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.

Well, Easter isn't a big moviegoing day.

KTG17 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
This is one of the most pathetic movies I have ever seen. I am pretty sure it was directed by a committee of accountants. Batman is a moron who uses guns to kill people without pause or remorse. Wonder Woman is an after thought in every possible sense. Superman is the only sympathetic character but his greatest foe is the script itself, which overpowers him again and again until it finally kills him and then hounds him in the grave. I have never before walked out of a theater with such a strong sense of the basic contempt in which a studio can hold the movie-going public.

Did we see the same movie? I would love to see what you expected to happen. Like in detail.

Batman killing without pause or remorse? This isnt the Batman of the 1950s. Batman has been getting darker and darker since the late 80s. The idea that a 'hero' only using his fists, is always going to find himself not having to resort to lethal methods at some point while facing guys with G36s and other assault rifles is just as looney as the idea of someone going up against guys with G36s with just his fists. This Batman is scarred from losing he friends to guys he was trying to defeat without killing. I think its reasonable for him to set that restriction aside from time to time, after all, these guys are trying to kill him.

Its like hearing Superman murdered Zod. Absolutely ridiculous. Zod was hell bent on killing everyone on earth, and gave Superman no choice in killing him. If anything, Superman is guilty of not killing him sooner.

Well, some folks just don't like an overly dark and disturbed Batman. I think the conclusion intended to show a Batman who got his groove back. But this Batman -- clearly TDKR-inspired, but also maybe a step beyond that -- was fairly batgak crazy for the majority of the film, and darn near a villain, which doesn't reflect what we see in current comics.

Stepping back, I think finding the right tone/characterization for the DC characters is a little trickier than the characters in the Marvel-made films, which were more of a blank slate to the general audience. Heck, the Marvel movie characters are now informing the comic versions, something you especially see with Iron Man. I simply don't remember Tony Stark being as happy-go-lucky or wisecracky in the past as he's been post-RDJ.

Meanwhile, in both comments and reviews for both MoS and BvS, Christopher Reeve tends to come up again and again. It's a narrow, single rendition of the character across its extensive history (similar to the BvS Batman), but clearly people like a Superman talks corny, acts the fool as Clark Kent, and wears a big grin a lot. *shrug* Personally that wouldn't play well with me, since I feel like we moved past that Silver/Bronze Age version a long time ago in the comics.

It was probably always going to be harder to suit everyone with the DC characters, but it's fair to say that the WB folks definitely rolled the dice with some of their choices. I have no issues with their handling of Superman to date, but if the Injustice-type scenario that Bruce's vision and Flash seem to be warning us about sees any real fruition in future films...I think that would be a big misstep. I feel like the end of BvS moved us past Superman as a controversial figure or villain, and they should probably tread lightly there going forward in the DCEU.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Christopher Reeve Superman tapped into what made Superman so ingrained into popular culture in the first place: he was a super hero not because of his powers but because of his outlook. The movie was a bit heavy with the Christ metaphors, but it absolutely nailed that Superman was supposed to show people how good they could be, that he was an example to everyone. To be like Superman did not mean to fly, but to see the capacity for good in everyone. Snyder's Superman leaves that element out, although it looks like he is getting there the hard way. There are lots of superheroes who can punch planets out of their orbits, but only Superman was known for the absolute goodness of his actions...even if that wasn't strictly true in the material. The idea of Superman was more important than the man himself.

Batman saw every person as a potential criminal; Superman saw every criminal as a person. At least, that's the stereotype.

Two points in response.

1) Most of the criticism that I've seen of the BvS Superman (let's table MoS for now) isn't about him not striving to help or set an example, and in fact he's shown saving plenty of people worldwide without prejudice and more or less dies twice during the film trying to save humanity. Instead, much of the criticism is focused around him being too "morose." Ergo...it must be about the fly-by grins and "good vibrations" cornball stuff for some people.

2) People are simply divided on Superman. Some want him to be a perfect paragon. Others find that boring and want him to be more relatable. To make him relatable means making him more like us, which is...imperfect. Call it SuperChrist vs. Superdude. I'm not a big fan of reducing things to binary arguments, but perfection is a binary concept, and I don't think people firmly in one camp or another will ever be satisfied with the other thing.

I also disagree with your Batman/Superman contrast. To me, the difference is that Batman is more focused on individual people. He fights local gangsters and saves people from muggings. This is very fitting for a hero borne out of the deaths of just two particular people. Superman's focus tends to be larger-scale or even global. He saves individuals too, but tends to spend more time stopping erupting volcanos and deflecting asteroids. This flows naturally from his "birth" out of the deaths of an entire civilization.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
better than Watchmen, which was terrible.

Hold on there, Watchmen was great.

Except for the ending. That was truly terrible.

But everything building up to that? Great.

Ugh. Other than the creepy kid who only wore trenchcoats and a Watchmen shirt, I never met a single person in real life who enjoyed it. It was the most depressing super hero movie ever created. Super heroes were supposed to teach about rising above the challenges. Not turning on each other and killing each other off because "times change". It was a foul abomination of a movie.

The comic also had the heroes killing each other, that wasnt something just created for the movie. Most people I know that didnt like the movie, dont like it for the changes that were made to the comic and certain of the actors, not because it was a dark universe.

In other words, blame Alan Moore -- a man singularly obsessed with bringing the age of the superhero to a close -- and not Zack Snyder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
We've relegated this must see to "maybe rental," based on the terrible word of mouth. Worse to worst we can fast forward what we don't like.

You may or may not enjoy the film, but the visuals are IMO worth the price of admission. Something to consider. I'd like to see it again in IMAX.

It's in the Killing Joke that Batman probably kills the Joker. I say probably because the end is very vague, to the point where no one really talked about it much until Grant Morrison brought it up and made the case. The case makes sense, even moreso because it's Alan Moore. He was probably trying to write the "last" Batman/Joker story.

http://batman-news.com/2013/08/16/grant-morrison-batman-kills-joker-in-the-killing-joke/

Edit: Anyway, I think the intended point in BvS is that Bruce wasn't always like that (presumably it changed after the Joker killed one of the Robins), and at the end of the movie finds himself again.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I will watch BvS on Blu-Ray, and probably again if/when Snyder does a Directors Cut. I especially want to hear his commentary, because it's obvious that he was forced to do things that he didn't want to do. There's a lot of Hideaki Anno "FETH YOU ALL!" in BvS that will be amusing to have him talk to or willfully ignore.

IMO (and I liked the film overall), you can "see the seams" in the story. It'll be interesting to see if the 3-hour Director's Cut (it is coming) improves this, or if some of the patchwork we're seeing is simply a result of a Goyer story that Terrio then rewrote, with both of them operating under a number of constraints. It seems easy in some cases to spot Terrio's influence, such as the Christopher Wren epitaph "if you seek his monument – look around you." I highly doubt that was Goyer.

JL will be solely Terrio and Snyder -- and fewer constraints should be placed on them for that one -- so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

 sebster wrote:
But that was a very different setting than this one, and followed different themes. In BvS a Batman who used non-lethal gadgets and could resolve everything with clean hands just wouldn’t fit. There’s a line that they like so much they use it twice in the film - ‘power can be innocent’. You have to get your hands dirty to do good. Batman shows no qualms about getting his hands dirty, he is in contrast to Superman who remains a reluctant hero. To show that Batman, but then have him back off from lethal force (or worse, have events conspire around him so that bad guys can get taken out without Batman doing anything)… it just wouldn’t fit.

Kind of a tangent, but power vs. powerlessness was an important theme in the film. Both Bruce and Lex are enormously powerful people by any normal definition, yet both developed the "fever" that Alfred talked about in the face of Clark's power. Of course, Lex's fever was a selfish thing -- I'm brilliant and rich, and it's not fair that I'm so powerless compared to that. Bruce's fever was obviously more of external concern -- humanity is powerless and at risk because of that. Still, both men turned cruel as Alfred stated.

But then neither was truly intimidated by Clark either. Different thing in that deleted scene when Lex learned of the New Gods and met Steppenwolf and his brain leaked out his ears.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
And really, Superman was always written as a paragon in his better stories.

I don't necessarily agree with that assessment. Then again, the truly great Superman stories are also few and far between. His books have mostly been a paragon of bad writing, frankly. People might think of The Death of Superman, but that story certainly wasn't great in terms of the writing -- that was a very simple, 7 issue brawl to the death with very little else to offer.

It's been in the Elseworlds and limited series where the stories have been better. The Superman: American Alien book currently running is one of the best Superman books in many years IMO, and is probably headed for greatness when all is said and done. And Clark is more of a Superdude in that series than a SuperChrist. He even hooks up with a future supervillain.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Goliath wrote:
I don't think that was his brain leaking out of his ears? I thought that it was supposed to be that whole goop he was standing in?

I didn't mean literally. I was referring to the fact that the look on his face made it seems as though his brain had gone through a blender.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Things I didn't like: why the flying feth are Metropolis and Gotham so close together? Aren't these supposed to be two of the biggest cities in the DCEU? They just happen to be in spitting distance of each other? That was really dumb. The reason that they stop fighting was also really, really stupid. If they couldn't think of anything better, they should have scrapped the whole idea of them fighting each other to begin with.

They're both different kinds of analogs for NYC, and in fact some past DC publications have placed them in close proximiity.



As someone who grew up on Bronze Age stuff, I can remember them being described as being in the northeast US and near NYC.

You're not the first person to have complained about this. But quite frankly, this is another example of a baseless gripe by fans who aren't as knowledgeable about this stuff as they think they are.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Metropolis is in Delaware? Delaware? WTF?

Yeah, at least in one incarnation. I think that map is post-Crisis, though. I can only assume that in the DC universe, all those corporate headquarters in Delaware for tax purposes are actual headquarters and more than small offices with phones, and Metropolis built up around them.

The funny part -- if you know Delaware -- is the nature of the central section shown there. Delaware basically consists of Philly suburbs and Wilmington in the north, shore points in the south, and Alabama in between. Metropolis it ain't. It's QUITE the opposite. It's nice though that Metropolis has easy access to the DE and MD shore points, and Gotham isn't far from Cape May, AC and other NJ shore points. Citizens can just go to the beach when disaster strikes.


Anyway, the point was that Snyder and company do have some cover and precedent for placing the two cities in proximity across a body of water. While I understand the narrative reasons why Smallville -- and maybe some other works too -- seemed to move Metropolis to the Midwest, both Metropolis and Gotham are traditionally Northeastern cities. They're both fictional versions of NYC created by NYC-based comics creators. I think we see a similar real-life situation with NYC and Newark, NJ.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's been known as one of the biggest plot holes in comic history, e.g. why Superman doesn't just quickly flies over to the neighbor city and solves any problem Batman would need days to fix.

Personally, I have always seen them as two sides of a medal with Gotham being the dystopian version of Metropolis.

Once, years ago, I saw someone suggest a Superman-Batman film in which they're in the SAME city - basically NYC - which Superman views as a gleaming city of tomorrow and Batman views as a crumbling, crime-ridden hellhole. Almost certainly too conceptual for the masses, but it was a fascinating idea.

 reds8n wrote:

Cities in the DC universe have always moved around a bit.

In fact in mainstream DC continuity the actual planet is a bit bigger as there's more countries.

IIRC in the JLA/Avengers crossover Superman comments about how the Marvel earth is a a bit smaller.
Telescopic vision has its advantages t'would seem.

For me the geography is thus :

That's cool stuff. I liked the inclusion of Happy Harbor and Rutland, VT on the map of the Northeast. Weird stuff always happened to the JL in Rutland.

And hey! Looks like I'm living in Civic City! Who knew!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


Oh, and one last point:

Spoiler:

The photographer with Lois in Africa, the one who gets shot? Jimmy Olsen, apparently.

Yeah, I kinda got whipsawed on that one. At first I figured he was, then stuff was revealed and happened, and I figured not. Then later I read that he was, and the director's cut will make this clearer.

Potentially a big waste of that character...but then to be fair, they're going to be juggling a fethton of characters in the DCEU. They probably won't have the screen time to build that relationship anyway.

 Charles Rampant wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


Potentially a big waste of that character...but then to be fair, they're going to be juggling a fethton of characters in the DCEU. They probably won't have the screen time to build that relationship anyway.

I was going to disagree with you, but then I stopped and thought about how many compelling supporting characters Marvel has managed to maintain in its films. Even major love interests like Jane Foster and Pepper Potts have struggled for sufficient screen time, especially in the team-up movies, and DC might well have made the judgement that their Superman will be mainly seen in conjunction with other characters, rather than alone with his own friends.

Spoiler:

I'm still sad that we will not really see Clark Kent any more. I mean, I don't know Superman that much - always more of a Green Lantern and Batman chap myself, as far as DC goes - but I like the basic idea, and it seems like an important dichotomy to build on when displaying his personality. One of the main lackings in BvS is arguably how little time Superman gets on screen.

Trust me, as a long-time Cap fan, I didn't like them wasting Sharon Carter in Winter Soldier even as he flirted with Widow all film. Sharon is his Lois Lane. Meanwhile, Civil War has umpteen existing heroes, universe stuff to build, and a new hero to introduce, so it's unlikely there'll be any room in that one to actually explore that relationship. Most won't care, but I think it's kind of a shame and a waste.

Ultimately these characters probably are much better off in old-style solo films that aren't about universe-building, easter eggs, team-ups, etc.

Your point about Clark is a great one, and one I've been meaning to bring up.

Friendships and romance show that these characters are capable of having normal, human relationships. This is important for an alien god like Superman because it grounds him. But it helps round out even the less powerful characters like Batman or Captain America. It's through their relationships that we get to know and learn more about them.

It's actually kinda funny that the MCEU has turned Tony Stark into a staunch monogamist, and Steve Rogers into a guy who can't get the girl.

I saw that article about SS, and it seemed a little...hyperbolic?...like most of the reporting surrounding the DC films. Reshoots aren't uncommon, and *even if* the studio wanted some scenes tweaked for tone, that decision was probably made well before the release of BvS.


