1/6 Hot Toys - The Flash - Supergirl Collectible Figure

[Frenchy]

Sadly they're not going to give anyone connected to this film another shot after this. And I'll be surprised if the director stays attached to the new DCU Batman film either.

I don't like the idea of having two batmans at the same time on the screen.

 

[Chopper Face]

It's possible that the director's stated intention for the speed-force visuals is accurate and also that the effects department only had a week to impliment it- resulting in a bad idea being executed poorly.

 

[Dave_W]

So this movie has turned into the biggest comicbook movie bomb in the history of cinema.

Where are you getting your info from? I just looked on boxofficemojo and this has taken double what Shazam 2 did.

The movie production plus marketing needs about $450M WW BO to break even. The current WW BO is at $260M. It will be a loss of close to $200M for a comicbook movie. No comicbook movie has ever lost this much money.

Ok it’s nearly double the budget of Shazam 2 wow. $125m vs $200m.

See, this is one part of the 'it's a hit/it's a failure' that I don't understand. Profit shouldn't govern whether something is a hit or not, the number of ticket sales should. How much something cost to make has nothing to do with how popular a film is. The Flash has taken double that of Shazam so it's more popular in cinemas, but because Shazam had a more cost effective production, that makes it a more popular film? It's more successful for the Studio's bank balance sure, but it's a bigger failure than The Flash at the BO and that's what being a flop is based on isn't it? How well the audience received it?

You can have the most expensive film ever made and breaks record ticket sales, but if it's so expensive that it would never have a chance of breaking even, does that make it a flop or a great film with bad management behind it?

I guess in this era of Late Stage Capitalism, absolute profit is put on a higher pedestal than popularity. Mediocre crap that makes more profit is better.

 

[Turtle882]

It took me out of the movie for a min, then I thought this is just how things look in the Speed Force and then I didn’t pay much attention to it.

There were parts that were easier to overlook. Normal speed force was easy for me to overlook. But the Chronobowl scenes were awful and pulled me out of the movie every time. It didn't completely ruin the movie, though, as overall I thought it was fun movie worth watching.

 

[goatchumby]

Yeah. Watching ZSJL Flash "recreate" time with each step was incredible; watching The Flash Flash "ice skate" across a landscape that didn't match up with his steps was not.

 

[Dave_W]

Let's not forget it was Snyder who agreed to the way Miller ran in the first place.

 

[Chopper Face]

See, this is one part of the 'it's a hit/it's a failure' that I don't understand. Profit shouldn't govern whether something is a hit or not, the number of ticket sales should. How much something cost to make has nothing to do with how popular a film is. The Flash has taken double that of Shazam so it's more popular in cinemas, but because Shazam had a more cost effective production, that makes it a more popular film? It's more successful for the Studio's bank balance sure, but it's a bigger failure than The Flash at the BO and that's what being a flop is based on isn't it? How well the audience received it?

You can have the most expensive film ever made and breaks record ticket sales, but if it's so expensive that it would never have a chance of breaking even, does that make it a flop or a great film with bad management behind it?

I guess in this era of Late Stage Capitalism, absolute profit is put on a higher pedestal than popularity. Mediocre crap that makes more profit is better.

It's not really a point about popularity, although the presumed popularity of a movie will dictate the budget to an extent.

If a studio is willing to spend $450 million on production and marketting, you'd better belive they were projecting sales of at least $600 million tickets. Therefore, by their own estimations and expectations, it is a failure- and the greatest financial failure in comicbook movie history.

What lessons the studio chooses to learn from this is really up to them. DC and WB execs are pretty dreadful at their jobs.

 

[BigWayne]

See, this is one part of the 'it's a hit/it's a failure' that I don't understand. Profit shouldn't govern whether something is a hit or not, the number of ticket sales should. How much something cost to make has nothing to do with how popular a film is. The Flash has taken double that of Shazam so it's more popular in cinemas, but because Shazam had a more cost effective production, that makes it a more popular film? It's more successful for the Studio's bank balance sure, but it's a bigger failure than The Flash at the BO and that's what being a flop is based on isn't it? How well the audience received it?

You can have the most expensive film ever made and breaks record ticket sales, but if it's so expensive that it would never have a chance of breaking even, does that make it a flop or a great film with bad management behind it?

I guess in this era of Late Stage Capitalism, absolute profit is put on a higher pedestal than popularity. Mediocre crap that makes more profit is better.

You make a very valid point.

That said, it really depends on the very subjective definition of "hit", which I personally don't like. If you're the studio, or the industry, you probably use the monetary definition as it is your business and you're in business to make money (revenue - costs). As a consumer, I would define "hit" as the consensus of good/great reviews, probably along with the number of tickets sold. When the media uses the phrase, "box office hit", I believe that to be an industry term that specifically refers to profitability.

