Ken

Oddly enough, the first teaser was made available in June 2013, less than a month before its debut in Japan!

I might be the only one in the world who remembers this really old interview from 2010 where, around the 1:28 mark, Daniel Radcliffe joked at the prospect of Harry Potter eventually being remade, and scoffed at the idea of participating in it.

Starting now.

If anyone's interested, the presentation link is here.

And let's not forget when most thought this would be the new norm:

Coming up shortly is the official reveal of WBD's new & "improved" streaming service. This feels like it was only yesterday:

I don't really want to add to this debate any more, so I'll just give my opinions really quickly: Marvel still has potential to produce crowdpleasers, it just vastly depends on the character. Only the next Avengers films will be the ones to determine, once and for all, if the post-Endgame strategy was worth it. Once that's over with, then the time is right for X-Men's comeback. DC has more potential than ever before, but it's really tough to say if it'll work out this early on, 'cause their current Phase One film lineup is even more laidback and experimental than Marvel's early phases were. Sony's SUMC is the one that really isn't doing any favors. Their plan is to pair up a somewhat recognizable actor with a random character who can't sustain a full feature and expect high results. And their big Avengers-style team up event seems to be...what, exactly? A big brawl with Spider-Man? Something else entirely? But in order for the comic book superhero film bubble to truly burst: something else would have to come in and take its place.

Whenever I glance at the thread title, I keep thinking it says "Anya Taylor-Joy is a peach".

While we're at it, can we try Jem and the Holograms again?

Now that this is out: can we still expect Micronauts, Visionaries, M.A.S.K., ROM, and Action Man?

I felt like sharing something that's been on my mind. Just to be clear, I really enjoy Volume 2 a lot: I think it's one of the best examples in recent history of a strong sequel, and it solidified this series as Gunn's franchise. Yet I also remember that the reaction to it back in 2017, while mostly very positive, was kind of divisive (obviously not to the same extent as another sci-fi sequel that year). 'Cause of this, I can't help but wonder if that film would have had a worse reception if it came out now. Think about some of the criticisms, do any of these sound familiar? This one had too many characters, and not enough got the depth they deserved. Also, some of my favorites from the last film were absent with no explanation. There was WAY too many action sequences and CG VFX, especially the third act. They should have trimmed some of them down. [Also, Dairy Queen's inclusion was accused of being product placement.] Too many good actors "wasted". They killed off Russell's Ego, Debicki didn't have much to do, Stallone & others were only in it for a few minutes. Too much bad humor! Every serious moment was undercut by a joke immediately afterwards! They did nothing to set up Infinity War! No Thanos, no soul stone, are the heroes on Earth going to even acknowledge Ego's destruction in any of the upcoming films? Obviously, this wasn't the first time a Marvel film got critiques like these, but is the film really worthy of a high merit, or were people more easily accepting back then? Are the films really that much worse now? To me, it feels like a film that could get away with an 85% RT and A CinemaScore back then would now have like a 69% and B with how much restless people are now. And if Volume 2, The Suicide Squad, and Peacemaker didn't make enough people think that Gunn went too far, what could Volume 3 do to tick audiences off?

Hilarious that the Lionsgate/Summit film launched in 2014 that got both a fourth film and a TV series was this and not Divergent.

I also remember last year he made a video talking about Super-Pets and BA's release date changes, but nothing about Shazam moving up from June 2023 to December 2022. And then both BA & Shazam were at Comic-Con, and there wasn't even an attempt at cross-pollination. It's pretty obvious he felt Billy Batson was beneath him. At least he and Gadot still have Red Notice, I guess?

I think the original idea, circa 2019, was to do something like Legendary's MonsterVerse: 1st Shazam (like Godzilla) Black Adam (like Skull Island) 2nd Shazam (like King of the Monsters) Black Adam v Shazam: We All Live in a Justice Society But somewhere along the line, Johnson decided a fight with Superman would rake in a lot more cash and make him look cooler, and that's what left Shazam 2 feeling empty. Without seeing the actual credits myself, I can't find any proof that Johnson even had a producing credit on it.

If Aquaman 2 has bad reviews but no serious competition, it wouldn't be any different from the first movie...unless the audience has drastically changed 5 years later. I know people love to complain about Heard's involvement, but the movie's not called Mera, and online boycott threats don't mean squat.

If this article from 2010 is to be believed: if WB didn't hire Snyder, Man of Steel could have been directed by: Jonathan Liebesman Duncan Jones (!) Matt Reeves (!!) Tony Scott (!!!) They also approached GDT, but even if he wasn't working on ATMOM at the time, I don't think he would have done it. Some of the directors on that list could have also given Goyer's script a rewrite. We all were cheated.

For reference's sake, when this movie was greenlit at the end of 2019, the superhero movie calendar looked like this: 2020 Feb-Birds of Prey Mar-Bloodshot (from Valiant: remember that?!) Apr-The New Mutants May-Black Widow Jun-Wonder Woman Jul-Morbius Oct-Venom Nov-Eternals 2021 Feb-Shang-Chi May-Doctor Strange Jun-The Batman Jul-Spider-Man Aug-The Suicide Squad Nov-Thor Dec-Black Adam 2022 Feb-Untitled Marvel Apr-THIS MOVIE ON THE 1st and Spider-Verse on the 8th May-Black Panther (when Boseman was expected to star) and Super-Pets Jul-The Flash and Untitled Marvel Oct-Untitled Marvel Dec-Aquaman If the following year didn't mess everything up, I wonder if this movie would've stood a better chance or not. (And on an unrelated note, I also wonder if the current complicated MCU feelings would've still occurred).

Sandberg had to miss the premiere, but look who's showed up:

Robert Schwentke

Is it better than opening three weeks before Avengers: Endgame?

Anyone here remember that time around 2015 when Universal/Working Title was planning their own Little Mermaid adaptation with Chloe Grace Moretz starring and Richard Curtis writing (right after Sofia Coppola dropped out from directing)? I wonder what it would have been like if that got made: it could have been Favreau's The Jungle Book vs. Serkis's Mowgli all over again.

I've noticed a lot lately that whenever a sequel flops or underperforms, people complain it's because the marketing had no hook. For someone like me who never got around to watching the first movie, is the hook for an adult audience supposed to be "Shazam and all his siblings must fight Helen Mirren and Lucy Liu"? Seems to me like WB is aiming more for a family-friendly-but-still-PG-13 market (like with the Jumanji films and some of Disney's live action fare).

I don't know if anyone else has discovered this, but I found this book cover on Amazon, which provides an illustrated look at Sebastian and Flounder. I won't post the image here in case it gets removed.

Sorry that I was unclear: I was actually being honest about MPR. Only the second sentence was a joke, because it seemed funny to me how visually different they both were despite coming from the same director. (This is why I try to make more sincere posts than comedic ones, since I can't do it as effortlessly as others.) Personally, I don't really have any particular strong feelings about how this film looks, mostly because very little of it has been revealed so far.