Pattinson/Reeves Batman Movie (Formerly Affleck Stand-Alone Film)

[Leo656]

So long as people want to ask him questions, he's within his rights to answer them.

I know I've said this before, and it might be hard for SOME people to believe... but more people like his movies than don't. The ones who don't just really, REALLY don't.

But it just stands to reason that the people who DO like them are going to want to know more about them, up to and including what was planned and didn't happen. So of course they're going to keep asking about it.

People still ask Tim Burton about stuff and that guy hasn't made a good movie since "Mars Attacks". It is what it is. I don't see why anyone should be annoyed by it.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

So long as people want to ask him questions, he's within his rights to answer them.

I know I've said this before, and it might be hard for SOME people to believe... but more people like his movies than don't. The ones who don't just really, REALLY don't.

But it just stands to reason that the people who DO like them are going to want to know more about them, up to and including what was planned and didn't happen. So of course they're going to keep asking about it.

People still ask Tim Burton about stuff and that guy hasn't made a good movie since "Mars Attacks". It is what it is. I don't see why anyone should be annoyed by it.

Tim Burton, FFS. That guy...

I think the continued discussion regarding what COULD have been with Snyder is holding people back from moving forward into whatever is to come with new movies.

I mean, look at the slate. It's currently a really weird hodge-podge with Wonder Woman and Aquaman sequels, Shazam!, Birds of Prey (a mess), and Joker (still weird).

If we're all complaining that "Snyder Cut would've been awesome!" or "thank Zeus Snyder is gone!", we're not focusing on the problems still facing us. Does WB/DC have it together yet? I don't think so. We should be more concerned with THAT.

[Andrew NDB]

And even if Snyder had his vision unaltered... that wouldn't have been any way to kickstart the DCEU. Lois and/or Superman dead, cities destroyed, Darkseid and Doomsday killed... yeesh.

But I guess by default, one vision is better than NO vision, which is where we're at with WB.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Does WB/DC have it together yet? I don't think so. We should be more concerned with THAT.

The moral of the story is, sadly, "They don't, they didn't, and they never will." F*ck WB.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

And even if Snyder had his vision unaltered... that wouldn't have been any way to kickstart the DCEU. Lois and/or Superman dead, cities destroyed, Darkseid and Doomsday killed... yeesh.

All of that was only going to be shown as the stuff they were PREVENTING from happening, though. You've obviously seen "Terminator"; same thing. "Here's the Dark Future. Now the actual Plot is to stop that from happening." Again, people don't get all kinds of confused when other movies do this stuff, just super-hero ones. What is it about CBMs that makes people go "fuzzy"?

- Flash was going to go back to the proper point in time and STOP Lois from getting killed. That was the entire point.
- Superman was going to thus be PREVENTED from succumbing to Darkseid and the Anti-Life Equation.
- Darkseid never stays gone. You know this.
- We only saw Proto-Doomsday. The "real" one never appeared; they've said that about 80 times. Including, like, the day BvS came out. The movie itself even mentions it.

Spoiler:

The only character out of the whole shebang who was going to die and (probably) stay dead was Batman. And even then, he'd probably come back eventually, because of marketing and such.

I really feel like since most super-hero movies have no stakes at all and everything "magically" gets reset to the status quo just in time for the end credits, it makes people confused whenever someone actually does one where Stuff Happens. Because again, it's really no more complicated than Terminator, or any one of a hundred stories in the books themselves.

If a person can make sense of stuff like "Days of Future Past" and/or the Terminator franchise, this should be easy. I don't consider myself a genius, but I will say that not one single bit of that story is confusing in the least. It's definitely a Big Story, but it's all pretty reasonably clear.

[raph27]

It's fascinating to read all of this information now comparing it with what we got for the theatrical cut of Justice League. Sounds like a movie I would have preferred. Even if it got too convoluted or overly thematic, it still sounds more entertaining than the giant pile of "meh" that the Whedon version is. Is this all for the first movie, or were some of that supposed to be in the (now canceled) Part 2?

At some point in time down the road, I'd love to see a comprehensive behind-the-scenes for this movie, whether it be a book or a documentary. Catalog all the unused shots, the cast interviews, whatever can be dug up. For such a bland movie it does have an intriguing development.

As far as Snyder's comments on his Batman, yeesh. He sounds like me when I was 13 and thought everything would be better if it was gritty and "adult".

[Leo656]

As I understand it, Part 1 was originally going to mostly be the build into the "Dark Future" and end on a cliffhanger, and then Part 2 would be all about averting it and setting things proper. The plan was always for the end of JLII to be the beginning of the "New Age of Heroes" that Wonder Woman spoke of in some of the trailers.

Some things WB got cold feet about very early on were the cliffhanger/"downbeat" ending, with Darkseid having taken over the world and Superman being under his control. They insisted that among other things, Superman HAD to come back to life AND be back in the red and blue before the end of JL Part 1. NO black costume, NO "possessed by the Anti-Life Equation" stuff. So from that point, almost the entire plan was scrapped and reconfigured. Because Superman being under Darkseid's thrall - temporarily, mind you - was always, y'know, Kind Of Important. Without that, much of the story had to be reworked.

The "new" Justice League Part 1 actually wasn't going to be TOO dissimilar to what we actually got, and was still going to lead into the Dark Future stuff in Part II, but they truncated the entire thing. All the Superman stuff we saw was more or less scripted and shot the same way, but there were a lot of references to the events of BvS in the dialog, which is why 99% of the Superman stuff was re-shot by Whedon: WB insisted that they NOT mention BvS at all if they could help it. So then the Knightmare stuff got scrapped. The ending was probably the biggest change; instead of just vanishing in the Boom Tube, Steppenwolf would have been dumped into Darkseid's throne room or whatever, where Darkseid would have executed him for failure and that would have set up Part II, with a much-abridged version of the "Dark Future" scenario happening.

Whedon actually didn't change TOO much of the actual structure that Zack and WB had eventually compromised upon, but he DID add tons of bad "humor" and move some scenes around, including adding the Russian family to create the illusion of stakes (because otherwise we see an "alien invasion" that threatens to overtake the entire world and yet NOBODY at all is ever seen at risk ). He also was told to cut out almost anything that had any reference to BvS (or Darkseid) completely. The flashback scene to Steppenwolf's original invasion was originally supposed to be the film's prologue, and Darkseid himself was going to be shown briefly before the invasion was turned back, which was going to foreshadow his appearance at the end. There was also a subplot where they try and interrogate Lex in Arkham to try and find out that he knows about the invasion, since he bonded with the ship and was the first one to give any warning (in BvS) that "something was coming".

The biggest changes ultimately came from the fact that, until VERY late in the game, the movie we got was still supposed to be Part I. That was an 11th Hour decision, which is why the final film is so choppy and uneven. But as stated, WB kept getting more and more panicky about what the internet nerds were crying about. They REALLY didn't even want to keep the scene of Superman fighting the League at the Memorial, on account of even just that 5 whole minutes of him NOT being Happy Smiley Jokey Superman was "too dark" for what they wanted. But they didn't have the time or budget to fill yet another hole if they'd cut it, so instead they changed it from Nighttime to Daytime and had everyone make jokes the whole time.

Ultimately, after a year of people on the internet bitching, "They REALLY just need to copy Marvel", WB gave up and decided to do exactly that, despite the fact that they'd already committed to something that was decidedly different and really not designed to fit that model.

I agree, having followed the entire production far more closely than most people, the behind-the-scenes situation is far more interesting than the movie itself ended up being. And I agree with you and others who say that if they'd left well enough alone, it ultimately would have been a lot better in the end. But people weren't patient, they wanted Jokes and Bright Colors and Smiley Happy Heroes and they didn't want to see them actually work for it, they wanted it RIGHT NOW and anything that was "too dark" or whatever was anathema.

