Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 24th, 2016)

[SNIKT1950]

A Batman and Superman movie potentially making less than Iron Man 3. Wtf?!

Iron Man 3 was an Avengers follow up. People couldn't wait to get back to the MCU (and were sadly met with a bull**** comedy that added ZERO to the character and universe).

Had Iron Man 3 been released in 2014, you can forget that $1.2 Billion.

 

[RIDDICK]

You forgot to add that general audience are RDJ whores.

 

[Destro]

Iron Man 3 was an Avengers follow up. People couldn't wait to get back to the MCU (and were sadly met with a bull**** comedy that added ZERO to the character and universe).

Had Iron Man 3 been released in 2014, you can forget that $1.2 Billion.

I mean, I get the rationalization. But still...

This movie SHOULD'VE been a slam dunk.

 

[SNIKT1950]

I mean, I get the rationalization. But still...

This movie SHOULD'VE been a slam dunk.

Should have? Absolutely. Should have made $1.5 Billion but didn't because critics have a hate boner for Zack Snyder (and are mostly owned by Disney).

The sad thing is even though I'm a fan of Snyder's and loved both MOS & BvS, I'd get him off JLA. With him at the helm again, the reviews for that film will be written long before those critic ***** watch it. Sadly, those critic ***** have the power to kill a film's legs.

 

[Victοr]

Should have? Absolutely. Should have made $1.5 Billion but didn't because critics have a hate boner for Zack Snyder (and are mostly owned by Disney).

The sad thing is even though I'm a fan of Snyder's and loved both MOS & BvS, I'd get him off JLA. With him at the helm again, the reviews for that film will be written long before those critic ***** watch it. Sadly, those critic ***** have the power to kill a film's legs.

I know, I know, but it's so much fun...

 

[Rorywan]

What it means is that they're giving more focus to their CBMs and getting away from other things that cost as much. FOX is doing the same thing. By 2017, Disney/Marvel, WB & FOX will each begin releasing three CBMs per year.

What's for certain is that WB doesn't see BvS as a failure at all. The film won't make a billion but $800 - $900 million is impressive still, specially with the atrocious reviews.

Nope. That's not what it says at all.
And WB are seeing BVS as a failure, both in revenue and as a launchpad for their DCU. They are incredibly concerned about what happened with BVS.
Yes, it's made a lot of money, but it could have made a lot more. And public opinion couldn't be lower than it is right now for a multi billion dollar franchise.

What this article suggests is that we will see *safer* less risky, more friendly movie projects from here on in.
The "Suicide Squad" reshoots back this up. Which is a real shame. Throwing the baby out with the bath water...

 

[Victοr]

Me: Person with a legitimate point worth looking into.

Yes, your point is that an entire multibillion dollar corporation actually cared enough and managed to bribe every single critic in every country. Do you even know how RT works? The percentage there is how many people gave it a fresh review. The average rating is a 5.2/10. But eh, I guess a massive conspiracy theory involving empires and bribed folks is more interesting.

You: Moron.

The End

Great argument there. Insults. Good, good... Really gets your point across.

 

[e30ernest]

What's for certain is that WB doesn't see BvS as a failure at all. The film won't make a billion but $800 - $900 million is impressive still, specially with the atrocious reviews.

It will profit but I doubt it would reach their expectations. At that level, a film with 2 of the most famous superheroes of all time, a film that would introduce the world to DC's universe and a first real glimpse of the Justice League would make less than a solo Batman film.

Should have? Absolutely. Should have made $1.5 Billion but didn't because critics have a hate boner for Zack Snyder (and are mostly owned by Disney).

Again, I do not see how this makes sense.

• BvS is not in direct competition with anything related to Disney at the time of its release. Smearing it now won't sway people to save their money for a film that would come out over a month a way (Civil War).
• With all the talk about CBM fatigue and how we are soon going to see a decline, negative reviews on BvS would risk hurting Civil War's income.
• If there is enough widespread corruption of the media to allow Disney to use reviewers to take the legs off BvS, WB won't keep silent. Right now it's just conspiracy theorists and their tinfoil hats.

So right now, what we saw was a huge opening weekend number and a very steep drop-off. That to me shows a very high interest at the start (a huge chunk of that opening weekend's sales came from advanced purchases, I certainly bought my tickets ahead of time) and after some people watched it, maybe a lot didn't like it (as evidenced even here in the forum where opinions are divided) so less people bought into the second weekend.

If reviews were truly to blame for the low performance of this film, it wouldn't have gotten such a huge opening weekend since reviews were out before then. I really think blaming the critics right now is just grabbing for straws.

 

[Rorywan]

too funny.

 

[SNIKT1950]

too funny.

Not really. Scary is what it is.

Then again, the press has always been for sale, as are most things in this world.

 

[e30ernest]

*Can anyone honestly say with a straight face that BvS deserves a rotten 29% while THOR TDW (66%), IRON MAN 2 (72%) & IRON MAN 3 (79%) deserve Certified Fresh reviews?

To be honest, I do not think it deserved a 29% Rotten score, but in my personal opinion, it wasn't better than the above films (with the exception of IM3, where I think I'd be among the 21% that did not like that film).

When you have a very serious film like BvS, you'll need to really execute the story well. Without a well-executed story, you're left with nothing much. With movies like Thor TDW or IM2, even when the story may be lacking, their overall light-heartedness and strong main characters (you can't deny that Tom Hiddleston was a really good Loki and Robert Downey made a great IM/Stark) could make up for that. While the story may not have been the best, they were fun in their own right.

Also, I will repeat, blaming critics for low box office sales is grasping for straws. You over-estimate the number of people who actually look at reviews before watching a movie. I read reviews too but I only read them after watching a film to see if my views agreed with what other people thought.

I think word-of-mouth has a bigger effect. In my household for example, my brother was planning on watching BvS but when he saw I wasn't too happy about it, he didn't. When he didn't his friends didn't too (they were planning to go together). Now they are just waiting for it to come out of HBO or other cable movie channels we have to watch it for free. I am sure that happened to a lot of other people too.

 

[cmiller99]

Me: Person with a legitimate point worth looking into.

You: Moron.

The End

Classic.

Here's something I wrote on the matter a few days ago:

There's no tinfoil hat conspiracy against DC movies - that's just a cheap excuse for poor reviews that this movie has received.

The simple truth is that when a Marvel movie has a bad story, or feels cheap, or is of a lower quality than the other movies (I'm thinking of fan least-favourites like Iron Man 2 and Thor 2) they still get fairly positive critical recognition because while they may be essentially worthless fluff, at least they're 'fun' to sit through for non die hard fans/the general public (i.e. the school of thought that most mainstream critics belong to). This is where the misconception of "Marvel brainwashing" comes from, but it's not brainwashing at all. It's just being able to enjoy a sloppy movie because it's still light hearted and offers some good beats here and there in a mostly fun way.

If a movie like BvS, with the tone and execution that this movie has, is perceived as bad by an audience of critics, then they will find less to admire in the film; i.e. they will give it unfairly overwhelming negative reviews - because if they can't, in their opinion, find any worth in the plot, acting or themes in the movie, then they won't have the fun lighthearted moments to cling to and enjoy like they do for a Marvel movie - they'll just find it miserable and depressing, and they'll hate it. And that's what has happened here.

That's how I see it at least. The tinfoil hat angle is laughable.

I don't think that BvS deserves a 28% score at all, that's ridiculously poor.

 

[olbertfrog]

I know for sure that in my country some journalists, bloggers who were blacklisted from some mouse ears screenings are back on the invitation mailing list.
All of them wrote very nasty papers on BvS.
Battle is raging on facebook and movie forums.
The Jungle Book press screening was a sight to behold, people were calling each other names and security had to intervene.
Probably just a french thing... Right...

 

[cmiller99]

I know for sure that in my country some journalists, bloggers who were blacklisted from some mouse ears screenings are back on the invitation mailing list.
All of them wrote very nasty papers on BvS.
Battle is raging on facebook and movie forums.
The Jungle Book press screening was a sight to behold, people were calling each other names and security had to intervene.
Probably just a french thing... Right...

I hear what you're saying Olbert, critics may be shut out from preview screenings of course, that's the studio's choice. But that should only have a bearing on the RT score for a few days - three weeks after a film's release, all these blacklisted critics will have had a chance to see the film and form their opinions.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that WB doesn't want to one-up Marvel and vice versa, but the worldwide critic conspiracy is laughable due to just how bloody ridiculous such a concept is.

 

[SNIKT1950]

To be honest, I do not think it deserved a 29% Rotten score, but in my personal opinion, it wasn't better than the above films (with the exception of IM3, where I think I'd be among the 21% that did not like that film).

