty' saying otherwise.

I agree with you on heart, which is what I meant when I came back and said it was a 7.0 movie with a 9.0 heart. Somewhere in there was a lot of potential that for some reason got missed. Most probably due to tampering and second-guessing.

[Lucky Baru]

8 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I got defensive? I think you read into things since I clearly and professionally answered your question with the right details. I just made reference to your 'movie stunk' need. So if anything, take your own language into consideration.

Movie-goers rated it as entertaining. But not loving it.

You provided a response about me putting the word stunk about the movie.  OK, and I guess that was all you wanted to chat about but not answer the question which had three other options to it.  If you felt that it it wasn't a stinker (which I thought it was - although not as bad as some other WB comic book movies) or fit in the other two options, then what did it tell you?  That was the question, which was stated in a professional manner, that the other two posters who responded shared their opinions on.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Lucky Baru

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, Lucky Baru said:

You provided a response about me putting the word stunk about the movie.  OK, and I guess that was all you wanted to chat about but not answer the question which had three other options to it.  If you felt that it it wasn't a stinker (which I thought it was - although not as bad as some other WB comic book movies) or fit in the other two options, then what did it tell you?  That was the question which was stated in a professional manner that the other two posters who responded shared their opinions on.

I was responding to your original question. If you want to overthink it, and pretend there was defensiveness to the answer, that's your life to lead. Even sharing the example of feedback from movie-goers was helping build the picture for you.

But no, I didn't take offense to your question. I just made reference to your two options posted.

[Lucky Baru]

Just now, Bosco685 said:

I was responding to your original question. If you want to overthink it, and pretend there was defensiveness to the answer, that's your life to lead. Even sharing the example of feedback from movie-goers was helping build the picture for you.

But no, I didn't take offense to your question. I just made reference to your two options posted.

If you say so.

[Bosco685]

Just now, Lucky Baru said:

If you say so.

I do.

[Lucky Baru]

Just now, Bosco685 said:

I do.

Great, and I only see a response to one a part of my question.

[Lucky Baru]

20 minutes ago, drotto said:

I think the general public is tired of comic book movies provided they do not bring something new to the equation.  Without getting into great detail, JL had a very standard plot and formula.  Big bad threatens the world the big heroes need to team up plot, big CGI battle scenes, and funny banter. Regardless how this movie got there, it was very similar to what Marvel has already done, it is their basic formula. So part of the issue is it did not feel new, it felt like emulation ( from a general audience perspective, they do not have the comic geek knowledge to spot differences). Then add there was little to no goodwill from BvS, and poor reviews and it was the perfect storm. I would even argue that WB had so little momentum coming into JL (despite WW for some reason), that even if JL was near perfect it may have still underperformed in the eyes of this forum. So many had a bad taste left over from SS and BvS.

 

If studio bring a new twist to the formula the public still seems to want more.  So we have movies like WW, Logan, Deadpool, and the latest Thor that mixed up the formula and despite similar plot issues, felt fresh.  All of these movies exceeded expectations.   All did it by not being just a comic book movie, but by pulling in heavily from other genres. 

 

So the overall lesson is the public does not want just another comic movie.  They are craving for comic movies that are trying to push the genre, and be brave in trying something different.

Thank you for the response.  It was thought-out and provided the information I was hoping to get an answer to.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Lucky Baru

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, Lucky Baru said:

Great, and I only see a response to one a part of my question.

'One a part of' what? You mean on the financials?

[Wall-Crawler]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

Who said you are trolling? I certainly didn't accuse you of that.

You felt Ezra Miller and his lines didn't work for you at all. I was noting if you go read many of the reviews, even those that disliked the movie most-times make mention how Ezra Miller and his humor worked for them. So not sure that is 'plenty' saying otherwise.

I agree with you on heart, which is what I meant when I came back and said it was a 7.0 movie with a 9.0 heart. Somewhere in there was a lot of potential that for some reason got missed. Most probably due to tampering and second-guessing.

