So then, why is it that WB backed “The Flash” with seemingly each useful resource they’d, whereas “Blue Beetle” had a much more modest advertising and marketing push by comparability? There could also be no single, definitive reply, however there are a number of possible elements at play.
For one, director Angel Manuel Soto’s “Blue Beetle” was a a lot smaller film, with a reported $104 million finances. The film was initially going to go on to HBO Max (earlier than it was renamed to simply Max) which suggests it was all the time going to be slightly smaller in scale, however that is actually not a foul factor. The truth that WB determined to offer it a theatrical launch — particularly after they scrapped “Batgirl” completely — signified quite a lot of confidence. Even so, they could have been advertising and marketing relative to that finances. So, one may probably argue that half the finances would represent half as massive of a advertising and marketing push. Is that an oversimplification? Virtually actually, but it surely’s value contemplating.
For what it is value, the studio’s preliminary confidence appeared to be well-placed. The early response from each critics and followers has been largely constructive, with some caveats, resembling underdeveloped villains. “Blue Beetle” at the moment holds a 79% important approval score on Rotten Tomatoes however, extra importantly, a 95% viewers score. For the sake of comparability, “The Flash” holds a 64% from critics and an 83% from audiences. There’s a clear winner right here.
Even so, Warner Bros. Discovery could have been taking part in it considerably protected with the advertising and marketing. The extra you spend, the extra it’s a must to make so as to break even. On the similar time, that is a type of areas the place it’s a must to spend cash to earn money. I do not envy the decision-makers who’ve to determine the place that steadiness lies for a superhero blockbuster like this.