Sad Affleck

[drbanner]

Ben Affleck reacts to bad reviews.

 

This could end up as the most expensive bomb in the history of movie-making, even worse than the 1st Hulk movie!

 

SoS is such a great song...experiencing a bit of a revival recently with the Disturbed remake and I've seen it recently on one of the TV talent shows.

 

Reviews and general reception aside, there's no way this movie doesn't make a ton of dough.

Possibly...but I believe it is the most expensive film ever made with production costs over $400MM and with promotional expenses the total costs were pushed north of $500MM. We'll know soon enough, but if the movie is as bad as the reviews point it out to be, ticket sales will drop sharply in the following weeks...unlike DeadPool, which had serious staying power.

 

Should've released it when school was out for the summer season.

[Lucky Baru]

Comics were NOT on their last legs.

 

Gee, I guess the slump of the late 1970's to 1980's in comic sales never happened to DC. Take a look at the sales figures and where they were headed. They were headed downward. DC was pretty much flat-lined their sales from 1977 until 1987 at around 3 million to 3 1/2 million. Why did DC let Miller do something so outside of the norm with a major character? Why did DC publish The Watchmen? They knew if they didn't do something they wouldn't be around. The took a huge gamble. It paid off and shook up the industry.

 

That's not what you said.

 

You said 'comics' were on their last legs. Not DC Comics, but 'comics'.

 

Was DC Comics on their last legs? Coming off the success of Crisis on Infinite Earths, and growing success of Alan Moore on Swamp Thing, the success of Wolfman and Perez on New Teen Titans, it looked as if Jenatte Kahn was starting to get the ball rolling - so I'd say no.

 

Would it get better? Sure. ALOT better.

 

But that's not what you said. You said 'comics were on their last legs.'

 

And that is incorrect for comics and most likely for DC Comics as well.

 

Sorry guy. Their sales and the fact they published those two books tell a different story. Also, it appears that I'm only allowed to chat about 1 thing and yet you continually mix things around.

 

BTW, I guess I missed the part of the Dirty Harry movies where he had a teenage female partner

 

Been done before. Byrne thought of that part for DKR.

 

I'm referencing your DKR is Dirty Harry and you bring up Byrne. Was he a writer on the Dirty Harry movies? Guess I missed that too.

 

I agree, you do miss a lot.

 

Yet, you gloss over the switching from comics to movies to whatever when it suits you. Hard to have a discussion with a person that keeps mixing things around in an attempt to deflect points that the other party in the discussion makes.

 

who helped him battle mutants,

 

Been done before.

 

Again, I'm writing in direct response to your DKR is Dirty Harry. Not chatting about comics.

 

I know you are. Maybe research and see that Frank says that DKR was inspired by Dirty Harry. Duh.

 

And yet the movies and the comic are completely different except for the fact that Harry is a burnt out old dude and so is Batman. Wow, better jump right in and say "You win". Based upon your theory Gary Busey in Point Break was based upon Batman in the Dark Knight Returns because he was a burnt out old guy fighting crime.

 

and after an electronic pulse goes off San Francisco became the safest city to live in because Harry's style of vigilantism made it that way. Also, I can't recall seeing that an old crime fighting partner of Harry's who happened to be an alien get sent by the US Government to remove him. I'll have to go back and watch those movies again and look for all that now that you have set the record straight and informed me that DKR is your basic Dirty Harry. Nope nothing original at all in that story.

 

Done before, done before, done before. Names and cities changed to make it seem new. Yawn.

 

OIC, another lets flip it to comics instead of Diry Harry.

 

Both feature regurgitated ideas.

 

Again, wasn't what I was chatting about.

 

Yes, I agree it isn't top-shelf literature. However, DKR and the Watchmen were original.

 

In their presentation. Even Watchmen, which I consider a masterpiece isn't 100% an original idea.

 

Never said it was 100% original. However, I can't come up with another comic that was published before The Watchmen looked at how messed up in the head you have to be to put on a costume

 

Spider-man? Batman? Golden Age Daredevil? Lady Satan?

 

Spiderman, Batman, Daredevil have tragic events happen in their lives that make them become crime fighters. When is it explored that they are bonkers, as the characters in The Watchmen were, before 1986? I read a bunch of Spiderman and he's sad after Gwen dies but he isn't shown as some freak. He guilty about his Uncle but he isn't shown as mentally disturbed.

 

 

and one of the main characters can't have sex unless he's dressed as his alter-ego.

 

Oh, thank god for that one!

 

and then there is:

 

 

A novel? Really, when was that made into a comic as my sentence directly states "another comic". More lets change things around to suit your needs but never on topic.

 

 

Boy, have fun sitting alone in that theater when you go.

 

To what? BVS? It'll hardly be an empty theater.

