The Flash | June 16 2023 | Ezra Miller, Michael Keaton | We’re stoping the count at a Nice 69% RT (it’s 72% For Real) | Please Remember that Your Enjoyment Of The Film is Not Based On Others Opinions And To Be Nice To Each Other

[vinny2487]

1 hour ago, keysersoze123 said:

I see all kinds of rumors that the movie that is shown is missing not only post credits and but also few scenes in the 3rd act. That would be really weird and counter predictive showing incomplete movie in a theater unless it was mentioned specifically to the audience. 

I think the only thing specifically mentioned is a short video message before the screening from Muschietti saying this is still an unfinished film. It seems like people who saw the screening are comparing the plot point leaks from a while back, which largely have been accurate. It seems like the last scene of the movie is the one that's missing a few seconds. 

[Legion Again]

Excel is right — 130 is weak for a Batman movie

[Mr Roark]

4 hours ago, excel1 said:

 

LOL what

Exactly what you read.

An OW under $100M with all they are investing for marketing it for a $250M comic book film with Flash and two Batmen in it would be a failure. 

[ZattMurdock]

9 minutes ago, Legions of the Galaxy said:

Excel is right — 130 is weak for a Batman movie

It’s Batman’s 4th reboot in less than 33 years. After having a failed attempt of a reboot. I don’t understand why would anyone think that. 

[21C]

Isn't The Batman's box office opening the highest for a franchise reboot? Pretty sure it is. 

[ZattMurdock]

Just now, 21C said:

Isn't The Batman's box office opening the highest for a franchise reboot? Pretty sure it is. 

Yep. 

[21C]

I will make an argument that I think some people will find annoying but that I truly do believe in:

Even tho yes, CGI is not the most important part of a movie, it DOES play a part in how a film is sold visually to the audience. And when a movie has noticeably bad CGI in its marketing material, I do believe it can create a negative impression on the audience especially if it's for a franchise known for its varying degrees of qualities like this one.
The average movie-goer may not care about all the little details that film fans do, but like... they do have eyes. If something looks off, they will notice it. Countless marketing studies have been done on how even really irrelevant stuff in advertising that no one even notices can entice or turn off consumers, is it really that big of a stretch to think that some of the bad CGI shown in the trailers might be serving as a turn-off here?  Hell, in a movie theater, when you have several trailers next to each other and The Flash stands out as having the worst CGI of them all, is it that far fetched to think it may be having an impact?

And before anyone mentions Marvel, yeah, the CGI can be bad in some of their movies. But you know what? Marvel does a ridiculously good job at hiding that in their trailers. Every single time  a Flash teaser or TV Spot or trailer has released, there's always like a thousand comments or retweets pointing out several frames that "look bad" or "like a videogame", and aside from Quantumania, I can't recall that happening with any other MCU film to the same scale. And sure, the average movie-goer isn't part of those comments or quote retweets—but they have eyes and they're bound to notice the same things.  

The average consumer has the extra-cynicism in that they're not invested enough to think "oh they'll fix it once it comes out in a few months", they're just gonna take it at face value. 

[belblazer]

 

I think nobody posted this. 

 

This is music to my ears.

[Saul Goodman]

34 minutes ago, 21C said:

I will make an argument that I think some people will find annoying but that I truly do believe in:

Even tho yes, CGI is not the most important part of a movie, it DOES play a part in how a film is sold visually to the audience. And when a movie has noticeably bad CGI in its marketing material, I do believe it can create a negative impression on the audience especially if it's for a franchise known for its varying degrees of qualities like this one.
The average movie-goer may not care about all the little details that film fans do, but like... they do have eyes. If something looks off, they will notice it. Countless marketing studies have been done on how even really irrelevant stuff in advertising that no one even notices can entice or turn off consumers, is it really that big of a stretch to think that some of the bad CGI shown in the trailers might be serving as a turn-off here?  Hell, in a movie theater, when you have several trailers next to each other and The Flash stands out as having the worst CGI of them all, is it that far fetched to think it may be having an impact?

And before anyone mentions Marvel, yeah, the CGI can be bad in some of their movies. But you know what? Marvel does a ridiculously good job at hiding that in their trailers. Every single time  a Flash teaser or TV Spot or trailer has released, there's always like a thousand comments or retweets pointing out several frames that "look bad" or "like a videogame", and aside from Quantumania, I can't recall that happening with any other MCU film to the same scale. And sure, the average movie-goer isn't part of those comments or quote retweets—but they have eyes and they're bound to notice the same things.  

