@Sue-Yin said:

WB had enough time to change the tone of their superhero extended universe. They knew the SM fans were unhappy. They knew critics wanted less darkness and more humor. What did they do? They let ZS continue with his hopeless, depressing vision anyway. Well the test audiences were disgusted by the end product. Four months before the release, they decided to do two months of reshoots to cram jokes and more SM in the film. Not enough time to do the CGI right.

Why WB kept ZS and why they couldn't push JL.

Warner Bros. executive Greg Silverman, whose support of Zack Snyder is described as being “laissez faire,” to the point where he didn’t even offer script notes to the director.

The studio kept Snyder on board, and part of the reason for this was to maintain an image that everything was under control, and they knew what they were doing.

Much has been made of the digital (and awkward) removal of Cavill’s mustache from his reshoot scenes. Had the visual effects department had more time, they could’ve done a better job,

... in addition to keeping up appearances, there were more personal, financial stakes on the line for honchos Kevin Tsujihara and Toby Emmerich.

“… If they pushed the movie, then their bonuses would have been pushed to the following year and they might not still be at the studio,” an insider told the trade.

Indeed, part of the problem looming over all this is boring business stuff, with AT&T‘s acquisition and valuation of Warner Bros. weighing on the decision-making process.

As one insider notes, shortly after Snyder approved of Joss Whedon to come in and help lighten up the tone, “It stopped being a good situation on any level.”

Snyder is no longer involved with Warner Bros. superhero movies, but remains at the studio developing the war drama “The Last Photograph.”

Whedon is said to still be working on “Batgirl.”

https://theplaylist.net/justice-league-fell-apart-20171130/

@Mike4U said:

@Sue-Yin said:

WB had enough time to change the tone of their superhero extended universe. They knew the SM fans were unhappy. They knew critics wanted less darkness and more humor. What did they do? They let ZS continue with his hopeless, depressing vision anyway. Well the test audiences were disgusted by the end product. Four months before the release, they decided to do two months of reshoots to cram jokes and more SM in the film. Not enough time to do the CGI right.

Why WB kept ZS and why they couldn't push JL.

Warner Bros. executive Greg Silverman, whose support of Zack Snyder is described as being “laissez faire,” to the point where he didn’t even offer script notes to the director.

The studio kept Snyder on board, and part of the reason for this was to maintain an image that everything was under control, and they knew what they were doing.

Much has been made of the digital (and awkward) removal of Cavill’s mustache from his reshoot scenes. Had the visual effects department had more time, they could’ve done a better job,

... in addition to keeping up appearances, there were more personal, financial stakes on the line for honchos Kevin Tsujihara and Toby Emmerich.

“… If they pushed the movie, then their bonuses would have been pushed to the following year and they might not still be at the studio,” an insider told the trade.

Indeed, part of the problem looming over all this is boring business stuff, with AT&T‘s acquisition and valuation of Warner Bros. weighing on the decision-making process.

As one insider notes, shortly after Snyder approved of Joss Whedon to come in and help lighten up the tone, “It stopped being a good situation on any level.”

Snyder is no longer involved with Warner Bros. superhero movies, but remains at the studio developing the war drama “The Last Photograph.”

Whedon is said to still be working on “Batgirl.”

https://theplaylist.net/justice-league-fell-apart-20171130/

Thanks for sharing this very interesting article. It just describes a few of the ‘shenanigans’ I’ve learned about the stuff going on in WB from a former employee I know who used to work there. I really hope they can get the studio back into the light.

At least one of WB’s TV wing (HBO) is doing so well.

@MDBAddict said:

There will be edits and adjustments, but a strong writing team will write something suitable for the demands that are placed upon them.

But if the writers don't have the final say as Toni mentioned it doesn't matter how "solid" the script is if the director, lead actor, studio execs would want and have authority to adjust it to their satisfaction. This could've been the case for JL. Who knows, maybe Terrio wrote a better script but the suits wanted more jokes and cut out scenes and here we are.

I'm not saying the writers have the "final say"; I'm saying if they write something that meets the requests -- as well as -- being outstanding, then that is a strong team, imo.

@Mike4U said:

@Sue-Yin said:

WB had enough time to change the tone of their superhero extended universe. They knew the SM fans were unhappy. They knew critics wanted less darkness and more humor. What did they do? They let ZS continue with his hopeless, depressing vision anyway. Well the test audiences were disgusted by the end product. Four months before the release, they decided to do two months of reshoots to cram jokes and more SM in the film. Not enough time to do the CGI right.

Why WB kept ZS and why they couldn't push JL.

Warner Bros. executive Greg Silverman, whose support of Zack Snyder is described as being “laissez faire,” to the point where he didn’t even offer script notes to the director.

