DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[Pinsir]

Uh Marvel still doesn't have the rights to Hulk so idk why the The Incredible Hulk movie is even being brought up as if they did before.

Because its an obvious failure. If Marvel wanted to produce more Hulk films, they easily could (like Spiderman), they don't though because there is no money in it.

And while Ascended shouldn't have used the phrase "right out of the gate", it doesn't take a genius to infer they meant Marvel laid a good foundation with characters who didn't have the popularity (like some of their other properties).

Well, they had one franchise in the initial Phase 1 roster that had a film before and it was the Hulk (the worst performing film in the lot). I've said this before too, but the most successful superheros nowadays are the new ones. The rebooted films (Spiderman, Superman, Batman) tend to do worse than their contemporaries and even their initial outings.

The reason why I'm so ornery about this is because certain people always view the initial MCU films with rose tinted glasses, portraying these films as indomitable from the very moment of their conception. As a DCEU fan, I've had to ensure relentless screaming that the DCEU is a failure when the initial MCU films are arguably less successful.

[Jokerz79]

I agree that the marketplace has changed, though even the domestic numbers for the early MCU films (Thor Cap, Hulk) are lower than any DCEU film. Keep in mind, I'm not saying these movies flopped (well, Hulk probably did) or weren't successful, they just weren't mega hits.

By that logic Batman Begins and none of the X-Men films were big hits only the Raimi Spider-Man's, TDK, and Iron Man in the 00's. As for Hulk they can use him without having a solo film which a Solo film would mean profit sharing with Universal while they need Sony to use Spidey at all that's a big difference and why we have Spider-Man and no Hulk.

[Ascended]

And while Ascended shouldn't have used the phrase "right out of the gate", it doesn't take a genius to infer they meant Marvel laid a good foundation with characters who didn't have the popularity (like some of their other properties).

Obviously. Their game plan was superb from the get-go. Im not a big fan of the Marvel formula and I actually prefer the more complex atmosphere found in the Netflix Defenders and MoS but I love the MCU business plan. It's a thing of wonder if you look at it from the business side. I dont think we've ever had anything quite like it before, though Im no expert on Hollywood history.

I doubt anyone would seriously argue that Iron Man 2 and Hulk (or Thor or Cap 1) were smash hits. But just because they didn't bring box office like we see today doesn't mean they were failures. It means it was 2008-2011 and things were measured by a different metric. Those films might not have been huge hits but calling them failures is not accurate at all.

Because its an obvious failure. If Marvel wanted to produce more Hulk films, they easily could (like Spiderman), they don't though because there is no money in it.

This is untrue. Yes, it's the least popular MCU movie but it still made profit (as far as Im aware anyway). It wasn't a failure, it just wasn't a huge hit. And Im sure they haven't done a sequel because making a Hulk movie is costly and time consuming (plus they gotta pay Universal, and Marvel seemed to hate paying anyone even before Disney bought them) and the last two films don't indicate a huge return on the investment. Its a high-risk effort. They've got better options to pursue. But that doesn't mean Incredible was a failure.

[Castling]

By that logic Batman Begins and none of the X-Men films were big hits only the Raimi Spider-Man's, TDK, and Iron Man in the 00's. As for Hulk they can use him without having a solo film which a Solo film would mean profit sharing with Universal while they need Sony to use Spidey at all that's a big difference and why we have Spider-Man and no Hulk.

Batman Begins wasn't a big box office hit ($374M, worldwide) compared to its follow ups. Remember, it followed after the much maligned Batman and Robin. However, it picked up speed in the ancillary market, especially when people found out what was coming in the followup film.

[Pinsir]

This is untrue. Yes, it's the least popular MCU movie but it still made profit (as far as Im aware anyway). It wasn't a failure, it just wasn't a huge hit. And Im sure they haven't done a sequel because making a Hulk movie is costly and time consuming (plus they gotta pay Universal, and Marvel seemed to hate paying anyone even before Disney bought them) and the last two films don't indicate a huge return on the investment. Its a high-risk effort. They've got better options to pursue. But that doesn't mean Incredible was a failure.

This sort of sentiment is exactly what I'm talking about though. You are framing an obvious loss as a strategic ploy by Marvel, where as the DCEU films would never have received such a reprieve. How is it that a film that grossed $263 million world wide ($132 mill domestic) on an estimated budget of $150 million not considered a flop? Its just mind boggling, you would never see this behaviour for any other franchise. I would go even further and suggest that it was a poor decision on Marvel's part to reboot Hulk to begin with, since the 2003 film was even less successful (though it had a slightly smaller budget).

Its not even the Hulk film that was a problem though, there were tons mistakes in the early MCU films that fans have pretty paved over to create this narrative that the MCU was infallible from the beginning. The initial set up for the Avengers movie was different (Hulk was suppose to be the bad guy), Iron Man 2 was subject to extensive cuts by the studio (making it a parallel to Suicide Squad), actors were recast, and Hugo Weaving's refusal to play Red Skull more or less shelved the character. The MCU had growing pangs just like the DCEU.

