kpowers said:

Like I said I feel it's not worthy of a sequel and I stand by that.

It's not the called the "movie worthiness" but the "movie business". You think there would be 10 Madea movies if they didn't make money? Tyler Perry is close to being a billionaire and owns a movie studio. It doesn't matter if you like something, a lot of other people do. Like right now F9 has made more than any Hollywood movie since Covid started.

MickyDolenz said:

I'm just here to stir the pot because I'm a box office nerd....

Every DCEU movie other than Wonder Woman 1984 has been profitable at the box office when you include the international numbers (but Wonder Woman 1984 premiered on cable at the same time during the plague when people still weren't fully going to theaters). And by profitable I mean they made at least TWICE their budget, minumum (that's the point most movies become profitable after all costs - advertising, film prints, distribution and the exhibitors cut). Most of them were very profitable when you include worldwide numbers, as all studios do. That's the only way most big budget blockbusters make any money these days anyway. But rest assured, if these movies were not making money, they would stop producing them. Even Birds of Prey made more than twice it's budget worldwide before you ever take home sales/rental/streaming and tv rights into account (and all of them made a whole bunch more money there).


Now, I'm not saying that makes them good. Not at all. A lot of them are pretty damn bad, average at best. But they ARE making money. Lots of it.

I used this list...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Extended_Universe#Films_2

... and Box Office Mojo to do the comparions.

[Edited 6/30/21 1:35am]

Cerebus said:

EmmaMcG said:

If they keep making bad movies then people are less likely to want to see them.

That's your opinion though. A lot of people buy these movies on DVD/Blu Ray or watch them on TV/streaming. Going to see a movie at the theater is one thing, but people won't buy a DVD if they didn't like it. It's just like some people on this site say Bruno Mars music is bad, yet he is the most popular singer right now in the USA. Same for others like Ed Sheeran, BTS, Cardi B, Taylor Swift, John Legend, Justin Beiber, DJ Khaled, Megan Thee Stallion, Maroon 5, Lizzo, etc. There's a thread right now about H.E.R.'s music being boring. They still are all popular with the mainstream audience. So they're making money for the record labels.

MickyDolenz said:

EmmaMcG said:

I've read thousands of comments on YouTube videos, news sites etc from others who have reached a point where they've just given up on the DC movies due to the lack of quality. Pretty much everyone I know who were once interested in the DCEU is no longer interested in it. And the longer the quality of movies being produced remains so low, the more fans they'll lose. Black Superman and Emo Batman may succeed at the box office but if they're terrible movies too then the sequels will struggle. Lower quality will eventually lead to lower box office. There's a reason why the MCU movies regularly make over a billion dollars and Birds of Prey struggled to reach a fifth of that.

But critics don't buy tickets. People who don't like something are more likely to comment on it than someone who is happy with it. Look as Amazon customer reviews & "cancel culture". Police Academy movies were never praised by critics yet they made money. Same for all of those reality shows currently on TV. Pre-1970s there were lots of westerns & musicals at the movie theaters & on TV. They started to lose popularity in the 1970s, so fewer were made. As long as something makes money, that's all that matters to Hollywood, not the quality of it. Disco, New Jack Swing, grunge, glam metal, etc. was popular until it wasn't. Anyway, there's a lot of people who like "bad" movies. There was even a show about it called Mystery Science Theater 3000. Look at all of those low budget straight to video movies that have been made since the 1980s. Somebody was buying the videotapes/DVDs for them to continue to get made. They're also often shown on cable TV & local TV channels.

EmmaMcG said:

Cerebus said:

I'm just here to stir the pot because I'm a box office nerd....

Every DCEU movie other than Wonder Woman 1984 has been profitable at the box office when you include the international numbers (but Wonder Woman 1984 premiered on cable at the same time during the plague when people still weren't fully going to theaters). And by profitable I mean they made at least TWICE their budget, minumum (that's the point most movies become profitable after all costs - advertising, film prints, distribution and the exhibitors cut). Most of them were very profitable when you include worldwide numbers, as all studios do. That's the only way most big budget blockbusters make any money these days anyway. But rest assured, if these movies were not making money, they would stop producing them. Even Birds of Prey made more than twice it's budget worldwide before you ever take home sales/rental/streaming and tv rights into account (and all of them made a whole bunch more money there).


