Christopher Nolans Batman Begins made approximately $375 million on a $150 budget. Both fans and critics loved it so his next 2 Batman movies went on to make more than a billion each. Superman legacy doesn't have to make loads of money, it's got to be a better movie first and foremost.
Agreed. Superman the movie cost $55 million in 1978 which was one of the most expensive movies ever made at the timr. That budget would be about $260 million in today’s money, nowadays a typical blockbuster budget.
I don’t think it matters because if it’s good I think it will make a bunch of money so we won’t even get to see if the possibility proposed by John will play out lol
One of my favorite examples of this is Batman Begins because by this point the Batman franchise was completely dead and no one believed in Batman Begins and when it came out it only made over 300 million dollars but the word of mouth was fantastic/ amazing and it was so good that when The Dark Knight came out everybody was excited which then this The Dark Knight got rewarded with 1 Billion dollars at the box office and all because Batman Begins was a great movie from the beginning and it gained the audience trust in the Batman brand back
it needs to make money but not a billion. it should make 600-700 like man of steel and the batman but also has to be well received like Gunns last 4-6 projects
Only 3 of the 6 Superman movies have been box office successes. Where as 6/7 of the 9 Batman movies have been box office successes. Starting the new DC universe with Superman was just a stupid idea. You always start it off with Batman.
Warner Bros. NEEDS this to be good. As people often forget, it takes time for audiences to discover a new franchise (or new iteration of one). The MCU was the same way. Even though Iron Man was pretty successful, a fair number of people didn’t discover it until didn’t discover it until 2-3 years later when it was streaming or on basic cable. When Avengers came out, it did even better because people had more time to discover the MCU first. Another example is the John Wick franchise. It was kind of a low key release and lots of people didn’t discover the franchise until the DVD was in the bargain bucket Walmart. Each one did better than the last..
7:19 I don’t remember where I read it, but from what I remember, man of steel was the highest paid movie in the world from product placement specially IHOP. They give them a lot of money.
I disagree John, it absolutely has to do a bit of both. Now it doesn’t need to make like an insane amount but whether it’s good or not if the very first film that’s supposed to start the universe loses money I feel like WB might panic and try to start changing plans again
Superman Legacy doesn’t need to make $1 billion but it needs the critical acclaim. Iron Man only did $600 but by Iron Man 3 it was $1.2 billion. You have to earn the audiences trust.
I disagree with John. This film has to make money, but, I think, in a different way. Which is to say, more akin to what we see with Avatar. A low opening weekend, with a growing frenzy, that keeps people coming, week in and week out, with the smallest possible drops. They can't expect huge numbers out the gate, but, if they make something Amazing, truly emotional and gripping, Guardians of the Galaxy 1 or above in quality, I think making $700 Million isn't just possible, but very likely possible.
God bless your heart John for this fantastic discussion, BUTT at the end of the day, David Zaslav, aka Emperor Palpatine, will look at the number, and he definitely wants some profits But hey, this is just my take 🤷🏻♂️
I agree. If the very first movie to start the universe loses money I doubt they would feel confident to greenlight a ton of other projects if a character as iconic as Superman doesn’t make money
The movies "greatness" will be judged by how much money it makes. If it makes a billion dollars it won't matter if it's good or bad. If it bombs it won't matter how good it is. Look at MI7.
I don’t think It’s an exaggeration to say this movie NEEDS to be a banger, this has to be Days of Future Past levels of good, The Batman, Black Panther, hell Spider-Verse levels of good. (Dark Knight and Logan are untouchable it can’t top that but I’ll let it slide) It needs to be a MAJOR W. Nothing below 9/10 will be acceptable and the DCU will be dead on arrival.
Why would a studio invest in a 2nd movie if the first movie tanked at the B.O. ? I doesn't matter to a studio if the a film gets raved review if it doesn't also rake in the $$$.
It doesn’t need to be a massive hit, but it at least needs to be near break even given that the people who do see it, love it. I could see a Batman Begins type situation where it’s not hugely profitable but it does okay at the box office and is acclaimed by critics and the audience that does see it.
I'll never understand this type of goalpost movement. Saying a big budget CBM DOESN'T have to make money is insane! Its fuckin SUPERMAN. At the least it needs to be around what MOS made or what was the point.
It's like saying Spiderman Homecoming didn't have to make money because it was new and coming off of 3 "bad/weak" Spiderman movies. It's FUCKIN SPIDERMAN!!
I think it's like Batman Begins. Obviously, the more money it makes the better it is, but reviews are more important. If the movie make 500 millions and it's good, poeople will watch it in home video and became interested in the projects related.
One of the biggest reasons ppl were shittin on MOS was cuz apparently it didn't make enough for a superman movie it def matters cuz it did to the previous superman movie
They are both correct, depending on the perspective you are looking at. John is correct, for it to start the universe, it doesn't need to make money but it needs to prove that DC movies can be good; however, Robert is also probably correct that WB will not care if it has good reception, if it doesn't make money they will interfere like they have in the past.
I agree with John. Just make a great movie, that's way more important than how ever much it makes. Making a great movie will make people want more. Iron Man & Man of Steel, 2 movies that were made to start a cinematic universe, made around $600 mill each. Make a great movie, have the great reviews hype up moviegoers. Same way they did with Godzilla Minus One, I don't think many people cared about that movie at first, they didn't even market it much in America, but once all the great reviews came out, everyone wanted to go see it. The Batman I would say is the start of it's own Cinematic Universe, it got mostly good reviews, & it made $700 mill even though it got trolled so much & people hate Pattinson so much. Making a great movie will pay off itself usually.
The bar is being set so high it will be next to impossible to reach. While I'm not a fan of the way Gunn has handled things I will say he absolutely give you "heart" moments. Just look at Guardians 2 with Yando sacrificing himself for his "son" Quill. The difference there is that was in the golden age of the MCU. Gunn is going to have to work hard, IMHO, to sell this new Superman to many a number of fans who still aren't happy the way things were ended with the DCEU. Not saying it can't be done but it's going to take real effort.
Not the Lady Hawk reference!!!!!! Man that takes me back. I need to watch it again. People on the internet are too young to remember the greatness that is Lady Hawk.
They still have Joker 2 and The Batman 2 and Penguin series... They want a billion dollar Superman Legacy... The budget might make sense if he shoots a sequel at same time like original Superman but won't make it public...
Why would the budget of the film matter to the audience?? I couldnt care less about the movies budget. However… I do feel this needs to both be enjoyable and a success at the box office.
@@ramoncarter3121 I agree… but that’s from an investor point of view… the audience does not have that investment… the only return we are looking for is a good time.
Yknow what I think the first teaser for this movie should be? It should start with seeing the Kent farm house early in the morning as the sun is rising, it zooms in on the road, you hear the sound of Superman landing, you see his boots walking towards the house, it starts panning upward from the back, he passes by the Kent mailbox, he puts his hand on it, exhales, flies up into space, he looks down at the earth as it pans all the way up to his neck and to the side, you hear a faint cry for help, Superman turns his head, showing David Cornswett’s face with a slight shadow on the side of it, then he flies towards a distant part of the earth and the title Superman: Legacy appears
I guess the obvious comp is to Iron Man since they both were movies that were essential to being successful to start their cinematic universes. Opening weekend domestic for IM was $102M with a $585M overall worldwide; adjusted for inflation, that's $145M and $830M. $145M is basically the Super Mario Bros Movie and $830M is basically Guardians of the Galaxy 3, so seems very doable to make sufficient money as well as be a good film to kick off the new DCU.
They still haven't learned that a huge budget doesn't automatically make a good movie? Honestly you could make a damn good Superman movie with a very modest budget, aside from flying and maybe 1 quick instance of super strength and invulnerability is all the cgi they would need. The best Superman stories tend to be the ones he fights the least in.
James Gunn’s last superhero movie made $845 million I think his Superman movie can be profitable. People do like Superman and if it’s good general audiences will see it too.
But if it is “great,” I’d imagine it’d make big-ish money. If the opening weekend is bad, but word is that it’s awesome, than people would come the following weekends, and more money would be made. It’s gonna be a tent pole movie, so it’s gonna be everywhere. I’ve never heard of a FOUR QUADRANT, TENT POLE movie, that was GREAT, yet didn’t make money.
According to John Superman doesn't need to make money what stupid logic as Supergirl movie is next after then that'll be a flop too , then dc will be relying on Batman brave and the bold to save the day again
Imagine John's theory here. It gets 99% rotten tomatoes...but makes 200M World Wide (a bomb)...and yup they continue. No...they wouldn't without /firing Gunn. Then he goes and brings up a football game being lost - then the team going on to win Superbowl wow a STRETCH.
"everybody given up on the DC brand" yeah stfu john.. The Batman and Joker said the otherwise, Batman and Superman undoubtedly the most iconic superhero of all time along with spiderman. there will be another batman or superman in the next 100 years. the character is just too big and too iconic
@@stevenflores80 well he said man of steel is the best superhero film of all time, imagine having your standard THAT LOW, doesnt even accurate superman from comic. dark tones overall
If people have a great time at the theaters watching this movie, doesn’t that mean that more people will go to the theaters to watch it, and (in turn) it will make a lot of money? So his thinking is that people will love this movie and it will not make money. It is absolutely be easy for this movie to make money. Otherwise the studio and producers will be reluctant to make another.
The only way the movie succeeds without making alot of money is if the movies to follow continues to be great. If you gain a bunch of good will off a movie and then release trash, you sabotage your momentum. That's not to relevant though because i don't agree with John. James Gunn is very popular among nerds. Superman is popular globally. Trailers play a huge part in success and James will at the very least make a movie good enough to cut a great trailer. More likely the movie will be great imo. I think the question is just if this will make alot of money or a whole whole bunch.
That was because of the reception. Think to Batman Begins. People can't know if they're gonna like a movie or not, but if the movie is a sequel of something they liked (maybe watched in home video after have heard somewhere that it was good), they are more interested...
Of course it has to make money! The knock-on effect of yet another box office failure will derail the whole reboot! These movies exist to do one thing! To make money!
I kind of agree with him in a way if you look at Godzilla minus one which made $100 million and it’s getting a sequel and even a second or third movie are being planned. Who knows it might even surprisingly eventually one day take over the monster verse here in America, just saying anything can happen and by the way the first Mcu movie the Hulk I think it didn’t even crack 300 million worldwide but the last movie did lol over 2 billion
John's wrong - it has to do both, at least to a degree. If it tanks at the box office, they're going to abandon the DCU, even with all their future plans.
It's already a failing franchise if it doesn't at the very least turn a profit of 50mil. The only way this will happen is if people return for additional viewings and the word of mouth is excellent. It having a high crtic score would do no harm too. They've gotta blow us away. I'm giving them the benefit of doubt until that trailer drop.
I bet its going to be very good. It better come with a different hook then people expect. I dont think the dc properties are "connected universe" worthy.
Iron Man (2008) used a $140 million budget. The focus was on the character and his journey. You don't need $300+ million dollars to create an amazing character intro.
If its as good as guardians 1 and makes at least 700M theyll have success as a start if it under performs that line its gonna have a lot of question marks and could hurt to start. Thats still a high bar but its a reboot and guardians 1 had the same expectation as something different in the mcu. So i feel like thats a solid line to reach to succeed
@@Wolfhunter5607 they are blindsided and blame Gunn for no reason, if Zach Snyder move on why can’t they do the same, I’m on one of the groups and holly cow they are the most toxic fanbase why can’t they be happy for other people to create a different universe we all want DC to succeed but they are gatekeepers and don’t want anyone to direct DC movies aside from Zach Snyder
Yeah, i dont know what type of nonsense he saying. If it's 'awesome' and it doesn't make money then audiences don't think its awesome and wont be watching all the other films based on characters he didn't ask for. This don't have to make billions BUT he DOES have to make money or at least break even. If This flops why would people wanna go watch the other stuff...This isn't the same things marvel. People are becoming fatigued with these superhero films because of the agendas and poor quality they've been putting out. They not gonna waste money on something that isn't good and if good people will see. Thats where we are right now. Not sure what logic this dude is using.
@@ramoncarter3121 The issue is he has this idea that is can be an awesome film and not make money. Then by whose standards with this awesomeness be getting judged? His? Or the professional critics? Their opinions don't matter anymore. Its what the audience thinks. And if they think its a good movie they'll go watch if they don't and he thinks its awesome and it flops...WB would be flushing money if they continue on with the other stuff that folks were even less enthusiastic about.
John - if Legacy is fabulous as you and Robert says it must be then it will have legs and more than break even. A 150 million budget with marketing 100 million makes 550 million the breakeven point. If it does not at least break even, and do better really, it's over for the Superman film IP and Gunn's DCU will be scaled back - perhaps reverting to Batman projects and building from there. It will be a disaster if it does not match MOS numbers of 668 million. And in today's dollars MOS made 794 million. It has to at least match MOS or it's toast.
I kinda disagree with John. I think worse case this movie needs to be like the Mario movie. Mixed critic score but excellent audience score with good word mouth that kept people going to the cinema to watch it, and hit the 1 billion dollars mark.
Black Adam had poor market position due to releasing shortly before Black Panther 2 and it seemed they most promotion they were doing was relying on The Rock and nothing else. This HAS to make money or at least break even (actually not superficially). Who decides what is AWESOME? You? NO! It's the AUDIENCE that will be deciding these days. It doesn't matter what analogy or references you want to use. If THIS flops the other films won't get people in the theater. In order to set up the other films you have to get people into seeing this film in the first place. If this is a masterpiece and no one sees it then how is it gonna get people into watching the rest of films, when the other films don't he line up folks don't really care about much? It HAS to do well financially and THAT will SAY that it's a good movie. This bombs they will be scrapping this. That said, Gunn is capable of making a good film he will just have to hold back on the Guardians of the Galaxy type vibes.
