Support NeoGAF

[ADiTAR]

No, CGI is just making it worse. There are no actual constraints with CGI, just the quality of the result, so directors leave in these ridiculously elaborate and overly expensive shots that can either be made to look really bad by cg, or really good, long after the film photography has been done. And what they film is all but unusable WITHOUT cg because its all green screen ping pong ball stuff, no there are no brakes on the budget during principle photography to say "hey, we really can't afford an extensive, almost all special effect, prision scene that could be done in an old jail cell for 10% of the cost".

Budgets these days are ASTRONOMICAL compared to what they were just a few decades earlier and cg is the culprit.

Probably. But Titanic was done on a budget of 200m, and it doesn't have CGI. Counting inflation that's a lot more. Same as The Fifth Element, a budget of 90m, today 160+.

But those were really expensive for their time. Now it's basically most blockbuster movies.

 

[VulcanRaven]

Probably. But Titanic was done on a budget of 200m, and it doesn't have CGI. Counting inflation that's a lot more. Same as The Fifth Element, a budget of 90m, today 160+.

But those were really expensive for their time. Now it's basically most blockbuster movies.

Titanic has cgi.

 

[Fake]

I think the biggest question for blockbuster films today is how to reduce the budget. It seems with CGI and AI it can be reduced.

Reducing reshoots, with is getting absurd common into those crap scripts.

Remember, this movie have tons of reshoots. As for Captain America: Brave New World.

 

[Metallix87]

Also the whole narrative that "critics and audiences loved it!" is borderline shill territory. Critics have loved a million movies that bombed at the BO. There has been a million movies with high audience scores that resulted in fuck all. For instance ZSJL has an IMDB score of 7,9 compared to S2025's 7,5. Yet I don't recall anyone saying that Gunn's universe should be canned in favor of Snyder's because the former struck higher at the online polls. These metrics are all very convenient points to cling to but are ultimately meaningless in the context of how viable a movie is to a larger audience. It goes without saying that Internet scores are hugely skewed by hardcore fans who don't represent a majority opinion.

I'm not going to comment on whether or not James Gunn is to be believed and trusted, because there's just no value in that discussion. But let's talk about Snyder's Justice League. I think it's a great film. But there's a reason they're not moving forward with his universe and vision: It already flopped. The reason we're even in this situation is that audiences and critics largely were indifferent to Man of Steel and outright negative on Batman v Superman. ZSJL had the benefit of not needing a theatrical edit, and also coming out at a time where most people still were locked in during the pandemic, and STILL Warner Bros. said they didn't recoup the costs of allowing him to finish his vision of that film. Most of the other DCEU films in that universe also struggled. We're also not just talking about internet scores, we're talking about actual critics, and the overall vibe of the general movie going audience. Again, the big issue with Gunn's Superman is a disappointing foreign box office. Domestically, it was a big hit.

 

[Klosshufvud]

I'm not going to comment on whether or not James Gunn is to be believed and trusted, because there's just no value in that discussion. But let's talk about Snyder's Justice League. I think it's a great film. But there's a reason they're not moving forward with his universe and vision: It already flopped. The reason we're even in this situation is that audiences and critics largely were indifferent to Man of Steel and outright negative on Batman v Superman. ZSJL had the benefit of not needing a theatrical edit, and also coming out at a time where most people still were locked in during the pandemic, and STILL Warner Bros. said they didn't recoup the costs of allowing him to finish his vision of that film. Most of the other DCEU films in that universe also struggled. We're also not just talking about internet scores, we're talking about actual critics, and the overall vibe of the general movie going audience. Again, the big issue with Gunn's Superman is a disappointing foreign box office. Domestically, it was a big hit.

