DC Comics Multimedia General - A crisis of infinite fuck ups

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
XYZpdq Jr. said:
tbh the idea that Alex Ross was young seems odd
his style made it seem like he was always old af
Click to expand...
I can see that. I looked up his age earlier because I watched this, and what's funny is I was right on the money with how old I've always assumed he is, because hes obviously of the Super Friends generation and that had to have been a formative show for him, but I've never pictured him as a young man either. In that video there's a pic of him and his dad im assuming around the time Kingdom Come was produced, and he's got long hair and stuff and it was surreal for me to see.

I think his art being less comic artist and more traditional painter style made him come across older seeming, hell when he did that Terminator comic he would have been only like 20. which is crazy.
 
1774113037703.jpeg
1774113057144.jpeg
1774113072626.jpeg
First look at Absolute Two Face hanging out with Absolute penguin.
 
Battlefield2142EU said:
View attachment 8733907
First look at Absolute Two Face hanging out with Absolute penguin.
Click to expand...
Belt-fed crutches. This little nigga has BELT. FED. CRUTCHES. They could have given him the LEGO orange transparent chainsaw and it would've somehow been more dignified. Thank God I tapped out of this dreck after Daniel "HEY! HEY! DID YOU GUYS KNOW I REALLY LIKE WRESTLING?! CAUSE I REALLY LIKE WRESTLING!" Johnson virtue jizznalled all over the annual.

Battlefield2142EU said:
View attachment 8733906
Click to expand...
"IT'S NOT A PHASE, MOM!"
 
They were saying for several years that Supergirl will have the same budget as Superman, that was the narrative up until like last week.
Now all of a sudden, already in post-production, the budget got cut by 60%?
I'm not buying that, I think that the new bosses at WB are looking at the numbers very carefully and after Superman heavily underperforming, Gunn claims that the budget is "low" because he wants to keep his job.
 
Battlefield2142EU said:
View attachment 8742984
It is alleged that the production of "Supergirl" has a limited budget of approximately 100 million dollars.
Click to expand...
I have nothing against the actress. She might be lovely for all I know.

But besides Gunn picking a meh story to adapt, just because it's similar to his Guardians space adventure style, I don't think she was the right choice for the role.

Gunn is known for his nepotism so he likely hired her because he likes hanging out with her. Or worse.

But Supergirl really needs, to be blunt, very attractive. It's part of the fantasy. Hollywood is filled with pretty blond white women that would’ve been a better fit. You want a woman that men will be thirsting over, and women will look up to.

She would be more fitting as a friend character, or for a more grounded story. But not as a superheroine that's supposed to be idealized.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebub's Lawyer said:
They were saying for several years that Supergirl will have the same budget as Superman, that was the narrative up until like last week.
Now all of a sudden, already in post-production, the budget got cut by 60%?
I'm not buying that, I think that the new bosses at WB are looking at the numbers very carefully and after Superman heavily underperforming, Gunn claims that the budget is "low" because he wants to keep his job.
Click to expand...
I know little about movie budgets and production time scales. One of my blind spots. If it really were less than half the budget of Superman, which I just looked up and it said it was $225m, then I would have thought that was decided very early on, no? Otherwise you'd have chaos. But I presume they also must have started work on Supergirl before Superman was actually released. So it couldn't be a response to the poor box office of the latter? Or can they really shuffle around stuff that much once things are in development? Presumably fees for the stars like Jason Momoa and whoever is playing Supergirl (kind of sad that I know a supporting actor and not the lead) are fixed early on as well and that's got to be a big chunk of it?
 
Overly Serious said:
I would have thought that was decided very early on, no?
Click to expand...
Before they even have a cast or anything. Changes sometimes mid-production but it's a disaster when it does.
The most famous example of that is the 90's Spawn movie.
They were promised an R rating and $80 million, then in the middle of filming, they got a call that it's PG-13 and $40 million.
That's why the effects are so bad, they only had half the money.
This shit feels strangely similar.
Overly Serious said:
But I presume they also must have started work on Supergirl before Superman was actually released.
Click to expand...
Started filming 2 months ago, apparently the filming wraps in May... which is fucking insane because the release date is June 26th so they will overwork some depressed VFX artists and it will look like crap.
Overly Serious said:
So it couldn't be a response to the poor box office of the latter?
Click to expand...
Oh, most definitely.
Gunn was promising WB a new era for years now.
A billion bucks during the theatrical run of Superman and he didn't even make Man of Steel money, not adjusted for inflation.
I'm not convinced we're ever getting that Clayface movie and that was the one damn project in this whole DCEU thing that I was looking for.

Supergirl, as far as my layman estimates go, will make Thunderbolts money at best, this shit will tank on the level of The Marvels, nobody wants this.
If the budget is really $225 million + marketing, Gunn will be responsible for one of the biggest bombs in WB history. He will be out of the big leagues. Sub $50 million movies for him from now on.
Trimming the budget to $100 million is the only way to save his ass and pretend that this made a minimal profit at around $300 million.

I wonder what will happen to the movie itself.
Did they rewrite it quickly, cut out some expensive scenes or replace them with cheaper options, or will the effects be the equivalent of the 90's Spawn movie?
Only time will tell but I hope it's the last option because that would be funny.

That's my take on this whole thing.

EDIT!!! I FUCKED UP!!!
The filming was January-May... 2025. This shit is long wrapped up.
So they don't have new footage to replace the old scenes with. Oh this will be glorious, I can't wait.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all that. Very enlightening. Also sheer lunacy. Though if it costs $100m to get rid of James Gunn, it's almost a bargain. I can't say how much I abhor the guy. Most of all for his sabotaging the vastly more talented Matt Reeves.

On that subject:
Beelzebub's Lawyer said:
I'm not convinced we're ever getting that Clayface movie and that was the one damn project in this whole DCEU thing that I was looking for.
Click to expand...
I have all sorts of things muddled up. I thought at one point Clayface was supposed to be the villain in the sequel to The Batman. I have no idea where that is now. Supposedly due out October next year but that information is old.

From what I can find, The Batman had a budget of $185m and grossed $772m. That alone should have given the executives reason to protect Reeve's from Gunn's jealous sabotage. But apparently not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom