What was the studio thinking releasing this in January? The theater is saturated with Oscar hopefuls, which is the type of movie people want to see at this time of year. This movie would have done fine during the summer. Big mistake, sad.
Was thinking the same thing......or they should've put in the post-Oscar/pre summer blockbuster dead period where it could've had time 2 build an audience,2 be honest!!!!
shareWB and tons of media/industry thought this was going to be an Oscar player until it was screened. Same thing with Billy Flynn's Long Halftime Walk. Summer time would not have helped a movie like this with bad reviews because people just don't want to see it. It even bombed in limited release.
sharePoor filmmaking by Affleck, more like. The film would have been wiped out in the Summer, but they never should have given in to giving it an Oscar qualifying run, which just gave the bad reviews and terrible business in limited release time to spread the word that this was DOA. If they'd stuck to the original January opening date and gone wide straight away they could probably at least have got a decent opening weekend out of it before it dropped like a stone. Considering how badly it did in limited release it's just surprising they didn't cancel or scale back the wide release to minimise the losses.
"Security - release the badgers."
Exactly. And this is not the type of movie that could overcome bad reviews and have WOM save it. I saw more about Affleck's chaotic personal issues than about this movie. You know he is truly regretting getting in bed with WB and being obligated with the DCEU in which things have not turned out even remotely like he thought they would.
But WB is a mess anyway and should be avoided until they clean house like they are finally starting to do at Sony.
I don't have too much faith in Sony given that they hired that moron Tom Rothman to run Columbia.
shareWould that be the Tom Rothman who gave Fox the best and most consistent profit margins of any major studio, greenlit the two highest grossing films of all time and racked up over 150 Oscar nominations for Fox's films? Because, yeah, that kind of track record really marks him out as a moron you definitely wouldn't want running a studio.
"Security - release the badgers."
[deleted]
Rothman fought against making both Titanic and Avatar, is a snob who thumbs his nose at genre films, in evidence of the way he treated the X-Men/Predator/Alien franchises among others, while Fox had a successful run DESPITE him being the studio head. He got lucky that people did their own thing and ignored him.
shareYou forgot the bit about eating babies, killing Bambi's mom and being the real mastermind behind Al Quedah while dining on the tears of fanboys.
Yeah, Rothman was so unsuccessful at Fox that they kept him there for years. And somehow he was this all-powerful interfering ignoramus who ruined fanboy favourite franchises yet at the same time was so completely powerless that everyone in the company completely ignored him and somehow made hit movies without his knowledge. Yes, I'm convinced.
"Security - release the badgers."
[deleted]
No, but you did run with all the Tom Rothman is an evil monster bogie man nonsense - and you didn't limit your blanket hatred to tentpoles. There's an extremely childish fanboy tendency to blame all the ills of the world on Rothman while pretending the success of the studio he headed had absolutely nothing to do with him. Which is clearly utter nonsense. He may not be Mr Nice guy, but he got results, with tentpoles and Oscarbait alike even with comicbook fans running up long lists of imaginary and unsubstantiated crimes against cinema about him as they rooted for him to fail.
"Security - release the badgers."
[deleted]
The only one calling him a monster is you. The other poster was respectful and not antagonistic, and then you reply like this. You're embarrassing yourself.
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions.
Yes, calling him a moron and repeating all those fanboy urban myths is really respectful. But then fanboys always tie themselves up in embarrassing knots when trying to spin Rothman into the Typhoid Mary of studio chiefs because he doesn't show enough reverence to movies about guys in capes and tights when his track record of success is quite the opposite of the cartoonish figure they always try to reduce him to.
"Security - release the badgers."
Respectful to you, genius.
Why do you feel the need to defend Tom Rothman so much, anyway?
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions.
Trevoraclea can be a fantastic commentator on the box office and classic film but when he gets something wrong, he won't admit it. He kept insisting alien covenant would do significantly more than Prometheus just because it resembled more like alien and pointed out to jurassic world and force awakens as examples of how nostalgia can work. He made excuses for terminator genesys and ghostbusters 2016 underperforming despite both also being sold on formula and nostalgia.
No one was saying tom rothman was all bad or is cancer. He's just better on nontentpole projects and awards contenders than on tentpoles. This guy insisted deadpool's mouth was sewn shut and later refused to make a proper deadpool film during his time there. He even backed trank's disastrous vision of fantastic four (situation made worse by reshoots).
There have been great tentpole films even under tom rothman but those were made in spite of tom rothman, not because of him.
I don't like a lot of Rothman's decisions from an audience standpoint, but the fanboy hatred for him is really over the top.
Hardly: like Become43, cetra93 is a sockpuppet for the prolific troll Wallfish, an unapologetic racist and fantasist with a curious obsession with following me around and alternately distorting positions I've taken in posts (as his become sock is working overtime to do here) or posting bizarre sexual fantasies in threads (such as his desire to see me perform a sexual act on a Chinese man or his desire to 'facerape' a black poster). His stock in trade is patently absurd and easily disproven claims (ie, Crimson Peak was a huge hit but Rentrak diverted the takings to films made by non-Mexican directors, Disney bribe the critics to destroy other studios' films, slavery never existed, etc). You've seen enough of his sockpuppetry on the BvS board to know that.
It's not a case of defending Rothman, but unpleasant as he is, he has the best track record of any studio chief this century, both artistic and financial, and that's probably because of his unpleasantness and willingness to take decisions that piss people off. The fanboy fantasy that he's an idiot who is simultaneously all-powerful and all-interfering yet has no responsibility for all the successes that Fox saw in his regime is as much a childish fallacy as the notion that Snyder's DCEU is an artistic triumph that's too smart and mature for audiences.
"Security - release the badgers."
I don't associate with that idiot, wallfish. Cetra93 might but I most certainly not. So stop your *beep* trevor.
By the way, reported for libel.
Thought I was the only person thinking this way
But I actually think the WB will go UNDER after the rest of the DC films continue t' crash and Burn... I'm sure you've been following their drama... I think if Wonder Woman fails, it will be another pillar about to crack.... Two directors jump off the Flash,
"Shazam" is a wipe and they continue with false flags of these other DC films they drop on the press to stir up people...
Now it's "The Gotham Sirens", a "DeadShot" spin off coming soon supposedly and "The Batman" film seems like it's nowhere it should be which could bring that franchise back to the Joel Schumacher era
I'm just saying