crown
New Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by crown on Feb 23, 2016 21:25:31 GMT -5
It's gonna be terrible guys.
Trust me it's gonna be terrible Batman v Superman.
The suits at WB know it and are worried about the films reception.
It's a cool idea Batman v Superman but I don't think there's real story to back it up. Putting Doomsday in the trailer.... ugh.. just doing whatever's "cool" I guess.
Keep you expectations really really REALLY REALLY low for this one folks.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 24, 2016 4:03:03 GMT -5
It's gonna be terrible guys. Trust me it's gonna be terrible Batman v Superman. The suits at WB know it and are worried about the films reception. It's a cool idea Batman v Superman but I don't think there's real story to back it up. Putting Doomsday in the trailer.... ugh.. just doing whatever's "cool" I guess. Keep you expectations really really REALLY REALLY low for this one folks. I see it as an alternate universe Batman and alternate universe Superman. The fact that it may make ANY version of JLA and a Wonder Woman movie possible is to a degree kind of cool..... The great thing is: at this stage, there've been a number of really great superhero adaptations (from Marvel and DC), so if every superhero movie sucks from now on: Well, I'd be a bit disappointed, but at the same time, part of me is shocked that the genre's gone THIS far as well!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 26, 2016 20:17:31 GMT -5
It could be good. Just hard to tell. I don't think it'll be great but good is very possible. So much stuff swirling both ways it's just the biggest guessing game ever right now.
I think the box office is a bigger gamble. If the rumored cost is true this film is gonna have to be a monster hit. It'll have to open higher than Deadpool. Anything less than that will at least be a mild disappointment. It's gonna hope big but how big? Will it have legs?
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 27, 2016 1:01:54 GMT -5
Well... I'll give Snyder this: the money looks like it's on the screen.... but I rarely worry about Snyder delivering good visuals.
I do wonder what the budget is at this point and what WB needs box office wise for it not to be a 'disappointment'. Will see....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 27, 2016 10:05:27 GMT -5
Just from the little we've seen there's no way it's under 250 million dollars. 300 million wouldn't surprise me. I've read and heard from a lot of people and places online that it could be as high as 400 million. That seems like a stretch but I'm not sure if they meant just production budget or combined production and marketing budget. If it is that high, even for production and marketing, it's got to make at least a billion. They're throwing everything at this. Whatever it is it's obvious it cost more than man of steel.
There's just so much more going on in the movie that we haven't even seen yet. We only got a glimps of Doomsday and that sequence is going to be a massive fx heavy spectacle. Just the stuff we've seen seems extensive. They've had to design Batmans world from scratch too. I'd imagine Afflecks pay is pretty hefty as well. The film has to open huge and it's got to have legs. I don't think it has to do an avengers opening but it's got to do at least what Deadpool did to make them feel confident. Remember Alan Horn got his pink slip after his lofty predictions for Man of Steels box office weren't met.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 27, 2016 16:54:18 GMT -5
It's good to see that they learned their lessons from Green Lantern. The problem I think now is that I really want superhero franchises to be GREAT, not good, or just good enough- because there are a limited amount of swings they can have at it- whether it's getting a greenlight on a budget or the actor's aging limits.... there are limited windows of time for everything to happen in live-action. The bar has been raised by Marvel, Singer's X-men movies, Raimi's Spiderman movies, and Nolan's Batman movies. Fantastic Four helped show that just being a superhero film based on a comic isn't enough- I just wish we had a better filmmaker directing BvS.... but then again, with Batfleck in the room, I'd be suprised if it's only Snyder directing this time around.... (Batfleck hopefully is doing some kind of quality control)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 27, 2016 18:00:13 GMT -5
I agree. The bar has been raised. What was acceptable fifteen or even ten years go would be seen as at best mediocre now. In 2001 Green Lantern might have been a huge success. The studios are not only into shared universe comic book films but a certain level of quality is important if they know how to get there. I think Fox has finally learned they can't churn out stuff like the FF Films Daredevil and origins anymore and expect people to not tear into it or be indifferent. Of course the success of those great films is a double edged sword. The quality is there more often but the films are still just as formulaic or derivative.
I think Affleck wouldn't have signed on unless WB gave him a fair amount of input. That recent Oscar is probably a big reason why they wanted him on this film.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 29, 2016 13:08:30 GMT -5
I still think a good writer and director for a Superman sequel can save it. I actually like Cavill and think he has the right presence, if not using Routh.
I'd also feel a little more comfortable if Affleck was more excited about directing Batman than acting. The Nolan-Bale Batman is going to cast a long shadow (imo) for a long time to come...
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 29, 2016 15:01:56 GMT -5
I think a lot of it depends on his take. If he's doing it with the right take and a great film it could be yet another wave of batmania. We get it every decade or two at different levels of intensity. The Fox/Dozier Batman and the Burton Batman both cast long shadows but Nolan's Batman stood tall outside that shadow. Of course in support of what you're saying we had about 20 years between each of those eras. One thing working against the Snyder/Affleck Batman is they may not be allowing a proper buffer of time. Hard to walk out of that large shadow of you don't have the time to do it. Sometimes you need time to let that hunger and desire to see these heroes again grow. If they don't go away you don't really long for them as much. It's affected Superman even more because if you include live action and animated adaptations Supermans never been off people's screens for very long. Maybe seven years between the Adventures of Superman and the new (animated) adventures of Superman and five years between that and Superfriends. Otherwise he's been on screen almost non stop. Sometimes in two different productions at once! Batmans had a similar problem but not as severe. Between 1966 and now we've seen him in film animation or television for most of that time. But at least Batman had that 20 year gap between West and Keaton and nearly as long between Lowery and West. In live action Superman only had that between Reeves and Reeve. That's not even including all the DTV animated features over the years. Of course if we're counting sillier cheaper tv specials like "Its A Bird It's a Plane...it's Supermab" Or "Legends of the Superheroes" both those gaps shrink. Anyway to get to the point I do think a little breathing room might help WB's films more than hurt them. But they're chomping at the bit for that MCU level of money so they aren't gonna wait. Once again they are being reactionary. To go back to what you said at least the Salkinds set the trend instead of following it. That and the novelty of an idea can mean a lot sometimes when it comes to perception. Marvels never faced that kind over saturation in live action at least when it comes to multiple different incarnations and since many of these actors and their take win the MCU are the first live action incarnations they face no competition or comparisons in the role. So many of the DC characters are competing against themselves in the hearts and minds of some fans. Most people won't care but for some people they'll always compare Leto to Ledger or Robbie to Sorkin or Adams to Durance. It's one of the first things the cast of BvS was asked at ComicCon and most of them either had a sort of non answer or not the best answer. I think Affleck and Cavill probably answered it best at the time but didn't go into too much detail. It's extra tough when the people you're compared to are alive and well and still young enough to take on the same role and be credible. Routh and Welling aren't old or dead and are still quite capable of playing Superman of they were asked to on the right production. With stars like Chris Evans or Robert Downey Jr...you can't even raise that question. I look at the shadow of Bill Bixby for long time fans (doesn't matter with younger folks) and Marvels handled it brilliantly. Ruffalo has embraced being part of that same legacy as Bixby while doing his own thing. He doesn't have to come out and say "well here's how my Dr Banner is different." They'll openly admit to trying to add some of that same flavor to create something new at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 1, 2016 3:19:19 GMT -5
I think a lot of it depends on his take. If he's doing it with the right take and a great film it could be yet another wave of batmania. We get it every decade or two at different levels of intensity. The Fox/Dozier Batman and the Burton Batman both cast long shadows but Nolan's Batman stood tall outside that shadow. Of course in support of what you're saying we had about 20 years between each of those eras. One thing working against the Snyder/Affleck Batman is they may not be allowing a proper buffer of time. Hard to walk out of that large shadow of you don't have the time to do it. Sometimes you need time to let that hunger and desire to see these heroes again grow. If they don't go away you don't really long for them as much. It's affected Superman even more because if you include live action and animated adaptations Supermans never been off people's screens for very long. Maybe seven years between the Adventures of Superman and the new (animated) adventures of Superman and five years between that and Superfriends. Otherwise he's been on screen almost non stop. Sometimes in two different productions at once! Batmans had a similar problem but not as severe. Between 1966 and now we've seen him in film animation or television for most of that time. But at least Batman had that 20 year gap between West and Keaton and nearly as long between Lowery and West. In live action Superman only had that between Reeves and Reeve. That's not even including all the DTV animated features over the years. Of course if we're counting sillier cheaper tv specials like "Its A Bird It's a Plane...it's Supermab" Or "Legends of the Superheroes" both those gaps shrink. Anyway to get to the point I do think a little breathing room might help WB's films more than hurt them. But they're chomping at the bit for that MCU level of money so they aren't gonna wait. Once again they are being reactionary. To go back to what you said at least the Salkinds set the trend instead of following it. That and the novelty of an idea can mean a lot sometimes when it comes to perception. Marvels never faced that kind over saturation in live action at least when it comes to multiple different incarnations and since many of these actors and their take win the MCU are the first live action incarnations they face no competition or comparisons in the role. So many of the DC characters are competing against themselves in the hearts and minds of some fans. Most people won't care but for some people they'll always compare Leto to Ledger or Robbie to Sorkin or Adams to Durance. It's one of the first things the cast of BvS was asked at ComicCon and most of them either had a sort of non answer or not the best answer. I think Affleck and Cavill probably answered it best at the time but didn't go into too much detail. It's extra tough when the people you're compared to are alive and well and still young enough to take on the same role and be credible. Routh and Welling aren't old or dead and are still quite capable of playing Superman of they were asked to on the right production. With stars like Chris Evans or Robert Downey Jr...you can't even raise that question. I look at the shadow of Bill Bixby for long time fans (doesn't matter with younger folks) and Marvels handled it brilliantly. Ruffalo has embraced being part of that same legacy as Bixby while doing his own thing. He doesn't have to come out and say "well here's how my Dr Banner is different." They'll openly admit to trying to add some of that same flavor to create something new at the same time. Excellent post. More and more, I find myself thinking even more of just HOW special an event the Donner Superman was because of the context of its time. As superhero films become 'ordinary', the more the anticipation that preceding the Superman film seems unprecedented and probably won't reach those heights again in our lifetime because of all the factors that were involved at the time. Superman Returns had different elements as you mention against it- but I'm still sad that things didn't work out just slightly different and we could have had that Singer sequel that would have been more action packed and maybe bring more people to the theatre, without the character being compromised. With all the delays and ambiguity over a sequel for the longest time, it just felt a bit cruel to have it ALMOST happen... but noone feels that more than Routh, for sure. Anyhow- It'll be interesting to see how the course of superhero films go. Marvel's reached Phase Two without a flop. Wonder how long Feige wants to keep the train running. Hopefully forever imo.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 1, 2016 11:39:25 GMT -5
I think Marvel studios will be making movies for a long time. Maybe not at this frequency but they've been smart not to have budgets as bloated as WB's superhero movies. Avengers cost about the same thing as Man of Steel and considering how much of a marketing and hype advantage that it had that was a superior plan. Marvels made their brand name strong. People know the DC characters but maybe not much about DC itself.
I was thinking of green lantern the other day and how mind bogglingly head shakingly hilarious. WB spent 200 million dollars making a movie they now sweep under the rug and basically want everyone to forget about. You can't help but groan. Green Lantern proved the DC name alone isn't going to sell anything. With Deadpool people see that Marvel logo and wonder if it's part of the MCU! Fox spent less than 50 million on it and Deadpool made more in one weekend in the US than Green Lantern made in its entire domestic run!
Outside of ten seconds (if that) on Birds of Prey there was no live action Batman between Clooney and Bale. Imagine if there had been no Lois & Clark or Smallville. Superman Returns and Man of Steel would have had a bit more of a draw because Superman hadn't been seen outside of cartoons for years. Superman the movie was indeed special. There was no genre, no formula, no blueprint. Same with Batman really. Visually there was nothing like it. Superhero films are now common. They can't sell on that "newness" of the concept alone. They have to do something special. Marvel was built on Iron Man, brand strength and a standard of quality, and the uniqueness of a shared universe crossover event. People shouldn't underestimate those things.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 2, 2016 3:10:22 GMT -5
What's interesting is how- over all this time- only a handful I think REALLY were 'an event' globally.
#1: STM- the groundbreaker. If this came out a little earlier before Star Wars, would have been even bigger than it was, I think.
#2: Burton's Batman
#3: Sam Raimi's Spiderman- the story told big and right for the first time.
#4: The Dark Knight- boxoffice mojo puts this #2 right behind the Avengers. Imo- in some ways, the best superhero film ever made.
#5: The Avengers- the first ever gigantic superhero crossover film
I'm glad there's a lot of great superhero films out there- but (imo) these really got the most attention and buzz from where I was standing at the time... I'm wondering if Doctor Strange (for being the first magical superhero on the movie screen) and Avengers: Infinity War will be the next global sensations that become 'an event'- though it's hard to say. Dr. Strange isn't that popular a character and I do wonder how the anticipation will end up being for Infinity War by the time it gets here. Hmp.
In any case- the delay for BvS has been good for me to get more and more used to Batfleck as Batfleck. It could be the next big anticipated event, because of the age of these characters and that it's never been done before, but, part of me wishes it was Routh-Supes versus Bale-Batman and directed by Singer or Donner.
Oh well, still better be fun if nothing else...
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 2, 2016 9:35:53 GMT -5
I think you've pretty much nailed it down. Those films you mentioned were undoubtedly game changers and monster successes. Every few years we see a superhero film that comes along that sets the trend and causes a seismic shift in the industry. Superman the movie, Batman 89, Spiderman, The Dark Knight, Avengers. To lesser extent The Crow, Blade, X-Men, Batman Begins, Sin City, 300, Iron Man, and Deadpool are part of the tier just under that first group of big movies. They all influenced movies that came after. Every other comic book film can trace its influences back to those films.
Blade paved the way for X-Men and X-Men paved the way for Batman Begins. Right now we have two major directions. Iron man/Avengers or Dark Knight. DC is going Dark Knignt. Deadpool may offer a third option. What DC needs to do is offer something fresh that's another seismic shift. Green Lantern was them trying to ape Iron Man while Guardians was truly something fresher to the point that Paramount looks at it and wonder why they can't do those kinds of numbers with Star Trek. I think Doctor Strange won't be part of that first tier but if it's good it can be part of that second. I don't expect it to make 800 million dollars but you never know.
WB and DC don't really have a Feige. They have a group of people but DC films is far less autonomous than Marvel studios. Feige doesn't even have to deal with Perlmutter as much anymore. If I were WB I'd beg people like Richard Donner Tim Burton Adam West etc to come on board and be consultants and ambassadors for the DC brand the. Put one definitive person in charge of their films direction. DC characters created this genre in film and tv and instead of embracing and promoting that WB seems to be running away from it to push this out with the old in with the new mentality. They can have a bit of both. Honor the past and build a new better future.
There needs to be some more unity in the house that DC built. Like I said before it just feels like right now these various incarnations are competing against themselves when they could be building something bigger than we've ever seen together. Berlanti seems to get that on the tv side of things.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 2, 2016 12:29:46 GMT -5
I have a hunch that the studio heads don't WANT a Kevin Feige counterpart at WB, otherwise there would be too much power given to one individual.
With Marvel Studios, I don't know the full story, but I think Feige was there from the get-go, wasn't he?
Once Marvel got sold to Disney, one wonders if Feige being in charge was part of the deal, or if Disney is just being smart by letting Feige and staff continue to bring the gold and get out of the way, much like (it seems) they did with Pixar.
Still... at the same time, I wonder how many disappointments Feige is allowed. If Ant-Man or Guardians flopped, I wonder if Dr. Strange would still be happening.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 2, 2016 13:34:26 GMT -5
I have a hunch that the studio heads don't WANT a Kevin Feige counterpart at WB, otherwise there would be too much power given to one individual. With Marvel Studios, I don't know the full story, but I think Feige was there from the get-go, wasn't he? Once Marvel got sold to Disney, one wonders if Feige being in charge was part of the deal, or if Disney is just being smart by letting Feige and staff continue to bring the gold and get out of the way, much like (it seems) they did with Pixar. Still... at the same time, I wonder how many disappointments Feige is allowed. If Ant-Man or Guardians flopped, I wonder if Dr. Strange would still be happening. Feige was there from the start. He was there before that back in the Arad days (which are thankfully over). You're probably right. The way it is now WBs brass can make all the decisions themselves with no disagreements. Snyder and Johns aren't going to disagree with the high ranking studio execs. WB will get what it wants even if they are wrong. That's how we got MOS. They thought they were on to a winner of take and went forward with no one to play devils advocate. Feige never openly went back and forth with other execs but it's well known he went at it with certain people at Marvel. Disney was smart enough to let him and Marvel studios run without micromanaging them into the ground. I think Disney knew good people were in place already and they didn't have to do much work putting together a team. Just let the money roll in. Seems like they've done the same with Lucasfilm. They didn't just buy it and create their own entirely new team with no experience creating Star Wars productions. If GOTG or Antman had outright flopped Disney would tighten the reigns or the purse strings.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 4, 2016 1:01:18 GMT -5
I so wish there was some way to know how the back and forths happen within the studio walls regarding these properties--- seems like there are stories after the fact, but even so- still so much seems murky. (Like all of the stuff with how/why so many of these projects get the plug pulled on them or stall forever).
Anyhow, I will give credit to WB for letting Singer do whatever he wanted (according to Singer)- though I do agree with his screenwriter who felt a supervillain was necessary to juice up some action we've never seen before in SR.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 7, 2016 20:42:05 GMT -5
Singer had too much freedom but there was no one at the top at WB that had any idea what to do. Even by that point we had some idea of what worked and what didn't for these kinds of movies. Singer made the film more for himself than the audience. If we've seen anything from the last few Xmen films I think he's learned from that mistake.
The studio shouldn't have stepped in after production because sometimes that can be a mess but WB and Singer should have come to an understanding about what SR needed to be from the start. I've said the same thing about Nolan and Batman. I love his movies but the JL Mortal situation could have been avoided if he and WB had an understanding before he got the job. They should had decided upfront that their ultimate end game was batman vs Superman and justice league.
They could have had a leg up on the concept years before Marvel and maybe we could have had Bale and Routh in Millers Justice League and maybe Common as John Steward alongside Reynolds as Jordan in the Green Lantern movie. WB's problem has always been they never had an idea of where they were going much less a plan. That's why we got something like Catwoman a year before Batman Begins.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2016 0:39:06 GMT -5
I still think all SR needed to make it palatable to all was a few 'fresh' action set pieces--- picking up big objects didn't quite cut it for that part of the film. If I was a studio head, that would have been my only instruction with trust otherwise in Singer...
|
|