DC Comics on Film

[matrixschmatrix]

There's a reason they're chomping at the bit to get the Batfleck film in production after JL principal in finished. 99% of viewers loved the Batfleck.

Is that, uh. Based on anything?

[captveg]

There's a reason they're chomping at the bit to get the Batfleck film in production after JL principal in finished. 99% of viewers loved the Batfleck.

Is that, uh. Based on anything?

Do you read the internet? Pretty much every review from the comic fan community loved Batfleck. I can't even think of one that didn't.

[matrixschmatrix]

I've seen a lot of things pointing to Affleck's performance as a relative highlight, while bemoaning the actual construction of the character and uses to which he is put. That's not exactly the same thing.

[captveg]

Right. And even people with misgivings of the use of his character in the film want to see what Affleck's take on the character will be within subsequent films, the main one being the film he's now confirmed to have written, and will likely direct.

[matrixschmatrix]

I suppose I could see that- there's certainly a question of how much Snyder has poisoned the well, but I don't think any of the bad will has attached to Affleck (or to Cavill, for that matter.)

[captveg]

It boggles my mind that a film needs to earn $800m to just break even. These figures are just crazy. I still think Spielberg and Lucas are right: the time will come where one of these movies flops hard, and WB may have done just enough to prevent worse from happening but if this second week drop is repeated abroad, the film will need to do really well on home video to be even somewhat profitable.

The real crazy thing is that Warner is doing FAR better with BvS than they did with the combined efforts of Pan ($150m budget vs. $128m WW box office) and Jupiter Ascending ($175m vs $184m) in 2015. Those were true bombs relative to their budgets.

Even the universally acclaimed Mad Max: Fury Road barely earned a profit ($150m vs. $377m).

San Andreas was their biggest hit of the year ($110m vs. $473m), with Creed doing well relative to budget, too ($35m vs. $174m). That's why they're doing more of each.

Looking at their 2016 slate, The Legend of Tarzan will likely join the outright bombs, while Suicide Squad and Fantastic Beasts should do well if people take to them.

[Luke M]

Shouldn't Batman/Superman be doing at least Jurassic World money? I imagine the bar had to be set pretty high.

[matrixschmatrix]

BvS is incomparably bigger intellectual property than any of the other movies you're referring to- I don't see a lot of clamoring for Peter Pan, Mad Max hasn't been in anything for decades, and Jupiter Ascending was a totally new idea. BvS involves, for the first time, two of the most famous and beloved characters in the world, including one who has already been in several of the top grossing films of all time (not to mention innumerable shows, comics, and a recent run of very well liked video games.) And Superman was, for a long time, literally the most well known fictional character on Earth.

Given the trajectory of the receipts, it's hard not to see this as a situation where a $250 million dollar movie (which surely spent far more in advertising than any of the other movies listed) had a blockbuster opening based on an interest in the characters, rather than literally anything intrinsic to the movie itself.

[captveg]

Never said that wasn't also true - it's definitely underperformed. But it's also not an outright bomb, either. In the end it's gonna be a mildly profitable film that got people interested in the larger DC slate, even if it did so frustratingly.

I fully expect the subsequent DC films to be more homogenized crowd pleasers, because they need feel-good positivity. Jurassic World was mentioned earlier. If there was ever a film that epitomized empty formula crowd-pleaser, that film is it. (And I say that as a fan of that film despite the obvious shovelware nature of it).

[matrixschmatrix]

Haha every time this comes up you imply that the reason people dislike this movie is that it's too challenging and they couldn't handle it, rather than that they fully understood it and disliked it for being what it was

[captveg]

When have I said that it's too challenging or that people couldn't handle it? I've never said that ONCE.

What I have said is that it wasn't to a lot of people's tastes, which is totally fine BTW. Particularly in regards to Superman, because it's clear at this point the general audience wants him to be the silver age incarnation. And if you're spending this much money on the property, just give the people what they want and abandon any risky "visions" of filmmakers. Because while I and some others may like it, it isn't working for the majority.

I've also said that the film is disjointed and is trying to pack too much in, and therefore it does itself no favors because it loses its throughline. One of the ways Nolan is far more successful than Snyder is that even when he's handling larger ideas the basic plot isn't muddled, and a clean throughline can be discerned by all viewers.

[Trees]

The "reveal" of Aquaman and the others via a video being played on a computer screen randomly by Wonder Women was about the laziest and least interesting way possible that these characters could have been introduced. It's almost mind-boggling to believe that this is the way they chose to introduce such iconic characters.

[matrixschmatrix]

In referring to this movie as failing relative to 'homogenized crowd pleasers' because the audience 'need[s] feel-good positivity' there's a pretty clear implication that the audience failing to connect to this movie were unhappy with it because it was conversely negative, making them feel bad, and hetereogenous.

[captveg]

The "reveal" of Aquaman and the others via a video being played on a computer screen randomly by Wonder Women was about the laziest and least interesting way possible that these characters could have been introduced. It's almost mind-boggling to believe that this is the way they chose to introduce such iconic characters.

It was at best sloppy. They didn't sell the Meta-Human subplot enough for it to resonate, but even if they had, the manner of presentation is just too much a halt to the movie. Especially in contrast to Wonder Woman herself, who is generally presented far more organically in the storyline of the film. It's basically a post-credit sequence - where one can accept a random scene not directly related to the main film's plot - shoved into the middle of the film.

As for the content itself, I thought the Flash footage was well done, but Cyborg's was cheap looking, and Aquaman looking into the camera went on far too long.

[captveg]

In referring to this movie as failing relative to 'homogenized crowd pleasers' because the audience 'need[s] feel-good positivity' there's a pretty clear implication that the audience failing to connect to this movie were unhappy with it because it was conversely negative, making them feel bad, and hetereogenous.

Those are issues of mood and tastes, not of intelligence or tolerance.

If a film is meant to be a populist one, and you fail to understand the majority of the population's interest, then the filmmaker is at fault in his approach, presentation, characterization, story, or all of the above.

The people have spoken and they want a silver age Superman; better deliver that from now on. The people have spoken and they want a far less muddled plot in the first 3rd of the film; therefore, the writers and director screwed up by over thinking the plot mechanization of the story (specifically in this case, the North Africa inciting incident is a dud, especially since we seemed to already get the inciting incident in the Metropolis scene before it).

Now, there's obviously a balance to this and one can't just make a film based on an audience survey, but the pendulum has clearly swung too far to the auteur side with WB and the DC films, at least as it concerns Snyder and these characters. JL just needs to deliver on what the majority wants at this point.

[Trees]

How in the hell did the studio schedule JL to begin shooting almost the same week that Batman V Superman comes out? Now there is no time to replace Snyder, if the studio wanted to. The DC universe is off to a shaky start.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think DC does not fully understand why the Marvel moves are so popular, and just assumed that well known characters plus shared universe equals automatic success (and it's worth reiterating that Universal is planning a series like this too- and that Disney is turning Star Wars into one, so DC making this assumption is understandable.) I genuinely hope that the Marvel series is relatively unique, and that this idea turns out to be a fad instead of the new norm, because as frustrating as the world of endless sequels and remakes is, one where all franchises turn essentially into TV shows with ongoing plots that never fully resolve is much scarier.

[captveg]

How in the hell did the studio schedule JL to begin shooting almost the same week that Batman V Superman comes out? Now there is no time to replace Snyder, if the studio wanted to. The DC universe is off to a shaky start.

It's due to the cast availability more than anything. Gadot is just wrapping up the WW shoot right now; Ezra Miller and Ray Fisher will need to start shooting The Flash immediately after JL as it comes out only five months later. Assuming it stays on schedule Aquaman is right after that (I think Batman is gonna take its place, which presents the identical problem with Affleck's schedule).

But I guarantee Terrio has been incorporating "lighter/more fun" studio rewrite demands over the last week, and that Snyder's "vision" will be significantly reigned in. When Comic Con rolls around in July they're gonna need to share a very anti-BvS promo.

[Luke M]

It's amusing how this thread is basically just one person defending the movie against every other poster.

[captveg]

Happy to be a source of amusement. I'll be selling tickets next time.

Look, I think for myself. I'm not gonna just go with the crowd because of internet bullying. Present a reasoned argument about the film and I'll consider it, like I do with any film. Doesn't mean I'll ultimately agree with a differing viewpoint, but it'll be objectively considered. Otherwise, tastes are a factor, and clearly mine are different than the majority of the forum members when it comes to mainstream Hollywood films. With this film even more than normal. If that doesn't sit well with some here, then there's nothing I can do about that. (If one goes to other forums I am hardly the only one who liked it).

So unless you all want to ban me from the forum I'll continue to speak my mind.

[captveg]

I think DC does not fully understand why the Marvel moves are so popular, and just assumed that well known characters plus shared universe equals automatic success (and it's worth reiterating that Universal is planning a series like this too- and that Disney is turning Star Wars into one, so DC making this assumption is understandable.) I genuinely hope that the Marvel series is relatively unique, and that this idea turns out to be a fad instead of the new norm, because as frustrating as the world of endless sequels and remakes is, one where all franchises turn essentially into TV shows with ongoing plots that never fully resolve is much scarier.

The serialized nature of where tentpole filmmaking is going is fascinating, and something we haven't seen in American filmmaking since the pre-TV 1940s. Not all of them are gonna be able to sustain on such high budgets, though.

I'm actually intrigued with Universal's Monsters since Tom Cruise is involved. It's such on odd pairing on the face of it that I can't help being curious.

[matrixschmatrix]

Yeah, the model from the 30s and 40s here- or much later, in Japan and such- was cranking out a million movies from a property as quickly as possible, where they were coming out three or four a year; making that kind of thing as $250 million tentpoles is absolutely a new phenomenon, and to me feels like it has to be a weird bubble rather than a workable model that will finally let studios achieve their eternal dream of making movie profits almost totally predictable.

[Numero Trois]

Warner Bros is going to stay the course with Snyder as long as these properties makes them money. They don't care about the critics and about quality.

Of course it begs the question what they'll do to the comic book division once all this flames out for them. Really, everyone can see it coming a mile away. You'd think Joel Schumacher came up with this plotline.

I can't see Warner Bros. selling DC but I can see Disney making an offer when they're at their most vulnerable.

Exactly. Given how tenuous their comics circulation seem to be- just like BvS- perhaps big sales with the first issues but a quick comedown not terribly long after.

Particularly in regards to Superman, because it's clear at this point the general audience wants him to be the silver age incarnation.

The "general audience" doesn't care about "silver age." That term means next to nothing for most people. They just want to be entertained, whatever direction that may take. As always.

[Murdoch]

I genuinely hope that the Marvel series is relatively unique, and that this idea turns out to be a fad instead of the new norm, because as frustrating as the world of endless sequels and remakes is, one where all franchises turn essentially into TV shows with ongoing plots that never fully resolve is much scarier.

Therein lies my inability to engage with this phenomenon. Marvel's attempting to turn every new feature or series into a callback to the storylines of earlier entries and my god is that one daunting task for any viewer. It's an idea I find rather fascinating and it makes sense to me given the tried-and-true success of cliffhanger TV at keeping viewers. Yet I just imagine five years from now when the Netflix version of the latest hero has to connect to events from movies from seven years ago. When series on ABC and Netflix are dealing with the fallout from events of a wide release movie franchise, that is one bridge too many for me to cross. But the cliffhanger method of stringing viewers along for countless hours of zero resolution is a time-honored tradition of TV so why not sucker moviegoers along as well, right?

[jbeall]

Didn't really know where to put this, so here'll do.

‘Deadpool’ Isn’t the Only Solution. But ‘Batman v Superman’ Is the Problem

[W]hat’s really most ridiculous about “Batman v Superman” is its lugubrious solemnity and generic philosophizing. The movie is debating moral absolutism. It’s trying to locate the line between superheroism and nihilism, between virtue and vice, between being good and being a psycho... A great deal of “Batman” revolves around the moral propriety of a great, big public statue of Superman that wouldn’t be out of place on the cover of an Ayn Rand novel. You want to commend this movie’s stabs at thoughtfulness. But it’s stabbing with a spork. At some point you have to laugh.