Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice movie thread for your reading pleasure 2 2

[paperheart]

Congrats to BvS for having its first weekend with less than a 50% drop from the previous weekend!

 

I thought it would pull out of the nosedive last weekend, but hey, this weekends better than nothing!

 

Weekend 1 to Weekend 2: 69.1% drop (thanks in part to pre-sales, previews and such)

Weekend 2 to Weekend 3: 54.5% drop

Weekend 3 to Weekend 4: 61.4% drop (first weekend they lost a big chunk of IMAX screens)

Weekend 4 to Weekend 5: 38.9% drop (estimate)

 

 

Also for those watching the BvS grand totals this weekend was the end of it's run in China (total $95m). It is still running in UK ($51.6m to date), Mexico ($35.7m) , Brazil ($34.7m) and Australia ($22.2m).

 

It's got one more weekend to squeeze out some revenue in the US before Captain America comes roaring in.International markets get Cap on the 27th, so a few extra weeks there too.

 

that's April 27th

[revat]

Another good one from Cracked. I especially like #1.

#1. They Don't Understand Why Superman Is Important

 

So now that they've got Snyder determining the general tone of all the film versions of their superheroes, DC's doubling down on the dark-n-gritty. This may work for Batman, but this will kill Superman faster than a Kryptonite enema.

I'm a huge fan of 'Superman: The Animated Series' and think this writer couldn't be more wrong.

 

What really drives me nuts is judging THIS Superman when it's only getting started. MOS was about revealing himself and SAVING THE ENTIRE PLANET. 'Batman v Superman' begins 18 MONTHS after that.

 

So it's like reading a Prelude and Chapter 1, then concluding a novel sucks because it's nothing like 'See Spot Run' you grew up with.

 

People know very little about this Superman so far. His character is developing, the beginning stages of who he'll become, and he's been at it a whopping two whole years on earth.

 

I don't mind the darkness, but I don't think its too early to have that opinion (if one were to have that opinion. I think its fair to say we've read the 'first two chapters' of the book, which may not seem like much, but realistically this Superman story won't have more than 6 chapters (maybe 7 counting some composite appearances). Sooo one third of this particular Superman story has been pretty dark. I don't think its a stretch to say this is the tone they seem to want to set for Superman. And some like it, and some don't, which is fine. He's probably not coming back as a Deadpool type either way.

 

If you like what you've seen so far, great. You'll probably see more of it. If not though, you're probably not too excited about the DCU near future for Supes.

 

I personally would like to see him come back all in black with guns and s supermullet like in the comics...

[Prince Namor]

Another good one from Cracked. I especially like #1.

#1. They Don't Understand Why Superman Is Important

 

So now that they've got Snyder determining the general tone of all the film versions of their superheroes, DC's doubling down on the dark-n-gritty. This may work for Batman, but this will kill Superman faster than a Kryptonite enema.

I'm a huge fan of 'Superman: The Animated Series' and think this writer couldn't be more wrong.

 

What really drives me nuts is judging THIS Superman when it's only getting started. MOS was about revealing himself and SAVING THE ENTIRE PLANET. 'Batman v Superman' begins 18 MONTHS after that.

 

So it's like reading a Prelude and Chapter 1, then concluding a novel sucks because it's nothing like 'See Spot Run' you grew up with.

 

People know very little about this Superman so far. His character is developing, the beginning stages of who he'll become, and he's been at it a whopping two whole years on earth.

 

 

Great points.

 

People forget that the last 'Classic' Superman movie, Superman Returns, did $236MiL (domestic adjusted) on a $318 (adjusted) budget, a LOSS, just taking into account domestic numbers that we know, of MINUS $82MIL

 

So much for 'what people want'.

 

Man of Steel did $297MIL (domestic adjusted) on a $230MIL (adjusted) budget, a WIN, of $67MIL.

 

On top of that, his next appearance in BVS has done $319MIL (domestic) on a budget of $250MIL, a WIN, thus far, of another $69MIL.

 

Once again, so much for 'what people want'.

[burntboy]

Another good one from Cracked. I especially like #1.

