Batman v. Superman RT Thread: like standing ovations in rain

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gordon Shumway said:
APRHVfc.gif


Sure ain't..
Click to expand...
Ah, I see
 
Cavill is not the problem with this version of Superman, he was just given extremely poor material in BvS. He proved in other films and in interviews that he can be very charming and funny. I hope this is not the last of him as Clark Kent, I would like a Man of Steel 2 with him and another director.
 
Pop-O-Matic said:
What would the reaction be if this underperforms compared to D-Pooly (<$135M)? Hell, what if it actually manages <$100M?!?
Click to expand...

Heads would roll. A movie like this can't bomb, but it can underperform. If this made under $100 mil, people are getting pulled off projects and replaced. I would say that it's justification to go in a totally different direction.
 
Grizzlyjin said:
Heads would roll. A movie like this can't bomb, but it can underperform. If this made under $100 mil, people are getting pulled off projects and replaced. I would say that it's justification to go in a totally different direction.
Click to expand...

I don't think that under $100 million is possible and the foreign markets should do great. The long term damage to the brand is more concerning though, I have a feeling that a lot of people involved behind the scenes will be quietly replaced but I don't think that they can replace Snyder at this point while still saving face.
 
Gorillaz said:
Out the gate probably not

however I am interested in how the legs for this will look
Click to expand...

Yeah, underperforming is a definite possibility but I wonder what underperforming means in this context. Like if they do 500 million I feel like that's is pretty mediocre. So like is 800 million good? idk
 
Saint Gregory said:
I'll be seeing BvS this weekend, in spite of how I felt about MoS.

I'm glad that you managed to gleam this from the film but I just couldn't look past the contradictions. I couldn't accept that Jon Kent believed so strongly in his ideal that the world wasn't ready for Clark that he was will to sacrifice himself in the most unnecessary way possible to prove it. I couldn't accept Zod's really crazy motivations to terraform the Earth and kill everyone (for what reason again?) and I couldn't accept why as opposed to doing the heroic things you described Supes didn't simply take the fight somewhere else like every superhero has done ever!
Click to expand...

Superman did not have the option to take the fight elsewhere, the kryptonians were engaging earth forces in the Kansas fight and abandoning them means they all died, whether or not he succeeds in luring Zod personally to a wasteland somewhere. That's also the fight prior to them discovering that the Codex isn't anywhere near Kansas, and they may well have turned the city upside down looking for it. In the metropolis fight at the end he can't go anywhere because Zod's motivation at that point is the cause as much destruction and death as possible out of spite for losing the world engine, not to pursue or capture Kal.

Pa Kent is probably the most singularly controversial story decision of the film. He was a sacrificial lamb to a plot point, that humans weren't ready. The movie shows he was wrong, but I don't see why that makes it dumb that he believed in his own opinion with conviction. He thought he was protecting his son. You could make a nitpicky case that if he zoomed in and out fast enough nobody would recognize him, possibly true, and I'll call that a failure to justify it correctly in mechanical terms. The overall character decision I don't think was problematic though.

Zod wants to terraform the earth to make it the same physiology as Krypton because his purpose in life was to safeguard Krypton and apparently he's interpreted that to mean recreating it is the next best thing. He does not value the life of the humans, nor does his band of followers place much value in such things. Faora says lack of morality makes them stronger, but really that was a stupid line of dialogue because they do have a morality, it just isn't a moral system that values humans.

The film's themes were just unnecessarily dark and grim (hence the grimdark) for a Superman movie to me and seemed to be that way all for the sake of being different and edgy. For every thing that I really loved about MoS (Krypton was the best depiction ever, I could have taken an entire movie of that) Snyder would do something stupid that I hated and took me out of the film. I really wanted BvS to be great but it seems like the decision from the creative team was to take what little joy there was in MoS and make it even darker. Batman actually should be really dark and edgy, Superman... not so much.
Click to expand...

The movie was on the dark end of superman stories (not the darkest by comic standards, but the darkest of the films thus far since everything prior was at the extremely light and fluffy end), but in an absolute sense was not particularly dark. It had fewer quips than most of the marvel films but tragic childhood loss, alien attack causes lots of damage, hero saves the day is a standard comic book type story.
 
Saint Gregory said:
I don't think that under $100 million is possible and the foreign markets should do great. The long term damage to the brand is more concerning though, I have a feeling that a lot of people involved behind the scenes will be quietly replaced but I don't think that they can replace Snyder at this point while still saving face.
Click to expand...

It could become a choice between saving face a losing a fuckton of money in the long run.

I think money will win out.

Aselith said:
Yeah, underperforming is a definite possibility but I wonder what underperforming means in this context. Like if they do 500 million I feel like that's is pretty mediocre. So like is 800 million good? idk
Click to expand...

$500 million would be BOX OFFICE BOMB. This film cost almost that much to make when you count marketing.

They need MINIMUM $1 billion. Anything less and heads start rolling.
 
Voror said:
I'm somewhat confused that they apparently decided to use TDKR as a big reference for the story and how the characters are like with Batman. Isn't one of the big things that the heroes are older and grittier and whatnot?

Why would you use that as reference when you're trying to use this film to serve as a starting point for a wider universe?
Click to expand...

Because Snyder doesn't give a fuck. He likes The Dark Knight Returns more than he likes Batman, I'm sure, and this was his opportunity to appropriate the imagery and misuse it.
 
Dash_Riprock said:
If by some shitshow the film does under $100 million I can see the CEO of WB stepping down.

No Joke.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it isn't happening... but if it did, they're not going to throw more money down the hole with the same people for Justice League. It would be an interesting scenario though. Wonder Woman is in the middle of production, they'd have to keep moving on that. They could pump the brakes on the JL film, and everything else could be rethought.
 
Saint Gregory said:
I don't think that under $100 million is possible and the foreign markets should do great. The long term damage to the brand is more concerning though, I have a feeling that a lot of people involved behind the scenes will be quietly replaced but I don't think that they can replace Snyder at this point while still saving face.
Click to expand...

Anything under $150M would be considered abysmal

Anything under $130M would probably be catastrophic

Under $100M and no way someone big isn't fired
 
guek said:
Anything under $150M would be considered abysmal

Anything under $130M would probably be catastrophic

Under $100M and no way someone big isn't fired
Click to expand...

I still can't believe we live in an era were a film making $100 million OW is a flop and not making $1 billion total is "under-performing."
 
guek said:
Anything under $150M would be considered abysmal

Anything under $130M would probably be catastrophic

Under $100M and no way someone big isn't fired
Click to expand...

I think you can extend those ranges out a lot farther tbh.

400 abysmal

300 catastrophic

200 studio restructuring

there's so much riding on this thing working, it can't just be a one off disaster. You could probably extend those numbers a ton farther than that even and be still correct.
 
RustyNails said:
So in retrospect, was Henry Cavill a shitty superman choice? He has like no charisma at all. Stiff as a log in every scene he's in. Maybe a decent supes could have saved the franchise.
Click to expand...

He's kinda awful in Immortals.

People like to pretend he isn't bad in Man from UNCLE, but he's still a bit poor and does not a good job at transmitting charisma and charm, and his character there is supposed to be Mr. Charm.

He's a stiff in MoS and in this movie.

I'm gonna call it. He's just too milquetoast. He exudes averageness, if not outright suckery.

He seems to be a good guy during interviews, but audiences don't even laugh when he tries to be cute LOL.
 
Dash_Riprock said:
I still can't believe we live in an era were a film making $100 million OW is a flop and not making $1 billion total is "under-performing."
Click to expand...

Kinda like videogames really where selling 1mill is a flop for any triple A game
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Superman - new trailer
2 3
105
849
Madflavor replied
Standing desk worth it?
19
479
TransTrender replied
Superman | Full Trailer
2 3
109
2K
Alebrije replied
Superman Day - Behind The Scenes Look Of James Gunn's Superman
18
1K
Connificent replied
Superman (2025) 4 minute scene released
2 3 4
163
6K
Hari Seldon replied
Top Bottom