DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[Vakanai]

Because whatever the budget it's safe math to add 50 to 100 million more for advertising for any big budget film. Then Studios only get about 65% or less of the box office with the actual theaters getting the rest and that Studio percentage is less over seas so that's how you get numbers like 250 to 300 million to break even for BOP.

Except as has been pointed out they didn't spend that much on advertising. I think the 86mil figure people keep pointing out as the cost of the film might even include the amount spent for advertising. Seriously, marketing for this film is insultingly low.

[The Darknight Detective]

Except as has been pointed out they didn't spend that much on advertising. I think the 86mil figure people keep pointing out as the cost of the film might even include the amount spent for advertising. Seriously, marketing for this film is insultingly low.

Isn't the marketing budget set at the beginning of the fiscal year regardless of the films made for that year?

[Elmo]

No, not everything has to be a shared universe. But it was very clearly their goal initially.
You have to ignore plenty of very visible evidence to come to the conclusion that it wasn't.

Nobody is really making a big deal here about it no longer being the case. Just calling it like it very clearly is.

no you're just deciding that to be fact despite countless statements otherwise. if there was an intention to build a universe it came and went with BvS

[Vakanai]

Isn't the marketing budget set at the beginning of the fiscal year regardless of the films made for that year?

I wouldn't know, I just know people keep saying that the advertising budget for this film was really, really small compared to most movies.

[Frontier]

no you're just deciding that to be fact despite countless statements otherwise. if there was an intention to build a universe it came and went with BvS

I think that was more Justice League.

[SiegePerilous02]

no you're just deciding that to be fact despite countless statements otherwise. if there was an intention to build a universe it came and went with BvS

Ok, where are these "countless" statements from around BvS's release that things weren't going to be an interconnected universe?

Because if it went with BvS, they would have pulled the plug on JL and Batman and the Flash wouldn't be making cameos in SS or WW. I'm aware of their more recent statements that they were just focusing on the individual IPs for now, but that was after the Snyder era was over.

And the actions of the films speak louder than words anyway. It's all black and white. Very transparent setups for future arcs and appearances.

[The Darknight Detective]

I wouldn't know, I just know people keep saying that the advertising budget for this film was really, really small compared to most movies.

Oh, I don't disagree with that at all.

[Ascended]

The plan was not a shared universe though.

They had some connections but the priority was adapting their characters.

why is this such a huge deal? not everything has to be in a shared universe. a shared universe doesn't have to be everyone's goal.

What do you think "connections" means? Characters that all exist and are connected by the same setting. One might say that these characters "share" a world. It's a shared universe and that anyone could even question that is.....strange.

I even highly doubt that WB's first priority was "adapting their characters." I mean, if WB's first priority was establishing individual characters, then why was their second film a team up instead of a solo film? If solo characters was the priority then why, out of the first five movies they made, was MoS the only solo excursion? Why is Joker the only film thus far that clearly stands on its own setting?

No one said a shared universe is the only way to do things? Has anyone here even said that's the *best* way to do things? Not that I've noticed. Hell, I never wanted a shared DC movie-verse in the first place. Everyone forgets now, but when Marvel made that a thing back in 08, it was because they needed a gimmick to carry their movies; they didn't have the rights to any of their major properties and didn't trust their C-listers like Iron Man to stand on their own (my how times have changed!). DC controls some of fiction's biggest names and never needed a gimmick in the first place. As much as I enjoy the MCU, I never needed DC to follow that formula.

But it is very obvious that a shared universe that copied Marvel's success is what WB wanted to happen, and it was only after JL's failure that they began to focus on solo IP's over the considerations of a shared continuity.

[batnbreakfast]

Alright, I just got back from watching BoP which I spontaneously chose to watch and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Here are some basic thoughts;

• It has a sort of Pulp Fiction feel to it, as parts of the film are shown out of order. I loved this element to it as I enjoyed placing each piece together. If thinking isn't something you're not interested in, then yeah, don't see the film.
• The characters are genuinely fantastic. I actually don't care at all for Harlequin the character, which is why I didn't really care about seeing this film, but I did like her in this. Cassandra Cain and Renee Montoya are the stand outs for me and they received the most screen time after HQ. Huntress was adorable and the actress who plays Black Canary can clearly act, though I think the character could have been fleshed out more. Ewan Mcgregor can do no wrong, PT > OT >>>>> ST.
• This film doesn't have much in terms of spectacle. Superhero films tend to have have fairly extravagant actions scenes and though the fight scenes in this film are good, the final one just doesn't have the same oompf as traditional cbms. The film is more interested in its characters.
• If you are in any way inclined towards incel philosophy, question whether giving women the right to vote led to the downfall of Western civilization or use the term 'femoid' unironically, you will hate this film. None of the women in film are pure 'waifus' they drink, curse and do drugs.
• There are several scenes in this film where MEN attempt to rape HQ. It's surprising to see the subject dealt with and I think it does make the film feel more visceral. The same is true for how the film depicts violence against women. If you are going to have female action stars, when they take a hit they should be hurt. Yes, no one likes seeing women get hurt, but I think its necessary for any female action protagonist.
• I think I only have four complaints; 1) I think Black Canary's meta-abilities could have been excised from the film 2) The way Black Mask learns about Black Canary being a snitch is because she left her phone on... 3) There is a point in the film where Black Mask calls the girls bitches and I think it would have been more in character for him to say the C-word instead 4) There may have been a few times where a character was aware of a fact that we the audience knew, but there was no reason for the character to know at the time.


