Kamina
Golden Boy
Okay understood, then that is already damage reduction anyway. Sucks though that so much work goes to the shits.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Batgirl Will Not Be Released In Theaters Or On HBO Max As Warner Bros. Scraps Completed $90 Million Movie
- Thread starter KyoZz
- Start date
I couldn't tell if Peacemaker was incredibly expensive or incredibly cheap. Loved it though.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Holy Wokery Batgirl! Why was new $90million superhero movie axed?
TOM LEONARD: Batgirl, an apparently 'woke', big-budget film featuring a female version of the Caped Crusader, has been ignominiously scrapped - shocking the film world.
AmuroChan
Member
Unpopular opinion, but I applaud Zaslav for having the balls to make moves like this. This is a complete rejection of the previous regime's vision, which I think we can all agree was bad (to be generous), or moronic (to be blunt). It doesn't necessarily mean the future is bright for DC, but at the very least they're ridding themselves of a lot of the baggage from the previous regime.
That's one narrative being spun, when the Deadline article paints it more as a way for him to cut costs from the $3B debt they have without those losses needing to be carried on the books due to a HOLLYWOOD ACCOUNTING loophole that closes in a couple of weeks.
If this is really just a tax fraud scheme I cans ee them holding on to this until they get a quarter they KNOW will lose subscribers, dump this thing out, blame it for the loss, and then say "seee, we lost MILLIONS MORE for a second dip in the tax deduction.
How can any streaming only film "make money" anyway?
Revolutionary
Member
sol_bad
Member
Yep, Mahershali Ali is certainly a budget no name actor.
GermanZepp
Member
"Batgirl" Tied Up, Release Unlikely
let me write your thread titles from now on
AmuroChan
Member
Two things can be true at once. Of all the outlets that have reported on this movie, Deadline had the most positive thing to say about this movie, which was "it's not THAT bad". Every other outlet basically said their WB sources told them the movie is garbage. If you look at the budget of this movie and some of the set photos, it doesn't instill any confidence that this would be a good movie. It looks like the CW's Batwoman show. So I think it could be both a cancellation of a terrible movie greenlit by the previous regime that David Zaslav wants nothing to do with, AND a tax write-off on the financial side.
Zachkapono
Neo Member
New leadership looked at Hamada's proposed Supergirl/Batgirl/Wonder Woman DCEU and had the same reaction as most fans. Tear it all up and start over
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
The Butthole Cut was never released. The internet has no power.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
That's the point... According to sources and WBD (if you read between the lines), it WAS crap... They don't blame the director or the actress... They blame former leadership.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Oh ok! UK or US?
Yet he cancels Batgirl (with Batman) and Scooby-Doo, 2 pillars of the DCEU?
Synergy, man!
According to sources inside WBD, it was too expensive for streaming and not expensive enough for theaters... And that it was CRAP! They don't blame the directors or the actors but former leadership... Basically Kilar, Sarnoff, Emmerich and Co. The same folks who butchered theatrical BvS and JL2017.
MisterFalcon
Member
I always thought that not bringing out a movie was a big no-no in Hollywood as the actors would sue the studio for compensation for the jobs they passed on to make it. It explains a lot of crap being released despite everyone knowing it's crap.
Konnor
Member
Holy Wokery Batgirl! Why was new $90million superhero movie axed?
TOM LEONARD: Batgirl, an apparently 'woke', big-budget film featuring a female version of the Caped Crusader, has been ignominiously scrapped - shocking the film world.www.dailymail.co.uk
The article does make a good point that people are getting sick and tired of Hollywood's wokeness but other than that's a lot of words for something that could have been a quarter of its length. Btw I had no idea that the film also had a trans character, that's fucking hilarious.
Last edited:
MastaKiiLA
Member
WB's handling of the DC library continues to be beyond shambolic. That said, how insanely bad was this movie, if it gets canned after half a Waterworld's budget has been sunk into it? As already stated, putting it on the streaming service is cheap. The production is the costly part. This film might have been "leave an indelible stain on our brand" levels of awful. If it was anything like Batwoman, then it would totally shit up the brand. I have no idea how that show has an 83% critic score on RT, when it very much deserves the 23% audience score (or much lower).
WB will never sell the DC brand to a more capable studio, because it still has the Batman printing press. In case of emergency, break Batglass. Can't fast track those sequels fast enough now. Something's gotta help recoup this huge L.
