Shazam Shazam: Fury of the Gods General News and Discussion Thread

[SomeOldGuy]

Anyone remember a time when the RT score and reviews weren't completely broken for hours after reviews started pouring in for a new movie? I feel like the website has gotten worse and worse in that regard.

Lol yeah. Right now there’s 1 review visible on Shazam 2 page…but it’s at 83% on the front page, so…

 

[Filmfreak]

Yeah, but nobody is also calling it a trainwreck or anything. Doesn't deserve to bomb the way it is apparently about to.

I really liked the first film. I was pleasantly surprised by it and still consider it to be a very fun movie that is amongst the top DCEU films (not that it's the highest of feats). And yet I have no desire to watch the sequel at all. The trailers have been very underwhelming and I'm guessing that puts other people off too. Add that to the fact that it features a character and a universe that we know will be rebooted and it's not much of a surprise it's tracking like that. I bet Levi's controversial comments didn't help with the public either. It's a shame but it is what it is.

 

[JannTosh]

"There’s an exasperating trend in superhero movies that has reached the end of its shelf life and needs to be chucked. Back in the 2010s, a light touch seemed fresh and funny, with quippy, ironic dialogue popularized by Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers” that felt revolutionary, and snarky, motor-mouthed performances from stars like Ryan Reynolds in “Deadpool” that were downright radical. But one whiff of the “Shazam!” sequel “Shazam! Fury of the Gods” and you’ll find that this overly jokey approach is well past its expiration date. The D.C. movie is exceedingly grating, labored and annoying, and that’s in large part due to star Zachary Levi’s utterly confounding performance as Shazam, the superhero alter ego of teenage Billy Batson (Asher Angel). "

Review: 'Shazam! Fury of the Gods' has an attitude problem

this is exactly what I have been saying. People are getting tired of this overly jokey and comedic tone in superhero movies and now want a more mature approach. This is why I think James Gunn's DC universe is in trouble because he is going to likely double down on the jokes and goofiness

 

[Comicbookguy339]

"There’s an exasperating trend in superhero movies that has reached the end of its shelf life and needs to be chucked. Back in the 2010s, a light touch seemed fresh and funny, with quippy, ironic dialogue popularized by Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers” that felt revolutionary, and snarky, motor-mouthed performances from stars like Ryan Reynolds in “Deadpool” that were downright radical. But one whiff of the “Shazam!” sequel “Shazam! Fury of the Gods” and you’ll find that this overly jokey approach is well past its expiration date. The D.C. movie is exceedingly grating, labored and annoying, and that’s in large part due to star Zachary Levi’s utterly confounding performance as Shazam, the superhero alter ego of teenage Billy Batson (Asher Angel). "

Review: 'Shazam! Fury of the Gods' has an attitude problem

this is exactly what I have been saying. People are getting tired of this overly jokey and comedic tone in superhero movies and now want a more mature approach. This is why I think James Gunn's DC universe is in trouble because he is going to likely double down on the jokes and goofiness

Would be so ironic if now that DC is finally moving in the Marvel direction, the general audience decides they want more darkness and grit. As for Gunn, I hope he realizes that an earnest Superman film is not a vehicle for his style of comedy.

 

[dhandler01]

Yeah, but nobody is also calling it a trainwreck or anything. Doesn't deserve to bomb the way it is apparently about to.

No but it doesn't sound like anything special either. That is a problem...

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Review: 'Shazam! Fury of the Gods' has an attitude problem

Man... not holding back here.

It may be a shoddily made Skittles ad masquerading as a superhero riff, but it’s Levi’s performance that sends it into the stratosphere of cringe.

I thought Levi worked to a degree in the first movie, but yeah, he just isn't doing it for me in all the trailers and clips. His performance really does feel... cringey.

 

[Comicbookguy339]

No but it doesn't sound like anything special either. That is a problem...

Indeed, it increasingly looks like just being an OK superhero flick doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[Comicbookguy339]

Man... not holding back here.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

To be honest, the director's comments that this movie was a "mini-Avengers movie" was a bit of a red flag. The Avengers movies work because its characters that we liked from solo movies who are now crossing over and interacting with each other.

That same formula doesn't really work for solo movies, because the main character keeps getting lost in an ensemble of other heroes showing up in their movie and taking the spotlight from them. Multiverse Of Madness was hurt by having to be both a sequel to Dr. Strange and a sequel to WandaVision and the introduction of an alternate universe Reed Richards and Professor Xavier. Thor Love And Thunder was massively hurt by shoving two versions of Thor, plus Valkrie, plus Korg, etc into a strict two hour running time.

I don't think the humor is the problem. Its using the jokes and the humor as a crutch. Plus the main heroes having to compete for screen time in their own movies with other characters in costume. Solo movies trying to ape the "Avengers formula" is what the problem is. Save that "formula" for the actual team up movies like Avengers.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

40+ reviews on RT, 70% overall. Top critics split down the middle.

 

[Link]

It's not a bad film, but it's absolutely a downgrade from the first one. Love the villains. Lucy Liu in particular, she's campy as hell. Wish the movie had more heart and time to develop its themes more satisfyingly. Billy is surprisingly overshadowed by the rest of the cast. It's essentially Jack Dylan Grazer's film.

