Ben Affleck To Team With DC’s Geoff Johns On Standalone ‘Batman’ Film - Part 1

[DarthSkywalker]

The film wasn't accessible to a wider audience, I guess. It wasn't exactly kid friendly. A more kid-friendly film would've taken it over the top, I'd wager.

On paper, a movie with Batman and Superman should make a billion dollars. I still don't find $800 million a number a scoff at though. So I'd say it was successful, but not as successful as it could have been had the movie been a bit lighter and more universally accessible. Just my two cents.

How would tone have killed its legs? Especially if people liked it? It isn't like it opened small. There were kids there. You aren't making sense here Boom.

 

[Boom]

How would tone have killed its legs? Especially if people liked it? It isn't like it opened small. There were kids there. You aren't making sense here Boom.

You ever see a movie that you liked well enough, but didn't have a strong urge to rush out and see it again? Had the movie been more fun, don't you think people would have been more receptive to seeing it more than once? Had the film been more accessible to kids, you don't think it could've gotten the $200 million it needed to break a billion?

I'm sorry, Darth, but a movie making $800 million dollars doesn't scream "the general audience hated it" to me. Maybe they didn't love it outright, but I also think hate is too strong a word. I am happy to agree to disagree on that.

 

[The Joker]

WB is going full throttle with the DCEU. It's all white noise and hot air, but the proof is in the pudding. Snyder is still going to be attached to everything in some capacity. Regardless of Man of Steel's reaction, WB handed him their huge Batman v Superman film. Justice League is already garnering huge attention at every TINY turn and the marketing isn't even close to beginning yet. In the midst of Batman v Superman's reaction, as of now, Snyder is still on for Justice League 2 so regardless, Snyder is one of WB's Golden Boys and they will continue to ride him. I know fans who hate him can't stomach to hear that, but though some minor changes have takin' place, every single move points to riding or dying with the DCEU brand.

That's exactly one of the many problems with how WB is handling this. Trusting their big movies to a director who elicits so much negative response.

How would tone have killed its legs? Especially if people liked it? It isn't like it opened small. There were kids there. You aren't making sense here Boom.

Yeah I don't think tone affects it. After all the TDK trilogy had a dark grim tone. TDK even got some complaints about it's MPAA rating not being high enough because of the violence in it;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...over-Batmans-violence-in-The-Dark-Knight.html

How the tone is executed is another story. DCEU is terrible with their movie tones.

 

[shauner111]

No he didnt. I swear to god it is like I am taking crazy pills. Someone asks he says they are working on it. Two days later someone else asks he says they are working on it. A month later some prints the quotes from a month ago where he says they are working on it. He gets asked some more says the exact same thing AGAIN! Then he shoots the negativity down saying he wishes he could talk about his current movie but Batman is coming and people say he is sending mixed signals.

There is no mixed signals...he has never wavered from his original signal...the movie is moving forward. People want more details and there arent any because he is dealing with his current movie. When that is over, he will then work on Batman full bore. It will be made when the script is ready. Same thing he has said since he went public about making the movie.

As was said before take yes for an answer and calm the F down. the movie is happening. You sound like some of the worry warts on the Wonder Woman board who, even after the press releases still refused to believe the movie was coming. It is happening, he is playing Batman and directing. He has told you as much multiple times directly...there is no conspiracy he means what he says.

Is that what you call "im working on it" then "there's no script" then "im working on it"?

I disagree about Aquaman. I actually see that film performing quite well, if for no other reason than the novelty factor. It's a movie with extended underwater sequences. Can't really think of many movies that feature that.

It has underwater sequences so a ton of people will go see it? You're reaaaally stretching it.

 

[Boom]

It has underwater sequences so a ton of people will go see it? You're reaaaally stretching it.

I'm saying it offers something that audiences don't typically see. The visuals alone may prove to be very enticing to audiences.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I am not angry...I am literally laughing at you and the rest of the worry warts. The best part of all this is you guys arguing with an actual journalist with actual sources who is telling you are wrong and your only proof is clickbait garbage and your own personal feelings. It is like an episode of the Twilight Zone t:

I had my laughs too seeing how you defend Affleck with your own body over a minor matter. The rest of the world has moved on. When will you?

 

[misslane38]

Is that what you call "im working on it" then "there's no script" then "im working on it"?