@@Cakebattered Perhaps that too but Im telling you releasing shortly before BP2 marketing was always going to swallow it's own attention. That timing was VERY wrong.
This guy took the guardians of the galaxy who nobody knew about and made a billion dollar trilogy so I have much Faith in James Gunn just based of his success with guardians
The movie has to be good, AND it needs to be financially successful. There will be no incentive to make more movies if it doesn’t do well at the box office.
@@hemantks4353 Considering Into the Spider-verse had a budget of $90 million and made almost $385 million, that is a lot of money. My point being John saying the movie "doesn't have to be finically successful" and even said in the past "it was OK if it loses money" doesn't make any sense. His analogy of using football doesn't make add up either. Every movie's release is their Super Bowl. There is no "week 1" in the film industry.
Hello, Warner Brothers and James Gunn. The fans do not care how much the movie cost. No one cares two farts if it is Superman, Batman, Aquaman movie. Just make a good movie that audiences and critics both love and you will see them flock in the theaters.
The studio wants both financial success and reviews, the main reason they're trying so hard to do another cinematic universe is because they want what the MCU made for a long time
John saying it's ok if a Superman movie doesn't make money is CRAZY
I don’t believe DC will be happy of it doesn’t make money.
This "it doesn't need to make money" theory is the the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
Can John give us an example of a movie that lost money and got a sequel?
Christopher Nolans Batman Begins made approximately $375 million on a $150 budget. Both fans and critics loved it so his next 2 Batman movies went on to make more than a billion each. Superman legacy doesn't have to make loads of money, it's got to be a better movie first and foremost.
EXACTLY!
Key point is that it still made a profit!
Agreed. Superman the movie cost $55 million in 1978 which was one of the most expensive movies ever made at the timr. That budget would be about $260 million in today’s money, nowadays a typical blockbuster budget.
It absolutely HAS to do both, WB HAS ALWAYS BEEN Box Office Reactionary.
i say 600 mil like man of steel and the movie needs to be well received like Gunns other movies
It has to be profitable, but it doesn’t have to make tons and tons of money.
“HAS ALWAYS BEEN”..except the time they made a full years slate day and date streaming
I don’t think it matters because if it’s good I think it will make a bunch of money so we won’t even get to see if the possibility proposed by John will play out lol
Previous regime vs now
One of my favorite examples of this is Batman Begins because by this point the Batman franchise was completely dead and no one believed in Batman Begins and when it came out it only made over 300 million dollars but the word of mouth was fantastic/ amazing and it was so good that when The Dark Knight came out everybody was excited which then this The Dark Knight got rewarded with 1 Billion dollars at the box office and all because Batman Begins was a great movie from the beginning and it gained the audience trust in the Batman brand back
Making $300 million was still a lot back then.
‘And Superman Returns…’ ‘And that came out 20 years ago’. Made me choke on the drink I didn’t even have. Jesus that’s a reality check.
it needs to make money but not a billion. it should make 600-700 like man of steel and the batman but also has to be well received like Gunns last 4-6 projects
I need this to succeed 😢 DC stories are worth telling on the big screen and done right. This is the superhero movie, it matters.
Only 3 of the 6 Superman movies have been box office successes. Where as 6/7 of the 9 Batman movies have been box office successes. Starting the new DC universe with Superman was just a stupid idea. You always start it off with Batman.
@conchobar I agree with you and I really don't understand why they always start with Superman, Snyder did it and James Gunn did it
This movie has to make money. It has to prove it can get people to the theater to care about this franchise.
Warner Bros. NEEDS this to be good. As people often forget, it takes time for audiences to discover a new franchise (or new iteration of one). The MCU was the same way. Even though Iron Man was pretty successful, a fair number of people didn’t discover it until didn’t discover it until 2-3 years later when it was streaming or on basic cable. When Avengers came out, it did even better because people had more time to discover the MCU first. Another example is the John Wick franchise. It was kind of a low key release and lots of people didn’t discover the franchise until the DVD was in the bargain bucket Walmart. Each one did better than the last..
7:19
I don’t remember where I read it, but from what I remember, man of steel was the highest paid movie in the world from product placement specially IHOP. They give them a lot of money.
