Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JustinCharge

Batgirl film will not see the light of day after shooting complete for $100ish million

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

Again- I explained it 3 times before. You aren't right and a 4th explanation won't drive it through the concrete you call a skull. 

Because Variety says so isn't an explanation at all.  Especially when normal people can clearly see that "not blockbuster" means the movie is crap.  

block·bust·er

noun

a thing of great power or size, in particular a movie, book, or other product that is a great commercial success.

It comes from readers familiarization with blockbuster bombs, meaning a huge impact.

You know what a movie is when it won't have a huge impact, won't be a great commercial success?  It's a suck movie.

 

The above is an example of how to illustrate your point in a debate.  You can't just call people names and refer to articles in Vanity.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I was simply pointing out that the people "complaining" aren't the ones on the right.  Also, as I pointed out, liberals see white people in traditionally non-white roles is cultural appropriation.  So, if Batwoman is white and a non-white person is playing the role, then this kind of cultural appropriation is acceptable.  Hence, it's woke.

Nah. If Jennifer Lopez got the role it wouldn’t be woke.  But it would be smart. Proving being woke for the sake of being woke is bad business. Just try and sell tickets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Like I said before, I commented on it because some people here try to make it something it's not.  That's what the "big deal" is.  It's not the movie itself, it's how certain people try to make everything political.  From what I've read about this movie it doesn't look like it has anything to do with being woke or anything else political, yet he made a point to say the character was played by a Hispanic women.

I don't see how laughing at something is making a "big deal" out of it.  To me, the people making the "big deal" out of it were the ones commenting on the people laughing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I was simply pointing out that the people "complaining" aren't the ones on the right.  Also, as I pointed out, liberals see white people in traditionally non-white roles is cultural appropriation.  So, if Batwoman is white and a non-white person is playing the role, then this kind of cultural appropriation is acceptable.  Hence, it's woke.

Commission Gordan is a white character, always has been.  Until woke 2022 The Batman.  Not Dominican.  Batwoman is supposed to be his daughter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Horseman said:

Commission Gordan is a white character, always has been.  Not Dominican.  Batwoman is supposed to be his daughter.  

That's what I always thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Nah. If Jennifer Lopez got the role it wouldn’t be woke.  But it would be smart. Proving being woke for the sake of being woke is bad business. Just try and sell tickets. 

Agree to disagree.  I think every chance Hollywood gets to slip in a minority in an historically white role, they take it solely for the purpose of identity politics.  If it's someone like Lopez, the financial aspect is seen as a nice side affect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I don't see how laughing at something is making a "big deal" out of it.  To me, the people making the "big deal" out of it were the ones commenting on the people laughing.

Who said anything about laughing?  I know I'm not always great at explaining my point in print so maybe that's why you don't understand what I've been saying.  For me this has nothing to do with making a big deal out of a movie.  I get tired of people trying to make a big deal out of things that are not a big deal, like the OP did.  Justin started the thread with this, "A latina woman was Batgirl in this film.  Test screenings went so poorly that they are actually shelving the film, never to be released."  After reading the article it didn't look like the woman being Hispanic had anything to do with it but he wanted to make it out to be.  This is the crap I get tired of and certain posters are guilty of it often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Because Variety says so isn't an explanation at all.  Especially when normal people can clearly see that "not blockbuster" means the movie is crap.  

block·bust·er

noun

a thing of great power or size, in particular a movie, book, or other product that is a great commercial success.

It comes from readers familiarization with blockbuster bombs, meaning a huge impact.

You know what a movie is when it won't have a huge impact, won't be a great commercial success?  It's a suck movie.

 

The above is an example of how to illustrate your point in a debate.  You can't just call people names and refer to articles in Vanity.   

I'm not sure why you are so dug in on proving you don't want to read the articles. Good for you though. 

It explains things a little bit deeper than using the dictionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Who said anything about laughing?  I know I'm not always great at explaining my point in print so maybe that's why you don't understand what I've been saying.  For me this has nothing to do with making a big deal out of a movie.  I get tired of people trying to make a big deal out of things that are not a big deal, like the OP did.  Justin started the thread with this, "A latina woman was Batgirl in this film.  Test screenings went so poorly that they are actually shelving the film, never to be released."  After reading the article it didn't look like the woman being Hispanic had anything to do with it but he wanted to make it out to be.  This is the crap I get tired of and certain posters are guilty of it often.

Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's what I always thought.

What if he married a Hispanic woman in this version?  Does it really matter?  I remember Halle Berry playing Catwoman and I don't think people considered it woke then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

What if he married a Hispanic woman in this version?  Does it really matter?  I remember Halle Berry playing Catwoman and I don't think people considered it woke then.

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm not sure why you are so dug in on proving you don't want to read the articles. Good for you though. 

It explains things a little bit deeper than using the dictionary

I read it.  Just because an article in Variety tells you water isn't wet doesn't keep most people from using their brain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Horseman said:

I read it.  Just because an article in Variety tells you water isn't wet doesn't keep most people from using their brain. 

You read it but skip over fundamental pieces of the article so you can say "Well just cause Variety said it..."

Meanwhile the New York Post is really the only one saying the terrible showings and you buy that full scale....

Again- continue to be obtuse all you want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Who said anything about laughing?  I know I'm not always great at explaining my point in print so maybe that's why you don't understand what I've been saying.  For me this has nothing to do with making a big deal out of a movie.  I get tired of people trying to make a big deal out of things that are not a big deal, like the OP did.  Justin started the thread with this, "A latina woman was Batgirl in this film.  Test screenings went so poorly that they are actually shelving the film, never to be released."  After reading the article it didn't look like the woman being Hispanic had anything to do with it but he wanted to make it out to be.  This is the crap I get tired of and certain posters are guilty of it often.

More likely because she's a sh1t actress.  She's a singer that has only been in one other movie.  That movie grossed 45M that needed 200M to break even.  But, yeah just ask @Sean Mooney he will tell you she's great and the other movie did awesome because Variety says so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Horseman said:

More likely because she's a sh1t actress.  She's a singer that has only been in one other movie.  That movie grossed 45M that needed 200M to break even.  But, yeah just ask @Sean Mooney he will tell you she's great and the other movie did awesome because Variety says so!

Ok...  Not sure what your point is here.  Justin went out of his way to say she was a Latina woman to make it seem like it's the reason the movie failed.  He was trying to spin it as a movie failing because it's woke, or some stupid crap like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

Ok...  Not sure what your point is here.  Justin went out of his way to say she was a Latina woman to make it seem like it's the reason the movie failed.  He was trying to spin it as a movie failing because it's woke, or some stupid crap like that.

How much wokness played into the decision to can a movie that was already done shooting is debatable.  The fact that the owners decided it wasn't good enough of a movie to warrant the return on any further investment is not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Horseman said:

How much wokness played into the decision to can a movie that was already done shooting is debatable.  The fact that the owners decided it wasn't good enough of a movie to warrant the return on any further investment is not.  

I don't think anyone was arguing the rest.  Looks like there were multiple factors as to why it got canned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

You read it but skip over fundamental pieces of the article so you can say "Well just cause Variety said it..."

Meanwhile the New York Post is really the only one saying the terrible showings and you buy that full scale....

Again- continue to be obtuse all you want. 

Not good enough of a movie to warrant further investment - FACT.  Even the Variety confirms that.  Your argument of it not being "blockbuster" does too.  THE END

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I don't think anyone was arguing the rest.  Looks like there were multiple factors as to why it got canned.

Hint - everyone of those factors translates to dollars. HTH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Horseman said:

Hint - everyone of those reasons translates to dollars. HTH.

I know.  I'm not arguing it.  The only debate I had with this was it being for woke reasons.  That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I know.  I'm not arguing it.  The only debate I had with this was it being for woke reasons.  That's all.

