Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies

'Aquaman 2' Has Made Just 12% of What 'Aquaman 1' Earned (forbes.com) 128

Posted by EditorDavid from the lost-kingdoms dept.
Forbes writes: "I am not sure there could have been a more ignominious end to the DCEU." Aquaman 2 opened with $27.7 million domestically, well under half the $67.8 million opening for the original Aquaman. But it's the overall box office totals that are especially dire, as the film has made just over $138.5 million worldwide. That is about 12% of Aquaman 1's final total of $1.1 billion in 2018, where it is the DCEU's highest grossing entry.

The counter to this is that it perhaps is too soon to run these numbers, as it just came out right? Well, a few extra factors to consider. It is already out in a ton of major markets, so there are relatively few potential surges that can still happen outside places like Korea and New Zealand, which can only add so much. Most importantly Aquaman 2 has already launched in China, where it made $30 million in its opening, again, far below the original's opening at $93 million there, doing even worse there than domestically, in context. Aquaman 1 went on to make $292 million in China, a figure Aquaman 2 will not come within a mile of. Next, what DC, and many blockbusters, have been doing lately are these incredibly short theatrical windows, so the clock is ticking quickly...

Of course this is not exclusive to DC, as we have an extremely direct comparison over at Marvel with The Marvels, which at a $205.6 million global gross, the final figure, that is 18% of Captain Marvel's $1.13 billion total. Aquaman 2 has the advantage of being a true sequel, not a team-up piece from other TV shows you theoretically needed to watch beforehand, but it also has the disadvantage of being the last dying gasp of the DCEU coming after a string of other high profile box office failures from Shazam 2 to Blue Beetle.

There was really no way it was going to avoid its fate, even if it did review well (which it didn't, as at 35% on Rotten Tomatoes, it's one of the DCEU's lowest rated films).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Aquaman 2' Has Made Just 12% of What 'Aquaman 1' Earned More

'Aquaman 2' Has Made Just 12% of What 'Aquaman 1' Earned

Comments Filter:

  • Amber Heard (Score:3)

    by christoban ( 3028573 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @04:13PM (#64119943)

    Perhaps because Amber Heard was in it.

    • Couldn't have helped. Depp's a mess, but he clearly came out as the victim of a mentally ill woman and I doubt anyone who is the slightest bit of a Depp fan wants to watch her right now.

      • Victim... he won one case lost another. In the UK, the capital for libel tourism, he lost. Can legally call him a wife beater.

        • anyone that seen the US case knows that UK case was complete Shame and the Judge was conflicted/corrupt. That came out in the case how they let AH selectly release what she wanted.

    • Perhaps because Amber Heard was in it.

      But do bad things happen to her? I mean to her character?

      Asking for a friend.

      • I don't know, I'm sure as fuck not watching anything with her in it. When her photo evidence of bruises to her face turned out to be 100% doctored and then she accidentally admitted to informing TMZ that she'd be at the courthouse and to take pics of a certain side of her face, she lost that trial 100%. None but the woke believed her after that.

      • OK, I asked ChatGPT. She is only in the first half of the movie, and is seriously injured. And she appears on-screen for less than 5 minutes, so that's all a plus. Still, better to pirate this one.

    • I, for one, cannot wait for our new AI overlords to cause the phenomenon of making mentally-ill hot-messes of people into multimillionaires because they act in crappy movies that are at least half CGI-generated anyway.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dbialac ( 320955 )

        making mentally-ill hot-messes of people into multimillionaires because they act

        She spent almost her entire time in The Informers naked. I'm not sure if anybody really determined if she was doing acting or porn. I'm not sure how easy it would be to find somebody else who wasn't doing porn to do that role. I think she's just an exhibitionist.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

          It has a 4.9/10 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0... [imdb.com]
          Lots of stars, is it that bad?

        • Someone involved in the production of Aquaman 1 said she was so bad, after lots of takes with her and Jason Mamola, they ended up spending a ton of money on CGI to get her face to emote properly. I'm shocked that after the Depp trial, they promised she was out, then there she is, in the sequel!

    • You mean Willy Wonka's bedroom chocolate factory?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      I'm sure it was a factor, but I doubt it was a major one, especially outside of NA and the UK. Hell 80% of the movie going public probably don't even know she was in it.

  • "What if they had a war, and no one showed up?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @04:21PM (#64119959)
    Similar feelings about superhero movies that nobody shows up to see. It's good when audiences don't cooperate with their own gaslighting.

