Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice

[snake]

MoS didn't flop, but it didnt live up to box office expectations

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmen...-expectations/

[Slade]

It made more money than both Captain America's, both Thor's, The Amazing Spider-Man, the 89 Batman and every X-men movie according to Box Office Mojo.

[CyberCubed]

That's what I thought it did pretty good, unless DC has unrealistically high expectations. I mean what did they expect?

[Krutch]

Alright, Leo.

You and I have been around these parts for over a decade now. I generally prefer my role as the quiet observer and occasional news reporter, but at this moment, after reading this embarrassingly childish rant, I must ask you in a way you can appreciate...

Spoiler:

No, you are not "the f*cking Superman/DC authority around here". You're merely a consumer of someone else's art just like the rest of us. Have you studied Superman more than any of us? Most likely; and I don't see anyone arguing that. But that doesn't make you an authority. That just makes you a die hard fan with more extensive history of the character.

There's a quote from Bryan Singer when he was making Superman Returns, and it went something like this: "At some point, you realize that Superman means so many different things to so many different people. He's been around before I was born and he will be here long after I'm gone. So all you can do is ask yourself who Superman is to you." I'm paraphrasing from memory but thats more or less what he was getting at. You need to understand that your opinion, whether its based on character history or not, isn't correct; it's just an opinion.

Your version of who Superman is doesn't match up with who I think Superman is.
Neither of us are right.
Neither of us are wrong.

Because you have more extensive knowledge on the mythology than most of us (a mythology made up by several different writers adding their own take of who their Superman is) you feel your opinion on the character is the correct one. No. It just means you are able to look at a wider history of the character, find the most common or consistent threads that work for you, and make your own ultimate version of the character in your head. And thats fine. That Superman is all yours. And if this movie universe aligns with who your Superman is, that's super awesome and I'm genuinely happy for you. Because even though this particular version of Kal-El is not even close to my cup of tea, I'm still happy he's out there connecting with people.

So when you say you're "the f*cking Superman/DC authority around here", that's absolute b*llsh*t. Because you're speaking about something thats entirely subjective. So what if its borrowing from canon? If Venus Di Milo shows up in the next Ninja Turtles movie, I guess thats great then too, right? I mean, she belongs to some canon. Oh, you prefer the Mirage canon? That's cool. But Ninja Turtles III: Viva La Venus probably isn't gonna be for you. "Hey, but Mirage came first, and its written by the creators, so, that's the correct canon!" Oh? Well, in that case, let's have Superman do all the dumbest things in the world like in the Golden Age. I only reference this because I know your affinity towards the silver age Man of Steel run, which technically wasn't the first Superman. But I'm getting off topic.

Here's the thing. In the last week, I've eaten a lot of sh*t because I said I didn't enjoy Deadpool because the comedy wasn't working for me. Because of this, everyone seems to assume I have a problem. No, it's no fault of the movie that I'm not laughing; I'm just not the intended audience for that kind of humour. To hit the nail over the head on this, what I'm getting at is just because this iteration of Superman is marketed to you, doesn't mean we have to like it, and certainly doesn't make us wrong for not liking it.

Now, if your just getting frustrated of saying "Just wait and see! I've read the script! You guys don't know what you're talking about!" over and over again, well, go to forums where people like reading ahead, or just be patient and let us discuss our feelings on the trailer. There's nothing wrong with that. No one told you to read ahead. So all we can do...

...is discuss what the studio has given us to whet our appetites; thats the point of trailers. We can judge it as marketing material, since its sole purpose of existing to to sell something to us. So if something really works for us, we can talk about why it worked. Ditto for what didn't work. And neither side is wrong. We can't break down things like the script since theres no product to break down yet.

But scripts can be broken down and dissected. There's some structures it must conform to in order for it to actually work.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that Man of Steel is an awfully written movie lacking so much structure, motivation, and payoff that its a fundamentally flawed film. It's broken in so many aspects its amazing anyone actually defends it. But what do I know? I only studied film for years, graduated from film school, and am working inside a writers room for prime time television. Does that mean your wrong for liking it? No. Does that mean you can't get something out of it? Of course not. If it moves you and makes you think or feel something, it did its job as an escapist medium. But does that mean, factually, that the script is good? No. Because movies aren't just words on a blank page; there's a whole lotta razzle dazzle like acting, editing, special effects, sound design, and other stuff going on to trick you into feeling things. And if those things combined with a bad script still made you feel something, then the movie did it's job. But not the script. Dear God, not the script.

