DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[Pattern Ghost]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Changes to the devices that carry the medium aren't the same as changing the medium.

 

And in the case of movie theaters, the movie is the medium and the theater is the "device" that carries it. IOW, the movie theaters can go bye-bye and we can all still watch movies.

 

Just think of all the things that cell phones have replaced for most people and can only be found as mostly niche items these days.

 

I have the smallest TVs in my extended family, and at 55" for my apartment living room, I don't have any need to deal with the myriad of inconveniences of a theater trip. 70"+ HD TVs are common and affordable these days.

 

I don't think theaters are going to suddenly go *poof* any time soon, but I think due to COVID and several studios breaking the old relationships between studios and theaters, we're going to see a large reduction. I think the next phase for theaters will likely be what we see in desktop PCs today: Less of a commodity and more of an enthusiast niche item. (Ironically, COVID has also boosted the desktop PC market greatly this last year, but prior to the home office needs, people were shifting heavily to phones and tablets as a primary device.) What form that will take, who  knows? Maybe the remaining theaters will shift to a more premium experience, with more focus on unique offerings such as the smaller (but still impressive) IMAX formats, better seating, etc.

 

I think change is definitely coming to the industry.

[Bazza]

9 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

Studios prefer >2 hours. More showings, more money.

Unless the movie is a turd...

I said “reasonable”. I didn’t say it would likely happen. 
 

Here is a thought: cut Zack’s JL in two 2-hr films (part 1 & part2) and release them concurrently. Providing people are aware enough, they’ll go to Part 1 and then watch Part 2. Multiplexes can schedule Part 2 following Part 1 for ease of customers or break it so customers have to leave the theatre, and maybe walk to a different screen to watch the second one, thus increasing chances for another trip to the concession stand, or bathroom break. More than likely, customers would pre-buy tickets to both films at the same time. 
 

Multiplexes are happy because there is two films so they can maximise showings, and concession sales, and customers win by seeing a 4 hour film in a short space of time. Studio wins by lowering advertising costs as can market the 1 film spread over 2 individual films with box office for both films. 

[DreadDomain]

10 hours ago, Bazza said:

A refresher in case people have forgotten: Thanos was the protagonist of Infinity War. If likewise comparison with Justice League, then Steppenwolf would have to be the protagonist, which he isn’t. 

While I agree, I do not believe that is the most relevant criteria. The stakes are much higher in JL than in Avengers 1 or 2 and I would are on par with IW.

 

10 hours ago, Bazza said:

And as for movie length, a 3.5 hr movie would be reasonable, and leave the epilogue out, put that on the home media release as a special feature, or in the main film as “ultimate edition”. 

Not a bad marketing ploy!

10 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

 

I think that they could have gotten down to 3 and half hours like Titanic.  Ditch the Martian Manhunter scenes which while cool Easter eggs didn't add much to the movie at hand, and Knightmare, which since we already know Darkseid is on his way is not really necessary.

 

For some reason I keep thinking the runtime is 4 hours but I cehcked again today and it 3h52 including credits and all. I was intrigue by my assessment that "cutting 30 minutes would be easy" and kind of feared I was just believing my own BS. I rewatched the Intro and Part I (roughly 40 minutes) and I came to the conclusion that 10 minutes could be cut from it without significantly changing what is going on. To be fair, the start of the film is slow (to build drama I assume) so I do not believe the film could be cut by 25% but it did reinforce that cutting 30 minutes would have being esily acheivable if the aim would have been a theatrical release, bringing it to 3h20. Possibly shorter if you cut secondary scenes like Barry saving Iris or Martian Manhunter. Of course they were not planning for a theatrical release so they did not bother.

 

8 hours ago, zslane said:

Given a complete lack of a Kevin Feige-equivalent in house and their unwillingness to lay the necessary groundwork for a shared cinematic universe, WB was wise to give up on trying to replicate Marvel's success. Unfortunately, they are incapable of putting together an alternate plan that yields consistent success. Every decision they make is countermanded by a new decision one or two years later. There is no continuity of creative leadership at WB/DC, and it shows. Having to answer to a corporate overlord that knows nothing about making a business out of an intrinsically artistic discipline hasn't helped much either.

Probably a fair assessment.

10 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

 

Yes, having seen Snyder's JL, I would kind of like to see it's sequel.  However, in the name of prying the DCCU away from his grimdark view of reality, I think I might be willing to forego the experience 

I did not find JL particularly grimdark. The sense of impending doom is there but it is counterbalance by lighter interaction (without being jokey) and a good dose of heroism.