These statements aren't contradictory. Affleck is saying that he and his team were working on a script but that it wasn't completed. That's the gist behind the "no script" statement, I believe. Affleck has consistently said that he's not going to begin production on the film until the script has been completed to his satisfaction, so he's been working on it to get it there, but there's not a final script yet.

 

[Tra-El]

Is that what you call "im working on it" then "there's no script" then "im working on it"?

It has underwater sequences so a ton of people will go see it? You're reaaaally stretching it.

A talking raccoon will get butts in the seats too, I tell yah!t:

 

[kguillou]

I just watched another new clip from Entertainment Tonight where Affleck is saying all this is such "a pain in the ass" and he's tired of the constant Batman, Batman, Batman nagging. I cannot blame the guy one bit and I 100% sympathize with him. In fact, I'm now getting kind of nervous about the film and not because of any capabilities of Ben as a director or writer but because he is now already in a frustrated state with this project and that is never a good place to begin. And it's all because we can't let the man just do his thing. It's amazing, I've never seen such a fervent attitude from the mainstream journalistic media about a property like this. Did Nolan have to put up with this, too?

 

[I Am The Knight]

Uh, yes?

Surely Burton had to put up with it after B89, too.

 

[Tra-El]

Every film director goes through a pain in the a@$ period. At one point, Goyer had writers block for TDKRises because he was burnt out. Frustration's happen. Man, you people act like this isn't a business ontop of just making films. These aren't shot on iPhones. All Affleck is saying, is that nobody cares about any other process to movies until it comes to properties like Batman. Look what clickbait has caused. It's pretty insane. Once Affleck will get behind the camera, all this media noise will HALT.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

At the very least BVS & SS had a year apart from each other giving people time to sort of forget about the mess that was BVS.

Ignoring the fact that this post is heavily biased. A year apart? March --> August is 5 months. June --> November is also 5 months.

See this your typical troll post. Let's just throw numbers out there hoping no one will count them to support my bias.

 

[shauner111]

I'm saying it offers something that audiences don't typically see. The visuals alone may prove to be very enticing to audiences.

Perhaps. But that's not what really sells a movie. You can't bring it down to "it looks fresh so audiences will see it". It's all about marketing, and later word of mouth. But most importantly it's all about the character of Aquaman + the lead. I don't think audiences give a damn. I think if Justice League does well enough and people walk away from that experience thinking "wow Aquaman was one of the best, if not the best thing about that movie" then the solo film has a great chance of being huge in the box office. Marketing is still key.

I just watched another new clip from Entertainment Tonight where Affleck is saying all this is such "a pain in the ass" and he's tired of the constant Batman, Batman, Batman nagging. I cannot blame the guy one bit and I 100% sympathize with him. In fact, I'm now getting kind of nervous about the film and not because of any capabilities of Ben as a director or writer but because he is now already in a frustrated state with this project and that is never a good place to begin. And it's all because we can't let the man just do his thing. It's amazing, I've never seen such a fervent attitude from the mainstream journalistic media about a property like this. Did Nolan have to put up with this, too?

Waaaah cry me a river Ben. He signed up for this. He's playing one of the biggest and most loved characters of all time in any medium, and he's also announced that he's going to direct it. Right when the DCEU is taking off and people are still interested in the genre thanks to Marvel's movies....and he's complaining that people keep asking him about Batman.

Like i said last week, Affleck and his people could tell every single person who's about to sit down and interview him, to simply not ask about Batman. Ask only about the film he's promoting, Live by Night. But he doesn't.

Nolan had to put up with questions but not like this because from 2004-2012 twitter and facebook and instagram wasn't as huge. And Nolan didn't win Best Picture for one of his films. You put those two together (Affleck as director doing Batman while playing him + social media) and here we are. He should have known this going in. He signed up for this. I have no sympathy. Also, if his Live by Night was turning heads in the RIGHT way people would not be asking Batman questions as much. Who made Live By Night?? Exactly. No sympathy, sorry. Sounds like i'm downplaying what Nolan had to deal with, and perhaps i shouldn't because he had to deal with their fair share of nagging questions after TDK.

Ben gets bothered too easily. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He's in this line of work, volunteering to have all of this pressure stacked against him and then he's wondering why the questions are pouring in? Comes with the territory.