[stargazer01]

This sort of sentiment is exactly what I'm talking about though. You are framing an obvious loss as a strategic ploy by Marvel, where as the DCEU films would never have received such a reprieve. How is it that a film that grossed $263 million world wide ($132 mill domestic) on an estimated budget of $150 million not considered a flop? Its just mind boggling, you would never see this behaviour for any other franchise. I would go even further and suggest that it was a poor decision on Marvel's part to reboot Hulk to begin with, since the 2003 film was even less successful (though it had a slightly smaller budget).

Its not even the Hulk film that was a problem though, there were tons mistakes in the early MCU films that fans have pretty paved over to create this narrative that the MCU was infallible from the beginning. The initial set up for the Avengers movie was different (Hulk was suppose to be the bad guy), Iron Man 2 was subject to extensive cuts by the studio (making it a parallel to Suicide Squad), actors were recast, and Hugo Weaving's refusal to play Red Skull more or less shelved the character. The MCU had growing pangs just like the DCEU.

Very true. I think fans forget sometimes. I think the difference between the mcu and the dceu is that the mcu got more positive feedback from the critics and bloggers. Post Iron Man, I don't think any of their movies have been rotten or critically panned. The mcu has got a lot of support unlike the dceu. I guess critics just really dislike Zack Snyder's work for some reason.

[Holt]

The failure of the Hulk does get downplayed, but that really has nothing to do with Snyder. The difference between that and the DCEU is that the MCU had the good fortune of starting with a massively well received hit right out of the gate with Iron Man, which didn't just do well at the box office, but also was incredibly popular with critics and is still consistently held up as a top tier superhero movie to this day. That the Hulk was far less successful was something that didn't really matter since the franchise had managed to start on a very strong foundation, and more to the point, early on, the films were far more standalone anyway. Yeah, the hardcore fans knew Avengers was coming and this was even teased in Iron Man's post-credits scene, but for the most part, both it and Hulk pretty much stood on their own, which contributed to Hulk's failure not spelling doom for the future of Iron Man.

The DCEU unfortunately began on very rocky footing with Man of Steel, a very polarizing movie, which made the subsequent negative reactions to Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad even more pronounced since now, you had a pattern forming. Not helping things either was that BVS was only the second ever movie in the series, but was VERY aggressive about reminding you it was merely the launching point for an entire universe of sequels and spin-offs, no matter how poorly those teases were implemented (like the infamous email scene). It's much harder to maintain the attitude of "Okay, that was bad, but the rest of the franchise could still be great!" when the movie you think is bad is constantly beating you over the head with how heavily it's tied to the upcoming entries.

Remember how prior to Aquaman, the super common joke was that Wonder Woman was carrying the entire franchise on her back and was the only thing people actually liked about it? That thankfully looks to be changing with Aquaman being a crowd pleaser and Shazam having extremely positive reviews, but to act like the negative/rocky reputation the franchise had early on came out of nowhere or is just about critics not liking Zack Snyder seems like a bit of an oversimplification.

[ChrisG]

The failure of the Hulk does get downplayed, but that really has nothing to do with Snyder. The difference between that and the DCEU is that the MCU had the good fortune of starting with a massively well received hit right out of the gate with Iron Man, which didn't just do well at the box office, but also was incredibly popular with critics and is still consistently held up as a top tier superhero movie to this day. That the Hulk was far less successful was something that didn't really matter since the franchise had managed to start on a very strong foundation, and more to the point, early on, the films were far more standalone anyway. Yeah, the hardcore fans knew Avengers was coming and this was even teased in Iron Man's post-credits scene, but for the most part, both it and Hulk pretty much stood on their own, which contributed to Hulk's failure not spelling doom for the future of Iron Man.

The DCEU unfortunately began on very rocky footing with Man of Steel, a very polarizing movie, which made the subsequent negative reactions to Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad even more pronounced since now, you had a pattern forming. Not helping things either was that BVS was only the second ever movie in the series, but was VERY aggressive about reminding you it was merely the launching point for an entire universe of sequels and spin-offs, no matter how poorly those teases were implemented (like the infamous email scene). It's much harder to maintain the attitude of "Okay, that was bad, but the rest of the franchise could still be great!" when the movie you think is bad is constantly beating you over the head with how heavily it's tied to the upcoming entries.

Remember how prior to Aquaman, the super common joke was that Wonder Woman was carrying the entire franchise on her back and was the only thing people actually liked about it? That thankfully looks to be changing with Aquaman being a crowd pleaser and Shazam having extremely positive reviews, but to act like the negative/rocky reputation the franchise had early on came out of nowhere or is just about critics not liking Zack Snyder seems like a bit of an oversimplification.

to be honest it is still seems to be all built on sand, very shaky, just a wrong step and its all back to square one. Wb/DC in someway don't inspire thrust. Still they look like that they can't find a solution to keep up with Marvel. Lets hope WW and AM weren't the exception to the rule.

