Weekend Thread - 3/17-19 | Weekend Est. - Shazam II $30.5M, Scream VI $17.5M, Creed III $15.4M, LXV $5.8M, #AintMan $4.1M

[Eric Lasagna]

1 minute ago, Krissykins said:

Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman is as iconic as iconic can get. 
 

Nothing else in a Batman film has ever come, even remotely, close to this for me. 

Her and Christopher Reeve are the two superhero performances where they nailed the character so perfectly right off the bat that every other performance after it feels like a pale imitation. No disrespect to the other actors, but you can never, ever, ever beat the originators. You just can't.

 

 

[BadOlCatSylvester]

No Saturday updates? Damn, it must be really bad then.

[MightyDargon]

1 minute ago, BadOlCatSylvester said:

No Saturday updates? Damn, it must be really bad then.

I guess you could say Shazam....died suddenly.

YYYYYYEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHH WON'T GET FOOOLEEDDD AGGGAAAAAIIINNNN

[Krissykins]

8 minutes ago, Firepower said:

Well, Sandberg implied that as well with his recent comment, that he did this movie just for paycheck.

That’s not at all what he said. He said he got paid upfront, therefore all the online stuff and how WB handled the film doesn’t impact him. He didn’t say he only directed the Shazam films for the pay check. 
 

7 minutes ago, Eric Batson said:

Her and Christopher Reeve are the two superhero performances where they nailed the character so perfectly right off the bat that every other performance after it feels like a pale imitation. No disrespect to the other actors, but you can never, ever, ever beat the originators. You just can't.

 

 

For me, Gal Gadot is up there too especially with the first Wonder Woman film. Sorry Lynda Carter and whoever they cast to replace her. 

[eddyxx]

12 minutes ago, Firepower said:

Well, Sandberg implied that as well with his recent comment, that he did this movie just for paycheck.

That’s not what he said lol

[MightyDargon]

Who bloody cares. Sandberg wasn't hired to direct "Academy Award nominated Shazam". Everyone knows this. Trying to pretend otherwise is an insult to the audience's intelligence. I'm glad he got paid and I hope his future projects aren't screwed over by a convoluted cinematic universe beyond his control.

[Firepower]

29 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

That’s not at all what he said. He said he got paid upfront, therefore all the online stuff and how WB handled the film doesn’t impact him. He didn’t say he only directed the Shazam films for the pay check. 

That's why I wrote "he implied". His reaction was pretty cynical, like he doesn't really care since he got paid, and I don't blame him.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Firepower

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

7 hours ago, Dominic Draper said:

Yeah no. Batman 89 and TDK are not on equal footing at all. I'm not sure how you can criticize Nolans films for not being interested in Batman when returns barely had batman in it, and Keaton's batman was a raving psychopathic murderer and not at all what batman is like.

 

 

For people under the age of 40 Bale is their Batman. Keaton's films are hokey and extremely dated. 

 

The time to use Keaton for nostalgia was 10+ years ago. I doubt it has much drawing power at the box office for flash but we will have our answers soon enough. If they had gotten Bale this movie would have hype through the roof.

 

 

"Batman 89 and TDK are not on equal footing at all"

 

By box office standards I've already shown they are. By cultural impact they easily are. The only argument you're really leaning on here is quality..

 

But what betrays you here is "Keaton's films are hokey"

 

I don't know how to break this to you.....ALL superhero movies are hokey.

 

Nolan pulled a trick where he convinced a percentage of the audience that if it looks a bit like Heat and smells a bit like Heat then that means it's "like Heat" no matter how cartoonish the logic and how magical the villain is.

 

But make no mistake scratch at the surface just a little and the plot of The Dark Knight (and every other Batman film) is as ludicrous as Adam West just not being able to get rid of a bomb.

 

And that was a very clever trick that Nolan (and some very clever casting and savvy acting) pulled. Very clever and it still works with MANY audience members to this day because they bought in to the sense of a 'gritty' superhero film no matter how paper thin it is.

 

But I'd much rather something didn't pull the wool over my eyes and embraced what it is, which is what 89 and 92 did with their joyful unashamed celebration of what a superhero movie could be. Which is why those movies are still so beloved.

 

And when it comes to 'superhero movie with gritty demeanour' The Dark Knight was treading the ground that Unbreakable had established. Batman and Batman Returns were treading new territory, both in superhero films and marketing.

 

Keaton returning as Batman is not as big as Nicholson would be as Joker, not as Ledger as Joker. But he IS as big as Bale returning as Batman. Because the elephant in the room is Joker is a bigger cultural icon than Batman for the general international audience.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Ipickthiswhiterose

[JWR]

17 hours ago, filmlover said:

One thing Flash does have going against it (aside from the questionable current state of the DCEU and, well, how it addresses the Ezra of it all) is that it's opening in the middle of a packed June. This is what that month looks like:

 

6/2: Spider-Man, The Boogeyman

6/9: Transformers, Strays

6/16: Flash, Elemental, The Blackening

6/23: No Hard Feelings, Asteroid City (wide expansion, limited on 6/16)

6/30: Indiana Jones, Ruby Gillman, Harold & the Purple Crayon (though this is likely moving now following Ruby's announcement)

 

And that's not even including May holdovers that will still be around (The Little Mermaid, Fast X, Guardians to an extent). It's like March on steroids with how packed the month is lol, though Spidey and Indy are perhaps the only ones that aren't wild cards as to how well they do. Will be interesting to see what become a hit and which ones end up a casualty.