I disagree John, it absolutely has to do a bit of both. Now it doesn’t need to make like an insane amount but whether it’s good or not if the very first film that’s supposed to start the universe loses money I feel like WB might panic and try to start changing plans again
Superman Legacy doesn’t need to make $1 billion but it needs the critical acclaim. Iron Man only did $600 but by Iron Man 3 it was $1.2 billion. You have to earn the audiences trust.
I disagree with John. This film has to make money, but, I think, in a different way. Which is to say, more akin to what we see with Avatar. A low opening weekend, with a growing frenzy, that keeps people coming, week in and week out, with the smallest possible drops. They can't expect huge numbers out the gate, but, if they make something Amazing, truly emotional and gripping, Guardians of the Galaxy 1 or above in quality, I think making $700 Million isn't just possible, but very likely possible.
God bless your heart John for this fantastic discussion, BUTT at the end of the day, David Zaslav, aka Emperor Palpatine, will look at the number, and he definitely wants some profits
But hey, this is just my take
🤷🏻♂️
Doesn’t need to make a crazy amount but it needs to be reasonably profitable for it to be a success.
I agree. If the very first movie to start the universe loses money I doubt they would feel confident to greenlight a ton of other projects if a character as iconic as Superman doesn’t make money
Think Batman Begins -- not a huge financial success, but look at what it did for Batman, and setting up The Dark Knight
You are spot on.
Exactly !!!
So you're implying Gunn is Christopher Nolan?
The movies "greatness" will be judged by how much money it makes. If it makes a billion dollars it won't matter if it's good or bad. If it bombs it won't matter how good it is. Look at MI7.
I don’t think It’s an exaggeration to say this movie NEEDS to be a banger, this has to be Days of Future Past levels of good, The Batman, Black Panther, hell Spider-Verse levels of good. (Dark Knight and Logan are untouchable it can’t top that but I’ll let it slide) It needs to be a MAJOR W. Nothing below 9/10 will be acceptable and the DCU will be dead on arrival.
Why would a studio invest in a 2nd movie if the first movie tanked at the B.O. ? I doesn't matter to a studio if the a film gets raved review if it doesn't also rake in the $$$.
Agree w John - batman begins took c.$300m but was critically well reviewed, which setup TDK and TDKR financial success
If people come out feeling great, they will tell their friends that DC is back and their friends will go. So it will also be profitable if it’s great.
It doesn’t need to be a massive hit, but it at least needs to be near break even given that the people who do see it, love it. I could see a Batman Begins type situation where it’s not hugely profitable but it does okay at the box office and is acclaimed by critics and the audience that does see it.
I'll never understand this type of goalpost movement. Saying a big budget CBM DOESN'T have to make money is insane! Its fuckin SUPERMAN. At the least it needs to be around what MOS made or what was the point.
It's like saying Spiderman Homecoming didn't have to make money because it was new and coming off of 3 "bad/weak" Spiderman movies. It's FUCKIN SPIDERMAN!!
I think it's like Batman Begins. Obviously, the more money it makes the better it is, but reviews are more important. If the movie make 500 millions and it's good, poeople will watch it in home video and became interested in the projects related.
Except there is significantly less money to be made in the home viewing market than during the days of Batman Begins.
@@Cakebattered Yes, but the point can be that a good movie could lead people to watch the sequel.
After Godzilla Minus One, I refuse to believe any studio needs big budgets to be successful and look amazing.
Except that VFX studio received little pay and worked in bad conditions
@@91mmafighter Literally what VFX artist is getting paid well and is working in good conditions?
One of the biggest reasons ppl were shittin on MOS was cuz apparently it didn't make enough for a superman movie it def matters cuz it did to the previous superman movie
What? The previous movie made far less
They are both correct, depending on the perspective you are looking at.
John is correct, for it to start the universe, it doesn't need to make money but it needs to prove that DC movies can be good; however, Robert is also probably correct that WB will not care if it has good reception, if it doesn't make money they will interfere like they have in the past.
James Gunn just came out and debunked this.
I agree with John. Just make a great movie, that's way more important than how ever much it makes. Making a great movie will make people want more. Iron Man & Man of Steel, 2 movies that were made to start a cinematic universe, made around $600 mill each. Make a great movie, have the great reviews hype up moviegoers. Same way they did with Godzilla Minus One, I don't think many people cared about that movie at first, they didn't even market it much in America, but once all the great reviews came out, everyone wanted to go see it. The Batman I would say is the start of it's own Cinematic Universe, it got mostly good reviews, & it made $700 mill even though it got trolled so much & people hate Pattinson so much. Making a great movie will pay off itself usually.