Your post makes no sense. Audiences were "indifferent" to Man of Steel, yet by every metric, more people went to see Man of Steel than Superman 2025. How can you say they were indifferent to MoS and not the 2025 version then? But of course you'll say, everyone saw it but nobody liked it! This is after all the narrative that hating fanboys have said for years. Yet when Batman v Superman was announced, hype was through the roof. Same director as MoS, direct sequel to MoS with the same Superman. You'd think if MoS was so disliked that there would be less interest in it. BvS also went on to make near 900m in 2016 money, which is over a billion today. Man of Steel turned out a huge seller on on DVD too. Batman v Superman despite its botched theatrical edit somehow still carried into Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and Aquaman all being huge box office hits too. I don't see how you can say the DCEU struggled knowing pretty much all entries before Snyder's departure were box office giants and the 2025 version lags behind all those films. Regarding the production costs of ZSJL, that was obviously one exec who wanted to shut down the "Restore-The-Snyderverse" online movement because it was starting to overshadow their planned DC films.

I'm fine saying the Snyder movies failed or whatever, but in the same sentence claiming that Gunn's version breathed new life into DC strikes me as either ignorant or hypocritical. By every financial metric ( meaning that isn't useless online polls, in which movies like ZSJL did better than S2025) the Gunn version performed way worse than Snyder's DCEU films. And before you say it, the precious post-covid drop, movies like Avatar 2, Deadpool 2, Barbie, Oppenheimer, Top Gun, Dune all opened just in recent years. I think we should start look past these socio-economic factors as excuses and more about the nature of the film and how it resonates with larger audiences. Because I certainly didn't know anybody that felt a particular excitement seeing the Superman trailers and TV ads.

 

[Metallix87]

Your post makes no sense. Audiences were "indifferent" to Man of Steel, yet by every metric, more people went to see Man of Steel than Superman 2025. How can you say they were indifferent to MoS and not the 2025 version then? But of course you'll say, everyone saw it but nobody liked it! This is after all the narrative that hating fanboys have said for years. Yet when Batman v Superman was announced, hype was through the roof. Same director as MoS, direct sequel to MoS with the same Superman. You'd think if MoS was so disliked that there would be less interest in it. BvS also went on to make near 900m in 2016 money, which is over a billion today. Man of Steel turned out a huge seller on on DVD too. Batman v Superman despite its botched theatrical edit somehow still carried into Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and Aquaman all being huge box office hits too. I don't see how you can say the DCEU struggled knowing pretty much all entries before Snyder's departure were box office giants and the 2025 version lags behind all those films. Regarding the production costs of ZSJL, that was obviously one exec who wanted to shut down the "Restore-The-Snyderverse" online movement because it was starting to overshadow their planned DC films.

I'm fine saying the Snyder movies failed or whatever, but in the same sentence claiming that Gunn's version breathed new life into DC strikes me as either ignorant or hypocritical. By every financial metric ( meaning that isn't useless online polls, in which movies like ZSJL did better than S2025) the Gunn version performed way worse than Snyder's DCEU films. And before you say it, the precious post-covid drop, movies like Avatar 2, Deadpool 2, Barbie, Oppenheimer, Top Gun, Dune all opened just in recent years. I think we should start look past these socio-economic factors as excuses and more about the nature of the film and how it resonates with larger audiences. Because I certainly didn't know anybody that felt a particular excitement seeing the Superman trailers and TV ads.

What are you arguing, exactly? Are you suggesting Man of Steel WASN'T a polarizing film at release? Because that's simply just not true. You're also bringing up home video sales when we don't actually know how the new Superman will perform in that regard, so it's sort-of an odd thing to talk about at this point.

Here's what we can basically say happened:

1.) Man of Steel did worse at the domestic box office than Superman, in what was inarguably a better market for both superhero films and just, more broadly, theater releases. If you want to talk about inflation, sure, but then we'd also have to talk about the broad strokes impact that quick VOD / home video releases have on theatrical releases today, and that's a little harder to pin down as outright fact.

2.) Batman v Superman was a relative success, but not the success Warner Bros. had wanted, and the overall reception was extremely negative at the time of release. It was so poorly received, and didn't meet expectations to such an extreme, that Warner Bros. panicked and butchered Suicide Squad in the edit and then went on to leverage Zack's personal tragedy to try to rub out his influence from Justice League. Those aren't the moves of a studio who thinks everything was hunky dory with Batman v Superman's reception, especially given how much worse BvS did relative to the Nolan's Batman films.

