Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Wedwood

BvS has now made $800m at the box office from a $200m budget, it has had a similar performance to Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 3. Similar critical reactions for each movie too.

That should get somebody like JJ Abrams in to sort the DC movies, Snyder's gloomy version isn't really what the general public wants. Fans of the Frank Miller graphic novels get what Snyder is doing, but it's too off the beaten track for mainstream audiences.

Mickeroo

Wedwood wrote: »

BvS has now made $800m at the box office from a $200m budget, it has had a similar performance to Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 3. Similar critical reactions for each movie too.

That should get somebody like JJ Abrams in to sort the DC movies, Snyder's gloomy version isn't really what the general public wants. Fans of the Frank Miller graphic novels get what Snyder is doing, but it's too off the beaten track for mainstream audiences.

Fan of Frank Miller's Batman stuff myself, from watching BvS the only person I think who isn't getting what someone is doing was Zach Snyder when he read Dark Knight Returns.

Nervous Wreck

Mickeroo wrote: »

Fan of Frank Miller's Batman stuff myself, from watching BvS the only person I think who isn't getting what someone is doing was Zach Snyder when he read Dark Knight Returns.

Yep. Snyder only understands visuals. I don't think he read TDKR so much as viewed it. Clearly none of the story actually resonated with him.

Mickeroo

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Yep. Snyder only understands visuals. I don't think he read TDKR so much as viewed it. Clearly none of the story actually resonated with him.

It's rather frustrating imo because ultimately, visually he gets a lot of stuff right over the course of both films (though I think the finales in both cases fall apart in that regard) but it felt like all he took from Dark Knight Returns was "Ooh that power armour is cool!" and "I like that bit where he stood up high with a rifle, lets make Batman stand up somewhere high with a rifle too!"

faceman

Well Snyder and WB has been listening. They're reshot the movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QXKzpX5A-I

Cantstandsya

Late to see this but finally got around to it yesterday.

Everything I'd heard about it said it was awful and, unfortunately, it really was. I hated it but I wonder if I'd been sort of primed to hate it... I went in expecting it to be crap so the film had a lot of work to do to win me over. I'm not sure if that's really fair way to watch a movie but them's the breaks.

One thing that I found especially jarring was the music, it was a weird mix of classical and bizarre techno that just didn't mesh at all. I guess when the music is done by Hans Zimmer and Junkie Pimp 5000 you can expect a bit of incongruity.

I thought Batman was quite good. I liked the focus on his sleuthing ability and how his fights looked like those in Arkham Asylum - although it would have been better if his punches etc. were a bit more realistic (i.e. not punching/slamming people through walls and floors).

I don't know how Snyder managed to gain so much control over these DC movies but it's a real shame.

Harry Palmr

The cliff it went off at the US box office was indeed a cliff - it's clearly getting no repeat business. Looks like it'll won't reach $350m, it'll clear a billion globally but nonetheless that'll be considered a disappointment by the industry.

Tony EH

$250 mil dollar film makes a billion and is considered a flop?

Sometimes I wish the 70's were back.

https://encrypted.google.com/#q=batman+v+superman+box+office

Billy86

Tony EH wrote: »

$250 mil dollar film makes a billion and is considered a flop?

Sometimes I wish the 70's were back.

https://encrypted.google.com/#q=batman+v+superman+box+office

That links says $805.5mn, not $1bn. It obviously did turn a profit, but that number is still far below expectations. A big part of the reason why is in the link directly below where the figure is stated: 'Captain America: Civil War' set to pummel 'Batman v Superman' at the box office

Iron Man 3 made 1.2bn, Avengers 1 made 1.5bn & 2 made 1.4bn. Deadpool was a much smaller movie yet made $758mn, while no casual viewers had a clue who the 'Guardians of the Galaxy' were and it went on to make $773mn. BvS combined the two biggest brands names that DC have to offer (arguably the two biggest comic characters, full stop) and have just barely scraped above GotG & Deadpool, while only making 67% of Iron Man 3's take, 57% what Age of Ultron did, and just over half (53%) of what Avengers Assemble garnered.

