Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice

Nuance and 300 go together like fire and water.

FREAKING EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, based on the numbers MoS and TDKR put up, if just those people show up, this film won't reach The Avengers level of box office. That's what I've been saying all along. I'm addressing Khan's knack for blowing a very, VERY tiny part of the audience way out of proportion as "evidence" that BvS will make more than The Avengers. Everything he's said about it makes no sense. See the following:

Of the people listed in that bolded section only fans of the Nolan trilogy/casual are a significant number. And they are the people I've been saying all freaking along are the ones Warner can bank on going and they are the ones who brought a combined number of $1.6 billion to the last two films in the series. That is the most (again, under the absurd assumption that there's no audience overlap ), this film can make from Khan's proposed good will. The other groups he's referring to, Snyder fans/comic fans/fans of Aquaman, whoever, are all negligible numbers at best and I include comic fans and their word of mouth. A comic fans word of mouth is no better or worse than a non-comic fans word of mouth.

Again, you just pointed to the four two-hour long commercials for The Avengers. The numbers for the individual films prior to The Avengers were good, but not like after The Avengers.

Iron Man 3 made $1.2 billion. Thor 2 made $644 million. Captain America 2 made $711 million. Because at this point it is an established franchise in the pop culture zeitgeist. The Avengers made crazy money because it wasn't sold as a film, it was sold as an event (compare it to Avatar that was also sold as an event not to be missed) and it had positive word of mouth. If the ensemble of that film had failed we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Whedon had done this sort of work before on both film and TV and he was the perfect person to make sure that all the characters felt like part of the film. Something worked that could have gone either way. They caught lightning in a bottle and DC wants to do the same. Unfortunately I don't think Snyder has the chops to do that.

I agree, but no one likes superhero films that are clogged up with origin stories. The fact that they are introducing Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Auquaman, a new Lex Luthor, and Scoot McNairy (and probably a new Joker) in a film directed by Zach "I've zero nuance in my name" Snyder makes me think word of mouth will be terrible. I expect about a 55-65% on Rotten Tomatoes.

__________________

Well, you are welcome to your opinion of Snyder but all in all I'd say you suck.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Those films combined for a higher domestic gross and a higher worldwide gross. Not that you can just add them together, but if you did, it would, in fact, surpass The Avengers.

From that good will alone, yes, but not total. Even among mega-hits, there are always more people who see a film on home video than see the film in theaters.

More important, though, is that even if the exact same number of people go to see the film as went to see the previous one, the film would gross more based on inflation alone, not to mention the more widespread availability of IMAX/3D.

None of this should be mistaken for an argument that I expect this to outgross The Avengers, by the way. Just that I don't think these are great arguments against the idea. The best argument is simply that Marvel laid a ton of groundwork over a number of very well-received movies, and then by almost all accounts made a really great movie. DC hasn't done the former and the odds are against it managing the latter, just because it's really hard to make a really great movie.

Best argument I can come up with the other way is that, while Marvel seems to have more viable characters overall, and has done a tremendous job bringing them to life, both Batman and Superman are far more iconic than any of them, even by themselves. That's the big wild card in all this.

This seems pretty counterintuitive, given that comic fans are undeniably more fervent and clearly have a disproportionate influence on early coverage.

I said in a different paragraph that there's clearly going to be a lot of overlap in the audiences of those two films which would bring the box office way under...unless Batman and Superman fans are very exclusive.


I just don't see the hype that others are pointing to in all of this. Now, I am the one who said that The Dark Knight Rises would out perform The Avengers, but I cannot see BatVSupe out doing Avengers. Maybe I'll be wrong again, but I doubt it.

Agree with this last point completely. Batman and Superman are far more ingrained in the world culture than The Avengers, but I'm still not thinking that's enough to propel this film to the highest grossing film of all time. I'm more apt to believe Episode VII would pass up The Avengers than BatVSupe.


Not buying it. Fanboys are white noise to the mainstream.

I meant to say Batman and Superman in the same film wont push it to third highest grossing film of all time. Unfortunately for his ego, I cannot see Cameron falling for some time.

BatSupe will be the highest-grossing film of all time, brick.

Nah... Star Wars Ep VII will be.

__________________

Agreed. The groundwork, expectations, and hype for Episode VII spans across a generation. This will dwarf even the well laid out marketing that was done for the Avengers

I concede to your superior logics.

But Batsupe will be the better film.

I think Batsoup will be a surprisingly good film.


So much hate and anger, even from me over some of the recent happenings, but I liked MOS and I reckon it'll turn out to be a decent film.


Kinda like the hate I had for MOS before I saw it. I was surprised by how good it actually is.

Another comparison is RoboCop.


I despised the idea behind remaking it. Tbh, I still despise the idea of remaking RoboCop.


Yet seeing the film, I don't actually hate it. I sort of, half liked it. It's entertaining, and definitely better than the Total Recall remake (using the "remaking Verhoeven" thing as a reference here)... but nothing I'd rave about like I do with the original.


BvS will be a surprise I think.


One thing I've noticed recently is that filmmakers have been listening to the fans. George Lucas didn't, Spielberg didn't, Cameron didn't... and we has the Star Wars prequels, Indiana Jones 4 and now the Avatar sequels in the works...


Abrams has listened to the fans, the guys who made RoboCop listened to the fans... I'm pretty sure Snyder can too.

This could be the beginning of a geek audience-director symbiotic circle jerk renaissance...

AHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAAHHAAHHAAHA!!

You're funny.

J. J. Abrams, in even his flawed films, can at least pull decent performances from his actors. He can also make films that feel alive, are fun to watch, and have characters with which I can empathize. The man managed to pull great performances from children and several of them were first time actors. Snyder pulled one solid, nuanced performance from one person ever and that was in his first film.

Fine, I'm throwing out my Snyder rant.

Snyder either doesn't understand or doesn't respect his source material or both.

Watchmen, the comic, was a complete take down of the entire medium of super hero comics. It took the idea of crime fighters and presented them in a way no one had ever experienced before. It showed that in order for someone to have to do that they'd have to be a complete sociopath or a complete narcissist or both. It took the concept of a real super-powered individual and took that to its logical conclusion in that Dr. Manhattan starts to realize that he is something more than human and he cannot even sympathize with humanity.

It also showed the real effects of brutal violence they way no comics had before. Here's an example of comic book violence:



Batman is punching the crap out of the Joker. The violence here is tame, despite the fact that Batman would probably break Jokers jaw and do permanent damage (in the real world that punch may even kill someone, there was a news article circulating last week about a soccer ref dying after being punched by a player).

Here's what happens in Watchmen:



Yeah, that's what really happens when someone with training fights someone else. Damage and death. Watchmen helped change the idea of comics and that's why it's the only graphic novel on Time magazines top 100 novels of the 20th century.

Snyder managed to get the first chunk of that in the film for the most part because he stuck so close to the source comic that the idea of vigilantes being crazy is presented in the dialog anyway. However, the violence in the Watchmen film is presented as really freaking cool. Which misses the point entirely. By filming the action in slow motion and having ridiculous wire stunts he diminishes the idea that violence is bad and destructive. Instead he opts for his usual style over substance presentation and it misses the point of the original comic.

Concerning Man of Steel, Snyder again either doesn't care about the source material or doesn't understand it (I'm throwing David Goyer under the bus for this too).

Superman is an alien who has powers beyond anything humans could ever hope for. He is Dr. Manhattan which means that he should have no reason to do anything on Earth other than conquer the living **** out of all of us. But he doesn't. Do you know why?

Pa freaking Kent. Pa Kent in the comics instilled in Clark a sense of right and wrong and teaches him to use his power responsibly. In the film? Not so much. Pa Kent teaches Clark to fear using his powers and that humans can't be trusted which makes it totally absurd for Superman to grow into the hero he is in that film. Based on the BS version of Pa Kent in Man of Steel it would have made more sense for Superman to side with Zod!

I hate Zach Snyder. He doesn't freaking get it. All he does is make films that look cool. The only reason he doesn't get as much flack from us film nerds as Michael Bay does is because his films stories aren't an nonsensical and Bay's. Please note, however, that Snyder pretty much only adapts other people's work. I haven't watched Sucker Punch, but I understand it's pretty nonsensical. Maybe he would be Bay if he just stuck with his own material.

Here we go again...I don't understand why are you here talking about something you hate? go create your thread and talk how much you hate someone,I don't go around on topics I don't enjoy.One thing is to have some problems or something but you are here 100% to hate.

__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

I think you are the one who fails to understand the nuances of the source material... Watchmen didn't just present superheros as narcissistic and sociopathic. Rorschach was not a true sociopath; he was a damaged idealist who cared deeply about justice and fairness but felt he had no choice but to dirty his hands with violent methods, to use the brutality and coldness he saw as endemic to the world to reshape it into something better for all. Manhattan was not a truly neutral entity; He became relatively detached due to his alienated perspective of time's nonlinearity, yet he ultimately also was an agent of change. The Comedian was the closest to a sociopathic superhero and even he revealed he was capable of caring.

Watchmen was not about "proving" anything bad about superheros per se, it was about how our ideals can let us down or turn against us.

As for the violence, it is portrayed at times as balletic yet also ugly, such as when Dan and Laurie fight the gang in the alley. I think you're begging the question by assuming no one can find any of Watchmen the comic's violence aesthetically pleasing in a sense; There is a certain brutal beauty to its imagery as well. The film, if anything, may be guilty of portraying the violence in a schizoid manner that is true to the book.

On his not holding to authenticity with Watchmen, youre just wrong.

When Zack Snyder was hired on to do Watchmen the producers voiced how they wanted some "necessary" changes. One was Dr Manhattens nudity. Zack agreed, shook their hands, and knew he was going to do it anyway. Its been openly talked about by both Snyder and the producers since. Saying the man didnt hold true to the original source reminds me of people caterwauling about the Peter Jackson Return Of The King. Nit picky and short sighted.

What?! Do you think some "alien invasion" that occured in the comic would hold more emotional resonance than the nuclear threat that was in the movie? Believe you me going with a nuclear holocaust would terrify an audience more, and be more "gritty" like you wished. The audience having so much introduced to them already to then register an alien invasion, it would have fallen flat.

Plainly put, I thought the Watchmen movie was better than the comic, and the changes were for the better.

Sheesh, I'm sorry I didn't go over all the characters one by one and psychoanalyze them.

But I'm not wrong. There is a certain amount of sociopathy on display in all of the masked heroes in Watchmen.

Yes, and again, I'm not writing a term paper on the comic. I'm pointing out how I think Snyder failed the material.



Ah, such beauty. Such grace. Especially in the frame where Dan rips a guys nose off...

No, I flat out disagree with you on the violence. At no point does the comic glorify or beautify the violence on display.

Changing the ending worked fine in the context of the film. Please note you brought that up, not me.

Am I wrong in the violence?

I made a thread asking if Zack Snyder was turning into the next Michael Bay once. What was resolved was a resounding no. You see Snyder has visual impact not seen since Cameron. Michael Bays impactful "scenes" are recycled in every film to a hilariously bad degree.

When fanboys can dissect your film works on YouTube, then youre a hack. They cant do this with Snyder because hes original everytime with his action, like Cameron. For instance, Sucker Punch was awful, aw-ful! The action scenes though were awesome.

This may be related, do you hate Ridley Scotts work because he always uses dark film?

I will tell you who did a film version of a Watchmen fight and did it well. Christopher Nolan.

In The Dark Knight Rises (which I like just fine in the context of the trilogy) when Bane and Batman first fight it is exactly how the violence of Watchmen should have been presented, IMO. There's no music and no slow motion. The fight is fast, brutal and violent. The result of the fight is only tamed slightly because of the need to keep it PG-13, but when Bane punches Batman in the head until his mask breaks it is one of the most perfectly captured moments of violence I've seen in a comic adaptation.