The endgame was always to end up there anyway. It was just supposed to be an actual Arc. They called BvS "Dawn Of Justice" because "It's always darkest before the Dawn". JL Part II was supposed to be the actual "Daybreak", and everything in-between was the journey of getting there.

Ah well. If nothing else, the CEO of WB has since been shown the door, so maybe things can be more cohesive going forward. I wouldn't bet the Kent farm on it, though.

[Xav]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Ultimately, after a year of people on the internet bitching, "They REALLY just need to copy Marvel", WB gave up and decided to do exactly that, despite the fact that they'd already committed to something that was decidedly different and really not designed to fit that model.

It's kinda ironic that just a year later Marvel would release a team up film with a cliffhanger/"downbeat" ending that would end up being their most successful film to date.

[Leo656]

I was thinking the same exact thing!

That's the thing, man... you really CAN'T predict how stuff is gonna go over. You just gotta take your shot and commit to it. Let the rest of the stuff work itself out. If you scramble and (over)react to every single thing people say, or what The Other Guys are doing, you just end up looking like a fool.

DC/WB right now is like WCW in 2000, when all they could do is try and copy whatever the WWF was doing, even though their entire point of existence up to that point was being The Alternative. "We don't do T&A, We don't do Shock TV, we're the 'wrestling' wrestling show." When they threw that out and became "WWF-Light", it came across as desperation, because it was, and that was the end of it. They lost whatever audience they had left because everyone figured, "Well, no point getting invested in this show. They don't know what they're doing and whatever happens today, they'll just ignore tomorrow." You can't give that kind of impression.

Things shift with the times and the audience's collective mood is very fickle. I'm quite sure the reason that WB execs gave BvS a standing ovation when they first saw it is because it's the kind of super-hero movie that people would have been in love with if it had come out in, say, 2006. People wanted darker, more serious and grounded CBMs in that moment. They couldn't have predicted how by 2014 everyone would want the exact opposite. There's no way to plan for that. They figured, "Hey, Nolan's movies did great business, that'll be our tone." That was reasonable. They were completely unprepared for everyone to demand Sunny & Funny in 2014.

I imagine they'll get around to doing a super-goofy Plastic Man movie in 2026, by which point everyone will be back in the Grim N Gritty mood. Since they've committed to being The Reactionaries, they're destined to forever be a day late and a dollar short. Too bad.

[Panda_Kahn_fan]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I was thinking the same exact thing!

That's the thing, man... you really CAN'T predict how stuff is gonna go over. You just gotta take your shot and commit to it. Let the rest of the stuff work itself out. If you scramble and (over)react to every single thing people say, or what The Other Guys are doing, you just end up looking like a fool.

DC/WB right now is like WCW in 2000, when all they could do is try and copy whatever the WWF was doing, even though their entire point of existence up to that point was being The Alternative. "We don't do T&A, We don't do Shock TV, we're the 'wrestling' wrestling show." When they threw that out and became "WWF-Light", it came across as desperation, because it was, and that was the end of it. They lost whatever audience they had left because everyone figured, "Well, no point getting invested in this show. They don't know what they're doing and whatever happens today, they'll just ignore tomorrow." You can't give that kind of impression.

Things shift with the times and the audience's collective mood is very fickle. I'm quite sure the reason that WB execs gave BvS a standing ovation when they first saw it is because it's the kind of super-hero movie that people would have been in love with if it had come out in, say, 2006. People wanted darker, more serious and grounded CBMs in that moment. They couldn't have predicted how by 2014 everyone would want the exact opposite. There's no way to plan for that. They figured, "Hey, Nolan's movies did great business, that'll be our tone." That was reasonable. They were completely unprepared for everyone to demand Sunny & Funny in 2014.

I imagine they'll get around to doing a super-goofy Plastic Man movie in 2026, by which point everyone will be back in the Grim N Gritty mood. Since they've committed to being The Reactionaries, they're destined to forever be a day late and a dollar short. Too bad.

I can see your points and mostly agree with them. However, as amazing as Snyder's 'artistic vision' for the DCEU was, would people have paid money to see it? BvS and Mos did make money, but I remember a lot of my friends (DC comics readers) who did not like the portrayal of the characters, and had no plans to see justice league or any of the movies that followed. Heck, I read the post-crisis Byrne superman, and I despised the man of steel movie. not all of the comics fans liked Snyder's interpretation.

But beyond the comic's fans, the public rejected Snyder's DCEU. People went to see BvS and MoS based on the character's reputation in pop culture, not because of Synder's interpenetration. After people saw the films, many 'normies' didn't go back for second viewings, and both underperformed studio expectations.Justice league, which people thought would be more Snyder, may have flopped as a result. The two DCEU films that were successful and praised- Wonder Woman and Aquaman- were the farthest from Snyder's dark vision.

So the question is; why should the studio have shoveled more cash into 'sticking to Snyder's vision', when that leads to negative word of mouth, and a loss of $$$? After I saw MoS, I decided this version of DC wasn't for me. And I won't buy a ticket for a movie that I won't enjoy, I don't care if it is art.And I believe most other moviegoers will do the same.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Panda_Kahn_fan

But beyond the comic's fans, the public rejected Snyder's DCEU. People went to see BvS and MoS based on the character's reputation in pop culture, not because of Synder's interpenetration. After people saw the films, many 'normies' didn't go back for second viewings, and both underperformed studio expectations.Justice league, which people thought would be more Snyder, may have flopped as a result. The two DCEU films that were successful and praised- Wonder Woman and Aquaman- were the farthest from Snyder's dark vision.

Hey you, long time no see!

While I agree with your first sentence, your second sentence is flawed.

People DID go to see Snyder's interpretation of Superman in Man of Steel. And people DID go to see Snyder's interpretation of Batman in Batman V Superman. It's only after the first cinematic appearance of each that audiences rejected them.

The trailers sucked people in. People were more wary for BvS, because of the story, and not liking Snyder's Superman, but the ideal of Snyder's Batman was still fresh and appealing. By the time Justice League rolled around though, absolutely yes--people went to see it not because of Snyder's interpretation, but because of Patty Jenkins and the pop culture appeal.

[Leo656]

I really care less about all of that. What's popular and what's Good are rarely the same. You can't expect the same public that made Justin Bieber a multi-millionaire to be the arbiters of taste.

Some of the all-time most revered films didn't make money or were critically derided upon release. "Apocalypse Now" was considered a complete disaster and now it's considered one of the greatest films ever made. There's a million stories like that. And on the flip side, tons of movies make lots of money that are almost universally derided. There's THREE "Hangover" movies (and I lost track of how many of those insipid racecar movies with The Rock). Jim Carrey was once upon a time ACTUALLY a "movie star". Again, what's "popular" or makes the most money compared to something else isn't necessarily what's "good", and sometimes it takes many years for people to realize they'd misjudged something, for Better or Worse.

Movies in general were a lot more "fun" before everyone decided that they were a critic, a journalist, and a market analyst. Instead of just watching movies, we care entirely too much about "Well this is bad because it didn't play well with this demographic," or, "Well this is good because it's going to make the studio a lot of money, so they can spin off a side-series." All that periphery stuff overshadows the films and is really tiresome to read considering that nobody involved in those conversations is an "Expert". And furthermore, that even the "experts" far too often go back and say, "Y'know what? I changed my mind." Which is also fine. The fact that even Siskel and Ebert re-reviewed many of their older films years later and were forced to admit that they'd misjudged them should tell people that things things are very fluid.