Now, I'm not saying that makes them good. Not at all. A lot of them are pretty damn bad, average at best. But they ARE making money. Lots of it.

I used this list...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Extended_Universe#Films_2

... and Box Office Mojo to do the comparions.

[Edited 6/30/21 1:35am]

Will they keep making money though? If they keep making bad movies then people are less likely to want to see them. I kept giving them chances to get it right but every movie has been terrible so I won't bother going to see any more DC movies at the cinema. Possibly ever again. And I doubt I'm alone in that. For me, the damage is done. Maybe others will give them another chance or two but WB can't keep churning out shit movies and expect people to spend money on them.

I tend to agree with that. I think DC shines with it's animated movies more than their live versions.

Rotten Tomatoes is supposed to be about what people in general think.

Shazam! - Tomatometer: 90% Audience Score: 82%

MickyDolenz said:

Rotten Tomatoes is supposed to be about what people in general think.

Shazam! - Tomatometer: 90% Audience Score: 82%

Well if the Tomatometer says that then it must be true

kpowers said:

Well if the Tomatometer says that then it must be true

There is no such thing as true or false with entertainent. They're opinions. Some people like Justin Beiber, some don't. The point is that a lot of people who are likely interested in Shazam! sequel. Not so much with Justice League (Tomatometer 40%, Audience 69%) or Man Of Steel (Tomatometer 56%, Audience 75%) They never had a sequel.

MickyDolenz said:

MickyDolenz said:

MickyDolenz said:

kpowers said:

Well if the Tomatometer says that then it must be true

There is no such thing as true or false with entertainent. They're opinions. Some people like Justin Beiber, some don't. The point is that a lot of people who are likely interested in Shazam! sequel. Not so much with Justice League (Tomatometer 40%, Audience 69%) or Man Of Steel (Tomatometer 56%, Audience 75%) They never had a sequel.

I don't trust Rotten tomatoes or Rolling stones claiming to know what America likes. I saw Shazam, nobody asked me if I liked it or not. How do they factor in the millions of people who don't watch the any movie because it looks horrible?

[Edited 6/30/21 10:36am]

EmmaMcG said:

I have no doubt that a certain type of person may find Shazam to be good. I'd bet it's the same type of person who thinks Adam Sandler is funny or that modern American comedies are entertaining.

But Adam Sandler movies make money and he's popular with mainstream audiences. Which is what I've been saying all along. If they didn't, they wouldn't continue to get made. The mainstream liking Adam and you not liking Adam are 2 different things. The mainstream are buying tickets to Adam's movies or streaming them. Adam couldn't have become a millionaire if he didn't have an audience.

MickyDolenz said:

kpowers said:

Well if the Tomatometer says that then it must be true

There is no such thing as true or false with entertainent. They're opinions. Some people like Justin Beiber, some don't. The point is that a lot of people who are likely interested in Shazam! sequel. Not so much with Justice League (Tomatometer 40%, Audience 69%) or Man Of Steel (Tomatometer 56%, Audience 75%) They never had a sequel.

Ok this is just my opion but Justice League is the sequel to Batman V Superman. I mean really how can it not be. They introduce Ben Affleck as Batman. They introduce Wonder Woman. They show the other JLA members. Superman fake dies in the end and Justice League picks up right there. Once again MY OPION

kpowers said:

I don't trust Rotten tomatoes or Rolling stones claiming to know what America likes. I saw Shazam, nobody asked me if I liked it or not. How do factor in the millions of people who don't watch the any movie because it looks horrible?

You can turst record sales and Youtube views. Garth Brooks has 9 diamond albums. Nobody else has, including The Beatles & Michael Jackson. Diamond is at least 10 million in sales. It does not make any difference if millions of people do not like Garth's music. Garth makes money from the people who do. Same for these movies.

MickyDolenz said:

kpowers said:

I don't trust Rotten tomatoes or Rolling stones claiming to know what America likes. I saw Shazam, nobody asked me if I liked it or not. How do factor in the millions of people who don't watch the any movie because it looks horrible?

You can turst record sales and Youtube views. Garth Brooks has 9 diamond albums. Nobody else has, including The Beatles & Michael Jackson. Diamond is at least 10 million in sales. It does not make any difference if millions of people do not like Garth's music. Garth makes money from the people who do. Same for these movies.