#1. They Don't Understand Why Superman Is Important

 

So now that they've got Snyder determining the general tone of all the film versions of their superheroes, DC's doubling down on the dark-n-gritty. This may work for Batman, but this will kill Superman faster than a Kryptonite enema.

I'm a huge fan of 'Superman: The Animated Series' and think this writer couldn't be more wrong.

 

What really drives me nuts is judging THIS Superman when it's only getting started. MOS was about revealing himself and SAVING THE ENTIRE PLANET. 'Batman v Superman' begins 18 MONTHS after that.

 

So it's like reading a Prelude and Chapter 1, then concluding a novel sucks because it's nothing like 'See Spot Run' you grew up with.

 

 

 

People know very little about this Superman so far. His character is developing, the beginning stages of who he'll become, and he's been at it a whopping two whole years on earth.

 

 

 

People forget that the last 'Classic' Superman movie, Superman Returns, did $236MiL (domestic adjusted) on a $318 (adjusted) budget, a LOSS, just taking into account domestic numbers that we know, of MINUS $82MIL

 

So much for 'what people want'.

 

Man of Steel did $297MIL (domestic adjusted) on a $230MIL (adjusted) budget, a WIN, of $67MIL.

 

On top of that, his next appearance in BVS has done $319MIL (domestic) on a budget of $250MIL, a WIN, thus far, of another $69MIL.

 

Once again, so much for 'what people want'.

 

 

Another way to look at this is that BvS, if it can eke out another $40 Mill Worldwide, will do as well (Worldwide adjusted to 2016 the only true measuring stick) as the average of the Nolan Batman Trilogy which has been both Critically and Fan-based praised to the High Heavens.

 

How in Gods name can that be considered a flop by Comic Geeks?!?!?!

 

[Cat-Man_America]

I'm a huge fan of 'Superman: The Animated Series' and think this writer couldn't be more wrong.

 

What really drives me nuts is judging THIS Superman when it's only getting started. MOS was about revealing himself and SAVING THE ENTIRE PLANET. 'Batman v Superman' begins 18 MONTHS after that.

 

So it's like reading a Prelude and Chapter 1, then concluding a novel sucks because it's nothing like 'See Spot Run' you grew up with.

 

People know very little about this Superman so far. His character is developing, the beginning stages of who he'll become, and he's been at it a whopping two whole years on earth.

 

 

Great points.

 

People forget that the last 'Classic' Superman movie, Superman Returns, did $236MiL (domestic adjusted) on a $318 (adjusted) budget, a LOSS, just taking into account domestic numbers that we know, of MINUS $82MIL

 

So much for 'what people want'.

 

Man of Steel did $297MIL (domestic adjusted) on a $230MIL (adjusted) budget, a WIN, of $67MIL.

 

On top of that, his next appearance in BVS has done $319MIL (domestic) on a budget of $250MIL, a WIN, thus far, of another $69MIL.

 

Once again, so much for 'what people want'.

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

 

 

There's plenty of dystopian angst in the real world. Just watch any 24 hour news channel.

Must we vanquish our greatest childhood heroes into that abyss as well?

Superman made money, but it wasn't well received by either the critical community or public at large.

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/24/1-number-that-explains-batman-v-superman-failure.aspx?source=eptfxblnk0000004

 

There's a reason why DC (WB) is playing catch-up with Marvel Studios and continues to fall further behind.

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

 

The exec's at DC Time/Warner should consider green lighting more films with characters that are either true to their origins or contemporary.

If they're sure that their audiences prefer dystopian, then go to newer material with characters that already have that streak in their comic book DNA.

 

Marvel Studios ...albeit 20th Century Fox, not Disney/Marvel... pulled it off with Deadpool and landed a hit.

DC could do the same without scavenging the last bit of meat from the bones of their greatest heroes legacies.

 

It should be eminently clear by now that the deconstruction of Superman won't pay the same dividends as it did with Batman.

The grimmer vision of Batman worked because the original character evolved from darkness.

 

But focusing on the abject cruelty of Gotham's villains wasn't without cost, as evidenced by how it boiled over into real life.

Even the Dark Knight's world can be too dark. I liked the series well enough, but it isn't something I enjoy in repeated viewings.

