DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[The Darknight Detective]

Inflation is such a voltaile factor that I usually just go unadjusted but sure it might be less than TDK or Superman: The Movie.

FWIW, here's the worldwide list adjusted for inflation:

The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Superman
Aquaman
Batman
Batman vs Superman
Joker*
Wonder Woman
Suicide Squad
Man of Steel
Batman Forever
Justice League
Superman II
Batman Returns
Batman Begins

* Obviously still in theaters currently

Either way my point is it out-grossed a movie starring Batman and Superman in leading roles and the entire Justice League

Which is unquestionably true. Arthur is the real deal now.

[manwhohaseverything]

Which is unquestionably true. Arthur is the real deal now.

All hail the king who talks to fishes.

[Vakanai]

Whatever they do, please just build some continuity between movies.

Eh, they did that, it wasn't great. As long as Wondie films share continuity with Wondie films, Aquaman films share continuity with Aquaman films, and so on, I'm good. I don't need other characters' films sharing continuity with each other all one big universe again. Crossovers have lost their appeal...

[Vakanai]

That is only because they just had disagreements. That isn't connected their unwillingness to have multiple versions. They also would have gone through with it if it hadn't for jl and directors splitting regardless of tv show. Also, isn't supergirl also happening. How does that not conflict?
Edit - at the end of the day i will concede that there is nothing good planned for superman that is of great quality by wb

I'm going to call it - pretty certain if there hadn't been disagreements, if things had worked out better sooner, they probably would have canceled the TV series by the time the movie started filming. I don't know that for a fact, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. There's a good chance the show is still on the air because the movie has had so many problems getting to the filming stage.

[Vakanai]

The problem with that is that The Flash is the CW's most popular show, so until that dramatically changes, cancellation is probably not in the cards.

Yeah, but they're thinking would be, so what? Even if it is their most profitable CW show, they'd be banking that a movie would be even more profitable, hence ditch the CW show and make a film.

[manwhohaseverything]

I'm going to call it - pretty certain if there hadn't been disagreements, if things had worked out better sooner, they probably would have canceled the TV series by the time the movie started filming. I don't know that for a fact, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. There's a good chance the show is still on the air because the movie has had so many problems getting to the filming stage.

As people have said. The show is pretty popular. It is going to be hard to get rid of it.

[manwhohaseverything]

Yeah, but they're thinking would be, so what? Even if it is their most profitable CW show, they'd be banking that a movie would be even more profitable, hence ditch the CW show and make a film.

They might think that. Lucifer returned because of fans. Fans can do all sorts of things

[The Darknight Detective]

Yeah, but they're thinking would be, so what? Even if it is their most profitable CW show, they'd be banking that a movie would be even more profitable, hence ditch the CW show and make a film.

Well, that's why I said it probably wouldn't happen instead of definitely not.

[Vakanai]

As people have said. The show is pretty popular. It is going to be hard to get rid of it.

Not if they believe there's more to be gained with a film. It's simple as that, ratings doesn't matter, money does, and for some reason WB historically hasn't realized TV doesn't cut into the movie side's profits.

They might think that. Lucifer returned because of fans. Fans can do all sorts of things

Lucifer didn't get a movie.

Well, that's why I said it probably wouldn't happen instead of definitely not.

Fair.

[jetengine]

Are you trying to be funny? If so, you're not doing a great job. The comment I responded to literally stated that an opinion about the aforementioned movies is irrelevant in case it doesn't happen to agree with the general public's opinion of them. This is a forum visited by people who are part of a niche audience, so by that logic are we allowed to say anything about those movies if it doesn't go along with the opinions of people who supposedly matter more than us? Guess I should not express my opinion that Iron Man 3 is a bad movie because it made 1.2 billion worldwide.

I like how you completely missed the point AND got hideously defensive. Calm down and think.

If this site was funded by the public and your opinion could theaten it then yeah people would tell you to shut up. But thats how buisness works.

[Pinsir]

Yeah, no. That's patently untrue. Read any review for the movie and you'll see people praising RDJ's performance as one of the major highlights in the first Iron Man. His acting absolutely contributed to the film being as big a hit as it ended up being and as popular as the character Tony Stark ultimately became.

I'm sure that people did praise RDJ's performance, but, in a certain context. There is a difference in saying, "This actor is good in the film." and "This actor is giving the performance of a life time." which describes RDJ's Iron Man and Heath Ledger's Joker respectively.

Either way, I think we're loosing focus of my initial point. I think RDJ's performance in IM 1 is partially the reason why it's one of the few MCU films that people talk about as an individual product, but I can't imagine a lot of people saw the film specifically because of his role as Iron Man. I think it's more likely the reason for the first IM's success is that it came out a few months after the Dark Knight, which is a film that added a lot of prestige and interest to cbm.

I just don't see a pattern that specifically links good acting to block buster success, the biggest box office films don't have good acting in them and I'm not even that convinced the public at large knows what good acting is anyway.

And I know people who said they saw it exactly because of that.

Okay, but would you be willing to admit that this probably not the case for the vast majority of people? I think its telling when most reviewers of the film often have to clarify what type of movie the Joker is.

I just can't help but think the objection to the claim that the Joker's success is primarily rooted in the free advertisement the film garnered stems from the belief that advertisement doesn't actually work, which is a common fallacy. There is some evidence to suggest that Donald Trump won the US election because of all the free media he garnered.

[The Darknight Detective]

I just don't see a pattern that specifically links good acting to block buster success, the biggest box office films don't have good acting in theme and I'm not even that convinced the public at large knows what good acting is anyway.

Good acting certainly can help bring in more customers, but only if the story, characters, and/or stars are a draw in the first place. IOW, the best acting by RDJ and Phoenix wouldn't help sell that many tickets had they bean headlining Iron Man: A Tale of the Mines and Joe Kerr instead.

[Jokerz79]

I'm sure that people did praise RDJ's performance, but, in a certain context. There is a difference in saying, "This actor is good in the film." and "This actor is giving the performance of a life time." which describes RDJ's Iron Man and Heath Ledger's Joker respectively.

Either way, I think we're loosing focus of my initial point. I think RDJ's performance in IM 1 is partially the reason why it's one of the few MCU films that people talk about as an individual product, but I can't imagine a lot of people saw the film specifically because of his role as Iron Man. I think it's more likely the reason for the first IM's success is that it came out a few months after the Dark Knight, which is a film that added a lot of prestige and interest to cbm.

I just don't see a pattern that specifically links good acting to block buster success, the biggest box office films don't have good acting in them and I'm not even that convinced the public at large knows what good acting is anyway.



Okay, but would you be willing to admit that this probably not the case for the vast majority of people? I think its telling when most reviewers of the film often have to clarify what type of movie the Joker is.

I just can't help but think the objection to the claim that the Joker's success is primarily rooted in the free advertisement the film garnered stems from the belief that advertisement doesn't actually work, which is a common fallacy. There is some evidence to suggest that Donald Trump won the US election because of all the free media he garnered.

While not MCU Marvel had Blade, X-Men, Raimi's Spider-Man, Hulk, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Elektra, and DC had Catwoman, Batman Begins, Constantine, V for Vendetta, and Superman Returns and On tv Smallville while not all gems the comicbook/superhero movie craze of the 21st Century started long before Dark Knight or Iron Man we just got two vastly different but great comic book films that year both deserving success on their own merits.

[krazijoe]

I'm sure that people did praise RDJ's performance, but, in a certain context. There is a difference in saying, "This actor is good in the film." and "This actor is giving the performance of a life time." which describes RDJ's Iron Man and Heath Ledger's Joker respectively.

Either way, I think we're loosing focus of my initial point. I think RDJ's performance in IM 1 is partially the reason why it's one of the few MCU films that people talk about as an individual product, but I can't imagine a lot of people saw the film specifically because of his role as Iron Man. I think it's more likely the reason for the first IM's success is that it came out a few months after the Dark Knight, which is a film that added a lot of prestige and interest to cbm.

I just don't see a pattern that specifically links good acting to block buster success, the biggest box office films don't have good acting in them and I'm not even that convinced the public at large knows what good acting is anyway.



Okay, but would you be willing to admit that this probably not the case for the vast majority of people? I think its telling when most reviewers of the film often have to clarify what type of movie the Joker is.

I just can't help but think the objection to the claim that the Joker's success is primarily rooted in the free advertisement the film garnered stems from the belief that advertisement doesn't actually work, which is a common fallacy. There is some evidence to suggest that Donald Trump won the US election because of all the free media he garnered.

It was The Soundtrack that won people over. Ok...Not really, but it was a simple story that was done wonderfully. Good acting, good plot, good soundtrack, good writing. Well what do you know it was successful.

[Holt]

I'm sure that people did praise RDJ's performance, but, in a certain context. There is a difference in saying

In this context, again, there isn't. Robert Downey Jr.'s performance won a lot of people over and helped make the character as popular as he is today. You just don't like it because you personally hate Marvel films and seem to dislike the idea that there are other people who might not share your opinion.

I think it's more likely the reason for the first IM's success is that it came out a few months after the Dark Knight, which is a film that added a lot of prestige and interest to cbm.

Case in point.

Okay, but would you be willing to admit that this probably not the case for the vast majority of people?

No. Because like I've said multiple times, a large part of the movie's success has been in its strong legs due to repeat viewing, which you cannot tell me isn't because of Phoenix's incredible performance. Like I've been saying from the beginning, all the A-list characters, free hype and publicity doesn't mean anything if people don't end up connecting to the film itself upon release enough to give it longevity at the box office.