Page 399 of 1397 FirstFirst ... 299349389395396397398399400401402403409449499899 ... LastLast
Results 5,971 to 5,985 of 20948
  1. #5971
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaastra View Post
    Not all films. John campea just talked about this the other day on his show and explained it. It's films they think have more risk. Avengers endgame you know will make money so fund it yourself. Green hornet is a little risky so you can see them doing it for that movie.

    Not every film gets this and they said it's a "dice roll". If the movie bombs you don't lose as much so it's great but it sucks if the film is a huge hit as that was money you could have kept for yourself. Plus on top of that the movie chains get a cut. WB had to choose to do this with joker. (a low budget film to boot) and now must pay for it. Yes WB is kicking themselves over it and no they didn't have to do this with joker but they rolled the dice and lost and will now lose millions that would have been just for them! WB now loses 50% of all joker profits on top of the movie chain cut!

    That's Hollywood.
    Durr, John Campea said so it must be true! You can check see that WB (unlike Disney) co-finances almost all of their pictures including their surefire blockbusters, certainly all of their DC movies. The Dark Knight Rises, a surefire moneymaker coming of the The Dark Knight was co-financed by Legendary pictures. So it's nothing new that they did for the Joker; They simply do it all the time. Here, look at all these movies and tell me which ones aren't co-produced:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...%80%93present)
    I mean all of WB's movies in the last decade have been co-produced. That's simply how they do business. They don't look it as a "dice roll" at all.

    Besides there's something else that know nothing bloviators like Campea ignore, why would companies agree to co-finance only the riskiest and least profitable movies from a studio's slate? Why would they take so much risk for so little return? What would be in it for them? Doesn't sound like the soundest business model. Of course if you had read the HRW article I posted, you would realize it's because movies like the Joker are used as bait for co-producing companies. In return for a piece of Joker, Creative Wealth Media (One of the two co-producers) agreed to provide the rights to some prestige pictures WB wanted as well as co-financing riskier movies in WB's slate (Like "The Kitchen", which bombed). Probably the same with Village Roadshow the other co-financier, but then again, they are a long time WB partner and co-produced the Matrix among many other with WB. Of course, you addressed absolutely none of this in my post and simply ran in bellowing about how WB must be kicking themselves and must be sooo angry for losing out on money because Campea and clickbait sites like comicbookmovie (Unlike actual credible Trade sites) are reporting as much.

  2. #5972
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillieMorgan View Post
    This thread seems to have been re-covering old ground a lot in the last few weeks. Older topics seem to have resurfaced and been argued over yet again and I may have figured out why.

    The negative crowd have been struggling to present the Joker movie in a negative light. It's had a pretty good critical response and even more importantly has been a huge hit with audiences around the world. It's been very difficult for certain members to frame the movie in a way that presents it as a complete failure somehow. The usual 'Well, it's a DC movie so it probably needed to gross three billion just to break even' argument just wouldn't wash with this one. Neither did the 'Well, it's a critical failure as far as I'm concerned...'.

    Well, now they've maybe got a reason. It turns out that WB had little faith in the movies profitability and ended up co-financing the project with investors, which is now costing them a big chunk of the huge profits earned. That's it. Case closed. Joker's a flop! Why do they bother with these DC films? REEEEEEEEEEEE.
    I'll do you one better-

    Ben Affleck pulls out of Batman movie: WB can't do anything, now they can't even get a Batman movie off the ground! How can they do anything else? REEEEEEEEEEEEEE. Sell the rights to Disney!

    A new Batman movie is in production; Joker is a huge hit: I am worried that WB will continue to push Batman characters over everyone. What if they have Batman and Joker overpower and clown Aquaman in his next movie? I'm Just "concerned" is all. Oh wait, Joker was co-financed? LOL WB can't even get Batman characters right.

    And the cycle continues.

  3. #5973
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    387

    Default

    I can tell Reeves has been playing Telltale Batman. Nice choices

  4. #5974
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ross61 View Post
    I can tell Reeves has been playing Telltale Batman. Nice choices
    Has he mentioned playing the Telltale game? I just thought his choice of villains was based on them being the most well known.

  5. #5975
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Where The Food Is.
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    It’s interesting to point out: Colin Farrell is going to be the third Daredevil alumni to switch from Marvel to DC after the late great Micheal Clarke Duncan(who was once the Kingpin before he was Kilowog) and Ben Affleck(who was once Matt Murdock before he was Bruce Wayne).
    Last edited by Amadeus Arkham; 11-06-2019 at 11:56 AM.
    "I love mankind...it's people I can't stand!!"

    - Charles Schultz.

  6. #5976
    Incredible Member Castling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robotman View Post
    Agreed. Don’t want to see The Penguin better looking than Bruce Wayne.

    Serkis is so amazingly talented that it seems kind of like a waste to cast him as Alfred. Would much rather see him as one of Batman’s colorful villains. Scarecrow, Mad-hatter, or The Ventriloquist.
    He doesn't have time for that. He has to direct Venom 2.

