Welcome to Thunderdome

Box office failure.

The article is quick to point out online backlash to Gunn's planned direction for the DCU.

FYI, I've heard from two different people that this movie is fine.

The first one was kind of bad, I assumed this was more of the same.

Leisher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:09 pm FYI, I've heard from two different people that this movie is fine.

All the reviews I've read were terrible.

Black Adam comes out and Henry Cavill returns as Superman. DC fans go apeshit with excitement.

Weeks later, DC announces Cavill is officially back as Superman.

Literally a few days later, Cavill is out as James Gunn and Peter Safran take over DC for WB and announce plans to reboot the whole universe. The Rock, Affleck, Gadot, Mamoa, etc. are all out...except child grooming, kidnapping, assaulting Ezra Miller.

Gunn gives a timeline of when the reboot will happen and what films count. This effectively tells the world that all the DC movies in the schedule are meaningless because they won't be canon. That includes Shazam 2 and the upcoming Flash movie.

Safran is a producer on Shazam 2. Gunn has admitted publicly that he gave notes on how to improve the film.

It comes out and is a failure.

Who is to blame for Shazam 2 failing?

According to two well known bought and paid for WB shills: It's all The Rock's fault.

You can't make this shit up. Is DC going to be where talented creators go to expose their ass to the world and end their careers? It worked for Joss Whedon, perhaps Gunn is following in his footsteps?

Side note: Also right after Shazam 2 tanked, Affleck publicly rejects Gunn's attempts to have him come in to direct. Saying he basically is not a fan of the direction they're taking DC.

Good stuff going on over there at DC WB.

Well they're not in the business of emulating Marvel, so.

Leisher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:09 pm FYI, I've heard from two different people that this movie is fine.

Critical Drinker agrees. Also, puts his money where his mouth is in a new project that might be interesting to Gordon.

Dude needs an editor. That should have been ~4 minutes.

No argument. His rants can be fun, but sometimes he is a bit long winded.

I heard from another tuber that they have to be at least 8 minutes to be able to monetize them.

Cakedaddy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:03 am I heard from another tuber that they have to be at least 8 minutes to be able to monetize them.

Not sure that's true. I follow several YouTubers who release videos shorter than 8 minutes. However, maybe 8 minutes is a milestone time indicating a higher payment?

Also, the 8 minute mark would seem to go against the new YouTube Shorts, which are clips cut from longer videos. Those clips being well under 1 minute in length.

..... Which of true, YT wouldn't have to pay out as much/at all. So of course they'd push that bidness model.

GORDON wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 12:39 pm ..... Which of true, YT wouldn't have to pay out as much/at all. So of course they'd push that bidness model.

Sure, but creators would all leave if they weren't getting something.

It's an interesting tight rope to walk. Try to maximize profits, but still leave enough leftover so your creators stay.

TikTok is the worst at paying its people, which proves yet again that's its users and creators are the stupidest people in our society.

It was fine. Far more focused on family and jokes than other superhero films.

The first end credits scene is worth it. The later one isn't because we all know it will never be paid off.

Leisher wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 7:35 pm Zachary Levi probably destroying his career by being honest.

Well, the internet tells me he's worth $12-15MM, so that's enough to live decently.