How do you trust Youtube views??? If it has 4 million views doesn't mean 4 million people are watching it. Could be just 2000 people watching the same video over and over again.

kpowers said:

How do you trust Youtube views??? If it has 4 million views doesn't mean 4 million people are watching it. Could be just 2000 people watching the same video over and over again.

When a song is played on the radio over and over, the same people who listen to that station are hearing it. What's the difference? Radio airplay is used for the Billboard Hot 100 chart, especially today when there are no physical singles to buy. Streaming is used for today's chart too, that's how Drake has more hits than anyone else and in a way shorter amount of time. Youtube is part of streaming.

MickyDolenz said:

MickyDolenz said:

kpowers said:

How do you trust Youtube views??? If it has 4 million views doesn't mean 4 million people are watching it. Could be just 2000 people watching the same video over and over again.

When a song is played on the radio over and over, the same people who listen to that station are hearing it. What's the difference? Radio airplay is used for the Billboard Hot 100 chart, especially today when there are no physical singles to buy. Streaming is used for today's chart too, that's how Drake has more hits than anyone else and in a way shorter amount of time. Youtube is part of streaming.

But youtube is based of how many hits it has, Radio air play is not. Radio is hoping you buy the song/album.

EmmaMcG said:

One look at the MCU box office would suggest the opposite. So what could it be if not that the DCEU movies are just not that good?

Ant-Man does not make as much as Spider-Man though. Catwoman was not a hit and so didn't get a sequel. So that has nothing to do with Shazam!. Apparenty Shazam! made enough to get a sequel. Shazam!, Wonder Woman, & Auquaman got sequels made or are in production. Man Of Steel & Superman Returns, no solo sequel. Those Superman movies were not a big box office success.

kpowers said:

But youtube is based of how many hits it has, Radio air play is not. Radio is hoping you buy the song/album.

No, they are trying to get more & more listeners so they can get companies to pay more for advertsing time on their stations. Except college radio which depends on audience pledges. It's the record labels who want you to buy the records. They haven't been doing payola all these decades for nothing. A lot of people used to tape the songs off the radio on a cassette. They weren't buying the singles or albums.

MickyDolenz said:

MickyDolenz said:

EmmaMcG said:

One look at the MCU box office would suggest the opposite. So what could it be if not that the DCEU movies are just not that good?

Ant-Man does not make as much as Spider-Man though. Catwoman was not a hit and so didn't get a sequel. So that has nothing to do with Shazam!. Apparenty Shazam! made enough to get a sequel. Shazam!, Wonder Woman, & Auquaman got sequels made or are in production. Man Of Steel & Superman Returns, no solo sequel.

Those Superman movies were not a big box office success.

Well, actually, they were. The entire problem with the DCEU is the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which I'll get to more in a minute...

Man of Steel

Budget: $225,000,000 (huge budget, should not have cost that much, but they were expecting an MCU level of return)

Domestic: $291,045,518

International: $377,000,000

Worldwide: $668,045,518

That's three times the movies budget before a single dollar for merchandise, licensing, home sales/rentals or tv rights are taken into account. It made more than enough money for there to be a sequel (which Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice essentially is, while also setting up future movies - at least that's what they hoped).

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Budget: $250,000,000 (again, ridiculous)

Domestic: $330,360,194

International: $330,360,194

Worldwide: $873,637,528

Again, hugely profitable before any post theater dollars are included. Let me do the rest of them real quick...

Sucide Squad

Budget: $175,000,000

Domestic: $325,100,054

International: $421,746,840

Worldwide: $746,846,894

Hugely profitable.

Wonder Woman

Budget: $149,000,000

Domestic: $412,815,408

International: $410,009,114

Worldwide: $822,824,522

Massively profitable and it helped with the image/public's perception of the DCEU (more on that in a minute)

Justice League

This is, honestly, their only big misstep. They expected, with all those characters, that this movie was going to be massive... it wasn't. There is no official listed/accepted budget for this movie, but it's widely believed that Zack Snyder's re-shoots for the Zack Snyder's Justice League on HBO cost another $25 million, bringing the final cost for Justice League in total to around $300 million. That makes it one of the most expensive movies ever made. Like, right near the top.

Budget: Unknown

Domestic: $229,024,295

International: $428,902,692

Worldwide: $657,926,987

Not profitable, they lost money. No one knows exactly how much, because the advertising costs for this one were huge, but it's rumored to be a lot. Enough that it either ended or changed their future plans for several of the characters/franchises and they gave Snyder more money to try and fix it (more on that in a minute).