Man of Steel didn't do great either, at 668mn - but he is highly bankable on his own, you would think that his 'floor' in terms of earning power is around the $400mn set by Superman returns. Dark Knight Rises (and Dark Knight) on the other hand, each eeked in over $1bn despite the third one being a disappointment as a film.

There is also the trend that poor movies in a franchise tend to impact the earnings of the next one, and while X-Men First Class for example didn't do great commercially, it really grabbed people again after the disaster that was X3: The Last Stand, which led to Days of Future Past doubling the income when it came out. In that sense, things don't bode particularly well for DC if they insist on keeping Snyder at the helm.

techdiver

Billy86 wrote: »

That links says $805.5mn, not $1bn. It obviously did turn a profit, but that number is still far below expectations. A big part of the reason why is in the link directly below where the figure is stated: 'Captain America: Civil War' set to pummel 'Batman v Superman' at the box office

Iron Man 3 made 1.2bn, Avengers 1 made 1.5bn & 2 made 1.4bn. Deadpool was a much smaller movie yet made $758mn, while no casual viewers had a clue who the 'Guardians of the Galaxy' were and it went on to make $773mn. BvS combined the two biggest brands names that DC have to offer (arguably the two biggest comic characters, full stop) and have just barely scraped above GotG & Deadpool, while only making 67% of Iron Man 3's take, 57% what Age of Ultron did, and just over half (53%) of what Avengers Assemble garnered.

Man of Steel didn't do great either, at 668mn - but he is highly bankable on his own, you would think that his 'floor' in terms of earning power is around the $400mn set by Superman returns. Dark Knight Rises (and Dark Knight) on the other hand, each eeked in over $1bn despite the third one being a disappointment as a film.

There is also the trend that poor movies in a franchise tend to impact the earnings of the next one, and while X-Men First Class for example didn't do great commercially, it really grabbed people again after the disaster that was X3: The Last Stand, which led to Days of Future Past doubling the income when it came out. In that sense, things don't bode particularly well for DC if they insist on keeping Snyder at the helm.

While agree with the Snyder comment (his name is toxic now), Iron Man 2 was muck and didn't do The Avengers any harm.

Tony EH

Billy86 wrote: »

That links says $805.5mn, not $1bn. It obviously did turn a profit, but that number is still far below expectations.

I was responding to Harry's estimate of a billion.

It's a great profit even as it stands. Hollywood needs to get some perspective. Their execs "expectations" are absurd.

SteM

Tony EH wrote: »

I was responding to Harry's estimate of a billion.

It's a great profit even as it stands. Hollywood needs to get some perspective. Their execs "expectations" are absurd.

Remember, it's $250m production cost. At least double that when you include marketing.

Harry Palmr

That films like this are being made for a quarter of a billion dollars (think about that!) and are fvcked unless China likes it means Hollywood is skating on thin ice I think. At some point someone will over-reach and sink a big studio.

Billy86

Harry Palmr wrote: »

That films like this are being made for a quarter of a billion dollars (think about that!) and are fvcked unless China likes it means Hollywood is skating on thin ice I think. At some point someone will over-reach and sink a big studio.

Yeah, that's probably coming. I'm a little ambivalent toward it to be honest - on one hand I am not a fan of large blockbusters for the most part because they play everything to safe to a formula that it stifles creativity. On the other hand, these types of films are also what allow the studios to go out on a limb every now and then and risk flushing $50-100mn down the toilet in the interests of making something really good, rather than really profitable.

It's interesting also with the Chinese market, because in large part their taste is bad - as in, incredibly bad. The smiley-happy wink-wink bullsh*t put into recent Terminator movies for example was said to be hugely influenced by keeping the Chinese market happy. On the other hand, it makes you wonder if they look aspects of what we like and think the same - cinema is not realistic after all, so different cultures take on their own 'altered realism' in different ways. Just something interesting that I read which has been bouncing around the back of my head a few days. Probably to help justify how awful the changes made to appease Chinese audiences can be at times!

Billy86

techdiver wrote: »

While agree with the Snyder comment (his name is toxic now), Iron Man 2 was muck and didn't do The Avengers any harm.

I didn't like it either, but the thing with Marvel's formula is that they have it down perfectly. The end result of that was a 72% Rotten Tomato rating for the movie, compared to 28% for BvS. The Avengers movie was also a big of a phenomenon, because as much as it was set to do well, it just blew everything out of the water and (if I recall) had huge lasting power in the box office on it's own merits. After so many superhero movies, it was one of the first (outside of X-Men, which would always be that way by design) to feature multiple heroes interacting with each other, something which really got audiences interested, and moved the Marvel/DC movie hype up to a new level (along with the Batman trilogy).

On the flipside, I have heard it said that the Wolverine Origin movie hurt the box office for X-Men First Class (only made $350mn off a $150mn-ish production budget, whereas Wolverine had the same budget but made about $375mn). Likewise, there have been three (awful) Fantastic Four movies, and each one has made less than the one before it, with last year's reboot attempt making only $170mn on a $120mn budget (it probably lost money after factoring in marketing, etc).

ps3lover

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, that's probably coming. I'm a little ambivalent toward it to be honest - on one hand I am not a fan of large blockbusters for the most part because they play everything to safe to a formula that it stifles creativity. On the other hand, these types of films are also what allow the studios to go out on a limb every now and then and risk flushing $50-100mn down the toilet in the interests of making something really good, rather than really profitable.

It's interesting also with the Chinese market, because in large part their taste is bad - as in, incredibly bad. The smiley-happy wink-wink bullsh*t put into recent Terminator movies for example was said to be hugely influenced by keeping the Chinese market happy. On the other hand, it makes you wonder if they look aspects of what we like and think the same - cinema is not realistic after all, so different cultures take on their own 'altered realism' in different ways. Just something interesting that I read which has been bouncing around the back of my head a few days. Probably to help justify how awful the changes made to appease Chinese audiences can be at times!

The Chinese kind of rejected the last Terminator movie. It had a massive opening in China, then it proceeded to drop like a rock. Same with BvS, it opened very well in China but had 77% drops over the next few weeks.
That doesn't bode well for future instalments.

Billy86

ps3lover wrote: »

The Chinese kind of rejected the last Terminator movie. It had a massive opening in China, then it proceeded to drop like a rock. Same with BvS, it opened very well in China but had 77% drops over the next few weeks.
That doesn't bode well for future instalments.

That's reassuring to hear, actually! I guess either the article was flawed, or Hollywood misread the audiences if they still did include stuff for that reason.

techdiver

Billy86 wrote: »

I didn't like it either, but the thing with Marvel's formula is that they have it down perfectly. The end result of that was a 72% Rotten Tomato rating for the movie, compared to 28% for BvS

That's what I find annoying about reviews and RT in general. There is definitely a lot of following the herd.

BvS should be no more near 28% in the same way Iron Man 2 shouldn't be near 72%.

I just feel Marvel get a much easier ride from critics for some reason. It's probably down to the Snyder factor. Critics hate him and as long as he is in charge of the DC properties they are in serious trouble. I love batman and Superman as characters, but I sadly predict that Justice League will get panned by critics also when it is released.

Mickeroo

techdiver wrote: »

That's what I find annoying about reviews and RT in general. There is definitely a lot of following the herd.

BvS should be no more near 28% in the same way Iron Man 2 shouldn't be near 72%.

I just feel Marvel get a much easier ride from critics for some reason. It's probably down to the Snyder factor. Critics hate him and as long as he is in charge of the DC properties they are in serious trouble. I love batman and Superman as characters, but I sadly predict that Justice League will get panned by critics also when it is released.

The marvel films are pretty generic and have their flaws, but they get better reviews because they're generally (in some cases vastly) better films than BvS imo rather than some conspiracy against Snyder. It's not like any of his films before Suckerpunch got panned, he just hasn't really made anything of note since Watchmen (an underrated film for me). I love Batman and Superman as characters too, considerably more than any marvel character and some of the reviews were a bit overly scathing but that doesn't change what a very poorly put together and disappointing film BvS was.

Chain Smoker

techdiver wrote: »

That's what I find annoying about reviews and RT in general. There is definitely a lot of following the herd.

BvS should be no more near 28% in the same way Iron Man 2 shouldn't be near 72%.

I just feel Marvel get a much easier ride from critics for some reason. It's probably down to the Snyder factor. Critics hate him and as long as he is in charge of the DC properties they are in serious trouble. I love batman and Superman as characters, but I sadly predict that Justice League will get panned by critics also when it is released.

Dude, it had a record breaking opening weekend. Critics could absolutely despise it and that'd still do almost nothing to its momentum. What killed it was a total absence of word of mouth praise following the opening weekend.


You're right about the 28 vs 72 discrepency being misleading though. That's why you've got to cross reference with the average rating, give some weighting to the top critics and factor in aspects regarding the period of its release (e.g. look at how many films seem to hit the 9/10 average rating when they're released in Oscar season, regardless of the actual quality, critics are caught up in something of a hype frenzy and will hand out 5 star reviews a lot more easily). The thing there is, Iron Man 2 was a film that had a lot of goodwill riding with it. It was the sequel to a very well received movie, same director (who has a decent track record overall) with two leads in or around the peak of their popularity. There's an awful lot there that would lead to someone giving a 3 star review instead of a 2.
BvS, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing that would lead anyone to giving it the benefit of the doubt, it's actually a bit amazing how unattractive of a product they produced with their strongest possible starting point (the two biggest names together) and shows a fundamental understanding of their market (especially compared to Marvel, who have been incredibly savvy by bringing in names like Joss Whedon who can generate an infectious sort of excitement with them).

Once you're conscious of the fact Warner were/are absolutely trying to create their own version of the Marvel universe here, it's impossible not to look at something like this and compare it to the Marvel films from a marketing mindset (these films exist to sell you on the next film or five). It's impossible to deny that Disney have been very successful on that front in a way that warrants a begrudging kind of respect from even the harshest of critics.

Ben Gadot

techdiver wrote: »

That's what I find annoying about reviews and RT in general. There is definitely a lot of following the herd.

BvS should be no more near 28% in the same way Iron Man 2 shouldn't be near 72%.

I just feel Marvel get a much easier ride from critics for some reason. It's probably down to the Snyder factor. Critics hate him and as long as he is in charge of the DC properties they are in serious trouble. I love batman and Superman as characters, but I sadly predict that Justice League will get panned by critics also when it is released.

Marvel have struck a nice formula, their films nearly always have the audience leaving happy or at least happy with the venture. They also have zero rewatchability or fail to garner the original buzz on 2nd viewing.

Ask how many of these top critics would have these films in their top 10 or 20 of the decade and you'll see what I mean.

Snyder and WB for better or worse have gone with a different formula and have to stick with it now. They've established a tone and it would be absolutely embarrassing if they just abandoned it because they're afraid people don't like "dark" movies within the genre.

Dark isn't the issue. A tighter script, more defined roles and playing it simple when required will save Justice League. Turning it into a Whedonesque world full of pep where everyone's a cool smart ass will not.

WB quite simply need to have balls and work with what they have.

techdiver

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Marvel have struck a nice formula, their films nearly always have the audience leaving happy or at least happy with the venture. They also have zero rewatchability or fail to garner the original buzz on 2nd viewing.

Ask how many of these top critics would have these films in their top 10 or 20 of the decade and you'll see what I mean.

Snyder and WB for better or worse have gone with a different formula and have to stick with it now. They've established a tone and it would be absolutely embarrassing if they just abandoned it because they're afraid people don't like "dark" movies within the genre.

Dark isn't the issue. A tighter script, more defined roles and playing it simple when required will save Justice League. Turning it into a Whedonesque world full of pep where everyone's a cool smart ass will not.

WB quite simply need to have balls and work with what they have.

I agree that they shouldn't follow the marvel light hearted approach, but I'm not sure Snyder is the right person to steer the ship.

spacecoyote

Finally got to see this last night with the missus and as she put it...

"It was fine but there was just so much that they tried to cram in that it wrecked the flow of the film"

Think that about summarises it for me too, trying to do too much at once.

It was just a relentlessly morose slog for most of the movie.

It wasn't all bad, but I did look at my watch more times than should be required in that period of time.

The only light from the whole night was watching the Civil War & Suicide Squad trailers on the big screen as I'd missed a few bits only seeing them on my mobile screen

Penn

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Marvel have struck a nice formula, their films nearly always have the audience leaving happy or at least happy with the venture. They also have zero rewatchability or fail to garner the original buzz on 2nd viewing.

Disagree completely. I couldn't even guess at how many times I've rewatched some of the Marvel movies, particularly Thor, GOTG and both Avengers films. For me, they hold up to multiple viewings and particularly with GOTG and Avengers:AOU I found that I've enjoyed them more after multiple viewings than the first time.

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Snyder and WB for better or worse have gone with a different formula and have to stick with it now. They've established a tone and it would be absolutely embarrassing if they just abandoned it because they're afraid people don't like "dark" movies within the genre.

Dark isn't the issue. A tighter script, more defined roles and playing it simple when required will save Justice League. Turning it into a Whedonesque world full of pep where everyone's a cool smart ass will not.

WB quite simply need to have balls and work with what they have.

This I do agree with though. There's nothing wrong with "Dark". If anything, it's what DC needs to set itself apart from the Marvel movies. But they also need to avoid going too far with it. You can have dark while also giving your characters something to occasionally be happy about. You can have dark while also allowing a bit of colour into your film.

Dark isn't the issue. The issue is trying to catch up with Marvel by throwing all of their characters together far too quickly, and trying to cram far too much character development into BvS when it simply hasn't been earned or given enough time to grow naturally.

Penn

Also, it's been revealed that the weapon the Robin suit is holding in the film isn't simply a staff like some interpretations of the character has used, but a type of axe.

http://www.gamesradar.com/batman-v-superman-robin-axe/

So not only was Batman okay with killing, seems like he trained Robin to do the same.

This is one of those areas where "Dark" isn't a good thing.

Tony EH

SteM wrote: »

Remember, it's $250m production cost. At least double that when you include marketing.

$160 mil for marketing according to wiki.

If it does make a bil back, it's still nothing to scoff at.

To be honest though, I think at that point if nobody makes another superhero film for the next decade because BvS doesn't make a squillion dollars, I wouldn't "bat" an eyelid.

techdiver

Tony EH wrote: »

$160 mil for marketing according to wiki.

If it does make a bil back, it's still nothing to scoff at.

To be honest though, I think at that point if nobody makes another superhero film for the next decade because BvS doesn't make a squillion dollars, I wouldn't "bat" an eyelid.

Ben Gadot

Penn wrote: »

Disagree completely. I couldn't even guess at how many times I've rewatched some of the Marvel movies, particularly Thor, GOTG and both Avengers films. For me, they hold up to multiple viewings and particularly with GOTG and Avengers:AOU I found that I've enjoyed them more after multiple viewings than the first time.



This I do agree with though. There's nothing wrong with "Dark". If anything, it's what DC needs to set itself apart from the Marvel movies. But they also need to avoid going too far with it. You can have dark while also giving your characters something to occasionally be happy about. You can have dark while also allowing a bit of colour into your film.

Dark isn't the issue. The issue is trying to catch up with Marvel by throwing all of their characters together far too quickly, and trying to cram far too much character development into BvS when it simply hasn't been earned or given enough time to grow naturally.

I enjoyed AOU and GotG immensely in the cinema, so can't explain my difficulty in rewatching them. I turned AoU off after 30 minutes and only rewatched GotG due to being with other people, but it bored me on the 2nd viewing.

I guess the best way I can explain it is that they're the type of films that satisfy me on first viewing, yet I don't feel there's enough going on to warrant repeated viewings. Like I don't think I'll be surprised by anything new on 2nd viewing.

The Phase 1 films at the time I watched repeatedly and enjoyed, mainly because the unknown factor was still there and I was keen to spot little hints at what lies ahead. That novelty is more or less gone for me now.

Brief_Lives

Good news for fans of this movie... there will be a 3 hour directors cut release in bluray/DVD/etc around July 16th... date not 100% certain...

here's the info..

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Here-How-Long-Batman-V-Superman-Extended-Cut-Run-127487.html

IncognitoMan

I actually can't wait to see the r-rated 3 hour version. I wonder how much of the actual fight scenes were toned down for the cinema

McLoughlin

I'm slightly disappointed after reading there was a 4 hour cut we are only getting 3 hours I'm guessing the missing hour was rough unfinished footage that they are saving for the 10th anniversary release or some such event

Nody

Tony EH wrote: »

If it does make a bil back, it's still nothing to scoff at.

It is highly unlikely going to get anywhere near a billion dollars however; it lost 81% in the second week (normally it would lose 50%) and another 54% the week after that. That only highlights how poorly the movie been received by the people watching it and how poor the rewatch rate has been.

Compare this to The Dark Knight Rises who not only had the issue with the killing in the cinema scaring people away (and ended up wtih half the first week sales by comparison) but ended up making more money in the cinemas still.

homerun_homer

McLoughlin wrote: »

I'm slightly disappointed after reading there was a 4 hour cut we are only getting 3 hours I'm guessing the missing hour was rough unfinished footage that they are saving for the 10th anniversary release or some such event

Just stick half the film on slo-mo and you'll make up the 4 hour running time to see what you missed.

Chain Smoker

McLoughlin wrote: »

I'm slightly disappointed after reading there was a 4 hour cut we are only getting 3 hours I'm guessing the missing hour was rough unfinished footage that they are saving for the 10th anniversary release or some such event

The 4 hour cut was never going to be an actual thing, that'd be box office suicide (effectively removing at least one extra screening a day in every theatre showing it, going over 2 hours . Even when Snyder would've been editing down that cut, he'd know at that point that there'd still be at least an hour to cull.

It's like when people go on about the Thin Red Line and Apocalypse Now originally having 6 hour cuts, they were workprints. Just because they existed doesn't mean anyone ever had them in mind for release.

googled eyes

Nody wrote: »

It is highly unlikely going to get anywhere near a billion dollars however

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Batman-v-Superman-Dawn-of-Justice#tab=summary

Currently sitting at $853M. Prob won't have the legs for 1B unless it gets a bump from Suicide Squad and the R rated release

Chain Smoker

googled eyes wrote: »

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Batman-v-Superman-Dawn-of-Justice#tab=summary

Currently sitting at $853M. Prob won't have the legs for 1B unless it gets a bump from Suicide Squad and the R rated release

Considering its success outside of the US (and the huge disparity between how much of the box office is pocketed by theatres in the US compared to most everywhere else) and Deadpool (iirc) not even getting a Chinese release, the actual amount of money coming in from the film to WB may not be that much more than Fox got from Deadpool, which is beyond nuts.

TonyD79

Deadpool had good word of mouth reviews . In this day and age people will wait till a digital copy of a film comes available "weeks" later unless its getting good reviews. Just seen Deadpool last nite and while it was funny I wast blown away by it and much preferred Batman vs Superman.

techdiver

TonyD79 wrote: »

Deadpool had good word of mouth reviews . In this day and age people will wait till a digital copy of a film comes available "weeks" later unless its getting good reviews. Just seen Deadpool last nite and while it was funny I wast blown away by it and much preferred Batman vs Superman.