3.) Again, if ZSJL was such a huge success, why WOULDN'T they give him an opportunity to follow up, especially in light of Gunn saying Elseworld releases will continue to exist even in the age of the DCU? It's a fact that at least one exec came out to say ZSJL didn't make back the money, but there's actually no evidence to counter that narrative. This is, again, in spite of the quality of the film, which I think is really good.

4.) I can't comment on what you or your acquaintances felt about Superman's marketing campaign, but I can speak to the other points in your second paragraph: Films don't release in a vacuum. Regardless of anything else, Superman is still a DC film, and that franchise / IP is still largely tainted by the stink of the DCEU. We're not coming at this from scratch, even if it is a reboot. It's similar to how Batman Begins performed relative to both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, largely because it was coming off of the heels of both Batman & Robin and Catwoman. The film earned positive reviews, and good word-of-mouth, and that resulted in the follow ups doing better. Is that what's going to happen for Superman? I don't know. But almost all of the buzz I hear from people is positive. And again, the domestic box office total is an outright success, it's the foreign box office wherein the film struggled. That's just a fact at this point.

 

[AJUMP23]

Is it a woke movie?

It has multiple women in it, and they have opinions. So yes.

 

[Ulysses 31]

It has multiple women in it, and they have opinions. So yes.

Ain't no cultlike adherence to any social liberal orthodoxy or any intersectionality so no.

Unless your definition of anti-woke is anti-woman, anti-lgbtq, anti-bicop.

 

[AJUMP23]

Ain't no cultlike adherence to any social liberal orthodoxy or any intersectionality so no.

Unless your definition of woke is anti-woman, anti-lgbtq, anti-bicop.

I was making a joke. So there is that. I just didnt add a bunch of emojis.

 

[Klosshufvud]

What are you arguing, exactly? Are you suggesting Man of Steel WASN'T a polarizing film at release? Because that's simply just not true. You're also bringing up home video sales when we don't actually know how the new Superman will perform in that regard, so it's sort-of an odd thing to talk about at this point.

Here's what we can basically say happened:

1.) Man of Steel did worse at the domestic box office than Superman, in what was inarguably a better market for both superhero films and just, more broadly, theater releases. If you want to talk about inflation, sure, but then we'd also have to talk about the broad strokes impact that quick VOD / home video releases have on theatrical releases today, and that's a little harder to pin down as outright fact.

2.) Batman v Superman was a relative success, but not the success Warner Bros. had wanted, and the overall reception was extremely negative at the time of release. It was so poorly received, and didn't meet expectations to such an extreme, that Warner Bros. panicked and butchered Suicide Squad in the edit and then went on to leverage Zack's personal tragedy to try to rub out his influence from Justice League. Those aren't the moves of a studio who thinks everything was hunky dory with Batman v Superman's reception, especially given how much worse BvS did relative to the Nolan's Batman films.

3.) Again, if ZSJL was such a huge success, why WOULDN'T they give him an opportunity to follow up, especially in light of Gunn saying Elseworld releases will continue to exist even in the age of the DCU? It's a fact that at least one exec came out to say ZSJL didn't make back the money, but there's actually no evidence to counter that narrative. This is, again, in spite of the quality of the film, which I think is really good.

4.) I can't comment on what you or your acquaintances felt about Superman's marketing campaign, but I can speak to the other points in your second paragraph: Films don't release in a vacuum. Regardless of anything else, Superman is still a DC film, and that franchise / IP is still largely tainted by the stink of the DCEU. We're not coming at this from scratch, even if it is a reboot. It's similar to how Batman Begins performed relative to both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, largely because it was coming off of the heels of both Batman & Robin and Catwoman. The film earned positive reviews, and good word-of-mouth, and that resulted in the follow ups doing better. Is that what's going to happen for Superman? I don't know. But almost all of the buzz I hear from people is positive. And again, the domestic box office total is an outright success, it's the foreign box office wherein the film struggled. That's just a fact at this point.

1, MoS did better at the domestic box office since more people went and saw it. I see no reason why not to adjust for inflation, given how movies like Top Gun and Deadpool made gains on their predecessors despite there being VOD now.

