Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Orlanth wrote:
Why? Because Marvel fanbois? Because 'Murica? Because comics in general.

No, I think most of it is a good old fashioned industry dogpile. A film or a project that has some negative gossip then starts to build up more negative gossip, and so on. People start to get excited about a film project failing, like they do about a car crash, to the point where they'll speculate gleefully about a project failing long before anyone has seen any real length of screen footage.

It's really one of the big differences between actual film critics, who'll comment and dissect films they've actually seen, and film industry gossips. Unfortunately there's a lot more of the latter than the former, and the pre-movie industry hype machine is staffed entirely by the latter.

I just watched Birdman tonight and this scene anout critics really resonated with me and feels like it fits perfect with the conversation about SS crotics that haven't even seen the movie yet....

And honestly fits in even better with the BvS thread.


*Language warning NSFW*

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Why? Because Marvel fanbois? Because 'Murica? Because comics in general.

No, I think most of it is a good old fashioned industry dogpile. A film or a project that has some negative gossip then starts to build up more negative gossip, and so on. People start to get excited about a film project failing, like they do about a car crash, to the point where they'll speculate gleefully about a project failing long before anyone has seen any real length of screen footage.

It's really one of the big differences between actual film critics, who'll comment and dissect films they've actually seen, and film industry gossips. Unfortunately there's a lot more of the latter than the former, and the pre-movie industry hype machine is staffed entirely by the latter.

This. And I've come to strongly believe that negative articles about the DCEU have shown a high click rate, and that's why the clickbait sites just keep churning that stuff out. Again, I found an article the other day proposing that the strong trailers for SS are a bad thing, because they might be overpromising the film and therefore make it "dead on arrival." It's a ridiculous premise, but hey, anything for a click!

So yeah, I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy at work. WB's only answer is to make some films that are less divisive.

DC laid a HUGE egg with BvS, and it's simply failing to perform to anybody's expectation. Avengers 1 set a high bar, and AoU came close enough. BvS didn't do that at all. If BvS were a "good" movie like Avengers 1, then people would say so and it would do better. It's not like everybody is just making stuff up.

Given the ramp-up and delivery for BvS, and how good the SS trailers are, I think it's not a fair concern that DC under-delivers with SS. Do you not remember all the BvS marketing promising the world? And then finding out that a number of the visually impressive stuff that was in the trailers didn't matter, because they were just dreams?

DC just needs to put out a good film.

As before, I fully expect SS to be good, because it's actually a Batman movie, which is the only kind of movie DC does a good job with. Even if it doesn't say "Batman" in the title.