I saw BvS again this weekend. Interestingly, my wife liked it less than MoS (which she really liked). Frazz, I have a suspicion you may be in that category too, but we'll see.

Anyway, I felt like the second viewing really confirmed the strengths and weaknesses of the film for me. And maybe the simple answer regarding why people are split on the movie is because the strengths and weaknesses are so pronounced.

The film has story problems...it just does. It could be that the 3-hour version will give the story more room to breathe and fix some of this. It was interesting that they mentioned the 3-hour director's cut even before the film hit theaters. Still, I don't expect that the director's cut will actually change opinions even if it's a superior cut. People are dug in.

I think the dialogue was actually very tight and good IMO. I don't know that there was a wasted line in the film, and there were exchanges that I appreciated much more having seen the film already. The visuals are amazing, and I was able to watch and appreciate them more the second time also (I caught more of the easter eggs this time). The cast was also really strong. I simply don't understand criticism of the actors in this, with the exception of Mr. Eisenberg.

I didn't hate his performance or the decisions made to go with Lex as a young tech wunderkind...but I wish he would have stuck more with that "insanity just under the surface" thing he had going on in the early parts of the film, like in his exchanges with Holly Hunter and the Jolly Rancher scene. People complained about his goofiness in the trailers, but I thought his goofy-but-controlled scenes were stronger. The manic stuff in the later parts of the film was less effective IMO.

The theater I was in was only half-full, so I expected that there'd be some box office fall-off. Then again, that multiplex still had it running almost every half-hour, so a good number of people still saw the film. BvS shouldn't have much competition again next week, so we can probably expect another solid weekend. I tend to think it'll end up making what it needs to.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The SS reshoots were decided when Deadpool started breaking box office records. While not uncommon, it's never a good sign, as it means that the studio has lost confidence in the original director's work, and has started meddling.

There's no evidence that this has anything to do anything other than Suicide Squad. Everything isn't about Marvel or Marvel character films. Suicide Squad isn't going to be Deadpool anyway, not unless they reshoot the entire film with a different director and script. Ayer isn't that kind of filmmaker. Besides, as Faraci's article on birth.movies.death even states:

The enormous positive response to the trailer led to Warner Bros requesting reshoots that would alter the tone of the film, bringing in some more of the lightness to which audiences responded.

Hearing that WB is aware that they need to inject some fun into these movies - and that's what I'm hearing is happening here, not that they're inserting jokes left and right but that they're beefing up fun character moments and interactions

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charles Rampant wrote:
I watched the Screen Junkies 58-minute discussion on this earlier today, while aggressively procrastinating on actual work, and there heard the interesting snippet that the screenings for the pre-release version were really positive; this pre-release version is apparently the 3-hour version that they are releasing this summer. Despite these good screenings, WB (or Synder?) decided to edit the film by another 30 minutes, to make the theatrical release, which was not so well received.

I wonder what would have happened if they just left it alone?

A bunch of irritated theater owners, I imagine. They don't want 3 hour films.

And again, I doubt it would have changed much. Folks were lined up to bash this one (note that's not the same thing as saying everyone who was negative is merely bashing). The deleted scene suggests that certain things will be explored/explained more (just that scene improves the bit about the painting), but that they might also require a deeper dive into DC lore, etc.

Had they made a big, dumb, crowd-pleasing, Marvel-style Golden Retriever of a film, that might have made a difference. Or not. Sometimes the winds just blow a certain way. You see this happen in music, TV, etc. where something doesn't find its audience during its initial release and later finds one. I'll never understand how Age of Ultron wasn't panned more by critics, other than that Marvel got some kind of mulligan based on the success of the first film. I'll take Doomsday's CGI over loosey-goosey Ultron with James Spader's unaltered voice, and take the "YouTube" heroes segment over Thor in the cave as an inserted universe-building moment that has nothing to do with that film. *shrug*

Oh...so one of the little things I missed the first time but noticed the second time around involves the "Knightmare" sequence.

After Bruce "wakes" following Flash's message, there are papers blowing around the Batcave. So it's not strictly a dream, as if we didn't know that already.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Oh...so one of the little things I missed the first time but noticed the second time around involves the "Knightmare" sequence.

After Bruce "wakes" following Flash's message, there are papers blowing around the Batcave. So it's not strictly a dream, as if we didn't know that already.

So what the hell is it?!! A vison sent from the Gods - given Wonderwoman presence - who knows

It was portrayed as neither one thing or another and just turned out to be a plot device as bad as Thors dream in the otherwise excellent Avengers 2 - why is not made clear what the hell is going on when studios are trying to get non comic fans to watch their films? Yeah make stuff interesting, make it complex, but don;t just throw wierd stuff in without any kind of internal reference.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on Avengers 2, but yes, Snyder has a habit of catering to more diehard comics fans over general audiences. He's said that this film was the closest thing he'll ever have to directing a Dark Knight Returns movie, and he certainly worked in a lot of elements from TDKR. But that story wouldn't necessarily be a crowd-pleaser for everyone.