2, I think the key words here are "What Warner Bros wanted". You will realize when you analyze the past 10 years of DC that WB are woefully incompetent and have made disastrous decisions based on misguided expectations all the time. I never said WB was pleased, because I don't think WB's over-reaction was appropriate. They should have apologized and simply made the Ultimate Cut of BvS the standard version and let things be. But despite their attempts to sabotage the DCEU, SS, WW and Aquaman still ended up doing great, and ZSJL was reported as a streaming hit. But after that, it was all too far gone with studio's bright ideas. They blew their big team up movie on Whedon interfering and Marvelizing it.

3, Well this ties to the above point, in that WB's expectations did not line up with reality. Assuming that you could simply copypaste the MCU formula and then also somehow get all their box office profits would prove to be a fatal mistake and one that would crash DC Films hard.

4, I think a similar argument can be made that MoS was held back by the disliked Superman Returns. But I will argue that Superman is tricky at the box office regardless of the times. Batman Begins is a special case, and Ledger's death before the release of TDK brought huge amount of attention to the film. Regardless, I hope Superman 2025 is a wake-up call to all online warriors that the world is more than just online metrics and polls. You can convince yourself that X is beloved/hated all you want but if nobody is showing up at the cinemas to prove it, what's the point? There is clearly a big discrepancy between what online fans are wanting and what the larger audiences want.

 

[Metallix87]

1, MoS did better at the domestic box office since more people went and saw it. I see no reason why not to adjust for inflation, given how movies like Top Gun and Deadpool made gains on their predecessors despite there being VOD now.

2, I think the key words here are "What Warner Bros wanted". You will realize when you analyze the past 10 years of DC that WB are woefully incompetent and have made disastrous decisions based on misguided expectations all the time. I never said WB was pleased, because I don't think WB's over-reaction was appropriate. They should have apologized and simply made the Ultimate Cut of BvS the standard version and let things be. But despite their attempts to sabotage the DCEU, SS, WW and Aquaman still ended up doing great, and ZSJL was reported as a streaming hit. But after that, it was all too far gone with studio's bright ideas. They blew their big team up movie on Whedon interfering and Marvelizing it.

3, Well this ties to the above point, in that WB's expectations did not line up with reality. Assuming that you could simply copypaste the MCU formula and then also somehow get all their box office profits would prove to be a fatal mistake and one that would crash DC Films hard.

4, I think a similar argument can be made that MoS was held back by the disliked Superman Returns. But I will argue that Superman is tricky at the box office regardless of the times. Batman Begins is a special case, and Ledger's death before the release of TDK brought huge amount of attention to the film. Regardless, I hope Superman 2025 is a wake-up call to all online warriors that the world is more than just online metrics and polls. You can convince yourself that X is beloved/hated all you want but if nobody is showing up at the cinemas to prove it, what's the point? There is clearly a big discrepancy between what online fans are wanting and what the larger audiences want.

1.) No one is suggesting there aren't still runaway hits in modernity. But pretending that it's more commonplace now than in the environment MoS released in is a little disingenuous.

2.) I genuinely can't take this argument seriously when you are suggesting they "apologize" for a theatrical cut of a film. They had their reasons for asking for the theatrical cut, and they almost assuredly centered on not wanting an R rated film for the crossover of Superman and Batman. You know, because it's Superman and Batman. Like, you're suggesting they were trying to sabotage the DCEU, when it's much more likely they saw the writing on the wall and wanted kids to be able to go to the movie theater to watch a movie about Batman and Superman, two of the most popular superheroes in the world. I agree that Marvelizing a film that was like 95% complete wasn't exactly a brilliant idea, but it's not hard to see why they took those steps. Superman shouldn't be R rated.

3.) I actually have no idea what you're saying with this point. Genuinely. What I said has zero to do with Marvel. Warner Bros. said ZSJL didn't make enough for their investment. That's it. If it had made more, they likely would continue it as some kind of Elseworlds project. But it didn't make enough. Maybe, down the road, we'll get a comic book or something to continue the story, but the here and now is that the financials just didn't make sense.

4.) I think you could make the argument about Superman Returns, absolutely, and that's why the marketing leaned so heavily on Christopher Nolan's role as producer, right? But I also think this general point is so exaggerated as to borderline by nonsensical. "Nobody showing up at the cinemas" is a comical statement given this movie is likely ending its box office run somewhere in the mid-$600 million range. You want to have this discussion, sure, but try to cool it on the ridiculous hyperbole driven by your dislike of the film.

