The DC Studios co-chief admits that the executive role wasn’t quite right for him and looks forward to returning to filmmaking full time.
The DC Studios co-chief admits that the executive role wasn’t quite right for him and looks forward to returning to filmmaking full time.
I was talking about movie’s since it’s almost impossible to find revenue numbers for TV shows (at least without paying). However, even if they were a success, that still doesn’t look good for the DCEU against all is movie flops.
Compared to the Marvel flops?
Gunn had 50% success with DC. Marvel has been near 100% failure. Everything is pinned on Doom digging them out of their hole.
with the amount of DOOM trailers, im not surprised its disney “last real project” they had pulled back other MCU films. Marvel had pretty decent shows prior to disney’s takeover and the slopification.
Oh wow, so we need to compare Gunn to an even greater failure in order to make him look good now?
Given that he has one of the highest success ratios in Hollywood, yes.
If this was Baseball, you’d be complaining that Babe Ruth was a failure because he only got on base 47% of the time. In European units, you’d say Harry Kane is a failure because he only scores 10% of the time.
The only movie that he has produced that has made the type of money a DC movie should in order to be sustainable, is Aquaman… so your 50% success rate is not true.
Superman was profitable, but it still is not enough to justify making that movie. It didn’t come close to making the amount of money as Spiderman when it should be able to.
It would be like if a football player (not American) was only ever able to hit the posts. It takes a lot of skill for sure, but ultimately its not worth it to keep pouring money into that player.
Christopher Nolan’s Batman begins made $375M on a $150 budget.
James Gunn’s Superman made $618m on a budget of $225m.
What’s your point? Like I said, it was profitable, but for a studio to see it as worth the effort and for them to make money off of it, $618m is not enough. $393m in profits is not great, especially when you consider how poorly all the other DC movies have been doing. I don’t think it’s even enough to pay off the expenses from Supergirl.
Spiderman has made over $2 billion on the same production budget. Venom from 2018 has made more money than the entire Gunn DCEU… Venom. Gunn is a failure for DC and a waste of money.
Venom was Sony and before Gunn was working for DC. Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy from the previous year made $869 to Venom’s $856.
The point was that a move of a lesser character has made more money than Gunn’s entire DCEU… three movies… I don’t understand how you don’t see that as being problematic? You can’t keep giving money to someone who doesn’t bring in revenue. Why do you think they sold themselves to Skydance? To try and get someone else to deal with the debt.