Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Another look at the upcoming Wonder Woman movie...
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/24/wo … ow_twitter

I'm not usually a huge fan of the character, but it looks like they're going in a pretty good direction here. I like the style of DC. They use film imagery the way really good comic books use art.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, I had to leave my car at the mechanic, and with several hours to wait, I decided to go to the movies. I saw BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN and this film has me exclaiming: I've seen worse!!!

Spoilers






























I thought it was good. Not great. It made some critical errors. Basically, Superman in this movie is handled awkwardly. The script puts Superman and Clark Kent at such a vast distance from the audience that it's impossible to really get a feel for who he is or what he's feeling. Superman in this movie is aloof, unreadable, unknowable -- even when he really shouldn't be.

The movie is shockingly unclear on what Superman has been doing since MAN OF STEEL. We get a lot of talking heads about his actions, but the prequel comics do more to show him engaged in emergency response and humanitarian efforts than this film. We get a few scenes of Superman rescuing people from fire and flood -- and they don't work. Superman is either filmed from far angles or played by Henry Cavill with such rigid solemnity that it's hard to get a read on him. Does he care about people? Does he feel called to save them? What drives him to do whatever it is he's doing? It's impossible to tell because so little of the film is spent engaged in superheroics.

Tom Welling, when engaged in super-saves on SMALLVILLE, was aided by directors and writers who made saving people a visual spectacle of excitement. Zack Snyder has a few shots of Superman coming out of a burning building and hovering over flooded cities like it's an obligatory detail to brush over. Tom Welling played his supersaves with an urgent gentleness; he cared about people. Henry Cavill plays these brief scenes with an inscrutable coldness.

On some level, this is deliberate -- this is really a BATMAN movie and we're supposed to understand how Bruce sees Superman. In the absence of knowledge, Bruce assumes malice and threat. But the movie never gives you any visceral, emotional way to feel otherwise because Cavill and Snyder have completely failed to portray Superman with compassion or empathy. 

When the Senate is bombed, Superman stands in the midst of the explosion, surrounded by people in the process of being incinerated -- and Cavill's reaction is just frozen blankness. Tom Welling's Clark would have been grief-stricken, enraged, agonized, tried to grab as many as he could and get them to a hospital. Snyder's Superman is never shown to even try; you're supposed to just assume he did all that.

Thankfully, Affleck's Bruce Wayne is an extremely compelling, riveting presence in the film and without him, there would be nothing to watch. Bruce's loathing towards Superman is completely palpable and on some level feels reasonable because of how unpleasant Superman's presence comes off. The turnaround in his character is absurd, yet Affleck totally sells why Batman has a change of heart and Slider_Quinn21's grousing about Affleck being too old to play this character looks even more ridiculous in a post-release era.

Affleck's physical presence is incredibly convincing and most importantly, Affleck works as a very different Batman from Christian Bale. This Bruce isn't a distant intellectual whose combat skills are a means to an end; he thrives on physicality whether it's wine, women or war. This Batman is prepared to kill in the sense that he's a soldier fighting a war and while he doesn't set out to murder, he doesn't shed a tear for criminals getting blown up or crushed by overturned cars. It's an uncomfortable turn for Batman -- except Affleck's world-weary, hardened Bruce makes it clear this is a superhero who has had to set aside some of his idealism to survive and keep going.

I confess, however -- at times, I struggled to see Bruce Wayne, instead seeing a ridiculously famous actor known more for his interpersonal scandals than his characters.

Wonder Woman's not much of a character, but she's delightfully portrayed by Gal Godot in her fencing with Bruce and her laughter when battling Doomsday. Lex is good, although his bombing of the Senate seems oddly pointless. The movie has some truly peculiar sequences -- a future vision of a malevolent Superman and a Batman at war, a strange visit from the Flash calling attention to Lois in a subplot that has no payoff -- it's awkward. The final battle sequence in Gotham seems to take place in a shadowy landscape of nowhere with no sense of geography. The ending depends on being moved by Superman's sacrifice except Superman has been such a cold figure of nothing that it doesn't really work.

As ZACK SNYDER's SUPERMAN and ZACK SNYDER's BATMAN -- it's good enough, but it's not great, mostly because Superman's so detached that it's hard to enjoy the movie and I really can't tell what this movie is trying to say about superheroes or anything, really. MAN OF STEEL, regardless of its faults, was about a man taking control of his destiny and choosing who he wanted to be. BVS is about a man who feels powerless and... I dunno, fights a giant monster and then something or other. At least MAN OF STEEL's destruction porn is redeemed now.

As I said -- I've seen worse!

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Okay, I wrote this last night.  Posting it tonight. 

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I really didn’t think I was going to like this movie.  Too many things I thought were going to go poorly, and a lot of them ended up not being that bad.  I still don’t think this is the way I’d start the universe, but it’s not a terrible foundation. 

Stuff that worked:

- Batman.  Batman works.  You sorta buy his universe, and there’s hints that a lot of really cool stuff has gone down.  They also didn’t really make Batman “old” or “worn down” – he’s just a veteran.  Alfred and Bruce have a good rapport, and their relationship works.  I did see that Martha’s gravestone said she died in 1981.  So that makes Bruce in his 40s.  He makes reference to 20 years in Gotham.  So I’m surprised that he’s not more worn down, but I guess he’s not.  More on him later.

- Lex.  The hitfix stuff said that Lex and Batman work, and they were right.  Pretty much every time he was goofy in the movie was in the trailers.  The only annoying time is the brief scene where he’s introducing Bruce and Clark.  The rest of the time, he’s a solid villain.  BTW, it’s not a wig.  Also more on him later.

- Wonder Woman.  She’s mysterious, and there’s good teases to a bigger world.  They didn’t show too much and cut the legs off her movie, but they did enough that you’d be pretty excited to see a trailer or see the movie.  Her powers were probably a bit confusing to some people, but she was a good fighter.

- The movie is long, but it gets around.  Lois and Perry get nice roles.  Alfred gets screen time.  Lex is set up.  Bruce is in it a ton.  - Like I said, Diana is in it the perfect amount.  I think everyone that was supposed to get screen time did.  It’s long, but it gets a lot accomplished in 150 minutes.

- The opening scene with Batman going through the Battle of Metropolis is amazing.  It humanizes that whole sequence in a way that Man of Steel really, really failed.

- The Knightmare scene is a cool tease.  I bet that gets left on the cutting room in most movies, and I’m glad they kept it in.

- The big fight is done well.  Definitely worth the wait after all these years.  You can really tell these guys are working hard.

- Doomsday is cool.  I don’t know if he needed to be as big as he was, but you really fear him.  I really wish they hadn’t included him in the trailers.  That could’ve been an epic surprise.

- I’m sure there were a hundred Easter eggs, but it wasn’t bogged down by Easter eggs.  The rest of the Justice League easter egg cameos were really well done.

- The end is sold.  I knew it wasn’t going to stick, but it was pretty sweet.

Stuff that didn’t work:

- Superman.  I’m sorry….I hate this Superman.  Maybe he’ll be better in Justice League, but there was a part of me that hoped he stayed dead.  Seriously.  It was cool to see him fight, but his character is just a mess.  Everything is so morose and depressing.  When he saves the girl from the burning building in Mexico, he looks sad and it’s shot in slow motion.  When he saves the rocket, it’s sad and slow motion.  The capital blows up, and it’s sad and slow motion.  I thought the first movie didn’t let him have enough fun, and this was even worse.  He has fun for two minutes in the bath with Lois and *nothing else*.  This movie desperately needed a scene like the airplane crash from Superman Returns, both to show that Superman is a good dude and to show that he’s crazy powerful.  Everything he’s done in 18 months was either truncated or shown in a way that was zero fun.

- Batman’s backstory.  They show stuff we don’t need to show (the death of the Waynes….again.  The falling in the cave….again).  But they don’t show stuff that I’d love to know.  How well known is Batman?  Is he an urban legend to most?  That one cop had never seen him – have most cops seen him?  Where’s Gordon?  What happened to Robin?  Were there other Robins?  Is there a Batgirl or Oracle?  What happened to them?  How many criminals were active?  Are any still active, since he’s only fighting Russian gangsters in the beginning.  How does Gotham feel about Batman?  He’s more brutal now – was he more or less beloved/feared before?  What did Bruce do for 18 months?  Was he waiting for the Kryptonite?

- The length.  It’s way too long.  Way way too long.  The whole subplot with the bullet tied everything to Lex, but there was an awful lot of that stuff when Lex basically implicates himself in the end anyway.  The whole part with the spear could’ve been cut down so there’s not a sequence that took Clark away from the battle.  Even the Wayne employee’s arc just made things drag.  Nothing in the movie was unnecessary, and they all tied in.  But it just made the movie really long.

- The Battle of Metropolis.  We all know this bothered me from Man of Steel.  And the saving grace was going to be that it is a huge part of Dawn of Justice.  But it really isn’t.  Bruce is the only one who really seems to remember it, and he and Lex are really the only ones who talk about it.  Metropolis seems fine.  Outside of some protesters, no one really seems worried about it.  And the big scenes with the Senator aren’t even about the Battle of Metropolis but some random incident in Africa.  And while the opening sequence is incredible, it reminds me that there’s no way that the death toll was only thousands.  And, honestly, I don’t really even think Clark learned his lesson from the Battle.  I’m not sure he really learned anything from it.

- Lex Jr.  Maybe it’ll come back later, but I don’t see any reason to make him Lex Jr.  Maybe he’s a clone.  Maybe Lex is pulling strings.  But it seems awfully weird to have Lex Sr. mentioned several times but no real hint as to where he is.  It’s weird that Superman and Lex’s son are going to have this big rivalry, and Lex is….somewhere.  The whole thing reminds me of Amazing Spider-Man 2, and if that’s your reference point…..yikes.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

Thankfully, Affleck's Bruce Wayne is an extremely compelling, riveting presence in the film and without him, there would be nothing to watch. Bruce's loathing towards Superman is completely palpable and on some level feels reasonable because of how unpleasant Superman's presence comes off. The turnaround in his character is absurd, yet Affleck totally sells why Batman has a change of heart and Slider_Quinn21's grousing about Affleck being too old to play this character looks even more ridiculous in a post-release era.

Affleck's physical presence is incredibly convincing and most importantly, Affleck works as a very different Batman from Christian Bale. This Bruce isn't a distant intellectual whose combat skills are a means to an end; he thrives on physicality whether it's wine, women or war. This Batman is prepared to kill in the sense that he's a soldier fighting a war and while he doesn't set out to murder, he doesn't shed a tear for criminals getting blown up or crushed by overturned cars. It's an uncomfortable turn for Batman -- except Affleck's world-weary, hardened Bruce makes it clear this is a superhero who has had to set aside some of his idealism to survive and keep going.

Well, I still don't love the call they made.  But I was worried it was going to be much more of a Dark Knight Returns homage than it ended up being.  Batman wasn't retired.  Or, honestly, even thinking about it.  He didn't talk about his career like it's wrapping up. 

And I'd be happy for you to go back and throw my own words in my face, but I don't think my problems with Affleck had anything to do with Affleck himself.  He's gotten better as an actor, and as a big comic book nerd, I knew he'd give this role his all.  He's a kid from Boston who gets to be Batman....he's going to give it his all, and he's grown as an actor.  My problem was (and still is) that Batman and Superman have zero relationship in this movie.  They come to a truce, but Bruce talks reverently about Clark in the film's finale and that was odd to me. 

What bothers me about Batman facing Superman is that an old Batman should know better.  Eighteen months have passed, and he's a guy who has seen his fair share of people.  Yes, a lot of his people are "freaks dressed as clowns", but this is supposed to be a Batman who has spent years trying to save Harvey Dent.  A guy who has seen Jim Gordon giving the best years of his life to fighting corruption in Gotham.  And to compare Superman to Joker is unfair.  Superman is powerful, yes.  But Bruce spends a great chunk of the movie trying to prepare himself to kill Superman and makes zero effort to try and understand him.  Once again, the detective part of  Batman was sorta shrugged off.  And if Batman is going to be in the Justice League, he simply has to be "the smart one."  It's the only role that really works for him.

You're right about Superman.  He's not relatable at all.  The part in the bathtub is the only humanizing part.  The part in Congress, saving the kid in Mexico, saving the flood victims - you're right, they're shot in a way that he's an alien.  He's Kal-El.  As far as this movie is concerned, Clark Kent is 2% of the character.  And that's my problem with this version, and it's a reason I have trouble with the idea that Informant loves it so much.  Clark grew up in Kansas, and like he says in the finale of that movie, he's about as American as it gets.  But he also seems to accept Krypton way too quickly.  "On my world, it means hope."  On your world?  You've never been there.  You know almost nothing about it.  Your world is on Earth, and like Lois says, on Earth, it's an S.

Superman is such a problem in this that I was sorta hoping that he'd stay (SPOILERS).  He's no fun.  He's distant.  He's cold.  He's just a mess.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S




ireactions wrote:

The movie has some truly peculiar sequences ... a strange visit from the Flash calling attention to Lois in a subplot that has no payoff -- it's awkward.

To me, it jumped out as something comic fans would grab onto; the presentation was very similar to the sequence of events where Flash was running himself to death to save the universe in Crisis on Infinite Earths:

http://cdn1.sciencefiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1649657-crisis_on_infinite_earths__2_batman_flash.jpg

The above scene occurred in issue 1 and had no pay off until issue 8.

As he ran to catch a tachyon that was powering a world breaking cannon, Flash began to travel back in time and had brief moments where he appeared to people as he traveled backwards.  Flash kept trying to warn them of what was coming, but no one ever understood what he meant; so events unfolded as they would have anyway.

If it had not been framed as a dream in this movie, I would say this is exactly what they were trying to do with the Batman v Superman cameo; they were giving us a glimpse from the end of this big story where Flash is sacrificing himself.   But, it seemed to be shown as a dream; so that puts things in a more vague fog.

As for the movie itself, it wasn't bad.   I'm able to overlook alot of its problems, but I do wish we would have been given a more visual example of what I think happened to Bruce in this movie.   A montage of Batman's 20 year career so far could have shown us how his heroic ideals were slowly chipped away until all that remained was the vigilante; that each loss made him cross more and more lines until finally he was at a point where he felt no remorse in killing Superman.   This journey for Bruce was hinted at (especially through Alfred's dialogue), but I think the montage would have done a much better job of making this clear.  This was a Bruce redemption story in many ways; we found him as someone who had lost his way, but he's back on the path by the end of the film.

As for Lex Jr., I understand the decision now.   Jr. was presented as a highly unbalanced person, and I would have frankly found it hard to believe such an unhinged man was able to build a multi-national corporation.  It makes much more sense that he inherited it.

I did have one last thought watching the movie, though - will the Supergirl series keep it's quasi-continuity with the film universe and play off the death of Superman?  The closing minutes of the season finale could just flash up on the news feeds "Superman dead" and show Kara's reaction.  Then it's left there until next season when they could explore a Reign of the Supermen storyline where Kon-el, John Henry Irons, the Eradicator and the Cyborg Superman all pop up trying to be replacements for Clark.  I think it would be a good direction; and that Reign story could play out over the year and end just before the next chapter of Clark's fate ends up in theaters.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

TemporalFlux wrote:

I'm able to overlook alot of its problems, but I do wish we would have been given a more visual example of what I think happened to Bruce in this movie.   A montage of Batman's 20 year career so far could have shown us how his heroic ideals were slowly chipped away until all that remained was the vigilante; that each loss made him cross more and more lines until finally he was at a point where he felt no remorse in killing Superman.   This journey for Bruce was hinted at (especially through Alfred's dialogue), but I think the montage would have done a much better job of making this clear.

Yeah, I think it would've been a lot more helpful than another version of the death of the Waynes.  I don't know what it is about that sequence that makes people want to film it again and again.  I did read a theory that since two semi-high-profile actors (Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Lauren Cohan) were playing the Waynes that they might eventually play around with Flashpoint.  Not sure if that would happen or not.

In my review, I asked all the questions I wanted to know about Batman.  There's a ton.  And I almost wish they'd just cast Affleck as Nolan's Batman and just pretended that all took place in the same universe.  Because then, at least, we'd know the backstory.  For a 2:30 movie mostly about Batman, we know surprisingly little about him.  I think a lot of it is just supposed to be assumed, but this is a Batman who seems to casually kill people.  Who disturbingly decides to use guns in the Knightmare.  And who seemingly is so overwhelmed with rage that he makes no effort to investigate whether or not Superman is a good guy or a bad guy.  I know he's assisted by a cold/alien Superman who never smiles, but the movie just lumps Batman with Lex and some protesters in the only group of people who think Superman is dangerous.  Even the military, who seemed somewhat concerned with Superman at the end of Man of Steel, doesn't seem that worried about him until the very end.  I thought that was very odd.

So I was thinking about the DCCU vs the MCU, and I kept coming back to the idea that Marvel seems to stay true to the comics with their cinematic universe and DC isn't.  That we're basically getting "canon" versions of the Avengers (with some updates but no major changes).  In the DCCU, we have quite a few changes, from "updates" to Bruce and Clark's "no killing rules" to a more-alien Superman to an older (but still very-much active) Batman to a Lex Jr. / missing Lex Sr. etc.

And I started thinking about why there are these tweaks.  Why we can't just have traditional versions of these characters, and I think I might've figured it out.  Before 2007, Iron Man wasn't really anything in pop culture.  Marvel fans liked him, but no one outside of comics had heard of him.  People had a casual understanding of Thor and Captain America, but people like Black Widow/Hawkeye/Scarlet Witch/Vision were all relative nobodies.

Meanwhile, Man of Steel is Superman's 6th movie.  He's one of the most (and in some cases, the most) popular superheroes around.  Dawn of Justice is Batman's 8th movie.  All in a span of 30 years.  The part has been recast five times in eight movies.  People know Batman.

So is the reason why this DC cinematic universe doesn't feel like a DC universe because they had to try something different?  Just doing a standard version of either of those characters just wouldn't work because we already know all their is to know?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I dunno.

However, I would argue that despite Superman being kind of dull in this movie, the attack on Metropolis was certainly a factor throughout the movie. Wallace lost his legs in the attack and blamed Superman, Lex manipulated his anger to fuel Bruce's rage against Superman. No one is entirely comfortable with Superman due to the Metropolis attack and the repercussions of other supersaves.

Most significantly, when Doomsday attacks, Superman throws Doomsday into the air and punches him into space, taking it out of the city as best he can while also steering the flight upward so that if Doomsday does fall back down to Earth, he drops into an uninhabited area.

Still, it's not exactly Barry pulling people out of exploding cars every week, is it?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, I mean I guess it depends.  The military's position on Superman (in both the movie and the prequel comic) is "well, what are we supposed to do?"  The surveillance they were trying at the end of the last movie is either nonexistant or irrelevant.  He seems to have no capacity within the government (think the DEO in Supergirl), and it doesn't appear that the government has done anything in response to the Battle of Metropolis.

And, yeah, it rippled through the movie.  It was definitely the catalyst.  But what was the real impact?  Metropolis seems like business as usual.  There's a memorial, but it seems like everything else is pretty much rebuilt (keeping in mind how long it took to rebuild the Twin Towers, New Orleans after Katrina, etc).  The movie made a big deal about the talking heads dealing with Superman, but the public opinion seems to be the public opinion of mainstream Superman.  Yeah, he's powerful, but he'd never hurt us.

When I saw the government scenes in the trailers.  "Today is a day for truth."  "This committee finds him responsible."  I, naturally I think, assumed that he was going to stand in front of a committee for the Battle of Metropolis.  But in the movie, it's a significantly smaller incident that he's having to face the government for.  If there was any sort of hearing, it's not referenced in any of the pre-movie materials or the movie.  That was a little frustrating.

So most people in the movie just trust Superman, despite the fact that Superman doesn't have the warm, media-friendly persona in this universe that he seems to have in every other version of the character.  There are some protesters, sure.  But you get the idea from the movie that it's not a widespread thing (or there'd be more protests at his statue).  In fact the statue is regarded in the movie as "beloved" - not even "controversial"

So the people in the movie who are anti-Superman are Wallace (who is manipulated by Lex), Lex (who approaches the government first), and Bruce (who immediately wants to kill him).  It's just weird that Bruce is in the same boat as Lex, and Bruce seems the angrier/more violent person.  When Batman and Superman fight, it's usually about a disagreement in how to handle something.  It's a disagreement on how things should be done.  Batman has always kept kryptonite on hand just in case, but I think he understands that Clark is a good person.

Mr Sunday Movies said that the disagreement they have would've been easily resolved with a one-minute conversation between two hyperintelligent people.  And Bruce had 18 months to follow Superman and see if he's really such a bad guy.  And, I'd think, a mid-40s Batman (1981 is when the Waynes died....if Bruce was 8, he was born in 1973 and would be 43 in 2016) would be more reasonable than a young, mentally-unstable Lex Luthor Jr.  Instead, Bruce starts the movie in the typical Lex Luthor "yeah, he's saved people, but he's a threat to everyone!" mindset.  And that was odd to me.