It is my profound hope that Ben Affleck's Batman (with his screenplay and direction) manages to achieve this balance.

 

This has been a brief respite from dystopia, now back to regular programming. Time to hunker down.

[Bosco685]

How a big bet on 'Batman v Superman' paid off for Turkish Airlines

 

The international carrier made a big play on cross-promotion with Warner Bros. for the release this year, with entertaining ads touting two new “destinations” – Metropolis and Gotham City.

 

 

 

The videos, featuring Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor flying the friendly fictional skies, attracted 30 million views on social media in the first three days after launching, and now the ads have more than 52 million views on YouTube alone.

 

Despite flying to the most destinations of any airline, Turkish has struggled to make itself a household name – and has been increasing its marketing budget by hundreds of millions of dollars over the past five years to change that.

 

“They really paid off for us, in terms of revenue,” Mr. Aktan said. “People talked about it, and showed it to their family and friends, retweeted it, shared it through links. This eventually causes [people to] wonder: Who is this Turkish Airlines? It really worked for us and increased our passenger potential.”

 

“Everyone loves Hollywood movies … it affects people’s view of your product,” Mr. Aktan said. “It really tells people that Turkish Airlines is a big brand. They work with big productions, Hollywood stars.”

[Bosco685]

Mattel Batman v Superman Multiverse Mystery Figure Reveal

 

For anyone that has picked up either the first or second wave of Mattel’s DC Multiverse Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice action figure line you know that on both versions of the cardback feature figure #7 blacked out. This has lead to a lot of speculation on who it might be in the collector community. A lot of people think it might be Doomsday, however many also think that figure/character would have to be too large for the current packaging. Some people have speculated that it might be The Flash or a different Lex Luthor, but then we learned at Toy Fair that we would be getting bald, prison jumpsuit Lex in a later wave.

 

Who could it be?

 

 

I present you the last figure in the second assortment of the Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice DC Multiverse line – The Bat Creature. This is the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it creature that gives audiences a jump-scare when it suddenly pops out of Martha Wayne’s tomb in one of Bruce’s early visions.

 

 

To complete the additional item 'Batman grapnel gun' you need to purchase all eight figures.

 

 

 

[Davenport]

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

Dystopian? Destruction of Superman?

 

What did they toss out about Superman that makes him unlikable?

 

So far we know...

He loves his mom and Lois.

He killed Zod, given little choice, reluctantly, saving an innocent family in the process.

He killed Doomsday.

He's saved the entire planet

He saved soldiers and earned the military's respect

He does rescues all over the world.

He had words with the Bat vigilante of Gotham.

 

And best of all, by film's end HE INSPIRED BATMAN with his choices, ending Wayne's downward spiral.

 

And what's so "dystopian" about BvS? It's set in modern times, out time, and the people are free to think whatever they want about Superman. Unless I missed some 'Soylent Green is people' moment. Any world more than 4 colors is "dystopian"?

 

[miraclemet]

Is it me or does Superman look like John Travolta?

 

 

 

 

 

[miraclemet]

People forget that the last 'Classic' Superman movie, Superman Returns, did $236MiL (domestic adjusted) on a $318 (adjusted) budget, a LOSS, just taking into account domestic numbers that we know, of MINUS $82MIL

 

So much for 'what people want'.

.

 

I love the first 1/2 of Superman Returns (especially the Space-Plane resuce, classic superman scene that I could imagine Cristopher Reeves doing just the same as Brandon Routh)

 

but lets not forget Superman Returns wasnt totally "classic" it did have the creepy, hovering, watch you from afar, "is that Superman's kid?" plot line that was really weird and stalkery.

 

and that the principal conceit was Lex in a real estate scam.

 

and that in the end Superman doesnt save the day, Cyclops does (or at least he saves Superman who can then save the day...)

 

so dont lay it's failure at it being a "classic" style superman.

[valiantman]

Is it me or does Superman look like John Travolta?

 

 

 

 

Travolta! Good call.

 

Lex looks like "Blaine" from Pretty In Pink.

 

[Prince Namor]

People forget that the last 'Classic' Superman movie, Superman Returns, did $236MiL (domestic adjusted) on a $318 (adjusted) budget, a LOSS, just taking into account domestic numbers that we know, of MINUS $82MIL

 

So much for 'what people want'.

.

 

I love the first 1/2 of Superman Returns (especially the Space-Plane resuce, classic superman scene that I could imagine Cristopher Reeves doing just the same as Brandon Routh)

 

but lets not forget Superman Returns wasnt totally "classic" it did have the creepy, hovering, watch you from afar, "is that Superman's kid?" plot line that was really weird and stalkery.

 

and that the principal conceit was Lex in a real estate scam.

 

and that in the end Superman doesnt save the day, Cyclops does (or at least he saves Superman who can then save the day...)

 

so dont lay it's failure at it being a "classic" style superman.

 

He's still Boy Scout Superman in it.

[thunsicker]

People forget that the last 'Classic' Superman movie, Superman Returns, did $236MiL (domestic adjusted) on a $318 (adjusted) budget, a LOSS, just taking into account domestic numbers that we know, of MINUS $82MIL

 

So much for 'what people want'.

.

 

I love the first 1/2 of Superman Returns (especially the Space-Plane resuce, classic superman scene that I could imagine Cristopher Reeves doing just the same as Brandon Routh)

 

but lets not forget Superman Returns wasnt totally "classic" it did have the creepy, hovering, watch you from afar, "is that Superman's kid?" plot line that was really weird and stalkery.

 

and that the principal conceit was Lex in a real estate scam.

 

and that in the end Superman doesnt save the day, Cyclops does (or at least he saves Superman who can then save the day...)

 

so dont lay it's failure at it being a "classic" style superman.

 

He's still Boy Scout Superman in it.

 

You can still have a hero be a "boy scout" and it be a good film. The portrayal of Superman wasn't the problem with the film. It was just not a very good film. Too goofy. Captain America has been a "boy scout" in the Marvel films and has had some really good films.

[Cat-Man_America]

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

Dystopian? Destruction of Superman?

 

Deconstruction. ...and yes, very dystopian

 

What did they toss out about Superman that makes him unlikable?

 

So far we know...

He loves his mom and Lois.

He killed Zod, given little choice, reluctantly, saving an innocent family in the process.

He killed Doomsday.

He's saved the entire planet

He saved soldiers and earned the military's respect

He does rescues all over the world.

He had words with the Bat vigilante of Gotham.

 

And best of all, by film's end HE INSPIRED BATMAN with his choices, ending Wayne's downward spiral.

 

And what's so "dystopian" about BvS? It's set in modern times, out time, and the people are free to think whatever they want about Superman. Unless I missed some 'Soylent Green is people' moment. Any world more than 4 colors is "dystopian"?

 

On one level, Dystopianism is a feeling of hopelessness in the world. Is this a world worth saving? Is this a world I'd want to live in? Are any of these people I'd want to know, much less be around?

 

So many of the roles in the first film were hokey and poorly filmed. Performances seemed more like cameos of characters we were never invested in. As pointed out repeatedly, I haven't seen the second film, but the confused, piecemeal plot has been discussed ad infinitum.

 

I don't like Henry Cavell in the Superman role. He just doesn't sell it for me. This plays into my next rhetorical question: Is the Superman character as written and acted so much bigger than real life and disconnected from it that his actions seem cold and mechanical?

 

The question audiences who've seen this movie should ask is does this type of movie make me feel good? ...Did I come away from this film feeling good about these characters? ...about the world? ...about my place in it? ...about the value of life in general?

 

Food for thought.

 

[rjrjr]

I'm a huge fan of 'Superman: The Animated Series' and think this writer couldn't be more wrong.

 

What really drives me nuts is judging THIS Superman when it's only getting started. MOS was about revealing himself and SAVING THE ENTIRE PLANET. 'Batman v Superman' begins 18 MONTHS after that.

 

So it's like reading a Prelude and Chapter 1, then concluding a novel sucks because it's nothing like 'See Spot Run' you grew up with.

 

People know very little about this Superman so far. His character is developing, the beginning stages of who he'll become, and he's been at it a whopping two whole years on earth.

 

 

Great points.

 

People forget that the last 'Classic' Superman movie, Superman Returns, did $236MiL (domestic adjusted) on a $318 (adjusted) budget, a LOSS, just taking into account domestic numbers that we know, of MINUS $82MIL

 

So much for 'what people want'.

 

Man of Steel did $297MIL (domestic adjusted) on a $230MIL (adjusted) budget, a WIN, of $67MIL.

 

On top of that, his next appearance in BVS has done $319MIL (domestic) on a budget of $250MIL, a WIN, thus far, of another $69MIL.

 

Once again, so much for 'what people want'.

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

 

 

There's plenty of dystopian angst in the real world. Just watch any 24 hour news channel.

Must we vanquish our greatest childhood heroes into that abyss as well?

Superman made money, but it wasn't well received by either the critical community or public at large.

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/24/1-number-that-explains-batman-v-superman-failure.aspx?source=eptfxblnk0000004

 

There's a reason why DC (WB) is playing catch-up with Marvel Studios and continues to fall further behind.

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

 

The exec's at DC Time/Warner should consider green lighting more films with characters that are either true to their origins or contemporary.

If they're sure that their audiences prefer dystopian, then go to newer material with characters that already have that streak in their comic book DNA.

 

Marvel Studios ...albeit 20th Century Fox, not Disney/Marvel... pulled it off with Deadpool and landed a hit.

DC could do the same without scavenging the last bit of meat from the bones of their greatest heroes legacies.

 

It should be eminently clear by now that the deconstruction of Superman won't pay the same dividends as it did with Batman.

The grimmer vision of Batman worked because the original character evolved from darkness.

 

But focusing on the abject cruelty of Gotham's villains wasn't without cost, as evidenced by how it boiled over into real life.

Even the Dark Knight's world can be too dark. I liked the series well enough, but it isn't something I enjoy in repeated viewings.

It is my profound hope that Ben Affleck's Batman (with his screenplay and direction) manages to achieve this balance.

 

This has been a brief respite from dystopia, now back to regular programming. Time to hunker down.

 

Compare the first 2 MCU movies to the first 2 DCCU movies and tell me how far behind DC is. They are fine. The only one's who don't see that are people who don't want to see it.

 

This movie was far from a flop. And "I didn't like it" does not mean the movie wasn't good or others share your opinion. Clearly many don't, otherwise the movie wouldn't have made as much as it has already.

Edited April 26, 2016 by rjrjr

[Cat-Man_America]

I'm a huge fan of 'Superman: The Animated Series' and think this writer couldn't be more wrong.

 

What really drives me nuts is judging THIS Superman when it's only getting started. MOS was about revealing himself and SAVING THE ENTIRE PLANET. 'Batman v Superman' begins 18 MONTHS after that.

 

So it's like reading a Prelude and Chapter 1, then concluding a novel sucks because it's nothing like 'See Spot Run' you grew up with.

 

People know very little about this Superman so far. His character is developing, the beginning stages of who he'll become, and he's been at it a whopping two whole years on earth.

 

 

Great points.

 

People forget that the last 'Classic' Superman movie, Superman Returns, did $236MiL (domestic adjusted) on a $318 (adjusted) budget, a LOSS, just taking into account domestic numbers that we know, of MINUS $82MIL

 

So much for 'what people want'.

 

Man of Steel did $297MIL (domestic adjusted) on a $230MIL (adjusted) budget, a WIN, of $67MIL.

 

On top of that, his next appearance in BVS has done $319MIL (domestic) on a budget of $250MIL, a WIN, thus far, of another $69MIL.

 

Once again, so much for 'what people want'.

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

 

 

There's plenty of dystopian angst in the real world. Just watch any 24 hour news channel.

Must we vanquish our greatest childhood heroes into that abyss as well?

Superman made money, but it wasn't well received by either the critical community or public at large.

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/24/1-number-that-explains-batman-v-superman-failure.aspx?source=eptfxblnk0000004

 

There's a reason why DC (WB) is playing catch-up with Marvel Studios and continues to fall further behind.

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

 

The exec's at DC Time/Warner should consider green lighting more films with characters that are either true to their origins or contemporary.

If they're sure that their audiences prefer dystopian, then go to newer material with characters that already have that streak in their comic book DNA.

 

Marvel Studios ...albeit 20th Century Fox, not Disney/Marvel... pulled it off with Deadpool and landed a hit.

DC could do the same without scavenging the last bit of meat from the bones of their greatest heroes legacies.

 

It should be eminently clear by now that the deconstruction of Superman won't pay the same dividends as it did with Batman.

The grimmer vision of Batman worked because the original character evolved from darkness.

 

But focusing on the abject cruelty of Gotham's villains wasn't without cost, as evidenced by how it boiled over into real life.

Even the Dark Knight's world can be too dark. I liked the series well enough, but it isn't something I enjoy in repeated viewings.

It is my profound hope that Ben Affleck's Batman (with his screenplay and direction) manages to achieve this balance.

 

This has been a brief respite from dystopia, now back to regular programming. Time to hunker down.

 

Compare the first 2 MCU movies to the first to DCCU movies and tell me how far behind DC is. They are fine. The only one's who don't see that are people who don't want to see it.

 

See Denial above, ...and watch out for the croc.

 

This movie was far from a flop.

 

That depends on the statistical data used and who is doing the measuring (spin).

[revat]

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

Dystopian? Destruction of Superman?

 

Deconstruction. ...and yes, very dystopian

 

What did they toss out about Superman that makes him unlikable?

 

So far we know...

He loves his mom and Lois.

He killed Zod, given little choice, reluctantly, saving an innocent family in the process.

He killed Doomsday.

He's saved the entire planet

He saved soldiers and earned the military's respect

He does rescues all over the world.

He had words with the Bat vigilante of Gotham.

 

And best of all, by film's end HE INSPIRED BATMAN with his choices, ending Wayne's downward spiral.

 

And what's so "dystopian" about BvS? It's set in modern times, out time, and the people are free to think whatever they want about Superman. Unless I missed some 'Soylent Green is people' moment. Any world more than 4 colors is "dystopian"?

 

On one level, Dystopianism is a feeling of hopelessness in the world. Is this a world worth saving? Is this a world I'd want to live in? Are any of these people I'd want to know, much less be around?

 

So many of the performances in the first film were hokey and poorly filmed. Performances seemed more like cameos of characters we were never invested in. As pointed out repeatedly, I haven't seen the second film, but the confused, piecemeal plot has been discussed ad infinitum.

 

I don't like Henry Cavell in the Superman role. He just doesn't sell it for me. This plays into my next rhetorical question: Is the Superman character as written and acted so much bigger than real life and disconnected from it that his actions seem cold and mechanical?

 

The question audiences who've seen this movie should ask is does this type of movie make me feel good? ...Did I come away from this film feeling good about these characters? ...about the world? ...about my place in it?

 

Food for thought.

 

I grew up near a lot of farms and knowing a lot of farm people. I always thought of Clark/Superman as someone who could have been one of those people who just happened to have powers. I got that feeling with Christopher Reeves and Tom Welling, and to a lesser extent with Brandon Routh. But I didn't get that feeling at all with Dean Cain (though I still liked the show), and I don't get that feeling at all with Henry Cavill (whether its him or the directing or the plot, I'm not sure).

 

For me, that wasn't really my problem with the movie, but I don't think its unreasonable if a lot of people wanted to connect to Superman the way they 'think' they should, then were frustrated when they couldn't. That seems very reasonable. They think Superman is supposed to be 'better' because of his humanity, not in spite of it. Zack Snyder might have wanted to tell a different story, but it was risky and for the most part it didn't pay off.

 

 

[rjrjr]

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

Dystopian? Destruction of Superman?

 

Deconstruction. ...and yes, very dystopian

 

What did they toss out about Superman that makes him unlikable?

 

So far we know...

He loves his mom and Lois.

He killed Zod, given little choice, reluctantly, saving an innocent family in the process.

He killed Doomsday.

He's saved the entire planet

He saved soldiers and earned the military's respect

He does rescues all over the world.

He had words with the Bat vigilante of Gotham.

 

And best of all, by film's end HE INSPIRED BATMAN with his choices, ending Wayne's downward spiral.

