WB's BLUE BEETLE movie starring Xolo Mariduena (2023) 3 3

[Axelrod]

My expectation is that this movie will be completely fine.   Also, completely unoriginal and extremely familiar in every story beat.  Which, frankly, is most superhero films these days, so maybe shouldn't hold that too much against it.

Find out tomorrow.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 8/22/2023 at 9:03 PM, mr_highgrade said:

Saw it a couple of days ago with kids and we really enjoyed it. It was a fun movie. 

As a prescreen there was an opportunity to say it was not spectacular, but it had that family friendly vibe that us "single people" may not have found riveting. But I thought it was a decent message with joy throughout, it didn't make me feel like dr strange multiverse of madness with the dead arms and symbols  which is just lazy writing imo as well ❤️‍🩹

Although the subtitles weren't there for all the Spanish, it was well received in Texas for the most part, but I mention cause I told my Australian friend who asked about it, it might not make as big impression.

But that's the whole point! To start getting out there! People are people.so why should it be?

Riveted brought blazing saddles to mind but c'est la vie it had its virtue too. Lot of shouting and laughs from the audience for sure @mr_highgrade

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by ADAMANTIUM

[Dick Pontoon]

Saw it last night with Mrs. Pontoon, Pontoon Jr. and a buddy of his. We all liked it fine and were glad we went. I have a bit of superhero movie burnout and it was somewhat standard fare but I have no major complaints and liked it better than some of the more recent Marvel movies. I thought the direction was a little ho-hum in the non-CGI action scenes, but was very glad the story was framed around good guy vs. bad guy and not some overly complex cosmicmultiversetheentireworldisgoingtooblivion plot. Plus, it was only 2 hours long! Hooray!

[Axelrod]

Well, it was about what I expected, maybe a little worse.  

While I appreciated that they were going for something a little different in this movie with the emphasis on "family" and the hero family's overall involvement in the story, it got a bit much for me at times. 

Spoiler

I did not think the Grandma secretly being some kind of revolutionary and mowing down people with the machine cannon was quite as hysterical as the filmmakers seemed to think it was.  Also, didn't like the way the suit worked/didn't work conveniently as the plot required.  The fact it literally could fight without him and act independently of him (and was actually more effective when it was acting on it's own than when trying to take his directions) begged the question what was the point of his being in the suit anyway?  Also, villain master plan was, once again, quite silly.  

I did wonder about the history of the Blue Beetle they referenced in the film.  I know nothing about the character, so I can't say how well they did it or how it might resonate with someone who knows the character(s) from the comics, but I found the backstory that they did explain somewhat confusing.  

[Artboy99]

On 8/24/2023 at 12:12 PM, Axelrod said:

Well, it was about what I expected, maybe a little worse.  

While I appreciated that they were going for something a little different in this movie with the emphasis on "family" and the hero family's overall involvement in the story, it got a bit much for me at times. 

  Hide contents

I did not think the Grandma secretly being some kind of revolutionary and mowing down people with the machine cannon was quite as hysterical as the filmmakers seemed to think it was.  Also, didn't like the way the suit worked/didn't work conveniently as the plot required.  The fact it literally could fight without him and act independently of him (and was actually more effective when it was acting on it's own than when trying to take his directions) begged the question what was the point of his being in the suit anyway?  Also, villain master plan was, once again, quite silly.  

I did wonder about the history of the Blue Beetle they referenced in the film.  I know nothing about the character, so I can't say how well they did it or how it might resonate with someone who knows the character(s) from the comics, but I found the backstory that they did explain somewhat confusing.  

I agree. Perhaps my own fault for knowing nothing about the character but then a well told story should help me get me up to speed instead of confusing me. 

[Gatsby77]

So...$50 million worldwide after 6 days.

And dropped to # 2 (after Barbie, natch) after 3 days.

I still maintain that since this was originally slated as a Max release, all the theatrical gross needs to do is cover 2x P&A for it to be a win.

