|
Post by HMARK Center on Feb 20, 2017 7:47:27 GMT -5
It needed to make a minimum of $800 million at the box office to break even. It ended with $837 million. In my mind that is as close to a bomb as you can get without it actually being one - for the hype, the cast, and the landmark event of being the first big screen, blockbuster meeting of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman barely squeaking out a tiny profit is a massive failure. WB undoubtedly see it that way as well, considering that Geoff Johns was immediately promoted to oversee the cinematic universe over Zack Snyder. With the great irony of that being that WB won't be able to fix a damn thing until they change their overall corporate approach to these movies, no matter who's in charge (though bumping Snyder down the totem pole was certainly warranted).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 7:49:28 GMT -5
WB undoubtedly see it that way as well, considering that Geoff Johns was immediately promoted to oversee the cinematic universe over Zack Snyder. With the great irony of that being that WB won't be able to fix a damn thing until they change their overall corporate approach to these movies, no matter who's in charge (though bumping Snyder down the totem pole was certainly warranted). There is supposed to be a merger with AT&T, when that happen's, I imagine there will be a big overhaul to everything, including canning some studio executives
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 14:22:58 GMT -5
With the great irony of that being that WB won't be able to fix a damn thing until they change their overall corporate approach to these movies, no matter who's in charge (though bumping Snyder down the totem pole was certainly warranted). There is supposed to be a merger with AT&T, when that happen's, I imagine there will be a big overhaul to everything, including canning some studio executives It could be worse. We could get both grimderp AND shilling.
|
|
y4j1981
Dennis Stamp
Rowsdower
Posts: 4,643
|
Post by y4j1981 on Feb 20, 2017 21:25:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Feb 21, 2017 2:13:03 GMT -5
I don't doubt they actually buy the 'for the fans' thing. There are a LOT of comics nods in there that regular moviegoers wouldn't get/care about. Those would be kind of cool if they didn't try to cram everything in a way that doesn't make much sense. If Dark Knight Returns bled into Death of Superman in book form, it'd be a mess as well.
That's the biggest problem with BvS; they tried to jam too many disparate pieces together. Take Cavil's Superman dying in only his second movie. That's completely unearned. It's made worse by the fact that we know Justice League is up next and they flat out show he's not dead before the credits even roll. So any dramatic weight you coulda conceivably gotten out of it is just non-existent immediately.
Or take something like the state funeral thing for Supes, the monuments and things like that straight from Funeral for a Friend. On its own, those scenes could be great. But in the very same movie you have people wondering if Superman is a threat/should he exist/etc. Those are both valid, interesting stories that have been told in the comics. But they're competing ideas.
It's also why the Martha thing didn't work beyond being a little awkward (why would Clark ever call her that? She's mom. Or if he did he'd at least give it some context). The IDEA behind it, that it humanizes Superman for Batman and shows common ground isn't terrible. However, we also just had a dream sequence earlier where Batman is terrified that Superman is going to become a demi-god despot. Those concerns don't dissipate just because he has a mom. The whole speech about 'if there's even a one percent chance...' doesn't lend itself at all to him IMMEDIATELY teaming up with Superman in the aftermath of finding out their mom has the same name. On its own, them teaming up is awesome and could be crowd pleasing; just as on its own the Dark Knight Returns style fight could do the same. But again, they're competing ideas that can't really be reconciled as quickly as they were.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Feb 21, 2017 8:31:59 GMT -5
I don't doubt they actually buy the 'for the fans' thing. There are a LOT of comics nods in there that regular moviegoers wouldn't get/care about. Those would be kind of cool if they didn't try to cram everything in a way that doesn't make much sense. If Dark Knight Returns bled into Death of Superman in book form, it'd be a mess as well. That's the biggest problem with BvS; they tried to jam too many disparate pieces together. Take Cavil's Superman dying in only his second movie. That's completely unearned. It's made worse by the fact that we know Justice League is up next and they flat out show he's not dead before the credits even roll. So any dramatic weight you coulda conceivably gotten out of it is just non-existent immediately. Or take something like the state funeral thing for Supes, the monuments and things like that straight from Funeral for a Friend. On its own, those scenes could be great. But in the very same movie you have people wondering if Superman is a threat/should he exist/etc. Those are both valid, interesting stories that have been told in the comics. But they're competing ideas. It's also why the Martha thing didn't work beyond being a little awkward (why would Clark ever call her that? She's mom. Or if he did he'd at least give it some context). The IDEA behind it, that it humanizes Superman for Batman and shows common ground isn't terrible. However, we also just had a dream sequence earlier where Batman is terrified that Superman is going to become a demi-god despot. Those concerns don't dissipate just because he has a mom. The whole speech about 'if there's even a one percent chance...' doesn't lend itself at all to him IMMEDIATELY teaming up with Superman in the aftermath of finding out their mom has the same name. On its own, them teaming up is awesome and could be crowd pleasing; just as on its own the Dark Knight Returns style fight could do the same. But again, they're competing ideas that can't really be reconciled as quickly as they were. Pretty much nailed it. I want to give these movies credit for at least trying things that could be considered outside the norm for a superhero blockbuster style flick, but they tried to present those things in a way reminiscent of somebody trying to bake a cake while wearing a catchers mitt on each hand. And I'd have even been more forgiving of that if the editing hadn't been so absurdly awful and the movie had at least flowed well. The studio's inane rush to play catch-up with Marvel meant they blew a chance to make two separate, easier to tell on their own movies. Make one a separate Batman movie showing how Bruce got jaded following what seems like Robin's death and what he saw in Metropolis during the events of Man of Steel, and make what appears to be a simple "Batman stops weapons smugglers" storyline turn into "Batman now has access to kryptonite" or something like that. Make the other Man of Steel 2, in which Superman starts to come into his own but runs up against people who view him as a threat following the events of the first movie, casts Luthor as the main villain (even if you have him using a smaller villain as the main threat for that particular movie), and maybe clarifies what the hell was going on with that special-ops mission that never felt fleshed out after the first five minutes of BvS. Hell, after that do the Wonder Woman movie, THEN get to BvS, or go ahead and do that reversed if you want Wonder Woman's reveal to feel more like a surprise. Giving those plot points room to breathe in their own movies would then allow your big crossover movie its own breathing space, where now if you did want to present some conflicting story concepts they won't have to feel so rushed, or poorly edited, or tacked on, or frenzied in what appeared to be a studio dictate to "shove as much shit as humanly possible in there." Just so self-defeating on WB's part.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Feb 21, 2017 9:32:04 GMT -5
I don't doubt they actually buy the 'for the fans' thing. There are a LOT of comics nods in there that regular moviegoers wouldn't get/care about. Those would be kind of cool if they didn't try to cram everything in a way that doesn't make much sense. If Dark Knight Returns bled into Death of Superman in book form, it'd be a mess as well. That's the biggest problem with BvS; they tried to jam too many disparate pieces together. Take Cavil's Superman dying in only his second movie. That's completely unearned. It's made worse by the fact that we know Justice League is up next and they flat out show he's not dead before the credits even roll. So any dramatic weight you coulda conceivably gotten out of it is just non-existent immediately. Or take something like the state funeral thing for Supes, the monuments and things like that straight from Funeral for a Friend. On its own, those scenes could be great. But in the very same movie you have people wondering if Superman is a threat/should he exist/etc. Those are both valid, interesting stories that have been told in the comics. But they're competing ideas. It's also why the Martha thing didn't work beyond being a little awkward (why would Clark ever call her that? She's mom. Or if he did he'd at least give it some context). The IDEA behind it, that it humanizes Superman for Batman and shows common ground isn't terrible. However, we also just had a dream sequence earlier where Batman is terrified that Superman is going to become a demi-god despot. Those concerns don't dissipate just because he has a mom. The whole speech about 'if there's even a one percent chance...' doesn't lend itself at all to him IMMEDIATELY teaming up with Superman in the aftermath of finding out their mom has the same name. On its own, them teaming up is awesome and could be crowd pleasing; just as on its own the Dark Knight Returns style fight could do the same. But again, they're competing ideas that can't really be reconciled as quickly as they were. This is also the problem I had with Superman breaking Zod's neck in Man of Steel. Not a SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL! yell... but... this is Superman's big unveiling the first time the world sees Superman... so him killing Zod isn't this big shock of... "wow Superman thought the only way to stop him was to kill him" like I believe Snyder was going for. It's... ok this guy in the red cape flat out kills people. the entire Martha bit also doesn't work as it hinges on Batman not knowing that Superman was raised as a human with a human alter-ego... which means the great detective couldn't figure out what Lois Lane did in like a week.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Feb 21, 2017 9:47:26 GMT -5
A thing that bugs me is if Batman kills in the Snyderverse, Why is Joker still alive.
At least Burton's movies had the balls to have Batman kill his villains, And quite frankly the way he took em out was badass.
Plus Suicide Squad is stupid.
Military Guy: "We need a team to combat an evil Superman" Waller: "I have a team, comprised of Mortals that Superman can kill in seconds & a witch that could do some damage but she's too much of a wildcard to trust"
As for the whole "Death Of Superman" story, It was too early. We needed at least a second MOS movie where Supes becomes that beacon of hope in Metropolis.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Feb 21, 2017 9:51:43 GMT -5
A thing that bugs me is if Batman kills in the Snyderverse, Why is Joker still alive. Yep, that makes no sense. If the reason he kills random thugs is because Joker killed Robin... Batman would not send Joker to prison with a busted face... Joker would be in tiny pieces. But This way it makes Batman look rather incompetent. Yep, which is why fighting Superman was not why the Suicide Squad was created in the books... edit: And "Too early" can be used to describe everything in the DC Cinematic Universe.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 21, 2017 11:30:52 GMT -5
I think a big mistake Warner Bros. has made is presenting Superman in these movies as more of an entity, or solely an instrument of chaos than an actual person. With Reeve and his portrayals in the DCAU, Clark came off more as a good hearted everyman who just happened to have phenomenal super powers. That's how he tends to act in his best stories. Even when he's forced into the possibility he might have to kill someone, he's usually hesitant and reluctant to do it. That's why I didn't get that mad when he killed Zod in MoS, it was clear it didn't want to go down that path. But outside of that, there's no need to "grow him up" like how Snyder wanted.
He's really not that hard a character to write for as people think, IMO. His core dynamic is idealism, and the fun of Superman is watching how this morally upright guy navigates complex situations. in Dawn of Justice, he felt unusually passive about a lot of things going on around him, as if he was taking a "what's the point of it all" attitude.
When I watch Tyler Hoechlin's Superman on Supergirl, I see a Superman who has a lot more conviction and self-confidence than the one in the scripts Cavill was given. Were I writing the movie, that's the approach I would have taken with his progression.
But then again, I wouldn't have had Bats and Supes exchange blows in the first place. The "versus" in the title would be in reference to their conflicting ideologies, but while they worked together to solve a case.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Feb 21, 2017 11:34:30 GMT -5
I think a big mistake Warner Bros. has made is presenting Superman in these movies as more of an entity, or solely an instrument of chaos than an actual person. With Reeve and his portrayals in the DCAU, Clark came off more as a good hearted everyman who just happened to have phenomenal super powers. That's how he tends to act in his best stories. He's really not that hard a character to write for as people think, IMO. His core dynamic is idealism, and watching how this morally upright guy navigate complex situations. in Dawn of Justice, he felt unusually passive about a lot of things going on around him, as if he was taking a "what's the point of it all" attitude. When I watch Tyler Hoechlin's Superman on Supergirl, I see a Superman who has a lot more conviction and self-confidence than the one in the scripts Cavill was given. Were I writing the movie, that's the approach I would have taken with his progression. But then again, I wouldn't have had Bats and Supes exchange blows in the first place. The "versus" in the title would be in reference to their conflicting ideologies, but while they worked together to solve a case. The problem is Snyder thinks Superman like that is passe or whatever term he used to describe him. While ignoring Marvel took basically the same character and made him one of the main draws of the Marvel Universe in Captain America.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 21, 2017 11:38:03 GMT -5
I think a big mistake Warner Bros. has made is presenting Superman in these movies as more of an entity, or solely an instrument of chaos than an actual person. With Reeve and his portrayals in the DCAU, Clark came off more as a good hearted everyman who just happened to have phenomenal super powers. That's how he tends to act in his best stories. He's really not that hard a character to write for as people think, IMO. His core dynamic is idealism, and watching how this morally upright guy navigate complex situations. in Dawn of Justice, he felt unusually passive about a lot of things going on around him, as if he was taking a "what's the point of it all" attitude. When I watch Tyler Hoechlin's Superman on Supergirl, I see a Superman who has a lot more conviction and self-confidence than the one in the scripts Cavill was given. Were I writing the movie, that's the approach I would have taken with his progression. But then again, I wouldn't have had Bats and Supes exchange blows in the first place. The "versus" in the title would be in reference to their conflicting ideologies, but while they worked together to solve a case. The problem is Snyder thinks Superman like that is passe or whatever term he used to describe him. While ignoring Marvel took basically the same character and made him one of the main draws of the Marvel Universe in Captain America. Exactly. People gravitate towards heroes who stand their ground and fight, whether they're "boy scouts" or grittier characters. Steve has his mistakes and failings, but he's never not Captain America at any point, which is why I think he strikes a chord with audiences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 11:40:12 GMT -5
He's really not that hard a character to write for as people think, IMO. His core dynamic is idealism, and the fun of Superman is watching how this morally upright guy navigates complex situations. in Dawn of Justice, he felt unusually passive about a lot of things going on around him, as if he was taking a "what's the point of it all" attitude. Reminds me that awhile back I found myself thinking it'd be great to see Manchester Black in one of these movies, then realized in this universe he and Superman would basically be the same person.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Feb 21, 2017 11:44:57 GMT -5
The problem is Snyder thinks Superman like that is passe or whatever term he used to describe him. While ignoring Marvel took basically the same character and made him one of the main draws of the Marvel Universe in Captain America. Exactly. People gravitate towards heroes who stand their ground and fight, whether they're "boy scouts" or grittier characters. Steve has his mistakes and failings, but he's never not Captain America at any point, which is why I think he strikes a chord with audiences. And Superman should never state shit that implies that he's giving up on humanity like he did in BVS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 15:14:18 GMT -5
|
|
TWERKIN' MAGGLE
Crow T. Robot
Black Lives Matter
Posts: 45,455
Member is Online
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Feb 23, 2017 15:17:18 GMT -5
My bet is he wanted to rewrite the script, WB said no, so he said peace.
Then WB crawled back.
No sources, just speculating
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Feb 23, 2017 15:27:04 GMT -5
My bet is he wanted to rewrite the script, WB said no, so he said peace. Then WB crawled back. No sources, just speculating there was already a report that the script was being rewritten regardless with the new director. It might just be he wanted Final Cut and WB didn't want to hand it over.
|
|
TWERKIN' MAGGLE
Crow T. Robot
Black Lives Matter
Posts: 45,455
Member is Online
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Feb 23, 2017 15:33:34 GMT -5
My bet is he wanted to rewrite the script, WB said no, so he said peace. Then WB crawled back. No sources, just speculating there was already a report that the script was being rewritten regardless with the new director. It might just be he wanted Final Cut and WB didn't want to hand it over. Because having final cut worked so well for the studio the last two times. Buncha jackasses. This is not hard! You don't even have to have written anything before to write a good Batman film.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Feb 23, 2017 16:03:00 GMT -5
They also working on a Nightwing movie
-THR
|
|
|
Post by dreidemy on Feb 23, 2017 16:17:52 GMT -5
Nightwing will now be a drug addicted even worse than what Arsenal was in the comics and he's gonna beat up and kill random thugs until Batman invites him to go to the Circus
|
|