Alright, I’ll take the bait it’s dangling.
From the way that trailer started I really thought the twist was going to be that the main character was actually Zod.
Oooo. That looks fun.
That looks dreafully CW-y… production looks ood though.
Nah, I didn’t see one misplaced joke or hint of romance drama in there.
It’s his close friend Ory Galdman
It’s his non union Mexican equivalent, Senor Oldmandez.
It’s Gary Numan.
I’d watch that
Is this code for lowering budgets? Isn’t that horror film strategy? It also doesn’t necessarily suggest a lighter tone. Basically, it’s really about trying to increase profitability while remaining much the way the movies have been going narratively.
That’s my interpretation, anyway.
We’ll see, but big budgets are systemic. Can they make a Wonder Woman 2 for less? Or Shazam? Or Batman?
They’ll face a lot of opposition from producers, directors, actors and agents.
It also depends a bit on how they view it. Some films look equally accomplished and flashy at $70m less than others. There’s a difference between some sensible budget control and trying to make a Justice League film for horror movie numbers (which would almost certainly be a disaster).
We literally have proof of this:
I think the bigger budgeted films are generally overpriced. A bit of restraint and common sense could reduce costs by between 25% and 35%, and that’s without major rewriting of most of the stories being told.
But I’m on the other side of the table. For a director or a producer (or the star) to work on something that’s not as big and well resourced as someone else’s film…
Netflix is shaking things up of course. They made ‘Bright’ for about $90m officially, and it looked pretty good. How would that have gone if a traditional studio had financed it?
Well it would probably have cost twice as much. The Orcs would likely have been mocap CGI, not prosthetic make-up. We could’ve seen more changes to the skyline and detail of LA. We’d very probably have met more magical species beyond the Orcs, Elves and a few Centaurs in the background. We might’ve got a big, LotR-style flashback sequence of the history of the world and the battle with the Dark Lord.
But did we miss any of those things? I know the film was trashed by critics but the general public liked it enough to justify a sequel and it only () cost $90m.
So can WB cut their superhero costs and still make entertaining films? Absolutely.
But will they?
I have my doubts.
Logan was made for 90 million or something and looked great.
There’s no reason a Batman movie couldn’t be made for between 125 and 150 million. Just take the warehouse fight from BvS, do that and variations on that three or four times, hire some actors who can carry the non-action scenes on the strength of their charisma and talent, and ditch the pointless CGI bullshit. A two hour comic movie doesn’t need 6 different expensive action set pieces (looking at you, Age of Ultron…)
Setting a cap on the budgets of these movies will serve dual purposes of saving money and forcing filmmakers to get a bit creative with their presentation.
You guys are really underestimated producer and director costs. And just how much top tier talent costs.
No director is going to sign on for a sequel for a lower budget than the previous guy. There’s no easy way to reduce movie budgets. We shouldn’t care anyway, we pay the same price no matter what.
Yup. $20 the seat and a small popcorn for eight bucks.