  7. #5977
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    I finally figured it out, with Matt Reeves and Andy Serkis involved, THE BATMAN is going to be all mo-cap. It will be comic book accurate because the whole cast will be transformed into the definitive comic book versions of the characters via motion capture.

  8. #5978
    Incredible Member Castling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillieMorgan View Post
    This thread seems to have been re-covering old ground a lot in the last few weeks. Older topics seem to have resurfaced and been argued over yet again and I may have figured out why.

    The negative crowd have been struggling to present the Joker movie in a negative light. It's had a pretty good critical response and even more importantly has been a huge hit with audiences around the world. It's been very difficult for certain members to frame the movie in a way that presents it as a complete failure somehow. The usual 'Well, it's a DC movie so it probably needed to gross three billion just to break even' argument just wouldn't wash with this one. Neither did the 'Well, it's a critical failure as far as I'm concerned...'.

    Well, now they've maybe got a reason. It turns out that WB had little faith in the movies profitability and ended up co-financing the project with investors, which is now costing them a big chunk of the huge profits earned. That's it. Case closed. Joker's a flop! Why do they bother with these DC films? REEEEEEEEEEEE.
    It's actually quite amazing.

  9. #5979
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Where The Food Is.
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I finally figured it out, with Matt Reeves and Andy Serkis involved, THE BATMAN is going to be all mo-cap. It will be comic book accurate because the whole cast will be transformed into the definitive comic book versions of the characters via motion capture.
    Now that’s a genius deduction.
    "I love mankind...it's people I can't stand!!"

    - Charles Schultz.

  10. #5980
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I hope we don't get another pretty boy Penguin with Farrell.

    Serkis as Alfred should be...interesting. It's not that I can't see it, but Alfred seems kind of too conventional for Serkis.

    Although it seems like the age differences between the Batmen and their Alfred's is getting smaller with every subsequent reboot .
    Given that Farrell is much older than Pattison, I doubt he'll be a "pretty boy".

  11. #5981
    Astonishing Member krazijoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    And, once again, he really enjoyed playing the devilish villain .

    I am still disappointed they killed Klaw off before turning him into a living sound monster, but that probably would have involved mo-cap .
    Who's to say that he wasn't somehow kept alive. Klaw is an awesome villain, especially his insane persona in Secret Wars.

  12. #5982
    Death becomes you Osiris-Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    The more casting announcements that come out, the less enthused I am for the next Batman movie. Like every other live action Batman, going all the way back to the 1966 TV series, it's all about the stunt casting. Getting audiences to watch it for all the familiar faces that arrive on screen. Let's hope Kanye West pops his head out a window to talk to Batman as he's climbing up a building.

    The one big promise of this Batman movie was that it was going to do things differently--that it would be about the detective story and not about all the crazy characters that pop up in Gotham City. If everyone cast was an unknown, I'd be a lot more intrigued. But now I know there's going to be all these celebrities who will take me out of the story.
    Grace Randolph did a whole video lamenting about how no one wants to work for Warner Bros. so The Batman is being forced to hire mediocre talents instead of big name actors. So is it really stunt casting or just casting people
    willing to work for cheap?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I finally figured it out, with Matt Reeves and Andy Serkis involved, THE BATMAN is going to be all mo-cap. It will be comic book accurate because the whole cast will be transformed into the definitive comic book versions of the characters via motion capture.
    Wouldn't that be awfully expensive? Seems like WB is trying to make movies on the cheap now. That's why Jonah Hill dropped out of The Batman, they wouldn't pay him $10 million. Seems like live action would be cheaper.
    (Yeah, I get you were joking. At least I hope you were joking)

  13. #5983
    Astonishing Member WillieMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Posts
    3,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Osiris-Rex View Post
    Grace Randolph did a whole video lamenting about how no one wants to work for Warner Bros. so The Batman is being forced to hire mediocre talents instead of big name actors. So is it really stunt casting or just casting people
    willing to work for cheap?
    Can we have a link to that maybe? Or perhaps a summation of why that is the case? Just curious more then anything else.
    Lower The Pissing Winch!

  14. #5984
    Death becomes you Osiris-Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillieMorgan View Post
    Can we have a link to that maybe? Or perhaps a summation of why that is the case? Just curious more then anything else.
    Here is an example. She really starts getting into crapping on the DCEU at around the 2:00 minute mark. For example of Paul Dano being cast as Riddler she says he's not her choice but he is the best they can get,
    he needs the work, ... he's not so good that I think Riddler.


  15. #5985
    Astonishing Member WillieMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Posts
    3,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Osiris-Rex View Post
    Here is an example. She really starts getting into crapping on the DCEU at around the 2:00 minute mark. For example of Paul Dano being cast as Riddler she says he's not her choice but he is the best they can get,
    he needs the work, ... he's not so good that I think Riddler.
    Thanks for that. I quite enjoy Grace Randolph's insights but wouldn't say that I follow her on a regular basis. That was interesting though. There has definitely been a slant recently towards cheaper films but I'd assumed that that had been down to the direction of Walter Hamada.

    The younger cast makes me think about The Batman being a prequel of some sort.
    Lower The Pissing Winch!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •