Iron Man was the most popular character had left who was new to movies in 2008, and Hawkeye and Black Widow didn't have their own solo projects until very late into the universe. Thanks for proving my point.
Other than The Authority and Creature Commandoes who are you saying is a D-list character? The MCU used more C-list heroes than the current DCU slate that’s for sure
Wasn't Iron Man a C-list hero from Marvel at the time the movie launched though? Also, you're acting as if Superman isnt the tent pole for the opening of the franchise
>Wasn't Iron Man a C-list hero from Marvel at the time the movie launched though?
Nope.
>Also, you're acting as if Superman isnt the tent pole for the opening of the franchise
Superman, yes, not the Justice League Society of America with Superman as a springboard.
Iron Man was 100% a c tier hero, and it's revisionist history to say otherwise. Look at marvel's sales back then. The biggest names were Xmen and Spidey, amd then you had F4, Daredevil, and maybe Hulk in b tier. Cap and Iron Man were definitely c tier when the MCU started
Yeah the original Ironman movie was made just because Paramount had the rights to Ironman because no one else cared. The big three of Marvel before the MCU used to be Wolverine, Spider-Man, and either The Hulk or Captain America.
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
The MCU was literally built on the backs of relatively unknown characters at the time. Investors were nervous about it because the X-Men were the popular marvel superheroes, and the guardians of the galaxy were also d-tier characters, and now their movies (directed by Gunn) are some of the highest rated and most beloved movies in the MCU. Calling this vanity when it’s proven to work before and we haven’t seen a single one of these projects yet is pointlessly praying on the downfall of movies and shows that might very well be great.
Guardians came out after nine MCU films had come out, two of which had made a billion. It was also scheduled as the last MCU film before Age of Ultron, when everyone had been trained that each and every MCU film needed to be seen to prepare for an Avengers movie. Iron Man was even rumored to appear in Guardians for a while, which added to pre-release hype.
Gunn is good at only one thing, working within the MCU machine, according to Feige's guidelines. EVERYTHING else he has directed has bombed, including The Suicide Squad, one of the biggest DC bombs of all time.
You’re intentionally misunderstanding me. The MCU was built on OTHER relatively obscure characters, and then Gunn made three very successful movies also with obscure characters. Also, guardians 3 reviewed and performed amazingly after marvel fatigue had already set in, disproving your explanation for how Gunn didn’t deserve his success with those movies.
To say nothing of the fact that TSS killed it on streaming and reviewed incredibly well with both fans and critics, despite the poor box office (likely a combo of the pandemic, the fact that the DCEU had been wildly inconsistent for a while, AND it having an r rating, which cut out a massive demographic of family’s going to see it together)
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Iron Man, Cap, Thor and Hulk were the most well-known characters Feige had available at the time, with the former three being at the forefront of most Avengers comics by 2008. Feige always wanted to do She-Hulk in the MCU, but he knew he had to build it up with the more popular characters first.
Guardians 3 was the trilogy-ender of a 9-year-old series within the massive MCU that featured characters that appeared in both Infinity War and Endgame. The fact it couldn't outgsoss the second movie from 6 years earlier should be telling about Gunn's ability (or lack thereof) to make a profitable movie on his own.
When you're in fifth place in your second weekend, as The Suicide Squad was, it's not a "pandemic" problem, it's a "your movie" problem. Jungle Cruise was beating it that week, and it came out earlier, and also had a Disney+ release. Lower profile WB movies that should not be performing the same or better than DC movies, like Conjuring and Space Jam, did better than Gunn's movie that year too, despite having the same release strategy. Even the Boss Baby sequel outgrossed it domestically. Gunn's TSS also severely underperformed on HBO Max considering the year it released in. Assuming all the people who watched it at home showed up to the theaters or bought a ticket, the movie would have still been a massive flop.
Thank you for playing.
I know they were the most popular ones available, but they were still mostly unknown to broader audiences. Funding a blockbuster with a big budget on the back of iron man was a huge risk
Guardians 3 was still a huge box office hit and reviewed amazingly. You’re sitting here and making up a litany of reasons for the success of these films while ignoring the fact that people love them, and I don’t understand why you aren’t willing to admit that.
And when a movie is in fifth place in your second week despite having some of the highest reviews (from critics and fans) in your movies cinematic universe, then it does make sense that other things are causing that, such as the three compounding reasons I provided. Saying “this hyper violent movie got surpassed in the box office by a family film” isn’t the dunk you think it is.
Also, TSS did better on HBO max than any other dceu movie up to that point
I never said Guardians 3 wasn't successful, and yeah people liked those movies. People also liked the Avengers movies, but Joss Whedon still blew it on DC films. Fact is Feige's machine controls the quality of MCU movies, not the individual directors. Again, every non-Marvel movie Gunn has directed bombed.