I agree. Whilst Deadpool was different and funny, it doesn't hold up on second viewing. I can see it being a one trick pony also, as the sequel will be more of the same.

IncognitoMan

Deadpool is just about being fun,a comedy and like most comedies Id say most of the fun is in the jokes the 1st time round, doesn't work as well when you know what jokes are coming. It also hasn't got anything like the sort of world building going on in BvS so doesn't really require a 2nd viewing.

I seen Civil war the last day and while I did really like it, for me anyway the difference isn't massive between my enjoyment of BvS and civil war.

I've seen a few 10/10 in the civil war thread and it's really starting to make me wonder are people actually influenced by crowd mentality in these films or films in general?

That airport scene is cool as **** though

Ben Gadot

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Deadpool is just about being fun,a comedy and like most comedies Id say most of the fun is in the jokes the 1st time round, doesn't work as well when you know what jokes are coming. It also hasn't got anything like the sort of world building going on in BvS so doesn't really require a 2nd viewing.

I seen Civil war the last day and while I did really like it, for me anyway the difference isn't massive between my enjoyment of BvS and civil war.

I've seen a few 10/10 in the civil war thread and it's really starting to make me wonder are people actually influenced by crowd mentality in these films or films in general?

That airport scene is cool as **** though

There's no point getting into that argument, as even if it's accurate people aren't going to admit to being led by the crowd mentality.

It's frustrating for fans of BvS, but I can understand why people are less forgiving of it. It just doesn't have the goodwill and benefit of a established universe, and the blame for that falls squarely on the shoulders of WB who tried to do too much too soon.

FunLover18

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Deadpool is just about being fun,a comedy and like most comedies Id say most of the fun is in the jokes the 1st time round, doesn't work as well when you know what jokes are coming. It also hasn't got anything like the sort of world building going on in BvS so doesn't really require a 2nd viewing.

I seen Civil war the last day and while I did really like it, for me anyway the difference isn't massive between my enjoyment of BvS and civil war.

I've seen a few 10/10 in the civil war thread and it's really starting to make me wonder are people actually influenced by crowd mentality in these films or films in general?

That airport scene is cool as **** though

In regard to Deadpool's lack of world building, I think it's clear Fox didnt have much confidence in it hence the low budget and they only allowed the use one "established" cinematic X-Man who I don't think has had a line of dialogue before and one completely new character. The fourth wall breaking (eg the line about which Xavier they're going to take him to) means it's difficult to integrate Deadpool into a cinematic world. I think that actually worked in its favour and it's the closest a cinema going audience has had to a truly standalone superhero movie in a long, long time.

In regard to the crowd mentality in these films; it was obvious, even to people that don't follow comic book movies, that WB were rushing their CU in order to catch up with Marvel. I don't think anyone could begrudge them a CU but they are just throwing it together. The fact that MoS was not well received and a poor marketing campaign also contributed to lower expectations and overall it just came across as a cynical cash-in.

Ben Gadot

I still appreciate the talents of Snyder but he was the wrong man from the beginning to direct a Superman film.

I'm pretty sure he's on record saying that he couldn't get Superman and his dream was to make a dark knight returns film. There was also a clash of ideals in terms of WB wanting a Nolanesque universe yet a more accessible one in terms of building a cinematic universe.

To put it simply, WB had a questionable vision and put someone not equipped in charge to deliver it. The reason the MCU works so well is because Marvel Studios are self made: ravaged by rights being sold to the likes of Fox and Sony, they took what they had (B players) and turned it into gold. But that's the thing, those decisions were theirs to make and theirs alone.

WB should give that power to DC inhouse but they never will.

IncognitoMan

Just to be clear I wasn't criticising Deadpool for a lack of world building. I didn't expect any from the film at all so I actually probably got more than expected.

My point was there isn't as much reason to go back and rewatch as it doesn't tie in with other movies as much. As a poster had said he didn't feel a need to rewatch deadpool.

I'm aware of the whole low budget, minimised risk approach that Fox took to deadpool.

Ben Gadot

Deadpool was good craic but the problem with continuing with it hurts anyone else involved. The treatment of Colossus was not impressive to say the least.

Penn

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Deadpool was good craic but the problem with continuing with it hurts anyone else involved. The treatment of Colossus was not impressive to say the least.

I actually thought it was the best representation of Colossus yet. The previous films just had him turn to metal, punch things, turn back to flesh. He had zero personality whatsoever. I thought he came across really well in Deadpool, as a mentor and a representative of the X-Men.

Ben Gadot

Penn wrote: »

I actually thought it was the best representation of Colossus yet. The previous films just had him turn to metal, punch things, turn back to flesh. He had zero personality whatsoever. I thought he came across really well in Deadpool, as a mentor and a representative of the X-Men.

But you're going from one extreme to the other, going from having a non role to having a role that is there for comedic relief topped off with comical Russian accent.

Explain to me how you apply that Colossus to the universe of X-Men Apocalypse? Is he just there for comic relief? If so that's an embarrassing treatment of one of the few characters that could believably contribute to offing Apocalypse.

Mickeroo

Ben Gadot wrote: »

But you're going from one extreme to the other, going from having a non role to having a role that is there for comedic relief topped off with comical Russian accent.

Explain to me how you apply that Colossus to the universe of X-Men Apocalypse? Is he just there for comic relief? If so that's an embarrassing treatment of one of the few characters that could believably contribute to offing Apocalypse.

Deadpool isn't literally in the same universe as the other X-Men films though. The comics regularly use otherwise serious characters for comic relief while still remaining true to the character elsewhere (which is what they achieved with Colossus imo), it isn't embarrasing, it's accurate. Just because he's comic relief in deadpool doesn't mean they'd have to play him that way in an X-Men film. And collossus has always had a stereotypical russian accent in most thing I've seen him in, he's a pretty absurd character but then most superheroes are if you look at them rationally which is kind of the point of Deadpool.

EagererBeaver

I can't believe that this debate is still going on.

By popular consensus, BvS is a bad, bad film. Some on here vocally disagree with that to the extent that they actually attempt to insinuate that there's some sort of DC vs Marvel soccer style tribalism that influences people's view of the films and accordingly shout "but Marvel" at everything.

Forget all this crap about having to appreciate it in context of building a universe etc. It's just a bad movie.

Penn

Ben Gadot wrote: »

But you're going from one extreme to the other, going from having a non role to having a role that is there for comedic relief topped off with comical Russian accent.

Explain to me how you apply that Colossus to the universe of X-Men Apocalypse? Is he just there for comic relief? If so that's an embarrassing treatment of one of the few characters that could believably contribute to offing Apocalypse.

How is Colossus the comedic relief? It's a Deadpool movie. Deadpool is the comedic relief. And yes, Colossus has a comedic Russian accent. It's a comedy, and he's Russian.

Yes, the tone of the film means he's played up for laughs and is a bit over the top, but it's still a far better representation of the character than the other X-Men films which solely has him as muscle with zero personality.

IncognitoMan

EagererBeaver wrote: »

I can't believe that this debate is still going on.

By popular consensus, BvS is a bad, bad film. Some on here vocally disagree with that to the extent that they actually attempt to insinuate that there's some sort of DC vs Marvel soccer style tribalism that influences people's view of the films and accordingly shout "but Marvel" at everything.

Forget all this crap about having to appreciate it in context of building a universe etc. It's just a bad movie.

You're in the batman v superman thread.

Did you expect people would be in this thread not talking about the movie or the bigger talking points around the movie?

If you don't like it you're allowed unfollow the thread you know

As for the "soccer style tribalism". Nobody that has posted in the last few posts has said that, if you think otherwise then I think you misunderstood something somewhere.