The average consumer has the extra-cynicism in that they're not invested enough to think "oh they'll fix it once it comes out in a few months", they're just gonna take it at face value. 

I mean this movie has no excuse to look worse than NWH and Shang-Chi which came out at the middle of the pandemic with rushed production.

[titanic2187]

3 hours ago, ZattMurdock said:

I’m always cautious with "internet hype". Guardians are a proven and beloved franchise, part of an even bigger and beloved universe. Ten years ago,I’d agree, internet hype means box office buzz, these days it’s a lot more difficult to gauge a film’s hype by its online presence. People talking about a film doesn’t always correlate on big box office numbers anymore, and I’d argue that’s the case even before the pandemic.

But one can never deny "internet hype" give a movie an advantage to jump start. And in the case of GOTG3 , the impact of lack of internet hype is evident for its OW, only to be "remediated" thanks to strong WOM. Most of the time when internet hype failed to translate into BO, there was when the actual movie sucks.

 

Of course sometime we have outlier like Avatar 2, no way people would agree that A2 had the bigger internet hype than IW, NWH and SW7 in their pre-release cycle but the movie still beat every single one of them. That is the power of silent majority which is harder to gauge. 

3 hours ago, keysersoze123 said:

Wait the weekend is not even over. Let us not get ahead of ourself. 

 

I always thought it is a done deal, strong and steady presale run, with positive enough of reviews.  

 

 

[Wesley]

2 hours ago, Mr Roark said:

Exactly what you read.

An OW under $100M with all they are investing for marketing it for a $250M comic book film with Flash and two Batmen in it would be a failure. 

It will open over $100M the WOM and reviews and walkups will cary it over that for sure we all know Legion is only here to troll every DC movie i believe he also said The Batman would open under $100M. No clue why he has such an agenda for DC movies hmm..

[Wesley]

8 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

early ticket sales in the tracking thread seem to point to an opening closer to this than 100m

Thats not true tracking suggest $85-90M and with walkups, WOM, reviews it will go past $100M opening weekend for sure. Its literally tracking 2-2.5 better than BA which opened to $65M you really think this movie will only do $5M more come on man.

[Jeight]

1 hour ago, belblazer said:

 

I think nobody posted this. 

 

This is music to my ears.

What is music exactly?  The president of DC who has a massive stakes in every DC related project being successful and especially this one which resets the entire universe, praised the film? He is the most biased one for a number of reasons. 

 

The whole "Gunn is Transparent" and never lies to the fans is bs.  There are numerous occasions where he has lied. 

[Hatebox]

100m opening strikes me as ok for a movie that many thought would be a dumpster fire. As with all things DCU it’s really hard to gauge overall interest separately from its (let’s face it) often demented online fanbase. 

[Jeight]

Some of you here brushing off consecutive DC movies underperformance as "more proof than Gunn needed to reboot" is very tunnel visioned. 

 

If this underperforms and then aquaman after it then, why would audiences be excited and invested in another shared DC universe,  the third attempt in 13 years?  Continuous damage to the brand isn't gonna erased if Legacy is successful. There is an entire generation of people who has connected DC with lesser quality with only few movies in the past 25 years being well received and successful.  Seriously, it's only the Dark Knight Trilogy,  wonder woman,  joker,  batman,  aquaman and maybe shazam.  8 movies in 30 years!!!! 

[21C]

17 minutes ago, Jeight said:

Some of you here brushing off consecutive DC movies underperformance as "more proof than Gunn needed to reboot" is very tunnel visioned. 

 

If this underperforms and then aquaman after it then, why would audiences be excited and invested in another shared DC universe,  the third attempt in 13 years?  Continuous damage to the brand isn't gonna erased if Legacy is successful. There is an entire generation of people who has connected DC with lesser quality with only few movies in the past 25 years being well received and successful.  Seriously, it's only the Dark Knight Trilogy,  wonder woman,  joker,  batman,  aquaman and maybe shazam.  8 movies in 30 years!!!! 

I mean the idea is that the interest would come organically. If Superman Legacy is good, and then The Authority is good, and Brave and the Bold is good, and Supergirl and Swamp Thing,  interest will increase on its own. There's probably bigger interest for a DC reboot now than there was for a Marvel Cinematic Universe in 2008 with Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and Hulk.

It's not gonna be a billion dollars out of the gate or even mega big opening weekends, but it has more potential for long term growth than continuing the corpse of diminishing returns of the old DCEU does. 