When you have a very serious film like BvS, you'll need to really execute the story well. Without a well-executed story, you're left with nothing much. With movies like Thor TDW or IM2, even when the story may be lacking, their overall light-heartedness and strong main characters (you can't deny that Tom Hiddleston was a really good Loki and Robert Downey made a great IM/Stark) could make up for that. While the story may not have been the best, they were fun in their own right.

Also, I will repeat, blaming critics for low box office sales is grasping for straws. You over-estimate the number of people who actually look at reviews before watching a movie.

It this were true we'd have 1/10 of the critics we have now (which is what the number was twenty years ago).

Critics absolutely have the power to sink a film. All throughout the week BvS opened people (not critics) were already anticipating a bad film and alot of them didn't even bother to watch it opening weekend (which is why all the estimates were off).

Its not at all complicated to buy these people.

Picture yourself doing reviews for Variety. Your salary is good, you don't pay to see films, you're press now so there's a broad community that you belong to...life is good. Then one day, you get a call from a Disney rep who offers you five grand to write a positive review for THOR: TDW.

You tell yourself - what's the harm in going from your original D grade to a B? No kids will die from this, nothing awful can really come from it. Why not beef up your wallet? Journalistic integrity? **** does that pay for?

Its such a simple investment on the studio's part that literally ensures the legs of their films and costs them scraps.

*Read Matt Goldberg's MCU reviews on Collider. The guy might as well start each review with "DISNEY PAYS ME TO WRITE THIS ****".

 

[SNIKT1950]

I hear what you're saying Olbert, critics may be shut out from preview screenings of course, that's the studio's choice. But that should only have a bearing on the RT score for a few days - three weeks after a film's release, all these blacklisted critics will have had a chance to see the film and form their opinions.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that WB doesn't want to one-up Marvel and vice versa, but the worldwide critic conspiracy is laughable due to just how bloody ridiculous such a concept is.

Lol so its ridiculous for a billion-dollar film corporation to want to ensure its film's box office longevity by basically buying good worth of mouth?

In the business world, this is an EXTREMELY common tactic. People are bought all the time. County commissioners, Zoning officials, Senators....if you have the cash you buy those that can ensure you make more.

Not sure why you think one of the most common business practices is ridiculous.

 

[cmiller99]

It's ridiculous because some one would have said no and unveiled the truth by now. You can't assume that every film critic is a money whore with no integrity.

 

[RIDDICK]

The simple truth is that when a movie has a bad story, or feels cheap, or is of a lower quality than the other movies they still get fairly positive critical recognition because while they may be essentially worthless fluff, at least they're 'fun' to sit through for non die hard fans/the general public (i.e. the school of thought that most mainstream critics belong to). This is where the misconception of "brainwashing" comes from, but it's not brainwashing at all. It's just being able to enjoy a sloppy movie because it's still light hearted and offers some good beats here and there in a mostly fun way.

RT scores

Batman Returns --------------------------- 80%
Batman Forever --------------------------- 40%

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - 95%
John Carter -------------------------------- 50%

_

I guess this theory doesn't work.

 

[SNIKT1950]

It's ridiculous because some one would have said no and unveiled the truth by now. You can't assume that every film critic is a money whore with no integrity.

So your whole argument is that because there hasn't been a whistle blower the whole thing is ridiculous?

Hilarious.

You ever heard of Edward Snowden?

 

[olbertfrog]

I hear what you're saying Olbert, critics may be shut out from preview screenings of course, that's the studio's choice. But that should only have a bearing on the RT score for a few days - three weeks after a film's release, all these blacklisted critics will have had a chance to see the film and form their opinions.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that WB doesn't want to one-up Marvel and vice versa, but the worldwide critic conspiracy is laughable due to just how bloody ridiculous such a concept is.

Im not into that conspiracy thing from Disney Marvel, even if that would not surprise me that they would have targeted some opinion makers.
The movie journalists bloggers scene is smaller in my country, everybody know everybody.
They are past exemples of favors, gifts for good/bad reviews.
Seeing some guys who were called punks by the public relation team, and blocked from the screenings a while ago being there was weird.

In the end some audience and journalist are not into Snyders take.
Who gives a ****. Move on.
I do like What Dc is trying to do.
As flawed it is, at least they are trying and they dont bore me like some others.