[DreadDomain]

6 hours ago, slikmar said:

I am glad you guys liked it, I just feel, with the conversations, that DC again is trying to "catch up" to marvel by doing their first big teamup as the equivalent of IW and End Game.

I think you are not wrong. JL is a movie with stakes that are much higher than Avengers 1 or 2 and the sense of "holy crap, we will need to pull all the stops to win this" is a lot more like IW. I think trying to catch up was what they were trying to do.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, slikmar said:

granted apparently 2 hours of that was making up for lost time introducing characters we should already know

 

HYPOTHESIS: that a Superhero team movie can only succeed with reasonable run time if we already know who most, if not all, of the main characters are from prior movies.

 

EXPERIMENT: Guardians of the Galaxy

 

RESULT:  Hypothesis fails.

 

The Avengers flowed from prior solo movies and it succeeded.  That does not mean prior solo movies are an essential component of a team movie succeeding, any more than it means that only comic book teams made up of heroes with their own previously established features (Justice Society, Justice League, current comic book Guardians of the Galaxy) are doomed to failure.  "The team introduced as a team" has also enjoyed success (Fantastic Four, Doom Patrol, X-Men, original Guardians of the Galaxy).

[Starlord]

Any movie can succeed with good writing, good direction and at least competent studio management.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I suspect that possibly theaters might be bought out by studios, now that the courts decided its legal again.  They can run big blockbuster stuff tehre and maybe retrospectives of old hits, but stream everything else.

[Grailknight]

I think the future may ne in the dinner theatre model. Getting served, smaller crowds and better food make for a better experience. 60+ dollars for a family outing would sit a lot better with a meal that wasn't popcorn and a soda.  

[Starlord]

We had only used the Cinebistro (breakfast/lunch/dinner theater franchise) exclusively for the last few years up until Covid.

[zslane]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Guardians of the Galaxy

 

The Guardians are a team of heroes, yes, but the Avengers are a dream team of superheroes (to borrow a sports analogy). That puts them both in very different categories, commercially speaking.

 

You can release team movies without introducing each of the heroes in their own solo movies first, but you also can't expect the results to be cinematic events like the Avengers movies have been. For that you have to create commercially viable franchise movies for each of the "big name" heroes first, and then bring them together as a "dream team" later. That's how you build a cinematic empire rather than just a collection of hit-and-miss movies that are only loosely connected.

[Lord Liaden]

To everyone comparing the run time of the Snyder cut Justice League to that of Return of the King, I have to point out that the two movies aren't comparable. ROTK was the third and final chapter in a continuous story which a great many fans were already heavily invested in. JL was a stand-alone movie about which there was already much doubt due to the mixed reception of Man of Steel and the heavy criticism of Batman vs Superman. A studio would have every reason to fear that a three-plus-hour run time for JL would dissuade many fans from seeing it.

[Lord Liaden]

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

While I agree, I do not believe that is the most relevant criteria. The stakes are much higher in JL than in Avengers 1 or 2 and I would are on par with IW.

 

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

I think you are not wrong. JL is a movie with stakes that are much higher than Avengers 1 or 2 and the sense of "holy crap, we will need to pull all the stops to win this" is a lot more like IW. I think trying to catch up was what they were trying to do.

 

I respectfully disagree. JL says that the stakes are of cosmic significance, but we aren't really shown that because the DC cosmos hasn't been built up for movie audiences the way that Marvel had done for theirs by the time of IW. What we see in JL is a threat to Earth, as in Avengers. The Avengers are pushed to their limits to defend against the invasion, and are clearly shown being worn down and overwhelmed before they close the portal.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

LOTR was the third and final chapter in a continuous story which a great many fans were already heavily invested in. JL was a stand-alone movie about which there was already much doubt due to the mixed reception of Man of Steel and the heavy criticism of Batman vs Superman

 

And Return of the King was generally (and rightly) criticized as being too long.  People have a limit on what they'll tolerate for film length and 2½ hours is pushing it.  They will put up with a 3 hour movie if they are heavily invested in the story and characters already and if it is moving and entertaining enough to help you not notice the time.  And honestly, the last two Avengers movies both felt too long to me but I didn't really like them to begin with.

 

Quote

We had only used the Cinebistro (breakfast/lunch/dinner theater franchise) exclusively for the last few years up until Covid.

 

Yeah a lot of those places have closed for good by now.  But they were growing in popularity because second run is just as good as first, plus cheaper, and you can eat a meal with it.

[Starlord]

14 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

And Return of the King was generally (and rightly) criticized as being too long. 

 

Really??? I honestly can't remember anyone who actually wanted to see that movie complaining about that.  The only complaint I remember about ROTK was that there were too many endings...and it was a nitpick more than a complaint.