WB will never sell the DC brand to a more capable studio, because it still has the Batman printing press. In case of emergency, break Batglass. Can't fast track those sequels fast enough now. Something's gotta help recoup this huge L.
Konnor
Member
Take a wild guess
FunkMiller
Member
The movie's not been shit-canned because it had a brown person or a trans woman in it. It's because it's clearly a piece of absolute crap, and it's better to take the tax write down than pump more cash into it. I doubt the diversity aspect had a thing to do with the decision.
Spaceman292
Banned
Yes. I'm sure as soon as the producers realised that there was a black person in the lead they immediately canned the movie. That's what happened.
Konnor
Member
Woke and absolute crap usually go together, the cult is always making decisions not based on merit or quality but on their dogma. It's one of the main reasons Hollywood is so goddamn terrible nowadays.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
The main reason why Hollywood is so terrible is because they are all chasing maximum revenue from minimum effort, and are all constantly trying to churn out more and more content for their streaming services.
Wokeism is a negative factor, but to claim it’s anywhere close to the main reason for the current malaise in Hollywood is ridiculous. It’s poor writing, laziness, greed and risk aversion.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Different leadership. Zaslav is doing a great job protecting the brand. Cancelled Wonder Twins, most of the CW DC shows, Batgirl, etc.
And with Iger and Horn helping him build the company back up to snuff, I look forward to the future.
AmuroChan
Member
There's correlation between the two. When you have a writers room full of woke, entitled millennials, their priority is not to write a good story, but to write a story that preaches their ideology. It's possible to write a good movie that's also socially progressive, but I'm not sure it's possible to make a woke movie that also has great writing.
sol_bad
Member
If you hate Hollywood so much why do you keep infesting every thread about a Hollywood production? Move on with something else.
Fuz
Banned
Maybe he hates the current state of Hollywood but loves cinema and want it to be decent again? Maybe?
InverseAgonist
Banned
This is a really interesting perspective.
I tend to think the success of Top Gun: Maverick is in many ways a reflection of the ridiculous hyper-reliance on superhero movies for the last two decades. No offense, but I'm bored and an adult now, I want exciting, gripping movies of all genres. Not the same, ad infinitum.
Last edited:
Konnor
Member
This is the equivalent of the "if you don't like social media censorship make your own social media" moronic argument.
Konnor
Member
Hollywood was always greedy. Gee, I wonder what happened the last 10+ years that made it so ridiculously terrible. It must be a coincidence that the rise of wokeism happened exactly as Hollywood was becoming absolutely incompetent, creatively bankrupt, humorless and boring.
Last edited:
Bragr
Banned
Agreed. 99% of people could never even name him.
FunkMiller
Member
thismeinteil
Member
Those two are not mutually exclusive. A lot of products produced by Hollywood are shit because that are too busy checking boxes, instead of telling good stories. And that's not so much to do with the actors, but the people behind the scenes. It doesn't help that they look at what came before them with disdain, so it must be changed, regardless of how good it may have been.
Shizumapower
Member
Last edited:
You got Man of Steel 2, that was BvS, and the villain was Lex Luthor...again.
As far as WB is concerned; Superman only has TWO villains: Lex Luthor and Zod.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Today should be eventful
spawn
Member
Where is Brainiac? They could also do Martian Manhunter
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
They also think he’s corny, silly, too much of a Boy Scout, and not relevant. They don’t like him, don’t understand him, and want him to be like Batman.
Meanwhile at Marvel
MastaKiiLA
Member
Here's the thing, most roles are gender and race neutral. It shouldn't be surprising, but people of color and homosexuals do the same shit as 90% of the rest of the population. Their lives are as droll and mundane as everyone else's. So, putting someone who is a PoC or LGBTQ person into a random role shouldn't elicit any reaction whatsoever.....
...yet, it does. I want to be careful, because I'm concerned the mods might think I'm being mean here. I'm just pointing out that something that shouldn't matter at all, gets labeled as "woke". And that's the inherent problem at play. Making a character that looks "different" shouldn't affect how that character fits into the story. And while there are some notable situations where a character's non-story-centric traits are thrust into the forefront to a discouraging degree, there are many cases where that's not a primary focus, yet it still elicits a negative response.