 

[Sonik]

It has multiple women in it, and they have opinions

Disgusting

 

[Ulysses 31]

I was making a joke. So there is that. I just didnt add a bunch of emojis.

You don't fool me, I know you really meant it.

 

[jason10mm]

Probably. But Titanic was done on a budget of 200m, and it doesn't have CGI. Counting inflation that's a lot more. Same as The Fifth Element, a budget of 90m, today 160+.

But those were really expensive for their time. Now it's basically most blockbuster movies.

I'm not saying CG is the ONLY think making stuff expensive, obviously Titanic on a massive water set was gonna cost. Or Total Recall. Or the other 100+ mill 90's films.

Jus that I think when they get to filming a CG laden film today, it's a LOT harder to figure out what the final cost will be because they are no building nearly as many sets or effects during filming. So they shot all this stuff on a green screen than its up to these effects houses to make it look good, MONTHS after filming wraps, versus the dailies coming out just a few days after filming with a lot of practical stuff.

Stuff like "Have Black Adam fight waves of zombies" in the script would have been a big on set endeavor in the 80's and probably deemed too expensive, but now it was all CG so they could 'film' it quick and then only later realize that added 30 mill to the film, or it would look bad if they went cheap. Cost of CG so rarely translates to quality, as they pay for speed rather than skill in a lot of cases, so CG ends up looking WORSE as time goes on versus the very selective use in the early days when they had the time to make it look good because there wasn't 1000 other shots to get done by tomorrow.

 

[Sardaukarama]

New behind the scenes documentary:

That was a great watch , Made me like David Corenswet even more as Supes

 

[Revolutionary]

The Superman Saga continues...

That was a great watch , Made me like David Corenswet even more as Supes

That moment at the end where they have a bit of a debate over the scene was great. Some people tried to frame it negatively but both Gunn and Corenswet called it their favorite directing moment on any set. It's clear that they're both very passionate about the movie and Supes himself.

 

[Sardaukarama]

Yup and Saffrans face afterwards, Loved it

 

[March Climber]

Me: Oh a new page for this thread, wonder what cool news and posts I'll see…

*More box office/budget arguments with Snyderverse brought up again*

 

[calico]

Gunn has already dismissed the suggestion that the film is barely breaking even.

Not really, and he is notoriously untrustworthy anyway. His post on the matter was also immediately undermined by remembering that Man of Steel was already released with a much higher adjusted break even that what he tried to imply would be unthinkable.

So I'm just really unsure what you're trying to say? They should be panicking?

That having seen a 'home run' Superman movie limp to breaking even and all of the Marvel movies struggle / flop, all they should be seeing is further confirmation of what deep down I think everyone knew already: that with only a few exceptions this is now a very tough / hostile market for superhero movies. This does not appear to be a market to take a running jump into with a new connected universe of superhero movies.

There may be a degree of panic with bringing the home option forward for Superman, but panic won't help, they just need to be rational with what they learn from this lacklustre performance.

 

[Madflavor]

There is no panic from releasing Superman on VoD this early.

The movie has done well enough, it'll continue to profit once it hits VoD.

The only conversation actually worth having here is how to solve the big problem with the international market that's affecting the whole CBM genre.

 

[VulcanRaven]

Also Jurassic World Rebirth was released to streaming after the same amount of time and its still in theaters.

 

[Jaybe]

Superman is going to lose some of its theatres theatres this weekend, so perhaps that's why it is going to VOD now

 

[calico]

The new narrative is it's been brought forward because James Gunn didn't know when Peacemaker S2 released. It's absolutely 100% not because the legs never materialised at the box office.

As things stand:

~$40m to go to match Superman Returns' adjusted box office.
~$340m to go to match Man of Steel's adjusted box office.
~$292m to go to match Iron Man 1's adjusted box office.

 

[Madflavor]

The new narrative is it's been brought forward because James Gunn didn't know when Peacemaker S2 released. It's absolutely 100% not because the legs never materialised at the box office.