 

It's guaranteed to open above Elemental, which isn't even a threat anyway since they're targeting different demographics. 

[MightyDargon]

2 minutes ago, JWR said:

 

It's guaranteed to open above Elemental, which isn't even a threat anyway since they're targeting different demographics. 

Transformers is the bigger threat than Elemental IMO. Indy looks horrendous but that's a bit later in the run to do max damage.

[JWR]

6 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

Spiderverse is the ultimate box office wildcard. The first movie is the most influential film on mainstream movies of the past half decade with the way it made the multiverse concept absolutely explode (hey look, it just won best picture). That said, I think if we’re gonna talk about “superhero fatigue” we definitely have to talk about “multiverse fatigue.” To say the concept isn’t a novel idea anymore like the first one had going for it is an understatement.
 

But the first was and still is held in very high regard. Though I can see the argument as well that it’s more of its own niche following sort of thing that doesn’t always equal huge box office. But I can just as easily seeing it being THE movie for the under teen to twenty something crowd this summer.

 

So again, it can totally go either way and it’s just a huge wildcard all around. I actually think my biggest concern though is it’s right in the middle of such a crowded summer schedule. Needless to say, great reviews again are a must. 

 

Is it, though? There are other movies I'd classify as a wild card before Spider-Verse. 

 

- Elemental 

- Oppenheimer 

- Barbie

- The Marvels

[eddyxx]

12 hours ago, GOGODanca said:

Nobody from the live action adaptations becomes a big star, you need a role that didn't exist before you played it and not some iconic character that existed before you were born

Jenna Ortega as Wednesday.

[TwoMisfits]

Spider-verse will be huge.  Not quite Mario huge, but if we're ranking potential superhero box office this year, it will top both Ant Man 2 DOM and Shazam DOM.

 

 

[JWR]

I expect to Across the Spider-Verse to increase from what Into the Spider-Verse made, but by a whole lot. $400-525M WW.

[TwoMisfits]

Since it seems like the WOM from actual Shazam 2 movie viewers on these boards is "okay/forgettable to surprisingly really good", I'm not gonna yet discount that Shazam could be a mini-version of the "little engine that could", since it will have the full 2 April spring breaks.  If it can stay above Scream 2 and Creed 3, it will float through almost all of April with screens at almost all theaters, and having that screen availability for a supers movie that leaves you happy, satisfied, and not pissed off tends to lead to a lot of rewatches for subscribers and new watches for families as they saunter in over the weeks...

 

So, Shazam's open is not gonna be good, but the movie's total DOM and WW numbers, thanks to its quality, may not be as bad as you'd normally expect and may have a little recovery possible.  It's not gonna be Puss 2, but it probably doesn't need to be for WB to say "okay, this wasn't great, but we're happy enough"...

 

Edit to add: And the RT audience verified seems to back this up, with it continually climbing, now to 87% with over a 1000+ reviews now...still a low number, but the trend has been going up all weekend, as casuals start to show...

Edited March 19, 2023 by TwoMisfits

[Mulder]

6 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

Since it seems like the WOM from actual Shazam 2 movie viewers on these boards is "okay/forgettable to surprisingly really good", I'm not gonna yet discount that Shazam could be a mini-version of the "little engine that could", since it will have the full 2 April spring breaks.  If it can stay above Scream 2 and Creed 3, it will float through almost all of April with screens at almost all theaters, and having that screen availability for a supers movie that leaves you happy, satisfied, and not pissed off tends to lead to a lot of rewatches for subscribers and new watches for families as they saunter in over the weeks...

 

So, Shazam's open is not gonna be good, but the movie's total DOM and WW numbers, thanks to its quality, may not be as bad as you'd normally expect and may have a little recovery possible.  It's not gonna be Puss 2, but it probably doesn't need to be for WB to say "okay, this wasn't great, but we're happy enough"...

I mean it could but the Cinemascore's not great and the RT verified rating is at 87% which isn't bad admittedly but not super strong either. That+Mario in a few weeks makes me think this'll just end up buried. 

[Gavin Feng]

will Shazam 2 lifetime hit Shazam 1 opening?

 

Quote

Buoyed by positive reviews, “Shazam!” arrived ahead of expectations, which anticipated a start around $40 million to $45 million. The film, made by Warner Bros.’ New Line division, also earned $3 million in advanced screenings, bringing its domestic haul to $56 million. Overseas, “Shazam!” dominated with $102 million from 79 international markets for a global start of $158.6 million.

 

[Legion Again]

12 minutes ago, Gavin Feng said:

will Shazam 2 lifetime hit Shazam 1 opening?

 

 

Nah

[Legion Again]

52 minutes ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

"Batman 89 and TDK are not on equal footing at all"

 

By box office standards I've already shown they are. By cultural impact they easily are.

I must have missed the earlier posts in this argument but this is ridiculous. 89 had good BO but not on the level of TDK. And not in cultural impact either imo but that one is hard to measure.

[grey ghost]

3 hours ago, wildphantom said:

Yeah. Those of us that were around for Bat-mania in 1989 know it was on another planet of enormity to Dark Knight. It changed movies in terms of how they could be marketed and released. 
 

Plus the first two Burton films are easily as good as the first two Nolan films in their own way. 

 

Goosebumps.