Why do DC movies perform horribly in terms of box office and reviews compared to Marvel?

Why do DC movies perform horribly in terms of box office and reviews compared to Marvel?

Other urls found in this thread:

imgur.com/a/vmJaH
youtube.com/watch?v=ai5Dm4vjtQw
giancarlovolpe.tumblr.com/post/82641459722/a-little-behind-the-scenes-look-of-the-early
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

imgur.com/a/vmJaH

They're not as good.

SS hasn't done badly at the box office, strong opening weekend.

DC films have had a lot of problems with bad planning and post-production cuts, which can destroy a film

Rushed plots. They're trying to do in 3 movies what Avengers does in 6.

>Why do DC movies perform horribly in terms of box office
Lol?

>First 2 marvel films
$900 million
>First 2 DC films
$1.4 billion

>Third Marvel film
$300 mil entire box office
>Third DC film
$150 in ONE DAY

DC movies are bad.

I am not one of these people that signs up on one side of the company war, I am not some DC drone that will defend these movies.

I look at movies in terms of quality, not in terms or Marvel or DC, and in my eyes Marvel makes better movies, they care about them more.

yea strong opening. its gonna drop 60-70% next weekend.

Marvel makes safe films for normies

DC makes gritty films for comic fans

Shit director and overall vision. They need to make up their minds and commit,

Not calling you out in particular user, but why do people continue to use the 'cut scenes' argument. How can you defend something you haven't seen, and are just taking the word of the stars with "it would've been better but we had to cut scenes the directors cut DVD edition will be better be sure to buy it!"

You'll rustle the Evanscucks bro. Calm down with those facts

>strong opening
That's an understatement. It's made back 85% of its budget in about 40 hours.

The BvS edition that came out in blu Ray was far better than its theatre release, same with Watchmen, and based on the picture floating around of the cuts from Suicide Squad we can only assume the same.

The DC films have dumpster fire plots, especially enchantress brother and doomsday.

You're a pleb.

BvS had a strong opening weekend despite similar awful reviews. It then tanked 60-80% the next week. I expect SS to do the same.

Sup Forums is full of marvel shills
they are pay'd 0.003$ per post
Most of the threads die within 10 min
They reply to themselves is like a homo circle jerk

Still made bank, my dude

>26%

MORE LIKE SUICIDE DCCU

It was shit.

Because they are worse movies than Marvel.

Most DC films are too deep and have many complexities in its themes for normies

Are you the next Armond White? That explanation was very articulate and profound. We can only expect this type of response from Marvel mice

Well, not so much for "normies", but I agree that for films about superheroes, yeah, they're a bit too deep for the average fan.

Naw, he's right DCuck. Go on, post an analysis of those simple, surface-level, bullshit "themes" in BvS.

I guess just because some people involved in the film have said there was a lot of stuff cut and didn't sound very pleased about it, some removed scenes which could have helped the characters or plot

kek marvelcucks btfo

The total budget for BvS including marketing came to $400m.

It make have taken $800m in global box office but the studio only keeps half of the ticket price, less than that internationally. So it didn't "make bank", it basically broke even.

>Go on, post an analysis of those simple, surface-level, bullshit "themes" in BvS.
The fact that you couldn't grasp the simple, surface level themes speaks more than any analysis could

Go on, post these "deep" and "revolutionary" themes in BvS. Let's hear 'em.

>The two most famous DC heroes of all time make less money than a sequel of a sequel of Iron Man

The box office is the money made minus fees, retard. A simple google search would have saved you this embarrassment.

Fucking hell, this goddamn board.

Batman Begins also made less than Iron Man.

This couldn't possibly be because the climate has changed? Maybe something to do with marketing? Nah, must be something to do with the core IP.

Oh I followed the movie, I got it. It was shit. I just love to see DCucks squirm.

>The box office is the money made minus fees
noooope

> The box office is the money made minus fees, retard

No user, you're the retard. Box office is literally the sum of tickets sold at the box office. It's the gross takings, not net (which is rarely disclosed)

bruce wayne is a ripoff of tony stark after all.

>"We've got all we need to make a blockbuster: a great cast, hungry fans, and literal metric shitloads of cash. Who do we get to lead us to victory in cinema battle?"
>"Zack. Fucking. Snyder."

And that kind of thing is exactly why DC fails.

>The box office is the money made minus fees, retard.
Never change Sup Forums, never change.

>If DC is the conservative comic-book universe to Marvel’s pseudo-progressivism, it couldn’t be more unpopular among kids who enjoyed the ludicrous platitudes of Avengers: Age of Ultron.

>They both (Snyder and Ayer) approach a childish genre like adults — and that’s what annoys the Marvel kids, whose bad rap on Suicide Squad has already gone viral.

>Think metaphorically again, and see that Suicide Squad entangles post-Vietnam and post-9/11 notions about heroism and citizenship. Deadshot does the right, patriotic thing, yet compliments Waller, his treacherous superior, saying, “That’s gangsta!” This use of hip-hop cynicism speaks more directly to modern confused ethics than most lines from other movies and most politicians. Suicide Squad is The Dirty Dozen for millennial viewers (and voters), who think their patriotic moral conflict is new.

DC makes god awful adaptations of great comic arcs, and destroys characters in the act.

Marvel makes themselves immune to criticism as well by repeating that "It's not a great movie, but it's fun!" soundbite around. Reaffirmed by the quips in every fight scene.

Yeah but no average fan is going to want a 3.5 hour slog just to finally get all of the plot details. It doesn't matter what eventually comes out if the theatrical release is a mess.

Too deep
>MURTHHHHAAA

Based DC

I hope they cut SS better for the Blu-ray

How is Armond so fucking based.

>Still made bank, my dude

But not what they were hoping it would, much like MoS before it. And that means a lot in the business world. You can seem to make money hand over fist, but if you don't make goal, nobody cares. BvS isn't even in the top 5 movies of the year now domestically (it's hanging on globally, but it may not be by year's end), and you can rest assured that WB isn't happy about that. You don't make a movie starring Batman, Superman & Wonder Woman to see it hang out at #6.

How do you guys find out the marketing expenses? I can't find them on google, just production budget.

How much would Ghostbusters need to break even?

Are you fucking stupid?

Besides the bad writing, there isn't a joke every other line in the movie. People are idiots, they want to be giggling.

>First 2 DC films
>DC started making films with MoS

DC just doesn't work as well as Marvel: it survives entirely on nostalgia. Superman is an inherently boring character. Batman is an inherently goofy premise. Because of this, DC is constantly trying to reinvent itself, which destroys the one this it has going for it: nostalgia. Marvel characters have had character flaws since their inception, which means they don't have to sacrifice the core of their characters to make them interesting to a modern audience.

DC television works better than cinema because the stakes are lower: they can afford to take a risk and embrace the camp. Arrowverse has gotten better for exactly this reason: it started as the same grimdark "reimagined" garbage that was in stark contrast to the inescapably goofy premise, but as the seasons went on the writers realized that what worked best was camp. Gotham went through a similar transformation.

Two words:

Kevin Tsujihara.

Kevin Tsujihara used DC Properties as WB's cash cow once The Harry Potter movies are done. He wanted a quick cash cow for WB and DC's where it's at.

Whereas the Marvel movies were a result of Kevin Feige trying to fulfill Stan Lee's dream of seeing his characters in the silver screen. That's pretty much it. Stan Lee has been wanting to make the MCU since the 1970s.

So DC wants to make money out of superheroes now that the Harry Potter series is over, and that's the only thing they care about. They did not care about trying to flesh in their characters and timing the movies properly. All they care about is that The Justice League makes more money than The Avengers.

And that's why DC movies failed.

>DC makes gritty films for comic fans
No superman comic book fan would like man of steel or bvs.
Reminder that bvs story is based on a batman comic book.

snyder hates superman

Because Disney pays more money for positive reviews. It's also a JIDF requirement to shill marvel movies on reddit

Me too. I enjoyed the shit out of it, but I'd like more character development.

>How much would Ghostbusters need to break even?

Feig himself went on record with a figure of roughly 500 million to see any profit.

>Marvel started making films with Iron Man.

>pay'd
Fucking what?

It's not always made public but sometimes disclosed in the trade press or IMDB Pro. Something like Ghostbusters though will have had about a $100m marketing budget, add that to the $140-$150m production ...

So this user is probably right using the half-of-box-office rule of thumb.

