Bhahahahaha! This movie is such a bomb. DC doesnt know what they are doing. Gunn doesnt know what he is doing. No one at the top knows what they are doing. The best thing to do now is to take a 5 year brake and start all over again. Same with Star Wars.

Well, as of today (26 August), the movie is failing at the box office.

I've read a little online about it, and of the people who have seen it, they are perplexed by this, since-- according to them, at least --the movie succeeds in all areas when it comes to what an effective superhero movie is supposed to be. Leading many of them to the uncomfortable possible conclusion that the movie is a failure because it is the first in the genre to have a Latino as the lead.

I am not so sure, however. I haven't seen Blue Beetle for two main reasons-- #1, it's a superhero movie, and I have very specific criteria for seeing a movie in that genre (with very few exceptions, it has to have Batman in it), and #2, I tend to disregard superhero movies when they get down into the second- and third- tier of superheros (which is also why I didn't see Aquaman or Ant-Man, for example).

The argument of the kryptonite (pun intended) of the Latino lead also fails for me because movies and television shows featuring black superhero leads (Black Lightning and Black Panther) have done well; I don't know why a Latino lead would do worse. Latinos/Hispanics are the largest minority in the U.S. (I'm speaking of the U.S. film market, in this case), and their representation-- and intermarriage --throughout American society is extensive. So I don't think having a Latino lead is the reason for its failure.

I may yet break my rules on this movie and see it at some point-- either in theater or after home rental release --since I have heard so much positivity from people who have actually seen it, and also, I have this curiosity to see George Lopez (even more than Xolo Mariduena [I apologize for not being able to type the accent over the n]) stretch his skills on the big screen.

I'm predicting an ok but not Barbie topping reception. This release has a bunch of things working against it.

1. SAG strike means the cast isn't allowed to promote the movie. No interviews, no appearances, no nothing.
2. I think audiences in general have cooled toward superhero movies.
3. The director Angel Manuel Soto ...I hope I'm wrong, but I think this may be a case of Ang Lee Hulk syndrome - a successful, artistic, award winning director from another country is given a buttload of money to do a brainless American action flick. I mean... Hulk. Need I say more.
4. What put Barbie over the top was its social context and topical themes. In a summer currently dominated by highly charged social commentaries like Barbie & Oppenheimer, I don't think a DC superhero flick is going to find its footing. Might've done better if it were released as a winter flick.

@northcoast said:

Well, as of today (26 August), the movie is failing at the box office.

I've read a little online about it, and of the people who have seen it, they are perplexed by this, since-- according to them, at least --the movie succeeds in all areas when it comes to what an effective superhero movie is supposed to be. Leading many of them to the uncomfortable possible conclusion that the movie is a failure because it is the first in the genre to have a Latino as the lead.

I am not so sure, however. I haven't seen Blue Beetle for two main reasons-- #1, it's a superhero movie, and I have very specific criteria for seeing a movie in that genre (with very few exceptions, it has to have Batman in it), and #2, I tend to disregard superhero movies when they get down into the second- and third- tier of superheros (which is also why I didn't see Aquaman or Antman, for example).

The argument of the kryptonite (pun intended) of the Latino lead also fails for me because movies and television shows featuring black superhero leads (Black Lightning and Black Panther) have done well; I don't know why a Latino lead would do worse. Latinos/Hispanics are the largest minority in the U.S. (I'm speaking of the U.S. film market, in this case), and their representation-- and intermarriage --throughout American society is extensive. So I don't think having a Latino lead is the reason for its failure.

I may yet break my rules on this movie and see it at some point-- either in theater or after home rental release --since I have heard so much positivity from people who have actually seen it, and also, I have this curiosity to see George Lopez (even more than Xolo Mariduena [I apologize for not being able to type the accent over the n]) stretch his skills on the big screen.

The problem is that they are relying too much on the Latino aspect. It seemed like in all the press that was basically all they focused on. Instead of having a good script and a fleshed out lead character. I havent seen it but I heard that one of the big things is Jamie not wanting to kill. But apparently his entire family seems to be killing people left and right and making jokes about it? I dont know it just seems weird. This movie is a bomb. Not because people dont want to see a Latino lead, but because people dont want to watch shit films. Same as Marvel and Star Wars. But I also love how they are trying to blame a storm for poor performance as well. We have gone from racism, sexism, and now bad weather as excuses for films not performing. Im looking forward to what's next!

@northcoast said:

Well, as of today (26 August), the movie is failing at the box office.

