Movies Blue Beetle | August 18

[Spork3245]

10 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Maybe they should have started with some actually good in-universe movies of their well-known properties

 

Didn't they start with Superman?

[GeneticBlueprint]

5 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Didn't they start with Superman?

The last one was Man of Steel. I don’t know if that one is in this current universe. Plus didn’t they recast Cavill? It’s all a mess. 

[Spork3245]

2 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

The last one was Man of Steel. I don’t know if that one is in this current universe. Plus didn’t they recast Cavill? It’s all a mess. 

 

Oh, got it, you're talking about the switch - that hasn't happened yet, these are still the Man of Steel universe. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

Yikes. They really need to put a bullet in it and move on then. 

[Spork3245]

2 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Yikes. They really need to put a bullet in it and move on then. 

 

Yea, I question if they'd be better off just doing a simultaneous theater + streaming release to burn the rest of these movies, or maybe a 3-4 week short theater run then streaming (for streaming, I don't mean to Max immediately, I mean "purchase" on streaming)

[Brian]

9 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

DC's brand has definitely poisoned the well, but in addition to that the movies that have come out recently were never going to be moneymakers. I mean, Shazam was a genuinely surprise hit (and actually good) but since Shazam 2 was just mediocre and since one movie isn't suddenly making him some beloved superhero among general audiences means there's no momentum. I mean, did audiences really care about Black Adam (the character)? The Rock's social cache has seriously gone down in the last two years so a C-tier villain/anti-hero in a not good movie isn't going to help. I mean, for general audiences, Blue Beetle? No one cares (even though I like Blue Beetle personally). Wonder Woman 1984 being so truly bad didn't help matters starting this whole process, but expecting big bucks from B-tier and C-tier superheroes that general audiences have never heard of in bad or mediocre movies isn't going to help. It's why Joker and The Batman, recent non-DCEU movies, did great by comparison. Use recognizable characters and put them into movies audiences will want to see and you're set. Unfortunately, this string of failures will put some of these characters to bed for awhile. For regular audiences these movies are like the Venom movies or Morbius or Kraven the Hunter from Sony but with even bigger budgets. Just doesn't make sense. It'll be interesting to see how Aquaman 2 does given the first made over a billion and people love Jason Mamoa. 

Marvel was able to take some B-tier and C-tier characters and make them big because of the universe and the build up to Thanos and End Game. Since then, Marvel hasn’t been able to do it as well (Shang-Chi and Eternals).  Now you can definitely blame the pandemic for the lower numbers but overall most people seemed disinterested. Seeing Gunn’s love for the lesser known characters, I do wonder how his tenure being in charge of DC will work out. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

I think if Marvel tried starting with Shang-Chi and Eternals and Iron Fist they'd probably be where DC is now. Blue Beetle is on the same popularity tier as Iron Fist.

[Keyser_Soze]

19 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

I think if Marvel tried starting with Shang-Chi and Eternals and Iron Fist they'd probably be where DC is now. Blue Beetle is on the same popularity tier as Iron Fist.

 

Blue Beetle is probably lower than that. Five people have probably heard of Blue Beetle.

[skillzdadirecta]

DC didn't start their cinematic Universe with "B and C" Tier characters... what are people talking about?! They started with Man of Freaking Steel and then Batman vs Superman! What's with all of the history rewriting going on? They started with FAR more recognizable characters than Marvel did when they launched their cinematic universe.

[Brian]

2 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Blue Beetle is probably lower than that. Five people have probably heard of Blue Beetle.

If we are going this deep, give me a new Guyver movie

[GeneticBlueprint]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

DC didn't start their cinematic Universe with "B and C" Tier characters... what are people talking about?! They started with Man of Freaking Steel and then Batman vs Superman! What's with all of the history rewriting going on?

 

Nobody has any idea these are in the same universe with all of the "this one counts and this one doesn't". Are we getting another Cavill Superman? Legit question I don't know. Last I heard they were done with him. Which Batman is in this universe? The Bale one? The Affleck one? The vampire one? If it's not Affleck then do the WW movies count? If it is, are we getting a Batfleck? Is WW3 happening? Is it in the universe? News keeps going back and forth.

[skillzdadirecta]

15 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Nobody has any idea these are in the same universe with all of the "this one counts and this one doesn't". Are we getting another Cavill Superman? Legit question I don't know. Last I heard they were done with him. Which Batman is in this universe? The Bale one? The Affleck one? The vampire one? If it's not Affleck then do the WW movies count? If it is, are we getting a Batfleck? Is WW3 happening? Is it in the universe? News keeps going back and forth.