I'm more worried now because of Live By Night and the casting decisions.

 

[dhandler01]

That isn't $400m profit. Not close. That is if you think there was no marketing or expense for distribution, etc. Though yes, SS made good money compared to the other two.

Deadpool at legs of 2.75. Iron Man 3 made over $400m domestically. AoU made $459m domestically, 1.4bill ww. It is a bit different to not have great legs when you are finishing that high. GotG is he perfect parallel and ended up beating it domestically, even when spotting it $40m to start.

You know I am laughing (and this isnt directed at you I think you make awesome points) because for MOS we heard it didnt make profit (from the haters) because you have to double the budget. (same was said for Batman Begins back in the day...that is another argument though) Even when it was pointed out that MOS made its budget back in endorsements they still used that number. Now that number isnt correct? Are we to assume then that Dr. Strange didnt do that well either since with a similar budget it had worse returns? (lower domestic opening, lower domestic returns and similar worldwide returns) I dont buy that just like I dont buy when studios pretend these movies dont make money for tax and profit purposes...

Fine triple the budget...that is $525 million. The movie still made a ton of money and was a success by every measure the studio will use.

I am not trying to say SS is on the level of those movies, far from it actually. What I am saying is that there is no diminishing return and in no way is the studio going to use it as an argument against the DCEU because of what critics said. If every unknown property can do those kinds of numbers that is good for the DCEU as far as WB is concerned. (again not quality...just money) SS did that despite having no build up through other movies. It would rank as the 6th highest Marvel film domestically, just behind GOTG.

But anyways...back to Batman

 

[Patchwork Man]

So...who's looking forward to The Batman!

 

[Greenlite]

Just read all those discussions about b.o and stuff, want to clarify

MOS made 300M profit in 3 years. (Bloomberg)
BvS was projected to make 278M profit after it "bombed" at the b.o. (bloomberg)
Suicide Squad had to clear 600M to turn profit (Forbes), and it made 745M WW, which is
- more than Deadpool internationally
- more than Guardians of Galaxy WW discounting China, it was released in the same month as SS
- better legs than Civil War, anyone said anything about no legs for CW?

DCEU has diminishing returns and decreased b.o.? That's like saying Marvel had diminishing returns and crashed and burnt b.o. wise after Antman earned and profited less than Age of Ultron. SS exceeded expectation and earned more profit then WB would have hoped for. It's projected for a 175M profit in Sept 2016 (I'm guessing from b.o. alone) and it's in the top 5 most profitable movies of 2016
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ime-bombs-got-a-lot-more-disastrous-this-year

anyway, Batman will be fine and might make 400M in profit =)

 

[Patchwork Man]

The DCEU is making money. The DCEU is not being rebooted. Roll 'em out!

 

[kguillou]

Just read all those discussions about b.o and stuff, want to clarify

MOS made 300M profit in 3 years. (Bloomberg)
BvS was projected to make 278M profit after it "bombed" at the b.o. (bloomberg)
Suicide Squad had to clear 600M to turn profit (Forbes), and it made 745M WW, which is
- more than Deadpool internationally
- more than Guardians of Galaxy WW discounting China, it was released in the same month as SS
- better legs than Civil War, anyone said anything about no legs for CW?

DCEU has diminishing returns and decreased b.o.? That's like saying Marvel had diminishing returns and crashed and burnt b.o. wise after Antman earned and profited less than Age of Ultron. SS exceeded expectation and earned more profit then WB would have hoped for. It's projected for a 175M profit in Sept 2016 (I'm guessing from b.o. alone) and it's in the top 5 most profitable movies of 2016
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ime-bombs-got-a-lot-more-disastrous-this-year

anyway, Batman will be fine and might make 400M in profit =)

Thank you, there is no diminishing returns. Suicide Squad is not a Batman or Superman movie, it is movie consisted of B and C list characters and it made $745 million. If JUSTICE LEAGUE made $745 million, then yes, that is diminishing returns.

 

[Frodo]

Uh, yes?

Surely Burton had to put up with it after B89, too.

Yeah. Craig has to put up with it for Bond, every actor and director who's part of a major franchise has to deal with it. Ask Harrison Ford.

Fair or not , when you sign up for a character like Batman , Superman, James Bond etc, that's what youre gonna be hounded about , especially if you're also writing and directing.