So when the movie comes out, I'm sure we'll all gladly sit down and talk about it. But it's not here yet. So don't get pissy when people who haven't read the script think it's not going to be a good movie. The only thing we've offered is our general feelings and opinions on what we've seen. So I'm not wrong in thinking that Affleck will be the only redeeming thing about the movie. I'm sure your chomping at the bit to explain why thats not the case, but whose fault is that? Just hold your horses.

Leo, listen dude. I've learned over the years(and most recently in our Smallville talk in the Supergirl thread) that you have a very concrete version of who Superman is in your head. And that's perfectly fine. All of us pretty much do. The difference here is you're the only one who seems to be prancing around saying yours is right and ours is wrong. None of our Supermen are wrong; that mentality of yours is. And when it bubbles to the surface here, its embarrassing as all hell. Now I'm sure you "Don't give a damn!" what our opinion of you is around here. But at least try to come around to the understanding that nobody is wrong when it comes to opinion at the very least for the sake of forum harmony. Because tantrums like that make the forum an unhappy place to visit. And this place is bad enough with the conflicting Turtles fandoms

Originally Posted by NinjaPug

Haha. Someone calling themselves the "DC Authority around here" while putting down people that like the Marvel movies and also saying Zack Snyder made a movie that is too smart for the general public is too good for one post.

Quick shout out for making me choke on my coffee for the chuckle you caused

[CyberCubed]

Krutch, the arguments were over last night. Can we move on?

[NinjaPug]

Originally Posted by Slade

It made more money than both Captain America's, both Thor's, The Amazing Spider-Man, the 89 Batman and every X-men movie according to Box Office Mojo.

Cap 2, ASM, and the most recent X-Men were higher globally. It's weird to compare it to the 89 Batman due to inflation.

MoS had a production budget of $225 million which is why it's box office was so disappointing.

[Krutch]

Wait, what? It is? Dammit, I'm always late to these things...

[Commenter 42]

Nah, you're right on time...

You know, it's funny how those of us that went to film school and work in the industry, seem to agree that MOS was a terrible film.

Funny, Like ha ha funny, you know? You know that funny?

I'll also throw in that Deadpool doesn't look to be all that funny, or at least, my kind of funny.

More funny BVS news here.

32% seems generous if you ask me. The last time something was this uncertain and expensive, Kevin Costner was sexy.

[CyberCubed]

BATMAN is in this film. I think you're forgetting this isn't just a Superman film.

Huge Batman fans like myself, and those curious to see Batfleck, will want to see this film. Batman has a HUGE audience. Even the people who don't care for Superman in general want to see this film.

Its the goddamn Batman. The most popular superhero of all time. Not a single person living in the U.S. doesn't know who Batman is.

[Commenter 42]

yeah, but do the math man...

400 million (est) budget
Marketing is usually 1/2 the budget, so tack on another 200 million.

ASM2 had to make back 750 million to break even. ASM2 wasn't that terrible, but it sure as hell wasn't what the fans wanted. The negative buzz was pretty similar to this... started positive...built to a crescendo, then went negative months out from release, and by the time it hit theatres it was already being called the worst movie ever.

So the real question is, just how many times will Cybercubed pony up $15; if it's as devisive as they say, will the multiple viewings of Star Wars play out again here, or will it be a curiosity that dies in it's second weekend?

[TheSkeletonMan939]

I would be not at all surprised if those statistics were true. WB seems to me to be jumping into the DCEU too fast and too hard, without proper budgeting.

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

ASM2 wasn't that terrible

Oh, yes it was.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Slade

It made more money than both Captain America's, both Thor's, The Amazing Spider-Man, the 89 Batman and every X-men movie according to Box Office Mojo.

Domestically. Worldwide is another matter.

Man of Steel made $668 million worldwide. Meanwhile, Captain America: The Winter Soldier made $714.4 million worldwide, X-Men: Days of Future Past made $747.9 million worldwide, The Amazing Spider-Man made $757.9 million worldwide, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 made $709 million worldwide, and adjusted for inflation Batman '89 made $772.8 million worldwide.

(Of the movies listed, Man of Steel also had the largest second-week drop percentage in the box office, though it was pretty much tied with X-Men: Days of Future Past there.)

Granted, box office take isn't necessarily a sign of quality, but it can be a sign of appeal.

[sdp]

The world premier is in my city but getting tickets will be nearly impossible..


Watched the Nolan trilogy and also Green Lantern and man the trilogy totally works as a prequel to this movie, of course there'll be some continuity mistakes but until it's completely contradicted I'll keep it in my headcanon as in continuity, same with the GL film which isn't that bad, it just isn't good so since we likely won't be getting any GL origins this will have to do.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

Oh, yes it was.

