Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom | December 22, 2023 | David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick (co-writer of first film) returns

[El Gato]

11 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

I distinctly remember people saying that the first WW was “a mess” as well. It seems like the only DCEU movie where the scoopers haven’t been in full doom and gloom mode has been the Flash movie, which is supposedly the best thing ever. I’m just tired of hearing from these people at this point. 

The scoopers literally make something up about every DC film, with the exception of The Batman and Flash, surprisingly. Even Blue Beetle has a rumor pop up about a drive by on set and it only being 50% done 😂

[GOGODanca]

One of the trades reported not so long ago that Wan was told that WB didn't have much money for reshoots so I wonder how much can actually be fixed 

[WittyUsername]

I have to be perfectly blunt here; if VA already claimed that he lied previously when he said this movie was testing ok, that kind of hurts his credibility moving forward. 

[Firepower]

On 2/20/2023 at 2:03 AM, cax16 said:

Hard to believe Wan delivering a “boring” movie but I trust @ViewerAnon.

Didn't Viewer Anon claim that Malignant is The Room level terrible or that Welcome To Racoon City had good test-screenings? I'd be really cautious. Could be true, could be not true at all.

[GOGODanca]

3 hours ago, Firepower said:

Didn't Viewer Anon claim that Malignant is The Room level terrible or that Welcome To Racoon City had good test-screenings? I'd be really cautious. Could be true, could be not true at all.

Can't speak to Racoon City but Malignant did not have good audience scores 

[Firepower]

13 minutes ago, GOGODanca said:

Can't speak to Racoon City but Malignant did not have good audience scores 

For a horror movie they are mostly good and critics reviews were mostly good too, different genres have different scales or like TV shows have completely different scale from movies. I mean I can see why it could be very badly received at test-screenings, but The Room? C'mon.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Firepower

[GOGODanca]

25 minutes ago, Firepower said:

For a horror movie they are mostly good and critics reviews were mostly good too, different genres have different scales or like TV shows have completely different scale from movies. I mean I can see why it could be very badly received at test-screenings, but The Room? C'mon.

Malignant actually divided audiences with a C CinemaScore, and even worse, PostTrak exits at 59% positive and a 38% definite recommend, - Deadline

 

 

[Firepower]

21 minutes ago, GOGODanca said:

Malignant actually divided audiences with a C CinemaScore, and even worse, PostTrak exits at 59% positive and a 38% definite recommend, - Deadline

Average Joe Score is not a good example, most horror movies have low CinemaScore, different scale in different genres applies here too. 6.2 on imdb and 6.3 on letterboxd is mostly good for a horror movie, nowhere near terrible or embarrassing like test-screening reports implied. Welcome To Raccoon City, which supposedly had good test-screenings, has 5.2 on imdb and 4.45 on letterboxd.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Firepower

[GOGODanca]

28 minutes ago, Firepower said:

Average Joe Score is not a good example, most horror movies have low CinemaScore, different scale in different genres applies here too. 6.2 on imdb and 6.3 on letterboxd is mostly good for a horror movie, nowhere near terrible or embarrassing like test-screening reports implied. Welcome To Raccoon City, which supposedly had good test-screenings, has 5.2 on imdb and 4.45 on letterboxd.

Imdb and letterboxd don't matter more than the opinions of people right out of the theatres and those numbers even for a horror are not good, if letterboxd mattered then babylon would have been a hit

[ViewerAnon]

5 hours ago, Firepower said:

Didn't Viewer Anon claim that Malignant is The Room level terrible or that Welcome To Racoon City had good test-screenings? I'd be really cautious. Could be true, could be not true at all.

 

I said MALIGNANT had awful test screenings and it really, really did. I don't know how you watch that film and think an audience of 200 people who don't know what they're seeing come out of it with positive impressions.

 

I did report hearing WELCOME TO RACCOON CITY was in pretty good shape, though. Which just goes to emphasize that test screenings aren't math. There are no concrete rules or absolute values. It's one of the reasons I've moved away from tweeting about test screenings unless impressions are really positive or interesting.

 

14 hours ago, TheDude391 said:

Malignant had dreadful test screenings, do you think this might be having a similar effect on unsuspecting audiences (if Wan did go full Mario Bava Planet of the Vampires), or is it just actually a complete mess? 

 

It's always possible but I think there's a difference in the complaints: with MALIGNANT it was usually "It's so stupid" or "It's SILLY!" or "It's really bizarre," whereas with AQUAMAN 2 it's much more "It's dull," "The villain sucks," etc.

[TMP]

All non-flash dc films goin rotten this year? 🤔

all non-flash live action cbms this year going rotten would be bolder, but guardians seems pretty safe

[cax16]

12 minutes ago, TMP said:

All non-flash dc films goin rotten this year? 🤔

all non-flash live action cbms this year going rotten would be bolder, but guardians seems pretty safe

I think Shazam and blue beetle will be fine.

[WittyUsername]

At this point, I think it would be pretty funny if it turns out the scoopers were wrong about The Flash being the greatest thing ever. It’s really weird to me how much they’ve been going to bat for it. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by WittyUsername

[cax16]

9 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

At this point, I think it would be pretty funny if it turns out the scoopers were wrong about The Flash being the greatest thing ever. It’s really weird to me how much they’ve been going to bat for it. 

Tbf gunn himself said he thought it was one of the best cbm he’s seen. He hasn’t said anything about Shazam in that context so I assume they think the movie is good. Who knows how the GA will react but at this point I don’t think we can say anyone has been lying about how the flash has tested. Again, that doesn’t mean that it’s gonna be some huge hit or everyone will love it but it must be at least “good”. 

[WittyUsername]

22 minutes ago, cax16 said:

Tbf gunn himself said he thought it was one of the best cbm he’s seen. He hasn’t said anything about Shazam in that context so I assume they think the movie is good. Who knows how the GA will react but at this point I don’t think we can say anyone has been lying about how the flash has tested. Again, that doesn’t mean that it’s gonna be some huge hit or everyone will love it but it must be at least “good”. 

In Gunn’s case, I wouldn’t consider him propping the movie up to be proof that it’s as great as it’s being cracked up to be. Out of all the DC movies coming out this year, The Flash is the one that’s most vital to the future of the company. It underperforming would not only be very bad for the future of the DCU, but WBD as a whole, if their financial situation is really as dire as we’ve been hearing.
 

I’m not saying the movie will be ravaged by critics, but the scoopers have consistently been making it out to be a huge crowdpleaser on the level of NWH that test audiences straight up cheered multiple times for, which feels borderline hyperbolic. It’s basically the polar opposite of what people like VA have now been saying about Aquaman 2. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by WittyUsername

[cax16]

13 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

In Gunn’s case, I wouldn’t consider him propping the movie up to be proof that it’s as great as it’s being cracked up to be. Out of all the DC movies coming out this year, The Flash is the one that’s most vital to the future of the company. It underperforming would not only be very bad for the future of the DCU, but WBD as a whole, if their financial situation is really as dire as we’ve been hearing.
 

I’m not saying the movie will be ravaged by critics, but the scoopers have consistently been making it out to be a huge crowdpleaser on the level of NWH that test audiences straight up cheered multiple times for, which feels borderline hyperbolic. It’s basically the polar opposite of what people like VA have now been saying about Aquaman 2. 

I think Gunn will look pretty stupid if the movie isn’t pretty good. He didn’t have to go out of his way to say it’s “one of the best cbm” he’s seen. I understand he has a  larger stake in things now but really I’m not sure how much the flash is really gonna impact his movies going forward. The flash was basically the same movie it is now before Gunn and Safran took over minus some post credit scenes. 
 

Gonna stop talking about the flash in this thread though, don’t want to derail it anymore.

 

With respects to this movie ill

be there opening day and I’m sure I’ll enjoy it to some varying degree but I’m glad DC has it’s own studio now. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by cax16

[GOGODanca]

@ViewerAnondo you have any idea if there was a lot of studio interference on aquaman 2 or did they just let Wan do whatever he wanted before poor screenings?

[WittyUsername]

3 minutes ago, cax16 said:

I think Gunn will look pretty stupid if the movie isn’t pretty good. He didn’t have to go out of his way to say it’s “one of the best cbm” he’s seen. I understand he has a  larger stake in things now but really I’m not sure how much the flash is really gonna impact his movies going forward. The flash was basically the same movie it is now before Gunn and Safran took over minus some post credit scenes. 

Meh. Gunn also said in 2021 that he had no interest in doing a Superman film or running DC, and now he’s doing both of those things. For what it’s worth, he’s also claimed that The Flash will lead directly into the new DCU, so if that’s true, then the movie failing would not be good for Gunn. 

[Firepower]

1 hour ago, GOGODanca said:

Imdb and letterboxd don't matter more than the opinions of people right out of the theatres and those numbers even for a horror are not good, if letterboxd mattered then babylon would have been a hit

Imdb and letterboxd do matter more or you think Wolf Of Wall Street is not beloved film and wasn't box office hit because it also got C CinemaScore? And there are tons and tons of examples like that. C CinemaScore is around average for horror films and it's a genre where B+ equals A+ for a family flick. And anything over 6 on imdb/letterboxd for a horror movie is usually "not bad/mostly good", a lot of great old horror films usually have around 6.5 average on imdb.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Firepower

[GOGODanca]

1 minute ago, Firepower said:

Imdb and letterboxd do matter more or you think Wolf Of Wall Street is not beloved film and wasn't box office hit because it also got C CinemaScore? And there are tons and tons of examples like that. C CinemaScore is around average for horror films and it's a genre where B+ equals A+ for a family flick. And anything over 6 on imdb/letterboxd for a horror movie is usually "not bad/mostly good", a lot of great old horror films usually have around 6.5 average on imdb.

the posttrak definite recommend and positive numbers are not good even for horror and again the scores from actual paying audience members >>> imdb/letterboxd where anyone can drop a review. There's literally nothing supporting your argument that Malignant was liked by the public which would support the poor test screenings report