|
The franchise lost two directors for the exact same reason in a short period of time and the movie designed to launch this franchise indisputably under-performed both critically and financially. I don't see how this is so far fetched.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:The franchise lost two directors for the exact same reason in a short period of time and the movie designed to launch this franchise indisputably under-performed both critically and financially. I don't see how this is so far fetched. Because Snowman_McK posted:"Rumour: WB about to get rid of Snyder"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Any of those movies that "suddenly" got greenlighted were likely in the process of being greenlit before BVS even premiered, and likely didn't reflect any current decisions whatsoever, though. I mean, you just don't DECIDE to greenlight a film and then announce it. This stuff takes a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Any of those movies that "suddenly" got greenlighted were likely in the process of being greenlit before BVS even premiered, and likely didn't reflect any current decisions whatsoever, though. Tons of sequels are only greenlit after seeing of the original film's performance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Honestly, if I were a WB exec, I'd be screaming at Snyder and the other directors to dumb poo poo down and add more quips since I'd have a responsibility to my company to maximize short term return on investment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Yes, but they don't come out of the board room and do immediately, do they? It feels like it would be something that had to take a few weeks, and not something they could have rubber stamped in the scant amount of time between BVS's premiere and when they told the press.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Any of those movies that "suddenly" got greenlighted were likely in the process of being greenlit before BVS even premiered, and likely didn't reflect any current decisions whatsoever, though. I didn't say it was a response. But when the rumour said "They're about to get rid of him and they're all panicking and the entire shared universe is falling apart." And then the actual news was "Snyder begins shooting next film" alongside "Two more films are to be shot" it's okay to be skeptical about their ability to sift rumours. It's why your suggestion that it needs to be spun is kind of strange. The only real response is "They've yet to get anything right."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
If they get rid of James Wan on Aquaman I'll be very sad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I didn't say it was a response. But when the rumour said "They're about to get rid of him and they're all panicking and the entire shared universe is falling apart." And then the actual news was "Snyder begins shooting next film" alongside "Two more films are to be shot" it's okay to be skeptical about their ability to sift rumours. It's why your suggestion that it needs to be spun is kind of strange. The only real response is "They've yet to get anything right." Those other things could easily be things they're obligated to do/are stuck with, is all I'm saying. The behind the scenes turmoil isn't necessarily discounted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
I'm just saying, if ever there was a case for "Boy who cried Wolf" it's comic book movie sites and the DC movie universe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
How about we wait and see if it actually happens, instead of being a rumor that seems to come the gently caress out of nowhere. Remember that rumor/lie that Suicide Squad was doing massive reshoots to 'add jokes'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
People like sharing unsubstantiated rumors that fit their weird comic book movie studio tribalism, possibly the saddest thing Speaking of which I just heard from a guy that Kevin Fiege likes to poop his pants and likes the smell Keep in mind this is currently JUST a rumor until it is confirmed or not Comments please
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Those other things could easily be things they're obligated to do/are stuck with, is all I'm saying. The behind the scenes turmoil isn't necessarily discounted. In both cases, there was news concerning the same topic as the rumour (the DCU in general, and Suicide Squad reshoots) and the rumour was wildly off base. The kindest thing you can say about the rumour mill at this point is that it seems to be on point in knowing what they should be posting about, even if what they're posting is completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
I guess you're right. It's just not too difficult to believe that this is potentially going on when they've already had one financial cinematic embarrassment and driven off two creators for the same reason. I mean, that's quantifiable, and it's not fanboy mudslinging to say it isn't good. It's flat out bad, is what it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:I guess you're right. It's just not too difficult to believe that this is potentially going on when they've already had one financial cinematic embarrassment and driven off two creators for the same reason. Nobody has been able to prove that BvS was even a slight flop let alone a "financial embarrassment" and Marvel has chased away three directors for the same reason at this point, one of them being Edgar "loving" Wright. Four if you count Whedon. Pirate Jet fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:one financial cinematic embarrassment 850 million dollars worth of embarrassment. They sure have egg on their face. It's only by some pretty weird standards that that's an embarrassment. To put that amount in perspective, Thor and Captain America 1, the two movies that lead into the Avengers, didn't make that much between them. quote:driven off two creators for the same reason. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
quote:850 million dollars worth of embarrassment. They sure have egg on their face. It's only by some pretty weird standards that that's an embarrassment. For what it's supposed to be, yes, it is. ASM's franchise potential was shitcanned for the exact same thing. It's also a huge flop in China, which is a huge black mark in this day and age, and it doesn't have a low budget and being a B-lister named Deadpool to make up for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:For what it's supposed to be, yes, it is. ASM's franchise potential was shitcanned for the exact same thing. The indications are that was because of (lack of) merchandising rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:For what it's supposed to be, yes, it is. ASM's franchise potential was shitcanned for the exact same thing. What the gently caress is it "supposed" to be? And there's no way in hell Deadpool is a "b-lister" unless you're actively delusional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The indications are that was because of (lack of) merchandising rights. And also spiraling production costs, and also that trying to build a cinematic universe around Spiderman was a dumb idea anyway. TFRazorsaw posted:For what it's supposed to be, yes, it is. ASM's franchise potential was shitcanned for the exact same thing. If it's supposed to be something that leads into a team up movie, it's done better business that the two lead ups to the Avengers put together, and has a lower combined budget, and didn't have to be marketed twice. ASM was a different film setting up a different cinematic universe with a very different rights situation by a different studio for a different character. It's a clumsy fit at best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
This was a movie starring the two most popular superheroes of all time, coming after the big superhero movie boom that was already created for it, and not during the LEAD UP to said boom like the Phase 1 movies. It should have done better than it did. Far better. I don't know how this is even up for argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:This was a movie starring the two most popular superheroes of all time, coming after the big superhero movie boom that was already created for it, and not during the LEAD UP to said boom like the Phase 1 movies. It should have done better than it did. Far better. I don't know how this is even up for argument. There's a difference between "It could have done better" and "it's an embarassment and they're going to rethink their multi year, multi film plan" You initially asserted the second, not the first, and that's what people are arguing with. There's also an assumption that DC is purely banking on those huge numbers and that's their only objective. The fact that they're giving a divisive director with a very distinctive style who hasn't had an unqualified hit since 2006 free reign with 250 million dollars suggests that they're thinking about a few things differently to Marvel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
I don't see how that's NOT an embarassment when it's bloody Batman and Superman, two characters who should print money just on name alone, but. I dunno what else to say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:I don't see how that's NOT an embarassment when it's bloody Batman and Superman, two characters who should print money just on name alone, but. I dunno what else to say. They did print money though. Like this is literally the strawman people erect when they talk about Hollywood's inflated perception of blockbusters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:I don't see how that's NOT an embarassment when it's bloody Batman and Superman, two characters who should print money just on name alone, but. I dunno what else to say. 850 million dollars. That is printing money. That other films have managed to make more doesn't make it not a lot of money. To put that amount in a different perspective, each character generates half that in merchandise sales every year, regardless of whether there's a film out. The film generated double that in a month. It's a ridiculous amount of money. It's like saying a man who is 6'5 should be embarassed about his height because Shaq exists or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:I don't see how that's NOT an embarassment when it's bloody Batman and Superman, two characters who should print money just on name alone, but. I dunno what else to say. You do realize that most people don't actually give a poo poo about Superman and aren't comic book reading nerds, right? Marvel's films are raking in cash like big dumb effects-driven summer blockbusters because they are big dumb effects-driven summer blockbusters that have also tapped into the addictive consumer demand for serialized content, not because the broader moviegoing audience gives a poo poo about the personal stories of Bow Guy, Ninja Lady, and Green Dude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:You do realize that most people don't actually give a poo poo about Superman and aren't comic book reading nerds, right? As evidenced by the fact that the two biggest grossing movies in the series are the one that's the worst shot and the one that's the most incoherent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
quote:You do realize that most people don't actually give a poo poo about Superman and aren't comic book reading nerds, right? Prior to sixteen years ago, the guy was a household name. His fading from the public consciousness is entirely due to DC's mismanagement of the brand. Batman doesn't have that excuse, and this movie compares SIGNIFICANTLY unfavorably, financially, to both movies starring him that preceded this. That's not insignificant. It has less and less to do with comic books, either. Batman has been a merchandising juggernaut since the 90's. He has the mindshare, and that didn't pull as much people into the brand as it should.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Maybe it's backlash since a lot of people hated Dark Knight Rises.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Prior to sixteen years ago, the guy was a household name. His fading from the public consciousness is entirely due to DC's mismanagement of the brand. Batman doesn't have that excuse, and this movie compares SIGNIFICANTLY unfavorably, financially, to both movies starring him that preceded this. That's not insignificant. It has less and less to do with comic books, either. Batman has been a merchandising juggernaut since the 90's. He has the mindshare, and that didn't pull as much people into the brand as it should. Just because you desperately want something to be so, doesn't actually make it so. You are the most annoying sort of fanboy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Batman doesn't have that excuse, and this movie compares SIGNIFICANTLY unfavorably, financially, to both movies starring him that preceded this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
 Look at that underperforming piece of poo poo only coming in at number three and having the highest opening weekend of all of them, what a loving failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Prior to sixteen years ago, the guy was a household name. His fading from the public consciousness is entirely due to DC's mismanagement of the brand. Batman doesn't have that excuse, and this movie compares SIGNIFICANTLY unfavorably, financially, to both movies starring him that preceded this. That's not insignificant. It has less and less to do with comic books, either. Batman has been a merchandising juggernaut since the 90's. He has the mindshare, and that didn't pull as much people into the brand as it should. I really hate quoting myself but Snowman_McK posted:It's like saying a man who is 6'5 should be embarassed about his height because Shaq exists or something. The Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises were ridiculous, unqualified successes. Doing 15 percent worse than something as insanely successful as The Dark Knight is not an embarassment in this or any other universe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
more important than all this dickwaving about bvs' profitability: it is a cool, and good, film
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:more important than all this dickwaving about bvs' profitability: it is a cool, and good, film Honestly, the scenes with the Batmobile and Batman vs PMCs round 2 were worth the price of admission on their own, to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Eisenberg was the best movie Lex yet as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Lex's little mini-freakout of "I DON'T KNOW!" when Superman glows his eyes at him is my favorite tiny moment in the movie. It's exceedingly well done acting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Prior to sixteen years ago, the guy was a household name. His fading from the public consciousness is entirely due to DC's mismanagement of the brand. Batman doesn't have that excuse, and this movie compares SIGNIFICANTLY unfavorably, financially, to both movies starring him that preceded this. That's not insignificant. It has less and less to do with comic books, either. Batman has been a merchandising juggernaut since the 90's. He has the mindshare, and that didn't pull as much people into the brand as it should. This (and several of your previous posts) reads like the punchman movie equivalent of Putin's hired-goon internet propaganda. Please have some perspective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
People accuse me of resorting to a strawman, when you're comparing other people to the tools used by a fascistic, oppressive warmongering douche-bag? Really?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Lex's little mini-freakout of "I DON'T KNOW!" when Superman glows his eyes at him is my favorite tiny moment in the movie. It's exceedingly well done acting. Also, when he stumbles over his words at the library. Eisenberg is a loving treasure. It's crazy to think that, just a few years ago, he was off brand Michael Cera. Now, that's Michael Cera. TFRazorsaw posted:People accuse me of resorting to a strawman, when you're comparing other people to the tools used by a fascistic, oppressive douche-bag? Really? Well, if they were, they're not using a strawman, since Putin, Russia, and propaganda all exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:19
|
|