JOKER: THE MOVIE produced by Martin Scorsese (TBD) 1 1

[theCapraAegagrus]

10 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Please list links that show contemporary proof of this plan -- preferably either citing a Warner Bros. exec, Christopher Nolan, or Zack Snyder *prior* to the release of BvS.

And preferably, prior to the release of Man of Steel.

That's never going to happen, because I didn't make any claims that this was the plan from Day 1, and it certainly wasn't the plan from Day 1.

Man of Steel was a 'test' from WB. Snyder wasn't allowed to use slo-mo. They weren't sure that, under that (and other) constraints, he would be able to make them a 'winner' Superman movie.

It was also still Snyder's intent to film Man of Steel 2 after BvS. It was WB's idea to go for Justice League after they made cameos in BvS. So, you're never gonna find pre-MoS/pre-BvS plans for a 2-part JL (or JL at all).

It was after BvS that Snyder fought for MoS 2 and WB demanded JL. Snyder then wanted a 2-part JL to complete his Superman story and subsequently give the team a fair shake.

So, what do you want links for? The fact that JL was written into 2 parts because of the Superman trilogy, or...?

Edit: If you're suggesting that I'm saying MoS wasn't intended to be a "complete" origin story - I'm not. It wasn't a complete character arc, though. It was an origin story that some people didn't care for in a vacuum. Snyder getting the green-light for BvS brought about the Superman Trilogy plans (as Man of Steel 2 was 'scheduled' after BvS). It was then that the idea of evolving Superman into everyone's perfect superhero was conceived.

Edited March 16, 2020 by theCapraAegagrus

[Gatsby77]

21 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Edit: If you're suggesting that I'm saying MoS wasn't intended to be a "complete" origin story - I'm not. It wasn't a complete character arc, though. It was an origin story that some people didn't care for in a vacuum. Snyder getting the green-light for BvS brought about the Superman Trilogy plans (as Man of Steel 2 was 'scheduled' after BvS). It was then that the idea of evolving Superman into everyone's perfect superhero was conceived.

There you go.

Trilogies are (definitionally) either planned from the jump (i.e., pre Man of Steel) or (usually) after the success of the first film.

I don't believe there was *ever* a "Superman trilogy" planned before the release of Man of Steel, particularly given the prior failure of Superman Returns.

And - even immediately after Man of Steel, the plan was to go forward with Man of Steel 2, *not* BvS.

So...per the portion quoted above, I could (potenitally) buy that Snyder *at one point* planned a "Superman" trilogy that consisted of:

Man of Steel --> BvS --> Man of Steel 2.

With Justice League 1 + 2 as companion pieces.

But that's not what you claimed a page ago. You claimed the "Superman trilogy" was:

Man of Steel --> BvS --> Justice League Pt. 1.

That's hogwash. Somewhere between wishful thinking and revisionist history.

Give me proof that this was the plan (via contemporary direct quotes from Snyder or Nolan) and maybe you've got something.

 

But absent that, I will *never* believe that the three films we got were planned as a cohesive "Superman trilogy" -- especially since Justice League 2 AND Man of Steel 2 were still planned the day before Justice League's release.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

...But that's not what you claimed a page ago. You claimed the "Superman trilogy" was:

Man of Steel --> BvS --> Justice League Pt. 1.

That's hogwash. Somewhere between wishful thinking and revisionist history.

Give me proof that this was the plan (via contemporary direct quotes from Snyder or Nolan) and maybe you've got something.

But absent that, I will *never* believe that the three films we got were planned as a cohesive "Superman trilogy" -- especially since Justice League 2 AND Man of Steel 2 were still planned the day before Justice League's release.

That is the Superman Trilogy, though. It's what we got. It's not "hogwash". It simply is. Just because it is does not mean it was always meant to be. I could have a kid in 5 years. That's not the plan, but if it happens, well - it happens.

Nolan wasn't involved after MoS, and there's plenty of content in which Snyder discusses the fact that what we got is a Superman trilogy. Not the one he wanted, but ultimately, the one he was able to film.