So...$210 million worldwide and we should be good.

Will it get there?

[paperheart]

On 8/25/2023 at 12:05 PM, Gatsby77 said:

So...$50 million worldwide after 6 days.

And dropped to # 2 (after Barbie, natch) after 3 days.

I still maintain that since this was originally slated as a Max release, all the theatrical gross needs to do is cover 2x P&A for it to be a win.

So...$210 million worldwide and we should be good.

Will it get there?

If you transpose the first two numbers you’ll be a lot closer to final WW

[paperheart]

Warners has third place bragging rights with Blue Beetle at 3,871 theaters with an estimated $3M in his second Friday, -70%, for an estimated second weekend of $10.5M, -58% for a running total of $44M. By the way, that second weekend take is better than that of Shazam: Fury of the Gods which did $9.3M.

cue another zach levi meltdown as this looks like it'll do $65M+ US or 10%+ more than Shazam:FOG

[drotto]

On 8/25/2023 at 3:05 PM, Gatsby77 said:

So...$50 million worldwide after 6 days.

And dropped to # 2 (after Barbie, natch) after 3 days.

I still maintain that since this was originally slated as a Max release, all the theatrical gross needs to do is cover 2x P&A for it to be a win.

So...$210 million worldwide and we should be good.

Will it get there?

Budget was $125M on this film, and I will be generous and say there was a lighter marketing spend of $75M.  Still means this film needs roughly $400m to break even.

 

This was originally slated as a streaming release with something like a $75M budget. Early in developement, management liked what they were seeing, increased the budget and gave it a theatrical release. Seems like that may have been a mistake from a financial standpoint.

[kimik]

On 8/26/2023 at 8:13 AM, drotto said:

Budget was $125M on this film, and I will be generous and say there was a lighter marketing spend of $75M.  Still means this film needs roughly $400m to break even.

 

This was originally slated as a streaming release with something like a $75M budget. Early in developement, management liked what they were seeing, increased the budget and gave it a theatrical release. Seems like that may have been a mistake from a financial standpoint.

I wonder who in management is making these calls - is it Zaslav himself? I bet that Batgirl would have done better at the theatres as it would have attracted female viewers in addition to the traditional male superhero fanbase.

[drotto]

On 8/26/2023 at 3:05 PM, kimik said:

I wonder who in management is making these calls - is it Zaslav himself? I bet that Batgirl would have done better at the theatres as it would have attracted female viewers in addition to the traditional male superhero fanbase.

This was greenlit well before Zaslav, so it is on the previous bosses.  I also doubt Batgirl would have drawn in more women, the only Superhero film that really succeeded at that was Wonder Woman at 52% female audience.  The Harley Quinn movie also failed to pull in larges amount of women opening weekend (can not judge what the legs would have been due to COVID like 3 weeks after), and that was a very female film.  Finally, Captian Marvel was only like 45% women, it moved the needle some, but not enough in that respect.

[Bosco685]

Ouch!

[paperheart]

in the battle of the busts, BB wins in the US but Shazam:FOG will finish a nose ahead WW

Blue Beetle          

 

Shazam! Fury of the Gods

[kimik]

I hope that the lesson the studios are learning is this - leave the big screen to A-list properties and put the B and C types in as support characters once in a while or feature them in streaming shows.

[Artboy99]

On 9/5/2023 at 12:08 AM, kimik said:

I hope that the lesson the studios are learning is this - leave the big screen to A-list properties and put the B and C types in as support characters once in a while or feature them in streaming shows.

In addition I hope they have learned you need to put out a very high quality product. Very well written otherwise it will flounder like The Flash. Is the Flash an A-list property?

[piper]

On 9/5/2023 at 8:16 AM, Artboy99 said:

In addition I hope they have learned you need to put out a very high quality product. Very well written otherwise it will flounder like The Flash. Is the Flash an A-list property?