I agree that the whole continuity of this is confusing, and that is definitely contributing to the apathy that audiences are having currently with the DCU in film. That has nothing to do with "starting their cinematic universe". They started their universe ten years ago... the confusion is coming in whether or not the reboot of said universe has begun. It hasn't but general audiences may or may not know that or they just may not care anymore. Some audience members may indeed think that they Universe was rebooted with The Flash movie and that

Spoiler

George Clooney is Batman moving forward, replacing Affleck

based on the end of that movie. I know my parents did. And Marvel has already proven that you can make household names out of characters the general public may not even know exist. At least Blue Beetle has appeared in other media and has SOME audience recognition. At the time when the movie dropped, Guardians of the Galaxy hadn't appeared in SHIT. Cartoons, games... NOTHING. It wasn't even the same team that COMIC fans had known since the 60's. DC's problems extend beyond characters or even the quality of the movies. Their shit is just confusing and their product hasn't been compelling enough to make audiences want to sift through that shit. They came out the gate trying to do in three movies what it took Marvel what, six movies to establish? Factor in the Arrowverse and all of the other various TV properties that had nothing to do with each other and what you get is audiences just shrugging their shoudlers and going "meh". Even when the movie is getting decent word of mouth, folks seem to have just given up on their properties. Its crazy.

[GeneticBlueprint]

Why wouldn't people think the latest slate of films was the start of a new CU when they've said they were going to be starting a new CU? And they've severed relationships with actors that were in their previous films? I'm not totally plugged into movie news anymore, but I'm not completely removed from it. And I didn't know.

[skillzdadirecta]

33 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Why wouldn't people think the latest slate of films was the start of a new CU when they've said they were going to be starting a new CU? And they've severed relationships with actors that were in their previous films? I'm not totally plugged into movie news anymore, but I'm not completely removed from it. And I didn't know.

Well they've been pretty vocal that this ISN'T the start of the new DCU for those paying attention to the movie news. Anyone who cares enough to follow the behind the scenes stuff knows that these last four movies, Shazam, Flash, Blue Beetle and the upcoming Aquaman predate James Gunn's regime as they were in production before he came on board. That said it's STILL confusing as you pointed out because we don't know what counts, what doesn't, what actors are reprising their roles and what actors aren't. Apparently the actors don't know either... just in recent weeks Gal Gadot was quoted as saying that she was reprising the Wonder Woman role and that she was going to be developing the third film with Gunn and Co. only for them to walk that back. The kid who's playing Blue Beetle has been saying similar stuff and who knows WHO Jason Momoa will be playing moving forward... is he gonna be Aquaman? Lobo? Who the hell knows? But you're right... audiences have NO IDEA what's going on and I personally believe that that is a large part of why they are tuning out. They just don't give a shit anymore.

 

If Marvel isn't careful, they may find themselves in a similar position, especially on the TV side. What Marvel has going for it is anticipation. People are STILL looking forward to Deadpool 3, The Blade Reboot, the new Daredevil series and whatever incarnation of Xmen eventually takes shape in the MCU. People are even anticipating the Fantastic Four despite the fact that NONE of the 3 films that preceded that property being particularly good. Marvel's brand is on shaky, but solid ground... for now.

[Greatoneshere]

6 hours ago, Brian said:

Marvel was able to take some B-tier and C-tier characters and make them big because of the universe and the build up to Thanos and End Game. Since then, Marvel hasn’t been able to do it as well (Shang-Chi and Eternals).  Now you can definitely blame the pandemic for the lower numbers but overall most people seemed disinterested. Seeing Gunn’s love for the lesser known characters, I do wonder how his tenure being in charge of DC will work out. 

 

Well, making the movies good is a big part of it. But we also don't live in the same world of superhero movies we did back when Marvel was making B and C-tier movies that were good when making such movies was still new. But now, general audiences have seen the formula and need more and better than before, and an aimless phase 4 and phase 5 with weaker quality movies overall (ignoring Shang-Chi and Guardians 3) whilst also being about B and C-tier characters is a combo breaker for losing audiences. DC never bothered, for the most part, with making good movies about their B and C tier characters, and they were repeating a formula audiences had just experienced with Marvel.