Meh, in my opinion, not MOS bad, GL bad, Ghost Rider, Dare-Devil, Spider-Man 3...

It was childish, and had some really ballz moments, but not a terrible film in the same league as say, Fant4stic.

...outta 10 it get's a 6.5.

My point is the hyperbole online made it sound like it was an abomination akin to Leonard 6.

Garfield is still the best Spider-man to date.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I never really thought Daredevil or GL were really all THAT bad. Floptastic, sure, but even Ghost Rider had a few redeeming qualities. Sam Elliot for one.

I'm not really invested in this movie, TBH. Might go see it just for the shell of it, but like I've said before, it just feels too colorless and cold. I just don't get any emotion from this. It feels sterile and dull, so.... *shrugs*

[sdp]

while that may be true I'll take this movie any day over the Marvel cookie-cutter stank they've been crapping out for years now, it's a breath of fresh air.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I keep hearing people call it cookie-cutter, yet every hero's movies have a different feel and tone, and it's only in the team films that they are "the same". Thor's movies were VERY different from Cap's, and Stark's, for that matter. Ant-Man had almost NOTHING in common with the rest. Ditto for GotG. It's a comic story, so I GET that it's going to be "Good guys discover bad guys trying to take over/destroy/whatever the world, fight said bad guys, save the day"= The End." That's what comics DO. Even Winter Soldier shook things up by having Hydra infiltrate SHIELD and basically destroy it from the inside, Ultron wanted to wipe out humanity (which is what he ALWAYS wants) and Thanos is after "Ultimate Power"- a thread that is still going on.

If these are cookie-cutter movies, the cookies are all made in fun holiday shapes so that no two are exactly the same shape. We've got vibranium shield cookies sitting next to metal helmet cookies, hammer-shaped cookies, little ant cookies, and even a big green monster cookie. And apparently, a couple of tree-shaped ones. These ain't your plain-Jane round cookies! Then there are the X-shaped ones and now a black and red one with eyes, all from Fox. (There was also a malformed 4-shaped one, but it was only half-baked, so....) You get the idea. Each one has it's own personality and heart, the characters are all "real" people, that we can relate to on a personal level. Bat-vigilante vs Flying Boy-Scout? Not so much.

[CyberCubed]

Why are Marvel and DC fans at war in this thread. I guess the age old battle never ends.

We'll be in the year 2050 and they'll still be people whining about the then future Batman/Superman/Spiderman/X-men/Avenger movies.

[Sumac]

Speculation: IMO, the main problem with MOS was not even the problems with box office, but general reception. DC wanted it to be "New and Awesome Universally Acclaimed Return of Superman", but it was not so new and not so awesome and was rather divisive, which is the last thing you need, when you build enormous universe, which in many ways lives of the good will of the viewers. It was more of psychological wound, rather than the real one. Akin to: "What?! We did everything by the book, took only the best ingredients, which were prepared by the best cooks in the house...and final result is still not satisfying?! What we need to do?!"

Warners did everything in their power to keep it stylistically close to mega popular "Nolanman trilogy" and added "visioner" Snyder in the mix. In their minds it might have seem like a flawless combination, but in reality it resulted in a very strange hybrid.

Which resulted in them changing things on the fly and hastily turning MOS2 into Batman feat. Superman feat. Justice League. Although, I suspect they don't have clear idea why MOS was not a supermasterpiece and at this point just throw **** at the wall, watching what sticks. Trailers look like they can't make up their mind what it should be - more of the same MOS-style or something more lighthearted and closer to Marvel.

Also, I bet Deadpool success confused the heck out of them.

Batman presence can help, but will it save, if all other elements are not so good, theoretically speaking?

[Netkeeper]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

You know, it's funny how those of us that went to film school and work in the industry, seem to agree that MOS was a terrible film.

Funny, Like ha ha funny, you know? You know that funny?

This part of this post is making my insides crawl and I just can't not mention it. Why do you seem to think your opinion is fact? Why are you trying to pass it off that way just because to you, movies are work and not just a hobby?

Or this is just a blatant display of how you may be in the industry, but you certainly haven't been in it for very long with that sort of behaviour. Like as if boasting about it [in a subtle way so it doesn't get detected as easily] will get people to listen to you more because, again, it's not just a hobby at this point, it's your work. You said it yourself.

Okay, carry on. I just wanted to put this down on the table so everyone can see it.