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

[Batman]

...Luckily, with the creative shuffle and appointment of Geoff Johns, perhaps DC can prevent such an egregious misfire with the Justice League, etc.

I think many people are putting a lot of faith in Geoff Johns. He was consultant for the Green Lantern movie and look how that turned out.

That's funny

 

On the bright side, Geoff Johns was just the "Co-Producer" for GL. If he'd been Producer, Sinestro would've been the main villain making the movie a huge success...

[Bosco685]

That's funny

 

On the bright side, Geoff Johns was just the "Co-Producer" for GL. If he'd been Producer, Sinestro would've been the main villain making the movie a huge success...

 

+ 1

 

I have a feeling this is the clearest Geoff Johns's role has ever been when associated with the movies. Before now, they would listen to his suggestions, and then move forward as they saw fit. Now, he is the co-studio lead for DC films.

 

DC Comics and Film's Boss Geoff Johns Lays Out the Company's Path Forward

 

Quick, who would win in a fight: Superman or a 43-year-old writer from Michigan with two first names?

 

Trick question: as DC Comics’ Chief Creative Officer, Geoff Johns controls the fates of some of the world’s most famous superheroes — both on the page and, thanks to his recent promotion at parent company Warner Bros., on the big screen.

[accessndx]

BOSCO.....I'm just reporting what's out there. I'm still on team DC.....

I can't help that I didn't like the movie. I REALLY wanted to like it. I had the same fears many folks did going in...some were warranted....others not so much. Overall, I was left with the taste of Jeremy Irons cereal in my mouth.

Having said that....I'm definitely NOT the Leeeeeeeeroy Jenkins of the DC threads....LMAO.

[Gatsby77]

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.

[Bosco685]

BOSCO.....I'm just reporting what's out there. I'm still on team DC.....

I can't help that I didn't like the movie. I REALLY wanted to like it. I had the same fears many folks did going in...some were warranted....others not so much. Overall, I was left with the taste of Jeremy Irons cereal in my mouth.

Having said that....I'm definitely NOT the Leeeeeeeeroy Jenkins of the DC threads....LMAO.

 

 

Sorry. But your lead-in statement was too funny not to pounce on this.

 

I don't want to mess on BvS AGAIN...

 

..."but I will"

 

 

If you didn't like the movie, then that is a personal thing. No harm there. I still thought it was funny.

 

The LEEEROY JENKINS was Jeremy Irons, silly. Though now it is clear how his quote was changed up to fit a story.

 

Leroy Jenkins - dealer of death (to his own team)

 

 

[Bosco685]

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.

 

EXCEPT, Jeremy Irons was misquoted. Or did you miss that part?

[Gatsby77]

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?

[Bosco685]

Am I missing something? What is unclear or misquoted?

 

My recommendation - go back and read what Batman and I noticed with the actual interview article. THAT is what was then quoted differently - not the original article.

[Captain_Pike]

Sad Affleck, now Jeremy Irons.

The horror! The horror! (bad Marlon Brando impression)

[Captain_Pike]

It must have been gut wrenching for Ben Affleck to promote the film, knowing he's more talented, as a director, than Zack Snyder.

[Bosco685]

It must have been gut wrenching for Ben Affleck to promote the film, knowing he's more talented, as a director, than Zack Snyder.

 

 

[Batman]

...I'm still on team DC...

[Batman]

How do we know he's misquoted if we weren't there?...

That's sort of the key issue here, Gats. How do we know he was misquoted or quoted correctly? There are several online reports of the original interview with the Daily Mail ( ) - including Daily Mail Online - and none of them actually quote the original question put to Irons.

 

Irons' response of "deservedly so..." could be in reference to either the "it was popular at the box office" or "but got an absolute kicking from the critics". The likelihood of it being the former is discussed on one of the sites.

 

Interestingly, CBM dropped the "it was popular at the box office" and changed the lead-in (it's not a question) to "ruthless kicking". That isn't good journalism.

[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.

[Bosco685]

And that quote by Irons is unspinnable.

 

I had a feeling you were going to say that. But I figured let me give you the benefit of the doubt you would go back and read the actual article with unbiased eyes.

 

That's a really good point! Here is the actual interview.

 

Jeremy Irons says he'd never accept a knighthood because he already has more money and fame than he deserves

 

‘Really, ambition has gone,’ he insists. ‘I look for things that tickle my fancy. You begin to see the end of life on the horizon. You think, “It’s not going on for ever, this. Let’s make the most of what time I have left.”’

 

That gives him the freedom to be entertainingly frank, starting with his most recent film, Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice, in which he played the loyal British butler Alfred. It was popular at the box office but got an absolute kicking from the critics.

 

‘Deservedly so. I mean it took £800 million, so the kicking didn’t matter but it was sort of overstuffed…’

 

He lets those words hang in the air, then laughs at the thought of a film described by one critic as the most incoherent blockbuster in years.

 

‘It was very muddled. I think the next one will be simpler. The -script is certainly a lot smaller, it’s more linear.’

 

There’s no getting out of it now.

 

‘I’m tied into The Batman at the minute [the next installment, Justice League Part One, is due next year], which is nice because it’s a bit of income…’

 

It reads as if Irons was responding to the statement, "It was popular at the box office..." and he is saying, "Deservedly so. I mean it took in £800 million..." and that is why he closes with, "...so the kicking didn’t matter."

 

If the article had shown Irons dogged out his own movie completely, that would be the end of it, as it is him sharing his opinion about the movie. That's not what happened, other than he said it was 'overstuffed'. And I can see with all that content why he would feel that way.

[bb8]

‘I’m tied into The Batman at the minute [the next installment, Justice League Part One, is due next year], which is nice because it’s a bit of income…’

I like that quote: 'it's a bit of income.' For a schlub like me, it would probably be a bit more than a bit.

[Bosco685]

I like that quote: 'it's a bit of income.' For a schlub like me, it would probably be a bit more than a bit.

 

 

That's one of the heavy themes in that article. Jeremy Irons has done so much work over the years, he is not hard up for the pay. So he can be more selective in the roles he chooses.

 

Must be nice.

[Captain_Pike]

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.

 

+1

[Batman]

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.

"Very muddled". "Overstuffed". Indeed, no argument there. It's the "deservedly so" comment we're discussing.

 

...But it doesn't matter what question Irons was asked...

It does... and in there lies the spin. Or maybe twist would be a better way to put it. As discussed here.

 

...

 

I liked BvS. I'm quite happy to discuss it until the next DC movie comes along. I don't mind that people have a different opinion on the film to me. That includes Jeremy Irons

 

What does irk me however, is how the press twist quotes from interviews and generally put a negative spin on news items because such-and-such bashing is the current flavour. For me, this isn't about that movie I liked and you didn't. It's about the behaviour of the press and how they generally turn any interview or news item into opinionated rubbish.

 

There's my dog. I call him Ace...

[40sJohn]

Here's my 2 cents on Iron's interview: He thought it "deservedly" got a bashing from the critics with the major fault it being overstuffed. However, he doesn't seem to convey that the movie was bad or terrible.

 

Irons comes across as being glad to be a part of the franchise and one that he was willingly and continues to be a willing participant, and not for the money. Sounds like he thinks it has a good future for being a quality produced/written franchise.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2016 by 40sJohn