was Shazam too campy for general audiences?

[JimThompson]

Deliberately exaggerated and theatrical. For example, Adam West’s Batman. Not Shazam or the MCU or most things that get called “campy”. One can argue Shazam’s suit fits that definition but that’s about it.

You could’ve googled that yourself, but there it is.

Yeah, somehow I do not think you pulled that definition from an actual source.

 

[rebellion]

The problem was it was squeezed inbetween mcu movies. Ofc it went under ga's radar with all that endgame hype. WB simply sabotaged themselves (again). And not marketed enough. Its really that simple.
Still, the film was, imo, AMAZING.

 

[MadVillainy]

I think Shazam is a great movie but I think its lackluster box office can be boiled down to a few elements:

1. A lack of name recognition. Even though Captain Marvel/Shazam has been around since Superman's earliest adventures, he's not half as well-known.

2. The costume. Overall, I thought the Shazam suit looked okay but in today's superhero movie renaissance, it could ahve looked better. It did look very cheap in some shots and the fake muscles did Levi no favors (and the irony is that he actually bulked up a lot but the suit was obviously padded).

3. A lack of star power. Levi is a great actor and maybe future appearances as Shazam and a few more seasons of Mrs. Maisel will turn him into a major star. But he isn't right now, and while you don't necessarily need big names to open a superhero movie, I do think you need at least a little star power somewhere, even if it's just in the supporting roles. Djimon Houndsou and Mark Strong have their fans but neither is a big name, and they were barely featured in the marketing, so they were banking mostly on people showing up for "that guy from Chuck" and "that kid who seems familiar... was he in Stranger Things or something like that?"

...and that brings me to...

3/4 of these can't be proven or just iffy
1. Name recognition? So many movies that aren't based on a huge brand are still very successful or at least more successful than Shazam. Guardians of the Galaxy wasn't a huge name. True it had the MCU brand but that was back in 2014, where the brand was still big, but it's not like now. Alita grossed a little more than Shazam, Avatar wasn't tied to a major franchise. Helll even Iron Man 1 grossed more than Shazam and that was before Iron Man is who he is now. You don't need to be a big name brand franchise to be successful. Conversly you have something like Detective Pikachu or Man of Steel that are tied to massive franchises get outdone by "smaller" name franchises.
2. Again with the costume. There's no evidence that the costume affected anything. I get y'all don't like the costume, but it's an unproven point and just silly to bring up for why the movie underperformed.
3. Similar to the name brand stuff, star power doesn't mean much anymore in most cases. You have movies that star huge names like Will Smith, The Rock, RDJ, Chris Hemsworth, ScarJo who will lead these huge films and then their next movies flop or seriously underperform. This isn't like the 80s or 90s where movies will necessarily sell just based off the stars in it
4. This is it. This is the answer. The marketing was just not that great.

I think it was 1) the marketing 2) bad release date 3) I don't think the quality of the movie demanded people to run to the theaters.

 

[MadVillainy]

Yeah, somehow I do not think you pulled that definition from an actual source.

You know that definition Flint said , "Deliberately exaggerated and theatrical", is pulled straight from Google's dictionary? And if you have a problem with that Google's definition, check the Merriam Webster one:

-Something so outrageously artificial, affected, inappropriate, or out-of-date as to be considered amusing
-A style or mode of personal or creative expression that is absurdly exaggerated and often fuses elements of high and popular culture

Which are pretty similar to what Flint said about being deliberately exaggerated.
I don't get why you're choosing this hill to die on. Camp for sure has a definition. And a pretty well defined, clear one at that

 

[Boy Scout]

And not for nothing, but if you ever doubt what someone else is telling you, just Google it yourself.

 

[MadVillainy]

And not for nothing, but if you ever doubt what someone else is telling you, just Google it yourself.

Do your Googles

 

[Flint Marko]

Yeah, somehow I do not think you pulled that definition from an actual source.

Arguing that the word campy has no definition is a weird hill to die on but I hear ya

EDIT: I see blackman already got to it

 

[Schlosser85]

Yeah, somehow I do not think you pulled that definition from an actual source.

campy
adjective
\ ˈkam-pē

\
campier; campiest
Definition of campy
: in the style of camp : absurdly exaggerated, artificial, or affected in a usually humorous way

Definition of CAMPY

 

[JimThompson]

You know that definition Flint said , "Deliberately exaggerated and theatrical", is pulled straight from Google's dictionary? And if you have a problem with that Google's definition, check the Merriam Webster one:

Which are pretty similar to what Flint said about being deliberately exaggerated.
I don't get why you're choosing this hill to die on. Camp for sure has a definition. And a pretty well defined, clear one at that

I stand corrected. Thanks for the check.

 

[mclay18]

Literally no one in this thread has called it a failure.

Calling Shazam! campy is a misnomer. It's movies like Batman & Robin and Power Rangers that are campy.

 

[Binker]

Calling Shazam! campy is a misnomer. It's movies like Batman & Robin and Power Rangers that are campy.

Which Power Rangers? Because it is not the 2017 film. Would need to put the year next to the title, sir.