Depends on your definition.  I think for the hardcore DC comic folks, Flash is A list.  For casual movie goers, the A listers are Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman.  That being said, we have examples of non A Listers becoming flagship characters at Marvel due to compelling, well received movies (e.g. Iron Man).

[kimik]

On 9/5/2023 at 9:45 AM, piper said:

Depends on your definition.  I think for the hardcore DC comic folks, Flash is A list.  For casual movie goers, the A listers are Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman.  That being said, we have examples of non A Listers becoming flagship characters at Marvel due to compelling, well received movies (e.g. Iron Man).

No. For this DC fan there are only 3 A-list properties: Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman. The rest of the JLA founding characters like Flash, Aquaman and GL would be B listers now, and everything else like Blue Beetle would be C-list. \

Just like for Marvel the A-list is Spider-Man, Wolverine/X-Men, and then movie wise Iron Man. The rest of the Avengers would be B-list properties, along with Dr. Strange, and the rest of the MCU including the FF is C-list.

If you look at it objectively, there are really two character franchises that drive each company - Batman for DC and Spidey for Marvel. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by kimik

[Gatsby77]

On 9/5/2023 at 12:15 PM, kimik said:

No. For this DC fan there are only 3 A-list properties: Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman. The rest of the JLA founding characters like Flash, Aquaman and GL would be B listers now, and everything else like Blue Beetle would be C-list. \

Just like for Marvel the A-list is Spider-Man, Wolverine/X-Men, and then movie wise Iron Man. The rest of the Avengers would be B-list properties, along with Dr. Strange, and the rest of the MCU including the FF is C-list.

If you look at it objectively, there are really two character franchises that drive each company - Batman for DC and Spidey for Marvel. 

I think it's more nuanced than that.

Agree that, for DC, Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are the only A-list characters. And that's been largely born out in films - Secondary Justice League characters (The Flash, Green Lantern) have suffered in translation, but for Aquaman, which did surprisingly well.

And agreed re. Spider-Man, Wolverine/X-Men and (movie-wise), Iron Man being A-list.

But Marvel has succeeded in elevating even B- and C-list characters into blockbuster films.

Examples include:

• Blade (3 films - for Blade?? And before the superhero boom)
• Guardians of the Galaxy - the 3rd movie's sitting at # 4 for the year so far, with $358 million domestic / $845 million worldwide. The Flash - in his first big screen outing, won't break the top 20 for the year.
• Ms. Marvel - $1.1 bn. worldwide
• Dr. Strange - the 3rd film last year made $677 million worldwide - aka, more than $200 million more than Mission Impossible 7.

That said, I stand by my statements that Fantastic Four is basically unfilmable. We've had 4 films so far, and none have hit the mark. I have zero faith that a 5th try will yield different results.

 

[Bosco685]

On 9/5/2023 at 11:45 AM, piper said:

That being said, we have examples of non A Listers becoming flagship characters at Marvel due to compelling, well received movies (e.g. Iron Man).

This is the folklore that Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk were not A-List Marvel characters. Only Spider-Man and the X-Men were, which is what put Marvel Studios in a tough position. Yet they were all flagship characters that made Marvel Entertainment a household-recognized brand for decades. Including action figures, t-shirts, lamps, puzzles and more. Part of why Disney purchased Marvel.

But even before they rolled out the live MCU films, Marvel had worked with Lionsgate to roll out the 2006-2007 Marvel animated films to re-introduce the characters to general audiences and remind long-time fans how key they were to the Marvel Universe. And they sold very well. I still have mine in the movie collection. Including The Invincible Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Thor standalone animated films.

WB/DC just keeps changing its roadmap to the point it gets confusing where they are taking its characters. And they don't even have to be in a forced connected universe if they could just get the story straight what are these all about.

[Bosco685]

Anyone remember how Blade (New Line Cinema) became a massive hit over two films, yet who outside of comic books knew the character? That was part of what inspidered Marvel Studios to consider developing its own films. Along with yes - the Spider-Man and X-Men films becoming huge successes.