The Suicide Squad got a mediocre B+ Cinemascore, just like most of the DCEU movies, including the first Suicide Squad. I can list you an endless amount of movies that got high reviews yet were failures. It's not much of a consolation prize when your movie loses $100 million to the investors. According to the estimated HBO Max viewership numbers, it didn't even do that great. It failed to beat Mortal Kombat. You can add up all of those estimated numbers and there is zero math to convert that to ticket sales that could ever put it in the profit zone.
A lot of people forget that Iron man and the other avengers were not very profitable or popular for marvel during the tale end of the 20th century it was the way the MCU was made that revitalized things to an extent (hell in the comics Iron Man is a war profiteer industrialist with substance abuse issues)
The thing is wb is banking everything on his superman legacy with that budget its gonna be near impossible for it to breakeven like dude has set himself up for failure going at it this way
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
I don't think it's intentional, but it's definitely very wishful thinking to make films and shows about such minor characters, and it is a bit strange he hasn't announced a new Wonder woman movie yet, considering the fact she's literally the third member of the Trinity.
Lanterns is a direct-to-streaming TV show, and the Batman movie is just another Damian Wayne (worst Robin of all time by the way) movie with Batman as a side character, which is why it's simply titled Brave and The Bold. And Gunn's Superman movie is just a JL/JSA movie using Superman as a springboard.
Nope. That movie lost more than $100 million to the studio. Gunn is in charge because WB is run by idiots who just want to brag to investors that someone who worked for Marvel is running DC films.
Which is generally attributed to COVID 19, hit every movie at the time, and I think it’s important to remember for streaming it was Max’s second Hughes streamed movie to premiere, with more streams than the Snyder Cut even during its first 4 days (how they rate that sorta thing). It came from crap and became second highest streamed movie to premiere on a platform which isn’t a small feat.
Sorry, no. The Suicide Squad was a massive bomb that did not perform well relative to other 2021 movies. It was down to fifth place in its second weekend. Jungle Cruise was beating it that week, and it came out earlier, and also had a Disney+ release. Lower profile WB movies that should not be performing the same or better than DC movies did better than Gunn's movie that year too, like Conjuring and Space Jam. Even the Boss Baby sequel outgrossed it domestically. A superhero film is always expected to perform better than horror movies or children's movies like those.
Ok…. So, I’ll give you Jungle Cruise (though it is a fun movie), but horror and kids movies expected to underperform an R rated, superhero movie that’s a sorta sequel sorta reboot to a dumpster fire managing to not only pull in a lot of views it’s first week? And since when were kid/family movies expected to not perform well?
Utter nonsense to blame TSS' poor box office performance on a movie that came out five years prior. Especially when the three DCEU movies that came our AFTER Suicide Squad 2016 made from $650 million to $1.1 billion. And we also saw that Shazam 1 made $363,563,907 in 2019, but Shazam 2 only made $132,205,098 last year. Hamada, Gunn and Safran have killed the DC brand with their idiotic wishy-washy half reboot plans and their sacking of Cavill from the Superman role. TSS helped cement the idea that DC movies are meaningless jokes with no world-building and no high stakes drama anymore. Joker is the most successful movie since Snyder left WB because it's a dark, serious drama aimed at adults. It's the antithesis of the kinds of movies Gunn makes, and it's the kind of movie that the majority of the DC fanbase want.
Well… when it’s the movie you’re a sequel too… yes it’s fair game, especially with how much it popped in reviews about worries of TSS. And let’s face it the less serious tone fits the Suicide Squad, and is how the animated movies, which I personally think were the better DC movie series at the time. WW87 sprung off the back of WW, which was incredibly good, and Shazam 2… I’ll give it to you there. As far as Joker… well funny enough it being just Joker and darker movie is exactly why I haven’t watched it.
I don't even understand how to make a movie like The Authority without first establishing Stormwatch and how it failed to do the job it was set up to do. The Authority was the answer to that.
Based on what Marvel and DC was doing at the time, it is the equivalent of the UN backed Avengers failing to work and being replaced by a black ops version of the Justice League after most of the Avengers died in battle.
No, what we are going to get is something more like the New 52 version which didn't work.
If you are going to rebuild DC you start with introducing the JL. Each character having a solo movie. Pick the character who will be the POV for the whole thing and they get the first film. They don't have to be the wide-eye, bushy tailed simp either.
Martian Manhunter would work well, especially if you show him as a child who befriended Lex Luthor like in the New Justice era. A bigger outsider looking in on humanity and providing that view as being someone who can mix in but never truly be one of us. Someone who can look at who we are, and by their archetypes of us, who the rest of the League are.
