Monday, July 23, 2018 • Morning Edition • "At least we're not The Comics Reporter!"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Justice League Review

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

zryson

YOU WILL NEED A NURSE

Postby zryson » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:55 pm

Jack Charlemagne wrote:
Terminator Salvation and Terminator Genysys were both failed opening chapters to new trilogies, in both cases failing so badly that all immediate plans were scrapped. In both cases I think box office returns and quality agreed with one another, but generally I don't think box office success is much of an honest indication on the quality of a movie. Movies can be total shit but make loads of dough (hello, the Transformers and the Fast & Furious series and everything the Rock has ever been in). Movies can be genius and bomb bomb bombs away (It's a Wonderful Life, which was a theatrical bomb and failed to connect with the public until something like 3 decades after its release).

Each and every theatrical movie is ultimately a company unto itself. It's a full-time job for a couple hundred people or so over a year, year and half- and that's just the production itself. Regardless of its marketing material every company on the planet exists only to make money. Most of the people who can finance a big production do not do so for any reason other than hopes of getting that much more back from it. So at the end of the day the financials really are all that matter. Anything else really is entirely subjective. The Rock's movies have big fan followings even if they only offer brain herpes. James Gunn is in a great but rare balancing point, where he is breathing a lot of life into the MCU (so much that Thor 3 had to ape his style), while at the same time making some bank.

JL will ultimately make a lot of money, but the fact that it will not make as much as it should have will nudge out some careers and some planned projects.


No, Justice League will not make a lot of money, far from it. After post-theatrical (give or take an extended cut) it may well break even.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmende ... 8f5ccf7942

zryson

YOU WILL NEED A NURSE

Postby zryson » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:00 pm

rustyrusty wrote:Is it just me or does it seem like so much of the discussion about movies these days, by fans, is about how much money they took? Feels like that's something the media used to talk about and the fans would talk more about plots and characters, scenes and scripts and whatnot. I dunno, I find it odd. I mean, I know it affects whether or not other films get made etc, but the popularity of a film or any artistic endeavour really doesn't reflect how good it is.

Take 'The Big Lebowski' for example, that's a classic film these days, largely ignored at the box office at the time.

Just seems weird to me for fans to talk about box office takings so much, and comparing different movies and franchises in that way. I guess a lot of it does seem to stem from Zyson.


Anyhoo. I thought Justice League was okay, though kind of a mess. You've got an old Batman, a Superman who's barely got started but already died (and a mess of a character that doesn't really stand up to the essential positive nature of the character), and a very very young Flash. Seems like the timeline is all over the place. The only character that really stands up to any scrutiny for me is Wonder Woman, the rest of them they don't seem to know what to do with, or what era of their life they want them to be in. It's that lack of confidence in their own characters that means the film doesn't really hold together.


Well the box office numbers indicate what audiences like so its an important in gauging what audiences respond to and what they don't like. So its not just fans who look at box office numbers (and just about every forum online has a thread devoted to box office takings, some even have several). The entertainment industry studies numbers closely too - why do you think Warner Bros was so disappointed with Justice League? The same will happen with Disney - they will watching the box office numbers closely to see how much TLJ pulls in and how it compares with audiences/critics to TFA.
User avatar

rustyrusty

Garbage Collector

Postby rustyrusty » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:07 am

zryson wrote:
Well the box office numbers indicate what audiences like so its an important in gauging what audiences respond to and what they don't like. So its not just fans who look at box office numbers (and just about every forum online has a thread devoted to box office takings, some even have several). The entertainment industry studies numbers closely too - why do you think Warner Bros was so disappointed with Justice League? The same will happen with Disney - they will watching the box office numbers closely to see how much TLJ pulls in and how it compares with audiences/critics to TFA.


Obviously it's important to those making or financing the films, but it's the incessant talk of '800 million' this and '900 million' that by viewers on forums that baffles me and kind of pisses me off; as if those viewers have a stake in the box office takings.
User avatar

Jack Charlemagne

rubber spoon

Postby Jack Charlemagne » Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:02 am

rustyrusty wrote:
Obviously it's important to those making or financing the films, but it's the incessant talk of '800 million' this and '900 million' that by viewers on forums that baffles me and kind of pisses me off; as if those viewers have a stake in the box office takings.


