Typed one thing, went back to edit and dunno how that warped phrase ended up the final post.

Anyway, there's no reason they couldn't have just put most of all that fast tracked nonsense on "hold," blamed Covid, restructuring, scaling back or something (waiting to see how Shazam, BA, Flash & Blue Beatle fare before green lighting any more movies especially after the Batgirl fiasco ) and just finished out the DCEU while an unannounced Gunn toiled away silently in the background for the bulk of this year. Just put out a press release saying the DCEU is on pause while they plan the next phase.

This is exactly what should have happened. WB's announcement of Gunn's DCU was tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the remaining DCEU. If a merchant has clear disdain for his wares, why would any potential customer wish to buy what he is selling?

I’m starting to think that WB doesn’t know what they are doing with regards to DC.

.."starting"..?

I understand the thought experiment of asking "what if WB had waited on the Gunn announcement?", but forgive me if I can't get too worked up over the thought of WB maybe or maybe not making a few extra million dollars.

And what if they had waited and the Flash and Shazam and whatever had been a massive hit? How much more pissed would everyone then be when WB rebooted the franchise? Better to just cut their losses and move on.

I'm still curious what Aquaman 2 does. I still have no idea how Aquaman 1 made so much money, then you add all this into there.

But I swear a lot of people claim the common cinemagoer doesn't care about any of this universe building stuff? Which would then lead me to believe they'd be super confused with what happens in this movie but I digress.

That was the joke

A chance to use one of my favorite gifs...

I feel like The Flash bombed for two reasons... #1 - he's a tertiary character that most people probably have no real connection to. Everyone knows Batman and Superman. Most have likely heard of the Flash but his power or his lore aren't exactly inspiring.

#2 - Ezra Miller is not a good person.

I might watch this on Max but every time I see Miller's face, I think about all the bad press in the last year.

I mean the dude has had two fairly successful tv shows, that's like one more than Wonder Woman. He's certainly no Aquaman.

And personally I feel like his power is super cool. Like what was the best part of Days of Future Past? Quicksilver. Again, he's no Aquaman.

But yeah the lengthy delay, the Ezra Miller debacle, and the death of that cinematic universe all made me, an ultra nerd who loves the Flash (well, Wally West, which this basically is in everything but name), not see this in theaters. No idea about everyone else though.

I don't think your #1 really holds water. There has literally been a Flash show on TV for the last 9 years with 9 freaking seasons! That still amazes me to no end. Plus, anyone with even the slightest comic book knowledge knows who The Flash is. Several animated features, a prior cult TV show in the early 90's, he's been a part of all kinds of other animated series, etc.

And think of the first Iron Man, Guardians Of The Galaxy or Ant-Man movies. All huge successes with much less recognizable comic book characters. But guess what...those were good movies.

The movie itself matters. And this movie just isn't that good. People can blame Ezra Miller's off-screen crap all day long but how many actors are shitty people who do shitty things and still have a hit movie? I will give you a hint...a bunch.

At the end of the day the overall quality of the movie is what matters. If it is good, it finds an audience usually no matter what may be working against it. Those things may hurt a movie some but if it is good, the reasons you gave don't matter.

I can't speak to the quality of the movie but I wish it were as easy as "if a movie is good, the audience will come to the theater." I know what you're saying, though.

The movie IS good. Better than most non-Marvel comic book movies at least. The fact that the star of the movie was unable to promote it at all, which also affected how much the publicity the movie got in general, was a HUGE factor. Didn't see any Happy Meal toys for it or anything.

I honestly didn't know there was a show about him... I'm not the comic book guy though and perhaps that's why. I do enjoy a good super hero movie and, since I'm not a Flash fan through and through, I only knew of his off-screen nonsense. That's just my $0.02 as a non-hardcore consumer.

I know it doesn't apply to every movie, obviously, but big-name movies like this with all the press they get typically find an audience if it is good.