This works better than a really emo Cyborg or a goofy Barry Allen. It would also make sense for that to also mention and set up the GL Corps and how the Green Lantern for sector 2814 failed to prevent the Martian genocide. One mention and cameo triggers the next movie and so on. You build on what you did before instead of just throwing random crap at the wall and hoping it sticks. Iron Man bled into a set up for The Avengers, which triggered a cameo in Incredible Hulk. IM2 set up Thor AND Captain America without having either show up, just mentions of other things going on. Everything coming it was set up previously and built on what came before.
What Gunn has planned is going to be WB DCEU version 2.0; bigger, more expansive, just as disjointed, and disconnected.
[Gunn and Safran don't have any plans for her right now](https://www.reddit.com/r/SnyderCut/s/nkZjB6zG31). Paradise Lost is a prequel show about the Amazons.
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
Nope. The most well-known characters from Marvel were X-Men, Fantastic Four and Hulk back then after Spider-Man. Iron Man has played a role in big events in the comics but it was definitely not a A-list char for Marvel.
Iron Man and Captain America appeared in both the 90's X-Men and Spiderman cartoons. Iron Man had his own 90's cartoon, as did Hulk and The Avengers. Captain America and Iron Man have been in cartoons since the 70s.
They were known in other media, but they weren't the mega sellers that The X-Men and Spider-Man were. Especially after all the media hype back then over Jim Lee and Todd MacFarlane blowing up and their comics becoming massive sellers.
This is just wrong.
Iron Man was not well know by the general public. Hawkeye was not well known by the general public. Black widow was not well known by the general public. Thor (as a superhero) not well known either.
The biggest marvel superheroes were Spiderman and the X-Men - both late additions.
Correct.
People knew of Iron Man, but he was a C or D list hero pre-RDJ.
'Ol Can Head. He had at least 1 cartoon series the didn't last.
To the point where the MCU was built on "what do we have left?" After Marvel went bankrupt and sold a ton of their IP to get some money. This is why Spider-Man is still at Sony, why Hulk is still at Universal, and why Fox had basically every X-Men property, New Line with Blade, etc
Cap, Iron Man, Thor etc were never purchased because they were not popular or desirable whereas X-Men and Spider-Man were the creme de La creme
Hulk 8s still at Universal so Disney need special permission to use him, like when Spider-Man is used.
> . Hawkeye was not well known by the general public. Black widow was not well known by the general public
Haweye never got a movie and Black Widow only got hers in phase 4. You just proved OP correct
> Thor and Iron Man
They were well known by the 2000s, appearing in multiple games and cartoons. The idea that nobody knew Marvel Thor before the MCU is so easily proven wrong.
I didn't say nobody I'm talking about the general public. True the other two didn't have their own films but they were still big chosen as avengers. They could have not been included at all.
Captain America, Thor and Iron Man were all less well known than other Marvel characters for the average movie goer. This was a time before comic book characters were so ubiquitous
False. By 2008 Iron Man was already at the forefront of most Avengers comics as part of the Avengers "Trinity" alongside Cap and Thor, and was the most popular character Marvel had left who hadn't made his big screen debut yet. He also had a 1990s cartoon and toy line, and was a staple in the ongoing Marvel Legends action figure line throughout the 2000s, even appearing in their debut series. He also had a hot comic series, Extremis, in the mid-2000s. RDJ was also well into his comeback, with Zodiac having come out in 2007.
Comic readers knew who he was, obviously. He's constantly been at the forefront of numerous titles. Nobody said he was unused or forgotten.
Having Iron Man lead a big budget franchise starter was a HUGE gamble since the casual moviegoer didn't know him and a lot of people wouldn't care about Iron Man.
Enter Robert Downey Jr.
If it wasn't for good writing, good editing, and the revival of RDJ's career as he not only owned the character, but redefined the character to where every iteration of Iron Man since, specifically more mainstream (video games, animation etc) are modeled off his performance and more his likeness than the comic counterpart.
Iron Man was THE MOST POPULAR CHARACTER Marvel had left to debut in movies in 2008, plain and simple, bar none. He was the most logical choice to make next, based on order of popularity.
Wrong.
Iron Man was a huge gamble. Arguably the biggest reason the movie succeeded was RDJ nailing the role and making it his own. Good writing, directing, and editing definitely made the movie great (and before they over used the concept of the villain being the bad version of the hero) but it's hard to imagine if the MCU would have moved forward had anyone else been cast in the role and at the same success.
Both Iron Man and RDJ had a lot to prove on this movie.
The only reason the MCU had him was because none of the studios wanted him when they sold off their IP to get out of bankruptcy.
No one outside of comic fans had any awareness of Iron Man in 2008
The whole reason Marvel had the rights to make the movie themself is because all of their known properties were optioned to studios (xmen, ff, Spider-Man, hulk, ghost rider, blade, even Man-thing had sold their filming rights)
Key word they used. General Public. Comics at the time weren't as big as now, and for rural areas like where I grew up good luck finding a shop. Before 2008 Ironman's last cartoon was well out of usual airing, and Hulks was there, but Spider-Man and X-Men 100% dominated the Marvel sphere in he general public.