Lmfao MoS 2 and JL 2 were both scrapped after Snyder was canned. Come on...

[theCapraAegagrus]

Here's a sequence of events for you:

1. Zack Snyder directs Man of Steel.
2. Success! BvS and MoS 2 on the books (Superman Trilogy ).
3. BvS doesn't make $1 billion, but the JL cameos.
4. Man of Steel 2 in limbo.
5. Justice League planned, Man of Steel 2 'on hold'.
6. Snyder wants to complete Superman Trilogy arc that was planned during Step 2.
7. Justice League written into 2-parter to complete Superman arc (Superman Trilogy ).
8. We get a Superman Trilogy, despite not in the method that was originally planned for.

That's about as compact and concise as I can make it.

[Gatsby77]

28 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Here's a sequence of events for you:

1. Zack Snyder directs Man of Steel.
2. Success! BvS and MoS 2 on the books (Superman Trilogy ).
3. BvS doesn't make $1 billion, but the JL cameos.
4. Man of Steel 2 in limbo.
5. Justice League planned, Man of Steel 2 'on hold'.
6. Snyder wants to complete Superman Trilogy arc that was planned during Step 2.
7. Justice League written into 2-parter to complete Superman arc (Superman Trilogy ).
8. We get a Superman Trilogy, despite not in the method that was originally planned for.

That's about as compact and concise as I can make it.

Exactly.

And here's where you're wrong.

Justice League is in no way, shape or form a "Superman" movie. So it cannot, definitionally, complete a "Superman trilogy."

Is he critical to the plot? Sure - but he's not the driver.

He's not the villain, or the reason Batman forms the league.

He's in (effectively) two scenes (three, if you count the Kansas scene with Lois).

Most importanlty, he has *far* less screen-time than any other member of the Justice League. Because it's a Justice League film, not a Superman one.

See: https://www.comicbookmovie.com/justice_league/spoilers-justice-league-how-much-screentime-does-each-member-of-the-league-get-a155517

• Batman: 45:33
• Wonder Woman: 43:47
• Flash: 33:13
• Cyborg: 32:33
• Aquaman: 28:11
• Superman: 16:32

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Exactly.

And here's where you're wrong.

Justice League is in no way, shape or form a "Superman" movie. So it cannot, definitionally, complete a "Superman trilogy."

Is he critical to the plot? Sure - but he's not the driver.

He's not the villain, or the reason Batman forms the league.

He's in (effectively) two scenes (three, if you count the Kansas scene with Lois).

Most importanlty, he has *far* less screen-time than any other member of the Justice League. Because it's a Justice League film, not a Superman one.

See: https://www.comicbookmovie.com/justice_league/spoilers-justice-league-how-much-screentime-does-each-member-of-the-league-get-a155517

• Batman: 45:33
• Wonder Woman: 43:47
• Flash: 33:13
• Cyborg: 32:33
• Aquaman: 28:11
• Superman: 16:32

Except that everything revolves around Superman? Okay.

The Snyder Cut is for sure a Superman movie. #ReleaseTheSnyderCut

Even Whedon's cut is entirely story-reliant on Superman's death and resurrection. Thematically, it's a Superman movie. You won't be convinced of that, though, so we may as well part ways for now.

Whatever we do to keep Justice League discussion alive is good to me.

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

Please list links that show contemporary proof of this plan -- preferably either citing a Warner Bros. exec, Christopher Nolan, or Zack Snyder *prior* to the release of BvS.

And preferably, prior to the release of Man of Steel.

There have been articles about this.

SCREEN RANT: What Was Zack Snyder's Original 5 Movie DCEU Plan?

Quote

The first Man of Steel came out 5 years ago, so how is its sequel not further along?

 

The answer has recently surfaced and left many fans scratching their heads. It turns out the sequel to Man of Steel was always meant to be Batman v Superman. In fact, according to Jay Oliva, who worked closely with Zack Snyder on all his DCEU projects, Man of Steel was the first installment in what Snyder intended to be a five movie arc focused on Superman. However, despite the focus on the big blue boy scout, not a single one of those movies was meant to be Man of Steel 2.