 

And what's so "dystopian" about BvS? It's set in modern times, out time, and the people are free to think whatever they want about Superman. Unless I missed some 'Soylent Green is people' moment. Any world more than 4 colors is "dystopian"?

 

On one level, Dystopianism is a feeling of hopelessness in the world. Is this a world worth saving? Is this a world I'd want to live in? Are any of these people I'd want to know, much less be around?

 

So many of the performances in the first film were hokey and poorly filmed. Performances seemed more like cameos of characters we were never invested in. As pointed out repeatedly, I haven't seen the second film, but the confused, piecemeal plot has been discussed ad infinitum.

 

I don't like Henry Cavell in the Superman role. He just doesn't sell it for me. This plays into my next rhetorical question: Is the Superman character as written and acted so much bigger than real life and disconnected from it that his actions seem cold and mechanical?

 

The question audiences who've seen this movie should ask is does this type of movie make me feel good? ...Did I come away from this film feeling good about these characters? ...about the world? ...about my place in it?

 

Food for thought.

 

I grew up near a lot of farms and knowing a lot of farm people. I always thought of Clark/Superman as someone who could have been one of those people who just happened to have powers. I got that feeling with Christopher Reeves and Tom Welling, and to a lesser extent with Brandon Routh. But I didn't get that feeling at all with Dean Cain (though I still liked the show), and I don't get that feeling at all with Henry Cavill (whether its him or the directing or the plot, I'm not sure).

 

For me, that wasn't really my problem with the movie, but I don't think its unreasonable if a lot of people wanted to connect to Superman the way they 'think' they should, then were frustrated when they couldn't. That seems very reasonable. They think Superman is supposed to be 'better' because of his humanity, not in spite of it. Zack Snyder might have wanted to tell a different story, but it was risky and for the most part it didn't pay off.

 

 

In this regards, DC is damned either direction they go. Many people feel Superman is old fashion as the "boy scout". DC has taken Superman back to his roots in many ways before other media turned him into that "boy scout". Personally, I'm glad they are updating the character and making him relevant to today's audiences. This is no different than what Marvel has done to many of their characters, including Tony Stark who had one of the bigger character changes from comic to movie. Now the comic matches his character in the movie and people just accept it. The same will be true for Clark Kent.

[rjrjr]

I'm a huge fan of 'Superman: The Animated Series' and think this writer couldn't be more wrong.

 

What really drives me nuts is judging THIS Superman when it's only getting started. MOS was about revealing himself and SAVING THE ENTIRE PLANET. 'Batman v Superman' begins 18 MONTHS after that.

 

So it's like reading a Prelude and Chapter 1, then concluding a novel sucks because it's nothing like 'See Spot Run' you grew up with.

 

People know very little about this Superman so far. His character is developing, the beginning stages of who he'll become, and he's been at it a whopping two whole years on earth.

 

 

Great points.

 

People forget that the last 'Classic' Superman movie, Superman Returns, did $236MiL (domestic adjusted) on a $318 (adjusted) budget, a LOSS, just taking into account domestic numbers that we know, of MINUS $82MIL

 

So much for 'what people want'.

 

Man of Steel did $297MIL (domestic adjusted) on a $230MIL (adjusted) budget, a WIN, of $67MIL.

 

On top of that, his next appearance in BVS has done $319MIL (domestic) on a budget of $250MIL, a WIN, thus far, of another $69MIL.

 

Once again, so much for 'what people want'.

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

 

 

There's plenty of dystopian angst in the real world. Just watch any 24 hour news channel.

Must we vanquish our greatest childhood heroes into that abyss as well?

Superman made money, but it wasn't well received by either the critical community or public at large.

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/24/1-number-that-explains-batman-v-superman-failure.aspx?source=eptfxblnk0000004

 

There's a reason why DC (WB) is playing catch-up with Marvel Studios and continues to fall further behind.

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

 

The exec's at DC Time/Warner should consider green lighting more films with characters that are either true to their origins or contemporary.

If they're sure that their audiences prefer dystopian, then go to newer material with characters that already have that streak in their comic book DNA.

 

Marvel Studios ...albeit 20th Century Fox, not Disney/Marvel... pulled it off with Deadpool and landed a hit.

DC could do the same without scavenging the last bit of meat from the bones of their greatest heroes legacies.

 

It should be eminently clear by now that the deconstruction of Superman won't pay the same dividends as it did with Batman.

The grimmer vision of Batman worked because the original character evolved from darkness.

 

But focusing on the abject cruelty of Gotham's villains wasn't without cost, as evidenced by how it boiled over into real life.

Even the Dark Knight's world can be too dark. I liked the series well enough, but it isn't something I enjoy in repeated viewings.

It is my profound hope that Ben Affleck's Batman (with his screenplay and direction) manages to achieve this balance.

 

This has been a brief respite from dystopia, now back to regular programming. Time to hunker down.

 

Compare the first 2 MCU movies to the first to DCCU movies and tell me how far behind DC is. They are fine. The only one's who don't see that are people who don't want to see it.

 

See Denial above, ...and watch out for the croc.

 

This movie was far from a flop.

 

That depends on the statistical data used and who is doing the measuring (spin).

 

Are you referring to yourself? How was the movie by the way? That's right, you didn't even see it...

[Prince Namor]

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

Dystopian? Destruction of Superman?

 

Deconstruction. ...and yes, very dystopian

 

What did they toss out about Superman that makes him unlikable?

 

So far we know...

He loves his mom and Lois.

He killed Zod, given little choice, reluctantly, saving an innocent family in the process.

He killed Doomsday.

He's saved the entire planet

He saved soldiers and earned the military's respect

He does rescues all over the world.

He had words with the Bat vigilante of Gotham.

 

And best of all, by film's end HE INSPIRED BATMAN with his choices, ending Wayne's downward spiral.

 

And what's so "dystopian" about BvS? It's set in modern times, out time, and the people are free to think whatever they want about Superman. Unless I missed some 'Soylent Green is people' moment. Any world more than 4 colors is "dystopian"?

 

On one level, Dystopianism is a feeling of hopelessness in the world. Is this a world worth saving? Is this a world I'd want to live in? Are any of these people I'd want to know, much less be around?

 

So many of the performances in the first film were hokey and poorly filmed. Performances seemed more like cameos of characters we were never invested in. As pointed out repeatedly, I haven't seen the second film, but the confused, piecemeal plot has been discussed ad infinitum.

 

I don't like Henry Cavell in the Superman role. He just doesn't sell it for me. This plays into my next rhetorical question: Is the Superman character as written and acted so much bigger than real life and disconnected from it that his actions seem cold and mechanical?

 

The question audiences who've seen this movie should ask is does this type of movie make me feel good? ...Did I come away from this film feeling good about these characters? ...about the world? ...about my place in it?

 

Food for thought.

 

I grew up near a lot of farms and knowing a lot of farm people. I always thought of Clark/Superman as someone who could have been one of those people who just happened to have powers. I got that feeling with Christopher Reeves and Tom Welling, and to a lesser extent with Brandon Routh. But I didn't get that feeling at all with Dean Cain (though I still liked the show), and I don't get that feeling at all with Henry Cavill (whether its him or the directing or the plot, I'm not sure).

 

For me, that wasn't really my problem with the movie, but I don't think its unreasonable if a lot of people wanted to connect to Superman the way they 'think' they should, then were frustrated when they couldn't. That seems very reasonable. They think Superman is supposed to be 'better' because of his humanity, not in spite of it. Zack Snyder might have wanted to tell a different story, but it was risky and for the most part it didn't pay off.

 

 

As human beings we are fragile and at a moments nod from death. Superman represents, for many, the indestructible human, the perfect specimen, with no fear of death, who can easily distinguish the difference between wrong and right, in a fantasy world that is either black or white. It's the most simplistic of concepts for the child who has just discovered real world bummer (parents divorcing or dying or abuse) and has always worked at it's best in that simple format.

 

Some of us prefer to wonder how we could ever relate to a being like that, in an actual reality world like ours, and how he would be able to relate to us. And how he could rise above the frailties that make our world so grey and be bigger than that. How he could inspire us to want the same.

 

For some of us, Zack nailed it perfectly.