[Ascended]

This sort of sentiment is exactly what I'm talking about though. You are framing an obvious loss as a strategic ploy by Marvel, where as the DCEU films would never have received such a reprieve. How is it that a film that grossed $263 million world wide ($132 mill domestic) on an estimated budget of $150 million not considered a flop? Its just mind boggling, you would never see this behaviour for any other franchise. I would go even further and suggest that it was a poor decision on Marvel's part to reboot Hulk to begin with, since the 2003 film was even less successful (though it had a slightly smaller budget).

I'm not saying it was a strategic move by Marvel. It was a decision to spend as little money as possible. I guess you could call that a strategic decision if you wanted to? I mean, it seems pretty straight forward. The Hulk demands three substantial costs; actor, cgi, Universal. And it doesn't generate huge returns. Making a different film instead of a Hulk sequel allows you to remove at least a third of that cost and mitigate some risk factors. It's not brilliant strategy; its basic accounting. So yes, I suppose I give Marvel credit for having accountants capable of following GAAP.

I do agree it was a mistake to do Incredible so close to Ang Lee's debacle. The bad taste hadn't left audiences' mouths yet, and I've always thought that contributed to Incredible's box office not being more impressive. I know I never went to see Incredible in theaters; after seeing Lee's film I wasnt gonna be fooled again.

Since the movie made a million and change, what "obvious loss" are you taking about? Did the movie make money or lose money? If it made money there isn't a loss except for the time we've all spent here arguing about it.

And is a movie considered a flop when it still generates profit? I'm not a Hollywood guy, but I always figured a "flop" was when a movie didnt break even. Hulk only making a million and change after budget isn't great (you'll notice I never said it was a huge hit, just profitable, which by your figures appears to be true), and by today's standards we'd likely call that box office a failure, but in 08? I feel like the metrics were different. Am I wrong here? Did we measure the expectations of these films the same way eleven years ago? Because I dont recall anyone talking about a superhero film hitting a billion in box office and acting like that was no big deal.

Its not even the Hulk film that was a problem though, there were tons mistakes in the early MCU films

Dude, there's tons of mistakes in *current* MCU films! Seriously, I dont get why you think Im ignoring the MCU's flaws and faults (of which there's many). What have I said? That they've all made profit? By your own figures Incredible made profit and its one of the worst MCU movies. Ive said that they haven't been completely bashed by critics? As far as I know even Thor 2 and Incredible only suffered mixed reviews. That they had a great game plan from the start? They did! They made mistakes, and they changed plans, but that doesn't mean their overall strategy wasn't sound. Every plan changes as soon as it becomes a reality. They rolled with it and churned out profitable product consistently. It isnt a flawless performance by any means, but it is damn impressive business administrating.

[kingaliencracker]

While firmly understanding that The Incredible Hulk is one of Marvel's weakest films, a lot of its failure in terms of box office performance can be attributed to a shoddy release date and simply being done too soon. If Incredible Hulk were released after Avengers (with a few tweaks obviously to account for his appearance in that film), or a Hulk movie were released today, it would make monster box office money.

[Jokerz79]

Batman Begins wasn't a big box office hit ($374M, worldwide) compared to its follow ups. Remember, it followed after the much maligned Batman and Robin. However, it picked up speed in the ancillary market, especially when people found out what was coming in the followup film.

It was a sizeable hit X-Men (200) made less than 300 million and was hit both films had smaller budgets than many today also Studios weren't spending a 100 million after budget on marketing like they do now.

[Stromberg]

"Margot Margot Robbie, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Rosie Perez are all starring in the movie..."

Based on the pics that've been released it seems like the movie is starring Margot Robbie, co-starring Ella Basco and Jurnee Smollett-Bell and Mary Elizabeth Winstead are in a couple of scenes to validate the use of the Birds of Prey title...and is Renee Montoya even in this movie?

[Hilden B. Lade]

https://www.businessinsider.com/jai-...d-movie-2019-3

Jai Courtney claims he'll be returning as Captain Boomerang in James Gunn's Suicide Squad.

[stargazer01]

Jai's character did nothing interesting SS, imo. He was just there and acting kinda funny. I don't see what his character can bring in a sequel. I guess better writing could help, but I'm sure there are more interesting options than him.

[Osiris-Rex]

https://www.businessinsider.com/jai-...d-movie-2019-3

Jai Courtney claims he'll be returning as Captain Boomerang in James Gunn's Suicide Squad.

For all the claims of a reboot this sure seems a lot like what we got before. Merely changing actors for Deadshot doesn't seem like much of a reboot.