#Warner brothers DCU

[silveragelovechild]

Days of Warner/DC Future-Past

[straightouttablackgate]

[kollectorsrus]

[catastrophicalcat]

Robin movie

I feel like this is a project for all AO3 writers everywhere - a movie about Dick and Jason as orphan thieves who dream of a better life/

[high-quality-tiktoks]

it’s not just DC in shambles, but WB is too

[bruce-lau-98]

Milly Alcock Supergirl to Comic

David Corenswet Superman

[psychicbluebirdmiracle]

Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav 2023 Pay Package Rises to $50M

Oh I see you dont have money in the budget to release coyote vs acme or batgirl but you can give yourself $49.7 million along with giving all your buddies tens of millions as well yeah totally get why you had to ruin everyone's hard work and possibly their careers

[faebirdie]

[unpoetic-justice29]

thinking about how the marvel and dc verse kinda just handed over their franchise to Disney/ WB and sony and let them take over… if you say your a fan of marvel, we must confirm if it’s tv or the comics cause they’re two very different serials now…

[wolrith]

i feel like there needs to be some sorta study about the way opinions on games work, and this weird hatefully dependant relationship gamers have with game reviews, sites like ign and shit. i noticed it particularly on the new suicide squad game - for those out of the loop, the new "Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League" game is out, with a pretty disastrous pre-launch, and worse launch. Before games come out, normally early copies are given out to reviewers so they play it and give out their impressions before release, so people know whether to buy them or not. on paper this concept is good, and can heavily affect the launch of the game and the way people perceive it. however, this concept doesn't always, or even usually, work, because reviews are so skewed and biased. games like cyberpunk 2077 had one of the worst releases ever seen in gaming, with a completely broken mess of a game that didnt pack half of the features promised, yet pre-launch reviews were top tier, with 5/5s and 9/10s all over (screenrant compilation of reviews). so obviously, either most polished and minimized versions are given out at times to hide the mess, or reviewers are paid off or just plain stupid.

now, not for those reasons, the suicide squad game's early copies were not given out to reviewers. this was likely because the game isn't very good, or at least doesn't meet expectations, and the studio didn't want to showcase it before launch, so people still buy it. This could be because the studio didnt want to pay reviewers off, or they weren't confident that reviewers would be dumb enough to give good reviews. Alternatively its because they thought their reputation would be even further tarnished if a well reviewed game turned out to be an utter piece of shit again. obviously this all backfired and the review embargo was incessantly spoken of and speculations about the games shittiness rose.

few days later, game comes out - only people seen to be having a good time? I've seen people saying to not believe reviews and to play the game yourself - no one is saying its an amazing, reality shattering masterpiece, but its a fun looter-shooter. it has some cool designs and ideas, and the gameplay is pretty fluid (I haven't played it, im quoting people ive seen, who aren't qualified reviewers). launch is pretty tame comparatively, and is honestly one of the better releases the studio could've hoped for probably. it performs pretty mediocre on day one, but pre-launch was a weird clusterfuck so its not surprising. overall, for a game most people dubbed 7/10 at best, with terrible expectations and advertising, launch is great.

and the come the reviews. IGN has given the game 5/10 - which, for IGN, is basically a 1/10. IGN is notorious for very rarely dipping below 7/10, giving some of the biggest pieces of shit, truly 1/10 games, passable scores. On recent reviews i had to scroll pretty far to find a game below 6 (and was plenty surprised to find a 1/10 game, The Day Before), and those with 5s and below are normally minor, non-AAA games like Bluey: The Game, or some weird fortnite festival with a 4/10. Games with horrendous reviews from people I've spoken to, and some game critics on youtube, like avatar: frontiers of pandora, have survived with a 7/10 despite underwhelming launches and mid-to-terrible gameplay and story. What I'm getting at basically, is that Suicide Squad is one of the few triple-A games I've seen in a long time to get a bad score, when normally IGN sucks big studios like warner brothers off.

So, could this be because the game is shit? Unlikely, since as I said, people were enjoying it. If you disagree with that because you didn't enjoy it, then disregard and remember that significantly bigger pieces of shit still got better scores than suicide squad.

REMEMBER THE CYBERPUNK LAUNCH (9/10 UwU) [Editors note: Editors note 2: Update: Editors note:]).

