Justice League

[MacReady]

45 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

Looking at this from a reasonable standpoint, not being an illogical hater of this universe (the horrors? Really? Get over yourself) Flashpoint looks to be their escape hatch if needed.

Wait, let me try this...

(illogical hater?  Really?  Get over yourself)

Did I do it right? 

Suicide Squad - 6.2 on IMDB, 25% on Rotten Tomatoes

BvS - 6.7 on IMDB, 27% on Rotten Tomatoes

Yeah, I'm definitely an illogical hater.  Me and thousands and thousands of other people.

 

[StLunatic88]

12 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Wait, let me try this...

(illogical hater?  Really?  Get over yourself)

Did I do it right? 

Suicide Squad - 6.2 on IMDB, 25% on Rotten Tomatoes

BvS - 6.7 on IMDB, 27% on Rotten Tomatoes

Yeah, I'm definitely an illogical hater.  Me and thousands and thousands of other people.

 

Poor imitation, as per expected.

I never said they were great, I never even said they don't have issues. But thousands and thousands really like them. The dollars make that clear. You said the films were "horrors", yes that makes you an illogical hater.

Quoting imdb scores? I might as well go down to the local school yard and poll them. 

[Acgott]

15 hours ago, Farsendor1 said:

I see no Superman listing in that line up. I hope they are just avoiding the topic until after Justice League because for whatever reason they want us to think he is dead. 

Superman"s symbol is in the poster. He's definitely in the movie 

[Farsendor1]

30 minutes ago, Acgott said:

Superman"s symbol is in the poster. He's definitely in the movie 

I know he is in the movie i'm sorry for not clarifying. I was meaning future lineup. I don't see a Superman movie listed. 

[Acgott]

13 minutes ago, Farsendor1 said:

I know he is in the movie i'm sorry for not clarifying. I was meaning future lineup. I don't see a Superman movie listed. 

Cyborg, Gotham City Sirens, and Nightwing also weren't announced, the last 2 even have directors already 

[MacReady]

Just now, StLunatic88 said:

I never said they were great, I never even said they don't have issues. But thousands and thousands really like them. The dollars make that clear. You said the films were "horrors", yes that makes you an illogical hater.

Actually, I was referring to the horrible parts of the movies, not the movies themselves.  And do you want to see how many thousands really like the Transformers movies?  Saying a movie made thousands of dollars is not a good way to show that it's a good movie.  They were bad movies.  Really bad movies.  Anybody with a brain and an ounce of objectivity can admit that, so which of those don't you have?

3 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

Quoting imdb scores? I might as well go down to the local school yard and poll them. 

Except IMDB is the best place to find an aggregate opinion of everybody who has seen the movie and decided to rate it.  It's not a perfect site, but it is very good at separating the good movies from the bad movies. 

 

[StLunatic88]

47 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Actually, I was referring to the horrible parts of the movies, not the movies themselves.  And do you want to see how many thousands really like the Transformers movies?  Saying a movie made thousands of dollars is not a good way to show that it's a good movie.  They were bad movies.  Really bad movies.  Anybody with a brain and an ounce of objectivity can admit that, so which of those don't you have?

Except IMDB is the best place to find an aggregate opinion of everybody who has seen the movie and decided to rate it.  It's not a perfect site, but it is very good at separating the good movies from the bad movies. 

 

If you honestly think MoS and BvS are bad movies, and really bad movies at that, then you are mistaken. Again they are not great, each have their issues,  but they are good movies. You may not like it, it may have done things you wouldn't have, but if you think you are showing any objectivity in any of these assessments you are more blind to your own hubris than is even worth discussing any of this further

 

Please continue your pretentious lessons on how to measure the quality of film. If you you were comprehending, I pointed out the dollars as the measure that people liked it, not to the quality of the film In response to you bringing the invisible army of thousands that didn't like it with you.

 

Except that IMDb doesn't require you to have seen a movie to rate it. You know how I know that, you can go rate the movie before it's even released where you are. No restrictions on that

[Acgott]

I really wish they went with a barbarian Aquaman, not the rock and roller 

[Jakuvious]

On 7/22/2017 at 9:50 PM, HorizontoZenith said:

Wait, let me try this...

(illogical hater?  Really?  Get over yourself)

Did I do it right? 

Suicide Squad - 6.2 on IMDB, 25% on Rotten Tomatoes

BvS - 6.7 on IMDB, 27% on Rotten Tomatoes

Yeah, I'm definitely an illogical hater.  Me and thousands and thousands of other people.

 

Man of Steel - 7.1 on IMDB, 55% on Rotten Tomatoes

Wonder Woman - 7.9 on IMDB, 92% on Rotten Tomatoes.

The universe is arguably 50/50 right now. With the most recent entry being by far the best. If Justice League succeeds, they'll be in the green and now have a team up to anchor and create hype for the overall universe. No need to reset or reboot or whatever. And they've all remained profitable too. Flashpoint can be done without really rebooting anything whatsoever. They could change everything or nothing, pending on the status of the universe. So this assumption that it'll be a reboot because they're failing is a flawed one.