It's probably fair to say that BvS is a little too "inside baseball," to use an American term. That's undoubtedly why they cut the Steppenwolf scene, even though it connects to and makes more sense of the story element involving the painting. And that's why I'm guessing that the 3-hour version won't be any more crowd-pleasing to non-comics fans...it probably digs even deeper, although it's possible that the story will flow better and the diehards will like it even more.

The placement of the Knightmare sequence was odd in some respects. But then they have to create the threat and thereby a motivation to form the JL. It would make more sense at the end of the film, probably. Marvel would have put it in some kind of after-credits thing (supposedly we might get 3(!) of those in Civil War...which is dumb). But during the movie proper, you have the big fight and the death to work around. Can't interrupt those.

Like I think I said in my original comments, this wasn't an easy film to make considering all the stuff it had to do. Now, should the Knightmare sequence and Flash message have been quite that cryptic? Maybe not. It may pay off handsomely down the road, but as the first official DCEU film, maybe you worry more about keeping general audiences focused on THIS film.

As for what it is, my best guess is that it's a message of sorts from the New Gods to the guy most capable of organizing the troops and a defense against what's coming.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think that's pretty weak, sorry Para. The number of times the "Should I kill the Joker?" dilemma has played out, to do it any justice... I can't see it working.

A batman who is okay with killing would not keep any joker worth his evil, poisonous salt alive. The guy is like the antichrist of the DCU. It's arguable it's morally indefensible that no-one has killed him yet, he's that bad.

To me, the explanation is that the people making this movie did not really understand what makes a character like Batman work.

Just playing devil's advocate, remember Bruce's words to Alfred about the stakes. The Joker is a gangster that can be neutralized by some concrete walls and metal bars, and so that's all the farther Bruce needs to go with him. Meanwhile, if some mooks are effectively putting planetary survival at risk by standing between him and what he needs, then he'll do whatever's necessary, including more extreme measures.

So per Jai Courtney, the reshoots for SS are more about action. Regarding humor, he said something about there being plenty of that in there already, and that we shouldn't believe everything we read.




In other (possibly SS-related?) news, WB has moved WW up a couple weeks, and added slots for DC films in 2018 and 2019. Let the guessing begin about those. I think the lead contenders are Affleck's Batman film, Suicide Squad 2, and Lobo.

 Paradigm wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


DC knows they have problems with the comics, hence the repeated "reboot" of their comics and continuity. NO clue who's running the show there, but I have no confidence that they know WTF they're doing.
.

Honestly, DC's comics have been pretty much fine and stable since the New 52 reboot in 2011, with even big events like Trinity War and Forever Evil not shaking things up too much. it's Marvel that have the problem with unfollowable crossovers, convoluted plots and persistent resets and reboots. DC have been better in both quality and consistency than ever before, I reckon, while Marvel have gone completely off the rails. Can't speak for the commercial success of either, but as a reader I've been very pleased with DC's output while almost giving up on new Marvel stuff.

I think that if you had said that pre-Convergence -- and not in reference to the Superman books -- I'd have been on board for the most part. In particular, two of the three 'trinity' characters had *legendary* runs in the New 52 -- Snyder on Batman, and Azzarello on WW. Superman is a notable exception here, but I'll get to that later. And I think there were a lot of other strong books. Other stuff like Multiversity was sublime.

But I feel like quite a few books have floundered, some due to creative team changes, and others due to poor stewardship. And now just a year after Convergence we have another "tweak" in Rebirth. In which they're apparently either offing the New 52 Superman or completely depowering him to be Clark Kent full-time, while the pre-Crisis universe Superman -- now quietly living in the New 52 universe -- will take over as Superman full-time.

That right there is a fething mess. Maybe it's a temporary thing. You'd think they wouldn't keep Clark and Supes separate for long. But the buzz seems to be that they're doing this because of some readers carping about the New 52 Superman and the loss of red underwear. So back to the '90s we go!

What DC doesn't seem to realize is that the only issue with the New 52 Superman was that they had umpteen different writers taking him in umpteen different directions. Nearly lost in among all the jumbled and bad stuff, they've also done some of the best, freshest Superman stuff they've done in years. But they've clearly never had a good plan for the character in the New 52, or at least they've never stuck with it. It's so bad that Dan Jurgens of all people seems to be taking a lead role in the Superman books after Rebirth. Not drawing...writing. But hey, Jurgens was great in the '90s, right? Right? This is what "no plan or ideas" looks like.

Then you have stuff like the Darkseid War. They had been building up to Darkseid's reappearance ever since the JL beat him back at the beginning of the New 52, and the payoff has been one of the strangest, most drawn-out, momentum-less events ever. I could rant about it, but don't have the energy.

I don't agree with John very often, but I too am wondering who's in charge of DC at the moment. It's disappointing just because, like you, I'm also down on Marvel right now. At least the red underwear isn't coming back. Yet.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
3. BvS is looking to be a breakeven proposition, finishing around $850M, maybe $900M with luck.

They're predicting $278 million profit for WB once everything's tallied. Disappointing, certainly, but no one should be feeling bad for WB. If anything, it's encouraging regarding how much money they'll make if they can produce one of these things that becomes a bonafide smash hit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/-batman-v-superman-seen-earning-less-profit-than-superman-alone

 sebster wrote:
Age of Ultron's third week it came third, behind Pitch Perfect 2 and Max Max Fury Road. Don't think anyone commented on that at the time.

There's a really good question starting to develop about why that might be.

There's no question that there's been a ton of negative reporting on this film for months and months, and some of it was obviously irresponsible and erroneous (those dumb and obviously unfounded rumors that WB has a "no jokes" policy is a prize example). Certain outlets -- and IGN is one of them -- have been negative cheerleading BvS for quite a while. And no one should think that Disney is above playing very, very dirty.

But I don't see a conspiracy. Now, there are some people and especially some critics who just have it in for Snyder. They were lying in wait on this one, and that's just a fact. And then there are some critics who just don't like comic books films of any variety. Others somewhat fit in the previous category, but can hold their noses so long as it's an irreverent romp, because "everyone knows" comic book films can't be serious business. Also, some Marvel fans feel that they have to be critical and troll everywhere they can out of some loyalty to team red or whatever.

And then some people and critics just didn't like the film for whatever personal reason, and the film itself gave them opportunities why they could feel that way. *shrug*

Add it all up, and it's a lot of negativity, not all of it deserved. It has to be troubling for WB that they can't seem to "win" in the press and public even before their films are even released, while Marvel just seems to get the benefit of the doubt even when it produces seriously mediocre work. I mean, I've seen articles starting to crank up negativity on the WW movie, and we're more than a year out for that one. But it's also the kind of thing that can turn quickly. Human beings are fickle. If SS and WW are reasonably well-received, we may feel very differently heading into JL.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Way to move the goalposts there.

This entire time I've been talking about movie Box Office, and for that, BvS will be lucky to break even when we count movie production and marketing costs -- the standard measure of movie profitability.

The only point -- and it remains -- is that this endeavor will still make money for WB. Why does the accounting method or box office horse race mean so much to YOU? No one else seems to be harping on it.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Is it just me or could Wonder Woman have beaten the big bad by herself? Batman is there purely to provide the Mcguffin and Superman is excess to requirements in his own film.

The Mcguffin weapon was even a perfect themeatic weapon for a hoplite-ish (hop-lite ) lady. On that note I wonder if the superhero minis game has a hop-lite Wonder Woman mini, with or without a Mcguffin weapon.

I don't think so, at least as it was presented in the film. Remember that they weren't just trying to take DD down...they were also trying to occupy and contain Doomsday on the island so that Metropolis wasn't wrecked again. One leap and DD is in the city and ready to make the destruction in Man of Steel look tame, with that shockwave thing it had. And DD seemed to be too much for either Supes or WW to contain on their own. Both of them spent a lot of that fight getting knocked around. And Diana was only barely able to hold DD in place with the lasso.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
This 58% drop thing in 3 days.

Wasn't opening weekend Easter Weekend?

Don't people do family gak like find the eggs and visit grandma on Easter Sunday?

Just a thought.

Some articles listed that fact in about the 12th graf down. *shrug*

Again, I really don't think there was a conspiracy at work, but I think some folks were motivated to spin things to the bad.

It may be that negative clickbait articles involving BvS were doing very, very good numbers.

Since box office does seem to be a big topic of conversation about this film, here's a solid article from Forbes about how Marvel didn't have to deal with the same box office expectations as WB.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/04/15/box-office-as-batman-v-superman-tops-800m-global-a-look-at-one-big-advantage-marvel-had-over-dc/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix#767f17e554f9

I had forgotten how "little" some of the early MCU movies made. Some key points:

Iron Man was the one that started this interconnected universe madness. The Robert Downey Jr. smash hit, which was the first Marvel Comics movie produced by Marvel, earned $318 million domestic in the summer of 2008, but “only” $585m worldwide. The big game-changer, the film that kickstarted the MCU and eventually set all of Hollywood on a path towards interconnected universes made less that summer than Mama Mia! and Hancock.

Thor opened the summer (give-or-take whether Fast Five and its $523 million global gross counts as the kick-off movie), but Captain America: The First Avenger helped close out the season. Joe Johnston’s World War II adventure is still the best MCU movie ever, and it was the one that made me finally believe in this interconnected universe madness. Everyone was so relieved that a film with the word “America” in the title could make more overseas than it did in the U.S. that they were all-too-willing to look at the film’s $374m worldwide gross (on a $140m budget) as an unqualified success.

And now Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is being viewed as a disappointment because it will only make $850-$900 million worldwide. Now, you can make the case that Warner Bros. brought this on themselves by basically going all-in first with their would-be Justice League before doing the legwork of the smaller films. But, we should acknowledge that Man of Steel was that “smaller film” and that, with the understanding that Superman has never been as big of a cinematic superstar as we all like to pretend he is, that $668m worldwide gross was a pretty solid foundation.

Will we all be cheering if Suicide Squad “only” earns $375 million worldwide this summer? Will a Wonder Woman that makes $450m worldwide next year be seen as a big hit? One of the core differences between MCU and the DCEU was that the former came about when the would-be bar for success was much lower. Of course, the same applies to Batman Begins, which was considered a clean hit at $371m on a $150m budget back in 2005. It’s a good thing, too, since otherwise we may never have gotten The Dark Knight.

Because a $371 million worldwide gross for The First Avenger was considered just fine in 2011, a $714m worldwide gross for The Winter Soldier was considered remarkable in 2014. Because Thor was considered a triumph at $449m in 2011, Thor: The Dark World was an unmitigated win at $642m in 2013. But because Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice came about in a post-Avengers era where $1 billion worldwide was all-but-expected for the would-be big superhero franchises, it finds itself on the defensive with “just” $800m worldwide.

Watch the papers right after the Flash's appearance.

There were a lot of little things I caught the second time, and I'm sure there are lots left. For an Easter egg, check out the column that passes close to the camera when Bruce is hauling Clark and about to throw him down the stairwell. Dunno how I missed that in the first viewing.

 reds8n wrote:
Heard but couldn't quite see on my 2nd viewing :

Was Lois' neighbour's name "Dibny" ?

While there are a lot of Easter Eggs in the movie, that one seems like a stretch.

Ta-dum.

Great catch.

 Cave_Dweller wrote:
The one thing I found VERY annoying with this movie was the constant chatter from TVs reporting on events in the movie, with carefully placed cameos from real life media celebrities. It made it feel a little too real, and not like a fantasy movie that I could watch to get a break from 24/7 mass media. I get that they are trying to make the consequences for god-like superpowers more 'real' feeling, but it was annoying to see Nancy Grace in a movie. It's going to make the movie terribly dated, too.

That was a nod to The Dark Knight Returns, which was a heavy influence on the film.

They could have shown him developing his new suit, too. Like, all of a sudden he just has fancy new powered armor? An R&D sequence of him prepping to fight superman more than just beating an old tire with a sledgehammer would have been welcome.

There were multiple shots of he and Alfred refining the kryptonite and his weaponry.

 sebster wrote:
But I agree that I hope Suicide Squad and the rest of the movies will improve from what we’ve gotten so far. I’ve got hope because Suicide Squad looks a lot of fun, but I’ve got doubts because it’s hard to put a finger on exactly what went wrong with MoS and BvS. I mean the individual failings are easy to identify, but it’s hard to pick out exactly what’s wrong with the mindset or approach that led to those failings. Is it as simple as Snyder not being up to scratch?

A common complaint I see/hear about him is that "he doesn't understand these characters!" Setting aside the inherent problems with a statement like that, I think the problem is the opposite -- sometimes he geeks out a little *too* much, delves too deep, and doesn't necessarily think through how it will go over with general audiences.

In MoS, I get the neck snap, what that moment means in the film, and that he's killed Zod in the comics. But it's jarring, especially to fans who think the Reeve films are the ultimate version of the character and can't put it in the same context that I can. I'll go to my grave saying MoS truly isn't a dark film, not in terms of its visuals nor its story, but I think that one scene is the lens through which some folks view it.

On the BvS side, Snyder's said that it's the closest thing he'll ever have to directing a TDKR movie, and you can see elements of that story all over the film. But as great as TDKR is/was, it's a very dark, not-crowdpleasing story with an extreme version of Batman. Again, it's jarring, especially while Marvel's kicking out film after film of four-color bubblegum pop. And it's admittedly disappointing that it's too intense of a film for my 8 year old.

Remember that the DCEU has a filmmaker-driven approach that won't have the sameness of the MCU. I think SS will be a crowdpleaser, and WW has a chance to be also if in a different way, so the DCEU should still have a little momentum going into JL. Snyder and Terrio just have to execute. IMO, his challenge with JL isn't to emulate Marvel's tone, but to put a more crowdpleasing film together.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:
Is it just me or could Wonder Woman have beaten the big bad by herself?

Yes. The minute she displayed the ability to cut off his limbs and general superior fighting ability, it really would only be a matter of time before she'd manage to decapitate him or cut him in half; a giant crystal growing where his skull and brain used to be wouldn't help him much.

There were a lot of contrived aspects to that fight, frankly.

Yeah she was Kicking serious ass and taking the hits - I guess that they were worried she was too cool and so kept her role small................spend more time on Loony Lex

This Doomsday was an energy absorber that was getting stronger with each landed blow. Note the glow where each strike lands. The longer that fight goes, the more dangerous that shockwave ability would become, and it was clear that if it went off in Metropolis it would have put the MoS damage to shame. They were only fighting Doomsday to occupy it and keep it from leaping into the city before they could use the kryptonite.

And having seen it twice now, I don't think there's anything in that fight that suggests she was winning. She got knocked around quite a bit, and could only barely hold DD with the lasso at the fight's conclusion.

 Paradigm wrote:
Except this is Superman. He's not going to put anyone else in danger, even if they're superhuman, even if that means sacrificing himself. WW might have had a chance, but she was barely holding her own against Doomsday, and at that particular point holding him in place with the Lasso anyway. Taking the spear, going straight for Doomsday despite knowing he's almost certainly going to die is the most Superman thing this Superman has done to date (not to mention one of the most tragic and painful scenes in history, actually hit me harder than watching Han die).

Right. He had the spear because he went to check on Lois. Diana had Doomsday momentarily immobilized, so he made his move to end it right there and not fool around with her trying to duel it to death. Because, again, time was of the essence. DD was growing stronger all the time, and as soon as it had an opening to make one leap into Metropolis, the city was going to die.

If the question is why was it written that way, it's because it's Superman and DD, and that story ends in death. And it'd be an awfully odd step toward JL and make a narrative with issues even more problematic if Diana shows up and just defeats the villain on her own. There are issues in the film, but this is the kind of stuff I file under "people looking for something to complain about."


Regarding the MCU, I think Tony has had quite a bit of character development...easily the most of any hero in that universe. Makes sense, since he's the best actor they have and the guy the whole thing was built on, really.

I don't think the MCU has done relationships particularly well, though. Since IM1, Tony and Pepper's relationship hasn't had much depth to it. Banter doesn't equal depth, although I often think that we have a generation of people who can't tell the difference. What would even be the #2 relationship in the MCU? Thor and Jane? Not much to that one either. They've turned Cap into a guy who can't get a date, even though he went through a series of steady girlfriends even after Sharon died. Obviously Marvel's formula works well for them, but exploring relationships in a deeper way isn't really part of the plan.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Tony and Pepper have chemistry - that's why the banter works - its something that is missing from many on screen couples and why IMO (and friends) it works so well - its like the whole Mr and Mrs Smith film - they worked brilliantly as a believable couple - in that case because they were.............

Other couples that work in MCU - Hawkeye and his wife, for a character that I did not see the point of before Avengers he is now one of my favourite. Hulk and Black Widow is bitter sweet in a doomed way, Happy with Thor / Jane even, but its not as good as Tony / Pepper.

Nolan simply does not do human relationships so they are always missing from his films, Lois and Clarke are pretty awkward in Man of Steel but getting better in Bat vs Sups. Can't recall a convincing human relationship in DCCU (or whatever its called) and they certainly don't explore them.

Look, I'm not coming at this point from a DC vs. Marvel perspective. We haven't seen enough of the DC films to know if they're really going to delve into the personal relationships of their heroes in anything other than a superficial way. They probably won't, other than *maybe* Clark and Lois. Steve Trevor obviously isn't even going to make it into the 21st century unless the gods somehow intervene. This Bruce is married to Gotham.

But if you think a few throwaway lines of banter per movie constitutes a thoughtful portrayal of a relationship or makes a relationship an important part of the movie, we'll just have to agree to disagree like we do on about 18,562 other things. I mean, Hawkeye and his wife? How is that actually developed beyond revealing that he *has* a wife and some short exchanges between the two of them? In comparison, the Rachel character and her relationship with Bruce are far more important in Nolan's TDK -- but again, note that isn't part of the DCEU before this turns into a DC vs. Marvel thing. Personally, I think this suggests that these "universe" films don't have much room for that stuff -- when the heroes aren't smashing, there's universe-building to do -- and that it'd likely receive a better, richer treatment in standalone films containing more room to breathe.

@John -- that scene doesn't even involve a conversation between the two of them. Call it a heartfelt moment, but it doesn't add or build or enrich our understanding of their relationship, or make it important to the story. You could go back make Pepper disappear from the MCU and it wouldn't miss a beat. Neither would Tony. Give Happy a little more screen time for when Tony needs to banter with someone and it'd be fine.