theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Aug 11, 2013 13:53:35 GMT -5
Select one of the above or provide your own answers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 14:17:58 GMT -5
I just don't think the majority of casual audiences can get behind Superman. If you look at some of the parallels, it has to be down to the character himself.
- Each franchise started with a series of four movies.
- The first two films were the strongest while the latter two were shitty and hurt the characters' popularity.
- Each character was rebooted.
- Batman was rebooted eight years after the previos series.
- Superman was rebooted twice ... or was he? Was SR a reboot? Was it a continuation? We can argue all day long the merits, but what would a casual moviegoer think? They were probably confused. My arguement is that a casual moviegoer considered it a reboot because the actors changed. Anyway ...
- Both reboots achieved modest box office results and mostly positive reviews from professionals. Audiences ranked Batman as the better film.
- Both had sequels set up in the finales, but BB's set-up was the more overt of the two -- Joker is coming. SR never spelled it out -- hey, that big rock is floating in space with Superman's crystals. Someone or something might find it.
Here's a big difference: the projects' directors ...
- Chris Nolan was able to juggle production of another film while keeping his eye on the long game for Batman. He made two more that each made a billion dollars.
- Bryan Singer made Valkyrie and kept dropping the ball on Superman. He's lucky Fox took him back for X-Men.
Back to the similarities ...
- Superman reboots again. That should just be the title: Superman Reboots. The damn studio gives up and throws money at Nolan and company, figuring that if anyone could make it work, it's his team. It makes some money, critics shit on it, audiences say 'meh.' Again, sequel set-ups aren't overt. Sure, fans like us can dream up scenarios, but average moviegoer needs it spelled out. He was left with didly shit. No way to build anticipation for a sequel. Look at Nolan's first two Bat flicks: Joker card, Batman rides off with many issues unresolved. He knew how to get audiences salivating for the next one.
- Although this version of Superman would fit in with Nolan's Batman better than the Singer Superman would have, we're getting another Batman. Because WB can't plan fucking breakfast much less a shared cinematic DC universe.
So, with so much in common, you'd think Superman would be just as successful as Batman. But he's not.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Aug 11, 2013 15:48:45 GMT -5
Why is there no option for, "Superman didn't punch enough things"?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 11, 2013 16:30:09 GMT -5
I don't think it was any of the first three choices for the most part
MOS was just a mediocre and derivative film that came, people thought it was ok, and it went. It was yet another superhero/sci fi/ action movie. It didn't offer anything special to make it stick in many people's minds when that's what it needed to do. 4 is probably the answer that applies most. There are other similar films out now and even the big selling point of MOS--the spectacle--was business as usual. You can go to any big budget movie and see most of that. Worst of all it was only of average quality with flawed writing and flawed directing. It was yet another Superman origin wrapped up in gritty realism packaging. But we've still seen it before. Many times. MOS was not going to outdo what the Dark Knight trilogy already did so well. That was setting up people for disappointment. Superman's not the problem. Not doing new and exciting things with the character and putting him into fresh stories was part of the problem. If it was down to people not liking Superman how has WB blown it with every DC character except Batman? Hal Jordan doesn't have all those supposed character weaknesses Superman has yet GL was their biggest failure. The film was just flawed. That's where the problem was.
As far as Superman being a high quality high success big film contender...there's still interest there. Otherwise MOS wouldn't have had that huge opening. But most people sampled the product and were only moderately impressed at best. It was mostly down to quality. WB doesn't get the character and wouldn't recognize a quality Superman production. They've been going in any direction that looks like a sure hit hard purely on money and people whose films have made a lot of it. They didn't ask wether all these people had the right approach to Superman. By trying to make him dark and depressed they took away the big thing that made Superman unique. The one thing that made him stand out from the pack. And that's the LAST thing they needed to do if they wanted this film to hold people's interest. Spider-man worked in 02 because he was unabashedly a hero and a good character in an uncertain world.
MOS went for a reinvention of sorts and it got a so so response. They tried to address people's problems with the character and it still didn't quite work. That shows us the problem goes beyond what WB thinks it is. Is Superman the problem or has WB just been making flawed movies? The character doesn't need to be reinvented so much as he needs to be put into quality films that offer something fresh compared to not only his own history but all the other superhero and action films out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 11, 2013 16:54:24 GMT -5
I'm murkan.
Murka! Fuck yeah!
Connected with me just fine. I connected five times, now I'm off to the dollar theater to connect again...cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Aug 11, 2013 17:28:09 GMT -5
I connected five times, now I'm off to the dollar theater to connect again...cheaper. Don't forget a rubber. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 11, 2013 17:44:13 GMT -5
Suddenly...I'm catholic... so...no.
All in. Bare backed. Consequence be damned.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 11, 2013 18:31:20 GMT -5
You're definitely the kind of man Snyder wants. Viewing in the audience I mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 11, 2013 19:47:10 GMT -5
Dahahahahaha!
Snyder wants me?
All right. Ill take it for the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 11, 2013 19:53:23 GMT -5
V Why is there no option for, "Superman didn't punch enough things"? He never punched steve lombard. And that bastard had it coming. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Aug 11, 2013 20:54:29 GMT -5
Mediocre word of mouth.
I'm sure a lot of people CASUALLY liked it, but the lack of passion from many people probably gave their friends that "eh, I'll wait" reaction.
Of course, there were a few people who thought it sucked too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 11, 2013 21:30:31 GMT -5
I blame lazy critics.
Armchair critics who want everything "explained", but if anything IS explained its "lazy writing".
That is a cause celeb.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 11, 2013 21:31:14 GMT -5
...he said with a snicker...
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Aug 11, 2013 22:07:50 GMT -5
As I said 2 months ago, people I've talked to have that laid back, almost puzzled look on their face, eyebrows furrowed when they say, "I liked it."
I would say, without exaggeration, that about 95% of people I've talked to have had that exact reaction.
The kind of reaction that doesn't keep you from WATCHING the movie, but may keep you from PAYING for it.
That lack of fire from people's reaction would be a caution against spending $15-20 on the film if I'm not already a fan of the character.
The movie was a box office success, I think, but could It have resonated more?
Yes.
|
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Aug 11, 2013 22:31:44 GMT -5
Word of mouth definitely had something to do with it. I was excited for the trailer, everyone I talked to about the trailer was excited. And then the reviews came in...
|
|
theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Aug 12, 2013 3:41:49 GMT -5
Surely WB are gonna consider it a disappointment as it didn't even make $300 million at the US box office.
Just as SR struggled to scrape $200 mill.
Except this time a sequel is all but guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
Post by upandaway on Aug 12, 2013 4:08:50 GMT -5
I think the question is "What is Marvel doing right and what is DC Warner doing wrong?"
The Marvel comic book films are fun to watch. There was humour in them. Goodish story lines that the whole family can like.
I think family viewings are also key to this.
Even though I enjoyed MOS and liked it, I found hardly any humour, it wasn't fun to watch.
My sister is a superman fan, she loved all the CR films and the BR film but hated MOS. "Too Violent. Not for the family especially children". She didn't like the recent Batman films either.
This could be key to DC Warner's problem. MOS was not great family viewing. When I went to see it there were some people with young children leaving because of the violence.
What do you guys think of this problem?
Also, do people still go by the reviews in newspapers or by certain reviewers, because I don't.
Has money also been a factor. Are people rationing their movie going. I know I am. The last movie I went to the cinema to see was MOS and Star Trek before that and Iron Man 3. I think I have only seen 6 films at the cinema this year so far.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 12, 2013 7:01:59 GMT -5
Yup. People are a lot more picky he uses of price. And maybe not everybody wanted to spend that much to take all their kids. It's not much of a kids movie. If WB wanted no family box office maybe they should have made a film with more for a whole family. The thing with MOS is they pushed it back 6 months. And they filmed in 2011 right? They had a long time to tinker with this movie and see what the problems were. Makes me wonder why they pushed it back. Was everyone as happy with it as they all said? Surely WB are gonna consider it a disappointment as it didn't even make $300 million at the US box office. Just as SR struggled to scrape $200 mill. Except this time a sequel is all but guaranteed. Yeah I'm sure they like what it made but ya gotta think they expected more. Over 300 mil Domestic and 700 mil worldwide. I said it might crawl to 300 mil but it doesn't even look like its going to do that. I imagine they felt they fixed all the mistakes of SR and threw their biggest guns at MOS. so it should have been perfect right? In their minds anyway. Notice how they announced Batman in the "sequel" so early. It's to build hype sooner so they make more box office. |
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Aug 12, 2013 8:38:09 GMT -5
I think Man of Steel did connect with US audiences. Moreso than Superman Returns.
Checking Rottentomatoes...critics gave MoS a 56 but audience members gave it a 76. Compared to a 75/63 split for SR.
Checking the box office...MoS is currently at $287M domestically, compared to $200M for SR.
So, audience-wise...it appears Man of Steel did rather well especially taking into consideration it's predecessors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2013 8:43:35 GMT -5
Don't bring that up, Shogun, that's logical and makes too much sense.
I think the reviews killed it. The people who were going to see it saw it regardless of the reviews opening weekend. The rest, the normal folks out there, waited. Word of mouth wasn't great but don't you people act like just because YOU didn't love it that NO one did. The only people I know that just sorta liked it, outside of people on here, are my parents. MY PARENTS. Everyone else LOVED it or at the very least liked it a LOT. So, it's just one of those things.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Aug 12, 2013 9:08:11 GMT -5
Snyder and his wife kept telling us how revolutionary the ideas in mos were.
What exactly was revolutionary?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Aug 12, 2013 11:54:12 GMT -5
I'm not so sure it didn't connect with audiences. How does one gauge that?
But for me, there are just way too many superhero movies. It's hard for one to stand out among the rest. It requires an A++ effort (good casting/acting, good direction, good script) to make waves, and MOS did not deliver everything. Good cast, nuts-and-bolts direction and a problematic script.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Aug 12, 2013 12:13:05 GMT -5
I'm not so sure it didn't connect with audiences. How does one gauge that? But for me, there are just way too many superhero movies. It's hard for one to stand out among the rest. It's not necessarily that there are too many superhero movies... it's that they all follow the same recycled formula. Brooding hero, damaged, tormented, etc. Then there's a big fist-fight at the end. Some throw in lots of one-liners that morons find funny. Others try to play it too straight and come off as overly pretentious. It's all just too much, too much of the same old sh!t. |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Aug 12, 2013 12:16:51 GMT -5
That too, yeah. MOS was the perfect opportunity to "reboot" audience expectations of a superhero movie, but it ended up being a follower rather than a leader. The Dark Knight is still the de facto movie template.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 12, 2013 12:44:55 GMT -5
I'm not so sure it didn't connect with audiences. How does one gauge that? But for me, there are just way too many superhero movies. It's hard for one to stand out among the rest. It requires an A++ effort (good casting/acting, good direction, good script) to make waves, and MOS did not deliver everything. Good cast, nuts-and-bolts direction and a problematic script. Repeat viewings. When a movie really connects people go see it more than once. How do you think some these movies make half a billion in the US. For most people it was one and done. If people connected with if that much it wouldn't be struggling to make it to a certain point. If more people connected with it MOS wouldn't have seen the drops it did. It opened huge then tapered off pretty quickly. It couldn't sustain it where as some movies that DID connect and opened with even more fared better. Green Lantern got some decent audience responses too but is anyone going to tell me that connected with audiences? C'mon. Plus you got a lot of people who will give a decent score to any old shit as long as it had big action. MOS's numbers don't lie. Some people may have loved it but it clearly didn't wow the majority enough. I don't think its the amount of superhero movies. Just the amount of mediocre ones. |
|