I genuinely couldn't care less about what's populist - because I'm on record as being of the opinion that Most People Are Stupid, so why should Majority opinion influence what I think? I only care about what I personally enjoy, and if others feel the same, that's fine, and if not, that's fine for them as long as they don't insult my opinion. I've never watched a movie and thought about whether it's going to please other people, because I really don't care what they think. And I think the "business" of movies - and music, and TV, and art in general - has gotten WAY too big to the point where it's completely choked all creativity out of things.

The job of a studio is - ostensibly - to create a variety of products for a variety of tastes, and let the individuals in the audience decide for themselves what they each like. But now everything has to be homogenized and sterilized or else "It won't play well in China, it won't appease this demo or that demo," and honestly, who gives a sh*t? The studios have more money than God, and if a movie makes "only" $800 million instead of a billion, that shouldn't be a sign that the sky is falling. It's appalling to me that a bunch of keyboard jockeys who will NEVER do a single creative thing in their entire lives can dictate the entire direction of a billion-dollar movie franchise with a few snarky words.

To your specific point, Snyder's movies made a lot of money for WB and continue to do so. They obviously would have liked to do more in the theater, but what they were more concerned about was the people whining, especially when it became obvious that they weren't going to stop until they got the Marvel rehash (and now we've seen that proven true, as well). The monetary returns weren't the main issue; they did Just Fine (if not spectacular) in the theater, but the fact that Mos and BvS did record-breaking business on disc and on digital proves that - again - statistically, MOST people liked the movies just fine, they're simply not VOCAL about it because when you say you like them, you get called Every Nasty Name under the sun. But if so many people hated them to the degree that people like you CLAIM that "everyone" did, there's no way that they'd still be generating revenue, and yet they are. Both MoS and BvS were in the Top 20 highest-selling Blu-Rays of all time, and were still in the Top 50 fairly recently and probably still are. I don't keep track of digital sales but allegedly they did great business there as well.

That simply doesn't happen with movies that "everyone hates, nobody wanted to see, and didn't make any money." Again, facts exist independently of your personal narrative, or what you did and didn't care for.

If they'd left well enough alone and stayed the course, they probably wouldn't have pleased everybody but they really shouldn't be trying to do that, anyway. The entire thing that was appealing to Me, and a lot of other people, was that the DC films were going to be DIFFERENT than the Marvel movies - movies which I frankly cannot stand outside of about three of them, but don't make a federal case over because it's pointless, I can simply not watch them and then go on with my day. If WB/DC continued to "only" make $800 million or so per picture, I think they could have lived with that. Could the people online who need to "win" and see every single movie break a billion or else be called a "failure" live with that? I don't know. I think people could do well with better priorities in general, frankly.

So since you asked, there's my answer. I think things were Just Fine, and they would have continued to be Just Fine, and in a world with no internet we'd probably be getting Justice League II this summer and a Superman movie the year after. Now, we're stuck with a bunch of CBMs that all HAVE to be exactly the same - jokey, schlocky, campy, no-stakes, no-drama, no-meaning Live-Action Cartoons that aim directly for the middle - and an audience that knows they can get what they want by stomping their feet and making a lot of noise, even if that noise is nothing but diaper rash.

Again, ten years ago "just" $800 million was not just acceptable, it was considered a triumph. People like you who make everything out to be much worse than it really is are a much bigger problem than anything else in the current pop culture climate. The sky wasn't falling, you just didn't get your way (until they caved). Big difference.

[Panda_Kahn_fan]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I really care less about all of that. What's popular and what's Good are rarely the same. You can't expect the same public that made Justin Bieber a multi-millionaire to be the arbiters of taste.

Some of the all-time most revered films didn't make money or were critically derided upon release. "Apocalypse Now" was considered a complete disaster and now it's considered one of the greatest films ever made. There's a million stories like that. And on the flip side, tons of movies make lots of money that are almost universally derided. There's THREE "Hangover" movies (and I lost track of how many of those insipid racecar movies with The Rock). Jim Carrey was once upon a time ACTUALLY a "movie star". Again, what's "popular" or makes the most money compared to something else isn't necessarily what's "good", and sometimes it takes many years for people to realize they'd misjudged something, for Better or Worse.