    Story. Character. Visuals. Pick two, at very least.

    • Re:"What if they had a war, and no one showed up?" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @04:37PM (#64120003) Homepage

      Story. Character. Visuals. Pick two, at very least.

      To be fair, Hollywood used to be able to get by on just amazing visuals. But nowadays CGI is so commonplace it's no longer the spectacle it once was. Seriously, try getting a Gen Zer to sit through Titanic. Dare I say, even if the original Jurassic Park movie was released today, it would probably be considered a b-grade flick. A major part of what made those movies iconic in their day was how far they pushed VFX technology.

      Even the original 1977 Star Wars was just a by-the-numbers Hero's Journey arc, but with amazing VFX (for the time). Which actually makes it all the more ironic when George Lucas once said "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing."

      • The 1977 Star Wars was a Doric column of balanced perfection among all three of story, character, and visuals. I could also add in such vague categories as "tone" and "pacing."

        • And the best thing about it was that the editing team removed most of Lucas's "directing" and "storytelling" in the final cut.

        • The original Obi Wan, who should know a thing or two about movies, called it "childishly banal" though.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by EvilSS ( 557649 )
          Eh, 1977 Starwars was the Avatar of its day. Amazing visuals, pretty thin plot and story. Lots of rose-tinted glasses for it but let's be honest; if you look at just the story, it's average at best.

      • Re:"What if they had a war, and no one showed up?" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @05:30PM (#64120149)

        even if the original Jurassic Park movie was released today, it would probably be considered a b-grade flick

        I would hope not, I recently re-watched it and man, JP '93 is one of those things you can class as a "perfect movie" in that there is zero waste on the thing; no bad shots, characters are developed excellently cast and developed and everyone involved is just firing on all cylinders, directing, DP, editing, writing. Also in my opinion, the best John Williams score.

        That's not to say it's flawless, no film is, but while engaged with it those easily fall to the wayside. The real thing is that it's a product of it's time, you won't ever get those people in that place together again. When you try to force it you end up with "Jurassic World".

        • It was basically "Westworld but with dinosaurs", though. As you said, a confluence of other factors came together and made it an otherwise good flick despite the underlying story essentially being a rehash. Today, I'm sure the movie would be judged much more harshly since audiences have already seen plenty of similar VFX and the awe factor just wouldn't be there.

          But back in the day, the dinos were the real stars of the show.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          You may enjoy the be Godzilla movie. It's pretty much flawless. Fantastic acting, one of the best scripts in the last decade or two.

      • Those movies stand the test of time despite the CGI and VFX. One of the big differences is that actors had actual things to react and interact with. Modern movies are dead because everything, from the space ships to the dinosaurs to the extras is done in post rather than shot and reshot with real actors.

      • Dare I say, even if the original Jurassic Park movie was released today, it would probably be considered a b-grade flick.

        You'd be wrong. The original Jurassic Park had a very compelling story and the visuals hold up very well today. There are also many movies released which do very well with borderline no VFX at all, to say nothing of CGI. You think John Wick 4 didn't do well? It had no CGI and very few VFX beyond muzzle flashes.

        To be fair, Hollywood used to be able to get by on just amazing visuals.

        No they didn't. People may praise VFX but no movies got by on just amazing visuals alone. There were some truly ground breaking movies in the VFX department which were released like a wet fart and fai

      • Story. Character. Visuals. Pick two, at very least.

        To be fair, Hollywood used to be able to get by on just amazing visuals. But nowadays CGI is so commonplace it's no longer the spectacle it once was. Seriously, try getting a Gen Zer to sit through Titanic. Dare I say, even if the original Jurassic Park movie was released today, it would probably be considered a b-grade flick. A major part of what made those movies iconic in their day was how far they pushed VFX technology.

        Even the original 1977 Star Wars was just a by-the-numbers Hero's Journey arc, but with amazing VFX (for the time). Which actually makes it all the more ironic when George Lucas once said "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing."

        You've missed the big lesson behind James Cameron's success.

        Simple stories, told really well. Just look at his interview about when he was casting DiCaprio in Titanic to understand what I mean [nme.com]:

        When you can do what you know Jimmy Stewart did or Gregory Peck did, they just fucking stood there. They didn’t have a limp or a lisp or whatever, then you’ll be ready for this. But I’m thinking you’re not ready, cause what I’m talking about is actually much harder. Those things are easie

    • Re:"What if they had a war, and no one showed up?" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nkwe ( 604125 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @04:37PM (#64120005)

      Story. Character. Visuals. Pick two, at very least.

      And if you pick Visuals, please make sure the physics (of motion) are at least somewhat realistic. Bad CGI with bad physics has been the primary thing that has put me off from all the super hero movies of late. I am okay with suspension of disbelief in a movie (in some ways, that's the point), I am okay with magic and super powers - they are fun to imagine being real, but breaking basic physics of motion is always jarring to me and resumes my disbelief. I know it's odd that I am good with things like teleportation, shape shifting, and failure to conserve energy or matter..., but for some reason bad and unrealistic motion is the killer for me. I am not against CGI - when done well, it adds a lot; but when done poorly (cheaply) without respect to the art of how things actually move, it sucks.

      • Agreed. If you want to make a movie about the visuals, go ahead. It will be immersive if you do it properly. Let light speak for itself, so there are realistic shadows. Let sound speak for itself, so that shockwaves are delayed from explosions, and there is nothing to hear in space. Let things move as they would move, if they existed. But if you infantilize audiences, please just fuck off and make games instead of films.

      • > I know it's odd that I am good with things like teleportation, shape shifting, and failure to conserve energy or matter..., but for some reason bad and unrealistic motion is the killer for me

        Not odd at all - your brain has an incredible ability to model Newtonian physics with no apparent effort. You use it all the time to move around in the real world and interact with other objects (or avoid interacting with them). You've been doing it with increasing skill ever since you were born, and anything tha

      • Like when wonder woman grabs a tank buy the tip of the canon and swings it around effortlessly. It'd mean that she's made of neutronium and also the canon would snap or at least bend.

      • Re:"What if they had a war, and no one showed up?" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Shazatoga ( 614011 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @06:19PM (#64120267)
        This is why the CGI in Jurassic Park still looks good. Steven Spielberg made sure that the CGI had "weight" to it. Meaning that if a CGI dinosaur ran into a room, actual tables were thrown about. That and he used it sparingly.

      • Story. Character. Visuals. Pick two, at very least.

        And if you pick Visuals, please make sure the physics (of motion) are at least somewhat realistic. Bad CGI with bad physics has been the primary thing that has put me off from all the super hero movies of late. I am okay with suspension of disbelief in a movie (in some ways, that's the point), I am okay with magic and super powers - they are fun to imagine being real, but breaking basic physics of motion is always jarring to me and resumes my disbelief.

        I think that's a legitimate complaint, there's two big reasons I see:

        1) We have an intuitive understanding of how physics works, when you violate that understanding it really breaks immersion.

        2) It breaks empathy. One of the thing that the Netflix Daredevil did well was make him fairly physically normal, so when he got hit with something we understood how much that hurt. When Iron Man in a metal case gets thrown into a mountain or something we understand it's not realistic because his suite isn't just a can

    • It's good when audiences don't cooperate with their own gaslighting.

      If only that would happen with politics ... (sigh)

      • Life and art are training for each other. If you'll eat shit in one venue, you'll eat shit in another.

  • We still watch a lot of these movies, and I honestly didn’t even know it was close to release until a load of sites I follow all posted their reviews on the day the embargo must’ve lifted. I mentioned it to my wife, and she had no clue it was anywhere close to coming out either.

    Where was the marketing on this? They must’ve known they had a dud on their hands if they couldn’t even reach people with a mild interest.

  • Please. No more! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vistic ( 556838 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @04:33PM (#64119995)

    Maybe everyone is just sick of this repetitive derivative predictable superhero movie crap? Massive exercises in marketing and commercialization with no artistic value and rapidly diminishing entertainment value?

    I hit my limit when Iron Man 2 came out. Its absolutely amazed me the rest of the world still had an appetite for this pablum.

    • It might also be that the release calendar is just too packed. Usually if you're releasing a film in December or January you're sending it out to die. It's called a summer blockbuster for a reason. I don't know if the yearly release calendar can support this many hundred million dollar Plus movies

      • Usually if you're releasing a film in December or January you're sending it out to die. It's called a summer blockbuster for a reason.

        Well yeah, between the holiday shopping and travel, who has money leftover to spend on going to the movies this time of year? This is the time of year you bust open a pack of Ramen noodles and watch whatever crap happens to be on the streaming service(s) you're subscribed to at the moment, until the Christmas bills are paid.

      • December has always been a big movie month as well as summer with so many people taking vacation time and spending it with their families. Timing isn't the reason these movies are flopping.
        • Exactly. The Force Awakens, Rogue One, The Last Jedi, and The Rise of Skywalker were all released in mid-December, just like this movie.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      There are good stories to be told there, but both Marvel and DC seem to be focused on trying to build the next Avengers style team. They want to set up a franchise, making a good stand alone movie is not enough.

      Hopefully Gunn will sort out DC. His previous DC stuff, Suicide Squad and especially Peacemaker, were both really good. Marvel seems to be screwed, but maybe this is an opportunity to ditch Kang and do something better.

    • Maybe everyone is just sick of this repetitive derivative predictable superhero movie crap?

      Except no, there's some superhero movies which did well this year as well. The problem is that people are sick of "crap" period. There's no problem with superheros or a predictably happy ending to a story. There is a problem with not having a story at all, or it being completely no sequitur nonsense (in the case of this Aquaman).

  • The studios seem to be addicted to... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @04:42PM (#64120015)

    Reboots, remakes and retelling of old stories, over and over
    We need creative, new ideas

    • Reboots, remakes and retelling of old stories, over and over.

      TL;DR: Spider-Man #

    • Because they think trying something new is a risk. And yeah, it is. Will the audience like the script? Will they reject it?

      Let's play it safe with known and tried formulas. That way we know it will bomb because nobody wants to see a movie that's been done better before...

      • There are plenty of things to talk about, plenty of scripts people love. There is a big resurgence in the lesser known studios towards historical movies, movies critical of modern culture and they are making millions. You only have to look at the highest rated (90%) audience score movies on Rotten Tomatoes for 2022 and 2023, watch those movies, there arenâ(TM)t many but theyâ(TM)re all awesome. Too bad the RT doesnâ(TM)t give a proper API to make that listing, all their lists are blockbusters

        • Those 90% critic ratings are from people who don't want to piss off the wrong people and "offend" someone by not liking a movie with an all important "message".

          Problem is, movie goers don't give half a fuck about a "message", what they want is entertainment.

    • Reboots, remakes and retelling of old stories, over and over
      We need creative, new ideas

      Just wait until you find out most movies are based on books.

  • Was it any good? It seemed to make money, at any rate...

    • Was it any good? It seemed to make money, at any rate...

      Jason Momoa doesn't seem like he was the best choice for a leading role, but odd casting choices just seem to go hand-in-hand with DC films. Maybe it's from all the years of seeing him on Stargate Atlantis, but I still just consider him to be more of a supporting actor.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HBI ( 10338492 )

        I always think of him banging Emilia Clarke doggy-style. I suppose that's a supporting role too.

    • As far as I could tell, the first Aquaman film just sold tickets to women who thought Jason Momoa was hot. Some of them brought their children along, too. The novelty factor seems to have worn off now, so it hasn't worked for the sequel.

      • I'd say that being "hot" is his only skill. But admittedly it's possible I'm just jealous - my wife certainly finds Momoa rather hot.

  • Feels a bit like ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @04:49PM (#64120035)

    What Eleanor (Kristen Bell) said on The Good Place [wikipedia.org]:

    Casey: Hey, a bunch of us are going to see Spider-Man 2 tonight, you wanna come?
    Eleanor Shellstrop: They made a second Spider-Man? What is there left to say?

    • Sony only bought the rights to the origin story and some of the sinister six. So that's all we ever get. Anything else they'd have to pay Marvel (now Disney) for and Marvel's part they're actively trying to tank spiderman & X-Men & the Fantastic Four in the hopes of buying it back for cheap. Spidy's big enough they're limited in what they can do but they really did X-Men & FF dirty.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      There are loads of good Spiderman stories. The problem is that the rights to the characters are split between Disney and Sony.

  • I don't care what kind of movie it is- superhero, drama, romance, animated, scifi, action, comedy, thriller, whatever. Can they actually make movies with a good plot and story again?!

    I mean, gone are the days where even the second tier movies had interesting ideas that were executed brilliantly. It seems it's only about a sequel with rehashed stories ad nauseum.

    Look at most of the top movies of the last two years. With few exceptions- you didn't NEED the special effects to make the movie FEEL exciting or en

    • Entertainment? Movies are for lecturing social issues don't cha know?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfm3 ( 830843 )

      *Notable exceptions include Top Gun maverick...

