• golli@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I think this is one of the few cases where the studio does care more about the critical and especially fan reception than the box office returns. They are trying to relaunch their whole franchise and this is one of the cornerstones.

    Also $1b is just way off considering not a single superman movie has ever achieved it based on this source.

      • golli@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Apart from billionaire pet projects like Laika that might be true, but this seems a bit too reductionist. There are many ways to go about it and the difference matters. Unless you want to tell me the the whole media industry from Netflix to A24 does the exact same thing.

        • IWW4@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I am not following your thinking.

          The pet projects are the ones done for passion and other reasons.

          Netflix, A24 and Disney, release movies and TV shows for one reason, to make money.

          • golli@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            My line of thought is that yes the end goal is shareholder value/money, but the method varies. You can go for quality or quantity, or for long vs short term profits. And those steps in-between matter.

            In this case with WB and Superman the amount of money an occasional Superman movie can make is not enough, they want that sweet franchise model. But you can’t just will that into place, as they’ve demonstrated with their failure to do so so far.

            There has to be some substance at the start before you can roll out even lesser IP and make bank like marvel. Which is why in this instance they probably don’t care as much about the profit from this movie, but try to optimize it more for audience and critic appeal.

              • golli@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Exactly. And also i think it’s hard to see those superhero movies aimed at establishing a franchise as something standalone.

                […] Superman is just the first step,” he added. “Over the next year alone, DC Studios will introduce the films Supergirl and Clayface in theaters and the series Lanterns on HBO Max, all part of a bold ten-year plan.

                This excerpt from the article really says it all.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      I think a great example to look at is The Suicide Squad. If you look purely at the numbers, Suicide Squad (2016) brought in ~750m globally versus The Suicide Squad (2021) which brought in ~170m globally.

      The first Suicide Squad was one of the worst DCEU films. The second The Suicide Squad was one of the best DCEU films and handed DC Studios to James Gunn (and Peter Safran).

      I think looking purely at the numbers Superman is likely to come out as small victory (monetarily). However as a franchise, it’s a solid start.

      • djsaskdja@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 days ago

        The second suicide squad also came out at the height of the pandemic. I’m sure that factored into their calculations.