For me personally, this was a good experience and I like this film. I'm glad its part of the DCEU.

I liked the parts where HQ gets hit in the face
But seriously
Now that I think about it my biggest complaints are the canary cry to please fans who didn't even watch the movie because BC was awesome without it
And the costumed team moment at the end
If it weren't for those 2 you'd actually have a very brave movie without boring CGI action and the whole universe in danger

[Skullkid]

Everyone forgets now, but when Marvel made that a thing back in 08, it was because they needed a gimmick to carry their movies; they didn't have the rights to any of their major properties and didn't trust their C-listers like Iron Man to stand on their own

Now it just sounds like you're making things up to try and prove a point, because if anything Marvel movies were less connected back then, up until the Avengers the only things that connected the movies were the post credit scenes, and the logic you're using here doesn't make one lick of sense, they don't Iron Man to stand on his own but they do trust him to start a new movie franchise?
That doesn't make any sense.

[manwhohaseverything]

Yeah! Marvel movies weren't that connected back then. Accept for maybe ironman2 which absolutely was not good for me.

[WillieMorgan]

Now it just sounds like you're making things up to try and prove a point, because if anything Marvel movies were less connected back then, up until the Avengers the only things that connected the movies were the post credit scenes, and the logic you're using here doesn't make one lick of sense, they don't Iron Man to stand on his own but they do trust him to start a new movie franchise?
That doesn't make any sense.

Are you for real? You're either trolling there, you've never seen those early MCU movies, or you're ignoring blatant facts just to back up your own arguments. Those films are laden with connective, world-building tissue and saying otherwise is just laughable.

Iron Man - The foundation stone of the series. Introduces us to Phil Coulson and SHIELD as well as Tony Stark. Cameo from Nick Fury at the end where we learn Iron Man isn't the only hero.
The Incredible Hulk - More mentions of SHIELD. A cameo from bloody Tony Stark no less where he mentions 'putting a team together'! Directly references the Super Soldier project from the Second World War.
Iron Man 2 - Absolutely laden with MCU Easter eggs, including seeing a copy of Cap's shield. Some good back story on both SHIELD and Howard Stark. More Nick Fury. Introduces Black Widow.
Thor - Opens in Tonsberg, Norway in 965 AD. Introduces Thor, Loki, Asgard and the whole Nine Realms element of the MCU. More Coulson. More SHIELD. We meet Clint Barton for the first time.
Captain America: First Avenger (the title alone there says it all) - Also opens in Tonsberg but during WW2. Introduces Cap and shows us the Super Soldier experiment previously referenced in Hulk. We see the first Inifinity Stone in the guise of the Tasseract. Features a young Howard Stark and lays groundwork for future MCU films.

Those early MCU films are full of world building elements. I'm being deliberately brief there as there's more. It's wilful myopia to suggest otherwise. The Earth isn't flat either....

[Vordan]

Now it just sounds like you're making things up to try and prove a point, because if anything Marvel movies were less connected back then, up until the Avengers the only things that connected the movies were the post credit scenes, and the logic you're using here doesn't make one lick of sense, they don't Iron Man to stand on his own but they do trust him to start a new movie franchise?
That doesn't make any sense.

You’re flat out wrong. All the early Marvel movies were shown to be connected and built towards Avengers. Freaking Tony Stark mentions a “team” being put together in Hulk! They were very unsure of Iron Man’s success but they put in the Avengers teases because from Day 1, the goal was to build towards an Avengers movie.

[The Darknight Detective]

You’re flat out wrong. All the early Marvel movies were shown to be connected and built towards Avengers. Freaking Tony Stark mentions a “team” being put together in Hulk! They were very unsure of Iron Man’s success but they put in the Avengers teases because from Day 1, the goal was to build towards an Avengers movie.

I'm kind of surprised there is any doubt regarding this (the same thing goes for the obvious clues in BvS, too).

[Skullkid]

So either all of you have severe reading comprehension or you just ignored what I said.
Since I never said they weren't building to the Avengers, I said the most of the connections to the other movies and other characters were kept to post-credit scenes than and let's see that's not false that is primarily what happened back in Phase 1.