 

So that means Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, Justice League Part I, and Justice League Part II had a fifth companion to tell a single Superman arc. Is it possible there was supposed to also be a Justice League Part III? While only 2 Justice League movies were ever announced by Warner Bros, but back in 2015, a rumor briefly circulated claiming that Justice League would be a trilogy. It didn't get much traction at the time, but with what we know now, especially in light of Jay Oliva's recent tweets, a Zack Snyder planned Justice League trilogy makes a lot of sense.

 

The reality is Zack Snyder had a full arc plotted out, and there's even evidence in movies with things like the Knightmare sequence, the crosses at the end of the Doomsday battle, and more all serving as set up for something that was supposed to pay off in movies down the line.

 

The problem, and where claims that DC didn't have a plan should get a little credence, is the fact that Zack Snyder was never allowed to properly execute on that plan. Warner Bros. has spent a majority of the DCEU trying to course correct, cutting 30 minutes from Snyder's cut of BvS  to create the inferior theatrical cut, drastically altering Suicide Squad after BvS's reception, ordering pre-production changes to Snyder's original version of Justice League, then, eventually, firing him altogether and having Joss Whedon reshoot the movie into a completely different tone and significantly altered story.

 

[Bosco685]

Superman Was "Unhinged" in Snyder's Ending, Says Justice League Artist

Quote

Speaking with Comic Book Debate Podcast, Oliva talked about how Snyder intended to end Justice League, specifically with regard to Superman.

 

Jay Oliva: "I did from the time they arrived to the nuclear reactor all the way to the end of the fight. There’s a couple stuff that when I watched the film I was like, ‘Well, what happened to that?’ because I was really looking forward to seeing it because I’ve done some crazy stuff. I tried to top what I’ve done with Superman. When Superman comes back, I had done some really crazy stuff like Superman unhinged."

 

This new information checks out well with what is currently known about Snyder's scrapped two-part Justice League narrative. Justice League Part 1 would've seen the return of an evil version of Superman from the dead after his sacrificial death in Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. This would've allow him to don his infamous black suit which only made a brief cameo in a deleted scene from the movie. The superhero eventually comes to his senses and joins Batman, Wonder Woman and the rest of the team in Justice League Part 2 as they go up against Steppenwolf or maybe even Darkseid. At this point, it would've been Batman who was supposed to meet his end as recently confirmed by Snyder.

[Bosco685]

There was no Man of Steel 2 planned by Zack Snyder from all that has been shared by him and Jay Oliva. It was this five-picture run that was going to end with a potential Justice League III film to wrap up Superman's story.

[Gatsby77]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

There was no Man of Steel 2 planned by Zack Snyder from all that has been shared by him and Jay Oliva. It was this five-picture run that was going to end with a potential Justice League III film to wrap up Superman's story.

Both those articles (both the one you linked to and the one *it* linked to quoting the supposed source of the 5-picture plan) date from after Justice League was released and bombed.

So...unreliable.

Snyder and company could have said anything at that point to try to save face.

I'm looking for any citations of a planned "Superman trilogy" prior to BvS's release.

[Bosco685]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

Both those articles (both the one you linked to and the one *it* linked to quoting the supposed source of the 5-picture plan) date from after Justice League was released and bombed.

So...unreliable.

Snyder and company could have said anything at that point to try to save face.

I'm looking for any citations of a planned "Superman trilogy" prior to BvS's release.

You are too funny.

[theCapraAegagrus]

15 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

You are too funny.

Everything Kevin Feige says is gospel, though...

People forget that Snyder was basically WoDC's Feige. He clearly had a plan.

[Antpark]

Why not just tweet at Snyder directly and ask him?

[Bosco685]

4 minutes ago, Antpark said:

Why not just tweet at Snyder directly and ask him?

Jay Oliva was his sole storyboard artist and partner on the planning, and has spoken to this more than once. Including that 2 (+) hour interview where he talks about all his DC and Marvel projects.