There's also the fact that when Superman Legacy comes out, there'll be a whole demographic of 10-13 year olds that didn't know anything about that were born when the DCEU was created so... if they capture that audience, alongside with regaining the older ones, that's a lot of potential. 

Edited May 26, 2023 by 21C

[Jeight]

3 minutes ago, 21C said:

I mean the idea is that the interest would come organically. If Superman Legacy is good, and then The Authority is good, and Brave and the Bold is good, and Supergirl and Swamp Thing,  interest will increase on its own. There's probably bigger interest for a DC reboot now than there was for a Marvel Cinematic Universe in 2008 with Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and Hulk.

No,  there isn't. Not with all the duds DC has put out.  There would be in 2008 before Green Lantern,  Jonah hex and the dceu. 

 

That's like saying there is bigger interest for a dark universe now after the Mummy  flopped.  There isn't.  Or a bigger transformer interest now cause the bay movies were bad.  Yet Bumblebee barely broke even and Rise of the Beasts isn't looking too hot right now?  Why,  cause of brand damage... 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Jeight

[21C]

15 minutes ago, Jeight said:

No,  there isn't. Not with all the duds DC has put out.  There would be in 2008 before Green Lantern,  Jonah hex and the dceu. 

 

That's like saying there is bigger interest for a dark universe now after the Mummy  flopped.  There isn't.  Or a bigger transformer interest now cause the bay movies were bad.  Yet Bumblebee barely broke even and Rise of the Beasts isn't looking too hot right now?  Why,  cause of brand damage... 

The brand damage the DC brand has is not irreparable by any means. Look how Aquaman did, look how Joker did, look how The Batman did. 
Two of those are not in the DCEU, but neither will the new films either, so they're a fair comparison. 
Dark Universe is a uniquely bad example because no one and I mean no one is interested on the idea of having Dracula x The Mummy crossovers. It was a horrible idea from the get-go.

If the DCU movies are good and look appealing, I wouldn't rule out interest increasing organically, especially if it has an interesting over-arching stories. 

I am very concerned at Gunn trying obscure characters like The Authority right after Superman. But aside from that...
If Superman Legacy is good, that'll give Supergirl Woman of Tomorrow a good shot.
If Brave and the Bold plays its cards correctly, it'll make bank because it's Batman. (Though that movie has an uphill battle introducing yet another Batman and coming in-between Pattinson's movies, but whatever, they just need to hire a good director that can give audiences what they've come to expect from Batman movies while giving a new comic-booky spin on it)
Swamp Thing is probably gonna be lower budget so that's pretty safe if it's good.

I say it's all worth a shot. 



 

Edited May 26, 2023 by 21C

[Jeight]

12 minutes ago, 21C said:

The brand damage the DC brand has is not irreparable by any means. Look how Aquaman did, look how Joker did, look how The Batman did. 
Two of those are not in the DCEU, but neither will the new films either, so they're a fair comparison. 
Dark Universe is a uniquely bad example because no one and I mean no one is interested on the idea of having Dracula x The Mummy crossovers. It was a horrible idea from the get-go.

If the DCU movies are good and look appealing, I wouldn't rule out interest increasing organically, especially if it has an interesting over-arching stories. 

I am very concerned at Gunn trying obscure characters like The Authority right after Superman. But aside from that...
If Superman Legacy is good, that'll give Supergirl Woman of Tomorrow a good shot.
If Brave and the Bold plays its cards correctly, it'll make bank because it's Batman. (Though that movie has an uphill battle introducing yet another Batman and coming in-between Pattinson's movies, but whatever, they just need to hire a good director that can give audiences what they've come to expect from Batman movies while giving a new comic-booky spin on it)
Swamp Thing is probably gonna be lower budget so that's pretty safe if it's good.

I say it's all worth a shot. 



 

You did not just use freaking Batman and Joker as examples of the DC brand NOT being damaged. The two most popular DC characters along with superman.  If a batman movie or a joker movie had flopped then DC would be in even WORSE shape than I thought it would be. 

 

The only legit example here is aquaman and it's just one example over so many characters flopping or underperforming.  The worst performing mcu movie still outgrossed most DC movies in the past 5 years. There is legit DC brand damage

[cax16]

6 hours ago, keysersoze123 said:

I see all kinds of rumors that the movie that is shown is missing not only post credits and but also few scenes in the 3rd act. That would be really weird and counter predictive showing incomplete movie in a theater unless it was mentioned specifically to the audience. 

It has been on every occasion.