or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Superman VS Batman - Movie Thread (May 6, 2016)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Superman VS Batman - Movie Thread (May 6, 2016) - Page 5

post #61 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by JilSlander View Post

...WB/DC wants to create essentially a huge blockbuster (which they will get with this film, no doubt)...

Really? You're sure about that? I'd say the odds of getting a huge hit out of this are far from certain. Aside from the Nolan/Bale Batman trilogy, DC hasn't had a certifiable blockbuster in 20 years, at least.
post #62 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

See? Looks much older.



o hai, young jeffrey tambor!
post #63 of 196
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixOhNine View Post

Really? You're sure about that? I'd say the odds of getting a huge hit out of this are far from certain. Aside from the Nolan/Bale Batman trilogy, DC hasn't had a certifiable blockbuster in 20 years, at least.


Man of Steel.

Also, this Batman and Superman movie is one for the most sought for film with the two most recognizable heroes in the world, this is a huge film that no one really expected to be made. Trust me, this film will more than be a blockbuster just off the name alone.
post #64 of 196
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTLION View Post


Superman would never need Batman's help. I just can't imagine a scenario where Batman could add real assistance to the film. Then you make another critical error by bringing in Wonder Woman (which has to be an effort to either grab female viewers or pervs). Is Wonder Woman going to fly in on her invisible plane? An Amazon warrior who happens to be tech savvy enough to know how to fly a plane, and even more so an invisible one.

You've obviously never picked up a Justice League or Superman/Batman book.

And this films temporary title is Superman vs Batman so obviously in the beginning they'll be feuding with each other but of course they'll get along and help out each other against a common enemy.

But yeah, if you do not read comics I'd just not say much about the story and it's character.
post #65 of 196
Superman was owned by the Joker so to think he's unstoppable is laughable.
post #66 of 196
Man of Steel had a budget of 225 mil and brought in 250 mil. Profitable, probably, but not a spectacular hit. Critics mostly disliked it, audiences mostly thought it was meh.

Still not convinced that SvB is an inevitable runaway success.
post #67 of 196
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixOhNine View Post

Man of Steel had a budget of 225 mil and brought in 250 mil. Profitable, probably, but not a spectacular hit. Critics mostly disliked it, audiences mostly thought it was meh.

Still not convinced that SvB is an inevitable runaway success.


Domestically, it actually brought it $290m but total Worldwide, it made $670mil. In comparison, Returns cost $270m and made $391 worldwide. Batman begins cost $150m and made $375, Ironman cost $150m and made $585m.

It's no Avengers or Hunger Games but it was already reported even before the film came out that MoS already made it's money back from ads and sales merchandise already.

BluRay/DVD sales have been really strong too, on it's week 8, it was still #4. If you don't know how difference a strong BluRay/DVD sales can make, read up on Riddicks strong sales on Bluray/DVD and it being a good enough reason to be greenlit for a sequel.
post #68 of 196
Fair enough. Though the Batman movies had worse numbers than I realized. Of course, that third one was just terrible...

Oh, and just as a personal issue, I'll concede merchandising and post-theatrical release income as an important part of the overall profitability of a movie, but I think only box office take should be considered for "blockbuster" discussions. Maybe that's just a semantic hang up on my part.
post #69 of 196
If you had told me 10 years ago that an Avengers film (made up of B-list Marvel heroes) and The Hunger Games (Americanized Battle Royale essentially) would make more money than a Superman film, I wouldn't believe you. DC was incredibly lucky to strike gold with Nolan.
post #70 of 196
Thread Starter 
Marvel was just much smarter with how they approached their films, they made origin films for unknown heroes so that people would care and once you are hooked or at least curious enough to see how the whole team gets together, then Marvel has your money.

I think that is one downfall with Superman, too many people adored and lover Reeves and one of the main complaint about MoS is why is he not Reeves-like at all? I mean seriously, people simply need to realize that Clark/Superman was still discovering himself and he wasn't int he same place as Reeves Clark/Supes were, hell Cavill barely got a job at the Daily Planet at the end of MoS, he really had no reason to play Clark/Supes like Reeves, he was just getting to that.



As for the Hunger Games, well it's like a better version of Twilight and I'll be honest, Catching Fire got me hyped for the next films.
post #71 of 196
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixOhNine View Post


Oh, and just as a personal issue, I'll concede merchandising and post-theatrical release income as an important part of the overall profitability of a movie, but I think only box office take should be considered for "blockbuster" discussions. Maybe that's just a semantic hang up on my part.

Valid point, I just brought it up because people overlooks it most of the time and it does play a role in the movies profits in the end. I mean it is big enough that Marvel/Disney gave more Spiderman rights to Sony in exchange for handling merchandising because they know that's where they can capitalize and make the big bucks all year round.


And yeah, Begins didn't make as much money as people think, all they see in the Nolan trilogy is the billion dollar TDK and TDKR. Success was partly due to the Joker and ledger death. I mean movie was great, it is hands down my favorite but I am a bit curious if it would have been as big if Heath didn't die. My guess is it would have made $700-$800 but a billion? I'm not so sure.
post #72 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post


I think that is one downfall with Superman, too many people adored and lover Reeves and one of the main complaint about MoS is why is he not Reeves-like at all? I mean seriously, people simply need to realize that Clark/Superman was still discovering himself and he wasn't int he same place as Reeves Clark/Supes were, hell Cavill barely got a job at the Daily Planet at the end of MoS, he really had no reason to play Clark/Supes like Reeves, he was just getting to that.

think the downfall was too much of this
post #73 of 196
Thread Starter 
Nah, Crowe was one of the best things in the film and w/o that scene, you'd have an extra 30 minute long explanation of what happened.
post #74 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post


I think that is one downfall with Superman, too many people adored and lover Reeves and one of the main complaint about MoS is why is he not Reeves-like at all? I mean seriously, people simply need to realize that Clark/Superman was still discovering himself and he wasn't int he same place as Reeves Clark/Supes were, hell Cavill barely got a job at the Daily Planet at the end of MoS, he really had no reason to play Clark/Supes like Reeves, he was just getting to that.


Eh, MoS was a direct reaction to the negativity towards Superman Returns trying to hard to be the Donner/Reeves version of Superman. I actually enjoyed Superman Returns and what it was going for, but it was not loved by the public at large. WB did what felt to them to be the logical next step and gave the public what they assumed they wanted. Everything that Returns was not.
post #75 of 196
Thread Starter 
I disagree, I think the character just simply needed a huge reboot and this new one seems to coincide with the New 52 reset. Pretty clear with the one-piece spandex.

But overall, that was exactly what you expected from a Snyder Superman film and to expect any less have not seen his prior films. I'm just glad there weren't many slow motion actions.


I am still optimistic with DC and WB but it really seems like they aren't listening to fans much. Superman killing and then Affleck, I have no problem with it but they know they'll get shit for it and they did it anyways. Then Eisenberg as Luthor, they are also well aware that they'll get nothing but shit for it too but they went ahead with the move as well. They are obviously trying to make something new and unique here, an older Batman with a newb Superman, a younger Luthor that'll likely have his own origins in the sequel?

I liked Return to a point too, but it just dragged on and on, hell even Singer said if he were to do it now, he would have made a reboot too. Superman Returns was obviously a sequel to the Donner films, Singer said it himself so that's what you got. Man of Steel is a complete reboot so I don't think it is just to "make a complete opposite" film. Keep in mind that Nolan also approved of the film minus the ending but then Goyer talked him into it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Superman VS Batman - Movie Thread (May 6, 2016)