Movies in general were a lot more "fun" before everyone decided that they were a critic, a journalist, and a market analyst. Instead of just watching movies, we care entirely too much about "Well this is bad because it didn't play well with this demographic," or, "Well this is good because it's going to make the studio a lot of money, so they can spin off a side-series." All that periphery stuff overshadows the films and is really tiresome to read considering that nobody involved in those conversations is an "Expert". And furthermore, that even the "experts" far too often go back and say, "Y'know what? I changed my mind." Which is also fine. The fact that even Siskel and Ebert re-reviewed many of their older films years later and were forced to admit that they'd misjudged them should tell people that things things are very fluid.

I genuinely couldn't care less about what's populist - because I'm on record as being of the opinion that Most People Are Stupid, so why should Majority opinion influence what I think? I only care about what I personally enjoy, and if others feel the same, that's fine, and if not, that's fine for them as long as they don't insult my opinion. I've never watched a movie and thought about whether it's going to please other people, because I really don't care what they think. And I think the "business" of movies - and music, and TV, and art in general - has gotten WAY too big to the point where it's completely choked all creativity out of things.

The job of a studio is - ostensibly - to create a variety of products for a variety of tastes, and let the individuals in the audience decide for themselves what they each like. But now everything has to be homogenized and sterilized or else "It won't play well in China, it won't appease this demo or that demo," and honestly, who gives a sh*t? The studios have more money than God, and if a movie makes "only" $800 million instead of a billion, that shouldn't be a sign that the sky is falling. It's appalling to me that a bunch of keyboard jockeys who will NEVER do a single creative thing in their entire lives can dictate the entire direction of a billion-dollar movie franchise with a few snarky words.

To your specific point, Snyder's movies made a lot of money for WB and continue to do so. They obviously would have liked to do more in the theater, but what they were more concerned about was the people whining, especially when it became obvious that they weren't going to stop until they got the Marvel rehash (and now we've seen that proven true, as well). The monetary returns weren't the main issue; they did Just Fine (if not spectacular) in the theater, but the fact that Mos and BvS did record-breaking business on disc and on digital proves that - again - statistically, MOST people liked the movies just fine, they're simply not VOCAL about it because when you say you like them, you get called Every Nasty Name under the sun. But if so many people hated them to the degree that people like you CLAIM that "everyone" did, there's no way that they'd still be generating revenue, and yet they are. Both MoS and BvS were in the Top 20 highest-selling Blu-Rays of all time, and were still in the Top 50 fairly recently and probably still are. I don't keep track of digital sales but allegedly they did great business there as well.

That simply doesn't happen with movies that "everyone hates, nobody wanted to see, and didn't make any money." Again, facts exist independently of your personal narrative, or what you did and didn't care for.

If they'd left well enough alone and stayed the course, they probably wouldn't have pleased everybody but they really shouldn't be trying to do that, anyway. The entire thing that was appealing to Me, and a lot of other people, was that the DC films were going to be DIFFERENT than the Marvel movies - movies which I frankly cannot stand outside of about three of them, but don't make a federal case over because it's pointless, I can simply not watch them and then go on with my day. If WB/DC continued to "only" make $800 million or so per picture, I think they could have lived with that. Could the people online who need to "win" and see every single movie break a billion or else be called a "failure" live with that? I don't know. I think people could do well with better priorities in general, frankly.

So since you asked, there's my answer. I think things were Just Fine, and they would have continued to be Just Fine, and in a world with no internet we'd probably be getting Justice League II this summer and a Superman movie the year after. Now, we're stuck with a bunch of CBMs that all HAVE to be exactly the same - jokey, schlocky, campy, no-stakes, no-drama, no-meaning Live-Action Cartoons that aim directly for the middle - and an audience that knows they can get what they want by stomping their feet and making a lot of noise, even if that noise is nothing but diaper rash.