The bar is being set so high it will be next to impossible to reach. While I'm not a fan of the way Gunn has handled things I will say he absolutely give you "heart" moments. Just look at Guardians 2 with Yando sacrificing himself for his "son" Quill. The difference there is that was in the golden age of the MCU. Gunn is going to have to work hard, IMHO, to sell this new Superman to many a number of fans who still aren't happy the way things were ended with the DCEU. Not saying it can't be done but it's going to take real effort.
it needs to hit at least 700Ms and that is feasible by word of mouth and promo
DC doesn’t need any more failures… this movie 🎥 has got to be a hit!
James Gunn has also come under budget on all of his movies.
GoG3 was $250M. I doubt that James Gunn is under budget on all of his movies. Highly doubt it.
I think it's naieve to think WB doesn't think it should make money, but yes quality is more important long term.
Superman Legacy ABSOLUTELY has to make at least as much as Man of Steel
Not the Lady Hawk reference!!!!!! Man that takes me back. I need to watch it again. People on the internet are too young to remember the greatness that is Lady Hawk.
......yeahhhhh.....it absolutely needs to make money 💰
They still have Joker 2 and The Batman 2 and Penguin series... They want a billion dollar Superman Legacy... The budget might make sense if he shoots a sequel at same time like original Superman but won't make it public...
Why would the budget of the film matter to the audience?? I couldnt care less about the movies budget.
However… I do feel this needs to both be enjoyable and a success at the box office.
@@ramoncarter3121 I agree… but that’s from an investor point of view… the audience does not have that investment… the only return we are looking for is a good time.
It's got to be really great and make a fair amount of money and most inpportanely make you care about want is going on and the characters.
Yknow what I think the first teaser for this movie should be? It should start with seeing the Kent farm house early in the morning as the sun is rising, it zooms in on the road, you hear the sound of Superman landing, you see his boots walking towards the house, it starts panning upward from the back, he passes by the Kent mailbox, he puts his hand on it, exhales, flies up into space, he looks down at the earth as it pans all the way up to his neck and to the side, you hear a faint cry for help, Superman turns his head, showing David Cornswett’s face with a slight shadow on the side of it, then he flies towards a distant part of the earth and the title Superman: Legacy appears
I see what John is saying audience wise but it has to make money in order for the powers that be not to step in and mess it up.
I guess the obvious comp is to Iron Man since they both were movies that were essential to being successful to start their cinematic universes. Opening weekend domestic for IM was $102M with a $585M overall worldwide; adjusted for inflation, that's $145M and $830M. $145M is basically the Super Mario Bros Movie and $830M is basically Guardians of the Galaxy 3, so seems very doable to make sufficient money as well as be a good film to kick off the new DCU.
Nope. If there's one thing James Gunn knows how to do, it's make great films on a budget.
They still haven't learned that a huge budget doesn't automatically make a good movie? Honestly you could make a damn good Superman movie with a very modest budget, aside from flying and maybe 1 quick instance of super strength and invulnerability is all the cgi they would need. The best Superman stories tend to be the ones he fights the least in.
I’m really excited for Superman Legacy 💪🏼💪🏼
James Gunn’s last superhero movie made $845 million I think his Superman movie can be profitable. People do like Superman and if it’s good general audiences will see it too.
Thanks for the information. This is really interesting.
But if it is “great,” I’d imagine it’d make big-ish money. If the opening weekend is bad, but word is that it’s awesome, than people would come the following weekends, and more money would be made. It’s gonna be a tent pole movie, so it’s gonna be everywhere. I’ve never heard of a FOUR QUADRANT, TENT POLE movie, that was GREAT, yet didn’t make money.
According to John Superman doesn't need to make money what stupid logic as Supergirl movie is next after then that'll be a flop too , then dc will be relying on Batman brave and the bold to save the day again
Tbh, Batman always saves the day
10:02 Correction John! Aquaman 2 actually made $434 million worldwide
That's great
john is so hard headed sometimes it HAS to do both 😂😭
John is delusional. This new Superman movie absolutely has to make money. If the movie is great, it will make money.
I don't think you got the point he's trying to make.
@@MrAndyFlick you clearly didn't
WB is hurting for money. They aren't using Superman as a loss-leader. Superman must do well at the Box office.
Imagine John's theory here. It gets 99% rotten tomatoes...but makes 200M World Wide (a bomb)...and yup they continue. No...they wouldn't without /firing Gunn. Then he goes and brings up a football game being lost - then the team going on to win Superbowl wow a STRETCH.