But as an overall amount Marvel has dominated and that what matters. Who cares if the first two made more money if the franchise as a whole is more successful? It's pretty bad when you have such little defence it's "who cares if it's made over a billion more than DC. The first two films bombed"

You don't yet know how successful the franchise is going to be. If there had been a universe-style franchise similar to Marvel's already extant to gauge it against, would Marvel be failing with Iron Man because it hadn't yet surpassed or equaled said franchise?

The answer is objectively "no."

If you refuse to be fair, at least be realistic.

Try-hard gritty cape-shit

>MUH REALISM

No one wants to go see a superhero movie for grit unless it's to see a vigilante like the Punisher or Batman going ham on some thugs.

nigga looks like olmec from legends of the hidden temple

Reminds me of some interview with Stan Lee where he explains that DC used to have meetings to discuss and analyze why Marvel comics sell better. They'd jump to assumptions like "red background" and copy it without results.

Stan Lee, all due respect, has frequently proven to be full of shit.

Buuu...buuuuut...MISOGYNY!!

BECAUSE THEY'RE SHIT

the difference is that SS cost 140M, let's say they need to gain back 600m to count as a success, they will make that amount easily.
the funny part is that SS is WB attempt to copy the Disney formula, and it's working in the BO, so here comes the DC paradox.
What will be defended by the fanbois, Kino or box office?

Marvel does movies for children
DC does movies for manchildren

Enjoying one does not preclude one from enjoying the other. I'd be perfectly content with them striking some happy medium between the two.

So are we all just supposed to ignore the fact that Marvel Studios fought the cultural and financial uphill battle to get superhero movies where they are today, while DC sat on their asses for years before coming in after the formula had already been proven and tried to ride their coattails with some the most rushed, confused, tryhard garbage Hollywood's ever shit out? Don't worry, you won't be any less of a fanboy if you acknowledge how poorly handled the DCU has been.
Fuck, Sup Forums is dumber than I thought. I don't know if it's DC fanboyism or just to spite Marvel, the face of capeshit.

t. mad marvelcuck

Because they suck.
And what really sucks is that Suicide squad looks like it could have been a decent flick, but the editing completely fucked it up. It's extremely clear that major shit was cut out, and the movie suffers greatly for it. Hell, you can even identify the exact scene were they stopped making major changes, because from the bar scene to the end it's a completely different movie.

why do you think transformers does so well?

movies arent made for smart people, art is dead it's now all about money and generic trash, DC is trying to change that.

Why not? Marvel ripped off most of their best shit from DC to begin with.

Meet Niles Caulder, the paraplegic mentor of a team of outcast heroes.

>Thanos
>First appearance Avengers (2012)

>Darkseid
>First appearance Justice League (2017)

Really shameful DC

Isn't Thanos just discount Darkseid anyway

Nobody's talking about the comics. Marvel Studios adapted an entire print universe into a patiently paced, thoroughly planned movie universe and everyone in the world has been aspiring to copy their formula for years. DC is trying to copy that success, but with no patience and a panicky, constantly changing plan. I've got minimal investment in either of them, but Marvel is owning DC's shit right now in just about every way.

Yep. Good luck getting an MCU "fan" to admit, though, if they're even aware of that incontrovertible fact.

Nah Darkseid is a ripoff of Thanos

Just wait until the next year

And I'm glad you like it. Should we stop watching any and all movies made after 1896 because everything else is just ripping off the The Lumière brothers?

They're clearly holding back for the director's cut

>Marvel Studios fought the cultural and financial uphill battle to get superhero movies where they are today,
>what is the superman 78
>what is the original batman franchise
>what is Batman begins
Delusional marvelcucks on suicide watch

>Gotham went through a similar transformation.

youtube.com/watch?v=ai5Dm4vjtQw

Fucking this. Season 2 was so much better because they embraced it.

This is ultimately the key difference between the two franchises. Marvel just rolls with it; comic book characters are *always* going to be some value of goofy because they're larger than life, but they set the movies up in a way that the audience buys into it.

DC rubs the audience's face in how unrealistic the genre is and drags the heroes down with grim settings. This can work for Batman since he's supposed to be human but clashes thematically with Superman and other heroes. Nolan's stuff was an interesting take on the genre but WB has decided it's the one-size-fits-all approach to take with every character.