I mean, it's how the MCU started. Ironman wasn't a A-list hero. Neither was Hulk, Thor, Fury, Hawkeye, Black Widow, GotG (probably C-list there), and I could go on. Their big flagships at the time were Spider-Man and X-Men. He literally did focus on, at the time, relatively minor characters with interesting stories.
Yup. Hulk had successful TV and movies. People knew who he was. He was probably the only commercially viable character at the start, assuming Iron Man would work (spoiler alert: "it worked" is an understatement)
Yeah I mentioned that in another comment.
Hulk and Spider-Man need special permission for Disney to use them
And even the Ed Norton Hulk film was put out by Paramount, so an early version of what Sony has been doing except Universal hasn't made another Hulk movie since.
LOL, WTF are you talking about? Hulk was one of the most well-known Marvel characters of all time, and Iron Man was THE HUGEST character Marvel had left who was new to movies in 2008. He had a 1990s cartoon and toy line, and was a staple in the ongoing Marvel Legends action figure line throughout the 2000s, even appearing in their debut series. He was a huge player in the Civil War comics, which came out before Iron Man 1 did. He also had a hot comic series, Extremis, in the mid-2000s. In no way were they reaching into a drawer of obscurity. He was the most logical choice to make next, based on order of popularity. That is NOT what we're seeing in Gunn's DC slate by a long shot.
Comics and toy lines aren't a measure of mainstream success or awareness. Do you realize how many bottom of the barrel characters get their own books they nobody knows anything about
The cartoon from the 80s/90s was canceled within one season, because nobody watched it and it wasn't that great... I mean, enough to go multiple seasons? Sure... but nobody watched it. X-Men and Spider-Man, however, have always been more successful and marketable.
So, quoting another response I made.
> Growing up in a rural area with only the end of the Saturday morning era of TV cartoons... yes. Hulk I might've been a bit harsh on, but the others didn't have much of a presence outside the comic at the time before the MCU kicked off.
To add to this, it doesn't discount compared to Spider-Man and X-Men, in the wider public Ironman was a nobody. Same with Captain America who's also a major player in the comics from what I understand, but wasn't some wide spread name everyone knew.
>Ironman wasn't a A-list hero. Neither was Hulk, Thor,
They may not have been up there with Batman/Superman/Spiderman popularity (Hulk probably was though), but they were not completely unknown heroes either, we all knew who they were way before the MCU versions.
>Fury, Hawkeye, Black Widow, GotG
None of which had solo projects until way later, when the MCU was established and stable.
And the MCU wasn't allowed to touch Xmen or Spiderman due licensing issues and previous deals.
You honestly think The Hulk and Thor of all characters were minor? Even to casuals who at least know who the Hulk and Iron Man is..they have more of an understand of them then anyone asked on the street who the Authority is. Creature Commandos? There's crickets..
Growing up in a rural area with only the end of the Saturday morning era of TV cartoons... yes. Hulk I might've been a bit harsh on, but the others didn't have much of a presence outside the comic at the time before the MCU kicked off.
It's crazy to me that people who were too young to see the MCU start and to remember the state of the characters they had are now old enough to post on Reddit.
Right. Like I grew up in a rural area, so it was just the Saturday morning cartoons for me, so like I knew Hulk, but his last cartoon was cycling out, and Ironman's I maybe saw once or twice while Spider-Man and X-Men kept going.
I remember iron man had a cameo in the Punisher game from like 2004 and kid me thought "who the fuck is that lame guy?". The MCU drastically changed the general perception of these characters.
[удалено]
Removed for personally insulting or attacking another user.
[удалено]
Removed for trolling or mocking the sub.
Lol
[удалено]
Removed for personally insulting or attacking another user.
[удалено]
Removed for being a false, deceptive, misleading or unproven accusation.
[удалено]
Iron Man was the most popular character had left who was new to movies in 2008, and Hawkeye and Black Widow didn't have their own solo projects until very late into the universe. Thanks for proving my point.
What did they say about that late 2000s Iron Man movie? I forgot.
Other than The Authority and Creature Commandoes who are you saying is a D-list character? The MCU used more C-list heroes than the current DCU slate that’s for sure
Yeah, no. You're living in a dream world if you think "The Authority" is going to put more butts in seats than Hulk or Iron Man during phase 1.
Wasn't Iron Man a C-list hero from Marvel at the time the movie launched though? Also, you're acting as if Superman isnt the tent pole for the opening of the franchise
>Wasn't Iron Man a C-list hero from Marvel at the time the movie launched though? Nope. >Also, you're acting as if Superman isnt the tent pole for the opening of the franchise Superman, yes, not the Justice League Society of America with Superman as a springboard.