      You might not be aware of this, but VERY few special effects or CGI was used in Maverick [screenrant.com]. The cast members were actually trained to fly the planes, and recorded in flight using special cameras mounted to the canopy glass. Pretty much the only GCI-heavy aspects of that movie were the enemy facility and missile defenses in the climax scene, nearly everything else was real.

      • The only time Cruise actually flew in the movie was at the end in his own privately owned P51 Mustang. He did not fly the jets, nor did any cast members. Navy pilots flew front seat while cameras filmed the actors in the back seat.

  • Aquaman was always a joke. People assumed Ant-Man would bomb, but it had good writing and good comedy. The writing wasn't there for Aquaman, and Jason Momoa isn't a comedy actor. I don't even understand how the first Aquaman made money; the story and characters were lame, acting sub-par, the special effects crap. They should have seen this coming.

    • Aquaman was always a joke. People assumed Ant-Man would bomb, but it had good writing and good comedy.

      And the latest Antman did bomb because they forgot that it isn't a superhero franchise, it is a comedy franchise.

  • AM1 was pretty good. AM2 needed a script. (Score:3)

    by localroger ( 258128 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @05:05PM (#64120081) Homepage
    Seriously, the AM2 script felt like something I might have written when I was 15 years old. You're spending $200 million to make a movie and you can't afford to hire a writer? There were at least four awful infodump montages, including the very first few scenes of the movie notsplaining how Aquaman married the queen, became King of Atlantis, had a kid, and hated his job because it wasn't about breaking bad guys' heads. The visuals were actually pretty impressive, and I don't blame the actors because they (and especially Jason M) certainly seemed to have a lot of heart in it. But they weren't given any material to work with. It was almost literally the stereotype bad writing example of "This happened, and then that happened, and then this other thing happened, and HP felt really bad about it so he did this other thing and something else happened" which they tell you not to do on day 1 of How To Write.
    • Seems like the issue is they hire a team of writers then the producers re-write it via committee then hire more writers then re-write their work and the cycle continues until they've perfectly crafted something no one will like.

  • Malaise Not Limited to Superhero Franchises (Score:3)

    by crunchygranola ( 1954152 ) on Sunday December 31, 2023 @05:24PM (#64120133)

    Disney's latest major animated release *Wish* is also sinking at the box office. It has in common with *Aquaman II* and *The Marvels* that it constitutes corporate product, cranked out on a schedule, rather than anyone's genuine inspiration. Failing in the Year of Barbenheimer highlights that if you make a good movie people will come out to see it. These two international best performing movies are nothing alike, except they are both worth seeing.

    • Disney's latest major animated release *Wish* is also sinking at the box office.

      It's more like history repeating itself. Disney put out a bunch of flops after Walt died and it took them 18 years before they had their so-called renaissance. [wikipedia.org]

      Failing in the Year of Barbenheimer highlights that if you make a good movie people will come out to see it. These two international best performing movies are nothing alike, except they are both worth seeing.

      One's a biographical dramatization of one of the major inventors of the atomic bomb, and the other is a flick about a popular girls' doll. If I had to guess, I'd say Netflix probably had a hand in making mainstream audiences more open to watching documentary-type films, and as for Barbie, never underestimate the amount of money parents are willing

    • There's nothing wrong with being corporate or on a schedule. There's a problem with being crap. All three you describe are crap with a script that could be charitably said to have been written by a highschool intern, and a complete lack of any competent direction.

  • Well, that may be exactly the problem here. On the other hand, what problem, actually? If nobody cares about the movie, then it does not matter it did badly.

  • If I were a movie studio I would just stop making bad movies.

    • oh you would, well thanks for clarifying that for us.
    • It is a peculiar form of groupthink that somehow convinces Hollywood execs that filming more dogshit sequels to dogshit movies will be an eternal source of revenues. Hollywood hasn't produced a good movie in 20 years. No Country for Old Men was the last good movie that was nominally a "Hollywood" movie. It has been an incessant string of abject nonsense or intolerable mediocrity, at best, hyped up by costly marketing campaigns. Aquaman is just a prominent case. I can't bear any title produced by Apple, Netf
  • there's something fishy about it.

  • There are sooo many of those ultra-samey movies, it was bound to happen: people are tired of superheros.

    The same thing happened to westerns: after decades of the genre, people had enough and moved on. The superhero tidal wave shortened the life of that particular genre to mere years.

    And now at last we might have a chance to enjoy some decent cinematic creations again, instead of copy-pasta CGI bullcrap...

  • ...have been watered down?

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close