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

[batfan08]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

You're acting like everyone on earth hated this movie: they didn't. No one's going to like everything, as everybody's different, but, while I'm sorry that it's not what you wanted, that doesn't make it valid. That's the point I've been trying to get at. The movie was **** for you? Nobody's asking you to like it. With that in mind, I'm seeing stuff like "they're going to do right by us, based on what," and I can't help but think, why should they? Forgive me for saying so, but why should they cater to the people who hated the movie? I see so much entitlement in these fandoms, and it boggles my mind how they blow up their self-importance. This is nothing against you personally, as I wish you'd enjoyed the movie more, but, just to put this in perspective, I'd like to make something of an analogy. Let's say that I own a restaurant, and, every week, the item of choice for about half the people is a bacon cheeseburger. The regulars love it, they buy it all the time, and then, one day, you decide, "I've heard good things about this place. Maybe we should have 'so and so's party here.' I find out that you and your guests hated the burger. You said that the ingredients were okay, and it was well cooked, but, aesthetically, it left a bad taste in your mouths. This is probably your first and last experience at my restaurant. The point I'm trying to get at is that you're a one time customer. I'm not going to overhaul the whole recipe, and, potentially, cost my business its regulars, just because you and your friends think you'd like something else better.

From where I'm standing, Man of Steel made triple its budget, at over $600 million, and, while it's a small sample of the total audience, review aggregates help get a feel for where the film might be, in terms of a general consensus. Said reviews were realatively mixed, with an ever so slight leaning towards positive reception, as far as critics go, and the film was significantly more well received with some of the commercial review samples. Granted, this accounts for a very small amount of the population, but, in general, it could be a bit better received, or it could be a bit worse. At the end of the day, though, when it's a commercial success, and it's not a total critical bomb, they really don't have a good gauge on whether or not it's a good franchise until they try again and see if it works before going back to the drawing board.

In the meantime, they're going to cater to the people they know are going to be seeing it opening day, not worrying about those who didn't like it, and, who knows? Going back to my analogy from earlier, the second dish (Batman vs. Superman) that's served may compliment the burger (Man of Steel) nicely enough that those who might've had a distaste for it appreciate it more.

As far as Marvel's formula goes, you're right; it is the only one that works right now, but, the fact of the matter is, how did we find out that it works? Because Marvel tried it. Feige could've said "let's see if the folks at Universal could help us get a new Hulk in development," and "if we might be able to get Columbia on board for a Thor picture," and it could've been the same as it's always been: decent comic book movies that put the spotlight on characters for a summer and fade away for a few years at a time. My point is: Marvel took a risk by going against the status quo of solo Superhero movies that never interacted with others. If everyone from now until the end of time made movies strictly by the Marvel formula, how would we know if anything else would ever work. Sometimes, you've got to take risks; sometimes they pay off, and some times they don't, but you won't know until you try.

I'm sorry to say that your point about Superman/Batman being pushed back because WB's running from Disney with their tail between their legs sounds ludicrous, for the simple fact that there's literally no relation to any of those films. Batman and Superman was set for July, Age of Ultron is a full two months prior to that, in May, and Star Wars, as far as I can tell, is tentatively scheduled for Christmas. What that means is that, if you know anything about how theaters work, if it was even in theaters when BvS came out, Age of Ultron would have like one showing at 10:30 PM, and, as far as Star Wars goes, Batman vs. Superman would've been released for a full six months; even if it was a huge mega blockbuster, the theaters would've probably dropped it by October. Point being: the only way DC and Disney would've even remotely overlapped was when Ant-Man came out during Batman vs. Superman's second week. ant-Man.

 

[Niltusk]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

No way.

He played the role well. The movie had problems, but he was great.

****ing A!
I had no problem with him as Matt or in the suit. He was just trouncing through a turd of a movie, unfortunately.

 

[The Phantom]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

You're acting like everyone on earth hated this movie: they didn't. No one's going to like everything, as everybody's different, but, while I'm sorry that it's not what you wanted, that doesn't make it valid. That's the point I've been trying to get at. The movie was **** for you? Nobody's asking you to like it. With that in mind, I'm seeing stuff like "they're going to do right by us, based on what," and I can't help but think, why should they? Forgive me for saying so, but why should they cater to the people who hated the movie? I see so much entitlement in these fandoms, and it boggles my mind how they blow up their self-importance. This is nothing against you personally, as I wish you'd enjoyed the movie more, but, just to put this in perspective, I'd like to make something of an analogy. Let's say that I own a restaurant, and, every week, the item of choice for about half the people is a bacon cheeseburger. The regulars love it, they buy it all the time, and then, one day, you decide, "I've heard good things about this place. Maybe we should have 'so and so's party here.' I find out that you and your guests hated the burger. You said that the ingredients were okay, and it was well cooked, but, aesthetically, it left a bad taste in your mouths. This is probably your first and last experience at my restaurant. The point I'm trying to get at is that you're a one time customer. I'm not going to overhaul the whole recipe, and, potentially, cost my business its regulars, just because you and your friends think you'd like something else better.

From where I'm standing, Man of Steel made triple its budget, at over $600 million, and, while it's a small sample of the total audience, review aggregates help get a feel for where the film might be, in terms of a general consensus. Said reviews were realatively mixed, with an ever so slight leaning towards positive reception, as far as critics go, and the film was significantly more well received with some of the commercial review samples. Granted, this accounts for a very small amount of the population, but, in general, it could be a bit better received, or it could be a bit worse. At the end of the day, though, when it's a commercial success, and it's not a total critical bomb, they really don't have a good gauge on whether or not it's a good franchise until they try again and see if it works before going back to the drawing board.

In the meantime, they're going to cater to the people they know are going to be seeing it opening day, not worrying about those who didn't like it, and, who knows? Going back to my analogy from earlier, the second dish (Batman vs. Superman) that's served may compliment the burger (Man of Steel) nicely enough that those who might've had a distaste for it appreciate it more.

As far as Marvel's formula goes, you're right; it is the only one that works right now, but, the fact of the matter is, how did we find out that it works? Because Marvel tried it. Feige could've said "let's see if the folks at Universal could help us get a new Hulk in development," and "if we might be able to get Columbia on board for a Thor picture," and it could've been the same as it's always been: decent comic book movies that put the spotlight on characters for a summer and fade away for a few years at a time. My point is: Marvel took a risk by going against the status quo of solo Superhero movies that never interacted with others. If everyone from now until the end of time made movies strictly by the Marvel formula, how would we know if anything else would ever work. Sometimes, you've got to take risks; sometimes they pay off, and some times they don't, but you won't know until you try.

I'm sorry to say that your point about Superman/Batman being pushed back because WB's running from Disney with their tail between their legs sounds ludicrous, for the simple fact that there's literally no relation to any of those films. Batman and Superman was set for July, Age of Ultron is a full two months prior to that, in May, and Star Wars, as far as I can tell, is tentatively scheduled for Christmas. What that means is that, if you know anything about how theaters work, if it was even in theaters when BvS came out, Age of Ultron would have like one showing at 10:30 PM, and, as far as Star Wars goes, Batman vs. Superman would've been released for a full six months; even if it was a huge mega blockbuster, the theaters would've probably dropped it by October. Point being: the only way DC and Disney would've even remotely overlapped was when Ant-Man came out during Batman vs. Superman's second week. ant-Man.

Well if you spent 225 million on said hamburger I would expect it to be out of this world.

I kid of course, and I don't expect this movie to be for me. Not at all. Believe me, I have no sense of entitlement.
Not for nothing, but I could just as easily say the same about you. You liked the movie and you thought the cast was perfect and you want to see a sequel, dammit!
But can you honestly say that this film was well received? Please. This wasn't (for a lot of folks) just a bad Superman movie; this was just a bad movie. Even people that liked it were disappointed. I mean, I know you read the internet so you probably have seen what everyone else has seen. MOS is considered a joke, and it's mocked and laughed at just like GL and the prequels.

You say the film made 3 times it's budget, well that wasn't enough. They spent (so they say) 225 million on this. Ok, but they spent another 100 million on prints and advertising. It costs alot of money to open a movie all over the world. According to Forbes, this movie had to make at least 800 million just to break even and it didn't. The studio won't look at this as a flop, they'll say it "underperformed". Which to many is no good. The Amazing Spiderman's reputation is that it got a "lackluster response" from moviegoers when it came out, and that made 100 million more. For God's sake Batman and Robin made 280 million back in '97 and you didn't see another Batman film for 8 years because it was considered so bad.