[MacReady]

7 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Man of Steel - 7.1 on IMDB, 55% on Rotten Tomatoes

Wonder Woman - 7.9 on IMDB, 92% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Man of Steel still wasn't a good movie.  The dialogue was horrific and the pacing was out of a student film.

7 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

The universe is arguably 50/50 right now.

I'd argue against that.  Wonder Woman is the only one (as far as I know) that's worth trying to maintain a continuity with.  Man of Steel I could let go and give it a passing grade, but not for the character.  Superman essentially destroyed a city while fighting that one guy.  Isn't he also a non-kill guy? 

 

7 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

If Justice League succeeds, they'll be in the green and now have a team up to anchor and create hype for the overall universe.

If.  That's a big IF.  Remember, Justice League was directed to completion by Snyder.  It was directed when DC was in full blown crisis mode.  Too much humor, too little humor, what do we do?  Joss Whedon came in and did reshoots, and for all we know, those reshoots were done with the knowledge of the coming Flashpoint.  Surely they want Justice League to succeed,  but at the same time, I'm sure they've also got contingencies in case it doesn't. 

7 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

No need to reset or reboot or whatever. And they've all remained profitable too. Flashpoint can be done without really rebooting anything whatsoever. They could change everything or nothing, pending on the status of the universe. So this assumption that it'll be a reboot because they're failing is a flawed one.

No, that's wrong.  They haven't all remained profitable.  Not by a long shot.  At best, Batman vs Superman got its money back.  Any profits were negligible.  A budget is not a total budget because it doesn't consider marketing.  It made 90 million profit domestically, and it probably spent 100 million in advertisements.  You're getting a quarter on the dollar in overseas markets, and you're also advertising overseas.  If BvS saw a profit, it was in ancillary markets only. 

And why wouldn't you do a soft reboot if you had the chance? 

Here are the facts:

1. Ben Affleck is constantly rumored to be disinterested.  Steps down from directing, a whole new Batman script, he's already older than most Batmans were, the universe glossed over MAJOR elements that people WANT TO SEE.  Batman was turned into a killer from the outset, killing dozens of people in BvS, which is completely against what the character represents.  He's jaded, he's bitter. 

2. The Joker was POORLY conceived.  Jared Leto was ANGRY about how his character was presented.  He's got "Damaged" tattooed on his head.  He made public statements about how upset he was.  Nobody really liked this interpretation of The Joker, and those who did are being apologists because they wanted to like it.  I did the same thing with Van Helsing, with The Matrix sequels, with countless other movies.  When you want to like something, you argue tooth and nail until you convince yourself a movie doesn't suck.  But it does.  It's a grieving process.  There's denial before there's acceptance.  People just need to accept that The Joker was poop. 

3. Lex Luther was awful.  Awful, awful.  Terrible.  The interpretation was bad, and Eisenberg was bad at the interpretation.  When was Lex Luther ever an autistic petulant kid billionaire while Superman was in his late 30's?  Luther was supposed to be Superman's intellectual equal as far as I know, and they made him psychotic and insane rather than composed, contemplative and intelligent.  He was a raving maniac rather than a measured thinking villain. 

4. None of the side characters were all that great.  Will Smith wasn't all that great, Boomerang was like a cartoon villain, Harley Quinn was the only good thing about Suicide Squad.  Killer Croc was so bad and embarrassing and poorly written with cheesy dialogue I don't think I could ever watch that movie again. 

Now let's look at what DC would gain versus what they would lose and what would stay the same if they were to do a soft reboot:

1. Man of Steel, BvS and Suicide Squad would be retconned.  People say, "They're not going to ignore those movies and write them off..." Why not?  X-Men did it and created a new continuity, glossing over the two best movies in their franchise (1/2).  If X-Men could do it to ruin two bad movies (Wolverine and X-Men 3) when they had 2 excellent movies, why wouldn't DC do it to eliminate 2 really, really, really bad movies, one okay movie and keep their best movie in the continuity? 

2. The Joker would be brand new again.  The ultimate aspect that DC has over Marvel.  The Joker.  The favorite/best superhero villain out there.  The buzz around the new Joker casting alone would be free advertisement. 

3. A new Lex Luther. 

4. A new, younger Batman that will be in it for the long haul.  Affleck, even if interested, isn't lasting into his 50's.  At least not much. 

5. They keep Wonder Woman and Wonder Woman 2.  Nothing changes with her character or her story arc.

6. They get rid of two stinkers while also keeping them a part of the universe (blu ray sales), but removing the poor continuity aspects.

7. They have a chance to make a GOOD Suicide Squad 2 in which characters really can die.  The movie would be much more powerful if these villains were in any real trouble, and they could put them in trouble knowing that they could be re-interpreted and revived after FlashPoint. 

I don't see any negatives whatsoever to a soft reboot. 

