|
quote:Well, if they were, they're not using a strawman, since Putin, Russia, and propaganda all exist. One thing feels at least one level of magnitude worse and hyperbolic.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
BvS made a lot of money for the critical reception it got. I'm surprised it made as much as it did. If BvS was a better movie, it would've crushed the Nolan films. This is what everyone was expecting. Yes, BvS made a lot of money, but not a shitload. Yes, it's a mediocre movie, but it's not horrible. To sum it up, it's not a train wreck, but at the same time movies are not going to be emulating it anytime soon, unlike Deadpool which is setting up a wave of R rated comic movies. Are we good? Edit: vvv This person gets it. vvv graham cracker fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
If you want to make your posts sound less like propaganda, try using good analysis instead of hyperbole, and write as though you aren't constantly shocked and exasperated by the things other posters are saying. To contribute, Beavis did remarkably well for a movie that was 1. a DC comics movie in the age of Marvel 2. a Zack Snyder film 3. a sequel to a movie that critically and financially underperformed compared to the competition 4. marketed as having a grittier, darker, weightier, more masculine tone than the competition 5. critically-ravaged before opening day and subsequently murdered by word of mouth It didn't hit a billion, but who could really expect it to do that well with the deck so stacked?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:If you want to make your posts sound less like propaganda, try using good analysis instead of hyperbole, and write as though you aren't constantly shocked and exasperated by the things other posters are saying. You are aware that 5 is, and 4 could potentially be seen as, a flaw (whether or not you liked the movie, it's definitely not a good thing that it got the reception it did). BvS made a poo poo load of money, but in the age of Avengers and The Force Awakens they were expecting a poo poo load and a half. That, combined with the reception it got and the way it dropped like a rock week after week, definitely have WB on edge. I could totally imagine WB getting cold feet and trying to change poo poo, and the directors wanting out if it went in a way they didn't expect. That said, that's not a surefire sign that the movies are gonna suck/fail. After all, Thor 2 and Ant-Man had directors changed during production, and Favreau and Whedon got burnt out and wanted out after a couple of movies as well. Also, I'm not opposed to listening to rumors, because oftentimes there's a grain of truth to them, but you should also definitely look at the source. For example, I'm not gonna trust BMD about DC movies any more than I'd trust Breitbart about Hillary Clinton. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a buttload of pressure on Wan right now, considering his movie is probably the most likely and able to absorb any changes DC might want to make in the tone of their movies, considering JL is filming and WW is in post. edit: Also, generally word of mouth and critical response affect the draw of sequels a lot more than of the movie that actually got the reception. If Amazing Spider-Man hadn't been so coolly received, I bet ASM2 would have done better, even if it was the same generally disappointing movie that it is. Likewise, X-Men: The Last Stand was a garbage movie from a butt, but X2 was really good, and a lot of people had goodwill based on that, which is why it grossed more than X2. Same with Spider-Man 3. edit2: In differently pessimistic news: Ryan Reynolds is a pretty cool dude. He gave a preview showing of Deadpool to a teenager with cancer a few months before release, and he wrote a very nice tribute to the kid after he passed this week. Reynolds is clearly having a blast being Deadpool, and will probably do it for as long as Jackman has been Wolverine. (It will be a hell of a shame if they don't share the screen again before Jackman hangs up the claws) Yoshifan823 fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:You are aware that 5 is, and 4 could potentially be seen as, a flaw (whether or not you liked the movie, it's definitely not a good thing that it got the reception it did).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
It's funny when people point to how much money a film made to determine how good or bad it is. Dredd is loving fantastic and it made poo poo. I didn't even know it had come out until about a year later and it may be my favorite action movie of the 2010s. A little more on topic: I vastly prefer Snyder's style of filmmaking to everything Marvel Studios has put out. He makes pretty movies with great compositions and I'd rather watch that and films like Godzilla '14 than Winter Soldier or the Avengers. Tezcatlipoca fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
The idea that the superhero boom didn't start until 2012 is hilariously myopic. The boom started in earnest with Spider-Man, but movies can take a long goddamn time to develop (Edgar Wright and Jon Favreau were developing their projects in 2003 when Marvel was going to just have a film deal with Artisan Entertainment), but even then they were opening huge and being some of the top grossers of the year (Spider-Man, in 2002, was bigger than Star Wars, let's think about that for a sec).