As things stand:

~$40m to go to match Superman Returns' adjusted box office.
~$340m to go to match Man of Steel's adjusted box office.
~$292m to go to match Iron Man 1's adjusted box office.

Overall theater attendance is a fraction of what it was between 2006-2013, and ticket prices have skyrocketed since then, meaning more people who feel inclined to wait for streaming. This is not the win you think it is. The fact that you guys keep pushing this inflation argument means you've reached the Bargaining stage of your grief.

By every metric of data that we have, Superman had really good legs domestically. Its opening Dom weekend was $125m, and it's looking to finish between $350 -$360m. That's nearly a 3x multiplier.

"Its legs never materialized"? Go to bed dude.

 

[VulcanRaven]

 

[Madflavor]

@2:15

That's a very good point that I haven't even thought of.

 

[AJUMP23]

That isn't the assumption. You know the movie is a product of its time. You are not adjusting based on tickets sold, you are adjusting on the value of the dollar. You know how many tickets sold for $2 in 1975, but that $2 is the same as $20 today. It isn't about the tickets sold it is about value of the currency. Instead of comparing dollars earned compare ticket sales.

How many tickets did Gone with the wind sell, compared to Marvel Endgame.

 

[Madflavor]

That isn't the assumption. You know the movie is a product of its time. You are not adjusting based on tickets sold, you are adjusting on the value of the dollar. You know how many tickets sold for $2 in 1975, but that $2 is the same as $20 today. It isn't about the tickets sold it is about value of the currency. Instead of comparing dollars earned compare ticket sales.

How many tickets did Gone with the wind sell, compared to Marvel Endgame.

It's still an assumption though because how many tickets sold does apply here. You really think if Gone with the Wind released today, that it would sell the same amount of tickets?

 

[AJUMP23]

It's still an assumption though because how many tickets sold does apply here. You really think if Gone with the Wind released today, that it would sell the same amount of tickets?

No. But it cost a person more relatively to see Gone with the Wind than it did to see Endgame. The piece of the persons budget was greater even if the ticket was a quarter. Just like the population is greater today than GwtW so there is a bigger pie overall. Although US population has been stagnant since the 80s.

All of these comparisons are imprecise. And they do it now for clicks more than for anything that matters. Saying largest grossing movie ever drives traffic to the theater.

 

[VulcanRaven]

First 10 minutes:

 

[Klosshufvud]

Overall theater attendance is a fraction of what it was between 2006-2013, and ticket prices have skyrocketed since then, meaning more people who feel inclined to wait for streaming. This is not the win you think it is. The fact that you guys keep pushing this inflation argument means you've reached the Bargaining stage of your grief.

By every metric of data that we have, Superman had really good legs domestically. Its opening Dom weekend was $125m, and it's looking to finish between $350 -$360m. That's nearly a 3x multiplier.

"Its legs never materialized"? Go to bed dude.

What inflation argument? Even without a massive inflation, it still won't beat Man of Steel's worldwide run. This is compared to a movie that a lot of people claimed was a box office failure for the longest, and how Snyder was holding Superman's popularity back. What does it say about the 2025 version when it can't even beat that, even when unadjusted for tickets costing almost double as much? Legs don't mean much when the baseline number was pretty low to start with. And WB seems to agree given how they seemed to have rushed this to streaming way quicker than originally claimed by James Gunn ("September at the earliest")

 

[OverHeat]

Rewatch it today…not as good as the first time.

 

[Madflavor]

What inflation argument? Even without a massive inflation, it still won't beat Man of Steel's worldwide run. This is compared to a movie that a lot of people claimed was a box office failure for the longest, and how Snyder was holding Superman's popularity back. What does it say about the 2025 version when it can't even beat that, even when unadjusted for tickets costing almost double as much? Legs don't mean much when the baseline number was pretty low to start with. And WB seems to agree given how they seemed to have rushed this to streaming way quicker than originally claimed by James Gunn ("September at the earliest")

Social News  Post in thread 'Superman (2025) | Review Thread'

Jul 28, 2025

That sounds pretty good then if they are following very similar pattern. There shouldn't be any reason to expect a solo Superman movie to do much better.