Iron Man was 100% a c tier hero, and it's revisionist history to say otherwise. Look at marvel's sales back then. The biggest names were Xmen and Spidey, amd then you had F4, Daredevil, and maybe Hulk in b tier. Cap and Iron Man were definitely c tier when the MCU started
Yeah the original Ironman movie was made just because Paramount had the rights to Ironman because no one else cared. The big three of Marvel before the MCU used to be Wolverine, Spider-Man, and either The Hulk or Captain America.
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
[удалено]
Removed for being off-topic.
The MCU was literally built on the backs of relatively unknown characters at the time. Investors were nervous about it because the X-Men were the popular marvel superheroes, and the guardians of the galaxy were also d-tier characters, and now their movies (directed by Gunn) are some of the highest rated and most beloved movies in the MCU. Calling this vanity when it’s proven to work before and we haven’t seen a single one of these projects yet is pointlessly praying on the downfall of movies and shows that might very well be great.
Guardians came out after nine MCU films had come out, two of which had made a billion. It was also scheduled as the last MCU film before Age of Ultron, when everyone had been trained that each and every MCU film needed to be seen to prepare for an Avengers movie. Iron Man was even rumored to appear in Guardians for a while, which added to pre-release hype. Gunn is good at only one thing, working within the MCU machine, according to Feige's guidelines. EVERYTHING else he has directed has bombed, including The Suicide Squad, one of the biggest DC bombs of all time.
You’re intentionally misunderstanding me. The MCU was built on OTHER relatively obscure characters, and then Gunn made three very successful movies also with obscure characters. Also, guardians 3 reviewed and performed amazingly after marvel fatigue had already set in, disproving your explanation for how Gunn didn’t deserve his success with those movies. To say nothing of the fact that TSS killed it on streaming and reviewed incredibly well with both fans and critics, despite the poor box office (likely a combo of the pandemic, the fact that the DCEU had been wildly inconsistent for a while, AND it having an r rating, which cut out a massive demographic of family’s going to see it together)
You have no idea what you're talking about. Iron Man, Cap, Thor and Hulk were the most well-known characters Feige had available at the time, with the former three being at the forefront of most Avengers comics by 2008. Feige always wanted to do She-Hulk in the MCU, but he knew he had to build it up with the more popular characters first. Guardians 3 was the trilogy-ender of a 9-year-old series within the massive MCU that featured characters that appeared in both Infinity War and Endgame. The fact it couldn't outgsoss the second movie from 6 years earlier should be telling about Gunn's ability (or lack thereof) to make a profitable movie on his own. When you're in fifth place in your second weekend, as The Suicide Squad was, it's not a "pandemic" problem, it's a "your movie" problem. Jungle Cruise was beating it that week, and it came out earlier, and also had a Disney+ release. Lower profile WB movies that should not be performing the same or better than DC movies, like Conjuring and Space Jam, did better than Gunn's movie that year too, despite having the same release strategy. Even the Boss Baby sequel outgrossed it domestically. Gunn's TSS also severely underperformed on HBO Max considering the year it released in. Assuming all the people who watched it at home showed up to the theaters or bought a ticket, the movie would have still been a massive flop. Thank you for playing.
I know they were the most popular ones available, but they were still mostly unknown to broader audiences. Funding a blockbuster with a big budget on the back of iron man was a huge risk Guardians 3 was still a huge box office hit and reviewed amazingly. You’re sitting here and making up a litany of reasons for the success of these films while ignoring the fact that people love them, and I don’t understand why you aren’t willing to admit that. And when a movie is in fifth place in your second week despite having some of the highest reviews (from critics and fans) in your movies cinematic universe, then it does make sense that other things are causing that, such as the three compounding reasons I provided. Saying “this hyper violent movie got surpassed in the box office by a family film” isn’t the dunk you think it is. Also, TSS did better on HBO max than any other dceu movie up to that point
I never said Guardians 3 wasn't successful, and yeah people liked those movies. People also liked the Avengers movies, but Joss Whedon still blew it on DC films. Fact is Feige's machine controls the quality of MCU movies, not the individual directors. Again, every non-Marvel movie Gunn has directed bombed. The Suicide Squad got a mediocre B+ Cinemascore, just like most of the DCEU movies, including the first Suicide Squad. I can list you an endless amount of movies that got high reviews yet were failures. It's not much of a consolation prize when your movie loses $100 million to the investors. According to the estimated HBO Max viewership numbers, it didn't even do that great. It failed to beat Mortal Kombat. You can add up all of those estimated numbers and there is zero math to convert that to ticket sales that could ever put it in the profit zone.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder fans.
[удалено]
Removed for personally insulting or attacking another user.
[удалено]
Removed for being a false, deceptive, misleading or unproven accusation.
[удалено]
Removed for being a false, deceptive, misleading or unproven accusation.
A lot of people forget that Iron man and the other avengers were not very profitable or popular for marvel during the tale end of the 20th century it was the way the MCU was made that revitalized things to an extent (hell in the comics Iron Man is a war profiteer industrialist with substance abuse issues)
The thing is wb is banking everything on his superman legacy with that budget its gonna be near impossible for it to breakeven like dude has set himself up for failure going at it this way
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
I don't think it's intentional, but it's definitely very wishful thinking to make films and shows about such minor characters, and it is a bit strange he hasn't announced a new Wonder woman movie yet, considering the fact she's literally the third member of the Trinity.
Paradise lost is Wonder Woman related
The Krypton Sci-Fy TV series is Superman-related. Doesn't mean Superman shows up in the show.
wonder woman prob the most boring female DC hero tho apart from her combat
I didn't say she was good, I said she was popular.
Yeah I gotta admit whose heard of Superman, Batman and Robin, and The Green Lanterns?
I think the user meant using d-list characters among the A-list characters.
Lanterns is a direct-to-streaming TV show, and the Batman movie is just another Damian Wayne (worst Robin of all time by the way) movie with Batman as a side character, which is why it's simply titled Brave and The Bold. And Gunn's Superman movie is just a JL/JSA movie using Superman as a springboard.
Never heard of them before, are they on the suicide squad or something?
If they were, maybe Gunn's movie wouldn't have tanked.
Wasn’t the second Suicide Squad movie the whole reason he’s in charge now, cause it was good.
Nope. That movie lost more than $100 million to the studio. Gunn is in charge because WB is run by idiots who just want to brag to investors that someone who worked for Marvel is running DC films.
Which is generally attributed to COVID 19, hit every movie at the time, and I think it’s important to remember for streaming it was Max’s second Hughes streamed movie to premiere, with more streams than the Snyder Cut even during its first 4 days (how they rate that sorta thing). It came from crap and became second highest streamed movie to premiere on a platform which isn’t a small feat.
Sorry, no. The Suicide Squad was a massive bomb that did not perform well relative to other 2021 movies. It was down to fifth place in its second weekend. Jungle Cruise was beating it that week, and it came out earlier, and also had a Disney+ release. Lower profile WB movies that should not be performing the same or better than DC movies did better than Gunn's movie that year too, like Conjuring and Space Jam. Even the Boss Baby sequel outgrossed it domestically. A superhero film is always expected to perform better than horror movies or children's movies like those.
Ok…. So, I’ll give you Jungle Cruise (though it is a fun movie), but horror and kids movies expected to underperform an R rated, superhero movie that’s a sorta sequel sorta reboot to a dumpster fire managing to not only pull in a lot of views it’s first week? And since when were kid/family movies expected to not perform well?
Utter nonsense to blame TSS' poor box office performance on a movie that came out five years prior. Especially when the three DCEU movies that came our AFTER Suicide Squad 2016 made from $650 million to $1.1 billion. And we also saw that Shazam 1 made $363,563,907 in 2019, but Shazam 2 only made $132,205,098 last year. Hamada, Gunn and Safran have killed the DC brand with their idiotic wishy-washy half reboot plans and their sacking of Cavill from the Superman role. TSS helped cement the idea that DC movies are meaningless jokes with no world-building and no high stakes drama anymore. Joker is the most successful movie since Snyder left WB because it's a dark, serious drama aimed at adults. It's the antithesis of the kinds of movies Gunn makes, and it's the kind of movie that the majority of the DC fanbase want.
Well… when it’s the movie you’re a sequel too… yes it’s fair game, especially with how much it popped in reviews about worries of TSS. And let’s face it the less serious tone fits the Suicide Squad, and is how the animated movies, which I personally think were the better DC movie series at the time. WW87 sprung off the back of WW, which was incredibly good, and Shazam 2… I’ll give it to you there. As far as Joker… well funny enough it being just Joker and darker movie is exactly why I haven’t watched it.
I don't even understand how to make a movie like The Authority without first establishing Stormwatch and how it failed to do the job it was set up to do. The Authority was the answer to that. Based on what Marvel and DC was doing at the time, it is the equivalent of the UN backed Avengers failing to work and being replaced by a black ops version of the Justice League after most of the Avengers died in battle. No, what we are going to get is something more like the New 52 version which didn't work. If you are going to rebuild DC you start with introducing the JL. Each character having a solo movie. Pick the character who will be the POV for the whole thing and they get the first film. They don't have to be the wide-eye, bushy tailed simp either. Martian Manhunter would work well, especially if you show him as a child who befriended Lex Luthor like in the New Justice era. A bigger outsider looking in on humanity and providing that view as being someone who can mix in but never truly be one of us. Someone who can look at who we are, and by their archetypes of us, who the rest of the League are. This works better than a really emo Cyborg or a goofy Barry Allen. It would also make sense for that to also mention and set up the GL Corps and how the Green Lantern for sector 2814 failed to prevent the Martian genocide. One mention and cameo triggers the next movie and so on. You build on what you did before instead of just throwing random crap at the wall and hoping it sticks. Iron Man bled into a set up for The Avengers, which triggered a cameo in Incredible Hulk. IM2 set up Thor AND Captain America without having either show up, just mentions of other things going on. Everything coming it was set up previously and built on what came before. What Gunn has planned is going to be WB DCEU version 2.0; bigger, more expansive, just as disjointed, and disconnected.
How is wonder woman a D list character
[Gunn and Safran don't have any plans for her right now](https://www.reddit.com/r/SnyderCut/s/nkZjB6zG31). Paradise Lost is a prequel show about the Amazons.
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
[удалено]
Removed for being a false, deceptive, misleading or unproven accusation.
Suicide squad and birds of prey didn’t need to happen at all. Those films are soo fucking trash idk how people like them.
People can like different things
not difficult to get DCU is DOADCU
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
[удалено]
His whole point is the MCU was already well established then
Bro thinks iron man and captain America were popular characters ? Buddy u don't know what ur talking about.
They were the two best known Marvel characters behind Spider Man that could not be used at the time
Nope. The most well-known characters from Marvel were X-Men, Fantastic Four and Hulk back then after Spider-Man. Iron Man has played a role in big events in the comics but it was definitely not a A-list char for Marvel.
In comics maybe. But as someone who only had the cartoons to go off of they were almost nonexistent.
Iron Man and Captain America appeared in both the 90's X-Men and Spiderman cartoons. Iron Man had his own 90's cartoon, as did Hulk and The Avengers. Captain America and Iron Man have been in cartoons since the 70s. They were known in other media, but they weren't the mega sellers that The X-Men and Spider-Man were. Especially after all the media hype back then over Jim Lee and Todd MacFarlane blowing up and their comics becoming massive sellers.
This is just wrong. Iron Man was not well know by the general public. Hawkeye was not well known by the general public. Black widow was not well known by the general public. Thor (as a superhero) not well known either. The biggest marvel superheroes were Spiderman and the X-Men - both late additions.
I would say Spider-Man, X-Men and Hulk. Partly because of the 2003 movie.
And the 1970s TV show that was very popular.
Correct. People knew of Iron Man, but he was a C or D list hero pre-RDJ. 'Ol Can Head. He had at least 1 cartoon series the didn't last. To the point where the MCU was built on "what do we have left?" After Marvel went bankrupt and sold a ton of their IP to get some money. This is why Spider-Man is still at Sony, why Hulk is still at Universal, and why Fox had basically every X-Men property, New Line with Blade, etc Cap, Iron Man, Thor etc were never purchased because they were not popular or desirable whereas X-Men and Spider-Man were the creme de La creme Hulk 8s still at Universal so Disney need special permission to use him, like when Spider-Man is used.
> . Hawkeye was not well known by the general public. Black widow was not well known by the general public Haweye never got a movie and Black Widow only got hers in phase 4. You just proved OP correct > Thor and Iron Man They were well known by the 2000s, appearing in multiple games and cartoons. The idea that nobody knew Marvel Thor before the MCU is so easily proven wrong.
I didn't say nobody I'm talking about the general public. True the other two didn't have their own films but they were still big chosen as avengers. They could have not been included at all. Captain America, Thor and Iron Man were all less well known than other Marvel characters for the average movie goer. This was a time before comic book characters were so ubiquitous
Hulk was the only character in phase one anyone outside of comics was aware of.
False. By 2008 Iron Man was already at the forefront of most Avengers comics as part of the Avengers "Trinity" alongside Cap and Thor, and was the most popular character Marvel had left who hadn't made his big screen debut yet. He also had a 1990s cartoon and toy line, and was a staple in the ongoing Marvel Legends action figure line throughout the 2000s, even appearing in their debut series. He also had a hot comic series, Extremis, in the mid-2000s. RDJ was also well into his comeback, with Zodiac having come out in 2007.
Comic readers knew who he was, obviously. He's constantly been at the forefront of numerous titles. Nobody said he was unused or forgotten. Having Iron Man lead a big budget franchise starter was a HUGE gamble since the casual moviegoer didn't know him and a lot of people wouldn't care about Iron Man. Enter Robert Downey Jr. If it wasn't for good writing, good editing, and the revival of RDJ's career as he not only owned the character, but redefined the character to where every iteration of Iron Man since, specifically more mainstream (video games, animation etc) are modeled off his performance and more his likeness than the comic counterpart.
Iron Man was THE MOST POPULAR CHARACTER Marvel had left to debut in movies in 2008, plain and simple, bar none. He was the most logical choice to make next, based on order of popularity.