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:A little more on topic: I vastly prefer Snyder's style of filmmaking to everything Marvel Studios has put out. He makes pretty movies with great compositions and I'd rather watch that and films like Godzilla '14 than Winter Soldier or the Avengers. Snyder is a legit good director, all of his movies that I've seen have been very good or great. On that note, how's Sucker Punch? It's controversial, which sort of bodes well given that Watchmen and Man of Steel, both great movies, also received strongly mixed responses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:BvS made a poo poo load of money, but in the age of Avengers and The Force Awakens they were expecting a poo poo load and a half. We have no idea what they were expecting. Wheeee posted:Snyder is a legit good director, all of his movies that I've seen have been very good or great. Sucker Punch was two hours of telling the people the trailer appealed to that they're kind of terrible. It's awesome. It's also why I think "WB was expecting Avengers money" is actually kind of a big assumption. Avengers 1 and 2, along with all the Marvel movies, have been very top down. Directors have left over being micro-managed. WB gave Snyder, a divisive director, a huge amount of money and told him to do his worst. If they wanted Avengers money, that would be a weird thing to do. At this point, studios know exactly what makes a hit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Sucker Punch was two hours of telling the people the trailer appealed to that they're kind of terrible. It's awesome. I feel like 300 was doing the same thing but was more subtle and it clicked with me a lot more. Dredd did the same thing. I will not stop talking about how much Dredd owns, you can't make me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:I feel like 300 was doing the same thing but was more subtle and it clicked with me a lot more. I wouldn't. Never stop. Dredd and 300 are fantastic litmus tests for whether people engage with a film. So is Sucker Punch, for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:
C'mon now.  It's actually the third worst live action Batman film (not counting the '66 film which wasn't included in the data) and fell way below the average of $395m. If you adjust the opening weekend for inflation that also drops down to third place. BvS did have an above average performance for a Superman film but they usually don't do too well anyway:  So I guess it at least did better than Batman & Robin and Man of Steel?? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:C'mon now. And Batman Begins, which in no way lead to a successful bunch of films.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
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. What this reveals is that the actual profitability is irrelevant, as you are concerned that Superman is not being presented with enough offerings and sacrifices. Literal worship of the Superman character.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What this reveals is that the actual profitability is irrelevant, as you are concerned that Superman is not being presented with enough offerings and sacrifices. You are appealing to my Mexica heart, I hope you know this. Are there any more references/allusions to Superman being aligned and/or related to the sun in BvS like in MoS? I really liked those parts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Just to make sure I got this correctly: If your movie has one super-iconic character, it's a disgusting embarrassment if the movie doesn't make one billion dollars. And if it has two super-iconic characters, it's a disgusting embarrassment if it doesn't make two billion dollars. I hope nobody ever makes a movie with three super-iconic characters, the stocks would crash because that movie should make all the money in the universe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Just to make sure I got this correctly: If your movie has one super-iconic character, it's a disgusting embarrassment if the movie doesn't make one billion dollars. And if it has two super-iconic characters, it's a disgusting embarrassment if it doesn't make two billion dollars. Before the movie came out there was a rumour going around that it would have to make $800 million to break even and it passed that so it's definitely not a financial failure by any standard. But it's only made roughly half what The Avengers made (even without adjusting for inflation) and it's currently the 18th highest domestic grossing superhero film (after adjusting for inflation) which sure isn't anything to brag about. So it made a ton of money but compared to a bunch of other superhero films it didn't really do all that well. You'd expect the first ever live action showdown between Batman and Superman to be in the top 5 superhero films but it's not even in the top 5 Batman films. Tl;dr: on it's own it's doing great but in the context of the superhero dickwaving contest it didn't impress Grendels Dad posted:I hope nobody ever makes a movie with three super-iconic characters, the stocks would crash because that movie should make all the money in the universe. BvS has three super-iconic characters. 
Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
I was poking fun at this purely mechanical understanding of box office. 1 character with popularity level (pl) 90 or higher = one billion $ BO. 2 characters with pl 90 or higher = two billion $ BO. Snowglobe of Doom posted:BvS has three super-iconic characters. I think I need a chart to assess Wonder Woman's iconicity in relation to Batman's and Superman's iconicity. It might be that she is merely kinda iconic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Interesting to see that the director of THE FLASH has walked over 'creative differences' and supposedly James Wan might do the same with AQUAMAN. He had a bad experience with FAST 7, even before Walker died he didn't like working for a studio, and now WB are coming down hard after being surprised by the reception to BvS (That they were surprised that people might really dislike it says a lot).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I was poking fun at this purely mechanical understanding of box office. I thought everyone was already in agreement that arguing over box office numbers was spergtastic?  (And I'm saying that as the #1 guy to post charts and graphs of box office numbers itt)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
It's pretty easy for fans to internalize. Everyone enjoys watching numbers go up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
When the box office numbers start trickling in people get like...
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:We have no idea what they were expecting. Actually it was pretty obvious that WB/DC were expecting Avengers/GOTG levels of cash with BvS, and anyone who thought otherwise is delusional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Scyantific posted:Actually it was pretty obvious that WB/DC were expecting Avengers/GOTG levels of cash with BvS, and anyone who thought otherwise is delusional. It's already done better than GOTG.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:It's already done better than GOTG. Better overseas but GOTG beat it domestically. quote:Guardians of the Galaxy They both did about the same business in China, France, UK, Germany and Australia but most of South America showed a preference for BvS
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:supposedly James Wan might do the same with AQUAMAN. The biggest point of evidence why this rumor is bullshit is that no one talked about it until after the Flash's director left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
If you think WB didn't expect BvS to easily clear a billion worldwide, I'd love some of what you're smoking. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:If you think WB didn't expect BvS to easily clear a billion worldwide, I'd love some of what you're smoking. What if I think we'll never know and it doesn't matter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:
Coming back to this, the fact that BvS had the 4th biggest opening of any superhero film (unadjusted) but fell to 11th spot on the box office list after a month shows that it was massively front loaded and has terrible legs compared to the other big moneymakers within the genre. To put it into perspective, if we remove the box office numbers for the first three days of all superhero movies and look at how much they made from day 4 to day 30 (ie: their performance for the rest of the first month after their opening weekend) then BvS drops from 11th spot to 15th: quote:1. The Avengers $339.68m .... and if we adjust those results for inflation it drops down to 25th place: quote:1. The Dark Knight $367.80m BvS doesn't have the audience retention power of Man of Steel or even Superman Returns. In terms of sales after the first weekend it's been the second least popular live action Batman film (only beating Batman & Robin) and the third least popular Superman film (beating Superman III and IV). It just couldn't put asses in seats after that massive first weekend (which would have been largely due to the record number of pre-sale tickets) and it had a severe audience drop off which suggests that the enormously successful advertising campaign was writing cheques that the movie couldn't cash. It has terrible, terrible legs. Tl;dr: If we put aside the massive number of pre-sale tickets sold before word of mouth/bad reviews kicked in then BvS has had really mediocre sales.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
None of that takes into account the budget, wich Nolan's Batman flicks were a whole lot smaller. Theres no way of looking at BvS and saying it performed well except for that first week-end when no one knew what the gently caress. edit: Rises is at 250? Thought it was smaller. Still significantly smaller than BvS Viller fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
"i can't be hosed to actually criticize this film so i'm just going to post about how it didn't make much money if you don't include the opening weekend, the most profitable period of every movie not called frozen or titanic"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Burkion posted: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. Ok, but the last trailer was full of jokes. Surely you're not so naive as to think that is a coincidence are you??
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:"i can't be hosed to actually criticize this film so i'm just going to post about how it didn't make much money if you don't include the opening weekend, the most profitable period of every movie not called frozen or titanic" You do realize that part of a movie's success also involves in how long it can continue to put people in seats after opening weekend, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:"i can't be hosed to actually criticize this film I've made plenty of posts critiquing the film itself, maybe check my posting history before jumping to dumb conclusions? ungulateman posted:so i'm just going to post about how it didn't make much money if you don't include the opening weekend, ... compared to the other superhero films over the same period. Scyantific posted:You do realize that part of a movie's success also involves in how long it can continue to put people in seats after opening weekend, right? Titanic's opening weekend was almost 1/6 of BvS's
Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:"i can't be hosed to actually criticize this film so i'm just going to post about how it didn't make much money if you don't include the opening weekend, the most profitable period of every movie not called frozen or titanic" Beavis's wonky performance at the box office is fun and interesting to discuss. It's rare that word of mouth so completely undermines a box office run. It's like a mirror image of what happened to Deadpool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
All of the equivocation about how the box office performance is actually really good is kind of missing the forest for the trees. BvS underperformed expectations in nearly every metric. It's one of the most critically panned superhero films since Affleck's Daredevil. It didn't connect well with audiences. And yes, it didn't meet expectations in the box office. (I remember a billion dollars being predicted as the worst case scenario even after the reviews started rolling in.) It wasn't a terrible film, it just wasn't great. A lot of people (including myself) expected this film to be an absolute homerun, and to think the studio isn't disappointed that it wasn't is indeed delusional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Scyantific posted:Actually it was pretty obvious that WB/DC were expecting Avengers/GOTG levels of cash with BvS, and anyone who thought otherwise is delusional. Oh, you're on the board? What else do you know? Explain your "pretty obvious" E: Expecting things to be home runs is your own fault.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:It didn't connect well with audiences. Except for the parts involving Batman and Wonder Woman, who coincidentally are the stars of the upcoming films. I would not be surprised if the Battfleck solo movie easily makes $1 billion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
This movie that made $850 million and probably made back most of its production cost in advertising is a failure because people on the internet desperately want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
Trying to explain to the DC fanboys that BvS is underperforming even though it's made over $850m worldwide reminds me of this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ypaXNVPkSg
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:37
|
|