I've read a little online about it, and of the people who have seen it, they are perplexed by this, since-- according to them, at least --the movie succeeds in all areas when it comes to what an effective superhero movie is supposed to be. Leading many of them to the uncomfortable possible conclusion that the movie is a failure because it is the first in the genre to have a Latino as the lead.

I am not so sure, however. I haven't seen Blue Beetle for two main reasons-- #1, it's a superhero movie, and I have very specific criteria for seeing a movie in that genre (with very few exceptions, it has to have Batman in it), and #2, I tend to disregard superhero movies when they get down into the second- and third- tier of superheros (which is also why I didn't see Aquaman or Ant-Man, for example).

The argument of the kryptonite (pun intended) of the Latino lead also fails for me because movies and television shows featuring black superhero leads (Black Lightning and Black Panther) have done well; I don't know why a Latino lead would do worse. Latinos/Hispanics are the largest minority in the U.S. (I'm speaking of the U.S. film market, in this case), and their representation-- and intermarriage --throughout American society is extensive. So I don't think having a Latino lead is the reason for its failure.

I may yet break my rules on this movie and see it at some point-- either in theater or after home rental release --since I have heard so much positivity from people who have actually seen it, and also, I have this curiosity to see George Lopez (even more than Xolo Mariduena [I apologize for not being able to type the accent over the n]) stretch his skills on the big screen.

Xolo Maridueña

You can just copy/paste it from the net.

Was Iron Man first tier when you watched his first movie? Did you watch GOTG?

I've never seen Iron Man-- I cannot stand Robert Downey, Jr.. And I've not seen, nor have I any desire to see, any of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies.

As far as the tier-level of superheros, the lore of the comics matters more than the viewership of the films; thus, Ant-Man, Aquaman, Blue Beetle (as examples) will always be second- or third-tier. Unlike Batman (and Superman, and Spiderman), which will always be first-tier.

Of course, Batman reigns supreme over all of them.

@Damienracer said:

@northcoast said:

Was Iron Man first tier when you watched his first movie? Did you watch GOTG?

I've never seen Iron Man-- I cannot stand Robert Downey, Jr.. And I've not seen, nor have I any desire to see, any of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies.

As far as the tier-level of superheros, the lore of the comics matters more than the viewership of the films; thus, Ant-Man, Aquaman, Blue Beetle (as examples) will always be second- or third-tier. Unlike Batman (and Superman, and Spiderman), which will always be first-tier.

Of course, Batman reigns supreme over all of them.

The first Aquaman movie made a billion.

Second one will be lucky to make 350 million.

I just got back from seeing this earlier today. A fun movie; Xolo Maridueña was excellent in the role of Jaime Reyes/Blue Beetle. It was a movie very much about the importance of family. It is revealed in the film that the creator of the original Blue Beetle, the father of Jenny Kord, Ted Kord, took some inspiration from the Batman mythos. Probably another reason I enjoyed this movie ( as I've previously mentioned on TMDB, I am a huge Batman fan). Like Batman, Blue Beetle also tries not to kill his opponents.

Four weeks ago (20 August 2023) "Blue Beetle (2023)" took the number one spot from "Barbie(2023)" with its domestic box office opening of $25.4 million. Added to the international box office - $18 million - brought the total to $43.4 million. The worldwide gross box now (15 September 2023) is $114.9 million.

If the box office numbers don't improve, it will not reach its break even point of $208 million - $260 million (2-2.5 x production budget of $104 million)

So, although the Rotten Tomatoes critics (78%) and audience score ( 92%) are good, "Blue Beetle (2023)" seems to be heading into the same direction as "Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023)" and "The Flash (2023)".

Two reasons for this possible failure have already been mentioned: the end of the DCEU with its reboot into James Gunn's new DCU, and the SAG-AFTRA strike.

Warner Bros. hopes that its last movie of the DCEU, "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (2023)", bucks the trend of financially disappointing superhero movies in 2023, and that it will become a success in December 2023.

So, although the Rotten Tomatoes critics (78%) and audience score ( 92%) are good, "Blue Beetle (2023)" seems to be heading into the same direction as "Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023)" and "The Flash (2023)".

Two reasons for this possible failure have already been mentioned: the end of the DCEU with its reboot into James Gunn's new DCU, and the SAG-AFTRA strike.

I wouldn't be too quick to write off Blue Beetle, wonder2wonder.