The studio kept Snyder on board, and part of the reason for this was to maintain an image that everything was under control, and they knew what they were doing.

Much has been made of the digital (and awkward) removal of Cavill’s mustache from his reshoot scenes. Had the visual effects department had more time, they could’ve done a better job,

... in addition to keeping up appearances, there were more personal, financial stakes on the line for honchos Kevin Tsujihara and Toby Emmerich.

“… If they pushed the movie, then their bonuses would have been pushed to the following year and they might not still be at the studio,” an insider told the trade.

Indeed, part of the problem looming over all this is boring business stuff, with AT&T‘s acquisition and valuation of Warner Bros. weighing on the decision-making process.

As one insider notes, shortly after Snyder approved of Joss Whedon to come in and help lighten up the tone, “It stopped being a good situation on any level.”

Snyder is no longer involved with Warner Bros. superhero movies, but remains at the studio developing the war drama “The Last Photograph.”

Whedon is said to still be working on “Batgirl.”

https://theplaylist.net/justice-league-fell-apart-20171130/

Good but kinda late.

... in addition to keeping up appearances, there were more personal, financial stakes on the line for honchos Kevin Tsujihara and Toby Emmerich.

“… If they pushed the movie, then their bonuses would have been pushed to the following year and they might not still be at the studio,” an insider told the trade.

OMG! The bonus was more important than WB's image? They should have pushed it. WB shouldn't give them the bonus.

@Mike4U said:

@Triksy said:

By the way, if Superman needed to be resurrected, then why did the dirt on his coffin rise? Was he buried alive (in deep coma)?

I asked and got this answer.

@HAL 9010' said:

The coffin did not shake. The rubble on top rose as though he radiated some form of lifting energy (similar to what happens to rubble around him when he sets off to fly)... and in doing so it showed us that he was perhaps not dead in the classical sense of the word....

This is pretty much supported in the comics, where it turns out that he did not die absolutely... he was just more or less dead... meaning very slow heart beat for example. A beat every two weeks or so... So the final effect in BvS was on par with the comics and I suppose it also explains how he could be "jump started" this long after his "death". The answer; he was not absolutely dead.

Thanks

To be honest, I think Supes was really dead. I think they just didn't continue the story.

Everybody knows that Supes is alive and kicking now, but nobody is saying anything about a deep coma. People keep saying that he was dead and even refer to his body as a corps.

If Supes was in a deep coma, they should give an official explanation about the rising dirt to people like me who don't read comic books. They made time to explain how they butchered Cavill's face with CGI and bragged about how much it cost. So make time to explain the rising dirt.

The next movie is Aquaman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. I think JL2 will fall by the wayside.

Aquaman and Wonder Woman are definitely a go. Not sure of another solo Batman and JL2. So far, the latest news is a Shazam movie:

http://deadline.com/2017/12/it-jack-dylan-grazer-shazam-dc-movie-1202221613/

I guess some people in WB is excited enough that JL helped them reach the $5 billion threshold.

http://deadline.com/2017/12/warner-bros-box-office-2017-5-billion-milestone-1202220759/

Guess some may be getting bonuses...

@ToniTurnyne said:

I guess some people in WB is excited enough that JL helped them reach the $5 billion threshold.

http://deadline.com/2017/12/warner-bros-box-office-2017-5-billion-milestone-1202220759/

Guess some may be getting bonuses...

No bonuses. Although, that was the reason for keeping the released date of JL in November. The execs wanted to make sure they got this year's bonuses opposed to pushing back to 2018, in which they stand the chance of not getting one.

With that said WB reaching $5 billion means nothing. The better question is how much money and how many films did it take to reach $5 billion? If they are shelling out a lot of money and losing on paper, the $5 billion means nothing.

It merely means their films in total reached $5 billion, but they have bills to pay on that money, just like anyone else.

We already know JL cost $300 million to film and maybe $150 million to market, and JL wasn't their only turkey.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-warner-bros-could-lose-on-justice-league-50-to-100-million-2017-11

@Poetist said:

@ToniTurnyne said:

I guess some people in WB is excited enough that JL helped them reach the $5 billion threshold.

http://deadline.com/2017/12/warner-bros-box-office-2017-5-billion-milestone-1202220759/

Guess some may be getting bonuses...

No bonuses. Although, that was the reason for keeping the released date of JL in November. The execs wanted to make sure they got this year's bonuses opposed to pushing back to 2018, in which they stand the chance of not getting one.

With that said WB reaching $5 billion means nothing. The better question is how much money and how many films did it take to reach $5 billion? If they are shelling out a lot of money and losing on paper, the $5 billion means nothing.

It merely means their films in total reached $5 billion, but they have bills to pay on that money, just like anyone else.