And, yes, Superman learned from his mistake.  As soon as he can, he flies Doomsday away from people.  That was good to see.  However, I thought it was a bit ridiculous that the movie kept reinforcing that no one was around.  It was after hours, so the business district was empty.  That island they landed on between Gotham and Metropolis was uninhabited.  The warehouse at the end was abandoned.  We get it - you want to make sure we know that no one is around.  It got distracting by the end to the point where I felt like the writers were almost making fun of the people who complained about the death in the first movie.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/3/2/512832_v2.jpg

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree and I can't even disagree that strongly -- which is to say I don't really feel like BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN is even worth defending. To be frank, were I not a superhero obsessive, I think I would have found this film to be a crashing bore. As it stands, the only reason I found it interesting is because I'm interested in Batman and Superman, but I can't overwhelmingly claim that I would  be all that invested in them if I'd only ever known ZACK SNYDER'S BATMAN & SUPERMAN.

I went home and watched THE FLASH and ARROW afterwards and was pleased to be reminded that superheroes can actually be FUN.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

I went home and watched THE FLASH and ARROW afterwards and was pleased to be reminded that superheroes can actually be FUN.

Pretty much.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I've seen several reviewers who have been accused of giving certain story elements from Star Wars: The Force Awakens a pass but then punishing Batman v Superman for the same stuff.  And while I didn't love BvS, I'm in complete agreement.  And most of the critics seem to agree with the sentiment too, with not much more than "well, it's just how I feel" as their counterargument.  I guess it's because Star Wars was fun and BvS wasn't?  Because while I agree with that, I think Batman v Superman was better than The Force Awakens.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Wait.....wait....wait.

So the next movie is Suicide Squad.  Cool.  Looks fun.

Then Wonder Woman.  Awesome.  She was teased in BvS.  Looked great.  Looking forward to seeing her first movie.

Then Justice League Part One.  Cool.  We've set everyone up.  We know Batman.  Know Superman.  We'll know Wonder Woman.  We got teases of the others.  Awesome.

Then....Flash?  Then Aquaman?  Then Shazam?

THEN Justice League Part Two?  Wha....?

So how is that even going to work?  Are Justice League Part One and Justice League Part Two not connected?  Is it going to be like Avengers and Avengers 2?  Because it seems like they're doing it like Mockingjay or the last Harry Potter or Infinity Wars - where it's one long movie that they're splitting in two as opposed to two separate movies.  But if Flash and Aquaman are having solo adventures after part one, then part one can't end on a cliffhanger, can it?  So it can't be one long movie, I guess?

Because when they announced it, I'm picturing Darkseid standing on Superman's neck, about to kill him.  An army of parademons flying above a devastated Justice League.  To be continued in Part Two.  Which really doesn't lend itself to a fun Flash solo adventure taking place after it.

So is the titling not the way that it looks?  I know the 2-part thing is a pretty new development, but I thought for sure that's what they were doing with Justice League.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

According to a November 2015 interview, they're not being filmed back to back.

http://batman-news.com/2015/11/13/wonde … -revealed/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

According to a November 2015 interview, they're not being filmed back to back.

http://batman-news.com/2015/11/13/wonde … -revealed/

That makes much more sense.  But if that's the case, the titling is a bit bizarre.  Oh well, my mistake.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
ireactions wrote:

According to a November 2015 interview, they're not being filmed back to back.

http://batman-news.com/2015/11/13/wonde … -revealed/

That makes much more sense.  But if that's the case, the titling is a bit bizarre.  Oh well, my mistake.

They'll likely take the Part 1 out of it.   Part 1 could change to something like "Justice League: New Gods" and Part 2 maybe "Justice League: Cosmic Odyssey" (using Darkseid stories as the origin of those two names - just as "Age of Ultron" was the title of a comics story).  Of course, they may take a more direct approach with "Justice League: Omega" or something.

The Russo brothers have stated this is their intention with Infinity War Part 1 and 2; they said that one of them may not even be named Infinity War at all.  The Part 1 and Part 2 are just place holders until they decide on the title.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Fair enough.  I realize the whole "breaking one movie into two movies theatrically" is relatively recent, but it's such a pervasive thing now that I figured that's what they were doing.  Good to know I was wrong.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

So I've allowed myself to read and listen to some of the more harsh reviews of Batman/Superman.  From Max Landis to Kevin Smith to the guys at the Weekly Planet, I think people are definitely being a little too harsh on the movie.  Some of the motivations are lame and weak, and the characterizations aren't great.  But I felt like this was a movie that people were eager to tear apart, as opposed to something like Force Awakens, where people were willing to forgive.

That being said, whether or not the movie succeeds, the film was designed as a launching pad for an entire DCCU.  And as some people have shown, there are some huge issues with that.  I know we've done a bunch of spoiler tags, but I feel like this one is important.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Regardless of what you think about Batman killing, he seems to be doing a lot of it.  And, yes, Batman has killed before, but this one seems to be a lot more intentional.  If that's this version of Batman, that's fine.  But it does affect a solo Batman movie.  If Batman is willing to kill a couple dozen thugs for Lex, what's to stop him from immediately trying to kill the Joker (or the Penguin or whoever) the second they step out of line?  Is this a Batman whose first move is to kill?  Would that ruin a Batman solo film?

So Superman is dead.  We all know that he's not, and the last shot of the movie hints at that.  But it wasn't just Superman who died - Clark Kent died too.  I don't remember how this was handled in Death of Superman, but it was in the Daily Planet.  They buried him.  Not only that, they actually buried the Clark Kent version in Smallville.  People would've seen the body go in the ground.  How would they explain Clark Kent's resurrection when Superman comes back?  Is the secret identity done?  I realize the secret identity isn't a big part of this universe, but you gotta think that affects Man of Steel 2, right?

The Justice League tease.  So in the stolen data, there's the info on the Justice League, right?  There's files on Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg.  So it's obvious that Lex has information on these super-powered people.  First, why doesn't Lex include them in his plan to kill Superman?  Why use Batman to kill Superman when he has so much info on these other, more powerful people?  He already blackmails Superman and manipulates Batman.  Couldn't he do the same with them.

Then the weirder one.  In the data, the headings are the various logos for each hero.  It's first used as a tease, and then the movie uses the logos to show each hero.  WW symbol is Wonder Woman, lightning bolt is Flash, A is Aquaman, etc.  But these heroes aren't active.  We don't see Barry saving someone in his costume, he's in street clothes.  Aquaman is just out swimming.  Cyborg isn't doing anything.  As far as we know, these guys aren't active yet.  Lex seems to know more about their powers than anything.  Did Lex create their logos?  Did Lex give them their superhero names?  Isn't that a little crazy?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/3/2/512832_v2.jpg

WOW! Kind of on the nose there.

"It's only a matter of time. Were I in your shoes, I would spend my last earthly hours enjoying the world. Of course, if you wish, you can spend them fighting for a lost cause.... But you know that you've lost." -Kane-

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The M0vie Blog has an interesting opinion: that BATMAN V. SUPERMAN has a solid script for the Superman character and writes him as a bright and shining hero, but Zack Snyder's style is completely mismatched to the plot and dialogue.

There is a sense that the director is not entirely at one with the script written by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer. On a basic plotting level, BATMAN V. SUPERMAN is the story about how Superman saves Batman as a caring divine authority. Terrio and Goyer write Superman as restrained and compassionate while Bruce Wayne is a man who has lost faith. He has witnessed the cruelty of the world around him, seen it corrupt good men and reward vice. In such a world, how is it possible to believe in a beneficent God?

Superman serves as a beacon to guide Batman back towards heroism. Most obviously, the climax hinges on Batman saving a life instead of actively taking one.

At least, that is how it works in theory. In practice, it seems like Snyder’s direction is at odds with Terrio and Goyer’s script. Snyder’s interest in dynamic action sequences has the effect of dulling the big thematic point.  Snyder shoots Superman as all bombast and power. Hovering ominously in the sky and then advancing menacingly. The dialogue suggests that Batman should trust the alien, while the framing presents him as something of which the Caped Crusader must be wary.

http://them0vieblog.com/2016/03/31/non- … -superman/

Birth Movies Death, however, considers the film a moral disaster.

Every generation has a Superman. For generations there have been depictions of Superman that get the basic qualities correct. Whether you think SUPERMAN RETURNS is any good or whether you think the animated SUPERMAN or JUSTICE LEAGUE is the best ever, they all contain a Superman that a person can look at as a model for action. What would Superman do? Be a good guy, be polite, be kind. When I was watching SUPERMAN (1978), I saw a guy doing the right thing because it was the right thing. His strength wasn’t just physical, it was moral. I always looked to Superman’s inherent rightness as true north for my moral compass. Zack Snyder killed him.

In the Snyderverse, he is a cold and distant being who hovers ever so slightly out of reach of people trapped by flood waters, or who allows himself to be worshipped by a crowd of cartoonish Mexicans. This marble statue has no love within him, offers no comfort and is not a hero. Not a decent guy. He's a guy filled with anger, a guy who is haughty and disdainful of regular humans. A guy who, in many ways, represents the worst of us, a guy who struggles against his urge to do the right thing.

I feel terrible for the youngest generation who has this cruel, selfish Superman. I feel bad for the youngest generation who has been handed a jar of granny’s peach tea instead of truth, justice and the American way.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03/30/ … amage-done

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I absolutely see what the first reviewer is saying.  And, honestly, I think all that is in there.  Batman kills people in them middle of the movie.  He's branding people and sending them to prison to die.  He's absolutely lost his way.  And at the end, the implication is that Bruce is changed.  That he let Superman down but won't anymore.  It's all in there.

But both reviews are right in that Superman is portrayed as someone who is so cold and distant that he can't possibly be that beacon of light.  Instead of offering Bruce the chance to save Martha instead of killing Superman as a way to bring him back, it came off as confusing to me.  Superman could've easily saved Martha in ten seconds without any of the destruction and/or possible death we ended up seeing. Superman couldn't possibly know that Luthor had a Kryptonian monster so Batman should've been the one to confront Luthor.  I absolutely see what the script was trying.  But as I've been saying, Snyder is just not the right guy for this job.

I think the problem is that Snyder wanted to do a Batman movie.  So the movie is a Batman movie with Superman in it.  For the Batman movie to work, Superman can't be a guy who's clearly a good guy.  He can't be smiling with kids and babies.  He can't be saving Air Force One or protecting a bunch of innocents.  When he rescues people, he has to have dead eyes.  Otherwise, Batman really is a psychopath who is attacking the greatest hero the Earth has.  There has to be doubt.  Superman has to be portrayed as the bad guy.  And for most of the movie, he is.  In retrospect, the bathtub scene is way out of place because it shows a Superman who has fun.  Who smiles.  Who legitimately cares.  That Superman is completely absent the rest of the movie.

I don't blame Cavill.  I think he's just doing what he was told.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Is there any truth to the idea that WB worked hard to get Bale back for BvS, and it was SNYDER who shot it down?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Still avoiding this thread because I haven't had time to see the movie. But I saw another article that I wanted to comment on...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/warn … 29376.html

The headline implied that this was the scenario that HitFix suggested earlier. Panic. Desperation. But the article itself reveals that the only change is *more* movies on the slate. Aside from this not sounding like panic to me, I thought that it was always the plan to add more movies. Probably Batman, probably Superman and maybe more... Possibly Birds of Prey, if some recent theories prove true.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Okay, I'm not going to bother reading what everyone else said just yet, because I just saw the movie and I want to write my initial reaction before I get all influenced by anyone else.

So, what did I think of the movie??? I thought it was awesome. Seriously, I think it was the most comic book-feeling movie I've seen. Obviously, it was more of a Batman movie than a Superman movie, so the tone of the movie makes perfect sense. I've seen complaints that the movie was too long, but that length was necessary, because the movie didn't skimp on any character arcs. Everyone who appeared had a complete arc, and each arc made sense. These arcs are essential for a movie like this, because it could easily become too cartoonish or too absurd, which would void the emotional impact.

Batman --
I doubted Affleck's casting. You know I wasn't a fan. And while I can't say that I think his acting has grown much, I do think that he fit well in this part. The weathered Batman who has been going it alone for so long that he doesn't believe that people can remain good anymore. The one who has seen allies turn evil or die. I want to see more of this Batman, because we usually never get to this point in the movies. Instead of rehashing what we've seen and starting over once again, we're seeing something fresh, but organic (no, this is not an ad for Whole Foods).
Everything about the character's actions made sense to me. I don't think that he was necessarily sane, but since when is Bruce Wayne supposed to be sane?

Superman --
Honestly, I expected the movie to be equal parts Batman and Superman. I quickly realized that this would not be the case and adjusted my expectations accordingly. We don't see Clark Kent as a reporter as much as we see Bruce being a detective. We get glimpses into his world and his mindset. It is enough to inform us of where he is without giving us too much sad Clark. He's conflicted. He's loving. He's scared. He's still a very human character, which is what I love about this depiction of the character. I am okay with the fact that secret identities aren't as bulletproof in these movies as they are in the comic books. I'm okay with seeing Clark sorta clashing with the reporter role, rather than loving it. Perry was asking him to be less than he wants to be, and Clark is tired of being less than his all. And the movie explores the danger in that, which is interesting.

Lois --
I like that Lois is allowed to be an equal in these movies, rather than just a love interest. I really enjoyed seeing her investigating the bullets and the conspiracy against Superman. Obviously, she is not impartial, but what journalist is these days?

Lex --
An interesting take on the character. Or, the character's son... I'm still trying to figure out whether he is *the* Lex Luthor or not. He definitely had his annoying quirks, but he came across as genuinely menacing and creepy when he needed to be.

Diana --
I'm not usually a fan of the character, but her introduction was very strong. It made me eager to see her movie, because it seems like they might get it right. Whereas the first Captain America movie felt like a waste of time because they didn't really take the time to establish the character and make him legendary before throwing him into the present and making him a legend, it seem like Wonder Woman will tell her story as it needs to be told, rather than what the next big movie needs it to be. She is already in the present, so her movie won't need to set that up.

The Flash --
Still not sure I see the point in having a Flash movie right now, but what we saw of him wasn't too bad. Having him appear in Bruce's vision was interesting.

Aquaman/Cyborg --
Their appearances could have been a little more subtle (especially Aquaman's) but I get that they had to clearly introduce the characters in a fast way. So it wasn't bad.


All said, I appreciate that the movie didn't feel like a gimmick. I've seen people complain that Batman and Superman don't fight more than once and it's not the central focus of the movie, but those people must not have read many of the comic books or watched the cartoons. This was always how it was going to play out. They like each other and it would have felt stupid to have them fighting over and over again, just because. One of my biggest praises of this movie is that the fight scenes weren't useless and the bickering wasn't hollow.

Visually, the movie was great. I imagine that people will be upset that it was dark, but it is mostly a Batman movie. A lot of the scenes looked like they could have been ripped from the pages of a comic book, but the movie still felt "real", meaning that it wasn't all perfect lighting and primary colors.

If I had one complaint, it would be that Gotham and Metropolis seem to be very close to each other and I'm not sure that they should be that close. It worked for the movie though.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Wow. I completely disagree with everything you are all saying about Superman. (go figure)

I don't see him as having dead eyes, or being uncaring. The whole time I was watching him on screen, I was thinking how uncomfortable he was, being called a god every five seconds and having people worship him. On the other hand, he was troubled because those who don't love him hate him and put the blame for a lot of the evil in the world on him. I saw him as very passionate and loving, but conflicted. I totally identified with him in a way that I never could with other versions of Clark in the movies, because they make him too happy and too chipper and completely unlike any person I have ever known in my life.

I get this Clark. I get how he grew up. I get how he feels. I get how he thinks. And all of that was done without them having thought bubbles over his head, telling me everything. I don't see him as alien at all. I don't see him as cold. I see him as someone who is supposed to be the strongest man on the planet, who people keep saying cannot be defeated, and yet he feels like he can't win. He tries to save Lois, but people die and he is blamed. He tries to save the city, but people die and he is blamed. He tries to appear before the committee to answer for his "crimes" and people die and he is blamed. Then there is Batman, who has completely gone off the rails and Clark thinks that he can finally shine a light on this guy who is legitimately crazy (from all appearances), and nobody wants to hear it. At which point should he have been smiling and joking?

The comic books get the benefit of having 80 years in which to show us small moments with Superman. To give us a glimpse here and there, where Superman saves a puppy and gives an inspirational speech to a sad kid. Even a TV show has the ability to show those moments. The movie doesn't. When was there time for Clark to be that Superman in this movie? When people were blaming him for the Battle of Metropolis? When people were blaming him for lives lost in Africa? When he was being blamed for crippling a man? When the people holding him responsible for countless deaths were blown up themselves? If he did smile in the midst of all that, people would have the same reaction that they had at the end of Man of Steel, criticizing him for joking around right after the Capitol Building was blown up!
And do people really want them to add another half hour to the beginning of the movie, just so they can show him being Superman on a normal day? Because people are already saying that the movie was too long.


I actually feel like this movie was treated the same way in the press as Superman was in the movie itself. There are so many worse movies that people are willing to love, but nobody cared about them. Nobody is writing stories about Disney in a panic after Age of Ultron failed to live up to expectations. Nobody is writing headline after headline about how miserable a failure Star Wars was, only to have the article itself reveal that it wasn't that miserable of a failure after all, a few paragraphs down. Nobody is saying that Star Wars has thirty different versions released because the studio is trying desperately to make some amount of profit off of the embarrassing franchise. This movie, like Superman in the movie, was seen as so indestructible that it became popular to try to destroy it. The movie, by all accounts, is doing well. Warner Bros should be happy. Yet we have "Sad Affleck" videos.

We have excitement over the Suicide Squad leading to the studio having more faith in the movie and giving them more money to make it as good as possible, yet all the headlines were about the panic over how much people hated BvS. There was no way that the media was going to represent Batman v Superman in a positive light. This goes back months before its release, so it isn't like I'm criticizing them for not liking it. I don't think it ever mattered whether they liked it or not. I do believe that there was an anti-publicity campaign coming from somewhere, for some reason. I won't say that Disney is behind it, but it feels like it at times.

Actual audience members seem to rate the movie much higher than the critics (which makes sense, since the only Superman that most of the critics know is the 1978 movie version). And comic book fans seem to rate the movie higher than non-comic book fans. These reactions are interesting to me.


I do agree that the reason for this type of movie coming out of DC is the fact that we've already seen these characters so many times before. People keep talking about DC catching up to Marvel, but it is really the other way around. DC is at a place now where, like in the comic books, they're able to tell different types of stories with established characters. Marvel is nowhere near that point. I was going to write a blog entry about this. Maybe I will.

176 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-04-14 10:59:10)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I wrote my review after watching the movie.  I still liked it.  It was still better than I thought.  But I hear certain criticisms, and I have trouble arguing against them.  And I think people are "unfair" to the movie because I think, universally, EVERYONE wanted it to be great.  And when it wasn't what people were expecting, people sorta tear it up.  Again, I think this movie's failures have a ton in common with the failures of Force Awakens.  But for whatever reason, people forgave the Star Wars film.  Oh well.

But here's the thing about Superman.  If he was uncomfortable with being a god and people worshiping him, he does *nothing* to stop them.  Nothing.  When he saves the person in Metropolis, they surround him.  He doesn't say "no, no, I'm just like you.  Please don't do that.  I'm just here to help."  When people are reaching out to him on top of their roofs like he's an angel, he just creepily floats over them....like an angel.  He wouldn't allow a GIANT STATUE to be built of him in the middle of Metropolis.  If Clark was uncomfortable with any of that, he doesn't really do anything to show it.

Now I know that it's hard to be Superman, but he NEVER smiles when he's being Superman.  When he's saving people, he shows zero emotion.  So that's either Cavill being a bad actor (and he's not), or Snyder wanted him to look cold and alien.  He's so cold and alien as Superman that the bathtub scene feels like it's from a completely different movie.

And I understand why.  Batman needs a reason to hate Superman, or he just looks like Lex in a bat costume.  Lex hates Superman even though Superman has done nothing but good his whole career.  He even hates the fun, colorful Superman.  It's illogical to us.  But for us to be convinced that Batman *isn't* crazy, Superman has to look cold.  Has to look alien.  He has to stare coldly while people worship him so that we are convinced that maybe the Knightmare version of him could be real.

The problem is that the whole fight is a misunderstanding that shouldn't have taken that long to clear up.  You say they spend more time with Batman as a detective more than Clark being a journalist.  I'd argue that neither character does either of those things.  Bruce does some detective work on the KGBeast mobster, but he does *zero* detective work on Superman.  Even the incident that the government is so concerned about, Bruce does zero investigation into. 