 

[Comicbookguy339]

Down to 66% with 53 reviews. This will absolutely end up rotten. Now it makes sense why the reviews were embargoed until the eleventh hour.

 

[dhandler01]

Yeah at best it will likely be "mixed" which is not good for a film like this. It's too bad but based in the trailers not exactly shocking.

 

[TheScarecrow]

This is DOA.

 

[Comicbookguy339]

How does DC manage to screw up sequels to films that were actually successful for them (WW84 and now this)? Aquaman 2 is supposedly another one.

 

[DyeLorean]

How does DC manage to screw up sequels to films that were actually successful for them (WW84 and now this)? Aquaman 2 is supposedly another one.

The WW example is baffling. They feel like they were made by two completely different directors.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Such a shame this is looking like a downgrade from the first. Maybe they should have stuck with Mr Mind as the sequel villain.

 

[DarkKnight88]

They shouldn’t have made Black Adam his own movie, and just had him be the villain for this one.

 

[Comicbookguy339]

They shouldn’t have made Black Adam his own movie, and just had him be the villain for this one.

On the one hand, I agree, but on the other hand we've seen a superhero fight their darker self so many times by now that it's a little boring.

 

[Detective Conan]

On the one hand, I agree, but on the other hand we've seen a superhero fight their darker self so many times by now that it's a little boring.

I mean…you’re right, but at same time it’d still be better way to draw audiences to a sequel than the direction they ultimately went with. This movie needed a bigger hook to get people to give a crap about this movie, and it just didn’t.

How does DC manage to screw up sequels to films that were actually successful for them (WW84 and now this)? Aquaman 2 is supposedly another one.

Unless Blue Beetle is surprisingly good, it seems the only bonafide hit for DC this year is going to be The Flash(which has been consistently testing through the roof). Kind of disappointing things aren’t looking too up for DC again but hopefully that might change with the Gunn era we’re entering into.

 

[dhandler01]

How does DC manage to screw up sequels to films that were actually successful for them (WW84 and now this)? Aquaman 2 is supposedly another one.

Why do you blame DC for something that was completely Patty's failure? She had carte blanche yet somehow DC screwed up? That was what the fans were screaming for! I guess you could say the mistake was giving her all that power but again then we were all wrong too.

I highly doubt they had mandates for this film so wouldn't this be on the writers and director?

Maybe some directors just get lucky the first time and the same tricks dont work again. That seems to be the case with a lot of these films.

I think the last few years have shown us that just because these people are artists and creatives doesn't mean they have any idea how to make a compelling film. For some reason though people on boards like this or Twitter seem to accept everything they say as gospel and they can do no wrong. Very strange...

 

[Comicbookguy339]

Why do you blame DC for something that was completely Patty's failure? She had carte blanche yet somehow DC screwed up? That was what the fans were screaming for! I guess you could say the mistake was giving her all that power but again then we were all wrong too.

I highly doubt they had mandates for this film so wouldn't this be on the writers and director?

Maybe some directors just get lucky the first time and the same tricks dont work again. That seems to be the case with a lot of these films.

I think the last few years have shown us that just because these people are artists and creatives doesn't mean they have any idea how to make a compelling film. For some reason though people on boards like this or Twitter seem to accept everything they say as gospel and they can do no wrong. Very strange...

I didn't say the filmmakers and writers had no responsibility in how these movies have turned out. But ultimately they fall under the umbrella of Warner/DC.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[dhandler01]

On the one hand, I agree, but on the other hand we've seen a superhero fight their darker self so many times by now that it's a little boring.

And in truth no one would buy Levi beating The Rock even if Superman showed up. We can all buy David and Goliath but not when they both have equal powers.

The problem wasn't separate movies, in fact honestly it was probably the only way to get them together. (have them build to a fight over a couple films) The problem is the films themselves just aren't that good. (well Black Adam havent seen Shazam 2 yet) Black Adam didn't seem to understand what time period it was being released in or the basics behind the character (they changed the origin for no reason) and was all just a vehicle for the Rock to play himself on the big screen. It had little heart, and honestly, was more of a JSA film co-starring Black Adam. It was just a bad film.

From what I gather...while Shazam 2 may be "ok" but no one seems to understand the point to it. It almost feels like a sequel for sequels sake. It feels like maybe Shazam needed to show up in other things for a bit to build to a second film...not just assembly like part 2. (which seemed to be the previous regimes method of choice)

 

[dhandler01]

I didn't say the filmmakers and writers had no responsibility in how these movies have turned out. But ultimately they fall under the umbrella of Warner/DC.

I think in the case of WW, Shazam and AQ it was kind of lucky the originals did well and should have been treated as such. They were the proof that Warner's idea of letting the director control the story (unlike Di$ney/Marvel who control the tone and style) was a great plan because each put their stamp on the film and they knew this might be their one shot at films like this so they put their entire soul into it. Problem is, it worked and WB then let them also do that for the sequels which they were not prepared for. Not unlike when a band finally gets their break and all their hard work goes into their one big chance to hit it big and the record explodes. The follow up is almost always a disappointment.

That is likely why Zazlov wanted Gunn in charge. No more executives making either no decisions or arbitrary ones because of their bonuses, they want at least one creative in charge who will know how to deal with directors who aren't thinking long term.

 

[Holy Slapper]

Down to 64%.