We already know JL cost $300 million to film and maybe $150 million to market, and JL wasn't their only turkey.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-warner-bros-could-lose-on-justice-league-50-to-100-million-2017-11

It must be significant enough for them to report it. It is a ‘historical record’ for them.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171205006444/en/Warner-Bros.-Pictures-Surpasses-5-Billion-Worldwide

Wonder Woman, It, Dunkirk, Kong: Skull Island and JL all made more than $500million worldwide to help it cross the threshold.

@ToniTurnyne said:

It must be significant enough for them to report it. It is a ‘historical record’ for them.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171205006444/en/Warner-Bros.-Pictures-Surpasses-5-Billion-Worldwide

Wonder Woman, It, Dunkirk, Kong: Skull Island and JL all made more than $500million worldwide to help it cross the threshold.

It's damage control to keep the stockholders happy. It's like telling everyone you won $500 million at the casino but you neglect to tell them that it cost you $1.5 billion to make that $500 million.

Essentially, the crossing the $5 billion dollar mark means nothing. It is just some arbitrary thing WB wants to toss out there, so they won't look so bad.

@Poetist said:

@ToniTurnyne said:

It must be significant enough for them to report it. It is a ‘historical record’ for them.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171205006444/en/Warner-Bros.-Pictures-Surpasses-5-Billion-Worldwide

Wonder Woman, It, Dunkirk, Kong: Skull Island and JL all made more than $500million worldwide to help it cross the threshold.

It's damage control to keep the stockholders happy. It's like telling everyone you won $500 million at the casino but you neglect to tell them that it cost you $1.5 billion to make that $500 million.

Essentially, the crossing the $5 billion dollar mark means nothing. It is just some arbitrary thing WB wants to toss out there, so they won't look so bad.

You are right that the $5 billion story may be WB’s way of stating that they are still doing ok despite all the problems they experienced with JL. But It’s hard to know the actual costs and profits of a studio.

From my discussions from the folks with financial accounting backgrounds from the old Box Office boards, shareholders receive their own financial statements from the company, so I’m sure they have more knowledge than us about the revenue, costs and profits of the studio. A leaked financial document I saw once posted on the Box Office board regarding WB’s Harry Potter revealed a lot of things about coatings and revenues I didn’t know about, and the accountants over there at the Box Office board just made my head spin on what constitutes costs, revenue and what profitability mean. Other documents leaked for the costs and profit made from other movies also made my head spin, but I do remember being surprised which ones actually made a profits and which ones didn’t.

@ToniTurnyne said:

From my discussions from the folks with financial accounting backgrounds from the old Box Office boards, shareholders receive their own financial statements from the company, so I’m sure they have more knowledge than us about the revenue, costs and profits of the studio.

I'm a shareholder, and there is nothing stopping a shareholder from selling their shares. Any hint of bad news will scare off a lot of people.

A shareholder will only know the true financials when the prospectus comes out, and it comes out quarterly. For some people waiting for the next quarter could be too late and they sell while they are somewhat ahead or they want to cut their losses. Now, that can be a bad thing for the stability of the company, so a companies want to present the image that they are doing well.

@Poetist said:

@ToniTurnyne said:

From my discussions from the folks with financial accounting backgrounds from the old Box Office boards, shareholders receive their own financial statements from the company, so I’m sure they have more knowledge than us about the revenue, costs and profits of the studio.

I'm a shareholder, and there is nothing stopping a shareholder from selling their shares. Any hint of bad news will scare off a lot of people.

A shareholder will only know the true financials when the prospectus comes out, and it comes out quarterly. For some people waiting for the next quarter could be too late and they sell while they are somewhat ahead or they want to cut their losses. Now, that can be a bad thing for the stability of the company, so a companies want to present the image that they are doing well.

As a shareholder though, I wouldn’t only be looking at how JL is doing. WB had other movies that did well, their TV side is going strong (thanks to HBO’s success), and they seem to be other aspects of their company to look into like the recent take over of AT&T and some business dealings they are doing in China.

@ToniTurnyne said:

As a shareholder though, I wouldn’t only be looking at how JL is doing. WB had other movies that did well, their TV side is going strong (thanks to HBO’s success), and they seem to be other aspects of their company to look into like the recent take over of AT&T and some business dealings they are doing in China.

Time Warner owns WB and yes AT&T is attempting to take over Time Warner, however that merger hasn't been approved. With that said, investors come in many different types. Some would look at the big picture and there are some that have other reasons to sell. Personally, I might take a lead from the CEO and sell, because he unloaded his stocks. When you consider a decline in cable subscription, which affects ad revenue, and then WB's turkeys, you might want to say enough is enough.

Overall, the company appears solid, but I wouldn't want to put my money in a company that makes foolish decisions and doesn't pull its weight to make the conglomerate stronger.