Do you think any this is lost on WB? They've already distanced themselves from Chris Nolan (his name isn't even mentioned anymore) Han Zimmer isn't likely coming back, the Argo guy is supposedly rewriting the script (though why Goyer is still doing interviews is a bit confusing), hell the guy who put this together (Jeff Robinov) isn't even at Warners anymore, so whose left?

Zack Snyder. Now can they replace him? No, they can't, and they can't reboot, so this is what they're stuck with. Well. maybe you're willing to give them a second chance, but I'm not. I'm not someone who complains about a movie for two years, and then is first on line to see the midnight show. Not by a long shot. So again, no sense of entitlement here. Zack can make a 100 more Superman movies and I just won't bother seeing any of them. No skin off my nose.


As far as the release dates go, you can think it's crazy all you want, I know that I wouldn't put a movie that," might" do well against the Avengers, and this is coming from a DC fan. WB isn't just thinking about BvS, but Justice League as well. They don't want anything to overshadow this movie. They don't want the comparison. They don't want the internet abuzz with the, "which was better?" stories. Hence the changed date.
They'll probably move it again.

I know Marvel won't. They don't have to. They don't have everything riding on Cap 3

 

[batfan08]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

The fact of the matter is that marketing doesn't just include what they're paying for. SEARS, IHOP; there's a lot of product placement in this film. Those deals alone brought back a huge chunk of the marketing costs, and that's not even considering some of the smaller spots for other products. As far as being well received goes, yeah, I do. Was it Citizen Kane? No, but it wasn't Manos: The Hands of Fate, either. You keep saying "for a lot of folks," but, the fact of the matter is that, neither you, nor I know how everyone who saw this movie reacted to it, so, why don't we just agree to disagree. The critics make up probably less than 5% of the actual, movie going public, and, even if we tallied up every review and reaction online, we probably wouldn't even scratch the surface. Still, though, if we're strictly talking critics here, I'd say it was fairly well received. Technically, 56% is a majority, which means that, however small a percentage it may be, more critics liked it than didn't. So, with that in mind, it was hardly the universally panned debacle you're making it out to be.

As far as the film becoming a joke goes, I agree. That being said, becoming a joke doesn't make it a bad movie. We live in an age where even the best movies can be criticized and torn apart, and made fun of, but, the fact of the matter is that just because people might have fun with something, that doesn't mean they hate it. I'm sure that, in some circles, The Avengers is made fun of, as well; and Iron Man 3 got a **** ton of backlash for The Mandarin. I'm also not sure where you're getting all of this "WB" is cutting all ties stuff, either. Nolan isn't coming back because he's working on other things, he was there to watch it take off, and that's really all that was promised. Zimmer's most likely coming back, considering the fact that he's been talking about the difficulty of trying to make a new Batman theme, without returning to the old one, and, as far as Terrio's coming on board, his presence doesn't mean they're scrapping Goyer's ideas completely; he's just refining it, and it would make sense to have a talented screenwriter such as that one go through and pick up the slack, when it comes to Goyer's weaknesses (fine tuning story details).

As far as release dates go, though, I'll continue to think it's crazy because, frankly, it is. "Overshadow the movie?" If there's one thing that Batman vs. Superman isn't lacking, it's buzz. Every bit of casting news, thus far, has made national headlines, the announcement of the film caused the Internet to explode, and, during the Comic-Con coverage, it exploded to the point where Age of Ultron was nigh a blip on everyone's collective radar. The fact of the matter is that, as far as buzz goes, this movie could step into the ring with Disney's entries any day of the week. That being said, I understand what you mean about how people would react to it, but, if you're making a movie, you're not going to be thinking about "how negatively people are going to react to it." You're trying to make the best product you can, and, if anything, you're excited to see how people will react to it; not worried about how it's so bad they'll hate it (because, if they really believed that, it wouldn't be getting made).

 

[NASEDO]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

There's no use arguing, Batfan has made up his mind. I can see the future,

May 6, 2016 Batfan will post "Just got back, greatest movie ever" I hope ur right. I like DC better then Marvel. I rather see a JLA movie before a Superman/Batman fight. If Bale was still Batman I'd have less doubt, but I still think the title is just a marketing ploy. Its a huge risk, if this fails DC is in big trouble.

 

[batfan08]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

For all I know, I could come back extremely disappointed and say it sucks. All I'm saying is not to judge something that is totally alien to us. We don't know how this movie will turn out, so why are people saying "Batman vs. Superman" is going to suck?

 

[Niltusk]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

There's no use arguing, Batfan has made up his mind. I can see the future,

May 6, 2016 Batfan will post "Just got back, greatest movie ever" I hope ur right. I like DC better then Marvel. I rather see a JLA movie before a Superman/Batman fight. If Bale was still Batman I'd have less doubt, but I still think the title is just a marketing ploy. Its a huge risk, if this fails DC is in big trouble.

Considering the success with MOS, I think they'll be fine. The only thing they may have going against them is co-promotional value for upfront assets. MoS got tons due to many businesses expecting a Superman boyscout movie and thats not Snyder's vision. Otoh, the BR sales and merchandising showed that the movie wasn't an OMG we made it at the box office, whew movie as it had strong sales to support the continuation of the franchise.

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Damning the new film this early is a bit rich isn't it.

I'm no fan of MOS (duh), but I'm looking forward to seeing what they've got coming - truly.

I'm a big fan of both Bruce & Clark, so bring it on.

****ing A!
I had no problem with him as Matt or in the suit. He was just trouncing through a turd of a movie, unfortunately.

 

[The Phantom]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

The fact of the matter is that marketing doesn't just include what they're paying for. SEARS, IHOP; there's a lot of product placement in this film. Those deals alone brought back a huge chunk of the marketing costs, and that's not even considering some of the smaller spots for other products. As far as being well received goes, yeah, I do. Was it Citizen Kane? No, but it wasn't Manos: The Hands of Fate, either. You keep saying "for a lot of folks," but, the fact of the matter is that, neither you, nor I know how everyone who saw this movie reacted to it, so, why don't we just agree to disagree. The critics make up probably less than 5% of the actual, movie going public, and, even if we tallied up every review and reaction online, we probably wouldn't even scratch the surface. Still, though, if we're strictly talking critics here, I'd say it was fairly well received. Technically, 56% is a majority, which means that, however small a percentage it may be, more critics liked it than didn't. So, with that in mind, it was hardly the universally panned debacle you're making it out to be.

As far as the film becoming a joke goes, I agree. That being said, becoming a joke doesn't make it a bad movie. We live in an age where even the best movies can be criticized and torn apart, and made fun of, but, the fact of the matter is that just because people might have fun with something, that doesn't mean they hate it. I'm sure that, in some circles, The Avengers is made fun of, as well; and Iron Man 3 got a **** ton of backlash for The Mandarin. I'm also not sure where you're getting all of this "WB" is cutting all ties stuff, either. Nolan isn't coming back because he's working on other things, he was there to watch it take off, and that's really all that was promised. Zimmer's most likely coming back, considering the fact that he's been talking about the difficulty of trying to make a new Batman theme, without returning to the old one, and, as far as Terrio's coming on board, his presence doesn't mean they're scrapping Goyer's ideas completely; he's just refining it, and it would make sense to have a talented screenwriter such as that one go through and pick up the slack, when it comes to Goyer's weaknesses (fine tuning story details).

As far as release dates go, though, I'll continue to think it's crazy because, frankly, it is. "Overshadow the movie?" If there's one thing that Batman vs. Superman isn't lacking, it's buzz. Every bit of casting news, thus far, has made national headlines, the announcement of the film caused the Internet to explode, and, during the Comic-Con coverage, it exploded to the point where Age of Ultron was nigh a blip on everyone's collective radar. The fact of the matter is that, as far as buzz goes, this movie could step into the ring with Disney's entries any day of the week. That being said, I understand what you mean about how people would react to it, but, if you're making a movie, you're not going to be thinking about "how negatively people are going to react to it." You're trying to make the best product you can, and, if anything, you're excited to see how people will react to it; not worried about how it's so bad they'll hate it (because, if they really believed that, it wouldn't be getting made).

Yes, you're right. They did get a lot in promotional money back. It didn't go to the movie division (not allowed by law), but it's still Time Warner so that's something.

You're also right that 56% is a majority, but not by much. Certainly not what I would want to kick off my movie universe. You have to also consider perception. It was on HBO the other night and it was 2 stars. It will always be a 2 star movie. Again, perception. This is what they're building their universe on. Not a great foundation.

And you're right again. Lots of movies get tagged and bagged. That's the nature of the beast. But it's one thing for a film to get nit picked for small details and another to get ripped apart. Some movies can be defended, but when even people that liked a movie start saying things like, "Well yeah the tornado part was stupid.....", and making excuses like Kal was just starting out (even though he was 33, and not exactly a kid), and, "The buildings were all evacuated" (even when the film makers say differently) There's a problem.

As far as WB cutting ties, I didn't just pull that out of the air. Chris Nolan's name was all over MOS before it came out, and now he's not even mentioned. I'm not the only one who noticed it. Having a new writer brought in just before a film is moved up doesn't look good either.
Again, perception. It makes them look like idiots, maybe not to you, but to others that they don't want to look like idiots to. Like shareholders and the press.

This movie is getting buzz, but it's all bad. Every casting choice has been questioned, and when that happens the press jumps on it.

Look at the Empire covers that had the Xmen. That got a lot of buzz too, but not the kind they wanted.

There's a lot of money at stake with these films, they don't want the internet to explode with laughter whenever they announce a casting choice, or a costume. Or have to read comments (which they do) like,"These guys are so clueless", ""They should just sell the rights to Marvel at this point", that's not good. They can't just rely on a good opening weekend with these. they have to have legs, because all that matters to these guys is the bottom line.

This movie is 2 years away, if it's getting this much flack now, wait till the trailers start coming out.

Maybe the Batfleck costume will get some good feed back. At this point they need it.

 

[batfan08]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I see what you're saying, and, if we're being honest, I don't think it was as strong of a start as they wanted, but I do think it was salvageable, and, in that regard, I think you kind of, inadvertently, nailed it, in your earlier post, when you brought up time. If this thing had been a Green Lantern level flop, they'd have scrapped it in an instant and gone back to the drawing board, but, with that in mind, I think they saw enough there that they could keep trucking along to, at least, one more film. No one wants to start something like this with a movie that isn't a complete and utter success, in every sense of the word, but, the fact of the matter is, for WB, it was **** or get off the pot time, and, well, from the looks of things, they decided to ****. They could've tried again, but then, if they went back to the drawing board, who knows how long it'd be until they got things going?

It'd be years before we saw another Superman again, as you want to make sure that the last one is out of the public consciousness, in order to keep people from getting confused. So, do I think that Man of Steel is the best start? No. With that in mind, though, as I said, it is a potentially salvageable one, and it could potentially be the key to DC's success (or failure). As far as the casting news goes, though, we've seen it before. Michael Keaton, Heath Ledger; the list goes on. At the end of the day, the people in the studio know the creative vision, we don't. I think they've seen that all of these casting backlashes mean nothing, in the grand scheme of things. The guy who is shouting "**** Ben Affleck; that big mouth, Southie ****" will be there on opening day to see the movie. You talk about perception, but, frankly, I don't think they care how we perceive them. That'd be like asking a shepherd if he cares that his flock thinks he's a total ****. We're dollar signs; ticket sales, if you will. Criticism? Support? It's all ****. With that in mind, that's one of the benefits of a huge movie like this. Love it or hate it, this is going to make history as, for the first time in over 75 years, Batman and Superman will be sharing the screen in a love-action feature film. Even if this things was "Troll 2" bad, it'd still make a ton of money, because people, with their morbid curiosity, would tune in to watch it the same way someone tunes in to watch a massively lethal train wreck on CNN.

 

[The Phantom]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I see what you're saying, and, if we're being honest, I don't think it was as strong of a start as they wanted, but I do think it was salvageable, and, in that regard, I think you kind of, inadvertently, nailed it, in your earlier post, when you brought up time. If this thing had been a Green Lantern level flop, they'd have scrapped it in an instant and gone back to the drawing board, but, with that in mind, I think they saw enough there that they could keep trucking along to, at least, one more film. No one wants to start something like this with a movie that isn't a complete and utter success, in every sense of the word, but, the fact of the matter is, for WB, it was **** or get off the pot time, and, well, from the looks of things, they decided to ****. They could've tried again, but then, if they went back to the drawing board, who knows how long it'd be until they got things going?

It'd be years before we saw another Superman again, as you want to make sure that the last one is out of the public consciousness, in order to keep people from getting confused. So, do I think that Man of Steel is the best start? No. With that in mind, though, as I said, it is a potentially salvageable one, and it could potentially be the key to DC's success (or failure). As far as the casting news goes, though, we've seen it before. Michael Keaton, Heath Ledger; the list goes on. At the end of the day, the people in the studio know the creative vision, we don't. I think they've seen that all of these casting backlashes mean nothing, in the grand scheme of things. The guy who is shouting "**** Ben Affleck; that big mouth, Southie ****" will be there on opening day to see the movie. You talk about perception, but, frankly, I don't think they care how we perceive them. That'd be like asking a shepherd if he cares that his flock thinks he's a total ****. We're dollar signs; ticket sales, if you will. Criticism? Support? It's all ****. With that in mind, that's one of the benefits of a huge movie like this. Love it or hate it, this is going to make history as, for the first time in over 75 years, Batman and Superman will be sharing the screen in a love-action feature film. Even if this things was "Troll 2" bad, it'd still make a ton of money, because people, with their morbid curiosity, would tune in to watch it the same way someone tunes in to watch a massively lethal train wreck on CNN.

Well, I wouldn't say there was anything inadvertent about the time frame on my end. I thought that was pretty obvious. But whatever, not important.

Maybe they have something up their sleeves that ends up being great. I hope so for the people that want to see this. I'm not one of them, but as I said before they're not making this film for me.

If it turns out that this movie is boss, I'll be the first one to eat crow. Count on it. I know that there are fans that want to see the JLA on the big screen and this is probably the last chance, so I hope the film makers appreciate that when they're putting this together.

 

[RRJdesign]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I think that Henry Cavill's true Superman character can only be seen in the MOS2. In the first MOS, it was his first time to reveal his true powers. And as a first time superhero, I think it's just right to make mistakes since he was still making adjustments on who he really is. I believe he will become a better Superman in the next MOS, stronger, smarter and has more confidence in what he is doing, like saving the world. MOS storyline really made sense for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GasparZizou]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I think that Henry Cavill's true Superman character can only be seen in the MOS2. In the first MOS, it was his first time to reveal his true powers. And as a first time superhero, I think it's just right to make mistakes since he was still making adjustments on who he really is. I believe he will become a better Superman in the next MOS, stronger, smarter and has more confidence in what he is doing, like saving the world. MOS storyline really made sense for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

100% agree with this

 

[batfan08]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Well, I wouldn't say there was anything inadvertent about the time frame on my end. I thought that was pretty obvious. But whatever, not important.

Maybe they have something up their sleeves that ends up being great. I hope so for the people that want to see this. I'm not one of them, but as I said before they're not making this film for me.

If it turns out that this movie is boss, I'll be the first one to eat crow. Count on it. I know that there are fans that want to see the JLA on the big screen and this is probably the last chance, so I hope the film makers appreciate that when they're putting this together.

Don't get me wrong, if the movie comes out and it's horrible, I'll absolutely come back and say "sorry, Phantom; you were right," but I'm just saying that we should all cool our jets until the movie comes out.: lol

 

[morphosis]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Don't get me wrong, if the movie comes out and it's horrible, I'll absolutely come back and say "sorry, Phantom; you were right," but I'm just saying that we should all cool our jets until the movie comes out.: lol

MoS favorable rating is higher than 56%. I like looking at imdb for fan score reaction and it got a 7.4 with over 350,000 votes. Which is the same score as IM3 and higher than Thor Dark World. The vast majority liked it it's just the people who didn't tend to post over and over their issues with it all over the internet which most aren't that valid if they know the history of Superman. Most compare the story to the Reeve films and those are melted in everyone's brain and they don't know much more about Superman, and that's a big issue because no matter what Superman they make, people will compare it to the great Reeve films. Which i personally think is silly because those should stand alone on their own, and MoS is its own thing. You can love more than 1 movie, you know.

And internet rage is prominent for all these comic book movies. They even told Ben to stay off the internet. So it's not like they weren't prepared for it they knew Ben would be a tough sell to the negative crowd that is addicted to posting anything negative.

He is their vision. So I just hope he proves nay sayers wrong. But I know even if it is great, there will still be lots of nay sayers on the internet. Just gotta ignore it.

 

[Niltusk]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

MoS favorable rating is higher than 56%. I like looking at imdb for fan score reaction and it got a 7.4 with over 350,000 votes. Which is the same score as IM3 and higher than Thor Dark World. The vast majority liked it it's just the people who didn't tend to post over and over their issues with it all over the internet which most aren't that valid if they know the history of Superman.