Good, so we're back to a subpar unaccomplished actress who happens to be Latino playing a character who has been traditionally been white.  It's debatable, but, it sure walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Not good enough of a movie to warrant further investment - FACT.  Even the Variety confirms that.  You're argument of it not being "blockbuster" does too.  THE END

Quote

 

Several sources note that “Batgirl” was made under a different regime at Warner Bros., headed by Jason Kilar and Ann Sarnoff, that was singularly focused on building its streaming service, HBO Max. That effort included Kilar’s infamous decision to release the studio’s entire 2021 theatrical slate simultaneously on the streamer, which helped build the subscriber base but also jeopardized the studio’s reputation with top-tier talent (though many agents and stars privately came to appreciate the move when the company paid generous bonuses as a make-nice).

Even before David Zaslav took the reins of the newly formed Warner Bros. Discovery as CEO this spring, the exec went on a well-publicized listening tour designed to repair the company’s relationship with the creative community. As part of that effort, Zaslav has made no secret of reversing Kilar’s strategy and committing to releasing first-run feature films in theaters before putting them on HBO Max.

“Batgirl” found itself on the bad end of that decision, apparently neither big enough to feel worthy of a major theatrical release nor small enough to make economic sense in an increasingly cutthroat streaming landscape. Spending the money to expand the scope of “Batgirl” for theaters — plus the $30 million to $50 million needed to market it domestically and the tens of millions more needed for a global rollout — could have nearly doubled spending on the film, and insiders say that was a non-starter at a company newly focused on belt-tightening and the bottom line. (Spokespeople for Warner Bros. and Warner Bros. Discovery declined to comment for this story.)

Releasing the movie on HBO Max would seem to be the most obvious solution. Instead, the company has shelved “Batgirl” — along with the “Scoob!” sequel — and several sources say it will almost certainly take a tax write-down on both films, seen internally as the most financially sound way to recoup the costs (at least, on an accountant’s ledger). It could justify that by chalking it up to a post-merger change of strategy.

 

As I said- it was made for HBO Max...then new management came in and changed course. Now it was either amp up the budget to make it more theatrical or move out. THey are taking the write off as opposed to doubling what has already been spent.

It's not because Batgirl was Latina. It's because Discovery is slashing budget everywhere up and down the company and decided to pull the plug here. And they pulled the plug on Scooby too which is not based on a "Latina"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

As I said- it was made for HBO Max...then new management came in and changed course. Now it was either amp up the budget to make it more theatrical or move out. THey are taking the write off as opposed to doubling what has already been spent.

Please highlight where they said an option was to make it more theatrical, because that part is in your head.  The two options were:

A - Spend a lot of money putting it into theatres (which the movie wasn't good enough for).

or 

B - Continue the rollout for streaming (the new regime didn't want DC to be known for lower budget bad movies).

 

Just read the article carefully, you don't even have to read between the lines.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

What if he married a Hispanic woman in this version?  Does it really matter?  I remember Halle Berry playing Catwoman and I don't think people considered it woke then.

The original woke Catwoman. :thumbsdown: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Get woke go broke.

Wasn't nearly woke enough.  Should have been Black Bat T-girl.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Horseman said:

Please highlight where they said an option was to make it more theatrical, because that part is in your head.  The two options were:

A - Spend a lot of money putting it into theatres (which the movie wasn't good enough for).

or 

B - Continue the rollout for streaming (the new regime didn't want DC to be known for lower budget bad movies).

 

Just read the article carefully, you don't even have to read between the lines.   

So we just ignore "A"? The article says the film was specifically scaled for HBO Max. In order to make it more theatrical they would have had to spend like another 50 million and they weren't willing to do that because they are cutting bottom lines.

You and HT are so good at proving other's points- it is so easy to argue against you dummies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

So we just ignore "A"? The article says the film was specifically scaled for HBO Max. In order to make it more theatrical they would have had to spend like another 50 million and they weren't willing to do that because they are cutting bottom lines.

You and HT are so good at proving other's points- it is so easy to argue against you dummies. 

🤣 Where the fok does it say "make it more theatrical"?  What the fok does that mean?  50 million is to put it in theaters and advertise, the film is done and in the can dummy.  Its official, English teacher cant read.  Your artical says, "50 million needed to market it domestically".   