And, again, it makes sense because if Bruce were a half-decent detective in this movie, he'd figure out that Clark isn't a bad guy.  When Bruce says "even if there's a 1% chance that he's our enemy, we need to take it as an absolute certainty" he's exactly right.  When he says Clark has the ability to destroy the whole human race, he's exactly right.  But Bruce saw one fight (that saved billions) where Clark is seemingly fighting on the side of humanity, and he wants to kill him.  Then Clark does, seemingly, *nothing wrong* for 18 months.  And Bruce is just as mad 18 months later?  Hell, the inciting incident (the Capitol explosion) has nothing to do with Superman and cannot possibly be tied to him.

This is the primary reason why I didn't want an older Batman.  Because an older Batman wouldn't be impulsive.  He'd take his time, do his homework, and be absolutely sure that he's the "1% sure" that he is.  In this movie, Batman doesn't do anything other than see the Battle of Metropolis.  That's enough. 

Bruce doesn't investigate who Superman is.  Because if he did, he'd find out that Clark grew up in Kansas, never hurt anyone, and was a good guy for his whole life.  He would've ended up in the same place as Lois in the first movie....talking to Pete Ross and Whitney and Lana and all the people in Clark's life.  Hell, he probably would've spoken to Lois.  And MARTHA.  All it would've taken was Bruce listening in on the bathtub scene, and I think the whole movie ends there.

I really like the idea that Batman went murderously crazy after the Battle of Metropolis, and Superman spends the movie trying to save him.  That's a really cool idea.  That Batman and Lex are basically after the same goal, and Superman has to show him that he's basically become a supervillain.  But because this is a Batman movie, Superman *has* to be the villain for most of the movie.  We have to believe it.  So that message is completely lost.  We're led to believe, "Yeah!  Superman is crazy powerful.  He does look cold and alien.  Maybe Batman *should* kill him."

So instead of identifying with the hero (Superman), we end up identifying with the villain (Batman) and the REAL villain (Lex). And it's just so backwards that the script's message is just tonally lost.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I think that the difference between this and Star Wars is that Star Wars was fun.  People can forgive a lot if they're having fun; and the two actors that carried that exceptionally well were playing Rey and Finn.

Batman V Superman is pretty depressing; and that's kind of amazing when you consider that its inspiration (The Dark Knight Returns) had a lot of fun with satire despite being dark.  And I do hold Snyder responsible for that based on his similar tone in things like Suckerpunch.  He's probably not, but I imagine Snyder as this gloomy, emo guy directing the world to his downbeat view.

But yeah, it is kind of silly when you realize Lois is depicted as a better detective than Batman.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, Star Wars was definitely more fun.  I didn't love the movie, but I had tons of fun watching it.  I even saw it a couple days later with no qualms.  It's just sad that there was such little fun in BvS - that's why I think it really needed a Superman Returns - like airplane save.  A 5-7 minute sequence where Superman can use his powers to save the day.  But Snyder would probably end up with him saving Air Force One but accidentally killing the president.

TemporalFlux wrote:

But yeah, it is kind of silly when you realize Lois is depicted as a better detective than Batman.

And, honestly, it isn't close.  She does all the work to implicate Lex, and she does all the work in the first movie to find/discover Clark.  What's crazy is that Lex knows to go to Lois to get Superman's attention.  Even crazy/murderous Batman doesn't think to go there.  He just shines his own Bat-signal and waits for Clark to show up. 

And believe me, if the movie was about a Batman who'd completely lost his way....completely blinded by his hatred of "freaks dressed as clowns" to the point where he'd basically become Lex Luthor.....that's a great movie.  Honestly.  And, with seven Batman movies in less than 30 years, I think America would've accepted "okay, Batman's gone crazy.  Save him, Superman!"

But in that case, they can't paint Superman the way they did.  They can't give Bruce (and, therefore, Lex) reasons to believe they're right.  Clark has to be a shining beacon of hope that can burst through Bruce's anger and craziness.  And instead, every single public image of Superman is *exactly* like the Knightmare sequence.  I agree that Cavill gets to play Clark as human, but his Superman is *very* alien.  He never smiles but he also never speaks, right?  Does Superman have any lines before the fight with Batman?  He speaks to Lois (as Clark).  Speaks to Perry and company (as Clark).  Speaks to Bruce (as Clark).  I think Superman's only lines are to Batman (after the fight....and it's a threat) and then to Lex I guess.

If I'm Clark, I want Superman's public persona to be over the top to earn the trust back.  Apparently he does *something* to earn back Metropolis' trust, but it's hard to see what it was.  Because with what we saw, I'd still be *terrified* of Superman.  He has these great powers and these cold, emotionless expressions every single time.  He's the ticking time-bomb that Bruce is afraid of.  And when he's that, the entire purpose of the movie gets completely lost.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I wrote my review after watching the movie.  I still liked it.  It was still better than I thought.  But I hear certain criticisms, and I have trouble arguing against them.  And I think people are "unfair" to the movie because I think, universally, EVERYONE wanted it to be great.  And when it wasn't what people were expecting, people sorta tear it up.  Again, I think this movie's failures have a ton in common with the failures of Force Awakens.  But for whatever reason, people forgave the Star Wars film.  Oh well.

See, I have to disagree with this. I don't want to make it sound like I don't think any of the criticism isn't legit just because I disagree with that criticism, but I don't think that everyone wanted it to be great. I think that for a long time, leading up to the premiere, there were more negative articles being written about the movie than positive articles. Things that were completely unfounded, just like we are seeing again now, with Suicide Squad. While a large part of the audience may have wanted it to be great, the press surrounding the movie turned bashing it into a pop culture movement before the movie was ever shown to anyone. Today, articles about the success of the movie are still given headlines about the failure of the movie. Articles about the faith that the studio has in Suicide Squad are still given headlines about their lack of faith in the movie.
I think that a lot of the negativity surrounding the movie now is caused by the media, turning it into something that it never was. The critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes is 28% while audience rating has it at %69 (which is actually down from where it was the last time I checked). IMDB has an audience rating of 7.2 stars, with 243,198 viewer ratings. Comicbook.com has it rated at 4.25 stars (out of 5) from 9353 voters, placing it #3 in their overall ratings, after The Dark Knight and Batman Begins, and just before The Dark Knight Rises and Deadpool.

All of this is to say that there is a huge disparity between the media reports surrounding the film and the actual response to the film. The media is not unbiased here and they never have been. So, why? Why do they want to drive the movie's numbers down? What do they gain from that? Is it just that negative headlines will result in more clicks? I don't know. But I don't think that there was much support for the film going in, the same way we see excitement about the next Marvel movie or Star Wars movie (is it a coincidence that they get nothing but positive press, no matter how bad their movies are? I mean, the last Thor movie got a 67% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and that was a horrible movie. Age of Ultron got 75%, despite being widely considered to be a huge disappointment, even among Marvel fans)

The comic book audience has reacted to BvS much more positively (though not all praises) than the average viewers, which is probably related to the average audience taking more of a lead from critics.

I can't comment on how fun Star Wars was since the trailers didn't tell me enough about the actual plot to grab my attention and I keep forgetting that it's out there to be watched at some point. I will probably watch it eventually.

That said, I had a great time watching BvS. I don't know what qualifies as "fun". Is it about more jokes? Is it about brighter colors or more explosions? I had a blast watching BvS, because it was a solid movie and had great characters. I know people will disagree with that, but I never found myself thinking "Why would he/she do that?" while watching the movie, which is pretty rare in a superhero movie where they usually don't pay attention to character motivation. I always understood where Superman was coming from and I think that's one of the things that I love so much about this version of the character. He is usually beyond understanding. He is always a perfect boy scout type, with a bland personality and no real emotional core. Very few writers ask themselves how he grew up and what type of person that would make him today. Granted, this version isn't close to the typical image of Superman, but he is exactly what I would expect him to be if I had to sit here and outline the character from scratch, given his history.

The movie doesn't do his point of view justice, because it's not really about him. We get glimpses of who he really is, but most of what we see is through this lens of Bruce Wayne, Lex Luthor, or the general public. When he is hovering over people, it's usually more about the reaction of the people than Superman's point of view. They do see him as some sort of god in a lot of cases, which is why when we see him from their point of view, he is hovering above them and isn't one of them. He saves the kid in Mexico and he becomes lost in a sea of people who are reaching out to him, praising him. It seems like it would be almost as lonely and isolating to be Superman as it was to hide himself for all those years. But that makes sense to me. I understand that more than I would understand hands on his hips and cutting ribbons at the opening of a supermarket.


I like how Batman was used to tell that story of Superman. Lex Luthor was just a maniacal, arrogant, selfish lunatic. Batman was the human perspective. And yeah, while he was putting a lot of his detective skills to use on other people, he really wasn't looking into Superman. He didn't want to. He was angry about what happened in Metropolis and he wanted someone to hate because of it. He spent as much time as possible dehumanizing Superman, so why would he want to find out who Superman was during his off hours? Why would he want to know about Superman's parents? He wouldn't.
Add to that the fact that Bruce has been doing this superhero thing alone for a long time. He's seen bad guys just get crazier and crazier. He's seen good guys go bad. He's seen allies die. He has been trying to stop his farm from flooding for 20 years and nothing he does ever helps. He is broken. He needs Superman, but when he finally gets that help, he isn't able to believe it.

And again, I totally get this. It makes sense. It's where I imagine Batman would be in this universe and his thoughts are what I would expect them to be. The whole reason the Martha thing works is because in that moment, Superman becomes more human. He isn't begging for his life or screaming in pain. He is telling to Batman to go save Martha after he kills Superman. Batman can't dehumanize that (especially since he had that vision of his mother's crypt). Clark seemed to know who Batman was behind the mask, so did he do that on purpose? Did he know that the name Martha would get through the hatred and anger that Batman felt? Hard to say, but I think it's likely.

The cooler way to play Batman would be for him to win the fight and cut Clark's cheek and let that be that. Just to prove that he could and that Superman can bleed. But that would have said less about how desperate Bruce was at this point in his life.


And I do hold Snyder responsible for that based on his similar tone in things like Suckerpunch.  He's probably not, but I imagine Snyder as this gloomy, emo guy directing the world to his downbeat view.

I don't know that it's fair to characterize Snyder as being a gloomy emo guy based in his past work. 300 and Watchmen were made to look like the source material. He honored that well. And while Man of Steel was criticized for being gloomy, I saw it as inspiring and hopeful. I see BvS much the same... a desperate, scared world, looking for something to believe in. Batman unable to have that faith in someone until he sees that man die saving a world that he wasn't even born on. There is a lot of hope that comes out of Superman in these movies, but because it's not all bright colors and too-perfect lighting, people say that they're gloomy. And I don't think it's "emo" to put some thought and consideration into the characters. I'm bored with comic book movies that care more about being "fun" than exploring the depth of these iconic characters. They have great stories, which are rarely acknowledged. People wanted a paint-by-numbers Superman, rather than a movie that was treated like a real film.

