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.

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • Melonpoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Christopher Nolan’s Batman begins made $375M on a $150 budget.

        James Gunn’s Superman made $618m on a budget of $225m.

        • Melonpoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          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.

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Venom from 2018

            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.

            • Melonpoly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              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.