[The Gnat]

Having seen the new Justice League trailer, I'm not sure I need to see the movie, they seem to have covered the plot pretty well there, and I got to see it without too much bloat on it. I wish I had any faith in what DC was doing, but right now I really don't even with them putting out a solid movie with Wonder Woman.

[MacReady]

Another piece of evidence to support a soft reboot... The CW was asked to stop using Deathstroke because he was going to have a major role in the DC movies.  Deathstroke is coming back to the CW. 

[Superman(DH23)]

So much wrong here.  First off bvs and ss made massive profits.  Even if you believe in the 25% crap you spoused earlier, bvs was just under $1b worldwide and ss was $800+m.  Leto did not dislike the portrayal of his character he was upset that much of his performance was edited out.  Finally deathstroke going back to cw is not evidence of a soft reboot.  Its the result of the chris terrio script for batman being scrapped and matt reeves not including him in his new noir centric version.

Could wb reboot the universe?  Sure doing flashpoint is a great escape hatch if jl is a disaster, but with joss whedon stepping in on 3 months of reshoots, snyder removing jl from his twitter, unless the rumor is true that they are secretly filming jl2, id wager that this is now a joss whedon movie.  

[Jakuvious]

3 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Man of Steel still wasn't a good movie.  The dialogue was horrific and the pacing was out of a student film.

So basically, IMDB scores are great proof except when they disagree with you, in which case the "thousands and thousands" of people's opinions don't matter. Right?

 

3 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

No, that's wrong.  They haven't all remained profitable.  Not by a long shot.  At best, Batman vs Superman got its money back.  Any profits were negligible.  A budget is not a total budget because it doesn't consider marketing.  It made 90 million profit domestically, and it probably spent 100 million in advertisements.  You're getting a quarter on the dollar in overseas markets, and you're also advertising overseas.  If BvS saw a profit, it was in ancillary markets only. 

 

BvS made a little over $100M in profit, per most easily Google-able sources. After factoring in everything so far. You don't break even on a film that grossed almost $900M.

 

3 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I don't see any negatives whatsoever to a soft reboot. 

You run the risk of confusing or alienating fans. Anyone who does not see Flashpoint would basically have no ability to see any future movies (you generally want a universe like this to be connected, but you also want to allow for people to be able to see individual films without being confused.) You're throwing away contracts that have already been negotiated for multiple films from several of these actors and directors. And again, it's completely unnecessary if Justice League succeeds.

Your comparisons to what X-Men did are also completely irrelevant. X-Men was a single movie franchise that did a timeline reboot in 2014, 8 years after the final movie of the original X-Men trilogy. They rebooted that timeline AFTER they had already finished the original story arc, taken a break, recast, and restarted a new story. That was to clean up the reboot they had already done from a timeline perspective. You're talking about restarting the entire thing when you aren't even halfway through it yet.

3 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Here are the facts:

 

Actually, no, every single one of those is, by definition, an opinion.

[MacReady]

Just now, Jakuvious said:

So basically, IMDB scores are great proof except when they disagree with you, in which case the "thousands and thousands" of people's opinions don't matter. Right?

7.1 is not good movie territory.  Nice try though.  A 7.1 is .3 better than the lowest rated Marvel movie.  .3 points higher than The Incredible Hulk.  My IMDB point still stands, but I admire your conviction in thinking you got me.  You didn't. 

Quote

BvS made a little over $100M in profit, per most easily Google-able sources. After factoring in everything so far. You don't break even on a film that grossed almost $900M.

You really need for me to do the math for you? 

BvS released a budget of 250 million dollars.  They spent 150 million dollars on domestic advertisement. 

BvS made 330 million dollars domestically.  What's 330 million minus 400 million?  Do you know how to handle negatives? 

873 million globally.  Subtract 330 million.  543 from overseas markets. 

100 million on overseas advertising.

So we've now reached a total cost of 500 million dollars spent on BvS.

Now, figure in that studios get 25% of overseas sales. 

135 million from overseas. 

500 million in total expenses.

330 million in domestic revenue.

465 million in total profits.

They're at a loss.  Once again I'll say that BvS made money EXCLUSIVELY in the ancillary market domain. 

Quote

You run the risk of confusing or alienating fans.

You're insulting fans who have followed the most convoluted comic book timelines possible.  The fans wouldn't get confused, and if you think they would, you're wrong.  Alienating fans?  What's more alienating to fans, rebooting a timeline or making Lex Luther a pipsqueak and The Joker a gangland pimp with emo tattoos? 

Quote

Your comparisons to what X-Men did are also completely irrelevant. X-Men was a single movie franchise that did a timeline reboot in 2014, 8 years after the final movie of the original X-Men trilogy.

It's time for you to do a little math again.  Are you ready for it?

Man of Steel released in 2013. 

The Flash is coming in 2020. 

One year difference in rebooting timelines. 

Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman 2, Aquaman and The Flash would all be in same continuity.  They would remove MoS, BvS and Suicide Squad.