I didn't see Sucker Punch, so I can't comment on that one. I can only comment on what I've seen and Snyder seems to be someone who cares about the source material more than he's given credit for. He's someone who put more thought into these characters than most comic book movies ever get. He takes them seriously as characters and doesn't try to create a cartoon in live action, which is exactly where movies like X-Men or most of the Marvel movies go wrong.


I can appreciate the fact that his interpretation of the character may not be for everyone. But that kinda makes his movies even more fitting for the comic book genre, because there is always debate about who writes which characters the best, or who draws them the best. It has driven me insane for many years that so many writers/artists used Christopher Reeve as their template for Superman, when I thought he was so wrong in that role. So I get that there are times when you just don't like how things are being done. I'm just not used to being the one on the side of enjoying and really getting a thrill out of Superman while other people are so down on him. This movie was fun for me, because while I was watching it, I was in it. I wasn't distracted by what I'd do better or whether or not the characters made sense. As someone who loves great characters and who sometimes finds himself checking his email during "exciting" action sequences, I thought the movie was a blast.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Listen, I really really really do not want to make you dislike the movie.  I'm thrilled you loved it because I'm glad at least one of us loved this movie.  And while I do agree with you that a lot of people went into theaters either wanting to dislike BvS or tear it apart, I think that's exclusively based on Zach Snyder's BvS and not a "Batman vs Superman" movie.  I think, universally, everyone wanted "Batman vs Superman" to be great.  But I think Man of Steel + casting choices + bloated movie + dark tone scared a lot of people off.

I know you loved Man of Steel and really like Snyder.  But imagine Batman vs Superman had spun off Green Lantern or even the Schumacher Batman films.  You'd been waiting for your whole life to see Batman vs. Superman, and it ends up being George Clooney and his Bat-nipples vs. Nicholas Cage as Superman.  It'd be crushing.  And you'd probably find faults that weren't even there.

Maybe you can just read more into this Superman than I can.  I just thought Superman was a mess in this movie - way moreso than Man of Steel.  I thought Man of Steel was lifeless and no fun, but the flying sequence in Man of Steel is more fun than anything in this movie.  And that's what I'm talking about.  This is Superman!  There's gotta be a sequence where he sits back and thinks, "Holy crap, I can do X, Y, and Z!  This is awesome!"  We never get that in this movie.  It's 150 minutes long and a direct sequel to a Superman movie, and Superman enjoys his powers for literally zero seconds.

Because I don't think it has to be jokes.  I don't think it has to be Marvel-style action for action's sake.  I really don't.  Just a scene where you marvel at the idea that this is a guy who can lift a plane and fly at the speed of sound.  Who has diamond-skin and can hear an explosion across the planet.  His eyes shoot freakin' lasers!

And trust me, I get that they're trying to humanize Clark.  Make him realistic.  And if they decided that Clark was still hated from the Battle of Metropolis, and that's what's making him sad, that's fine.  When I wrote my version of BvS, that's the angle I went with.  That Clark simply can't do enough to win the people back, even if he has.  That he can do anything in the world, and that it's still not enough.  I can imagine my version of Superman looking sad.

But I don't think that's what this version of Superman is.  Yeah, Batman thinks that.  Yeah, Lex thinks that.  But even the Senator doesn't really think that.  Some of the talking heads in the movie think it, but the only protest in the movie is in Washington.  It doesn't even look like that big of a protest all things considered.  There's no one protesting at the statue, and when Wally defaces it, it's referred to as a "beloved statue."  If people in Metropolis mistrusted Superman, then it wouldn't be beloved.  There'd be protests there every single day, Occupy Wall Street style.

And that's where Snyder's vision messed with a great script.  Superman needed to be the star of that script, but Snyder wanted to make a Batman movie.  And he didn't want Batman to be an anti-hero, he wanted him to be the hero.  But Batman is *clearly* the villain.  Not an anti-hero.  A villain.  He's out to murder someone who has done nothing wrong.  And yet the movie has to make that work as a hero, so they make Clark look cold and alien.  Cavill's eyes might show more, but Superman doesn't do anything to inspire hope.  And in the 2-3 scenes where Clark is allowed to speak with Lois or his mother, he doesn't talk about his struggles with being a god.  He doesn't talk about being sad.

Because I think, in the script, he's not supposed to be sad.  He's supposed to be happy.  I bet he was supposed to be honored to save the victims in Mexico.  That he was supposed to be gracious and kind to the flood victims.  Maybe saving the rocket was supposed to be like the scene in Superman Returns.  But as you know, the director gets to interpret the script.  And if Batman is out to murder a clear hero, then he's a monster.  And Snyder wanted Batman to be cool.

I don't think the characterization is bad.  I have zero issues with the way Batman is done - I buy him completely.  And if Superman is sad but doesn't want to say anything about it, that's also fine.  But the rest of the movie starts to unravel because why would people trust him?  It's obvious that they do.  Superman has done *something* in 18 months to win the people over.  But none of that is in the movie because Snyder's vision needs Superman to be scary.

A truly great movie is in there.  I just think Snyder messed it up.  And I think when we see Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad and Affleck's solo Batman film, it's going to be obvious that the bigger villain in the DCCU is Zack Snyder smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I can't really argue with your opinion, because you're entitled to it. It is a shame that you don't like it. I think there are a lot of layers to the Superman character here. Batman sees him as a threat. Lex sees him as competition. Most of the people see him as a savior or a god. Some of the people see him as evil or a false god. He sees himself as a failure. Lois and Martha see him as a normal guy, trying his best.

For me, all of that is right there on the screen. I love those layers, especially considering that Superman wasn't the central character. Each point of view is valid, which is also remarkable.

I also think that the movie looked great.

As for the media reaction... I think they wanted the Marvel version of this movie. It is obvious from the articles that they think that comic books are supposed to be light and fun children's stories, which we all know isn't exactly true.
They will love Wonder Woman more than the other movies, because there political reasons to love that movie. Suicide Squad came out of nowhere. The media is trying to damage Suicide Squad now, but I don't know how well that will work. I seriously believe that there was nothing that they could do to make the media like this movie. Even if they made it look like a Marvel movie, they would be criticized for ripping off Marvel's style.

I guess it is what it is. You see one thing and I see another. This movie is like that white and gold dress that everyone insisted was black and blue. smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I find that Informant is half right and half wrong. The part where he's right:

Informant wrote:

This movie, like Superman in the movie, was seen as so indestructible that it became popular to try to destroy it. The movie, by all accounts, is doing well. Warner Bros should be happy. Yet we have "Sad Affleck" videos.

BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN is, for some reason, being painted as a failure. It wasn't. It's on track to make about 278 million in profit. MAN OF STEEL made 300 million in profit. And that's really the concern: Warner Bros. has to wonder why they spent such a massive amount of time and money in order to achieve what will be a rather middling return on their investment.

When your movie costs 410 million in production and marketing, 742 million by the third week of box office is weak when the studio only gets from 50 - 55 per cent of that and then has to subtract the money they spent making and selling the film.

And that's the quandary Warner Bros. find themselves in. To hit the 1 billion dollar box office sweet spot, they need a film that the audience is repeatedly returning to the cineplex to see again and again and again and again -- and that's not happening despite the film featuring three cultural icons in lead roles in a hugely promoted feature film.

When a low budget film like DEADPOOL is outgrossing a giant budget film like BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN, Warner Bros. has to consider if they're investing too much in the wrong areas. Currently, their method of investment is a bit like someone buying a private plane to commute two blocks.

Now, where Informant is wrong:

Informant wrote:

Nobody is writing stories about Disney in a panic after Age of Ultron failed to live up to expectations.

!?!?!?!?!

Google AGE OF ULTRON and "failure" and you'll find enough articles to wallpaper an entire city. The fallout from AGE OF ULTRON resulted in the widely reported schism within Marvel Studios in which Kevin Feige wanted Robert Downey Jr. to play a lead role in CAPTAIN AMERICA III rather than a supporting character, Isaac Perlmutter, responded by firing Downey Jr.

Feige declared that numerous production problems and overruns on AGE OF ULTRON had been due to Perlmutter's interference leading to Marvel earning lots of money but also having spent far too much for the earnings they'd won. Perlmutter was demoted to TV and comics, Downey Jr. was rehired and this was the biggest news for superheroes in Fall 2015. Hell, YOU heard it about it -- from me!

Informant wrote:

Nobody is writing headline after headline about how miserable a failure Star Wars was

?!?!?!?!!??!

Why would THE FORCE AWAKENS be considered a failure? 2 billion box office for $300 million in production and marketing.

Informant wrote:

Nobody is saying that Star Wars has thirty different versions released because the studio is trying desperately to make some amount of profit off of the embarrassing franchise.

?!?!!?!??!?!!??!?!?!!!?!!?!??!

STAR WARS is routinely mocked for the endless double-dipping. Fans have raised campaigns urging Lucas to stop messing around with the original trilogy and the Library of Congress declared the SPECIAL EDITIONs to be unwelcome in their archives because they'd been messed with so much.

Fans went so far as to form teams to locate and scan 16mm, 35mm and 70mm prints of the original films, which fan editors then used as source material to re-edit the blu-ray releases to create reconstructed versions of the unaltered films. Every re-release of the films with more inane CG alterations has been met with derision and anger. The universal distaste for the SPECIAL EDITIONS is one of the few (probably the only) things that STAR WARS fans actually agree on. And again, if nowhere else -- you would have read about it here on Sliders.tv! I've been posting about the DESPECIALIZED fan reconstruction project.

George Lucas' motives have also been psychoanalyzed to the last neuron: he grew up struggling to earn money, THX 1138 nearly bankrupted him, he sank the bulk of his millions from AMERICAN GRAFFITI into STAR WARS and was terrified when the film was dismissed by FOX and projected to fail. When it was a success, he invested in a sequel only to be horrified by ballooning production costs. Despite the success, Lucas was determined to avoid risky investments, doing RETURN OF THE JEDI as cheaply as possible and building Lucasfilm as a lucrative film production empire -- only to lose half of his fortune when his wife, fed up with his neglect, sued him in the divorce and proceeded to win and cripple his company for years.

As a result, Lucas became obsessed with squeezing as much profit out of his past achievements as possible due to his paranoia over money. This is the reason for the constant re-releases and why he would only make the prequels when the bulk of them could be filmed on soundstages in front of blue screens. Why did he refuse to hire screenwriters or other directors? He feared they would make things cost more than what he wanted to spend. Pathetic, really.