 

Little lost.

 

Yes, you are.

 

Two personal attacks in one post. Guess having a discussion on a topic isn't what you want to do.

 

 

The two sentences before that are about the FF movie which you agree sucked. How come you have a hard time following that you'd be sitting alone in another FF movie or is this another attempt at bait and switch?

 

I was referencing BVS. Are you lost?

 

No, I was trying to understand your point. Still don't as it had nothing to do with what I typed.

 

You missed the entire point of my post. I'd like comic book movies to have a plot, be original, have quality acting, have a story that makes sense.

 

And... yeah. Who doesn't?

 

You

 

And... you are wrong yet again.

 

And...noting what you type, and the continuous changing from movies, to novels, to comics to whatever you do in your response I can't say that you have made anything clearer at all nor deflected any points that I make.

 

F- for this 'attempt'.

 

OK, Kav

 

Any other movies you haven't seen that you want to tell us about how bad they are based upon internet troll reviews?

 

Noting that I didn't say the movie was bad I really can't reply. I stated I hoped it tanked and then explained what type of comic book film I'd like to see. Of course, noting how much you jump around in our discussion, I guess you missed that.

[kav]

[wombat]

[Doohickamabob]

Most scenes were well done and basically as close as possible to the comic coming to life. But a couple of scenes are beyond painful to watch. They're just embarrassing.

Not sure what you mean. It's been a while since I read/saw it, but I only remember taking note of a few alterations.

[dupont2005]

Ben Affleck reacts to bad reviews.

 

This could end up as the most expensive bomb in the history of movie-making, even worse than the 1st Hulk movie!

 

SoS is such a great song...experiencing a bit of a revival recently with the Disturbed remake and I've seen it recently on one of the TV talent shows.

 

Reviews and general reception aside, there's no way this movie doesn't make a ton of dough.

Possibly...but I believe it is the most expensive film ever made with production costs over $400MM and with promotional expenses the total costs were pushed north of $500MM. We'll know soon enough, but if the movie is as bad as the reviews point it out to be, ticket sales will drop sharply in the following weeks...unlike DeadPool, which had serious staying power.

 

Should've released it when school was out for the summer season.

The studios continue to increase the stakes with these movies, which is a terrible idea, because sooner or later the fad is going to end. Not forever of course, but one of these movies is going to be one helping too many and it's going to bomb. A billion dollar budget isn't a smart move. Super had a budget of 2.5 mil, and that included landing Rainn Wilson and Ellen Page as lead roles, with Kevin Bacon playing the villain. I don't see why a non team superhero movie without too much space or supernatural elements couldn't have a comparable budget. The Flash? Wolverine? Chronicle had a budget of 22 million and featured three heavily superpowered characters. A Batman vs Superman type movie can be made on this kind of budget. Why does the spectacle always have to be bigger than before? I have a feeling within five years the studios will learn their lesson regarding billion dollar budget movies and we'll be back to El Mariachi for quite a while.

[kav]

Low budget good -script beats high budget lame -script every time.

[dupont2005]

So where does this film rank?

 

My own list:

 

Dark Knight Returns

Batman Begins

Batman 1989

Batman Returns

Dark Knight Rises

Batman V Superman

Batman Forever

Batman & Robin

 

 

That's not promising

[dupont2005]

Low budget good -script beats high budget lame -script every time.

The -script doesn't even have to be lame. I personally love RDJ and any time dedicated to giving him dialogue improves a movie, but when you throw too much money at it you're eventually going to lose money.

[MedicAR]

IT'S FRIDAY!

 

I want BVS to succeed. I have reservations about Deadpool but it looks funny and I will see it eventually and from what I have heard from friends that have seen it, I will very likely have a good laugh and enjoy it.

 

As fo Zack Snyder, I'm with Warner Bros. on him. I've liked his movies so far. 300 was incredibly stylized and over-the-top but it really worked well. I think that given the complexity of the material, Watchmen was a great adaptation. It had its shortcomings, sure, but still is a good movie. Man of Steel also had some flaws but I thought it was a good Superman story for modern sensibilities. It explained the costume without making it a costume, leaving tradition intact while reducing the eye rolling from younger viewers.

 

Then there are the Nolan Batman movies. Nolan is a lot like Snyder in that his movies are distinctly his. Leaving his other work out, I really liked his Batman movies. I wish they had dropped that god-awful gravelly voice but nobody bats 1000.

 

Will all of this, I still think the DC movies are just a bit off. I can't put my finger on it but they lack the multiple viewing "oompf" that Marvel's movies have. I have seen them all multiple times but the Marvel movies seem to hold up better for some intangible reason. The best theory I have is that the Marvel movies are lighter in every way. they take themselves less seriously than their DC counterparts and where DC delivers a better overall story, Marvel seems to give a better experience.