Personally, I don't think I've paid to watch a movie in over a decade. Even when I had a TV, I would steal cable. I think the astronomical sums are a curiosity. But I also think some people focus on those sorts of stats because maybe they can't adequately voice their exact qualms.
User avatar

cbikle

Swedish Pinata of Death

Postby cbikle » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 am

rustyrusty wrote:
Obviously it's important to those making or financing the films, but it's the incessant talk of '800 million' this and '900 million' that by viewers on forums that baffles me and kind of pisses me off; as if those viewers have a stake in the box office takings.


I'm guilty of this.

In some cases, I love watching a movie like the latest Fantastic Four, crash & burn at the box office, esp. after all the cast's shit talking and unnecessary changes made to the source material.

Every time a superhero does well or poorly at the box office is a barometer for predicting if the studio will continue to head down the right or wrong road.

Also, there's a lot of inherent backstage drama w/ WB & the DCEU, because we know that their backs are against the wall and they HAVE to make this work !

To sum up, a lot of fanboy schadenfreude watching clueless studio execs flounder.
User avatar

rustyrusty

Garbage Collector

Postby rustyrusty » Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:04 pm

It must be really hard to make a film you're not as emotionally invested in as the fans. Which would be the case for a lot of film execs, I'm guessing.

zryson

YOU WILL NEED A NURSE

Postby zryson » Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:36 pm

rustyrusty wrote:
Obviously it's important to those making or financing the films, but it's the incessant talk of '800 million' this and '900 million' that by viewers on forums that baffles me and kind of pisses me off; as if those viewers have a stake in the box office takings.


ts no different to watching the score of your favorite team playing a sport. If anything the box office talk on Outhousers is very mild compared to other sites where the discussions can get/and do get extremely heated.
User avatar

rustyrusty

Garbage Collector

Postby rustyrusty » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:10 pm

zryson wrote:
ts no different to watching the score of your favorite team playing a sport.


I could see why you'd say that, and it's fair enough if talking about money floats your boat, but for me the thing that interest me in films or literature or whatever is the characters, what they say and do, what happens to them, whether that makes sense, that sort of thing. And bringing it into such sharp focus on the money-side kind of ruins it for me, personally. Takes the magic away. Ditto the constant little commercial news bites for products that get posted. I guess because I try to avoid the feeling that I'm constantly being sold something that relates to something I like. It's not that I'm under any illusion about these being money-making schemes, but that's not all they are, there's a lot of love and desire to make good stories too, and I'm more into that.

zryson

YOU WILL NEED A NURSE

Postby zryson » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:17 pm

rustyrusty wrote:
I could see why you'd say that, and it's fair enough if talking about money floats your boat, but for me the thing that interest me in films or literature or whatever is the characters, what they say and do, what happens to them, whether that makes sense, that sort of thing. And bringing it into such sharp focus on the money-side kind of ruins it for me, personally. Takes the magic away. Ditto the constant little commercial news bites for products that get posted. I guess because I try to avoid the feeling that I'm constantly being sold something that relates to something I like. It's not that I'm under any illusion about these being money-making schemes, but that's not all they are, there's a lot of love and desire to make good stories too, and I'm more into that.


All good points Rusty but at the end of the day, the commercial factor/availability of the characters ultimately determines what resonates and money, like it or not factors heavily into that. If anything, the stakes are higher than ever, as you see with Disney purchasing FOX. If they can make money out of the new franchises by colliding them with other franchises already owned, you can be sure some executive with dollar signs in their eyes will do just that.
User avatar

SporkBot

Swedish Pinata of Death

Postby SporkBot » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:54 pm

rustyrusty wrote:I could see why you'd say that, and it's fair enough if talking about money floats your boat, but for me the thing that interest me in films or literature or whatever is the characters, what they say and do, what happens to them, whether that makes sense, that sort of thing. And bringing it into such sharp focus on the money-side kind of ruins it for me, personally. Takes the magic away. Ditto the constant little commercial news bites for products that get posted. I guess because I try to avoid the feeling that I'm constantly being sold something that relates to something I like. It's not that I'm under any illusion about these being money-making schemes, but that's not all they are, there's a lot of love and desire to make good stories too, and I'm more into that.