[GeneticBlueprint]

 

 

I almost want to go see this movie out of sympathy.

[Keyser_Soze]

We sort of had this conversation in another thread but Marvel comics/movies just have cooler sounding names. Sure no one had heard of Guardians of the Galaxy but at least it's a cool name that would get someone through the door.

 

Most DC names are lame. If this movie was called Indigo Coleoptera people would be lining up around the block to see it!

[GeneticBlueprint]

16 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

We sort of had this conversation in another thread but Marvel comics/movies just have cooler sounding names. Sure no one had heard of Guardians of the Galaxy but at least it's a cool name that would get someone through the door.

 

Most DC names are lame. If this movie was called Indigo Coleoptera people would be lining up around the block to see it!

 

Well, Guardians also came out after a string of successes and it had the Marvel name attached to it. "Blue Beetle" just sounds like knock-off Spider-Man.

[Keyser_Soze]

Just now, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Well, Guardians also came out after a string of successes and it had the Marvel name attached to it. "Blue Beetle" just sounds like knock-off Spider-Man.

 

They should call it Genetic Blue Beetle

[Ghost_MH]

4 hours ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Maybe they should have started with some actually good in-universe movies of their well-known properties instead of scraping the bottom of the character barrel. I mean I collect and read comic books but I could not care any less about Blue Beetle or Shazam. Those don’t seem like characters you pin the hopes of your Cinematic Universe on. Much less recognizable than Iron Man, Thor, or Captain America who—while not S-tier Marvel characters at the time—were not totally unknown names to general audiences when they were launching that universe.  

 

Marvel started the MCU, not with S-tier Marvel characters, but with Marvel characters that all had animated series in the 80s, 90s, and 00s so they were at least somewhat recognizable to people outside of comicbook fans. However, like I said before, DC refuses to learn any lesson from their non-comicbook fanbase. Hey, let's make a Green Lantern movie, but not Jon Stewart that animation fans are interested in...then follow it up with nothing when the universe is being rebuilt. Let's make a Teen Titans series, but drop the Teen and go for a different vibe from any of the immensely popular animated shows. Where is the Static movie? In limbo, lost in some WB exec's file cabinet? Who wouldn't want to watch a Static movie with Phil Lamar taking on the role of Static's dad?

 

They have options. They just don't want to take them.

[GeneticBlueprint]

1 minute ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Marvel started the MCU, not with S-tier Marvel characters, but with Marvel characters that all had animated series in the 80s, 90s, and 00s so they were at least somewhat recognizable to people outside of comicbook fans. However, like I said before, DC refuses to learn any lesson from their non-comicbook fanbase. Hey, let's make a Green Lantern movie, but not Jon Stewart that animation fans are interested in...then follow it up with nothing when the universe is being rebuilt. Let's make a Teen Titans series, but drop the Teen and go for a different vibe from any of the immensely popular animated shows. Where is the Static movie? In limbo, lost in some WB exec's file cabinet? Who wouldn't want to watch a Static movie with Phil Lamar taking on the role of Static's dad?

 

They have options. They just don't want to take them.

 

Right. That was my entire point :P 

[Ghost_MH]

4 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Right. That was my entire point :P 

 

DC did start with their biggest names, but then went off the rails far sooner than they should have. Not only that, but they also chose the worst characterizations for all their characters. Just purposefully choosing to not portray the characters as anything recognizable to any of the most popular versions of these characters from the last thirty years.

 

Hey, I'm a comic nerd. I like this stuff, but for every one person that's read The Dark Knight there are a dozen that only know these characters from TAS.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Yea, I question if they'd be better off just doing a simultaneous theater + streaming release to burn the rest of these movies, or maybe a 3-4 week short theater run then streaming (for streaming, I don't mean to Max immediately, I mean "purchase" on streaming)

Why on earth would they cut out revenue they will get from an exclusive theatrical release? They need to get every penny they can, and movies make less when released theatrically and at home simultaneously, hence why studios have essentially abandoned the practice in 2023.

[Guest]

DC Film just needs to focus on making good movies. It really isn’t any more complicated than that. Make good stuff on a consistent basis and the audience will be there.

[skillzdadirecta]

39 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

They should call it Genetic Blue Beetle

Or Beetlejui... wait.

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Why on earth would they cut out revenue they will get from an exclusive theatrical release? They need to get every penny they can, and movies make less when released theatrically and at home simultaneously, hence why studios have essentially abandoned the practice in 2023.

Aren’t these doing incredibly poorly in theaters? 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Aren’t these doing incredibly poorly in theaters? 

It doesn’t matter, the most profitable route remains theatrical exclusive to PVOD to SVOD. Consumer behavior is pretty fascinating here. Regardless of how well a movie is received, “movie theater movies” perform better on the various home channels than equivalent non-theater movies, and people equate day-and-date movies with being non-theater movies.

 

But they will take advantage of a shorter window, likely 45 days, where there is still whatever buzz around the theatrical release (and the associated ad spend), and ride that to higher numbers on the home channels.

[skillzdadirecta]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Regardless of how well a movie is received, “movie theater movies” perform better on the various home channels than equivalent non-theater movies, and people equate day-and-date movies with being non-theater movies.

Makes sense... there's always movies that you see ads for that interest you that you wouldn't necessarily make time to actually SEE in the theater. I just watched The Pope's Excorcist last night on Netflix and Cocaine Bear on Peacock last week... two movies that I was interested in but never would have gone to the theater to see. i imagine there's a LOT of films like this especially now. Netflix has somehow managed to beat this phenomenon as their big budget films are often perceived as "event" films like theatrical releases too. 

[Spork3245]

30 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Regardless of how well a movie is received

 

I didn't say anything about how the movie was received  

I assumed saving money via a smaller promotional budget would be beneficial, as The Flash lost $200m or something during it's theater run. I'd imagine that theaters won't like it, of course.

[Guest]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

I didn't say anything about how the movie was received  

I assumed saving money via a smaller promotional budget would be beneficial, as The Flash lost $200m or something during it's theater run. I'd imagine that theaters won't like it, of course.

I didn’t say that you did  

 

There really is no savings by skipping theaters. They have to promote a movie to sell it, at home or in theaters. The distribution cost per theater is down to under $100. Advertising costs are also way overstated as the studios primarily market their films through channels they own, as well as for free in cinemas and by cinemas on their social pages and websites. They end up with a smaller marketing budget for the subsequent home release because they already made people aware of the title in theaters. That’s why they like the 45 day window, it really allows basically a 2:1 deal of marketing the film in theaters and at home.

 

When you see articles saying a movie lost X dollars in the theatrical release, it isn’t because of the costs of distributing it. It is the production post plus the marketing cost vs. the net income of the ticket sales. It’s also about Hollywood accounting to decrease residual payments to profit partners 😂

[Kal-El814]

On 8/17/2023 at 2:32 PM, sblfilms said:

DC Film just needs to focus on making good movies. It really isn’t any more complicated than that. Make good stuff on a consistent basis and the audience will be there.

 

I still maintain that cinematic universes "don't matter." People obviously care about them on the internet, but these are the same people who get into long discussions about how Batman could beat anyone with time to prepare and come up with crazy "Thor vs. Superman but Thor is berserk and Superman sundips and is enraged" scenarios. I say this with love because I have been that guy.

 

But the difference between what Endgame made at the box office vs. what Infinity War did is roughly the amount that the Battinson movie made. So if an entire Batman theatrical run shows up to see part 2 of what's basically a 6 hour movie that likely didn't see the first one... the connective tissue doesn't REALLY matter all that much. Joker made a billion and is connected to nothing, Battinson made $770M and is its own thing, etc.

 

This shit just isn't THAT important. Nobody fucking cares if it's chudly Zach Levi or Henry Cavill showing up at the end of Black Adam when the movie itself blows ass, which it did. 

 

I think the point about where DC heroes have been popular for a long time is a more important one. Anime and manga have never been more popular than they are now but it's not likely that even a big franchise anime movie would do numbers at the US box office; I think Demon Slayer didn't break $50M here. It's possible that some of these characters just... aren't what people want to see in theaters?

[Spork3245]

 

[MarSolo]

After seeing what they did to the Art Museum steps, I want this movie to fail.

 

Just… just look at this shit:

[skillzdadirecta]

‘Blue Beetle’ Bites $3.3M, ‘Strays’ Woofs $1.1M – Thursday Night Box Office Previews

DEADLINE.COM

---

Blue Beetle is expected to take the weekend with $28M-$32M and knock off Barbie in its fifth weekend in the No. 1 spot.

 

[Keyser_Soze]

I want to see this but I don't know if I want to go into a hurricane to see it.