 

PS:  Not counting the standard Tolkien 'hyper-traditionalist' problems with Jackson's story/character changes on all the movies.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

too many endings

 

Does that not really mean too long, though?  If it has too much of something, extending its length?

 

But I read a lot of online reviews and reactions and all said "it was too long".  Mostly because of the "movie that wouldn't end" effect.

 

Quote

Not counting the standard Tolkien 'hyper-traditionalist' problems with Jackson's story/character changes on all the movies.

 

Honestly it doesn't take some kind of "hyper traditionalist" to find fault with some of the changes he made.  But that's another whole discussion.

[Matt the Bruins]

I heard plenty of complaints and jokes at the time that Return of the King was too long, in addition to the last few hours of it being devoted to all the fake-out endings.

 

(I'd probably have forgiven all that if Jackson also taken the extra 15 seconds or so needed to replace "I am no man" with “But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund’s daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.”)

[Iuz the Evil]

53 minutes ago, Matt the Bruins said:

I heard plenty of complaints and jokes at the time that Return of the King was too long, in addition to the last few hours of it being devoted to all the fake-out endings.

 

(I'd probably have forgiven all that if Jackson also taken the extra 15 seconds or so needed to replace "I am no man" with “But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund’s daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.”)

 

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

Really??? I honestly can't remember anyone who actually wanted to see that movie complaining about that. 

 

 

Pretty sure I recall my wife complaining as she headed for the washrooms...

[Bazza]

 

[zslane]

I happen to be in the camp that feels the extended versions of all three LotR movies were improvements over the theatrical releases. Sometimes longer is better. However, due to their excessive running time, I don't think I would have wanted to sit and watch them in a theater.

 

Originally Snyder intended to release this new version of JL as six ~45min episodes, not unlike what we're getting with Falcon and The Winter Soldier. But I guess that didn't fly with the suits at WB and so it was "trimmed down" to a single ~4hr movie. Given the chapter structure of the narrative, I think the six episode format could have worked very nicely, but WB wanted to release it all at once and then move on with other things (like Godzilla vs. Kong) and not have JL contending with newer content for people's attention for six weeks.

 

Add to that the rather perfunctory manner in which Ann Sarnoff drove a proverbial stake in the heart of the prospect of continuing the "Snyderverse" in some form (even if only on HBO Max) and you can clearly see just how little ATT/WB wanted to continue breathing life into this mess.

[Spence]

8 hours ago, Grailknight said:

I think the future may ne in the dinner theatre model. Getting served, smaller crowds and better food make for a better experience. 60+ dollars for a family outing would sit a lot better with a meal that wasn't popcorn and a soda.  

 

8 hours ago, Starlord said:

We had only used the Cinebistro (breakfast/lunch/dinner theater franchise) exclusively for the last few years up until Covid.

 

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah a lot of those places have closed for good by now.  But they were growing in popularity because second run is just as good as first, plus cheaper, and you can eat a meal with it.

 

We have Cinnebar and iPic.  Of the two I had much preferred iPic because they had mandatory reservations and split their screens so that there were a few that were 21+ only (they served beer, wine and liquor in addition to real food) and had great recliner style seating.   iPic was perfect because they provided not only a family style experience (including screaming and disruptive behavior) but also an adult one where you could enjoy dinner and a movie with your significant other. 

 

Alas someone sued and they had to stop and now I go to Cinnebar.   It is laid out with each row of seats in front of a "bar" that has a lowered walkway just in front of it.  The severs can walk in front of you and deliver your order without getting in the way of you view.  They do have much better food than a traditional theater, but nothing like iPic did.  Amusingly, Cinnebar has far fewer small children.  The way the seating is designed, if you cannot sit up on a backed bar stool, you cannot see the screen.  The only times I have seen a infant or toddler brought it, they tend to leave within the first 30 minutes or so.   It is amazing to be able to watch a movie in an actual theater and actually hear it.

 

 

[Bazza]

Patty Jenkins Says All DC Directors Don’t Consider Whedon’s Justice League Canon

https://www.geekfeed.com/patty-jenkins-says-all-dc-directors-dont-consider-whedons-justice-league-canon/

 

[zslane]

Canon of what? I think Patty Jenkins (to say nothing of WB execs) is delusional if she believes WB has enough of a "cinematic universe" to even make canon a relevant notion.

[Bazza]

Without putting words in Patty’s mouth, Joss’s film is forgotten, and only Zack’s count. 

[archer]

I never figured the studio would spent the money putting out the snyder cut if they were planning on keeping the Whedon version as being the official one.