I didn't pay attention to the Happy Meal factor, but I can say I saw ads for this movie out the ass everywhere and more articles about it than any other movie of the past year. We will just have to disagree on its "goodness", but I believe the box office tells the final story. The movie is not good. It is decent. Passable. But it is not "good." I don't consider "average" to be "good", but I guess everyone has different rating systems in their head. There are multiple issues with this movie that have been discussed ad nauseam that have nothing to do with the star shenanigans or that it is a "tertiary comic book character" (which is a belief I don't subscribe to).

But if you liked the movie, great. Enjoy it. But it appears the majority have spoken so far...and pretty loudly.

Does the box office truly reflect a film's quality? Or is it in fact a reflection of the general audience's interest?

Obviously it's not 1:1 and there are dozens of factors and extenuating circumstances that can blindside a film/studio - unexpected competition, pandemic, recession, actor issues, industry strikes - just as there are many that can [easily] be planned for (time of year, marketing blitz, tie-ins, etc.)

However, with several caveats, it is broadly true that "audience interest" is a reflection of the film's quality, rendering the differentiation moot.

To be a Box Office Success, you either need many people to see a film several times each OR an extraordinary number of people to see it (ideally both). To appeal to the former group (repeat watchers) you can sometimes patch over flaws with in-jokes and fan service (of various kinds); for the latter group you need good press, good word-of-mouth and/or 'just' a good film. Ultimately, while those distinctions allow for 'bad' films to do well and make money, most of the elements all-but require the film to be fairly-very good.

(I suppose there should be an additional note about Zeitgeist, 'right film, right time' and hype/expectations, but I feel those can be more-or-less shoehorned into the other factors.)

The Flash bombing and the quality of the film discussion go hand in hand but one isn't necessarily a result of the other. It's sitting at 83% audience score at RT. There's a few detractors on this forum, but it's not a bad movie. Saying it's bad because it bombed is just wrong. It also will fail to break that stigma because it's a bomb. People that skipped in the theater but watch at home are going into it knowing it's the biggest superhero bomb ever. That affects your enjoyment before the first frame.

I also don't buy the "it's a lesser known hero" stance. Marvel made an multi-billion dollar industry out of selling lesser known heroes. The marketing angle is weird too. Despite Miller not marketing it, it was heavily advertised. So I think we can rule that out to a degree as well.

Shazam was a hit, so the sequel should have performed decently. The Rock as a superhero? Also a no brainer. Should have been a hit. Blue Beetle has solid reviews and word of mouth but is tanking as well. Flash is decent and they also marketed Keaton back as Batman which should have been an easy sell. All these movies have one thing in common, "announcing Gunn" and flushing out the old as the culprit. Why should people be jazzed to drop $15+ to see a film in a franchise that is already dead?

I wanted to see Flash but I'd be lying if I didn't say there was a moment's hesitation with a "why bother?" that went through my head before I bought the ticket.

I bet 90% of people attending The Flash, Black Adam and Blue Beetle do not know that Gunn is taking over.

Only hardcore nerds pay any attention to studio executives, writers and directors. I bet some average movie goer couldn't tell you who James Gunn, Peter Safran or Andy Muschietti are. Or tell the difference between the DCEU or DCU.

So I've never really bought the argument that DC fans don't care or are pissed at Gunn for his reboot so they gave up and didn't bother showing up to this.

Whaaaat?

Gunn is taking over.?.??.?

When I went to see Blue Beetle last week (I know, this is a Flash thread, but trying to illustrate a point), I saw several Latino families with their small kids. You think they're reading Deadline, Variety, THR and watching pundits on YouTube to get the latest on DC's drama? Hell No. Believe it or not, there are still many people who just want to see a good movie. And just not enough of them saw The Flash.

I'm one of the last Gen Xers to be born (dodged the Millennial bullet by a hair) and if you said that during the era I grew up, I'd totally agree with you. But we live in an era where every Tom, Dick, and Harry is obsessed with TMZ, Tik Tok, and social media. All this is just out there without any need to even look for it, constantly spoon fed to them.

Back in my day the only fear of spoilers came from the asshole that saw the movie on release day before everyone else. Not plot leaks or candid set photos. Behind the scenes drama is stuff you learned about in retrospective articles in magazines like Starlog or Fangoria. Comic book news came from Wizard.

When we live in an era where even D&D has gone mainstream, are there even any hardcore nerds any more?