Well here's the thing, OS numbers are just not what they used to be. Man of Steel made $100m in Asia alone back in 2013. Nowadays Asia gives zero fucks about CBMs. F4 just opened lower than even Superman did.

They're both Superman films, but they were released during much different times. Man of Steel came out when DC was riding off the success and goodwill of TDK Trilogy, and when the CBM genre was seriously heating up...

• Madflavor

No. But it cost a person more relatively to see Gone with the Wind than it did to see Endgame. The piece of the persons budget was greater even if the ticket was a quarter. Just like the population is greater today than GwtW so there is a bigger pie overall. Although US population has been stagnant since the 80s.

All of these comparisons are imprecise. And they do it now for clicks more than for anything that matters. Saying largest grossing movie ever drives traffic to the theater.

Well yeah, that's why I say it's a waste of time to even make these comparisons. Even if we look at the most recent example which is Man of Steel, that still came out at a very different market. Just in general, movie theaters were far more popular before streaming, and when streaming was in it's adolesence. Nowadays people expect films to come out on VoD within 1-2 months of it's theaterical release, and tickets are just way more expensive now. A family of four, even without food and drink, are paying $80-100 for tickets. At least around my area.

 

[calico]

Overall theater attendance is a fraction of what it was between 2006-2013

I agree, and this movie appears to reinforce that, as I have been saying.

and ticket prices have skyrocketed since then

Yes, this is why inflation cannot be ignored.

I started watching the inflation video above and the first thing he does is immediately misunderstand inflation. It absolutely does not mean 'movie from x years ago would have performed like this today'. That isn't the point at all. You adjust for inflation to compare box office performance using a standardised unit of measurement, otherwise you are making a comparison using a current dollar and a historical dollar which can have totally different values.

Once you have done this and correctly concluded that Man of Steel (or Iron Man, or whatever) performed much better than Superman 2025 at the box office, then you can seek to explain why that might be the case (cinema attendance being down in general, superhero fatigue, the weather, whatever). What you should not be doing is ignoring inflation in order to arrive at an incorrect conclusion (but one which you might prefer) about which performed better at the box office.

I don't think there is a great deal to be learned by making box office comparisons to movies from the 1930s or whatever, but surely it has to be the case that a methodology (pretending inflation does not exist) which would lead us to conclude that 'Fantastic Four performed better at the box office than Gone with the Wind' is wilfully stupid.

 

[touchfuzzy]

You guys are so weird to have a huge argument over which is better / more successful -- it's literally the same property from the same fucking movie studio even. Do you think WB cares that Superman 2025 is maybe marginally less successful than Man of Steel (or vice versa), or are they just happy to have released two movies that made a lot of money? Good lord.

I tell you what they definitely do care about - that Superman 2025 performed better than a competing tentpole comic book film from their direct competitor. That's really the only story to tell about Superman's box office, not this retarded in-fighting narrative that overzealous Snyder fans seem to think actually matters.

 

[calico]

And WB seems to agree given how they seemed to have rushed this to streaming way quicker than originally claimed by James Gunn ("September at the earliest")

 

[Revolutionary]

not this retarded in-fighting narrative that overzealous Snyder fans seem to think actually matters.

Misery loves company, so they're going to keep pushing whatever narrative they can to drag everyone down with them.

I found it best to just ignore them. Maybe a LOL reaction here and there when they say something exceptionally stupid, which is pretty often admittedly.

 

[calico]

Do you think WB cares that Superman 2025 is maybe marginally less successful than Man of Steel (or vice versa), or are they just happy to have released two movies that made a lot of money?

Yes I think they care about exactly how successful (or not) their movies are, no I don't think the difference -at least in box office performance- in this case is marginal, and I doubt they were that thrilled about either of them tbh.

I tell you what they definitely do care about - that Superman 2025 performed better than a competing tentpole comic book film from their direct competitor. That's really the only story to tell about Superman's box office, not this retarded in-fighting narrative that overzealous Snyder fans seem to think actually matters.