As long as it's a critical success and grosses
$700 million globally they'll be fine
I guess John does not count Joker and The Batman but he counts the DCEU without Snyder.🤔
yea that doesn’t make sense lmao
"everybody given up on the DC brand" yeah stfu john.. The Batman and Joker said the otherwise, Batman and Superman undoubtedly the most iconic superhero of all time along with spiderman. there will be another batman or superman in the next 100 years. the character is just too big and too iconic
He biased he still stuck on man of steel
@@stevenflores80 well he said man of steel is the best superhero film of all time, imagine having your standard THAT LOW, doesnt even accurate superman from comic. dark tones overall
I was finishing this when I saw the suit logo post!
If people have a great time at the theaters watching this movie, doesn’t that mean that more people will go to the theaters to watch it, and (in turn) it will make a lot of money? So his thinking is that people will love this movie and it will not make money. It is absolutely be easy for this movie to make money. Otherwise the studio and producers will be reluctant to make another.
I don’t understand why film makers take a lower budget approach . An example of that is Chronicle with Michael B Jordan
The only way the movie succeeds without making alot of money is if the movies to follow continues to be great. If you gain a bunch of good will off a movie and then release trash, you sabotage your momentum. That's not to relevant though because i don't agree with John. James Gunn is very popular among nerds. Superman is popular globally. Trailers play a huge part in success and James will at the very least make a movie good enough to cut a great trailer. More likely the movie will be great imo. I think the question is just if this will make alot of money or a whole whole bunch.
The same thing was said of Man of Steel and look what happened to that film?
That was because of the reception. Think to Batman Begins. People can't know if they're gonna like a movie or not, but if the movie is a sequel of something they liked (maybe watched in home video after have heard somewhere that it was good), they are more interested...
Of course it has to make money! The knock-on effect of yet another box office failure will derail the whole reboot! These movies exist to do one thing! To make money!
I would love to see what innovations Gunn could Come up with if he only had a budget of 100 million!
I kind of agree with him in a way if you look at Godzilla minus one which made $100 million and it’s getting a sequel and even a second or third movie are being planned. Who knows it might even surprisingly eventually one day take over the monster verse here in America, just saying anything can happen and by the way the first Mcu movie the Hulk I think it didn’t even crack 300 million worldwide but the last movie did lol over 2 billion
It‘s about effin time that Hollywood starts to understand, that we as an audience actually want to see movies that are good first and foremost.
Glad to hear unexpected fun fact about that time Spielberg making Raiders of the lost Ark!!
Nah , John. It’s gotta be huge BO as well. Good job you’re not running the Dcu. 😂
I hope this movie is not goofy, and i hope it doesn't have so many jokes
John's wrong - it has to do both, at least to a degree. If it tanks at the box office, they're going to abandon the DCU, even with all their future plans.
He was a big cast. Don’t you think a large amount of budget will go to pay them
It's already a failing franchise if it doesn't at the very least turn a profit of 50mil. The only way this will happen is if people return for additional viewings and the word of mouth is excellent. It having a high crtic score would do no harm too. They've gotta blow us away. I'm giving them the benefit of doubt until that trailer drop.
This has to be the best Superman movie ever to be successful financial wise
I bet its going to be very good. It better come with a different hook then people expect. I dont think the dc properties are "connected universe" worthy.
Iron Man (2008) used a $140 million budget. The focus was on the character and his journey. You don't need $300+ million dollars to create an amazing character intro.
Tons of characters will appear in the Superman movie
If its as good as guardians 1 and makes at least 700M theyll have success as a start if it under performs that line its gonna have a lot of question marks and could hurt to start. Thats still a high bar but its a reboot and guardians 1 had the same expectation as something different in the mcu. So i feel like thats a solid line to reach to succeed
They don't have to pay any of these actors so it being 150 is more like a marvel avengers 250m cause of the lack of payroll.
If this movie loose money at the box office Snyder fanboys would go nuts and blame James because they got rid of Zach Snyder
they got rid of sndyer long before Gunn so they’d be crying for no reason. They should worry about Lin over at netflix now
@@Wolfhunter5607 they are blindsided and blame Gunn for no reason, if Zach Snyder move on why can’t they do the same, I’m on one of the groups and holly cow they are the most toxic fanbase why can’t they be happy for other people to create a different universe we all want DC to succeed but they are gatekeepers and don’t want anyone to direct DC movies aside from Zach Snyder
If it's s good movie, it doesn't matter what the budget is.
He hasn't got a clue if this is not a financial succes the reboot is dead. No doubt he will change his opinion down the line like he always does.
Yeah, i dont know what type of nonsense he saying. If it's 'awesome' and it doesn't make money then audiences don't think its awesome and wont be watching all the other films based on characters he didn't ask for. This don't have to make billions BUT he DOES have to make money or at least break even. If This flops why would people wanna go watch the other stuff...This isn't the same things marvel. People are becoming fatigued with these superhero films because of the agendas and poor quality they've been putting out. They not gonna waste money on something that isn't good and if good people will see. Thats where we are right now. Not sure what logic this dude is using.