AND YOU READ ABOUT IT HERE!!!!!!!

*ahem*

You're right about the BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN 'failure' being massively overblown, though. It's not a failure. It's a modest success.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I think, in the end, it's all about expectations.  This was supposed to be a cultural explosion that sent DC into the stratosphere.  It made money (a sh*t-ton of it), but it wasn't what people were expecting.  I think the same applies critically.

I think Informant looks at the Marvel movies and then looks at the DC movies and prefers the DC ones.  They clearly take the material more seriously than Marvel does.  Marvel's costumes are garish and ridiculous at times, and the movies intersect but nothing really matters movie to movie.  Even Civil War, Marvel's attempt to show consequences, sorta pales in comparison to what DC did with BvS.

But I think there's a middle ground between Marvel and what DC is doing.  I think it's possible for these guys to smile without making a joke.  There's a brief second where Wonder Woman smiles in the fight with Doomsday.  And I'm not kidding - it's the most fun moment of the movie.  She's a warrior who hasn't had a fight in a while, and it kinda excites her.  And I'm willing to bet that either Snyder missed it or fought against it because it's the only moment in that movie that feels that way.

184 (edited by Informant 2016-04-14 17:15:22)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I don't believe that The Force Awakens or Star Wars were failures. I am saying that there are a ton of headlines about BvS that present it as a failure and claim that the studio is panicking, only to have the articles themselves present no such facts. There is an active push to create failure here, which you don't see with other movies. Whenever the release of the extended version of BvS is mentioned, it is in the context of trying to salvage something from the failure.

I may have missed the Age of Ultron articles when they came out, but I don't recall this level of active hate toward the movie.

I think that BvS will be a worthwhile investment (has the marketing budget been confirmed?). In addition to the merchandising that they will earn a ton of money from, the movie sets up a lot of other movies. Warner Bros. might be wise to get smarter with their spending, but the overall products that they have put out have been such a huge step up from Marvel's movies that I think Marvel might be wise to spend more. Their movies don't look good at all. If they are trying to save money by hiring cheaper directors or cinematographers, it shows. Obviously, it hasn't kept them from making money. However, it might limit the long-term appeal of the movies.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Info, do you agree that the DC movies needs a Kevin Feige, though?  Most of the complaints that I've read revolve around the fact that no one is in charge of making sure these movies work together.  So while the Russo Brothers might have final say on Civil War, they still have to report to Kevin Feige to make sure each movie works in the universe. 

Right now, that person is sorta Zack Snyder and sorta Geoff Johns.  But Johns is crazy busy doing about ten things, and I think the common complaint about MoS and BvS is that Snyder doesn't understand these characters.  And even if you think he does, he has nothing to do with Suicide Squad or Wonder Woman or Batman....shouldn't someone be making sure that what happens in those movies matters in subsequent ones?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don't really have an opinion on that yet, since we don't know how DC's continuity will work out. There are a number of people who are working on the various DC films (Zack and Deborah Snyder, Geoff Johns, Richard Suckle, Charles Roven, Wesley Coller and I'm sure a lot more people that I don't have the energy to look up on IMDB right now).

At this point, it seem that while Justice League will move the story forward, a lot of the other movies will probably take place before BvS. Wonder Woman will probably take place mostly (if not entirely) during WWI. Cyborg, Aquaman and to a lesser degree, The Flash would be strange movies if they didn't tell origin stories. Since we've already seen footage of them in action in BvS, that means that their stories would probably take place earlier. It's hard to say when Suicide Squad actually takes place, but the Batman movie could very easily show us how Batman got to the point where he is in BvS. What happened to Robin and Batgirl? It would be great if Affleck brought Nightwing into that story and maybe ended it with the introduction of Tim Drake.

If most of those movies stand on their own, how much do they really need to work together? They have a team of people working across different movies, so do they need one person directing the whole thing? I don't know. It seems like the Snyders are overseeing the general direction of the movies, but there could be a hundred other people out there, making sure that Wonder Woman doesn't contradict Aquaman.

Would I say that the Marvel model has worked in this regard? No. I don't think the movies work well as one whole creation. I think there are continuity problems between the movies. I think the characterization between movies has been pretty bad. I think there is a huge disconnect between the films and the TV shows that are supposed to take place in the same universe, so DC's decision to keep them separate (yet within the same multiverse) makes more sense at this point. While I think that Marvel has put out some fun products along the way, I don't think that I would point to them as a model of how to get things done.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, but I think with a project of this size, there needs to be consistency.  If you think Feige sucks at his job, that's fine.  But it doesn't mean that DC shouldn't have that job.  We're talking about dozens of people that have to make one big movie with lots of little parts.  Aquaman can't be funny and cracking jokes in his solo movie and cold and dour in Justice League.  And if the director of Aquaman wants to do that, someone above him needs to be able to tell him that it contradicts what's happening in subsequent movies. 

Because while there might not be much character development in Marvel movies, I think their characters are very consistent.  Thor has been directed by three different directors, but I feel like he acts consistently in all four movies.  I think that's partially the work of Feige.  And there's a disconnect between the MCU and the Netflix shows, but I honestly don't think it's that big of a difference.  I don't think it needs to be as close as Agents of Shield because it's more street level stuff. 

Agents of Shield and Agent Carter are pretty close to the MCU.  They have the same tone and feel.  And they do their best, considering that Downey/Hemsworth/Evans/Ruffalo are never going to appear on TV.

The problem is that Snyder has a very specific color palette that he likes. He's painted Batman and Superman in a very specific way, and if Affleck doesn't follow those same guidelines for his solo movie then it's going to feel unconnected.  Or some sort of elseworld.  If Suicide Squad takes place before BvS, then Batman needs to be angry and murderous and violent.  Because that's what's been established.  If Affleck is sorta jokey and playful to go along with the style of Suicide Squad, it's going to be a problem.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Setting aside any discussion of quality --

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

This was supposed to be a cultural explosion that sent DC into the stratosphere.  It made money (a sh*t-ton of it), but it wasn't what people were expecting.

That's the financial situation as well. Warner Bros. was sure a Batman and Superman film would easily hit 500 million domestic and 500 million foreign within two weeks, likely make at least $1.5 billion by the end of its theatrical run, and leave any competition in the dust. They put nearly half a million (estimated) into the project, expecting to make about $900 million in profit.

But three weeks in, it's made $300 million domestically, $500 million in foreign sales and ticket sales dropped 70 per cent with the second week, and now they'll likely make about $278 million in profit.

That makes superhero movies a lousy investment; they cost half a billion dollars to make and their profit margins aren't high enough to justify the risk and funds especially when sequels inevitably see diminishing returns. Warner Bros. has to ask themselves: why are they spending so much money to earn a 55 per cent return on investment that inevitably gets whittled away by continued costs of operating? In order for the studio to see a significant gain, they need to see a profit of at least 100 to 300 per cent of what they invested.

So, the issue isn't that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN isn't earning money; it's that it isn't earning money to entirely validate the money that was spent. If BVS had cost $250 million to produce and market, the current earnings would be fine.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I think casting Ben Afflect was likely more expensive than BVS's earnings justify; I'm guessing he was paid anywhere from $30 million to $40 million. The second expense was filming locations -- Detroit and Chicago and Yorkville might have been best replaced entirely with soundstages, Vancouver or Los Angeles, and the use of second unit filming and computer recomposition to create the illusion of the actors being on location, much as HEROES created locations with stock footage and digitally merging it with newly filmed material.

Another insane use of funds was extremely poor preparation that is fairly common to studio films, sadly. They hired Jena Malone and filmed extensive sequences that aren't in the film, so they paid her for nothing and paid the crew to film all those scenes for no reason. At a midpoint in editing, the film had an additional two hours of additional scenes -- not extended moments, but additional scenes -- that were filmed and ultimately not included, which means that Snyder and the producers exercised poor judgement when deciding to spend money filming script pages that weren't used. It really is not difficult to sit down over a weekend, read a script and identify what scenes will likely be cut.

Setting aside any question of quality, all of Marvel's films have been unquestionably profitable and the disappointment over AGE OF ULTRON at Marvel Studios was because it cost more $30 million more than AVENGERS but earned about $100 million less -- it was a hit, but it didn't move the studio to a higher level of financial prosperity beyond where AVENGERS had already put them. It wasn't an improvement, financially. But Marvel movies tend to operate like DC's TV shows -- they're on a budget where even if the earnings aren't spectacular, they're still pretty solid and aren't cause to question the value of the superhero cinema.

I think that's an area where DC's slate could benefit -- they spend way too much money without control, attention or frugality. When Batman is the star of your movie, you don't need to hire a movie star to play him. You don't need to pay for actors and sequenecs that will ultimately be cut. Location filming is wonderful, but this is not the 1990s anymore and the 'bottled' look of SLIDERS on Season 3 - 5 soundstages can now be dodged with craft and skill, allowing a location look for less cost while still having money for Superman and Wonder Woman to fight Doomsday. The movie side could learn some things about cost effective creativity from the TV side.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I do agree that there needs to be some care put into how the films feel and make sure that they don't contradict each other. You can't have a Flash movie that is a completely different world, with outrageous characters and cartoonish sequences. So yeah, they need to make sure that they're on the same page. And there does seem to be effort being put into that, with the Snyders and Johns working with each writer and director. So far, I have no reason to worry about that.

The thing is, I don't think Marvel did that well at all. Thor (the movie) directly contradicts The Avengers (the movie). Black Widow has been passed around the team so much that I'm amazed there isn't more feminist outrage. Especially considering that she not only doesn't get her own movie, but Scarlett Johansson, making her less than every male on the team. Captain America's costumes change from cartoonish in the Avengers movies, to more grounded in the Captain America movies. And yeah, the characters are more or less consistent between each film, but mostly because there isn't much character at all. For most scenes, you could probably swap dialog from one actor to another and nobody would notice. They've retconned the destruction done to New York in The Avengers, making it sound like the Battle of Metropolis, either because The Avengers failed to sell the scope of that event or because they were unwilling to go there, but still wanted to reap the benefits of such an event.
Agents of SHIELD has been held back from telling its stories several times, because it had to set up the next big movie instead, or wait for the next big movie. As a result, most of the series feels like filler and the rest feels like an advertisement for the movies.
Agent Carter avoids the mess by taking place in an entirely different era.

And the Netflix shows, while existing in the same universe, only serve to highlight the weaknesses of the movies. Daredevil's first season put out about 11.5 hours of content on a budget of 56 million dollars and it is a visually more complete production than the movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a couple of hours. They throw a ton of money and CG work and A-list actors into those movies, but they don't use those tools properly at all.