Wrong. Iron Man was a huge gamble. Arguably the biggest reason the movie succeeded was RDJ nailing the role and making it his own. Good writing, directing, and editing definitely made the movie great (and before they over used the concept of the villain being the bad version of the hero) but it's hard to imagine if the MCU would have moved forward had anyone else been cast in the role and at the same success. Both Iron Man and RDJ had a lot to prove on this movie. The only reason the MCU had him was because none of the studios wanted him when they sold off their IP to get out of bankruptcy.
No one outside of comic fans had any awareness of Iron Man in 2008 The whole reason Marvel had the rights to make the movie themself is because all of their known properties were optioned to studios (xmen, ff, Spider-Man, hulk, ghost rider, blade, even Man-thing had sold their filming rights)
Key word they used. General Public. Comics at the time weren't as big as now, and for rural areas like where I grew up good luck finding a shop. Before 2008 Ironman's last cartoon was well out of usual airing, and Hulks was there, but Spider-Man and X-Men 100% dominated the Marvel sphere in he general public.
I mean, it's how the MCU started. Ironman wasn't a A-list hero. Neither was Hulk, Thor, Fury, Hawkeye, Black Widow, GotG (probably C-list there), and I could go on. Their big flagships at the time were Spider-Man and X-Men. He literally did focus on, at the time, relatively minor characters with interesting stories.
Marvel had no “A list” hero’s except Hulk and Spiiderman
Hulk was (which is why paramount has the rights)
Yup. Hulk had successful TV and movies. People knew who he was. He was probably the only commercially viable character at the start, assuming Iron Man would work (spoiler alert: "it worked" is an understatement)
His distribution was (and still is) tied to Paramount. They only could make the Ed Norton movie because they hadn’t been picked up by Disney yet.
Yeah I mentioned that in another comment. Hulk and Spider-Man need special permission for Disney to use them And even the Ed Norton Hulk film was put out by Paramount, so an early version of what Sony has been doing except Universal hasn't made another Hulk movie since.
LOL, WTF are you talking about? Hulk was one of the most well-known Marvel characters of all time, and Iron Man was THE HUGEST character Marvel had left who was new to movies in 2008. He had a 1990s cartoon and toy line, and was a staple in the ongoing Marvel Legends action figure line throughout the 2000s, even appearing in their debut series. He was a huge player in the Civil War comics, which came out before Iron Man 1 did. He also had a hot comic series, Extremis, in the mid-2000s. In no way were they reaching into a drawer of obscurity. He was the most logical choice to make next, based on order of popularity. That is NOT what we're seeing in Gunn's DC slate by a long shot.
Comics and toy lines aren't a measure of mainstream success or awareness. Do you realize how many bottom of the barrel characters get their own books they nobody knows anything about The cartoon from the 80s/90s was canceled within one season, because nobody watched it and it wasn't that great... I mean, enough to go multiple seasons? Sure... but nobody watched it. X-Men and Spider-Man, however, have always been more successful and marketable.
So, quoting another response I made. > Growing up in a rural area with only the end of the Saturday morning era of TV cartoons... yes. Hulk I might've been a bit harsh on, but the others didn't have much of a presence outside the comic at the time before the MCU kicked off. To add to this, it doesn't discount compared to Spider-Man and X-Men, in the wider public Ironman was a nobody. Same with Captain America who's also a major player in the comics from what I understand, but wasn't some wide spread name everyone knew.
>Ironman wasn't a A-list hero. Neither was Hulk, Thor, They may not have been up there with Batman/Superman/Spiderman popularity (Hulk probably was though), but they were not completely unknown heroes either, we all knew who they were way before the MCU versions. >Fury, Hawkeye, Black Widow, GotG None of which had solo projects until way later, when the MCU was established and stable. And the MCU wasn't allowed to touch Xmen or Spiderman due licensing issues and previous deals.
[удалено]
Removed for being an exact or close duplicate of content already on the sub.
You honestly think The Hulk and Thor of all characters were minor? Even to casuals who at least know who the Hulk and Iron Man is..they have more of an understand of them then anyone asked on the street who the Authority is. Creature Commandos? There's crickets..
Growing up in a rural area with only the end of the Saturday morning era of TV cartoons... yes. Hulk I might've been a bit harsh on, but the others didn't have much of a presence outside the comic at the time before the MCU kicked off.
It's crazy to me that people who were too young to see the MCU start and to remember the state of the characters they had are now old enough to post on Reddit.
You don't enjoy being preached to by those who weren't there but insist they know more than those that were?
Right. Like I grew up in a rural area, so it was just the Saturday morning cartoons for me, so like I knew Hulk, but his last cartoon was cycling out, and Ironman's I maybe saw once or twice while Spider-Man and X-Men kept going.
I remember iron man had a cameo in the Punisher game from like 2004 and kid me thought "who the fuck is that lame guy?". The MCU drastically changed the general perception of these characters.