So no, i don't believe IGN gave suicide squad a 5/10 just because its a bad game. Following a careful analysis and bonking my head with a brick until I got a concussion, i do believe IGN only gave suicide squad a bad score because of the review embargo. Frankly if you told me the reviewers didn't even play the game, i would probably believe you, because it seems like the most agenda-fueled, hate-stirring vengeful move IGN has done in a while, even going so far as to use the memory of the late Kevin Conroy, batman's voice actor, to stir hate by calling his performance in the suicide squad game 'a waste', despite kevin stating before he enjoyed playing an evil batman. IGN literally used a dead guy's performance in a game to indicate the game is a waste and not worth the effort, to stir hate in players and push their salty agenda. Why? Presumably, because they didn't get early review copies. Because they want to discourage this in future releases, because their entire website is built on getting bribed to suck off bad games and save them from terrible launches. They know they've been failing in recent years. With shitshows like cyberpunk not passing under the gamer radar anymore, studios know that a few paid off reviewers wont do enough to salvage their half-assed pieces of shit, so either they gotta make good games with effort, or polish them afterwards anyways, and either way reviewers aren't a worthwhile investment anymore.

On a sidenote, I'd love to come up here at the climax of my post with hard evidence IGN gets bribed for good scores. I have some old articles from like 2012, and a bunch of people on reddit who said so, but not really any hard evidence. There were allegations thrown around regarding starfield, another terrible game with good scores, that IGN got bribed by microsoft to give it a good review. IGN chief pledged to quit his job if evidence was brought forwards, and i dont think that happened. I can't prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that IGN is bribed to be so skewed; at the very least, it seems like a profitable cycle of investments. Game is terrible and cheap, studios pay IGN to put a bandaid on it, release is profitable, the end. But with no evidence, its only really a theory... a... a... nay, i shan't.

So what did we learn? It seems like IGN is intentionally trying to tank the Suicide Squad launch, because they're salty over being cut out of the scam. It seems like journalistic integrity is thrown even farther out of the window, with IGN trying to act like mafia loan sharks by roughing up the game for not coming with a share of the profits, and discouraging future games from following suit. IGN right now seems like a parasite on the gaming industry, a leech that's been profiting off this perpetuating cycle of the industry dying with terrible cheap games that kill the genre's artistry. Now it looks a bit like the game industry is healing, and the IGN leech is starting to peel off, no longer able to cash in on failure games like the tabloid scum they are.

Don't let IGN discourage you from playing good games. This isn't an advertisement for the Suicide Squad, I barely even know if its actually good. IGN is clearly biased though, and so are most other game review sites. Do not trust reviews from corpo-sites, simply said.

[thenightlystars]

finding a show or franchise to obsess over and then actively participating in the fandom's discourse and activities only to then be gulled by the executives the next day is such a big fuck you to the fans. i cannot imagine what it must have been like to share your excitement about their future plans, only to read an announcement that the executives are, in fact, not going forward with the show/project/cast after all. that's one way to destroy your audience's trust.

hollywood is absolutely losing it to the point where you can't even enjoy any medium that they put out because there's no guarantee that we'll ever get to witness its final conclusion or reach its final stage. i never thought obsessing over shows or movies would leave a negative impact on my well-being lol when the whole point of being part of fandoms was to escape the adversities of real life. now it's an absolute shitshow of a space to even be in.

i can't believe i now have to avoid something that was originally supposed to be fun for everyone.

[straightouttablackgate]

[kollectorsrus]

[secondaryartifacts]

The DCU is dead, bury it.

[whitefriartuck]

It would be extraordinarily funny if after all the BS about the Witcher than spewed forth after Cavill left he ended up returning because WB cancel Man of Steel 2.

[silveragelovechild]

Early review for “Shazam! Fury of the Gods” are t looking too good.

“The best parts of this new movie are drowned out by pointless CGI monsters and tedious action sequences.” (The Wrap)

“Coasts on the residual good vibes and talented cast of its much-superior predecessor.” (Screen rush)

“May be a shoddily made Skittles ad masquerading as a superhero riff” (Tribune news)

“Messy and mirthless” (Daily Beast)

“Shazam! Fury of the Gods is a film with close-to-zero nutritional value.” (Little White Lies)

“An exhausting, dull and convoluted superhero comedy that's low on wit, laughs and palpable thrills.” (NYC Movie Guru)

“(Helen Mirren) a troublemaker on an ominous but generic mission” (Variety)