So I don't agree that Hollywood is checking boxes with all movies to any degree that is beyond reality. There are gay, trans, and colored people in many walks of life. If you grow up in a region or industry that is super diverse, your world view and thus creative impulse should reflect that same diversity, no? I went to a super-diverse high school that is even more exaggerated in diversity than the most diverse shit you'd see on the CW. In the middle of Little Haiti, Miami. If I was a writer, should my art resemble a more monochrome setting, or the one I grew up in?
So I personally question how some people frame the content they view, because what might be foreign to some might be common to others. And vice-versa. But I've personally never balked at the presentations that are more diverse, because it's what I've always imagined was feasible, given how my high school was. Compare it to my elementary/middle school, where my little sister and I were exactly 2 of 3 minorities in a catholic school of 250+. There are definitely different worlds our there, and I'd like to think my hs experience was closer to reality, as that is the level of diversity I've spent most of my life immersed in.
EDIT: To simplify this, I hate Batwoman, because of what many of you would label as "woke shit". To me, it was just a bunch of relationship shit (I don't care if it's lesbian or straight) that no one ever asked about Batman. I want Batwoman or Batgirl solving mysteries and fighting crime. I think the series spent an extraordinary amount of time on who Batwoman was trying to hook up with. That gets labeled as "woke" largely because it's a lesbian relationship. But if she was hooking up with a guy, would it have been any better? Fuck no. It was relationship bullshit, period. That's what was wrong with it. I think we'd be better served removing gender/race from the elements we feel disrupt the stories, and then gauge if it's something that's pushing an agenda, or just sloppy fucking writing. 9 times out of 10, as
FunkMiller
suggested, it's just shitty writing. No need to bring extra shit into a simple explanation.
Last edited:
Totally not mean.
I agree with almost all of what you said, just what to highlight a point. You mentioned a hyperdiverse public high school and a very not diverse private school (gonna assume the other kids were white but doesn't really matter). The point is that the SETTING dictates the CASTING, those things shouldn't be independent. A public high school in Miami, I'd expect a ton of hispanic kids with a heavy Cuban emphasis as well as other Caribbean groups. But the problem is that casting then gets imported to a public high school in MAINE, which is like 95% white and it just doesn't fit. Same with a private catholic school, it would be immersion breaking if it was depicted as 80% black and the other 20% was hindu unless it was set someplace like Africa. So the setting and the story needs to drive the casting, this color wheel (or "color blind" as the pleasant way to say it) casting is just bad in many cases.
An afro-latina girl with a whitey white dad J.K. Simmons? Was Barbara Gordon adopted in this story? The mom an afro-latina herself to try to keep some biologic sense? Just hand wave it away? Does her ethnicity make it easier or harder to hide her identity? Casting needs to support the story.
As for sexuality, the problem is that sexuality is invisible unless it is signalled. I could say that every extra in a police station is actually LGTB+ so it is SUPER DIVERSE but unless they signal it in some way, how do you know? So instead every LGBT character has to be REALLY LGBT (hence all the danger hair these days) or have a very specific comment or scene for the sole purpose of highlighting their sexuality "for the diversity points". It's even worse when the ACTOR now must match the sexuality of the character (at least for LGBT, no one complains when a gay actor plays a straight character) because the sexuality becomes the defining characteristic instead of their cool card tricks, ability to go without sleep, secret love of avocado toast, or whatever.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Agree 100%.
The biggest issues regarding representations is disproportionate skews and the fact which way do you want it??? Not too many people are against representation. Just do it realistically. And if not, then at least be open and say they are purposely casting for overrepresentation for diversity target goal X.
Niche group feeling underrepresented view 1: I want more representation so I'm not ignored (even if it means way more of me than is out there). Love me for my individualism
Niche group feeling underrepresented view 2: Why the fuck are you singling me out like outcast? I'm no different than straight people, so why are you calling my LBTQ thing out? We're a melting pot, not divisive individual jellybeans in a bowl
So you can see it's a no win situation. Media tries to be low key and not brig it up and they get branded haters and deniers of sex/gender. Media brings it up so people notice it and they are called idiots for stereotypical branding.
As for your race % splits, Canada's population is 3.5% Black, yet watch TV ads it's like 20-30% Black people. This all came about big time the past maybe 3 years. There's way more Asians (both Indians and Chinese etc...), but somehow there's less of them in commercials despite them being 18% of the population.
Figure that one out.
Last edited:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Earnings call going on now