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

[YoNoSe]

Everyone I know agrees that the people we know DOES mean something.

I agree.

 

[crows]

Yes, I know. The Budget was $247 million. Worldwide marketing was between $145-$160 million, actually... But it was offset by nearly $200 million from promotional partners (like Dr Pepper, Turkish Airlines, etc) who covered that cost. A *conservative* line item in the total budget (accounting for the exhibitors' take from ticket sales) had the film hitting profit somewhere between $550-$600 million worldwide (the range is wide because of differences in ticket sales margins in different countries). So let's say it ends up around $850 million in worldwide box office total (it's at $786 right now)... that would put the profit at about $250-$300. Again, that's before merchandising and home video is factored in later on.

So it wasn't a grand slam home run (The $1-2 billion range appears to be the benchmark these days), but they'll make a decent amount of coin. Also, two of the biggest promotional partners have just re-upped for Wonder Woman and Justice League. So they must feel they got enough out of this as well, which is also important to WB as they will help offset marketing costs again in the future.

Decent amount of coin,
Less than man of steel which was deemed a failure but yeah, decent..

 

[kryptonianmutie]

So in addition to making live-action Marvel, Star Wars, fairy tale, children's book AND movies based on rides you want them to also risk hundreds of millions on totally original properties? Why? What difference does it make whether Disney makes an original live-action movie vs. any other studio? And if they've had live-action flops since 2012 why would you hold it against them for not risking even more when they're already producing so many live-action flicks with their own properties? I'm just not getting the problem I guess.

Because I don't see us getting the kind of movies I loved growing up of this trend continues. Somebody might have a script for a movie that could be as impressionable for today's generation as Terminator or Back to the Future were on me, and a studio might pass on it because the project is deemed too risky.

 

[IrishJedi]

I'm just so over CGI now even The BFG looks like another Warcraft to me. Just a generic fantasy film with obviously digital characters. The promise of 1993 just never really came to be and I wonder if it ever will. Here we are, 23 years later and still nothing looks significantly better than those first Park dinos. I don't mind a Gollum, Davy Jones, or even a Maz Kanata here and there but I just don't like the look of movies that feature humans interacting with digital characters from beginning to end. Don't even get me started on how uninteresting Avatar is to me now.

And completely digital environments. That's just as off-putting to me when it's throughout an entire film.

 

[spindrift]

I paid three times to see BvS and felt it was money well spent. I think those involved with the movie would be more than satisfied to hear that. It just comes down to that. I am personally disappointed it was met with such hate and box office that should have been bigger but alas that is what it is. I think the next few DC movies will be big hits and make money with or without the "critics'"seal of approval- which I no longer care or respect

 

[Khev]

And completely digital environments. That's just as off-putting to me when it's throughout an entire film.

Yep, they can get away with it for a few minutes at a time here or there but when it's constant for half the movie or more I just can't suspend disbelief that the characters are in a real place.

 

[JAWS]

I've pretty much come to hate the current "system" of critical movie reviews. We were talking recently about how 20 years ago it was just the national critics (Siskel, Ebert, Shalit, Siegel, even that dope Maltin) and whoever your local newspaper reviewer was. And you could pretty much use whoever your favorite national reviewer was (mine was always Ebert) and then maybe your local guy and you became so familiar with what they liked compared to your preferences you could use their critiques as a barometer for what *you* might like.

Ebert was always great at saying things like "Batman Forever was all spectacle, had a really uneven pace the story jumped around, kids will probably like it more than adults but Kilmer, Carrey, and the visuals were still great. 2.5 out of 4 stars but I'm still giving it a thumbs up for the things it got right." Now all these damn algorithms and ratings charts would go "2.5 out of 4? Rotten. Everyone says that. 25%. Terrible movie."

We don't have a critic or two that we know by name that has some real insight on what we might enjoy as individuals. All that matters is the damn "score" that's a hodgepodge of hundreds upon hundreds of outright idiots. Total idiots are making or breaking films from a critical point of view when we only ever really need to listen to one, maybe two of them depending on who shares our tastes in film. Yes RT has "Top Critics" (which should be the ONLY ONES on the site if you ask me) but even those are too many and tend to yield to hive mentality with their averages as well.

Great point... There are a few critics who I like to read because they tend to be in line with my tastes. The Arrow from Arrow in the Head is one big one. I would say I agree with him 95% of the time. Only Problem is he only does Horror / Sci Fi with some action sprinkled in. Even then I don't just go by his word. But If I am on the fence about seeing something in the theaters I might check what he has to say first.

I discovered that when reading any critic you have to take their mood into account. Ebert did not care for Die Hard but loved Die Hard 2. His reason for not liking Die Hard was Dwayne T. Robinson. He said that his only reason for being there was to be wrong all the time and that his character was dumb... And yet he had no issues with Capt. Carmine Lorenzo who suffered the same problem x 10... I can only assume Ebert was in the mood for a film like DH2 but not as much for DH...

Of course he gave may of Renny Harlin films good review (Long Kiss Goodnight, Cutthroat Island).. So perhaps he was paid off

No, really. I've seen a few people say the same thing here, but I didn't see anything ground breaking or different about BVS....as a summer film. Obviously having multiple popular heroes in the same film is new for WB, but not for other studios.

Because it did not follow the Marvel crowed pleasing formula. It was dark, more serious, and attempted to have more plot deeper meaning then the usual Comic book movie. If you like the film you think they succeeded. If you thought less of the film then you probably just see a bunch of swings and misses.



In all honesty this Hate on RT is funny. If RT was "Fresh" then fans would be using it as an argument against the people who did not like the film. Both are wrong to use it to judge a films quality. Just as how much money it brings in has nothing to do with the quality of a film.

However one could say that BvS should have bigger Box office and use that as a measuring stick to how the general public may feel about it (I am referring more to the large drop off) but that still has nothing to do with the quality of the film.

I think it's funny how people who like the film have said that the non fans either don't understand the film, are MCU fanboys, have no taste, hated it before they came out, paid off by Disney, or don't understand what makes a quality film.

I have heard similar arguments for other films. "Only people that did not like IM3 are Comic fans. Movie Fans like it" "The Desolation of Smaug is great, if you don't like it it's because you don't see the big picture" " JAWS is the greatest movie ever those who don't agree are idio... " Oh wait that last one is 100% true

Of course the haters just "don't understand how anyone could like something they don't like" or that people who like it are fanboys, or easily pleased. Which is just as narrow viewed.

As has been mentioned so many times here... It's all opinion. Like what you like and Hate what you hate. Have fun defending you point of view and don't worry about what the next poster says.. Embrace the different opinions and don't take someone not enjoying what you like as a personal attack... Unless of course it's a personal attack and to those that made a personal attack, I say, Reread this post

 

[bboy]

Saw this again a few days back. Loved it. It's literally a Batman Vs Superman story come to life, with Lex Luthor behind the scenes pulling the strings. And lois Lane doing some stupid sh** and having to get saved. Wondering woman swooping in with some epic music at the end. I'm convinced there's some strange backlash against dc, people calling this an incoherent mess makes no sense. Its pacing is bad though, Ill give it that. I can see how superman fans are upset, but never liking the guy myself this is the first movie I actually felt bad for him (felt anything for him). Also for all these hardcore supes fans, how can you deny that this is the first with real superman action? Superman V a giant monster ? On the big screen his lasers and whatnot were a little short of breathtaking.

 

[crows]

I do think there is a little bit of hypocrisy going around,
U guys probably had no problem agreeing with the critics when they trashed a transformers movie or an adam sandler movie or even a comic movie like ghost rider movie.....

Everyone here has gloat in the past over a crappy movie getting really bad reviews, even the alien vs predator movies.... So then, the critics were right....

But now that they went after the beloved batman and superman then it becomes "Disney paid the critics" or " the critics joining a hate bandwagon" or " the critics are retarded"

What baffles me the most is seeing people that trashed ghost rider 2 or trashed man of steel and USED critics scores to joke and mock those movies.....
So people that have bashed movies now are joining the conspiracy theories

But now.... Now its "critics can't be trusted" or " critics only Join the popular opinions"

If the critics rated this a 90 u guys would use that to prove it was good.... Like some of u did with star wars or Jurassic world.

 

[Starscream Soundwave]

Truth hurts

Generally, the critics have been pretty fair.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Because it did not follow the Marvel crowed pleasing formula. It was dark, more serious, and attempted to have more plot deeper meaning then the usual Comic book movie. If you like the film you think they succeeded. If you thought less of the film then you probably just see a bunch of swings and misses.

None of that is new or groundbreaking for a summer film...it's not even new for WB. The Nolan Batman already did that in 2005, 2008, and 2012...same time period the Marvel films were coming out. But even Marvel made The Winter Soldier and Fox made First Class and DOFP.

 

[RIDDICK]

I see we haven't yet gotten bored of DC fanboy VS Marvel fanboy, Rotten Tomato scores etc etc.

Here's how I see it:

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Here's how I see it:

That's one of the nastiest things I've ever seen...

 

[a-dev]

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Wtf..

 

[crows]

If anything I am starting to see a bias in HERE,
U guys are starting to create a conspiracy and create a bandwagon for everyone to join,

U guys complain about bias and wagon jumping when U GUYS are doing the exact thing against ANY critic or ANYONE against this movie.

U ARE doing what u are attacking the critics with the bias thing and calling anyone that hated it a troll or too retarded to understand it

The fact that some of u just CANT Accept that the movie has a lot of problems and bad casting...

 

[RIDDICK]

That's one of the nastiest things I've ever seen...

You haven't seen Giger's version, I assume?

Spoiler

 

[kryptonianmutie]

You haven't seen Giger's version, I assume?[emoji38]

Spoiler

That's way less creepy than the real thing.

 

[crows]

You haven't seen Giger's version, I assume?

Spoiler

Oh NOW you use spoiler tags.....

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

You haven't seen Giger's version, I assume?

Spoiler

Nasty, but I agree with Krypton, the real thing is beyond horrific.

That's way less creepy than the real thing.