 

As for source material being they key...well, sort of. Some things work great on the printed page but fall flat on the screen. It works both ways, though. When Star Wars was put out by Marvel in 1977, did anybody think it was better than the movie? For that matter, has anyone ever preferred the comic adaptation to the movie it adapts? Most stories work better in one format than another.

 

Anyway, I will see BVS eventually, probably around Christmas, and make up my own mind, like I did with all of the others.

 

 

[dupont2005]

On a related note, someone on my Facebook wall was saying that despite the universal bad reviews, everyone should go see the movie anyway and make up their own minds. I asked him if he goes and sees every single movie released in theaters. No response.

[kav]

[NewEnglandGothic]

So where does this film rank?

 

My own list:

 

Dark Knight Returns

Batman Begins

Batman 1989

Batman Returns

Dark Knight Rises

Batman V Superman

Batman Forever

Batman & Robin

 

 

Did you mean the 2008 The Dark Knight or the animated The Dark Knight Returns? Both are masterpieces mind you. I was just curious.

[snowman28]

Too funny, thanks for sharing.

[Buzzetta]

Low budget good -script beats high budget lame -script every time.

 

I agree with this. Despite Eisenberg I believe the actors are well picked for their roles, (even Affleck) and did a remarkable job with a subpar -script.

[MedicAR]

I forgot to add...I really don't like Ben Affleck. I think of him like John Cusack, except that Cusack comes across as likable. Neither are particularly good actors in that they play the same guy over and over just with a new name for the character. I can never seem to get past the idea that I'm watching John Cusack whether it's in "One Crazy Summer" or "Identity." For that matter, their movies could actually all be sequels of one another....

[RockMyAmadeus]

Ben Affleck reacts to bad reviews.

 

This could end up as the most expensive bomb in the history of movie-making, even worse than the 1st Hulk movie!

 

SoS is such a great song...experiencing a bit of a revival recently with the Disturbed remake and I've seen it recently on one of the TV talent shows.

 

Reviews and general reception aside, there's no way this movie doesn't make a ton of dough.

 

I believed that as well. Then it was pointed out that they spent nearly $850 to $900 million on the film in terms of production and advertising. This film needs to make $1 Billion to be successful and there is a LOT riding on it.

 

It boggles the mind where this money must go. As my friend pointed out last night, they could have bought every commercial for the Superbowl and not spent whatever they are claiming what they spent for advertising.

 

Not that they actually spent $850 to $900 million on the film...such a thing would be entirely unprecedented....but films don't generally start "making money" until box office is double these costs.

 

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

[Buzzetta]

Ben Affleck reacts to bad reviews.

 

This could end up as the most expensive bomb in the history of movie-making, even worse than the 1st Hulk movie!

 

SoS is such a great song...experiencing a bit of a revival recently with the Disturbed remake and I've seen it recently on one of the TV talent shows.

 

Reviews and general reception aside, there's no way this movie doesn't make a ton of dough.

 

I believed that as well. Then it was pointed out that they spent nearly $850 to $900 million on the film in terms of production and advertising. This film needs to make $1 Billion to be successful and there is a LOT riding on it.

 

It boggles the mind where this money must go. As my friend pointed out last night, they could have bought every commercial for the Superbowl and not spent whatever they are claiming what they spent for advertising.

 

Not that they actually spent $850 to $900 million on the film...such a thing would be entirely unprecedented....but films don't generally start "making money" until box office is double these costs.

 

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

 

I wound up correcting myself a few posts after that but you are right and it is a more thorough explanation. I was looking for something like that article before though.

[RockMyAmadeus]

(snip).

 

Are you conditionfreak...?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Ben Affleck reacts to bad reviews.

 

This could end up as the most expensive bomb in the history of movie-making, even worse than the 1st Hulk movie!

 

SoS is such a great song...experiencing a bit of a revival recently with the Disturbed remake and I've seen it recently on one of the TV talent shows.

 

Reviews and general reception aside, there's no way this movie doesn't make a ton of dough.

 

I believed that as well. Then it was pointed out that they spent nearly $850 to $900 million on the film in terms of production and advertising. This film needs to make $1 Billion to be successful and there is a LOT riding on it.

 

It boggles the mind where this money must go. As my friend pointed out last night, they could have bought every commercial for the Superbowl and not spent whatever they are claiming what they spent for advertising.

 

Not that they actually spent $850 to $900 million on the film...such a thing would be entirely unprecedented....but films don't generally start "making money" until box office is double these costs.

 

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

 

I wound up correcting myself a few posts after that but you are right and it is a more thorough explanation. I was looking for something like that article before though.

 

Sorry, I hadn't red that far yet.