this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
178 points (97.8% liked)

movies

1192 readers
256 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
atomicpoet@piefed.social
BoozeOrWater@piefed.social
TheImpressiveX@piefed.social
178
James Gunn Celebrates ‘Superman’s Box Office Win: “I’m Incredibly Grateful For Your Enthusiasm” (deadline.com)
submitted 1 week ago by TheImpressiveX@piefed.social to c/movies@piefed.social
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

James Gunn generally knows what he's doing and I'm sure the movie is fine.

But a film that cost $225M to produce and another $200M to market on a franchise that's nearly a century old and has always been box office gold... If it doesn't turn a cool $1B the studio will consider it a flop. That its cruising in to the box office third place behind Minecraft (predictably disappointing) and the Live Action Lilo & Stitch (Christ, Disney, just die already) is... eh. Not a great sign for The Movies generally speaking.

[–] golli@sopuli.xyz 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 13 points 1 week ago

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

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Naw man, studios only care about money.

[–] golli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right, make it now or make it later.

[–] golli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week 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.

[–] RampageDon@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago

Children's movies tend to have inflated numbers because kids can't see the movie on their own

[–] jbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

An arguement can be made that Superman itself is not a great sign for the movies.

Not telling anyone what they should watch, but for me personally there is little difference between Minecraft, Lilo and Stitch and Superman.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Minecraft movie is nice just as an affirmation that the game is impactful but yeah its full of nonsense famous people doing famous people things. I didnt see the other two, unfortunately I hate live action remakes and super hero movies are so predictable these days.

I'd love to hear why people like superman this time around though, maybe they did come up with some unique ideas.

[–] jbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I was curious about how the Minecraft movie adapted the voxel world, but I started watching it and pretty quickly turned it off.

Superhero movies are OK, I like the Batman series, but otherwise I am good watching one movie a decade (with some exceptions).

To me, a lot of the motifs are extremely provincial and lazy. I remember watching the first Iron Man in 2008, there was this scene where Downey Jr. is imprisoned in a cave by the Taliban and he builds the iron man costume out of spare parts or something and escapes.

It was so stupid. Especially considering in real life an American oligarch in such a situation would do everything to not rock the the boat and exploit his American citizenship and financial status to get released (either via an exchange or giving the Taliban lots of money).

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It was so stupid. Especially considering in real life an American oligarch in such a situation would do everything to not rock the the boat and exploit his American citizenship and financial status to get released (either via an exchange or giving the Taliban lots of money).

It's a super hero movie. Tony Stark is an idealized futurist. You're oligarchs in the franchise are Justin Hammer or Obadiah Stane.

[–] jbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's fair. I am just sharing my perspective. Keep in mind this was in 2008, when it just got released in cinemas and that was my initial gut-feeling reaction. Not sure who the other fellows are, but in my mind the Stark character was clearly an American oligarch.

As I mentioned in my OP, for me positioning Minecraft's popularity as being bad for the movie industry, while at the same time presenting Superman as a contribution to cinema seems a bit inconsistent.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Stane was the main villain of IM1. Hammer was one of the villains of IM2. Stark was an oligarch, but that's part of his character arc. He wasn't a good person in the beginning. That's the point.

As far as Minecraft and other popcorn flicks being bad for the industry, those types of movies have always existed.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I dont like hero movies mostly because they tend to romanticize a very juvenile view of the world, and it makes it hard to suspend belief when none of the adults act in any sort of rational way.

I do love batman though since you mentioned it, but the universe really. Gotham the tv show was fantastic, I loved the video game trilogy, and I can't think of a batman movie I haven't liked. Thats a universe where people very much act like you would expect them to given the circumstances.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You must not have seen any of the recent Superman films.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I've seen quite a few. The box office numbers are regularly better than they should be.

[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 week ago

I thoroughly enjoyed it, after having gone in expecting it to be a flop.

It might be my favorite Superman movie during my lifetime. Haven't decided yet.

[–] Technoworcester@feddit.uk 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Got back from it earlier today. Loved it.

Plot holes you can drive a bus through but I don't care, it was bright, fun and funny.

I don't need dark and brooding - I want escapism fun. Best movie Superman since Christopher Reeves.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

fun movies need to be fun. time and time again we have learned to accept giant potholes as long as the ride is fun.

no one complained that the Trex came out of no where at the end of Jurassic park, but we were all glad it did.

this movie hits the right levels of wierd and goofy while still being fun.

did lex luthor steal the plan from Vought?

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

DC Studios will introduce the films Supergirl

That would be great if Gunn directs again!

[–] TheImpressiveX@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Looks like Craig has some solid films under his belt, and it's under Gunn's studio, so one might hope his influence rubs off. I'll remain cautiously optimistic about the film.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

"Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow" is the source material for the Supergirl movie.

It's dark and gritty as hell. Not Gunn's strength.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Did they really have to have the good guys go Pinochet on the bad guy at the end of the film?

Kind of disturbing.

[–] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Idk what Pinochet is

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

A deranged South American dictator/despot who famously threw his enemies from helicopters to their deaths. That's who Pinochet was.

[–] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh, then I mean it doesn't matter how the oppressor dies. But Hawkgirl was real for giving him what he desrved.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

That ain't justice dude. So much for "truth, justice, and the American way." That's just normalizing the tactics of fascists. If he's a fuckin war criminal send him to the fucking Hague for trial.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

isn't killing heads of state willy nilly the American way?

[–] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Can't wait till setanyahu gets the same treatment.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It was a Disney villain death. Nothing more. It was a dark moment, but was there to highlight the difference between the naive Superman and the more cynical Heroes. Superman would have dragged him to the Hague, but does Hawkgirl even know about that? I would like to see something like that going forward in the series, but it makes sense now.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisneyVillainDeath