Hot Toys Batman V. Superman Dawn of Justice Speculation Thread

[SilverStar17]

Exactly SS & Remy, the only thing that really matters in the end is if you as a viewer like it or not. Some movies that are highly rated I didn't like, it's all perspective in the end.

So glad to see WW rel. today too, knew she had to be coming soon. and bam! she's here.

All that you should be concerned with is whether YOU like it or not. Someone's opinion on why they didn't like something is no more important nor valid than your opinion on why you did like it, and vice versa.

 

[Motuxmen]

Spoiler

Thanks for the info, Motux. But yeah, it is amazing just how selective and hypocritical a lot of CB fans are with their movies. Hopefully it doesn't turn into another fiasco with fans like the way MoS did with killing Zod at the end (which for the record I had no problem with).

Yeah it's also critics. I had a few high profile ones at the screening and one of them destroyed it on yahoo reviews. And his main issue was that the movie was to serious and to dark and not campy enough for a superman film. If you went in expecting 66 batman or batman and robin them your a fool. And he kept, even during the movie, repeating about how superman and batman would never allow anyone to die or kill anyone, and that's only ever been done by Snyder. And he contrasted it with Marvel. Even though we know people died in marvel to. The difference is that Snyder didn't hide it. He put it front and center.

I personally would like superman a wee bit more cheery...but that's been done. Over and over. I'm ok if someone wants to take it in a new way. And the only way you could show just how powerful these characters like superman are, compared to say Spider-Man or Thor or Cap, is with fight scenes that illustrate that power in a real world way. People bash MOS for destroying metropolis but look at what hulk did in avengers. He rode one of those alien snake/dragon things through a building. Guess what, in the real world that would destroy a building. Lol

And as I said, batman killed in the Burton movies, superman killed in the Reeve films, batman crippled and people died in the Nolan films...Wintee soldier had hundreds die. cap kicks a guy in the throat and off the boat. Well if you can't breath and fall 30-40 ft into freezing cold ocean your going to die. Lol he throws his shield and hits a guy in the head, and after it hits the guy it embeds in a steel bulkhead. Guess what, that would kill.

It just seems people go in wanting it to be an issue and find something to justify it. Because destruction, (every super hero or Godzilla movie ever has that) or to dark (Nolan and burton where not very light) and killing (avengers, iron man, Thor, batman89 and returns, Superman(reeve) ect all had killing by hero) is in every movie. And those keep being used as why MoS and BvS are not good. It's silly.

 

[spindrift]

I quite liked and enjoy AoU. However, I don't think it's essentially 9/10 good.

I enjoyed it but it was a very weak Marvel film- 7/10 for me at best

 

[spindrift]

Yeah it's also critics. I had a few high profile ones at the screening and one of them destroyed it on yahoo reviews. And his main issue was that the movie was to serious and to dark and not campy enough for a superman film. If you went in expecting 66 batman or batman and robin them your a fool. And he kept, even during the movie, repeating about how superman and batman would never allow anyone to die or kill anyone, and that's only ever been done by Snyder. And he contrasted it with Marvel. Even though we know people died in marvel to. The difference is that Snyder didn't hide it. He put it front and center.

I personally would like superman a wee bit more cheery...but that's been done. Over and over. I'm ok if someone wants to take it in a new way. And the only way you could show just how powerful these characters like superman are, compared to say Spider-Man or Thor or Cap, is with fight scenes that illustrate that power in a real world way. People bash MOS for destroying metropolis but look at what hulk did in avengers. He rode one of those alien snake/dragon things through a building. Guess what, in the real world that would destroy a building. Lol

And as I said, batman killed in the Burton movies, superman killed in the Reeve films, batman crippled and people died in the Nolan films...Wintee soldier had hundreds die. cap kicks a guy in the throat and off the boat. Well if you can't breath and fall 30-40 ft into freezing cold ocean your going to die. Lol he throws his shield and hits a guy in the head, and after it hits the guy it embeds in a steel bulkhead. Guess what, that would kill.

It just seems people go in wanting it to be an issue and find something to justify it. Because destruction, (every super hero or Godzilla movie ever has that) or to dark (Nolan and burton where not very light) and killing (avengers, iron man, Thor, batman89 and returns, Superman(reeve) ect all had killing by hero) is in every movie. And those keep being used as why MoS and BvS are not good. It's silly.

Exactly- in other words Marvel gets a pass but DC is stopped, tripped and hog tied

 

[SilverStar17]

Yeah it's also critics. I had a few high profile ones at the screening and one of them destroyed it on yahoo reviews. And his main issue was that the movie was to serious and to dark and not campy enough for a superman film. If you went in expecting 66 batman or batman and robin them your a fool. And he kept, even during the movie, repeating about how superman and batman would never allow anyone to die or kill anyone, and that's only ever been done by Snyder. And he contrasted it with Marvel. Even though we know people died in marvel to. The difference is that Snyder didn't hide it. He put it front and center.

I personally would like superman a wee bit more cheery...but that's been done. Over and over. I'm ok if someone wants to take it in a new way. And the only way you could show just how powerful these characters like superman are, compared to say Spider-Man or Thor or Cap, is with fight scenes that illustrate that power in a real world way. People bash MOS for destroying metropolis but look at what hulk did in avengers. He rode one of those alien snake/dragon things through a building. Guess what, in the real world that would destroy a building. Lol

And as I said, batman killed in the Burton movies, superman killed in the Reeve films, batman crippled and people died in the Nolan films...Wintee soldier had hundreds die. cap kicks a guy in the throat and off the boat. Well if you can't breath and fall 30-40 ft into freezing cold ocean your going to die. Lol he throws his shield and hits a guy in the head, and after it hits the guy it embeds in a steel bulkhead. Guess what, that would kill.

It just seems people go in wanting it to be an issue and find something to justify it. Because destruction, (every super hero or Godzilla movie ever has that) or to dark (Nolan and burton where not very light) and killing (avengers, iron man, Thor, batman89 and returns, Superman(reeve) ect all had killing by hero) is in every movie. And those keep being used as why MoS and BvS are not good. It's silly.

Yeah, I concur. A lot of picking and choosing. MoS wasn't enough like Reeve, but SR for instance was too much like Reeve. So...

I admire whenever a director attempts to do something different than what's already been done over and over. You're never going to strike gold if you don't swing your pick in the first place.

 

[melkorjunior]

As far as killing in superhero movies go, maybe the problem isn't the fact that civilians and / or non-powered bad guys are dying, but rather that the movie doesn't earn those deaths? The audience accepts Cap killing pirates onboard a comandeered boat at the beginning of Winter Soldier because that's what law enforcement would logically do in that sort of hostage situation. On the other hand, Superman allowing Metropolis to be pulverized into rubble without at least attempting to move the fight to a less populated area just seems really objectionable. I grew up on the Christopher Reeve Superman, and in Superman II he spent nearly his entire fight with Zod trying to minimize civilian casualties. Cavill's Superman doesn't really seem to have given it any thought.

And no, Reeve's Superman didn't kill Zod.

 

[SilverStar17]

As far as killing in superhero movies go, maybe the problem isn't the fact that civilians and / or non-powered bad guys are dying, but rather that the movie doesn't earn those deaths? The audience accepts Cap killing pirates onboard a comandeered boat at the beginning of Winter Soldier because that's what law enforcement would logically do in that sort of hostage situation. On the other hand, Superman allowing Metropolis to be pulverized into rubble without at least attempting to move the fight to a less populated area just seems really objectionable. I grew up on the Christopher Reeve Superman, and in Superman II he spent nearly his entire fight with Zod trying to minimize civilian casualties. Cavill's Superman doesn't really seem to have given it any thought.

And no, Reeve's Superman didn't kill Zod.

That is true. It's forgiven more with Captain America because he is a soldier, and soldiers are supposed to kill. It's funny because even though I feel Superman and Captain America essentially stand for and represent the same set of ideals, people generally now days seem to like and are able relate to Captain America more. Perhaps that's also just because Marvel is way ahead of the game in DC as far as their film universes go. Although I do think part of it also is because Superman is essentially a God-like being who is well above the human race. He represents what the human race can be, not what we already are. Captain America also represents the very best qualities that a person can be, but he's still human. He's not considered as being a God by any means; he is merely the pinnacle of human performance and then some. He doesn't carry a dual identity and is still "Captain America" while walking around as Steve Rogers.

So therefore, it's a bit of a surprise for some to see that Superman may be "flawed" in some way, being that he's supposed to be above humans and the epitome of perfection.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I saw something entirely different in MoS regarding Kal seemingly not making any attempt at all to remove the fray with Zod from Metropolis, and I think a lot of that in a way actually has to do with the starkly different interpretations of Zod more so than Supes himself; each one (Zod) had an entirely different objective which determined Superman's course of action. I don't really feel the matter needs to be expounded on anymore because it already has been many times in the past.

I would also disagree with you on Superman killing Zod in Superman II. And that's not simply just to make myself feel better about the ending of MoS, it's simply based on what I saw and what I feel the obvious intended interpretation was to be.

I'm a staunch fan of both renditions of Superman and thoroughly enjoy them both. I can literally watch Superman and Superman II, and watch MoS right after and enjoy both of them equally as much without feeling the need to compare and contrast.

 

[Motuxmen]

As far as killing in superhero movies go, maybe the problem isn't the fact that civilians and / or non-powered bad guys are dying, but rather that the movie doesn't earn those deaths? The audience accepts Cap killing pirates onboard a comandeered boat at the beginning of Winter Soldier because that's what law enforcement would logically do in that sort of hostage situation. On the other hand, Superman allowing Metropolis to be pulverized into rubble without at least attempting to move the fight to a less populated area just seems really objectionable. I grew up on the Christopher Reeve Superman, and in Superman II he spent nearly his entire fight with Zod trying to minimize civilian casualties. Cavill's Superman doesn't really seem to have given it any thought.

And no, Reeve's Superman didn't kill Zod.

I don't get how you earn death. Again, hulk didn't save a single person. Neither did Thor. But hulk was the toast of A1. And I can say from my military experience, and Zod invading is more war then police, priority is to stop the other party before saving civvies. And had Mos superman moved the fight out of metropolise with Zod it would not have done much. Given the problem was the world engine mostly. Moving the fight isn't always a choice either. When Zod is a military person with the exact same powers, you can't just say hey let's go to this corn field. Zod wants the fight in the city. Superman tried to toss him away and Zod just flies back. There isn't always some magic way to prevent collateral damage. And that is exactly the point of the movie. No matter what the hero wants, that doesn't make it possible. Even with all that power superman can't save everyone.

And yes, he did kill Zod. He strips his powers, kicked/or threw him into a wall(probably breaking bones) and he falls into the Arctic water or wild. He's essentially human. Humans freeze to death. He killed him just the same as if he snapped his neck. And if I recall he smiled or laughed about it.

 

[melkorjunior]

I don't get how you earn death. Again, hulk didn't save a single person. Neither did Thor. But hulk was the toast of A1. And I can say from my military experience, and Zod invading is more war then police, priority is to stop the other party before saving civvies. And had Mos superman moved the fight out of metropolise with Zod it would not have done much. Given the problem was the world engine mostly.

And yes, he did kill Zod. He stopped his powers, kicked him down a massive hole and into the Arctic water. He's essentially human. Humans freeze to death. He killed him just the same as if he snapped his neck. And if I recall he smiled or laughed about it.

Zod fell down a chute. We never saw a body. Saying he was kicked down "a massive hole" and landed in "arctic water" is speculation on your part based on nothing. We don't know how deep the chute went. We never saw Zod land anywhere. And it wasn't a straight fall down a hole, it was a a slide down a steep ramp. For all you know Superman had a trophy room at the bottom of that chute. And one of the scenes that got deleted showed Zod, Ursa and Non being led away by Arctic police. I know this isn't good enough for the people who desperately try to defend Man of Steel's silly destruction-porn by dragging the Reeve movies into it, but nevertheless, Reeve's Superman didn't kill Zod.

 

[SilverStar17]

Zod fell down a chute. We never saw a body. Saying he was kicked down "a massive hole" and landed in "arctic water" is speculation on your part based on nothing. We don't know how deep the chute went. We never saw Zod land anywhere. And it wasn't a straight fall down a hole, it was a a slide down a steep ramp. For all you know Superman had a trophy room at the bottom of that chute. And one of the scenes that got deleted showed Zod, Ursa and Non being led away by Arctic police. I know this isn't good enough for the people who desperately try to defend Man of Steel's silly destruction-porn by dragging the Reeve movies into it, but nevertheless, Reeve's Superman didn't kill Zod.

I would also disagree with you on Superman killing Zod in Superman II. And that's not simply just to make myself feel better about the ending of MoS, it's simply based on what I saw and what I feel the obvious intended interpretation was to be.

Just as you say the "people" who believe that Superman killed Zod in Superman II say this to justify Superman killing Zod in MoS, is it possible that some staunch fans of Reeve are in denial about Superman killing Zod in Superman II simply as a way to want to justify why the Superman they hold so dear to heart is better than the MoS interpretation?

It can easily go both ways.

Like I said, I'm not saying that Superman killed Zod in Superman II as a way to make myself feel better about Kal also killing Zod in MoS. I'm judging both films as a separate entity based on what I saw. And when a super powered being throws a mere mortal into a block of ice at this velocity undoubtedly shattering his spine and then subsequently slides down into an abyss never to be seen nor heard from again, the interpretation to me is that it was certain death. And if I do feel the urge to compare two films, I go by what the final theatrical cut was that made the theaters and what was intended for audiences to see; not deleted scenes or what one alternate take out of 5 other alternate takes showed.

I'm not sure why some Superman fans make it seem like you have to choose a side in the first place. Can one not like both interpretations and merely take them for what they saw based on what each was intended to be?

 

[Motuxmen]

I'm with you. I like both films. But I look at them with the same eyes. The only reason superman II is so subtle about the death of Zod is due to the standards of the time. They had to do it that way.

If he didn't die what exactly happened, right? It doesn't take much to break a human back. Even if your not permantly paralyzed it makes moving hard. I broke mine from a short 10ish foot fall. I wasn't paralyzed, but it messed me up for life. Having Superman throw you against a crystal wall and then fall into an abyss is pretty much death. I don't see what other implication there is. And he smiled while doing it. It's not so moral as its portayed.

I personally wouldn't have had him snap Zods neck the way he did in MoS. it's jarring. But it's supposed to be. Historically people treat superman like he's better then human. The difference is that in this iteration Superman is the disguise where as the character is Clark. It's the opposite. Every other time you get to know superman then Clark. This time it's the other way. Which makes more sense. Given the narrative of the character. He's presented as a human who happens to be from Krypton, not the other way around. It's his humanity that sets him apart. Zod kills Becuase he doesn't feel. Clark (not Kal-el) is forced to kill out of pure emotion. His humanity is what forces that. And you look at all of the worlds real true heros over the last few thousand years and how many have killed? I'd say a huge percentage. Not Becuase they are bad.

 

[WolfBoy]

While the only important thing to any individual is whether or not they like the film, unfortunately, we are dealing with a film that actually NEEDS to hit certain marks for the studio to even bother with it being worth their time.While i'm sure Dawn will bring in a healthy BO for Warner, the bad reviews may deter it from really being the massive global money monster they may have wanted it to be.

A movie rated in the 40% range as the tent pole film of the year and the official start of an entire DCU film series doesn't bode very well. Also, Zac, Ben, Gal, DC, all seemed very passionate about really trying their best with this, and seeing it missing the mark with critics will be a a blow to all of them.

Luckily they have Suicide Squad and the solo Wonder Woman film before JL because if Dawn doesn't do what its meant to the DCU may get some changes.

We'll see, the movie may pull in enough cash. Its going to need to make more than what MOS did from a financial point of view and that made over 700 million with mixed reviews, Dawn is getting mixed to poor reviews.

 

[SilverStar17]

The difference is that in this iteration Superman is the disguise where as the character is Clark. It's the opposite. Every other time you get to know superman then Clark. This time it's the other way. Which makes more sense. Given the narrative of the character. He's presented as a human who happens to be from Krypton, not the other way around. It's his humanity that sets him apart. Zod kills Becuase he doesn't feel. Clark (not Kal-el) is forced to kill out of pure emotion. His humanity is what forces that.

I like this portion of what you said in particular.

I've never looked at it before from the perspective that Clark is actually the main character in MoS and that "Superman" is the alternate persona in this film, whereas traditionally Clark Kent is the alternate persona. You're absolutely right.

And yeah, regarding Zod in Superman II, if he didn't die on impact after likely shattering his spine on the icy wall after being hurled by Superman or from the fall itself down the precipice, he certainly wasn't going to be able to move at all once he hit the bottom being that his back would have undoubtedly been broken. And I doubt Superman was coming back to the FoS on occasion to care for him and provide him nourishment.

 

[Motuxmen]

I like this portion of what you said in particular.

I've never looked at it before from the perspective that Clark is actually the main character in MoS and that "Superman" is the alternate persona in this film, whereas traditionally Clark Kent is the alternate persona. You're absolutely right.

And yeah, regarding Zod in Superman II, if he didn't die on impact after likely shattering his spine on the icy wall after being hurled by Superman or from the fall itself down the precipice, he certainly wasn't going to be able to move at all once he hit the bottom being that his back would have undoubtedly been broken. And I doubt Superman was coming back to the FoS on occasion to care for him and provide him nourishment.

Thanks man. I had the good fortune to talk to the people behind the film while working on BvS so I got to hear what their take is. And the Clark thing was my big take away. Even though they never said it just like that. Lol

People just seem to make up their mind in advance on this film. It's odd. I see people over on comicbookmovie.com laughing about it getting bad ratings and happy about it. I just don't get that. What makes a person think like that? It's asine. And then there are the people that are only marvel or only DC or only classic reeve or only Nolan. I think that's just as stupid. And then you get the folks who have zero interest in superman or batman or even the marvel stuff like iron man or cap and go around in the forums and just slam it all. What exactly is the point of slamming a product or film you never where going to buy/see anyway? Stupid stuff.

As for reviews...i completly don't get that either. Why would anyone let some stranger make up their mind? I don't get it. Never have.

 

[rdean]

I like this portion of what you said in particular.

I've never looked at it before from the perspective that Clark is actually the main character in MoS and that "Superman" is the alternate persona in this film, whereas traditionally Clark Kent is the alternate persona. You're absolutely right.

And yeah, regarding Zod in Superman II, if he didn't die on impact after likely shattering his spine on the icy wall after being hurled by Superman or from the fall itself down the precipice, he certainly wasn't going to be able to move at all once he hit the bottom being that his back would have undoubtedly been broken. And I doubt Superman was coming back to the FoS on occasion to care for him and provide him nourishment.

Motuxmen & SS, that is exactly how I felt as well, it is Clark coming to terms/accepting what he has to do, and feeling the inner struggle he has to deal with in doing so & his journey. I think anyone that feels "happy" about a movie doing badly is pretty sad. People like to rip on others way too much for my taste. I will watch the movie anyway regardless.

 

[SilverStar17]

Thanks man. I had the good fortune to talk to the people behind the film while working on BvS so I got to hear what their take is. And the Clark thing was my big take away. Even though they never said it just like that. Lol

People just seem to make up their mind in advance on this film. It's odd. I see people over on comicbookmovie.com laughing about it getting bad ratings and happy about it. I just don't get that. What makes a person think like that? It's asine. And then there are the people that are only marvel or only DC or only classic reeve or only Nolan. I think that's just as stupid. And then you get the folks who have zero interest in superman or batman or even the marvel stuff like iron man or cap and go around in the forums and just slam it all. What exactly is the point of slamming a product or film you never where going to buy/see anyway? Stupid stuff.

As for reviews...i completly don't get that either. Why would anyone let some stranger make up their mind? I don't get it. Never have.

My sentiments also. When it comes to a film, as long as you were satisfied with it and you enjoyed it, that's all that matters. As I've stated before, CB fans are one of the most fickle, enigmatic groups of people I've interacted with. Sometimes, I think they get themselves so mixed up that in the end, they don't even know what it is they want to see.

Motuxmen & SS, that is exactly how I felt as well, it is Clark coming to terms/accepting what he has to do, and feeling the inner struggle he has to deal with in doing so & his journey. I think anyone that feels "happy" about a movie doing badly is pretty sad. People like to rip on others way too much for my taste. I will watch the movie anyway regardless.

Yeah, it seems a lot of people in today's society seem to be a lot more pessimistic and negative than they are optimistic and positive. Not sure what the catalyst for that is. Perhaps insecurity on their part, feeling exasperated and therefore, just wanting to find something to complain about to give themselves an outlet. I personally think that's why a lot of "flawed" superheroes such as Batman and Iron Man are possibly a little more liked than say Superman and Captain America. Both Supes and Cap are essentially the epitome of being moral and possess the very best qualities of what any sort of being has to offer, and I don't think people can relate to people or things that they feel are better than what they are; they prefer people or things that remind them of themselves. I find that to be a little odd, because one should feel that their heroes, or whatever they look up to, are better than what they are. You should be inspired because you aspire to be like that. Hence, why they call it "looking up to".

 

[spindrift]

Thanks man. I had the good fortune to talk to the people behind the film while working on BvS so I got to hear what their take is. And the Clark thing was my big take away. Even though they never said it just like that. Lol

People just seem to make up their mind in advance on this film. It's odd. I see people over on comicbookmovie.com laughing about it getting bad ratings and happy about it. I just don't get that. What makes a person think like that? It's asine. And then there are the people that are only marvel or only DC or only classic reeve or only Nolan. I think that's just as stupid. And then you get the folks who have zero interest in superman or batman or even the marvel stuff like iron man or cap and go around in the forums and just slam it all. What exactly is the point of slamming a product or film you never where going to buy/see anyway? Stupid stuff.

As for reviews...i completly don't get that either. Why would anyone let some stranger make up their mind? I don't get it. Never have.

Negativity is what sells and drives the internet/electronic age these days. It gets noticed and creates action...whole social media.
I think the bandwagon negativity is what is driving the BvS hate right now. I wil make up my own mind to be sure but I do feel for the filmmakers and it HAS to be affecting them in some way.

 

[spindrift]

My sentiments also. When it comes to a film, as long as you were satisfied with it and you enjoyed it, that's all that matters. As I've stated before, CB fans are one of the most fickle, enigmatic groups of people I've interacted with. Sometimes, I think they get themselves so mixed up that in the end, they don't even know what it is they want to see.



Yeah, it seems a lot of people in today's society seem to be a lot more pessimistic and negative than they are optimistic and positive. Not sure what the catalyst for that is. Perhaps insecurity on their part, feeling exasperated and therefore, just wanting to find something to complain about to give themselves an outlet. I personally think that's why a lot of "flawed" superheroes such as Batman and Iron Man are possibly a little more liked than say Superman and Captain America. Both Supes and Cap are essentially the epitome of being moral and possess the very best qualities of what any sort of being has to offer, and I don't think people can relate to people or things that they feel are better than what they are; they prefer people or things that remind them of themselves. I find that to be a little odd, because one should feel that their heroes, or whatever they look up to, are better than what they are. You should be inspired because you aspire to be like that. Hence, why they call it "looking up to".

Well said!

 

[juanca33]

I think that people were expecting another avengers, I laugh this morning because a critic was bashing it because he said "it was like the odd couple (reference to a tv show from 40 years ago) but trying to kill each other"... So the tittle Batman V. Superman didn't gave away that they were gonna fight? People saying its too dark or too gritty. The definition comic book movie didn't give the idea that this was inspired from the dark and gritty tones of the comics?

Haven't seen yet but I know in my heart that this movie for me is an 8 out 10. Not perfect but will be something comic book fans will enjoy.

 

[melkorjunior]

While the only important thing to any individual is whether or not they like the film, unfortunately, we are dealing with a film that actually NEEDS to hit certain marks for the studio to even bother with it being worth their time.While i'm sure Dawn will bring in a healthy BO for Warner, the bad reviews may deter it from really being the massive global money monster they may have wanted it to be.

A movie rated in the 40% range as the tent pole film of the year and the official start of an entire DCU film series doesn't bode very well. Also, Zac, Ben, Gal, DC, all seemed very passionate about really trying their best with this, and seeing it missing the mark with critics will be a a blow to all of them.

Luckily they have Suicide Squad and the solo Wonder Woman film before JL because if Dawn doesn't do what its meant to the DCU may get some changes.

We'll see, the movie may pull in enough cash. Its going to need to make more than what MOS did from a financial point of view and that made over 700 million with mixed reviews, Dawn is getting mixed to poor reviews.

Man of Steel didn't hit the 700 million mark. It made 668 million. That's a major distinction for Warner Brothers simply because the second Captain America movie made 714 million, and Guardians of the Galaxy, a film based on a property no one had heard of, made 775 million, and Iron Man 3 made 1.2 billion. The reintroduction of Superman was expected to do much better than it did compared to those Marvel movies. Man of Steel wasn't a disaster financially but it was a disappointment. Remember also that Amazing Spider-Man 2 made 709 million and that was considered such a disappointment by Sony that they rebooted the franchise.

I think it would have been better for DC's film universe, ironically, if Man of Steel had only made 400 million. That way they would have fired Zack Snyder and gone in a different direction. Henry Cavill is a fine Superman. The problem was Zack Snyder and he is going to be a problem going forward because his vision for these movies is simply out of step with what audiences want. How he managed to convince Warner Brothers that their DC movies should be so ultra grim and ploddingly serious that parents may not want to let little kids see them is just completely beyond me. That's a lot of money being left on the table. Superhero movies, with the rare (Deadpool) exception, should be four quadrant movies--they should appeal, ideally, to every segment of the audience, not just adult comic book readers who idolize Frank Miller.

I think if the Rotten Tomatoes percentage doesn't at least hit 60% (minimum for a "fresh" rating), the box office for this movie will take a hit. How significant a hit, we'll see, but it isn't helped by the fact that some geek sites are starting to review this movie too and they don't seem enthralled by it either. It isn't just the usual group of film critics that are saying this movie is a disappointment, it's people like us. I still think BvS will have a huge opening weekend, but it could be that repeat business will be a lot less than it could have been, and then we'll see what kind of legs it has in the weeks ahead.