Zaslav's era could be the worst time for WW.

[HestiasHearth]

Is that your opinion or fact? Because I thought the movie was too long and actually quite a bit on the boring side. And the fact that unlike Wonder Woman, Batman is apparently bullet proof and is dumb enough to just take point blank range shots to his body from the bad guys. Insipidly stupid in parts of the movie.

Overall, I enjoyed The Batman, not gonna lie. However, I would be lying if I disagreed with you in regard to the 'too long" part. I feel that The Batman would have greatly benefitted from an editor who had managed to snip out at least 30 minutes. I don't have a problem with 3-hour-plus films, but the thing is that very few helmers can make those films in a manner that makes them engrossing enough for audiences to feel that the hours breezed by. I honestly believe that the only three hour films that I loved and watched multiple times despite the long runtimes were Titanic and Avatar (both of which had a lot of spectacle and visual wonder, which always helps). Also, despite what many critics say, both of those films had characters I cared about (yes, even Avatar, which haters claim had cardboard-thin characters). I liked The Batman well enough. Would I watch it more than once? Absolutely not.

If Wonder Woman ever got a three hour film, it better be a heck of a compelling script and it better have a heck of a lot of action-packed setpieces for me to watch it (although the simple fact that it would star Diana will automatically bias me in favor of it).

[WonderLight789]

Is it something to celebrate? The Batman was a genuinely great movie, certainly more deserving of a billion than Aquaman or NWH. It also came out on the tail end of that really crazy Omicron wave at the beginning of this year which likely affected its BO total.

spiderman and dr strange made more than batman. So clearly if more people liked it they would have seen it and make it a bigger hit.

[BiteTheBullet]

Overall, I enjoyed The Batman, not gonna lie. However, I would be lying if I disagreed with you in regard to the 'too long" part. I feel that The Batman would have greatly benefitted from an editor who had managed to snip out at least 30 minutes. I don't have a problem with 3-hour-plus films, but the thing is that very few helmers can make those films in a manner that makes them engrossing enough for audiences to feel that the hours breezed by. I honestly believe that the only three hour films that I loved and watched multiple times despite the long runtimes were Titanic and Avatar (both of which had a lot of spectacle and visual wonder, which always helps). Also, despite what many critics say, both of those films had characters I cared about (yes, even Avatar, which haters claim had cardboard-thin characters). I liked The Batman well enough. Would I watch it more than once? Absolutely not.

If Wonder Woman ever got a three hour film, it better be a heck of a compelling script and it better have a heck of a lot of action-packed setpieces for me to watch it (although the simple fact that it would star Diana will automatically bias me in favor of it).

I think WW84 had that problem with length. It was over 2 and a half hours and felt way too long. But unlike The Batman, WW84 was bad from start to finish. The Batman had good points to it, though I am not a fan of the length of the movie nor the way they made him bulletproof.

[WonderLight789]

You forgot to mention The Hunger Games franchise which is also female-led and is one of the most successful franchises. Another one is Sailor Moon, which is popular with both kids and adults.

hunger games is not a comic book genre. And Sailor Moon is far bigger than Superman if you want to go there. The amount of copies(physically may i add) that the Manga has sold globally is something that SM couldn't reach in his wildest dreams. But then again, Mangas have always been far more global than comics when it comes to worldwide sales.

WW just got her first movie in 2017. And she beat any Superman project by far of the last 4 decades. Now there you have a clear example of the potential of WW franchise. Too bad that more often than not. DC sucks at handling WW content.

[HestiasHearth]

spiderman and dr strange made more than batman. So clearly if more people liked it they would have seen it and make it a bigger hit.

Plus anyone who's seen Aquaman can attest to the fact that movies making a billion dollar "is not about deserve. It's about believe; and I believe in lov..." Um, sorry, I got carried away for a moment. Seriously now, no film "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" a billion dollars because of perceived quality or any other reason. Aquaman grossed that much because, as you said, more people saw it and enjoyed it. The same thing with Wonder Woman in regard to it outgrossing The Batman. In fact, Aquaman's and Wonder Woman's internal multipliers of 4+, a very rare thing among superhero movies, truly speak of how well liked they were by general audiences.