The finances of a film can be an interesting topic of discussion, but it is by no means the ultimate measure of quality or success. People have, do, and will, buy into stupid stuff. They don't keep seeing Transformers movies for coherent plots or deep characterization. Heck, I've bought comics that were bad because it was a title I'd been collecting for years (most of which were expunged years ago). Chuck Austen is the ultimate example of how someone with terrible writing skills can achieve some level of success at the Big Two. Hollywood has its share of the same, they're just vastly overpaid, be they actors or executives.

Kubo and the Two Strings is a great film. It it made just under $10 million more than it's budget in return. But that doesn't mean the story is any less well done or the animation less great. Conversely, The Hangover had a little better than half Kubo's budget, but made more than 10 times its money back. Frankly, I find the whole Hangover "saga" to be fairly underwhelming, and that doesn't change because of how much money it made.
User avatar

rustyrusty

Garbage Collector

Postby rustyrusty » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:05 pm

zryson wrote:All good points Rusty but at the end of the day, the commercial factor/availability of the characters ultimately determines what resonates and money, like it or not factors heavily into that. If anything, the stakes are higher than ever, as you see with Disney purchasing FOX. If they can make money out of the new franchises by colliding them with other franchises already owned, you can be sure some executive with dollar signs in their eyes will do just that.


*yawns*

I get where you're coming from, it's just not where I'm coming from.

zryson

YOU WILL NEED A NURSE

Postby zryson » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:26 pm

rustyrusty wrote:
*yawns*

I get where you're coming from, it's just not where I'm coming from.


That's OK. I understand your point of view and it would be dull if everybody wanted/desired the same thing. Difference makes the world go around.
User avatar

Rebirth NoctourneM

Rain Partier

Postby Rebirth NoctourneM » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:20 pm

rustyrusty wrote:
*yawns*

I get where you're coming from, it's just not where I'm coming from.


Have you tried something else besides coming from a place of Logic and Reason? I think that is where you went astray if you were genuinely trying to convince him. :lol: Have you tried posting more links you haven't read because you think they might support your position on a movie you also hadn't seen?

zryson

YOU WILL NEED A NURSE

Postby zryson » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:37 pm

Rebirth NoctourneM wrote:
Have you tried something else besides coming from a place of Logic and Reason? I think that is where you went astray if you were genuinely trying to convince him. :lol: Have you tried posting more links you haven't read because you think they might support your position on a movie you also hadn't seen?


LOL Logic and reason on the Outhouse? Ha! I knew you had a sense of humor.
User avatar

Chessack

Great Scott!!!

Postby Chessack » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:39 am

rustyrusty wrote:Obviously it's important to those making or financing the films, but it's the incessant talk of '800 million' this and '900 million' that by viewers on forums that baffles me and kind of pisses me off; as if those viewers have a stake in the box office takings.


Really do we talk about it all that much except as it relates to the Marvel and DC movies? I've not heard people talk all that much about how much money "Wonder" made. (They are talking Oscars, but not money, so much.) And even with the Marvel movies I'm not sure people would be all that much discussing it except that DC/WB has come out and tried to compete with them on the world stage and WB keeps getting their asses handed to them.

I think a lot of the discussion comes from a place of schadenfreude (I'll admit to it, for example). They went in a really awful direction with the DC/WB universe from day 1 (Man of Steel) and when they got less than rave reviews from it (despite, to further add to your point about it, the movie making decent money) and lots of fan complaints, instead of rethinking/retooling, they doubled down and went even more in that direction. Once that happened, people who disliked what WB was doing started hoping that the movies would bomb, partly out of schadenfreude, but also partly because we know that the only thing the people at the top care about is the bottom line, and the only chance we have of WB retooling, rethinking, whatever, is going to be $.

Also, whether a movie was good or bad is a matter of opinion. But whether it was profitable is not. So it's easier to talk about the financial numbers in many ways, than it is to talk about whether a movie was 'good.'

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], Google [Bot], Neurotic Moose and 55 guests