I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not claiming first hand knowledge. It looks like the Black Adam movie is a dumb fun comic action flick. I liked Aquaman, and it looks to be in that same realm. It did well enough to beat a few Disney films on it's opening day.
But now it's claimed to be a failure. Even though it has a profit and has paid off it's debts, the websites are claiming it's a failure.
So, here's my question, is this true? I have seen Sony lie about sales number directly. Disney paid websites to promote their latest movies. The Captain Marvel movie with empty seats, but claims to be sold out have been discussed here. Warner Bros and DC are major competitors to Disney and Marvel. Would Disney be willing to pay websites to make it sound like DC is a failure? Especially when James Gunn is canning so many films and stories.
Since we know websites lie for those they like, would this be something they were willing to do?
I'm not claiming to know if the film is good or not. I hated the first Wonder Woman movie, and watch the animated films more often. It just seems weird that there is so much push to claim the movie is a failure when it's not.
They expected to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. Movie production is about return on investment. The jews and/or Chinese investors who front $300M for a year aren't excited to just make their money back.
I didn't even realize it was out tbh
But movies today need to clear over 1bil to be considered successful. For a (somewhat) niche anti hero in the quagmire of superhero fatigue, as mentioned I don't think I saw any ads for it anywhere. It's weird how there can be packed audiences and its still considered a failure but it's all numbers
I don't think the rock is as big of a draw as he used to be either
He's one of the only movie stars left with any pull.
The article I linked to said it needed to make $650 million.
We don't even know how much films really cost, the accounting is bunk. Sales numbers are also falsified.
What we do know is that nothing these days makes as much money or capture the market percentages that blockbusters used to. In that sense, the makers' expectations continue to be shattered.
True. It's been a known problem for a while.
The Rock is one of the closest things we have to a movie star, but he ain't a movie star, more like a very savvy marketer. The only actor who is still big enough to have their own gravitational field is Tom Cruise.
See, I don't like Tom Cruise movies. He always plays this cocky guy I don't like. So he's not big in my mind.
Well, yeah, but lots of times in his movies, he pays for his cockiness and has to grow up a bit to fix it. A few examples:
In Top Gun, he loses. Iceman wins.
In Rain Man, he alienates his girlfriend.
In Vanilla Sky, he loses everything.
In Cocktail, he loses the girl.
He might be kind of typecast, but at least he works with competent story writers.
And as an actual movie star, he has had my respect ever since the knife scene in (IIRC) Mission Impossible 2. That would take balls of steel. I don't even care about the Scientology stuff (even though it's a weird, controlling cult) because it's at least less bad than the woke cult that runs the rest of Hollywood, and I don't care about his stance on drugs because, well, he's probably right.
The guy likes to make movies to entertain people, not to right the wrongs of the past or fix the world. In today's movie landscape, I'll take it.
I used to look down on the Scientology stuff, what idiots, now I believe it's just a protection racket from the pedo cult. Like in New York how you either paid the Italian mob or the Irish mob.
I think it was War of the Worlds when I realized how cookie cutter his characters are. I respect his work ethic, and have heard tons of compliments for his willingness to do stuff. I just don't like the character.
Hard to say as part of the play seems to be Dwayne wanted Cavill back as Superman so he could have it him as Black Adam vs Cavill"s Superman.
That would've stopped them doing diversity Superman so Black Adam might have just performed or slightly underperformed and that might've been enough fir them to go ' oh no it's a failure, guess we can't do what you wanted as it won't being in the money, oh well time to try our new diverse range'
That's very true.
Did you go out of your way to avoid mentioning the subject of your post by name?
I'm using it as an example, because it's what made me wonder. However, I meant the idea for a larger idea.
I getcha. Well I won't make any specific conjecture but I definitely agree with being a skeptic of #'s reporting. Hate to sound unoriginal, but Orwell really nailed it in 1984 with how that kind of reporting would be used, down to the most mundane announcements
Very true. A lot of what he wrote he actually saw or experienced. So we are merely catching up to his experiences.
nothing hollywood claims about anything can be taken as true. they lie as easily as they breathe.