[WonderLight789]

Just curious where WW stood in media franchise sales which apparently includes everything and was surprised to see WW did not make the list, the lowest amount to be considered was 2 Billion. Superman was there at 10.9B but of course Bat-God was towering over both with 29.9B. Spider-Man was the top super-hero of the two big companies with 31.8B. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...dia_franchises

The first WW movie thrashed MOS but beyond that I wouldn't say WW is a guaranteed success at the BO. 1984 was a bit of a critical stinker and doubt it would have anywhere near the first WW box office. Directors matter and Snyder dropped the ball on MOS as well as BVS. WW came out at a time when the superhero craze was really on fire. I don't think if she appeared onscreen in the 90s and early 2000s she would have dominated.

SM hasn't dominated anything BO wise since the 80s so. WW had far better results with her debut film. So clearly the potential is there. If she would get the same amount of opportunities in terms of projects that SM has had. Even with all of his BO flops. The WW franchise would be bigger than it already is by now.

WW84 in the middle of a global lockdown was never going to be a hit. So it is pointless to discuss that.

[WonderLight789]

Plus anyone who's seen Aquaman can attest to the fact that movies making a billion dollar "is not about deserve. It's about believe; and I believe in lov..." Um, sorry, I got carried away for a moment. Seriously now, no film "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" a billion dollars because of perceived quality or any other reason. Aquaman grossed that much because, as you said, more people saw it and enjoyed it. The same thing with Wonder Woman in regard to it outgrossing The Batman. In fact, Aquaman's and Wonder Woman's internal multipliers of 4+, a very rare thing among superhero movies, truly speak of how well liked they were by general audiences.

Exactly. The other user sayin AQ only grossed so much because there was no competition. LOL. There is always comnpetition at BO. It just so happened that AQ was the most liked movie at the time of its release. It's like when people complain that this album sold better than an album they think has better ''quality''. In the end if more people liked certain type of music more and bought it, that's all there is to it. As you say, nobody is more or less deserving of success. It just comes down to what the general public likes more.

Now what we can say. Is that both AQ and WW deserve more opportunities. Especiallly after proving their potential big time at the BO. They earrned the right to be treated with more respect than what they usually get as franchises. Especially compared to Superman and the trackrecord of his BO in the last 4 decades.

[HestiasHearth]

I think WW84 had that problem with length. It was over 2 and a half hours and felt way too long. But unlike The Batman, WW84 was bad from start to finish. The Batman had good points to it, though I am not a fan of the length of the movie nor the way they made him bulletproof.

Interesting point! I never felt the length of WW84 had a lot to do with its...problems, but it definitely did it no favors in regard to audiences not taking to it. Obviously, a badly made film is always going to feel like even more of a chore to watch if it's longer than average. You know, every time I watch it, I realize how much the marketing gave me a completely wrong idea of how the film was going to go. Those trailers were so awesome (BTW, so far, WB has truly nailed the trailers for both WW films. As much as general audiences rejected WW84 in theatres, I still have not seen anybody claiming to hate or even dislike the film's trailers). There's that I guess. :-)

[BiteTheBullet]

Interesting point! I never felt the length of WW84 had a lot to do with its...problems, but it definitely did it no favors in regard to audiences not taking to it. Obviously, a badly made film is always going to feel like even more of a chore to watch if it's longer than average. You know, every time I watch it, I realize how much the marketing gave me a completely wrong idea of how the film was going to go. Those trailers were so awesome (BTW, so far, WB has truly nailed the trailers for both WW films. As much as general audiences rejected WW84 in theatres, I still have not seen anybody claiming to hate or even dislike the film's trailers). There's that I guess. :-)

I was hyped for the 2nd WW movie, in spite of the 1980's backdrop. The first trailer with Blue Monday - Sebastian Bohm music was looking and sounding great. Then subsequent trailers came out and I started losing my faith that the sequel would follow the first movies lead. Then I did hear some people saying that they depowered WW throughout most of the movie as well as what the Cheetah looked like and I was pretty sure we had a stinker on our hands. The only positive note that came out of subscribing HBOMax to see the movie was all the DC content in terms of animation and original programming. Love Doom Patrol, Titans is garbage (I do like Wondergirl though) and I like Harley Quinn animated series.

I don't mind long movies, but when I am looking at my phone to see what the time is, then I definitely know it is too long.

[Stanlos]

Well “dear” this year you have content wise
- Her ongoing
- WW: Evolution
- WW: Black & Gold
- Historia
- Nubia’s mini
- Trial of the Amazons her first event in ages
- A Hippolyta one shot

And just recently you have this:




They gave you EXACTLY what you constantly blubber about wanting: WW utterly dominating Superman. But of course that’s not enough because you would literally die if you didn’t find something to complain about. Ever get tired of being the eternal victim?