@@ramoncarter3121 The issue is he has this idea that is can be an awesome film and not make money. Then by whose standards with this awesomeness be getting judged? His? Or the professional critics? Their opinions don't matter anymore. Its what the audience thinks. And if they think its a good movie they'll go watch if they don't and he thinks its awesome and it flops...WB would be flushing money if they continue on with the other stuff that folks were even less enthusiastic about.
I Love Johns Sports Analogies
If that’s NoHo Hank in the yellow jacket in the cast photo, then I have hope that this movie will be great.
It is indeed, cast as Metamorpho.
Thanks for your opinion.
Unpopular opinion but this new movie universe should’ve been revolved around Batman. He’s the best character DC has as far as movies go.
I agree.
It doesnt have to be the greatest ever..just has to be a very good movie and a movie that has four quadrant appeal
Superman: Legacy’ Gets Title Change From James Gunn
It all comes down whether movie is great or not. And that one needs to be absolutely amazing to pull attention back to DC
John - if Legacy is fabulous as you and Robert says it must be then it will have legs and more than break even. A 150 million budget with marketing 100 million makes 550 million the breakeven point. If it does not at least break even, and do better really, it's over for the Superman film IP and Gunn's DCU will be scaled back - perhaps reverting to Batman projects and building from there. It will be a disaster if it does not match MOS numbers of 668 million. And in today's dollars MOS made 794 million. It has to at least match MOS or it's toast.
I kinda disagree with John. I think worse case this movie needs to be like the Mario movie. Mixed critic score but excellent audience score with good word mouth that kept people going to the cinema to watch it, and hit the 1 billion dollars mark.
Black Adam had poor market position due to releasing shortly before Black Panther 2 and it seemed they most promotion they were doing was relying on The Rock and nothing else. This HAS to make money or at least break even (actually not superficially). Who decides what is AWESOME? You? NO! It's the AUDIENCE that will be deciding these days. It doesn't matter what analogy or references you want to use. If THIS flops the other films won't get people in the theater. In order to set up the other films you have to get people into seeing this film in the first place. If this is a masterpiece and no one sees it then how is it gonna get people into watching the rest of films, when the other films don't he line up folks don't really care about much? It HAS to do well financially and THAT will SAY that it's a good movie. This bombs they will be scrapping this. That said, Gunn is capable of making a good film he will just have to hold back on the Guardians of the Galaxy type vibes.
Black Adam had no Chinese release, that's why it box office numbers were low.
@@Cakebattered Perhaps that too but Im telling you releasing shortly before BP2 marketing was always going to swallow it's own attention. That timing was VERY wrong.
This guy took the guardians of the galaxy who nobody knew about and made a billion dollar trilogy so I have much Faith in James Gunn just based of his success with guardians
Agreed. I cried when Guardian of the Galaxy Vol 3 ended.
Looking at this picture of Superman & Lois...they look like kids.
The movie has to be good, AND it needs to be financially successful. There will be no incentive to make more movies if it doesn’t do well at the box office.
That's why The Dark knight, Across the spiderverse, Dune 2 were made? Because their predecessors made alot of money?
@@hemantks4353 Considering Into the Spider-verse had a budget of $90 million and made almost $385 million, that is a lot of money.
My point being John saying the movie "doesn't have to be finically successful" and even said in the past "it was OK if it loses money" doesn't make any sense.
His analogy of using football doesn't make add up either. Every movie's release is their Super Bowl. There is no "week 1" in the film industry.
Well we know the famous saying..."if you take on the responsibility, great power will come".......
Theyre in debt john they need this to bank big along every other theatrical release
That doesn’t mean they have to “bank big,” they have to be profitable.
@kalenberreman8252 if you only saw what their stock you'd agree with me that they need to make big bank
I hope they spend those budget for writing.
Hello, Warner Brothers and James Gunn. The fans do not care how much the movie cost. No one cares two farts if it is Superman, Batman, Aquaman movie. Just make a good movie that audiences and critics both love and you will see them flock in the theaters.
well Gunn just recently debunk this rumor on Threads..he doesn't even know where this rumor came from
So you won’t be judging Legacy if it doesn’t make money, but you judge Snyder’s first MOS not making enough. 🤡
The studio wants both financial success and reviews, the main reason they're trying so hard to do another cinematic universe is because they want what the MCU made for a long time
At least has to be profitable
John is high
On god he got dat Jamaican leaf