I'm more surprised that he's surprised that all he's being asked about is the Batman.

 

[jmc]

Well we will just have to see how Justice League does. We can't really speak for a film's performance when it hasn't come out yet. For all we know, JL clears a billion dollars easily and this is all a moot point.

If it fails to clear a billion dollars? I still don't think it would kill the DCEU outright, but people are definitely losing their jobs - Snyder being the obvious choice.

Both we as fans and WB have got to get out of the minds that a billions dollars is a meaningful target anymore. If that is becoming the measure for these type of movies then honestly the projects are never going to be a long term investment. Studios have got to start reigning the budget in for these things a lot more. At very least then you've got more wiggle room if a film doesn't work. The problem at the moment is you requires a crap load of money just to break even, which means you have to attract a crap load of people into buying a ticket consistently. I still struggle to see how a movie like Deadpool can be made on a shoe string budget yet you can't make a Batman movie for less than $150m.

 

[kguillou]

Amen, JMC. That is the bottom line. Would it have been nice of BvS broke a billion? Absolutely, but having "only" broken $875 million should have still been a HUGE success for Warner Bros. That's a huge number 98% of films could only wish they made. If BvS' budget was reigned in, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion and that's the crux of the problem, these studios are spending too damn much and I don't even think its necessary. There is no reason for any movie, except for maybe Infinity War just by the sheer number of actors' salaries they'll have to pay, to have a $400 million budget and need to clear $800 to be in the black.

 

[jmc]

I'd like actually like to see the attitude change at studios to 'what can we do for $100m?'. Smaller budgets can ironically sometimes develop more creative ideas to solve problems.

 

[The Guard]

Just read all those discussions about b.o and stuff, want to clarify

MOS made 300M profit in 3 years. (Bloomberg)
BvS was projected to make 278M profit after it "bombed" at the b.o. (bloomberg)
Suicide Squad had to clear 600M to turn profit (Forbes), and it made 745M WW, which is
- more than Deadpool internationally
- more than Guardians of Galaxy WW discounting China, it was released in the same month as SS
- better legs than Civil War, anyone said anything about no legs for CW?

DCEU has diminishing returns and decreased b.o.? That's like saying Marvel had diminishing returns and crashed and burnt b.o. wise after Antman earned and profited less than Age of Ultron. SS exceeded expectation and earned more profit then WB would have hoped for. It's projected for a 175M profit in Sept 2016 (I'm guessing from b.o. alone) and it's in the top 5 most profitable movies of 2016
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ime-bombs-got-a-lot-more-disastrous-this-year

I'm inclined to agree with this.

You're talking about diminishing returns from a more or less unknown concept (SUICIDE SQUAD) after the previous DCU movie was a huge critical bomb and arguable disappointment at the box office. It still made almost $750 million...despite awful, awful reviews. This is not something to sneeze at in terms of box office.

I don't think WB thinks they're not making any money off these films at all. If that was the case, we wouldn't be seeing AQUAMAN gearing up to shoot and GOTHAM CITY SIRENS getting into development. We likely wouldn't see announcements about GREEN LANTERN CORPS, SHAZAM, etc.

Would it be nice for the films to be critically AND commercially successful? Sure, but it's not a necessity, either. Plenty of franchises make money without a ton of critical success.

 

[TheVileOne]

Both we as fans and WB have got to get out of the minds that a billions dollars is a meaningful target anymore. If that is becoming the measure for these type of movies then honestly the projects are never going to be a long term investment. Studios have got to start reigning the budget in for these things a lot more. At very least then you've got more wiggle room if a film doesn't work. The problem at the moment is you requires a crap load of money just to break even, which means you have to attract a crap load of people into buying a ticket consistently. I still struggle to see how a movie like Deadpool can be made on a shoe string budget yet you can't make a Batman movie for less than $150m.

That's the target because that's generally what a movie of this size has to make in order to not just break even but to make serious profits. These movies aren't greenlit and made to make small profits and just break even. They exist to make serious profits for the studios.

 

[jmc]

Start fixing the budget and start scaling down the movies and they will. Half the bloody problem is they're trying to make these epic visual spectaculars that cost north of $250m. People will still come if the story is smaller. Bring the budgets down and there's less pressure on the franchise.