Aquaman

Budget: $160,000,000

Domestic: $335,061,807

International: $813,424,079

Worldwide: $1,148,485,886

MASSIVELY successful and it helped with the image/public's perception of the DCEU (more on that in a minute)

Shazam!

Budget: $100,000,000

Domestic: $140,371,656

International: $225,600,000

Worldwide: $365,971,656

Surprisingly very succesful and much loved by most people who have seen it. Helped with the image/public's perception of the DCEU (more on that in a minute). Important enough that they sucked it into being an official part of the DCEU (it wasn't so much before it was released) and gave it a sequel.

Birds of Prey

Budget: $84,500,000

Domestic: $84,158,461

International: $117,700,000

Worldwide: $201,858,461

Nobody is going to say this is a great movie. But look at the budget - seems likely that DC knew this one wasn't going to make a billion dollars. If they lost money at all it was likely very little. And when you take into account how much merch money they make with Harley Quinn it doesn't really matter. Also, Margo Robbie LOVES playing Harley Quinn and she wanted to make this movie. She's a huge star right now and it's likely at least a small part of the reason this movie got the greenlight was to keep her happy and around for future films (they already lost Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill and it seems Will Smith, although I haven't heard him say he wouldn't be back in the future). Should they have made a better/different Birds of Prey, or told a different story? Yes, absolutey! I don't know why they didn't do any of the rumored movies with Poison Ivy, but that was definitely a mistake. Still, as bad as you think this movie is, it didn't hurt them financially. And it didn't make people dislike Harley Quinn one bit.

Wonder Woman 1984

Budget: believed to be $200,000,000

Domestic: $46,534,027

International: $120,000,000

Worldwide: $166,534,027

Most prognosticators believed this was going to be another billion dollar gross for DC. We'll never know because the plague happened. How this movie managed to make $166 million in theaters when it was released is beyond me. Most theaters were still closed. It was also released on HBOMax at the same time, so nobody HAD to go to a theater to see it. That it made that much at theaters during the plague should tell you how badly people wanted to see it. Unfortunately, it was not NEARLY as well recieved by critics or fans who did see it. Another backwards step in public perception for the DCEU. Next...


Zack Snyder's Justice League

I'm putting this here as a place holder to point out that nobody really knows how much HBO paid/is paying to release these huge movies on HBOMax. Likely a whole lot if the studios/producers involved were willing to let this happen. Fortunately for DC and the DCEU, even though Wonder Woman 1984 hit below expectations, Zack Snyder's Justice League did not. Fans wanted Zack Snyder's Justice League and they got it. That's how badly DC and the DCEU want people to like their movies and their movie universe. They listened to fan demand and gave Zack Snyder another small truckload of money to make them happy. It worked.


But that's the point I've been saying I would get to in a minute from the start...


The problem with the DCEU is not the amount of money the movies make, it's how much money they make in comparison to the MCU. Further, it's not that they don't make enough money to keep making sequels (they do), it's what people, critics and fans, think of them when compared to the MCU.

DCEU movies by and large or profitable, MCU movies are more profitable. Some of them by a huge margin. But outside of that...

Most DCEU movies are not well loved. Some of them are reviled. MCU movies are hailed as "brilliant", "perfect", "classic", even by people who don't know anything about the characters long histories in comic books (unless you're Martin Scorsese - sorry Marty, you're wrong ).

The point I'm getting at is that the discussions y'all are having here are more about the public perception of the DCEU than they are about their finacial success. By and large they are very successfull movies. Really, they wouldn't keep making them if they weren't. But they are not movies that people LOVE. Not the way people love the MCU movies. That's what DC keeps trying to achieve. That's where they want to be.

The problem there is that the universe they created from the very beginning just isn't the same. The DCEU TRIED to go dark, gritty, grimey - like Gotham is portrayed in the comic books. It didn't work. They keep trying, it keeps not working.

