SpiderByte

Anything under two and a half hours is "short" now apparently. Also, this I believe is the first image of the Wolverine mask that isn't some kind of leak. Guessing they're not hiding it in the marketing then. Hell it's probably in whatever they're showing at their presentation.

Grace makes up shit constantly. She was NOT talking about Gunn becoming CEO of DC.

Yep, Gunn was out of the blue. As for Cinemacon...I don't think they'll show too much if anything, maybe a logo. Maybe, maybe, they'll have a photo of Superman. But it's too early for them to have anything real to show.

It absolutely would not indicate that it's a musical if you didn't already know it.

100m ad spend isnt exactly a small number. It'll likely do great at awards season but that'd need to do much bigger numbers than it probably will to justify it. Someone needs to be willing to eat some money for awards, and Netflix sounds to be moving away from ridiculously overspending on films now even if they did get it a theatrical release

Oh God dammit they're doing the "not promoting the musical as a musical" shit for this too aren't they

It wasn't leaked, it was part of Disneys Shareholder thing.

They've been good at balancing SDCC and D23 more recently. But yeah Cinemacon isn't as much huge breaking news other than trailers (with some exceptions like Homecoming being announced, I think Affleck directing Batman initially was announced there)

They might show something for this at Cinemacon. More recent times theyve gone they only focus on the next calendar year, but they definitely have footage for a clip there so there's a chance they might briefly have something.

Some advice this board should hear frankly

The "longer runtime equals better" thing is not remotely a universal rule. There have been long movies with lots of success, but that doesn't mean shorter movies that bomb just needed half an hour tacked onto them. This is also evidenced by the fact that two hours...is not short.

It doesn't mean fucking anything.

So with a 200 million budget...if there's a third one what are the odds you think WB says they gotta have Batman in it

Either way they're keeping all the same basic story elements, so it's not like a page one rewrite of the whole series. But everything about it sounds very promising, especially their plans for Frank.

Do people here just...not know they already released a trailer

It sounds like the basic plot is the same (Fisk running for Mayor, etc), so they're keeping some stuff but not everything. They wrapped filming now, but started in January, so they didn't scrap all the footage but are retooling it. The biggest difference seems to be A: the return of more of the original cast (since it was originally just Matt Fisk and Frank returning) and B: adding more serialized elements whereas the previous one was more episodic. They completely reshot the first episode, parts of the episodes already filmed, and completely redid the final two episodes (which they hadn't gotten around to begin filming in the first round of shooting)

They released the first trailer two months ago.

I don't think just arbitrarily sticking a movie in December automatically makes it a hit

I think it works. Since...the entire cast is different it's easier to communicate that it's a sequel.

No Way Home was December. But with Star Wars and now Avatar it just wasnt worth it to schedule it so close together. One might take it now that Mando is in May

So? What's he supposed to do give away the twists two months into filming

There's also absolutely gonna be a slate wide delay to accomodate Spider-Man, whenever Sony finally announces it.

Ehh maybe but I feel this is different than, say, Aladdin opening in the wake of Endgame. This is the first Star Wars movie in what will be 7 years. Someone is gonna eat somebody else's lunch here.

I think Disney learned it's lesson on trying to release Star Wars in less than a 12 month apart span with Solo.