I just didn't want "people" to think I am "trolling" on the movie in general   By "plenty to dislike", I meant about the film as a whole, not just about Ezra.  I imagine it would be "interesting reading" if there were ever a "Justice League Paper" to find out about who what and why certain decisions were made that led us to the film that actually appeared on screen.

Does WB have a "comic book division"? I know that Snyder "was" their guy (or was Johns too?) but never in the same way Feige was with Marvel.  I am not saying Feige is perfect but I think one reason Marvel has been so successful is that Disney "allowed" Feige to continue to chart the course of the MCU.  There has been a cohesive vision from nearly the beginning.  People may not "like" the "Marvel Movie Way" in its "formula" but it is hard to argue against its success.

I am not saying WB/DC needs to "copy" Marvel but I do think they need to develop a long-term strategy with their super hero properties, with a steady team in place and let them go to and do their work.  

[Gatsby77]

7 minutes ago, Wall-Crawler said:

I just didn't want "people" to think I am "trolling" on the movie in general   By "plenty to dislike", I meant about the film as a whole, not just about Ezra.  I imagine it would be "interesting reading" if there were ever a "Justice League Paper" to find out about who what and why certain decisions were made that led us to the film that actually appeared on screen.

Does WB have a "comic book division"? I know that Snyder "was" their guy (or was Johns too?) but never in the same way Feige was with Marvel.  I am not saying Feige is perfect but I think one reason Marvel has been so successful is that Disney "allowed" Feige to continue to chart the course of the MCU.  There has been a cohesive vision from nearly the beginning.  People may not "like" the "Marvel Movie Way" in its "formula" but it is hard to argue against its success.

I am not saying WB/DC needs to "copy" Marvel but I do think they need to develop a long-term strategy with their super hero properties, with a steady team in place and let them go to and do their work.  

My understanding is that Snyder started as their guy (under the apprenticeship of Nolan for Man of Steel) but that Geoff Johns was slated to take over in the Kevin Feige role after the relative underperformance of BvS.

Johns was elevated from Executive Producer (which often means consultant / producer-in-name-only) to full-on Producer for Justice League, then subsequently de-moted from that Kevin Feige-esque role after Justice League's bombing.

And folks who just blanket hate on Snyder (myself included) it's worth remembering he was a producer and co-writer on Wonder Woman as well.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Gatsby77

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, Wall-Crawler said:

I just didn't want "people" to think I am "trolling" on the movie in general   By "plenty to dislike", I meant about the film as a whole, not just about Ezra.  I imagine it would be "interesting reading" if there were ever a "Justice League Paper" to find out about who what and why certain decisions were made that led us to the film that actually appeared on screen.

Does WB have a "comic book division"? I know that Snyder "was" their guy (or was Johns too?) but never in the same way Feige was with Marvel.  I am not saying Feige is perfect but I think one reason Marvel has been so successful is that Disney "allowed" Feige to continue to chart the course of the MCU.  There has been a cohesive vision from nearly the beginning.  People may not "like" the "Marvel Movie Way" in its "formula" but it is hard to argue against its success.

I am not saying WB/DC needs to "copy" Marvel but I do think they need to develop a long-term strategy with their super hero properties, with a steady team in place and let them go to and do their work.  

Well, with Geoff Johns now being demoted back to just advising on these movies, and Jon Berg reassigned (though it turned out later this was in the works for 6 months now), there is no central planner/controller. The head of the studio was even talking about taking the DC Division of movies and reassigning them to the general movies section so it is open for director use rather than having a separate division. I think that decision would be a big mistake.

But what came up in the other Justice League thread was a discussion about what Feige most probably brings to the table. From this discussions about using 'Superman: The Movie' as part of an indoctrination for new directors, there is some ramp-up program that helps these directors realize what the common design and direction is for Marvel movies. It's a smart move, as it most probably gives them visibility to what other directors are working on, and how it impacts their production.

Does WB/DC have to do it this way? It's an approach. But best-case, they need to figure out a direction and give it time to come together. Not tinkering with the plan massively after each movie comes out. Suicide Squad demonstrated what a mess this led to with 6 versions of the movie created to figure out which should be released.