50 million is more than what that actress's first movie pulled in. It tested poorly and it's not good enough to represent their vision for DC movies being blockbuster. Cut bait and move on. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

While the budget is lower than the average DC superhero film, it was reportedly decided that it did not have the “spectacle that audiences have come to expect from DC fare” and would not recoup its losses from being released.

Translation for the illiterate - the movie sucked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Takes balls to admit you made a mistake. One of the most expensive films ever to not see the light of day. Kudos for taking the loss instead of putting out a stain on the brand.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Horseman said:

🤣 Where the fok does it say "make it more theatrical"?  What the fok does that mean?  50 million is to put it in theaters and advertise, the film is done and in the can dummy.  Its official, English teacher cant read.  Your artical says, "50 million needed to market it domestically".   

50 million is more than what that actress's first movie pulled in. It tested poorly and it's not good enough to represent their vision for DC movies being blockbuster. Cut bait and move on. 

God you are dense and stupid. It literally says "Spending the money to expand the scope for theaters."

Learn to read for goodness sake. 

Plain and simple- it was budgeted and scaled for an at home release on HBO Max. Discovery now owns the company and says it doesn't work for want they want from films and they refuse to spend the money to make it that instead taking the loss.

It's right there in simple English. You know- the English you claim to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

God you are dense and stupid. It literally says "Spending the money to expand the scope for theaters."

Learn to read for goodness sake. 

Plain and simple- it was budgeted and scaled for an at home release on HBO Max. Discovery now owns the company and says it doesn't work for want they want from films and they refuse to spend the money to make it that instead taking the loss.

It's right there in simple English. You know- the English you claim to understand.

By all reports the movie was simply awful in pre-screenings and testings.  And it looked cheap.

All of this other nonsense you're believing about "not fitting the plan" or "not wanting to market it" is horshit.  Those are excuses to use when you don't want to admit your film is awful and don't want to embarrass the filmmakers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Agree to disagree.  I think every chance Hollywood gets to slip in a minority in an historically white role, they take it solely for the purpose of identity politics. 

I’m no authority on comic books either, but Batman was created in 1939 (and Batgirl first appeared in 1961).  Weren’t pretty much ALL the characters “historically white”?  I think there’s a difference between making 60-80 year old series’ more current with the times and “being woke.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I’m no authority on comic books either, but Batman was created in 1939 (and Batgirl first appeared in 1961).  Weren’t pretty much ALL the characters “historically white”?  I think there’s a difference between making 60-80 year old series’ more current with the times and “being woke.”

Too f'n bad.  Make your own f'n characters then, you cry babies.

If they were to make Blade a white guy you morons would lose your s##t and start screaming about racism and cultural appropriation or some other horses##t like that.

Get woke, go broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few legitimize gripes, but for the most part the whole “anti-woke” brigade just seems like a reason for bored conservatives to manufacture anger.  
 

Remember when Morgan Freeman was God in Bruce Almighty?  Would love to see the comments from the GC if that came out today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

By all reports the movie was simply awful in pre-screenings and testings.  And it looked cheap.

All of this other nonsense you're believing about "not fitting the plan" or "not wanting to market it" is horshit.  Those are excuses to use when you don't want to admit your film is awful and don't want to embarrass the filmmakers.

That may be true, we simply don't know, it's all speculation, but to suggest the film is awful because the lead is latina is a ridiculous theory with zero basis in fact.

This is not a go woke go broke scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GutterBoy said:

That may be true, we simply don't know, it's all speculation, but to suggest the film is awful because the lead is latina is a ridiculous theory with zero basis in fact.

This is not a go woke go broke scenario.

I agree it’s not about the actress. But you don’t know if it was woke or not and if that played in part in it sucking.  Like the rest of the world, you haven’t seen it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I agree it’s not about the actress. But you don’t know if it was woke or not and if that played in part in it sucking.  Like the rest of the world, you haven’t seen it. 

Correct.  So basically we're all guessing.

The problem is now that anytime anything fails, the right cries go woke go broke.  Its silly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Correct.  So basically we're all guessing.

The problem is now that anytime anything fails, the right cries go woke go broke.  Its silly

To me it’s the story that counts, not the actors. I don’t think from what I’ve read that Black Panther had a woke storyline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×