Edit: Funniest thing about this is that you think WW beating up Superman means anything. Like if she beats him up that’s going to make her co-equal with Batman or something. Guess what mystical - Superman is one of the biggest jobbers in comics. He’s CONSTANTLY getting his butt kicked. But Batman beat you to that punch over 40 years ago and nobody cares anymore. Superman getting beat up means nothing.

I found DEAD EARTH terribly problematic and anti WW

[bardkeep]

Is that your opinion or fact? Because I thought the movie was too long and actually quite a bit on the boring side. And the fact that unlike Wonder Woman, Batman is apparently bullet proof and is dumb enough to just take point blank range shots to his body from the bad guys. Insipidly stupid in parts of the movie.

From a technical standpoint I’d say it’s objectively a very well-crafted movie. Enjoyment is always subjective. And I don’t see how a bulletproof Batsuit is more ridiculous than any of Batman’s other gadgets…

I do think it could easily have ended after the scene where Bruce interrogates Riddler in Arkham though. And I definitely think it needed to be seen in a theater - I was on the edge of my seat the whole time but if I’d been watching at home on my cheap Roku TV I probably would have been checking my phone. The immersion in Reeves’ depiction of Gotham and the huge, splash page-like visuals were big parts of what made the movie work.

[BiteTheBullet]

From a technical standpoint I’d say it’s objectively a very well-crafted movie. Enjoyment is always subjective. And I don’t see how a bulletproof Batsuit is more ridiculous than any of Batman’s other gadgets…

I do think it could easily have ended after the scene where Bruce interrogates Riddler in Arkham though. And I definitely think it needed to be seen in a theater - I was on the edge of my seat the whole time but if I’d been watching at home on my cheap Roku TV I probably would have been checking my phone. The immersion in Reeves’ depiction of Gotham and the huge, splash page-like visuals were big parts of what made the movie work.

The bulletproof Batman is problematic. Here is the idiot Batman running into a bunch of thugs and mooks who are riddling him with shots and going point blank at him and he tanks it like it is no problem. I didn't know he was Ironman, or Superman for that matter. On the other hand as is often debated on these boards, we have a mythical superhero in Wonder Woman who has to worry about a ricochet from Superman that might kill her.

Where is the suspense now when Batman is bulletproof? He has never had that type of armor before in the movies that I know of, and whenever he did get shot it would knock the air out of him like it did Michael Keaton in the first Batman.

I am not sure why from a technical standpoint you would say it was a well-crafted movie, but to each his own.

[SonOfBaldwin]

The bulletproof Batman is problematic. Here is the idiot Batman running into a bunch of thugs and mooks who are riddling him with shots and going point blank at him and he tanks it like it is no problem. I didn't know he was Ironman, or Superman for that matter. On the other hand as is often debated on these boards, we have a mythical superhero in Wonder Woman who has to worry about a ricochet from Superman that might kill her.

Where is the suspense now when Batman is bulletproof? He has never had that type of armor before in the movies that I know of, and whenever he did get shot it would knock the air out of him like it did Michael Keaton in the first Batman.

I am not sure why from a technical standpoint you would say it was a well-crafted movie, but to each his own.

The ongoing portrayals of Batman as undefeatable, invincible, unstoppable, able to overcome any obstacle, etc., serves as wish fulfillment for a lot of people, I guess. For me, as a writer, it just bleeds the character of any interest. Batman bores me to tears. I do find that I connect with other members of the Bat-Family more.

[DochaDocha]

I thought The Batman was merely ok, with highs and lows that kind of cancel each other out. I didn't like the bullet proof scene (he won't die, fine, but he's not just going to tank it like Superman), but it's not overly problematic. The movie finds other ways to show how beatable Batman is.

The bigger issue is that a bomb blew up in his face and he didn't take a significant amount of damage.

[Gaius]

Aquaman was released in December 2018. There was no other movie in theaters at the time except Mary Poppins Returns (which flopped). People needed something to watch and Aquaman was it since there was no Marvel movie in theaters at the time.

Yes, we know that now but regardless even Aquaman had a budget in the 150-200 million dollar range. Certainly not cheap but less than Flash's reported budget and doesn't have the expectations of being the film to reboot the entire DC films franchise.

I haven't seen The Batman so I'm not knocking it either and it obviously did well but I remember lots of folks pretty confidently predicting it would reach a billion.