They definitely care about $ more than the symbolic victory of beating a competitor's movie by virtue of it also not doing very well. They would take F4 doing Endgame numbers in a heartbeat if it meant Superman did $1bn. The lower tier superhero movies failing as consistently as they are is terrible for both of them if they are intending to keep making them.

 

[Metallix87]

Worth pointing out, and I believe mentioned in that video:

1.) Movie ticket prices haven't just kept up with inflation. They actually outpace inflation by 3x or 4x.

2.) Inflation seemingly is only applied to the box office results, but never the production budget and/or the marketing budget.

3.) Superman is potentially struggling because the DCEU "tainted the well", and it has to rebuild both the brand and also the consumer base.

 

[SJRB]

omg Borevia tried to invade Istorbajan and Superman stopped them but now everyone in America is mad

What a thrilling story so far.

O my god these assholes have been bickering about it for 10 minutes now.


edit:

 

[VulcanRaven]

omg Borevia tried to invade Istorbajan and Superman stopped them but now everyone in America is mad

What a thrilling story so far.

O my god these assholes have been bickering about it for 10 minutes now.

That country is from the early comics.

 

[calico]

Movie ticket prices haven't just kept up with inflation. They actually outpace inflation by 3x or 4x.

From forever ago perhaps. Over the last 20 years it seems to be broadly in line with inflation in the US.

 

[SJRB]

90 minutes in and this is the best part of the movie by a country mile.

 

[VulcanRaven]

I'm think all the flying shots some complained about look very good in the actual movie in motion. Especially that.

 

[SJRB]

I'm think all the flying shots some complained about look very good in the actual movie in motion. Especially that.

Yeah, amazing stuff.

James Gunn is a true visionary.

 

[VulcanRaven]

Yeah, amazing stuff.

James Gunn is a true visionary.

Yeah that scream was a bit silly but it didn't bother me much. I'm not very familiar with Hawkgirl. Maybe she does that in the comics.

 

[Fake]

Yeah, amazing stuff.

James Gunn is a true visionary.

That hawkgirl is nuts.

 

[SJRB]

Man this movie was not really good. I don't feel like writing an essay on all the things I didn't like so let's summarize in bullet points:

Good:

• David Corenswett, god bless him. He tries his best and brings a very naive, childish vibe that overshadows the entire movie (this is good and bad)
• Mr. Terrific. Just a good secondary character, comedic relief, etc
• Jimmy Olson being an all-around gangster having women drop their panties left and right. So random but pretty funny

Bad:

• The huge focus on the war between azermenetijan and boloviagra, including the 10 minute interview bickering sequence. Fuck off
• How literally everyone flips on Superman within seconds after that Lex Luthor interview even though Superman has been helping people for over 3 years at that point
• Jor-El and Lara literally telling Superman to start a harem and fucking kill every dissident. What the fuck??
• Lex Luthor. He just sucks. Too childish. Does the movie even explain why he wants half of uzbekimanistan?
• Justice Gang was just, wtf
• Pretty bad VFX at times and super bad and bizarre camera work. Ridiculous use of fish eye lens or whatever
• Are Pa and ma Kent mentally handicapped in this movie? I'm not even kidding, pa Kent has only a few scenes and I was wondering if he had a stroke every time. Devastatingly bad casting, writing and directing
• The dog. Fuck off, seriously
• The Minecraft river, lmao
• Random Supergirl cameo that kinda just happens out of nowhere and you're thinking "what the fuck just happened?"
• The implications of the pocket dimensions and Lex casually cloning Superman are just so insane that it basically ruins everything
• There was no reason for the Daily Planet crew to get in that aircraft and fly around. All they did was publish a story that Lois Lane dictated

6/10 at best.

 

[VulcanRaven]

Bad:

• The huge focus on the war between azermenetijan and boloviagra, including the 10 minute interview bickering sequence. Fuck off

Suprised by this. Its my favorite scene in the movie. Great acting from both.

 

[Ulysses 31]

• The implications of the pocket dimensions and Lex casually cloning Superman are just so insane that it basically ruins everything

Lex has tech that can decode/recover Krypton tech that even the Krypton robots couldn't...

That and the pocket dimensions, the cloning and the chick with the nano machines, the tech levels of the new universe seem already ground for issues for future stories.