Nearly all the DCEU movies have a darker tone - scripts, characters, sets, production design, costume design, lighting, special effects - all of it. A lot of people feel the reason it's not working is because they won't just go all the way with it. They keep trying to get both families and the people who want R rated superhero pathos and in the process they're falling somewhere in the boring middle. And for whatever reasons the DCEU writers just can't seem to find the camaraderie and playful banter that they've nailed in the MCU. That's one of the biggest reasons people have fallen so hard for the MCU - they love the characters and how they're portrayed on screen. The DCEU, either through casting, scripts or directing, hasn't achieved that yet (outside of Harley Quinn - whether you personally love or hate her protrayal she's an insanely popular character on and off the screen and a large majority of fans have bought into and accepted Margo Robbie).

Wonder Woman, Shazam! and Aquaman WERE a turnaround for the DCEU. People, critics and fans, generally liked those movies much more than the movies that had come before. Justice League was a misstep, but Zack Snyder's Justice League went a LONG WAY to make up for it.

Birds of Prey was meh, sure. Suicide Squad was nowhere near as good as it should have been, fine. But The Suicide Squad - filled with way more stars than the first attempt and directed by James Gunn from (MCU) The Guardians of the Galaxy fame - is still a HUGELY anticipated movie and Harley Quinn is front and center. Likewise, sparkly vampire's The Batman movie is getting almost nothing but positive word of mouth. People are looking forward to that one, as well.

People want to see these movies and they are making money. The biggest issue, one which I spent 1400 words getting to, is that people also want to LOVE these movies because that's what the MCU has given us, and they don't. I could sit down and watch nearly any MCU movie again right now and I would enjoy it immensely. I know that because I love those characters, those actors, those stories, that whole universe. Of the DCEU movies I don't really have any desire to watch ANY of them again. If I did I think it would probably only be Wonder Woman and Aquaman. That means I don't want to re-watch Batman and Superman movies... That will NEVER work for DC and DCEU. That's what they've got to change. They've got to get past people WANTING to see their movies to people LOVING them. To people actually caring about the characters and the stories they're telling. Something the MCU has absolutely nailed.

Good grief! I simply can't keep up with the constant flood of comic book Super Hero movies these days! Think I'll check out the two Wonder Woman movies and leave it at that...

Cerebus said:

If I did I think it would probably only be Wonder Woman and Aquaman. That means I don't want to re-watch Batman and Superman movies... That will NEVER work for DC and DCEU. That's what they've got to change. They've got to get past people WANTING to see their movies to people LOVING them. To people actually caring about the characters and the stories they're telling. Something the MCU has absolutely nailed.

I think another thing is that Superman, and then Batman has been used a lot in mainstream entertainment. They had movie serials in the 1940s. There were the George Reeves & Adam West TV shows in the 1950s & 1960s. The other DCEU characters like Wonder Woman & Aquaman haven't been used as much outside of the comics. They had the most successful DCEU movies. There were live action shows for Wonder Woman & Shazam! in the 1970s.

Which is also the case with the MCU. Marvel's most popular characters were owned by other movie studios (Spider-Man, Hulk, X-Men, Fantastic 4). Marvel Studios had to use characters that had little or no mainstream audience recognition like Iron Man, Thor, Black Panther, Captain America, etc. The general public had no idea who Guardians Of The Galaxy or Bucky were. So Marvel didn't have the same expectations as DC. They aren't being compared to Christopher Reeve or Michael Keaton. Since Superman (the character) is a pop culture icon, people have a set idea of who he is. They think he should be like the Smallville TV show or Lois & Clark, not some "Dark Knight" type of character. Even the Dark Knight was created in the mid-1980s. Before that, the general public idea of Batman was Adam West or Superfriends. It was Michael Keaton's Batman movies that changed that perception. So that's all Batman has been ever since. Even the 2 fairly recent Batman cartoon movies with Adam West & Burt Ward were darker, even though they had elements from the 1960s show.

purplethunder3121 said:

Good grief! I simply can't keep up with the constant flood of comic book Super Hero movies these days! Think I'll check out the two Wonder Woman movies and leave it at that...

There's also the TV shows. At least there's nowhere near the amount of superhero movies/TV today as there were westerns from the 1920s to the 1960s.

MickyDolenz said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Good grief! I simply can't keep up with the constant flood of comic book Super Hero movies these days! Think I'll check out the two Wonder Woman movies and leave it at that...

There's also the TV shows. At least there's nowhere near the amount of superhero movies/TV today as there were westerns from the 1920s to the 1960s.

Yeah, there were tons of westerns on TV when I was a little kid...

MickyDolenz said: