Justice League
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
-
- Tags
- justice leauge superman
Fawbish
Sr Member
JL will be DCEU's 5th film. It shouldn't be aiming for Avengers money though. That was the first time we had ever seen a team up of that magnitude that was done so well in an established shared universe (X-Men are great films, and paved the way for this). No Marvel film has topped Avengers money since.
The hate that BvS received will unfortunately damage the brand slightly, but if they continue to return just less than a billion for each film (major film that is), money wise they should be happy. 900m isnt a figure to be laughed at for the 2nd film in a franchise shared universe, even with the immediate mixed reactions where word of mouth has hurt it.
Last edited:
Fawbish
Sr Member
****** alive.
haha. To be fair, Gordon is an ex-marine, so if they go down that route with their background, he would be a fairly solid character that can handle himself, but it past his prime by a bit.
I loved Gary Oldman as Gordon, but he didn't embody that physical Gordon that I really enjoyed from Year One etc, despite there being other Year One influences. This was never a problem, because they had Gordon do what he does best - support Batman from a legal position. But there should be no reason that the DCEU Gordon can't handle himself - it would also make character sense that they both believe in physical retribution, and violence as part of justice, which gives them common ground and explains why Jim might want to work alongside the Batman. And beyond that, this allows for a "you've gone too far" storyline in both directions.
Fawbish
Sr Member
Photoshop perhaps...it does look a little over the top after a second viewing. Nothing saying the guy can't stay in shape though.
After some googling, it seems like its fairly legit. he has pretty large arms in Whiplash.
People now referring to him as Gym Gordon. hahaha. Love it
Last edited:
Mektar
Sr Member
It might be slightly photoshoppped since the adobe gains are big atm but its also a matter of the equipment that he uses that pushes out his tricep more making his arms even bigger. No denying tho that he is in great shape and pretty sure he does that for himself and not just for the movie role as can be seen in other pictures.
J.K. Simmons Is Jacked for Commissioner Gordon Role in JUSTICE LEAGUE
Guys, nothing of that is Photoshopped.
Guys, nothing of that is Photoshopped.
third3ye
Sr Member
The sad part is before BvS, making over a billion for a Justice League film was supposed to be a given :facepalm Also from the Forbes article, Mendelson is saying we should expect JL Pt1 to perform around BvS WWBO only IF the film turns up materially better than BvS, vis-a-vis TMNT's 22% RT score improving to TMNT2's 35%. IMO with Snyder still at the helm and with heavy studio input, I can see this being a moderate improvement, but probably not a dramatic one. If that's the case, JL Pt1 could easily make less than BvS despite a moderately higher critical score if we factor in a reduced wow factor after Batman and WW were already introduced, along with brand damage from the previous film. JL getting back to MoS's RT score in the 50s will probably do the trick and make BvS money, but if they really want a good shot at making this a billion dollar film, the critical score can't be divisive and needs to be significantly higher than 56%, maybe 70+. Audience WOM also matters a lot, probably needs a solid A/A- Cinemascore in that area.
Last edited:
Common sense says that this doesn't exactly apply to WB and DECU. Remember that TMNT and Tomb Raider were brand-spanking new properties so their first impression on the public served to brand the entire franchise in the public mind. The DECU characters have an existing history of multiple iterations on the big screen. Every time there's a new Batman/Superman film with new director/actors the public, and certainly the fan base, are quick to reset their brains and watch the film with no preconceived notions. Crappy Schumacher Batman films did not sink the franchise. A brooding, self-centered and homicidal Superman didn't sink the character. Superman and Batman, like 007 will never retire and will always make money. Marvel is tasked with churning out fresh material with each film in order to stay viable. An Iron Man reboot is not really an option for them. Superman reboots will always have an audience.
third3ye
Sr Member
Agree with you on reboots but JL isn't a reboot. I think the perception on a sequel is influenced by its predecessor and the GA can tell if it's a reboot based on the actors, and even strong brands like Superman and Batman aren't immune to that. These characters will still make a ton of money based on brand value alone, but we've seen that alone isn't enough to compete with the biggest Hollywood franchises in the box office. And TMNT is no way a new property btw, the Bay films benefited from prior films and cartoons. The article was about performance within a franchise, and getting comfortable with the notion that Justice League will do better than BvS with an ensemble format and a moderately better film quality may be a dangerous presumption for WB.
Snikt
Sr Member
Looks like DC has Marvel beat in the juice department. Dang. And anyone that says they dont give their actors some sort of steroid is kidding themselves.
No doubt DC/Warner's creative credibility was harmed by BvS. I wouldn't argue otherwise. I just don't think it's as bad as was the case with TMNT.
I wouldn't dare imply that JL will not have been affected by BvS. At best JL will be viewed according to its own merits - neither hindered nor boosted by BvS and the public watching it with an open mind. That's actually a big blow when you consider what would have been the case had BvS been a smash hit. If BvS earned 1.5 billion then JL would be a shoe-in for at breaking every box office record at least for opening weekend. As it stands JL won't have the momentum of success behind it. It won't even have the same momentum of speculative hype that was enjoyed by BvS. IMO it will have to be pretty goshdarn phenomenal if it's going to earn more than its predecessor.
We're pretty much on the same page here.
third3ye
Sr Member
On further thought I think it might be worse for DC. At least with Bay's TMNT there wasn't any expectation these would be anything more than silly popcorn flicks, and yet the poor perception is still hurting the sequel despite a better second effort. TMNT2 is facing a lot more competition than its predecessor did though (Aug release and only had GotG to contend with), and the article didn't address that at all. With JL Pt1, it's a winter release but also going to be sandwiched between Thor and Ep8, so it's not facing zero competition, but does have a pretty favorable release date overall.
Yep :thumbsup
Last edited:
Snikt
Sr Member
Ill tell you one thing though, Im never going to see a Snyder helmed DC movie ever again thanks to BvS. But I totally agree with everything you said Dascoyne
I really hope DC/Warner's lesson isn't about selling the films on humor now. They were initially correct in trying to keep a distinctly different tone than MCU. There's nothing wrong with "dark" but their failing has been the execution. A good "dark" film isn't just about being morose. It needs to be thematically layered and, so far, MoS and BvS are pretty shallow thematically and with their characters. In other words, the "formula" for success is just good writing - it doesn't matter if it's comedic or tragic.
Statements from Fox 's writer/producer Simon Kinberg about a proposed FF sequel seem to show they don't get it, either. "We'll try to be truer to the essence of the tone of Fantastic Four, which is completely - well, not completely, but largely - distinct from the X-Men, which is brighter, funner, more optimistic tone." He still doesn't get it. FF isn't about being bright and fun. I've ranted about FF before so I'll spare you the complete digression.
Statements from Fox 's writer/producer Simon Kinberg about a proposed FF sequel seem to show they don't get it, either. "We'll try to be truer to the essence of the tone of Fantastic Four, which is completely - well, not completely, but largely - distinct from the X-Men, which is brighter, funner, more optimistic tone." He still doesn't get it. FF isn't about being bright and fun. I've ranted about FF before so I'll spare you the complete digression.
Snikt
Sr Member
If Simon Kinberg actually said "funner", that clearly sums up his writing style and what he did to Xmen :lol
Fawbish
Sr Member
Shallow thematically? Literally shaking my head at the screen. Look up any analysis on them, at all, and you will be proven wrong. There are more thematic deconstructions and discussion about both of these films than most other Superhero films combined - and I'm not even speaking with blind admiration for them. I completely understand how people might not like the interpretations. Not your cup of tea? No problems. Didn't enjoy them? No problems. But to say that as a truth is ridiculous.
Other than that, in regards to the truth of the GA reception to the films, totally agree that JL wont break major bank. Doesn't matter how good it is now, and that's neither unfortunate or deserved (in my opinion) - it is what it is. And no, I'm not agreeing that it only making 900 million equates to "bad film".
cboath
Master Member
If you go back to pre-avengers time, people were very dubious that avengers could pull off a decent movie with that many hero's in it. Comparison's were made to the final batman flicks of the 90's that were packing in just way too many people to be do-able.
However, it turned out great.
It may not have hurt that people didn't dislike Whedon like they seem to with singer, but there was plenty of doubt about Avengers nonetheless. A very common comment after avengers was 'whedon gets the characters'. Don't think you'll find anyone saying that about singer.
As far as business aspects go, 900 doesn't equate to a bad movie. It does equate to bad (actually terrible) business practices though. It's a very short list of flicks that have hit 900M. Period. To go out and make a movie, and over advertise it to the tune 400-450 at that point is stupid. Revenues being split with theaters means 800-900 for break even. Not smart at all. You have to give yourself half a chance. I'd venture to say if Avengers needed 900 to break even, it wouldn't have been made. To make matters worse they're allowing a guy to change everything we know about the characters it seems like. The masses won't recognize a pouting, doubtful superman, as, you know, superman. Things like that. Dark can be dark and fun, it can be dark and funny, it can dark and uplifting, dark and hopeful, etc, etc, from MoS on they seem to be going for dark and morose. While some may like or appreciate, the masses will not. It's not unlike a commercial prop run discussion here. The people making the run don't really care what we think - and we know more about the items than anyone. They care what the masses think.
I don't think their future hinges on Suicide Squad, but i think WW will be the big tell. WW could come off exceptionally well - if it's done right. Worst case, it really won't come off worse than BvS - and that would hurt them tremendously.
Simple advice - be true to your characters and make the hero's, hero's. The rest will take care of itself.
However, it turned out great.
It may not have hurt that people didn't dislike Whedon like they seem to with singer, but there was plenty of doubt about Avengers nonetheless. A very common comment after avengers was 'whedon gets the characters'. Don't think you'll find anyone saying that about singer.
As far as business aspects go, 900 doesn't equate to a bad movie. It does equate to bad (actually terrible) business practices though. It's a very short list of flicks that have hit 900M. Period. To go out and make a movie, and over advertise it to the tune 400-450 at that point is stupid. Revenues being split with theaters means 800-900 for break even. Not smart at all. You have to give yourself half a chance. I'd venture to say if Avengers needed 900 to break even, it wouldn't have been made. To make matters worse they're allowing a guy to change everything we know about the characters it seems like. The masses won't recognize a pouting, doubtful superman, as, you know, superman. Things like that. Dark can be dark and fun, it can be dark and funny, it can dark and uplifting, dark and hopeful, etc, etc, from MoS on they seem to be going for dark and morose. While some may like or appreciate, the masses will not. It's not unlike a commercial prop run discussion here. The people making the run don't really care what we think - and we know more about the items than anyone. They care what the masses think.
I don't think their future hinges on Suicide Squad, but i think WW will be the big tell. WW could come off exceptionally well - if it's done right. Worst case, it really won't come off worse than BvS - and that would hurt them tremendously.
Simple advice - be true to your characters and make the hero's, hero's. The rest will take care of itself.
Gym Gordon: "That Joker! HE'S A PUBLIC MENACE!!!"