Despite its lackluster (though not terrible) box office run, I have read that Blue Beetle will continue in the rebooted DC-- along with the original actor remaining in the role --although Blue Beetle might just be one of many superhero characters in the next DC project he appears in, rather than having his very own sequel.

Blue Beetle has been tremendously popular among Hispanic audiences here in the U.S., and that demographic is now the largest minority in the U.S., and is only growing. In money-obsessed Hollywood, these factors may yet work in Blue Beetle's favor in continuing his legacy. Blue Beetle was set up for a continuation (it is teased at the very end of the movie that Jaime/Blue Beetle's love interest, Jenny Kord [and my is Bruna Marquezine beautiful], might not be all alone in the world after all, following the death of her aunt) of its own, and I still hold out hope it might get it.

Blue Beetle is still in theaters, and has finally come to my small flyover town; I may go again tonight for a repeat viewing (I saw it earlier in a larger city).

Do not count the Beetle out yet, wonder2wonder!;)

@northcoast said:

So, although the Rotten Tomatoes critics (78%) and audience score ( 92%) are good, "Blue Beetle (2023)" seems to be heading into the same direction as "Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023)" and "The Flash (2023)".

Two reasons for this possible failure have already been mentioned: the end of the DCEU with its reboot into James Gunn's new DCU, and the SAG-AFTRA strike.

I wouldn't be too quick to write off Blue Beetle, wonder2wonder.

Despite its lackluster (though not terrible) box office run, I have read that Blue Beetle will continue in the rebooted DC-- along with the original actor remaining in the role --although Blue Beetle might just be one of many superhero characters in the next DC project he appears in, rather than having his very own sequel.

Blue Beetle has been tremendously popular among Hispanic audiences here in the U.S., and that demographic is now the largest minority in the U.S., and is only growing. In money-obsessed Hollywood, these factors may yet work in Blue Beetle's favor in continuing his legacy. Blue Beetle was set up for a continuation (it is teased at the very end of the movie that Jaime/Blue Beetle's love interest, Jenny Kord [and my is Bruna Marquezine beautiful], might not be all alone in the world after all, following the death of her aunt) of its own, and I still hold out hope it might get it.

Blue Beetle is still in theaters, and has finally come to my small flyover town; I may go again tonight for a repeat viewing (I saw it earlier in a larger city).

Do not count the Beetle out yet, wonder2wonder!;)

BB has made $114,792,500 worldwide. Its dead. It is beyond dead. It has worse numbers than Shazam! Fury of the Gods and thats saying something. I dont know what world you live in but there is no Latino magic that can save this piece of shit of a film. Aquaman might save the DCEU from complete embarrassment but we have yet to see. With all the re shoots and keeping on a certain actress that shits on peoples beds, the odds are against it.

I watched it yesterday. I don't remember seeing a super hero movie that bad. As comparison, Shazam was way better.

@wonder2wonder said:

Four weeks ago (20 August 2023) "Blue Beetle (2023)" took the number one spot from "Barbie(2023)" with its domestic box office opening of $25.4 million. Added to the international box office - $18 million - brought the total to $43.4 million. The worldwide gross box now (15 September 2023) is $114.9 million.

If the box office numbers don't improve, it will not reach its break even point of $208 million - $260 million (2-2.5 x production budget of $104 million)

So, although the Rotten Tomatoes critics (78%) and audience score ( 92%) are good, "Blue Beetle (2023)" seems to be heading into the same direction as "Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023)" and "The Flash (2023)".

One of the reasons I started building my movie ROI database was to roughly quantify the relationship between quality movies and profitable movies. We all know movies can be great and not make good money, and movies can be crappy but rake in a crapton of money. This movie has performed financially poorly (currently paying $1.16 in an environment wherein $2 is break-even) while reviewing positively. It happens. Here's my list Better Than Box which includes quite a few very good movies that didn't — for whatever reasons — make a lot of money. Highlights include:

• Blade Runner paid $1.18
• GoodFellas paid $1.87
• The Thing paid $1.31
• Fight Club paid $1.60

These movies are revered, and they all lost money. The list of "great" movies that failed to break-even is plenty longer than this. It happens.

There are movies that lose money that are indeed crappy movies, but that's what the reviews help us quantify. This movie is not one of those.

There are movies that make lots of money but are stupid. This is not one of those, either.

