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

[paperheart]

‘Batman v Superman’ fans pay no mind to critics

 

By Michael Ordoña

April 6, 2016

 

 

By the way, critics and audiences are not so far apart in their post-viewing reactions to “Batman v Superman” …

 

Odd-ience ratings

 

When does 72 minus 28 not equal 44?

 

When that 72 might be a lot more like 54.

 

The recent Rotten Tomatoes audience rating for “Batman v Superman” was 72, against the 28 critics’ rating.

 

But when the site started posting ratings the morning before the film opened, the critics’ number was 34, based on 127 reviews. Presumably, only journalists and invited audiences had seen it.

 

The audience rating was a much-higher 79 percent with 123,856 user ratings as of 8:20 a.m. March 24, hours before the first midnight screenings. According to Box Office Mojo, the film’s total take by that time: $0.

 

For some perspective, after four weekends, the hit “Zootopia” held a 99 from 170 reviews and 95 from 43,077 user ratings.

 

After the “Batman v Superman” opening weekend, as the number of user ratings climbed over 175,000 (as of 2 p.m. March 29), its positive percentage fell to 72. So from a few hours before the film opened through the end of the long weekend in which it was seen by millions, it added nearly 50,000 ratings, only 54 percent of which were positive.

 

Multiple inquiries to Rotten Tomatoes went unanswered

 

(added by me) Warner Brothers execs with bleeding fingers were unavailable for comment

Edited April 27, 2016 by paperheart

[Bosco685]

This was interesting in that the Russos had to pitch to Marvel what it needed to change - and how 'Batman v Superman' helped them.

 

'Batman v Superman’ helped convince Marvel to take a different approach with ‘Captain America: Civil War'

 

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, "Captain America: Civil War" director Joe Russo explained how he and his brother, co-director Anthony Russo, tried to distinguish the "Captain America" franchise from other hero movies and take it in a new direction.

 

"For our part, when we finished 'Winter Soldier' two years ago and we were thinking about doing the next one the only thing that seemed interesting to us was to deconstruct the Marvel Universe — because where else can we go at this point? There have been 11 or 12 movies so far, all with a fairly traditional structure," Russo said.

 

"Our pitch to [Marvel] was: 'People will tell you they love chocolate ice cream — until you give it to them five days a week. It's time to give them some rainbow sherbet,'" he explained. "[Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige] is a maverick and he's very sensitive to how people are responding to his content. He said he thought we might be right."

 

After the announcement of "Batman v Superman," which began as a straight-forward "Man of Steel" sequel and later became a crossover tentpole with multiple heroes, Feige agreed to a new direction for "Captain America" that would break from tradition.

 

" ... After they [Warner Bros.] announced 'Batman v Superman,' [Kevin Feige] said, 'you guys are absolutely right.' We needed to do something challenging with the material or we were going to start to lose the audience," Russo said.

 

Smart on Marvel to see where the audience tide was needing to go, and adjusted its approach based on what the competition was doing.

[revat]

to be fair, 500K imdb people gave Man of Steel 7.2/10 also. Sooo if I'm a dude who hasn't seen the 2nd movie, and most people agree that the score is the same and its the same director shot the same way with the same tone (all of which I didn't like) and the critics gave it an EVEN WORSE SCORE, I would think there's a pretty good chance I would feel the same way about the second movie as I did the first, and I would be unhappy that they didn't improve upon the first, AND I'd be very reluctant to spend theater time and money on it, and I'd feel pretty certain they are CONTINUING DOWN a path I'm not in favor of.

 

With that being said, I PERSONALLY thought it was better than MOS, mostly because of Batman and WW, but the plot holes were far larger in BvS and the editing far worse, resulting in just a marginally better overall movie. I would recommend the movie to any comic book fan, UNLESS they hated MOS. Then I would not recommend it, because clearly that style is not for you and the added deficiencies compound EXPONENTIALLY the unenjoyability of the film.

 

Same with Fantastic Four 2, which at the time made a decent amount of money, though not as much as they'd hoped. That was an AWFUL movie, but still worth watching if you're a huge fan of the Surfer. If you hated the first one, you for sure should not see the second one....and would think its reasonable to deride it even you hadn't seen it. Though to what extent....at some point it becomes more agenda driven than opinion sharing....

 

Are you implying people voted 7.2/10.0 without seeing the movie? Out of that many people voting, I can see some of that taking place. But also remember the first two critics to post a review on Rotten Tomatoes admitted their scores were based on the trailers, as they had not seen the movie. So it goes both ways, right?

 

As far as huge plot holes in BvS - I wouldn't go that far. But the editing definitely needed work as you could tell there were scenes missing. Now finding out later there was a four-hour cut reviewed by production which then they sliced it down to 151 minutes, it's clear why it has that feeling.

 

I would just say that having seen the 1st but not the 2nd one, with the imdb user scores being the same and the critic scores even lower, if I didn't like the first one it doesn't sound too unreasonable to be critical of the 2nd one, even if I hadn't seen it. I may not pound it over and over, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to be of the opinion that some serious changes are needed, even if I hadn't seen the second one, especially if a decent amount of my criticism from MOS has come up again in BvS. The inference is not without basis, and the opinion is not devoid of merit that I would bag on the 2nd one the same (or worse) than I had bagged on the first one. Of course others are certainly welcome to accept (or not)my opinion with varying levels of weight, but that I didn't see the movie doesn't make them worthless automatically.

 

 

as far plot holes, 'plot' may not have been exactly the right word in some cases. But definitely there were some motivational aspects that seem to be missing and some plot points that and leaps that were not 'earned' along the way. And some plot holes too...but they added up pretty quick and became very hard to ignore....

[gadzukes]

Since Martha is the motivation for everything Batman is, I bought into the moment that it could stop Batman in his tracks and in that pause, Superman was humanized.

 

 

is she?

 

Im trying to remember, how do they establish this in the movie?

 

Snyder went out of his way to even wrap her pearls around the revolver that kills her. And I seem to recall a pearl falling into the batcave in one of the dream sequences.

 

"Martha", for both characters is a HUGE motivation.

 

I liked the Martha moment.

Edited April 27, 2016 by gadzukes

[Prince Namor]

A moment like that, for the jaded, will induce a groan. Remember, this is America, where we're more influenced by Professional Wrestling than Macbeth.!

 

Point of Order: How the hell is the climax of Macbeth not similarly grown-inducing?

 

Y'all remember that, right? The big twist?

 

Prophecy three is "No man of woman-born can harm Macbeth"

 

So then when Macduff, having stormed the castle & defeated him in combat, runs him through, and Macbeth is lying there bleeding out, confused 'cuz he thought he was invulnerable Macduff reveals:

 

He's "not of woman born" 'cuz his mom had a c-section.

 

Seriously -- the big 11th-hour twist in Macbeth is "C-section, son!"

 

*Groan*

 

 

What did audiences 400 years ago have to compare it to....?

[Prince Namor]

A moment like that, for the jaded, will induce a groan. Remember, this is America, where we're more influenced by Professional Wrestling than Macbeth.!

 

Point of Order: How the hell is the climax of Macbeth not similarly grown-inducing?

 

Y'all remember that, right? The big twist?

 

Prophecy three is "No man of woman-born can harm Macbeth"

 

So then when Macduff, having stormed the castle & defeated him in combat, runs him through, and Macbeth is lying there bleeding out, confused 'cuz he thought he was invulnerable Macduff reveals:

 

He's "not of woman born" 'cuz his mom had a c-section.

 

Seriously -- the big 11th-hour twist in Macbeth is "C-section, son!"

 

*Groan*

 

 

What did audiences 400 years ago have to compare it to....?

 

Oh and... How dare you!

[Davenport]

Snyder went out of his way to even wrap her pearls around the revolver that kills her. And I seem to recall a pearl falling into the batcave in one of the dream sequences.

 

"Martha", for both characters is a HUGE motivation.

 

I liked the Martha moment.

I really liked Diane Lane as Martha Kent. She nailed the 'farmer's wife' salt-of-the-earth persona.

 

Martha's talk with Clark, "You don't owe this world a thing. You never did." was the perfect counter-balance to Lois' influence. She's grounding Clark in that moment. Giving him the key to what will make him truly "super".

Free will. Choosing to aid others from his heart. And not some sense of per-ordained obligation.

 

Lois, as a reported, is connected to people's need for hope. She's not wrong to project that on to Clark. But Martha knows better and trusts her son to get there on his own terms.

[Prince Namor]

...Free will. Choosing to aid others from his heart. And not some sense of per-ordained obligation....

 

or for revenge.

[Bosco685]

I really liked Diane Lane as Martha Kent. She nailed the 'farmer's wife' salt-of-the-earth persona.

 

Martha's talk with Clark, "You don't owe this world a thing. You never did." was the perfect counter-balance to Lois' influence. She's grounding Clark in that moment. Giving him the key to what will make him truly "super".

Free will. Choosing to aid others from his heart. And not some sense of per-ordained obligation.

 

Lois, as a reported, is connected to people's need for hope. She's not wrong to project that on to Clark. But Martha knows better and trusts her son to get there on his own terms.

 

 

Good callout!

 

When the Martha Kent speech was included in a trailer, some took that as excessively dark. To me, it conveyed the fact Clark very much had a choice. And what he chose, Martha would back it.

[Bosco685]

As of Tuesday's numbers.

 

 

[miraclemet]

Since Martha is the motivation for everything Batman is, I bought into the moment that it could stop Batman in his tracks and in that pause, Superman was humanized.

 

 

is she?

 

Im trying to remember, how do they establish this in the movie?

 

Snyder went out of his way to even wrap her pearls around the revolver that kills her. And I seem to recall a pearl falling into the batcave in one of the dream sequences.

 

I think Snyder went out of his way to include key imagery from the wildly successful Batman Year One.

 

Ok I can get that the audience might extrapolate some degree of guilt if there's a pearl in the batcave dream, and the dream sequence as a whole, but again how is that motivating?

 

And we're talking about motivation for a very dark version of justice.

 

I remember some writers using the Wayne's work with the poor/innocent as a motivation for Bruce to continue to act as a protector, but that was in the comics. Zach doesn nothing like that here in the movies...

 

Honestly, if Zach and the writers wanted to use Martha (Wayne) as a deus ex machina for everything then you have to first generate the emotional currency that you intend to spend in the third act. The Waynes were very minor characters in the movie beyond the origin/dream sequence. Not even much "this is the company my father built" talk from Bruce during the 1st act, which would have helped (though not specificly with the Martha problem).

 

Zach and the writers could have built a scene to show bruce's love and devotion to his mother, even focusing on her (instead of having Thomas screen center during the origin), do that, and throw in a few lines between Alfred and Bruce about "this isnt what your mother would want" ...at that point I could buy a 3rd act use of "martha" to stop the Bat in his tracks... but Zach doesnt do the legwork to achieve such.

 

No the only naming of Martha Wayne that I can remember is one single utterance during the origin/dream sequence. The entire movie hinges on one word being uttered in the first act of a scene that 99% of viewers had already seen many times over (since the "origin" has been shown so many times in the movies). Zach and the writers rest a huge weight on that one word. And I dont think it works.

 

Also here's a question.... Why would Superman say "martha" if he was reference his mom?

 

Did he walk around calling her martha?

 

did he think batman would just know that his mom's name was martha? (he was pleading with him that she needed to be saved)

 

Why wouldnt he call her what he's called her his whole life?

 

"mom..."

[kdoginohio]

Did I miss something?

How does Supes know that Batman was Bruce Wayne?

[Davenport]

Did I miss something?

How does Supes know that Batman was Bruce Wayne?

He knows from Luthor's party where he over-hears (super hearing) Bruce Wayne in communication with Alfred.

 

And I think (could be wrong) that Superman calls his mom "Martha" because of his secret identity, or at least as a layer of anonymity for his mom. "Martha" is who she is in life, and she's a kidnap victim of Luthor. Lois is the one who spills the beans, connecting the dot for Bruce to what he's asking of him: PLEASE, please go save her.

 

You know, this is kinda spoon-feeding it. But I'll lay it out anyway. It was a surprise in the theater (for me anyway). The build up and going it we thought we would be cheering for Batman during the fight. He's a human and so are we. Kick his alien butt...

 

But during the actual fight Bruce is the alien, completely detached from his humanity. He's lost it at that point. Superman is us, asking for understanding, begging for aid, needing a friend, someone to step up on our behalf.

 

It was a nice twist from the previews.

[miraclemet]

But during the actual fight Bruce is the alien, completely detached from his humanity. He's lost it at that point. Superman is us, asking for understanding, begging for aid, seeking assistance, needing a friend, someone to step up on our behalf.

 

I'll agree that the pleading made Superman seem completely human, and heck I'd buy the act of pleading being able to startle Batman back to his senses more than the unearned "martha"

 

I thought about how Superman might be trying to keep his anonymity, but at that moment can he be expected to be so sensible? I would think he would be reacting from an emotional base, which would be to beg for his mom's life, not marta's life.

 

again, i think it could totally work if there was some better act 1 work (by the writers) to lead to the payoff in act 3.

[Davenport]

But during the actual fight Bruce is the alien, completely detached from his humanity. He's lost it at that point. Superman is us, asking for understanding, begging for aid, seeking assistance, needing a friend, someone to step up on our behalf.

 

I'll agree that the pleading made Superman seem completely human, and heck I'd buy the act of pleading being able to startle Batman back to his senses more than the unearned "martha"

 

I thought about how Superman might be trying to keep his anonymity, but at that moment can he be expected to be so sensible? I would think he would be reacting from an emotional base, which would be to beg for his mom's life, not marta's life.

 

again, i think it could totally work if there was some better act 1 work (by the writers) to lead to the payoff in act 3.

You know, I'm not going to disagree with you. Personally I think it was a 'general audience' over-play.

 

They took the time to drive it home, provide some grave-stone-with-name flashbacks, bring the audience completely up to speed. Was it overkill? Maybe. Could they have smoothed it out? Maybe. Overall it worked well enough (imho).

 

Edit: Tossing this in before heading out...

 

The Martha thing was NOT a deus ex machina. That would be if Krypto flew in just in time to take the tip of the spear. The Martha thing wasn't just present throughout the movie, it's been sitting there in the Grand Box of Story Elements for decades.

 

The writers deserve full credit for utilizing it in such a pivotal fashion. What more can you ask of a writer? Right?

[Bosco685]

But during the actual fight Bruce is the alien, completely detached from his humanity. He's lost it at that point. Superman is us, asking for understanding, begging for aid, needing a friend, someone to step up on our behalf.

 

It was a nice twist from the previews.

 

Bruce is like that for a good portion of the early movie due to the destruction and death he witnessed from the Kryptonian fight. He just can't separate Superman from the disgust he feels towards Kryptonians for what they did because he doesn't see him as human (Clark Kent), but rather this alien being that was part of the calamity.

 

I still feel that fight scene was great in bringing Bruce out of his rage, and realizing he had misjudged Clark too harshly.

[Gatsby77]

From Motley Fool: "The 1 Number That Explains How Batman v. Superman is Failing Time Warner"

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

 

Lack of momentum / staying power:

 

"According to data compiled by Box Office Mojo, BvS was screening in 3,505 theaters earning $228 per theater after day 26 in cinemas. Avengers: Age of Ultron -- a similarly big-budget superhero film from Marvel Studios -- was yielding $523 per theater at 3,727 locations during the same point in its run last year.

 

To put a fine point on it: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is not only playing in fewer theaters today, but it's also earning 56% less per theater than its closest peer did."

[Bosco685]

From Motley Fool: "The 1 Number That Explains How Batman v. Superman is Failing Time Warner"

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

 

He's right about staying power, in that after a while word-of-mouth didn't overcome the critics completely. But you forgot the beginning of his article.

 

In many ways, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is anything but a failure for Time Warner (NYSE:TWX) and its shareholders.

 

Just look at the at the data: At $833.9 million worldwide, BvS ranks third on the list of highest-grossing DC Comics films, while its $312.8 million domestic haul is 12th best all-time among comic book adaptations, according to Box Office Mojo.

 

And while Rotten Tomatoes says only 28% of critics gave the film a positive review, 68% of the fans who saw Batman v Superman -- over 200,000 as of this writing -- said they liked it. The divergence helps to explain why BvS has done as well as it has at the box office.

 

And since this was published days ago, the overall take is now $854.5 MM worldwide as opposed to the $833.9 MM he references. And $320.5 MM domestic as opposed to the $312.8 MM he references.

 

[Gatsby77]

From Motley Fool: "The 1 Number That Explains How Batman v. Superman is Failing Time Warner"

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

 

He's right about staying power, in that after a while word-of-mouth didn't overcome the critics completely. But you forgot the beginning of his article.

 

In many ways, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is anything but a failure for Time Warner (NYSE:TWX) and its shareholders.

 

Just look at the at the data: At $833.9 million worldwide, BvS ranks third on the list of highest-grossing DC Comics films, while its $312.8 million domestic haul is 12th best all-time among comic book adaptations, according to Box Office Mojo.

 

And while Rotten Tomatoes says only 28% of critics gave the film a positive review, 68% of the fans who saw Batman v Superman -- over 200,000 as of this writing -- said they liked it. The divergence helps to explain why BvS has done as well as it has at the box office.

 

And since this was published days ago, the overall take is now $854.5 MM worldwide as opposed to the $833.9 MM he references. And $320.5 MM domestic as opposed to the $312.8 MM he references.

 

 

The passage of time has only made his negative point (re. lack of staying power) stronger.

 

Example:

 

This Tuesday's numbers mark day 33 of its release:

 

Batman v. Superman, day 33 (Tuesday): $188 per theater, at 3,066 theaters:

$577,298 domestic take for the day.

 

vs.

 

Age of Ultron, day 33 (Tuesday): $391 per theater, at 3,228 theaters:

$1,261,068 domestic take for the day.

 

vs.

 

Man of Steel, day 33 (Tuesday): $331 per theater, at 2,150 theaters:

$712,448 domestic take for the day.

 

vs.

 

Dark Knight Rises, day 33 (Tuesday): $476 per theater, at 3,157 theaters:

$1,503,295 domestic take for the day.

 

vs.

 

Dark Knight, day 33 (Tuesday): $598 per theater, at 3,590 theaters:

$2,148,332 domestic take for the day.

 

vs.

 

Batman Begins, Day 35 (Tuesday): $298 per theater, at 2,810 theaters:

$836,358 domestic take for the day.

 

Even the first X-Men movie outdid it 16 years ago, and that's at 800 fewer theaters and _before_ adjusting for ticket price inflation:

 

X-Men, Day 33 (Tuesday): $270 per theater, at 2,145 theaters:

$578,821 domestic take for the day.

 

 

[Bosco685]

This Tuesday's numbers mark day 33 of its release:

 

Batman v. Superman, day 33 (Tuesday): $188 per theater, at 3,066 theaters:

$577,298 domestic take for the day.

 

Batman Begins, Day 35 (Tuesday): $298 per theater, at 2,810 theaters:

$836,358 domestic take for the day.

 

You may be comparing things that cannot be compared.

 

Batman Begins:

- Release Date: 15 June 2005 (USA)

 

By Day 33 (July 17th), a few countries had recently had their first release of Batman Begins. And though they are little countries, they contributed to $4.24 MM to the worldwide total.

 

Czech Republic: 14 July 2005 ($221,135)

Hungary: 14 July 2005 ($266,303)

Lebanon: 14 July 2005 ($98,849)

Slovakia: 14 July 2005 ($53,004)

Finland: 15 July 2005 ($1,276,287)

Norway: 15 July 2005 ($2,272,108)

TOTAL BOX OFFICE CONTRIBUTION: $4.24 MM

 

Remember, Batman v Superman frontloaded its release schedule. And that is just Batman Begins I quickly checked and determined you cannot compare the two.