Again, ten years ago "just" $800 million was not just acceptable, it was considered a triumph. People like you who make everything out to be much worse than it really is are a much bigger problem than anything else in the current pop culture climate. The sky wasn't falling, you just didn't get your way (until they caved). Big difference.

Whoa, 'people like me?' Dude, I never complained about the Snyder DCEU once when it was in theaters; I just didn't see any of the movies after I saw MoS and didn't like it. I spent my money and energy on things I enjoyed, rather than complain about what I didn't. And I know the Snyder films did make money, but apparently not enough to warrant staying the course in WB's eyes. My only questions were why did they feel they couldn't make a profit from the films, and why should people buy tickets to movies they won't enjoy, even if they are of high artistic quality. At the end of the day, they are just movies, and not worth putting too much emotion into.

Anyway, thank you for your viewpoint, I always appreciate the insight other opinions bring.

[Panda_Kahn_fan]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Hey you, long time no see!

While I agree with your first sentence, your second sentence is flawed.

People DID go to see Snyder's interpretation of Superman in Man of Steel. And people DID go to see Snyder's interpretation of Batman in Batman V Superman. It's only after the first cinematic appearance of each that audiences rejected them.

The trailers sucked people in. People were more wary for BvS, because of the story, and not liking Snyder's Superman, but the ideal of Snyder's Batman was still fresh and appealing. By the time Justice League rolled around though, absolutely yes--people went to see it not because of Snyder's interpretation, but because of Patty Jenkins and the pop culture appeal.

Hey, good saying you again! I don't post here much; While there are a lot of intelligent and thoughtful posters here, this place also has it's share of uncouth ruffians, and I like to keep my exposure to poisonous fanboy venom low. XD

Sorry, I need to explain my meaning; people were pulled in by Snyder version, but once they saw it, many failed to return for repeat viewings, hence the dropoff in ticket sales after the first weekend.

[Leo656]

Well I didn't mean it to be taken so harshly, but you do seem to be one of those folks who think there was some disaster happening because the Snyder-led films "only" made $800 million-ish, and/or the online reviews weren't glowing.

I maybe could have worded it better but I wasn't sure how. Either way, I didn't mean any offense by it. Only that things definitely weren't as bad as they may have seemed to you and to others.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Didn't mean it as a shot.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Well I didn't mean it to be taken so harshly, but you do seem to be one of those folks who think there was some disaster happening because the Snyder-led films "only" made $800 million-ish, and/or the online reviews weren't glowing.

I maybe could have worded it better but I wasn't sure how. Either way, I didn't mean any offense by it. Only that things definitely weren't as bad as they may have seemed to you and to others.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Didn't mean it as a shot.

You know corporate finances are fvcking weird when "only $800 million" is a bad thing for a movie.

[Leo656]

Especially since aside from the Nolan Bat-films, any other DC movies would need a rocket up their ass to get those numbers, pre-2014.

Remember when sh*t like "Jonah Hex" was the standard? Seriously.

[snake]

Is it really that time of the year where I'm once again reminded that Jonah Hex had a film? I guess it is.

[Leo656]

Y'know who neeeeeeds a movie? SGT. F*CKING ROCK.

Dead serious. We're long overdue on that. And there's so much you can do with it, too. I can't even believe that the only outside media that Rock's ever had was a goddamn Game Boy game. It was only the most popular, longest-running war comic in history, is all.

I guess one could argue that it'd just be "Saving Private Ryan" with a bit more stylization, but who cares? We get a new WWII movie every 5-10 years. Why not Sgt. Rock? It's damn good material.

[snake]

IIRC, There was going to be a Sgt. Rock movie with Arnold at the helm. I'm like 99% certain I'm not making this up, either.

[Leo656]

No, that sounds right. I'd have to research it but I'm almost positive that was on the table at one point.

Watch them make it within the next 5 years. Starring The Rock. Because Hollywood thinks they're funny and clever and nobody knows how to tell them they aren't at all funny or clever.