|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Apr 10, 2016 15:27:00 GMT -5
Since the movie is not exceeding box office expectations, you have to think they are trying to find a way to get the kind of return on investment from this movie they were hoping for, but didn't get because it didn't have legs at the box office. I don't know about expectations, but if they invested an additional 10%, and they're getting more than that at the box office, they should be content. BTW, it's been only two weeks, kind of early to start talking in the past tense. So a Batman and Superman film can't even make as much money as a rated R Deadpool film in the USA? . Is it really important, where the money comes from? It already has made more money worldwide than Deadpool. The question is whether it can catch Zootopia. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Apr 10, 2016 16:47:09 GMT -5
The CCF stats so far : 12 members enjoyed/loved it 4 didn't like it at all 2 were neutral about it I can't help but think that despite flaws, this and MOS will age far better as movies than Avengers, and we've still got an extended cut to look forward, one that may have the effect the EC had on The Lord Of the Ring first movie (close to a narrative disaster in its theater cut, a rich and solid piece of entertainment in its EC form, at least in my opinion). Really?! I'm the biggest pro-DC fan I can imagine, but must regretfully admit that Marvel's films are much better. THey are too much a product of their time, many of the jokes comment on stuff that will long be forgotten in ten years, they don't really have any theme beyond making money and entertaining. Whether those recent DC movies are good or not is completly up to subjective opinions, yet, they obviously have themes beyond their linear storylines. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Apr 10, 2016 17:13:04 GMT -5
Well, I find that even more disheartening. I know that "fans" most of the time think their own subjective opinion is much more valid than the ones of actual creators, so I shouldn't be surprised, but I guess I didn't expect so much of that pattern over here. I personnaly think that Ant-Man and GOTG were god-awefull movies with little redeaming qualities beyond entertainmant for 10 year olds, but I wouldn't root those to fail, that'd be just petty. It may be "petty" but that's the way it is. If BvS passes the billion dollar box office threshold, then it's essentially guaranteed that DC/WB will push ahead with the same formula. Which the majority of the critics and general public seem to despise (and I'd be right there with them). Snyder directs as if he's 15 years old. Every character has to be "dark" and "brooding" just for the hell of it. Even Superman. As I said before, at the core of it all...these are still spandex clad superheroes fighting equally goofy and over the top villains. To portray everything in this comic book world as super serious and dark would be infinitely more ridiculous than adding a little humor and light hearted tone. You can still have violence. You can still deal with mature themes. But do it when it's necessary. Not just for the hell of it because it's "uber kewl". But all this pseudo analysis you pass as facts is just your own subjective opinion. I had a profoundly diferent experience from you on those same aspects, as did many others and a majority of the people here. I'm not saying I'm right, but you draw conclusions about what executives and creators shoould or shouldn't do about a movie that is on its course to maybe make a billion dollars. Don't you see the problem in this? I personnaly hate almost all those recent marvel movies (with the exception of the first Cap America one, and maybe the first Iron Man) because I think those are bad movies. I fully ynderstand they are successfull ones and entertaining if you just want to eat popcorn, see fights and hear jokes. mMany people including me are more interested in another approach championed since the second Batman movie by Warner. The fact that superhero comics may have originaly been about goofy spandex fighters or scientists is IMHO besides the point. Fans don't like change, that's structural, creators hate stagnation. I am constantly baffled when I read some comments about the fact that Snyder or someone else didn't understand a character since he didn't represent him as his first creator depicted him (as if their wasn't contradictions already in the original years...). In my opinion, the latest creator to tackle Batman is its creator as those characters are in constant flux, especially since those are company owned. In my opinion, you are just on a crusade against an angle you didn't like. I thought the latest Star Wars movie was a colossal cinematographic cop out, I argued against it extensivly. I have nothing against anyone arguing against BVS, unless your angle is about haw it wasn't what it could have been. Star Wars was what it was , I had nothing against the amount of money it did or didn't make or against the reasons it was made for. It was sold to me and most people as something it in the end was not, at least from my perspectives. Now you and some others are claiming to know what are the figures the executives behind this movie expect, what the movie acually needs to break even, that its creators don't understand the characters, etc... How seriously am I suposed to take that? No artist I know (personnaly) allows himself to consider one of his works perfect. MOS and BVS could of course have been better, as any movies. But they had a strong vision, strong visual, actors tat I and many others thought fitted the part for the most. I enjoyed the Terrence Malick character of the MOS trailer immensly. The movie was in the end something different from that, so I was let down by my expectations, a little. I thought that as a movie, it held together thematicly rathere well, you didn't, we both have extensive knowledge and affection for those characters (I presume you do, despite your avatar  ), yet everything you said in this thread is basicaly saying by association that my opinion is irrelevant and uneducated... And I manage to not even take it personnaly, since I won't live in an ivory tower. |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Apr 10, 2016 17:34:27 GMT -5
I agree And therein lies the problem. It's basically up to DC and Warner Bros to decide that while it's nice that the movies are making money, the quality just isn't where it needs to be. There's no reason for this movie to be such a disappointment. It should've blown everyone's tits off. A $250+ million budget, the 2 most popular superheroes in existence, the first big screen appearance of Wonder Woman, 3 years of production, almost 3 hours of runtime...and this is the best they could do? That's just pathetic to me. I don't think you agree with what I said, because I was implying that their opinion doesn't hold much water. In other words, if they make a poll among those coming out of the cinema, and the general consensus is that the movie is bad, it wouldn't change my opinion about it not being bad. I don't care about how many people go to see it, or whether they like it, in reference to the quality of the movie. We agree on the whole thing being up to DC, they choose directors based on factors, we probably aren't privy to. This can also be said about other franchises: Marvel, Star Wars... Even when a high profile or critically acclaimed director is chosen, like in the cases of Burton, Singer or Lee, quality isn't guaranteed. So far, the only one who's been able to pull it off, has been the Nolan/Zimmer duo. And then there's the curious case of Whedon, who did an ok job on the Avengers, but failed with Episode VII, the task isn't easy at all. Snyder wouldn't be my first choice, but at least he lives up to his previous works, actually supersedes them with his DC flicks, IMO. Seriously? Tim Burton wasn't able to pull off quality? His Batman was an epic that was well-reviewed, set box office records, and essential led to the creation of Batman: The Animated Series and related shows. Singer's X-Men was a breakthrough. It was the second link in the Blade/X-Men/Spider-Man chain that led to this current flowering of super-hero films. And I prefer Days of Future Past to any of the Nolan Batman movies by a wide, wide margin. Ang Lee is only one of that trio whose movie was poorly retrieved (and even it has its defenders, though I'm not one of them). Nolan's Batman movies get a lot more praise than they deserve. A lot of the grittiness is simply grief-porn. It's unrealistically bleak. No city would survive to the extent Gotham had if it was so overwhelmingly corrupt. The Nolan Batmobile is such a giant hulking monstrosity that it would be easy to track. If Nolan's Batman was actually realistic that Batmobile would result in his secret identity being discovered the very first time he took it out. The Dark Knight has perhaps the dumbest ending of any blockbuster I've seen. It's hilarious that Batman's emo-flavored, illogical masochism is spun as a selfless master plan. Yes, opinions on movies are subjective yada yada yada, but that ending is about as close as you get to objectively awful. BTW, why call it the "Nolan/Zimmer duo"? Scoring the films does not seem that big/ Joss Whedon didn't make Episode VII. I guess he was in the rumor mill as a possibility, but referring to not getting the job as failure is harsh. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 10, 2016 17:41:57 GMT -5
I agree And therein lies the problem. It's basically up to DC and Warner Bros to decide that while it's nice that the movies are making money, the quality just isn't where it needs to be. There's no reason for this movie to be such a disappointment. It should've blown everyone's tits off. A $250+ million budget, the 2 most popular superheroes in existence, the first big screen appearance of Wonder Woman, 3 years of production, almost 3 hours of runtime...and this is the best they could do? That's just pathetic to me. I don't think you agree with what I said, because I was implying that their opinion doesn't hold much water. In other words, if they make a poll among those coming out of the cinema, and the general consensus is that the movie is bad, it wouldn't change my opinion about it not being bad. I don't care about how many people go to see it, or whether they like it, in reference to the quality of the movie. We agree on the whole thing being up to DC, they choose directors based on factors, we probably aren't privy to. This can also be said about other franchises: Marvel, Star Wars... Even when a high profile or critically acclaimed director is chosen, like in the cases of Burton, Singer or Lee, quality isn't guaranteed. So far, the only one who's been able to pull it off, has been the Nolan/Zimmer duo. And then there's the curious case of Whedon, who did an ok job on the Avengers, but failed with Episode VII, the task isn't easy at all. Snyder wouldn't be my first choice, but at least he lives up to his previous works, actually supersedes them with his DC flicks, IMO. You say that like it's a good thing. Snyder is a one-trick pony. He is one of the least interesting directors working. He's less interesting and a bigger parody of his own work than Burton and I never thought that would be possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Apr 10, 2016 17:46:43 GMT -5
Well, I find that even more disheartening. I know that "fans" most of the time think their own subjective opinion is much more valid than the ones of actual creators, so I shouldn't be surprised, but I guess I didn't expect so much of that pattern over here. I personnaly think that Ant-Man and GOTG were god-awefull movies with little redeaming qualities beyond entertainmant for 10 year olds, but I wouldn't root those to fail, that'd be just petty. I don't understand this reasoning. Snyder is not the "actual creator" of Batman or Superman, so he doesn't know the characters any better than a fan. But I guess your argument is that he is the actual creator of the movie, so all other opinions must take a back seat to Snyder's about whether it is a good film. The actions of making a movie and watching one are two different things. Someone may know things about making a movie, but be a poor job of the quality of the finished product (or may have blindspots). Many people that make movies, TV, music, etc. admit they haven't seen works that any interviewer isn't talking about. A great athlete can be an awful coach or commentator (e.g., Isiah Thomas). And frankly, wouldn't you expect the creator of a work to often have less objectivity, given their vested in interest in their own work, than the average movie-goer would. Ant-Man had a lot of good things going for it: a brilliant supporting performance by Michael Pena, great chemistry between Rudd and Lilly, good balance between the elements and pacing, a well-choreographed climactic fight scene, a more nuanced portrayal of a female character than you see in most superhero films (like almost every Batman film), lot of humor (ranging from subtle to broad), that keychain as "Chekhov's gun", and so on. See, you understand my reasoning far better than you claim, up to one detail, that part about opinions on it being a good film or not. Those opinions are certainly welcomed, but not in my opinion if requisiting an understanding from supposed intentions of first creator to tackle the character. Snyder isn't just the creator of the movie, he is the creator of HIS movie, which certainly makes him a better authority on its themes, structure and ambitions than fans of a version of a character that literaly had thousands of interpretations in the past 78 years of non stop exploitation. About that point with creators objectivity vs average movie-goers, it's a very interesting one, one that I've been debating internally for over 25 years, since before becoming a musician I was a music lover. I used to be annoyed with artist getting success because of a work of great quality and innovation, and as soon as they achieved it, they would break the mold and risk their next investigation to amount to nothing while they were already on a quality path that I thought was worth ongoing investigation. Since I gained some success in my music career, my understanding of this issue has vastly evolved as I now aknowledge the impossibility of repetition for a true artist, even if that is to his detriment. I personnaly am not the biggest fan of Snyder's aesthetic, but contrary to Sucker Punch, they ar much less out of contral in his DC movies, quite the opposite, so I'll respect the vision and forget about my personnal prejudices, embracing it where I can without preconcieved expectations  About Ant Man, Appart from a polarizing performance and casting of Lex Luthor, Few people seem to have issues with BVS, quite the opposite in fact. I thought the chemistry between Cahill and Adams / Affleck and Irons was great. The fight sequence in BVS was brutal, spectacular and visualy quite original. Holly Hunter acting - especially in her "last" one - was IMHO amazing, really amazing, when she realizes what's happening, conveying it all in her eyes. BVS had no humor, but that was not a failure but a very strong choice, one that I welcome after those Marvel movies. You specificly mentioned Batman movies lacking nuanced female characters, that might be a fair critique, even if the batman world indeed isn't originally rich in female characters (even if I still love Pfeiffer's Catwoman and thought the most recent Nolan one was pretty good, showcasing weakness in a nuanced and unexpected way), but that doesn't prevented those movies from having great performances in general, some even earning Oscars and Goldn Globes amongst other awards. That one would favor light hearted/comedic super hero thrillers/adventures is fine, even great, but attacks on artistic choices going the other wayarn't more right than attacks on goofyness of some movies. But the worst IMHO would be to crave balance of humor and seriousness in superhero movies, just let the creators do what they want without always putting your own expectations on a pedastal, that's all I'm saying (and I'm talking in general there, not aiming at you, Spoon ) |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Apr 10, 2016 18:02:52 GMT -5
I don't think you agree with what I said, because I was implying that their opinion doesn't hold much water. In other words, if they make a poll among those coming out of the cinema, and the general consensus is that the movie is bad, it wouldn't change my opinion about it not being bad. I don't care about how many people go to see it, or whether they like it, in reference to the quality of the movie. We agree on the whole thing being up to DC, they choose directors based on factors, we probably aren't privy to. This can also be said about other franchises: Marvel, Star Wars... Even when a high profile or critically acclaimed director is chosen, like in the cases of Burton, Singer or Lee, quality isn't guaranteed. So far, the only one who's been able to pull it off, has been the Nolan/Zimmer duo. And then there's the curious case of Whedon, who did an ok job on the Avengers, but failed with Episode VII, the task isn't easy at all. Snyder wouldn't be my first choice, but at least he lives up to his previous works, actually supersedes them with his DC flicks, IMO. Seriously? Tim Burton wasn't able to pull off quality? His Batman was an epic that was well-reviewed, set box office records, and essential led to the creation of Batman: The Animated Series and related shows. Singer's X-Men was a breakthrough. It was the second link in the Blade/X-Men/Spider-Man chain that led to this current flowering of super-hero films. And I prefer Days of Future Past to any of the Nolan Batman movies by a wide, wide margin. Nolan's Batman movies get a lot more praise than they deserve. A lot of the grittiness is simply grief-porn. It's unrealistically bleak. No city would survive to the extent Gotham had if it was so overwhelmingly corrupt. The Nolan Batmobile is such a giant hulking monstrosity that it would be easy to track. If Nolan's Batman was actually realistic that Batmobile would result in his secret identity being discovered the very first time he took it out. The Dark Knight has perhaps the dumbest ending of any blockbuster I've seen. It's hilarious that Batman's emo-flavored, illogical masochism is spun as a selfless master plan. Yes, opinions on movies are subjective yada yada yada, but that ending is about as close as you get to objectively awful. BTW, why call it the "Nolan/Zimmer duo"? Scoring the films does not seem that big/ Most agree with your very first point! The rest is just subjective opinions. Sure Singer's XMen movies were a breakthrough for superhero movies, but that doesn't make them good (they were actuall all amazingly poor as movies IMHO). You hated those batman movies, but despite all of those aspects you describe as unrealistic, they managed to say things that made people who don't care about superheroes take the character more seriously than anytime before. Those movies also set box ofice records and won some of the most prestigious awards possible. All those words (porn, emo) usually thrown to reafirm ones opinion do nothing but negate discussion. Sure the third one was too cramed and therfore less focused and ultimatly disapointing, but only marketing told you this was a trilogy. I'm perfectly fine with the ending of the second movie being the ending of the story Nolan was telling (Act 1, Bruce wayne figuring out who he is in a world that isn't yet Batman's. Act 2, A world figuring out who he is when Batman is in the equation). I realy love those movies and am the furthest away you could be from emo or violence enthusiast, unless you'd dismiss Sartre as grief-porn as well On a side note with your last point : technically, the only authors of a movie are the trio of director/writer/scorer. |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Apr 10, 2016 18:54:02 GMT -5
The CCF stats so far : 12 members enjoyed/loved it 4 didn't like it at all 2 were neutral about it I can't help but think that despite flaws, this and MOS will age far better as movies than Avengers, and we've still got an extended cut to look forward, one that may have the effect the EC had on The Lord Of the Ring first movie (close to a narrative disaster in its theater cut, a rich and solid piece of entertainment in its EC form, at least in my opinion). Really?! I'm the biggest pro-DC fan I can imagine, but must regretfully admit that Marvel's films are much better. I prefer DC over Marvel by a huge margin as well and I haven't liked a live action DC film since 1989's Batman. |
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on Apr 10, 2016 19:54:06 GMT -5
Holy crap! I think we just discovered that Zach Snyder posts on this forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 11, 2016 0:18:01 GMT -5
why call it the "Nolan/Zimmer duo"? Joss Whedon didn't make Episode VII. I guess he was in the rumor mill as a possibility, but referring to not getting the job as failure is harsh. Because I consider Zimmer co-responsible for Nolan's success. It was simply a mistake on my part, post edited. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 11, 2016 0:56:23 GMT -5
You say that like it's a good thing. Relatively speaking, it is. It means he took the job seriously and performed his task, to the best of his abilities. The others did much worse than in their best works: - Burton was still trying to find his own voice.
- Singer was a mile off his previous mark.
- The Ice Storm, led me to expect a committed film, from a god director. That was the main source of my disappointment.
But these aren't the only failures, in my mind. Del Toro, Webb, Trank, Branagh... they all have better things to speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Apr 11, 2016 1:03:57 GMT -5
I actually find BvS to be very similar to Tim Burton's films in certain aspects. Both are style over substance. Both have weak character motivations (actually Burton's are nonexistent). Both are needlessly dark or disgusting in places. Both have Batman killing without remorse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 11, 2016 1:15:10 GMT -5
I actually find BvS to be very similar to Tim Burton's films in certain aspects. Both are style over substance. Both have weak character motivations (actually Burton's are nonexistent). Both are needlessly dark or disgusting in places. Both have Batman killing without remorse. It's been nearly 30 years, since I saw the Burton movies but, did he kill? That seems off, somehow. But again, I don't recall them vividly, I only remember they being the excessive Burton, of those few years. He didn't start to evolve until Ed Wood, an evolution that culminated with Big Fish. He started a decline, after that. Out of all the similarities you mention, the only one I agree with, is Bruce's motivation, and I've already stated that. Notice that I say Bruce, and not Batman, because this is about man versus super-man (with the hyphen). |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Apr 11, 2016 1:36:22 GMT -5
I actually find BvS to be very similar to Tim Burton's films in certain aspects. Both are style over substance. Both have weak character motivations (actually Burton's are nonexistent). Both are needlessly dark or disgusting in places. Both have Batman killing without remorse. It's been nearly 30 years, since I saw the Burton movies but, did he kill? That seems off, somehow. But again, I don't recall them vividly, I only remember they being the excessive Burton, of those few years. He didn't start to evolve until Ed Wood, an evolution that culminated with Big Fish. He started a decline, after that. Out of all the similarities you mention, the only one I agree with, is Bruce's motivation, and I've already stated that. Notice that I say Bruce, and not Batman, because this is about man versus super-man (with the hyphen). He drops a bomb in front of a bunch of people in Axis chemicals, detonating it in their faces and brining the whole place down. He kills a bunch of people with missiles from the Batplane. He throws a man off a skyscraper (before reaching the joker). In Returns he sets a man on fire and smiles as he attaches a bomb to another man and blows him up. Keaton was playing a sociopath. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2016 5:52:10 GMT -5
I was talking to several of my friends at the Comic Book Store that I go to and they all said that 55% of the moviegoers did not like the movie at all and only 25% of them like it very much ... the rest of the moviegoers and including the 55% vowed not seeing it again even in theaters and on television. Which means that 25% of the moviegoers wanted to have a 2nd look at the movie and the rest don't it's kind of telling you something about this movie. I just wanted to share that.
|
|
), yet everything you said in this thread is basicaly saying by association that my opinion is irrelevant and uneducated... And I manage to not even take it personnaly, since I won't live in an ivory tower.