 

[Deck Rickard]

3/4 of these can't be proven or just iffy
1. Name recognition? So many movies that aren't based on a huge brand are still very successful or at least more successful than Shazam. Guardians of the Galaxy wasn't a huge name. True it had the MCU brand but that was back in 2014, where the brand was still big, but it's not like now. Alita grossed a little more than Shazam, Avatar wasn't tied to a major franchise. Helll even Iron Man 1 grossed more than Shazam and that was before Iron Man is who he is now. You don't need to be a big name brand franchise to be successful. Conversly you have something like Detective Pikachu or Man of Steel that are tied to massive franchises get outdone by "smaller" name franchises.
2. Again with the costume. There's no evidence that the costume affected anything. I get y'all don't like the costume, but it's an unproven point and just silly to bring up for why the movie underperformed.
3. Similar to the name brand stuff, star power doesn't mean much anymore in most cases. You have movies that star huge names like Will Smith, The Rock, RDJ, Chris Hemsworth, ScarJo who will lead these huge films and then their next movies flop or seriously underperform. This isn't like the 80s or 90s where movies will necessarily sell just based off the stars in it
4. This is it. This is the answer. The marketing was just not that great.

I think it was 1) the marketing 2) bad release date 3) I don't think the quality of the movie demanded people to run to the theaters.

All of that makes sense, yeah. As for the costume thing, look, it didn't bother me, but we've had a few posters here talk about how much it turned them off of the film and I've had friends say similar things. Now, that's not a barometer for how well-received it is by the public but it might have been a factor, I don't know. But I think it plays into your third point, that the quality of the movie didn't necessarily demand people run to theaters. It was good but I can see a lot of people shrugging and opting to catch it on Netflix or Redbox or whatever. The visuals--and for some superhero movie fans, that includes the costumes--were fine but not something so stunning that people just had to see them on the big screen.

But anyway, to your larger point, yes, the marketing was the biggest problem.

 

[Invader Joker]

Shazam 2 is gonna be completely screwed if Mr. Mind is their main villain and The Rock is not on it

 

[MadVillainy]

Shazam 2 is gonna be completely screwed if Mr. Mind is their main villain and The Rock is not on it

I said that in another thread. It's a massive mistake to do Mr. Mind especially over Black Adam.
If they were smart they would've done:
2019: Shazam
2020: Black Adam
2021: Black Adam vs Shazam
2023: Shazam 2
and so on.
The Black Adam Shazam crossover, if good, will boost the next Shazam movie's box office. Similar to how every MCU movie got a boost after The Avengers. I don't see why delaying that especially if you're planning on using Mr. Mind.
Mr Mind is such a weird villain, even by SH movie standards. It just seems like a risky move to throw Mind as a main villain when Shazam didn't light the world on fire.

 

[Zarex]

Black Adam is the obvious choice for the sequel. But I'm wondering if Mr. Johnson is gong to be okay with his character smacking around a group of children (albeit ones withe massive faux muscles)? I could see the Shazam v Black Adam battle being a Civil War style superhero skirmish before they join together to take on the REAL villain.

 

[MadVillainy]

I hope they are enemies for the majority of BAvS. Then maybe at the end they can start Adam's redemption arc that will carry through a Black Adam sequel. Black Adam vs Shazam for the first crossover and then Black Adam/Shazam & The Yadayada

That brings me to another point, they really should've saved the Shazam family for Black Adam vs Shazam or Shazam 2

 

[LightDaggers]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I do think it looks quite good.

 

[The Guard]

Hasn't it already pretty much been stated that Shazam and Black Adam won't meet in SHA2AM, but in a third film after the Black Adam movie?

I still don't understand how the costumes could really turn anyone off. Like, THAT's the thing in the movie that's just too silly? To each their own, I guess.

 

[TheScarecrow]

There's so much more at play here than people are considering.

Almost every film not made by Disney has either flopped or under performed this year. That's the trend. This is not isolated to Shazam.

It has less to do with Shazam as a film and more to do with the state of the film industry as a whole. By all objective measures (it has an A cinemascore, a 7.2 on IMDb, an audience score on RT of 84% - noting this pre-dates the verified audience scores - and very strong bluray sales), Shazam was well-liked by audiences (outside of China).

The issue is that the studios were unprepared for Disney's dominance this year and Disney's smart release strategy that has consistently allowed them to dominate the box office for the entire year. Disney has put so many "event" films into this year, and so many companion pieces for those event films, its been impossible for any other film to get air.

The film was well received - but everyone has been on such a Disney high that no one could notice it. That's the issue - and its surely one WB is aware of given how every other tentpole they and every other studio has put out this year (save for Sony's Spider-man) has underperformed.

It's not Shazam that's the problem. It's the power Disney has been allowed to have over the market.

 

[Batmannerism]

IMHO.............it was perfect for the character and the audience, so no.

 

[Rorschach2012]

It just didn’t have anything unique to really grab audiences. The tone and premise were both very familiar and derivative. I would’ve gone even more bombastic and cartoony with it. The Jeff Smith Shazam stuff was pretty spot on and how I would’ve approached things.

Honestly maybe it should’ve been an animated movie. I wasn’t a big fan of the final product at all.

 

[Web-Head]

I have yet to hear anyone who would be considered "general audience" even talk about Shazam or remember them saying anything about it on social media during release.

The marketing wasn't good and it had no real connection to the other CBM's today. As well as it being released in between Captain Marvel and everyone waiting to go see Endgame.

I think it should have been released around now.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I thought both Captain Marvel and Shazam were a waste of time

 

[I Am The Knight]

Cool because they share the same name

 

[Lookhowfunnyiam]

The movie was a lesser-known character to casuals, (even MCU characters like Doctor Strange and Ant-Man, with the goodwill of the MCU franchise were doing like $700 million), the marketing wasn't amazing and it was smack between Captain Marvel and Endgame, two films that basically everyone saw. Lots of people don't want to see three movies of the same genre in theaters within two months, Shazam's the obvious choice to miss because no one knew how Captain Marvel would or wouldn't set up Endgame.