I love both comicbook universes and I am happy with both of their film universes. just inb4
In my opinion, Marvel movies work better for normies and generalist critics and media, so they just "love" everything they produce, more or less like the "pixar fan" or the "apple fan". If you are not a hardcore fan who is really into animation or phones you just follow the trend, I suppose.
On the other hand, DC movies tend to be more fan-specific, and like Warcraft, people just hate what they don´t understand. Wich really bugs me. I watched Warcraft not being into their world, I enjoyed the movie and could feel how happy a Warcraft fan could be with most of the things i couldn´t catch. Im not saying I don´t love more open aproach like the marvel universe films, but I really don´t get why people feel offense if a film is not "dumbed" down to them

> Paying money to keep over 300 online bloggers' mouth shut.

You know how dumb that sound? What if one of them decides to fuck it and tell it to the press, Marvel/DC'd be cucked .

I feel the same way about marvel. Every movie they make is the exact same, except for Thor movies. They are just pure awful. Hulk movies too.

>first DCU movie is about the most famous super hero ever
>first MCU movie is about a (at the time) literal who to most audiences

also the second DCU movie is basically Justice League without the other guys nobody gives a fuck and it still didnt make 1 Billion

That is precisely how I feel about it.

Something that I think Armond White nails is that the DC films have a lot of themes that run counter to the world view of the overwhelming majority of "critics." I feel like they hammer on DC as a result of it, at least those perceptive enough to pick up on them in the first place, and nitpick the everloving shit out of DC while giving other movies with the selfsame flaws a free pass. A lot of MCU films fit into this category.

As a very topical example of this very practice, allow me to present the disparity between the reviews GB16 is getting versus what SS gets.

It's intellectual dishonesty at its very finest.

And the third Cap movie was essentially Avengers 2.5 plus Spidey and still barely broke a billion even after 13 films of setup. Your point?

>Civil War was Avengers 2.5

I can't believe people still think this. The Airport sequence was really just fan service, one of the best coming book fan services in years. The story was about Iron Man and Captain America, with everyone else getting caught in the crossfire.

By your logic. BvS was Justice League 0.5 since it had half the members participating in the movie, with cameos from the other 3. With that in mind, it manage to do less than a billion at the box office when it had arguably the 3 most recognized heroes in the whole world. It 100million more than a movie about literal whos and a movie about reddit: the character.

Oh, I more thank think it. I know it. They could have given us actual Civil War(reworked for the big screen, of course), but instead, they hyped it up as such, then reduced it to a playground fight.

yeah, and the collective thinking may just assume SS is bad. It´s really there, just check how Cinemasins just give 1 sin to a film if it´s from "DC Comics"
Of course that´s a joke, but they also resumes pretty well what most normies think about it. "Liking DC" is not "usual", the world just want you to explain it. On the other hand, liking Marvel is just assumed as another form of saying "I like comics, Marvel and DC or whatever, I love films, I´m a geek"

The big question here is: do you, as an individual, need the collective thinking to legitimate your tastes, or not? Can you get over this or do you desesperately need the world to share your stuff?
At the end of the day, I think this is the useful question one has to ask

I honestly don't care if other people like it or not, at least any farther than how it impacts more of it getting made.

I'd be perfectly content with scaled-back budgets, even. If nothing else, it would force writers and directors to focus more on character and themes than CG spectacle, and I feel that's always been the strong suit of comics in the first place, not that most people who don't read them would get that.

It's not escapism, it's hypotheticals that really keep me invested, questions that deal with topics like, "So there's this guy who could quite literally lift the world if he had somewhere to stand. How does the world around him change in light of that revelation? How does he change as a result of it?"

Yeah, I usually don´t care except when this may harm how things are done. But even if that´s the case, I prefer the mass media hating the thing, but the guys behind the product delivering what they fucking wanted. Mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodillas, like Ayer said.
This sums up the thing better than anybody:

giancarlovolpe.tumblr.com/post/82641459722/a-little-behind-the-scenes-look-of-the-early

That's amazing. Thanks for sharing that.

Ur welcome bro. At the end of the day this is what I expect in a movie/comic/whatever. And that´s the reason I don´t really enjoy most of Marvel films. But well, that´s just my two cents

Not only that, but there was a batman movie in the fucking 60's