You also make a good point about mediocre crap making more profit, but again, I don't believe that quality is part of the industry's "hit" definition. I have a much simpler definition and usually refer to a movie as "good" or "crap" based on my level of enjoyment and perception.

There are many movies that I really like that weren't "hits", per se, but that doesn't change the fact that I really enjoy them.

 

[goatchumby]

Let's not forget it was Snyder who agreed to the way Miller ran in the first place.

Oh yeah, I remember them coming up with that goofy run of his. I was referencing the way that Flash’s feet in the new film would glide independently from the ground while speed forcin’.

 

[Starfleet Captain]

So the home media release of this bomb has been announced. Looks like there will be a segment on casting Supergirl (Surprise) and a segment on the Siberia escape. They also have deleted scenes but I don’t think they would throw in the original ending with Keaton Batman and Supergirl survived. I think this movie will make a splash in the digital and home media front but not enough to make a real difference anyway. I don’t think we will hear anything on DCU “Supergirl: The Woman of Tomorrow” until next year with everybody skipping SDCC hall H this year with uncertainty surrounding all the strike(s) in Hollywood.

Hollywood is riddled with recasting, they could easily do an Emma Fuhrmann (EG Cassie) on Sasha, who thanklessly found out her role got recasted on Twitter like the rest of us.

(I am intrigued by the casting of Isabela Merced as Hawkgirl in Superman: Legacy…)

 

[Omega9300]

See, this is one part of the 'it's a hit/it's a failure' that I don't understand. Profit shouldn't govern whether something is a hit or not, the number of ticket sales should. How much something cost to make has nothing to do with how popular a film is. The Flash has taken double that of Shazam so it's more popular in cinemas, but because Shazam had a more cost effective production, that makes it a more popular film? It's more successful for the Studio's bank balance sure, but it's a bigger failure than The Flash at the BO and that's what being a flop is based on isn't it? How well the audience received it?

You can have the most expensive film ever made and breaks record ticket sales, but if it's so expensive that it would never have a chance of breaking even, does that make it a flop or a great film with bad management behind it?

I guess in this era of Late Stage Capitalism, absolute profit is put on a higher pedestal than popularity. Mediocre crap that makes more profit is better.

I get your point regarding the difference of popularity vs profitability and agree that those do not have to go hand in hand. But in the case of Shazam (2) and the Flash neither seems very popular nor profitable.

So since the studios are business and ostensibly doing this to make money they need for movies to be popular enough to be profitable to keep doing what they do.

And yeah some times really good movies don’t sell a lot of tickets and that is sad, not sure if that is the case with the Flash.

 

[JacktheRipper]

Did you think it was a good movie? I haven't seen it. I don't think Shazam was bad, but I can't really say it was good. I have no desire to see it again. That's usually my gauge of a good movie; at least for me. And maybe "good" isn't an appropriate label. I should say I enjoyed it enough to encourage future viewing.

 

[Alexjl]

That's an interesting way to gauge a movie. Personally, I gauge a movie based on how good it is at surprising me, and earning whatever emotions it's going for. Rarely do I ever want to see a movie again, and if I do, it's usually because there's something I didn't understand the first time around.

But FWIW, I loved the Flash.

 

[davejames]

Shazam 2 was about as bland and forgettable as it gets (which it pains me to say given it has freakin Lucy Liu in it). Flash was far more clever and well written, and something I'll be much more likely to rewatch in the future.

Looking forward to all the special features on the bluray, especially everything to do with Keaton and Sasha.

 

[karamazov80]

Flash was far more clever and well written. . .

Definitely the worst indictment of Shazam 2 that I've read. I don't reckon I'll ever watch it.

 

[Starfleet Captain]

The problem with Shazam 2 is that it squandered all the good things that the first one created (the Shazam family and the family dynamic) and in the end, the family is still underdeveloped, Shazam is a total jerk lusting over WW and there is a big disconnect between Billy and Shazam like they are 2 different characters, not the same person.

 

[takuGuy]

Shazam 2 was about as bland and forgettable as it gets

This was my thought as well until I saw the newest Blue Beetle trailer. Holy crap, I can’t imagine a more paint-by-the-numbers superhero origin film if I tried. It looks like they had some AI write the film based on the last 15 years of superhero films.

 

[davejames]

Yeah I expect that one to bomb even harder than Flash. Nothing about it looks remotely fresh or interesting.

 

[The Iron Koob]

The problem with Shazam 2 is that it squandered all the good things that the first one created (the Shazam family and the family dynamic) and in the end, the family is still underdeveloped, Shazam is a total jerk lusting over WW and there is a big disconnect between Billy and Shazam like they are 2 different characters, not the same person.

That's the biggest problem. Billy is 17 and Shazam is apparently 8.

 

[Starfleet Captain]

So until HT announces something about this figure or post something on their FT about this figure, we now go into the silent running mode until release date… Adios!