Another thing is alot of times those reactions are knee jerk before a movie has time to settle in. Although IM3 starched MoS in box office numbers, the tables really turned once units BRs hit. It really makes you wonder, why the sudden reversal in fortune?

 

[morphosis]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Another thing is alot of times those reactions are knee jerk before a movie has time to settle in. Although IM3 starched MoS in box office numbers, the tables really turned once units BRs hit. It really makes you wonder, why the sudden reversal in fortune?

ya I dont really go by box office numbers. They are what they are. Its impressive to see what they make, but it never influences me on if i like a movie or not. Also depends on how movies gets released. there is the 3D factor. More theaters have 3D, 3D is more expensive, so the movies can make more. Which makes it even more impressive that TDK Rises had no 3D and made over 1 Billion $$$. If it had 3D, it may have come closer to the Avengers 1.5 Billion.

 

[olbertfrog]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016€

Nolan is not associated to the new movie simply because his job is done.
And they dont needed him anymore.He was the godfather of MOS for one simple reason, his DK trilogy.
It was a way to bring people in theatre for a new Supes movie.
Goyer already had been approached to pitch ideas.It was just a publicity stunt to reassure peoples.
In reality exécutive producer is an honnorary tittle. He had no hands in the movie and he kept saying that it was Snyder s movie.
Now that the movie had its success, that the universe is settled in the public minds they dont need anymore to play the Nolan card.

As for Goyer, well he has a deal on these movies so he gets to write scripts but in the end they are completely revised.
MOS original script was a mess said Irish jedi, it ws reworked by Snyder and Jonathan Nolan if i remember correctly.
But goyer always gets crédits for these, its his contract even if there is big rewrites.
Will happen again with the next one. And hes more than happy to talk to the press, wich make him look like he s the main guy behind all this but he is not.

As for Warner sticking with Snyder, well whatever you think about his work know this , Warner love Snyder.
He has a great relationship with them and they absolutely love his work and approach.
Watchmen is considered a flop, yet they gave him carte blanche to do Sucker PUnch wich actually flopped, and yet again they give him one of their biggest movie MOS. How do you explain this?
So do you really think they cant get rid of him or its more like they really like and trust him?

Btw Nice to read some positive stuff in this thread ^^

 

[a-dev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

MoS favorable rating is higher than 56%. I like looking at imdb for fan score reaction and it got a 7.4 with over 350,000 votes. Which is the same score as IM3 and higher than Thor Dark World. The vast majority liked it it's just the people who didn't tend to post over and over their issues with it all over the internet which most aren't that valid if they know the history of Superman. Most compare the story to the Reeve films and those are melted in everyone's brain and they don't know much more about Superman, and that's a big issue because no matter what Superman they make, people will compare it to the great Reeve films. Which i personally think is silly because those should stand alone on their own, and MoS is its own thing. You can love more than 1 movie, you know.

And internet rage is prominent for all these comic book movies. They even told Ben to stay off the internet. So it's not like they weren't prepared for it they knew Ben would be a tough sell to the negative crowd that is addicted to posting anything negative.

He is their vision. So I just hope he proves nay sayers wrong. But I know even if it is great, there will still be lots of nay sayers on the internet. Just gotta ignore it.

I just think there was still potential with the Donner universe. I don't think it had to be left in the past. Superman Returns may not have been great but MOS wasn't either for its own reasons. And I think the former at least provided a more plausible world and tone for the Justice League. And had the Williams theme

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I just think there was still potential with the Donner universe. I don't think it had to be left in the past. Superman Returns may not have been great but MOS wasn't either for its own reasons. And I think the former at least provided a more plausible world and tone for the Justice League. And had the Williams theme

The same could be said about Burton's version of Batman. It could still be used. But they chose not too. Personally, I hate Superman Returns. I find it boring, completely misses the mark on who these characters are, and nostalgic to the Donner films as if they were holy writ. The best thing about the film was the Williams theme. I like both Williams theme and the new Zimmer one. The Williams has the advantage of my childhood, and it being the first music I ever heard associated with the character. Which is funny because I heard the campy tv show theme for Batman first as a kid in 88. But it is the Elfman theme I most closely associate with Batman. The haunting way the music plays. And yeah, if given the choice i would prefer the Elfman theme be THE Batman theme. So I sympathize there.