And with Snyder, that is where he came out with details over time where he was going with this. Because to publish this in advance early on would have pretty much told the full direction. So darn if you do - darn if you don't.

[Bosco685]

So he went with his rumored $70M production budget that nobody else had reported but this sole contributor on Deadline.

[paperheart]

our film-finance sources now having all the intel after the pic’s completed run see a net profit of $437M. Warner Bros only gets half of that, with Bron and Village Roadshow splitting the rest.

1/2 is better than none.  11x return for Bron & Village Roadshow

 

[Bosco685]

10 hours ago, paperheart said:

our film-finance sources now having all the intel after the pic’s completed run see a net profit of $437M. Warner Bros only gets half of that, with Bron and Village Roadshow splitting the rest.

1/2 is better than none.  11x return for Bron & Village Roadshow

 

It's actually higher.

The Deadline contributor tweaked not only the Joker budget to be much higher, but then adjusted the international revenue share to be much less than Disney films (41.5% vs 46%).

[Buzzetta]

The only solace I take from Hollywood financial reports is that there are worse things than Congress running our nations budget. It could be Hollywood.  Remember that Paramount claimed that Forrest Gump never made money and fixed the books in a way that Winston Groom, the writer, would never receive any of the incentive / royalty payouts on the film. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/25/movies/gump-a-huge-hit-still-isn-t-raking-in-huge-profits-hmm.html

 

https://www.filmstories.co.uk/features/forrest-gump-the-678m-grossing-film-that-apparently-made-a-loss/

[Bosco685]

On 4/24/2020 at 8:11 AM, Buzzetta said:

The only solace I take from Hollywood financial reports is that there are worse things than Congress running our nations budget. It could be Hollywood.  Remember that Paramount claimed that Forrest Gump never made money and fixed the books in a way that Winston Groom, the writer, would never receive any of the incentive / royalty payouts on the film. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/25/movies/gump-a-huge-hit-still-isn-t-raking-in-huge-profits-hmm.html

 

https://www.filmstories.co.uk/features/forrest-gump-the-678m-grossing-film-that-apparently-made-a-loss/

A very good point what goes into making ALL of these films. No matter the studio.

  

On 12/30/2015 at 5:28 PM, Bosco685 said:

Hollywood Accounting: Isn't it as easy as reading a studio's prospectus to figure out profits?

 

How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'

Quote

Here is an amazing glimpse into the dark side of the force that is Hollywood economics. The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.

 

How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.

Hollywood Accounting: How A $19 Million Movie Makes $150 Million... And Still Isn't Profitable

Quote

We've written about the wonders of Hollywood accounting before. It's a series of tricks pulled by Hollywood studios to make most of their movies look unprofitable, even when they're making a ton of money. The details can be complex, but a simplified version is that every studio sets up a new "shell" company for each movie -- and that company is specifically designed to lose money. The studio gives that company the production budget (the number you usually see) and then also agrees to pay for marketing and related expenses above and beyond that. Both of those numbers represent (mostly) actual cash outlays from the studio and are reasonable to count as expenses. Then comes the sneaky part: on top of all that, the studios charge the "movie company" a series of fees for other questionable things. Many of these fees involve no real direct expense for the studio, but basically pile a huge expense onto the income statement and ensure that the studio keeps getting all of the movie income -- rather than having to share the profits with key participants -- long after the movie would be considered profitable under regular accounting rules.

NPR: We See Angelina's Bottom Line

Quote

As a case study, he walks us through the numbers for "Gone In 60 Seconds." (It starred Angelina Jolie and Nicolas Cage. They stole cars. Don't pretend like you don't remember it.)

 

The movie grossed $240 million at the box office. And, after you take out all the costs and fees and everything associated with the movie, it lost $212 million.

 

This is the part of Hollywood accounting that is, essentially, fiction. Disney, which produced the movie, did not lose that money.

These are articles about how studios play with their individual movie balance sheets to claim expenses, actors claim salaries not received for negotiation power later on with other movies, or doing all they can to avoid paying royalties.

 

Fun times!

 

[Bosco685]