It's a good movie that lost money. Join the club.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

One of the reasons I started building my movie ROI database was to roughly quantify the relationship between quality movies and profitable movies. We all know movies can be great and not make good money, and movies can be crappy but rake in a crapton of money. This movie has performed financially poorly (currently paying $1.16 in an environment wherein $2 is break-even) while reviewing positively. It happens. Here's my list Better Than Box which includes quite a few very good movies that didn't — for whatever reasons — make a lot of money. Highlights include:

• Blade Runner paid $1.18
• GoodFellas paid $1.87
• The Thing paid $1.31
• Fight Club paid $1.60

These movies are revered, and they all lost money. The list of "great" movies that failed to break-even is plenty longer than this. It happens.

That’s exactly why I’m so interested in your ROI database and its implications also. Even going beyond cinema, it brings up the question of whether any great work of art—something new, challenging and meaningful—can be popular (profitable) in its own time. The paupers’ graves are full of tortured, starving artists who never broke even, or in some cases never earned a dime, though centuries later they are the gold standard.

But what’s so interesting is that your database does have examples that buck the starving artist trend. I think you mentioned somewhere that 2001: A Space Odyssey gave an impressive ROI performance, and that blew my mind because it’s one of the most abstract, beard-stroking films ever made (a sure way to kill popular appeal).

My best conclusion is that a great (or even good) work can’t necessarily stand on its own; it needs favorable winds from the times. For example, late 60s audiences and society in general were eager for change, thus progressive and open minded. Everything from Fellini to the Beatles found huge audiences, even though those same works would’ve likely been heckled to death 10 years earlier or 10 years later.

That’s why I’m keeping a keen eye on films like Barbie which may serve as a barometer for society’s prevailing winds. Boomers can complain about wokeness til they have a stroke, but I’d like to think that wokeness is nothing more than a return to progressive tastes—hippy flower power, if you like—which gave us such great works of art like we had in the late 60s.

Back to Blue Beetle (which I haven’t seen), even though it’s a good movie, maybe it’s just not revolutionary enough, in terms of social themes, to fire up audiences the way Barbie does? And if that’s the case, maybe we are entering a new progressive art period, like the 60s, where new ideas can flourish again—because that’s what 2020s society demands.

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

One of the reasons I started building my movie ROI database was to roughly quantify the relationship between quality movies and profitable movies. We all know movies can be great and not make good money, and movies can be crappy but rake in a crapton of money. This movie has performed financially poorly (currently paying $1.16 in an environment wherein $2 is break-even) while reviewing positively. It happens. Here's my list Better Than Box which includes quite a few very good movies that didn't — for whatever reasons — make a lot of money. Highlights include:

• Blade Runner paid $1.18
• GoodFellas paid $1.87
• The Thing paid $1.31
• Fight Club paid $1.60

These movies are revered, and they all lost money. The list of "great" movies that failed to break-even is plenty longer than this. It happens.

That’s exactly why I’m so interested in your ROI database and its implications also. Even going beyond cinema, it brings up the question of whether any great work of art—something new, challenging and meaningful—can be popular (profitable) in its own time. The paupers’ graves are full of tortured, starving artists who never broke even, or in some cases never earned a dime, though centuries later they are the gold standard.

But what’s so interesting is that your database does have examples that buck the starving artist trend. I think you mentioned somewhere that 2001: A Space Odyssey gave an impressive ROI performance,

Yep, paid a penny shy of $6, solid business.

and that blew my mind because it’s one of the most abstract, beard-stroking films ever made (a sure way to kill popular appeal).

You and @northcoast had a really insightful convo comparing your notes about that movie which helped me much better understand it specifically and Kubrick in general.

My best conclusion is that a great (or even good) work can’t necessarily stand on its own; it needs favorable winds from the times.

You hit the nail on the head. Critical review, target audience acceptance/rejection, financial performance — getting the right mix for any movie is a combination of art, science, and "winds" (a perfect metaphor!) that could fill their sails forward or act as crosswinds hindering them.

That’s why I’m keeping a keen eye on films like Barbie which may serve as a barometer for society’s prevailing winds.

Yep!

but I’d like to think that wokeness is nothing more than a return to progressive tastes—hippy flower power, if you like—which gave us such great works of art like we had in the late 60s.

Right on, examples abound from that period. Miles Davis turning his back to the audience, or Helen Mirren putting an interviewer in his place, or the Rat Pack ensuring Sammy Davis Jr. goes where they go, or Betty White doing her thing on her variety show - artists challenge the status quo and create conversation, and are under-appreciated (largely by the status quo) for the important role they play in driving those conversations for social betterment, for progress.