Gatsby77

Huh? But it doesn't matter what question Irons was asked: The end result is the same: Irons, one of the principals of BvS is on record as unambiguously calling the film "very muddled" and "overstuffed." I actually work in PR; I spin messaging for a living. And that quote by Irons is unspinnable.

How do we know he's misquoted if we weren't there? I may not be the best at reading comprehension but I thought the given quote is clear: "Deservedly so. I mean it took £800 million, so the kicking didn’t matter but it was sort of overstuffed…" He went on to add, "It was very muddled." So he: 1) Admits it received a kicking by the critics (which it did; this is a fact) 2) Says it deserved the kicking because it was "overstuffed" & "muddled" (his opinion) and notes 3) it ultimately didn't matter because it made a ton of money at the box office (while he overstates the amount by a third, that may just be a typo -- the sentiment remains the same & is based in fact) Am I missing something? What is unclear or misquoted?

So...quotes don't (or shouldn't) count if a reporter asks their subject a leading question by first presenting...facts? It's not like Irons (or Affleck, or Snyder) are not aware of the film's negative reception and underperformance. Also, it's a bad quote to begin with: Irons states the film made "£800 million." It did not. It made ~$830 million, or about £600 million.

I like Dalton as well. And "The Living Daylights" was the best book-to-screen adaption. Granted, the entire short story took only about three minutes of screen time in the film, but the entire story was there & complete. It would have been great to see an in-his-prime Dalton in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, as that's probably my favorite of the books. If Connery had played the role rather than Lazenby, hands down it'd be considered the best Bond film.

I thought Fleming wanted David Niven for the role -- one of the original film producers is on record as saying Fleming even wrote Casino Royale with Niven in mind.

You realize that polls on a comic book message boards (ie., the most diehard comic fans on the planet) have _zero_ bearing on a film's actual quality and/or public reception, right? Like -- I'll defend the Watchmen movie to the end of days but it was doomed to critical & commercial mediocrity from the start because the story itself isn't meant to appeal to the masses. As a comic book geek, I _loved_ it, but there were few, if any, non-comic fans I could recommend it to because of its message and overall worldview. He made a film for the diehard superhero fans, but in so doing nearly definitionally alienated the public at large. The reason I don't feel the same way about BvS is that with a few easy tweaks Snyder could have made a film that was leagues better in quality _and_ far more commercially and critically successful. It boggles my mind how he could have been given such a no-fail concept and a) messed it up so thoroughly and b) been allowed to do so by those in charge at Warner Bros. Luckily, with the creative shuffle and appointment of Geoff Johns, perhaps DC can prevent such an egregious misfire with the Justice League, etc.

Agreed. I got to a work trip to Cuba back in 1997 (we traveled on a religious / humanitarian exemption) and it was amazing. All the cars (even the non-U.S.) ones dated from before the embargo. So you'd see 1950s-60s Chevys (like, right out of the movie Grease) everywhere, and they were still running. We traveled to the work site every day in a 40 year-old Mercedes truck. Amazing educational system too. I would trust any doctor or dentist trained in Cuba because they learned their craft without the aid of state-of-the art equipment.

Agreed. With what they're purportedly spending on Suicide Squad it's going to need at least $650 worldwide to break-even, and $800 million or more worldwide to be a "hit." That's a _huge_ step up from GotG and a much bigger gamble.

1) What JayBuck said. BvS being outdone by Civil War, let alone (domestically) by Deadpool is like me playing pick-up basketball against Kobe Bryant and only losing to him by two points. 2) For me, the core piece of the Forbes article is the last sentence. Yes -- BvS expectations were $1 bn. or more worldwide, and it didn't hit that. And we live in a world where that is both fair & will become more the norm. If either Rogue One or the next PoTC similarly fail to hit $1 bn. they will be seen as similar failures. Why? Because the last few films in those franchises hit that mark (as did the last two Batman films.) 3) From that list, I think we'll see Through the Looking Glass, Rogue One and Finding Dory hit $1 bn. easily - I'm less sold on Independence Day. If it is critically maligned, it could top out at just $800-$850 mill.

Yeah...um...posting poll results drawn from ~200 frequent posters to a comic book message board is not exactly an unbiased view. We are the comic book geeks. We, more than anything, want these movies to succeed. And many of us have thousands of dollars bet on their success. The general public is far less biased, and they soundly rejected BvS, especially after the first weekend, when pre-sales finished and actual word-of-mouth got out. Had it been any good, that would not have been the case.

You're not wrong, but it's not such a systemic change since 2011 (when Captain America came out) as you're implying. For instance, it's worth noting that Deadpool is still (barely) playing in U.S. theaters whereas BvS is not, and it came out a full five weeks earlier. Heck -- even Ant-Man lasted three more weeks in the theaters than BvS.

I'm confused. 1) Trying to explain away Batman v. Superman's failure because it was only the second movie in a shared universe is specious. Reboot or not, it is also coming on the heels of the most successful (critically & financially) superhero trilogy of all times (the Nolan films). 2) Comparing it to Captain America is insipid, that'd be like trying to compare the first Spider-Man film to Blade. Captain America was (& still is) a B-list comic character, vs. Superman and Batman, who are A-list (two of the three most famous superheroes period) and have already had how many movies between them? 13? 3) Captain America had an 80% positive rating on rotten tomatoes, vs. 27% for BvS. And this poor critical reception for the latter is reflected in its run. The movie's gone from theater's after just 56 days; Captain America ran for 112 days (i.e., more than twice as long).

I think we can't go back. Not just for the reasons you mention re. Goldfinger, but also do the failure of last year's retro Man From UNCLE. Also, in the book Goldfinger Galore was a lesbian.

I have a hard time seeing how they'd do Moon Knight as a TV show. Anytime I try to envision it I can't get past the Night Man series from the '90s.

Hmm...I loved Skyfall. Easily a top 5 Bond flick for me (along with Goldfinger, From Russia With Love, Goldeneye and Casino Royale). Problem with the books (and I've read them all) is that Fleming isn't actually a good author. And, well, the Cold War's over. John Gardner did a really good job updating the series for the '80s and there were some decent Benson airport reads about a decade ago. But for me, the problem with films like Goldeneye, Casino Royale and Skyfall is that each were so good that there's basically nowhere to go from there but down. Both Quantum of Solace and SPECTRE were mediocre snooze-fests. At least even some of the crappy Brosnan entries (looking at you The World Is Not Enough) were fun.

Hiddleston's an inspired choice, and I'm happy for him if it's been offered but I agree -- he's too skinny, too pretty. The era of the efete Roger Moore / Pierce Brosnan Bond died with the release of The Bourne Identity. We need an older, built Bond who you can believe as a hired assassin. Granted, I know a lot of this is how you carry yourself, and I never would have imagined while watching say...Good Will Hunting or The Talented Mr. Ripley that Damon could transition into a legit action hero (which he did).

I'd prefer Idris Elba, if only for 2-3 films.

I'd be more excited for this if not for the rumors that Psylocke's barely in it.

Iron Man 3 was flawed, but it was _far_ better than Iron Man 2 and some other Marvel films (including both Hulk and both Thor films). I thought it fell apart only in the final act, when Pepper is turned by Extremis into an immortal She-Iron Man. But what Shane Black did with the Mandarin was awesome, original and a really good plot twist -- plus the nerd rage of comic book fanboys everywhere made it worth it. Can't wait to see The Nice Guys tomorrow, to say nothing of what Black has in store for Doc Savage and Predator 4.

Well, the first two credited writers on this are Jeremy Slater (who has mostly written horror movies, including one of The Exorcist remakes) & Simon Kinberg, who wrote Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Sherlock Holmes, X-Men: Last Stand, Days of Future Past & Apocalypse. But more importantly, Kinberg was the producer on this who saw the train wreck happen first-hand and got Trank fired from his Star Wars anthology film. Rumor has it, Kinberg had Trank fired in post-production so they could try to salvage FF in editing. Kinberg knows what he's doing, and his pull extends beyond Fox and goes all the way up the Disney food chain to Kathleen Kennedy (who is overseeing all things Star Wars).

I thought she was utterly brilliant in American Hustle. She was the wild card that kept everyone on their toes. Without her, the movie would have felt a bit too formula. Golden Globe and Oscar voters agreed with you. I'd disagree with this: 1) All four principal actors for American Hustle (Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence) received Oscar nominations and Golden Globe nominations -- so their level of industry recognition was roughly equal. 2) Of those 8 awards, none actually won Oscars & only Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence actually won Golden Globes -- but Amy Adams had by _far_ the more substantive role (hence, winning Actress to Lawrence's Supporting Actress) and even nailed the fake British accent. In comparison, Lawrence's role was a glorified cameo of a scorned drunken b**tch, and could have been played equally well by any number of actresses. The analogy to Sharon Stone's role in Casino is dead-on.

Or Jonah Hex

Easy. Marvel Phase 1 produced six movies in five years and _culminated_ in the heroes all meeting in the team-up movie Avengers. DC Phase 1 didn't actually begin with Man of Steel, but afterwards, once they decided to scrap Superman 2 in favor of Batman vs. Superman. So DC is effectively pushing four movies in two years. And that fourth film includes all the heroes meeting in the team-up movie Justice League Part 1. Last I checked, 6 movies in 5 years is a tad slower than 4 movies in 2 years.

I actually like Jennifer Lawrence, but agree that she was miscast for X-Men from the get-go. That said, as amazing as she was in Winter's Bone, Silver Linings Playbook and the first two Hunger Games movie, she was by _far_ the weakest link in American Hustle. It was almost laughable how much better Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Christian Bale, Robert DeNiro and even (improbably) Jeremy Renner were than her in that film. Granted - it didn't help that her character was 10-plus years older than her IRL but I was _really_ surprised how she paled compared to virtually everyone else. Same thing - go back & watch Glengarry Glenn Ross. Superb multi-Oscar winning cast but it's like literally everyone's an A-Lister (Al Pacino, Jonathan Pryce, Ed Harris, Alec Baldwin, Alan Arkin, and Jack Lemmon) and then Kevin Spacey opens his mouth like a cardboard robot. He improved lightyears between that film & The Usual Suspects but it's incredible to see how he looks like he's reading his lines off a cue card vs. literally everyone else.

This comment makes no sense to me. That's like saying you can't make any ensemble superhero film work because it's impossible to give enough screen time to folks' favorite character. And yet Avengers, and Guardians of the Galaxy (and many say Civil War) did just that. Why would X-Men be any different? We've had at least 3 stellar X-Men films. So why should we now settle for a mediocre one?