I do think that DC could be smarter with their money. I agree that they didn't need an A-list actor to play the part. Jeffrey Morgan probably could have done it as well, for much cheaper (for example). I agree that they could choose their filming locations more wisely... but I disagree about using more stages, Vancouver and Los Angeles. Firstly, because stages and backlots still look horrible. Especially when we have seen them all a hundred times before. But also because Los Angeles and Vancouver are not only too familiar, but for some reason the work that comes out of Los Angeles usually looks a lot cheaper. I don't know why, but if you don't believe me, watch The X-Files switch between Vancouver and Los Angeles.

Vancouver works often enough, but there are other, cheaper options. A lot of the country offers cheaper filming these days. A lot of those states are right to work states, meaning that they don't need to pay union wages for every extra they hire. On top of that, they would benefit from not having the same locations as every other film to ever be produced.

I may be biased, but can someone tell me why The Flash or Cyborg shouldn't be filmed someplace like Dallas? Marvel films a lot in Atlanta, because they offer better incentives than Texas. So I get that part. Either way, I think it'd be cheaper than Los Angeles or probably even Vancouver. I know that we have a lot of very capable people who work here, because I work with them all the time, and just filming in different locations will make those movies feel separate while existing in the same universe. If they film The Flash in the same city that they film The Flash (tv series)... I think that would be a mistake.

I really do hope that we get to see the extra long version of BvS. It bothers me more that the movie had to be shortened so much than it does that they filmed it that way. I want the extended version, and I will pay for it when it comes out on blu-ray. If that version is another two hours long, I will be psyched to spend a day watching it! And if that version costs $10 more than the theatrical version I will grit my teeth and get it (I hate spending money).

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Look, I have no reason to think that DC won't be a unified front.  That Batman in BvS will match Batman in Suicide Squad that will match Batman in Affleck's solo film.  I don't think we'll suddenly get Adam West Batman in Suicide Squad because that movie is a little goofier.

I have no reason to believe that things won't go sour.  But I also have no reason to think that they won't.  And I think the problem is that this universe has a tone, and it's Zack Snyder's tone.  And Zack Snyder has a very specific and very unique tone - it's grim, it's dour, and it's muted.  Yes, he takes things very seriously, and that's awesome.  But all his movies are, on one level or another, extremely depressing.  For the most part, these movies don't even end happily.  Watchmen, 300, Sucker Punch, Man of Steel.  Every one of them ends with the hero either dying or walking away from some sort of huge tragedy.  I know you thought Man of Steel was hopeful, but I thought it ended on a really dark note.  BvS ends on a really dark note.

So, honestly, I'd *love* it if Snyder was fired and they went in a different direction.  But I don't think that benefits anyone.  We have to have a Superman who is publicly cold and alien.  We have to have a Batman who is more-than-willing to kill when the situation calls for it.  Because if we don't, we're contradicting what's been established.  And that's more than twisting the narrative so that Thor can end up on Earth with the Bifrost destroyed.  It's more than Captain America's wardrobe or Black Widow's boyfriend.  Superman never smiling is a part of his character across his entire career.  Batman's willingness to kill is something that is a part of his character.

And so if Superman shows up in a Flash movie, he can't all-the-sudden start acting fun and playful.  If Batman shows up in an Aquaman movie and has a chance to kill a villain who's doing harm, he has to take the shot.  And whether 12 people are doing it or one person is doing it, those characteristics have to apply to all the movies in the DCCU or there's no reason to even do a cinematic universe.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I wonder how many people are going to be upset when Suicide Squad isn't an all-out comedy. There are some funny characters in the movie, but I have a hard time imagining most of the characters as being comedic.

I don't view Snyder's style as grim or dour. A little muted, maybe, but only compared to other superhero movies. It looks like a lot of other movies that people wouldn't call grim or dour. It actually feels like a film from the late 80's or early 90's in a way, which is interesting.  The coloring reminds me of movies like Stand By Me or Field of Dreams.

This post is about to get image heavy. Sorry about that.

Compare:
http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/6c1a780d-96b6-4e79-9aba-a8277e48f2ae/9a62f309-422f-43d1-858c-85cbe77981fd.png


With:
http://toyotter.com/wp-content/man-of-steel-43.jpg

or:
http://images2.static-bluray.com/reviews/1433_5.jpg

With:
http://static.srcdn.com/slir/w570-h300-q90-c570:300/wp-content/uploads/Kevin-Costner-as-Jonathan-Kent-in-Man-of-Steel.jpg


For a lot of the Superman scenes in BvS, there is an old school imagery that reminds me of the 30's or 40's. Such as this scene:
http://images-cdn.moviepilot.com/images/c_limit,h_1080,w_1920/t_mp_quality/af9sw4s0agxov0iigpwj/trailer-breakdown-batman-v-superman-official-trailer-362959.jpg


I don't see it as grim or dark or dour. I just see it as a film, compared to the popcorn movie that people expect something like this to be. Snyder uses light and shadow well. The color balance makes this character seem more real, whereas "traditional" superman always feels like a cartoon:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/scottmendelson/files/2014/02/superman_returns_22.jpg


You say that Superman is cold and alien, but what is he looking at in this picture?

http://images-cdn.moviepilot.com/images/c_limit,h_1637,w_2460/t_mp_quality/fnzqi32f59gnxocstypl/is-batman-v-superman-pulling-a-deadpool-with-an-r-rated-version-896687.jpg


If I recall correctly, he is looking back at the home that is still burning. He saved the girl, but that doesn't make him happy to see her home burn. That's not cold. That's not alien. How many firefighters do you think would be smiling as they watched that house burn?

I don't think the door is closed on a lighter Superman. What we've seen so far isn't someone who enjoys this life. He is someone who has taken on the task of seeking out the most horrible things he can see on a daily basis, and he has nobody to do it with. He doesn't spend time with people who know what that's like. He is like Batman in a lot of ways, because they're both drowning.

Imagine a police officer in a horrible city, who sees suffering and death on a daily basis, or a soldier in some country where all they do is fight evil that never stops coming at them. How happy would those people be, especially if they were in it alone?

I get the desire to see Superman smile more, or to see more of his happy moments. But we didn't get to see a lot of his personal moments at all in BvS. Maybe we will in the extended version, I don't know. But we didn't see a lot of Bruce Wayne being Bruce Wayne either. People are already complaining about the length of the movie, so what would the reaction be if they added some happy scenes, just for the sake of showing the up side of being Superman in a movie that's mostly about the down side of being Superman? Do we want the scene of him saving a kitten from a tree and handing it to a little kid? Do we want the scene of him saying something inspiring to a teenager who feels isolated? And if we do want those scenes, which scenes do we cut from the movie in order to get them? Because the movie has already been edited down quite a bit.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

SMALLVILLE, for all its many, many, many, many, many, many faults, appreciated that the most exciting visual was Tom Welling pulling people out of car wrecks and burning buildings and racing them out of explosions and never had trouble communicating that Clark cared about people.

**

Location filming will never be matched by HEROES style of second unit and stock footage meshed with soundstage material -- but big budget Hollywood films are getting ridiculously bloated. Television, whether it's THE FLASH or DOCTOR WHO or SUPERNATURAL, have all had to work with budget reductions compared to previous years due to economic pressures. SLIDERS used a lot of neat tricks in Seasons 1 - 2 to make the most of its money; interior sets were often empty studio space with props and set dressing wheeled in and out to turn the space into a hotel, a courtroom, Quinn's basement, a police station, etc..

The people who make big studio movies, however, seem to balk at sober fiscal consideration. Let's rent an entire farm! Let's rent out an entire library for one scene with Bruce and Diana! Let's rent an entire art museum for Lex's reception! Let's rent Old Wayne County Building for the Senate! Creating just enough set dressing for the shots we need!? That's for the peasants who work in TV!

As nice as it is to have these things, a little craft and care could see the movie get by without these things, slim down the budget considerably and we wouldn't be looking at all these grim reports of BVS having little to show the studio for all its spending. Zack Snyder, no matter what anyone thinks of him, is a very experienced and capable director; he could make the best of it.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Okay, well this is probably just my interpretation of Superman, but one of his best powers in my opinion is "super-hope" - he doesn't let all the bad stuff bother him.  It doesn't matter how many times Lex does something bad, Superman always believes in him.  So that's why I sorta visualizing him smiling when he's saving people.  I think he's just as interested in making a connection with the person he's saving as he is about saving the next one.  I don't get that vibe from Cavill's Superman.  If you're right, the weight of the world is weighing him down, and he's letting it affect his work. 

And what's weird is that I don't think it's how he was characterized in the first movie.  I do think there's a lot of hope in Man of Steel (my problem was the ending).  But it does not translate to BvS....which found a way to almost ignore one of the two title characters in two and a half hours.  And what I would've done with the run time would've been to eliminate the entire Lois subplot.  Let Bruce be the only detective, make the hearing about Metropolis...not whatever happened in Africa, and let Lex get caught in the act (which is sorta what happens in the "Communion" deleted scene if I'm guessing correctly where that scene would've fit in).

Throw in a big action piece for Superman and a scene that either explains why Superman always looks so damn sad/angry/upset.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

SMALLVILLE, for all its many, many, many, many, many, many faults, appreciated that the most exciting visual was Tom Welling pulling people out of car wrecks and burning buildings and racing them out of explosions and never had trouble communicating that Clark cared about people.

But did they stop everything in the middle of an episode to have a random sequence of him saving people who had nothing to do with the plot of the episode? The problem with Batman v Superman, in terms of this conversation, is that it isn't a Superman movie. Relatively little time is devoted to Clark's point of view. When we do see him, it's more about how others view him. We see Clark in specific moments, reacting to specific events, but we don't see his day to day life. We don't see him fighting a lesser villain that he doesn't stress out over.

The movie is mostly from Batman's point of view. We also get some POV from normal people looking at Superman. There is some stuff from Clark's point of view, but not a lot. Maybe that is a weakness. Maybe the movie should have been an hour longer, so they could dig deeper into his character. I'd certainly love to see more of that character, so I won't disagree with that. But I don't view him the same way you all seem to, so I guess it doesn't feel like quite as big of a gap to me.

The people who make big studio movies, however, seem to balk at sober fiscal consideration. Let's rent an entire farm! Let's rent out an entire library for one scene with Bruce and Diana! Let's rent an entire art museum for Lex's reception! Let's rent Old Wayne County Building for the Senate! Creating just enough set dressing for the shots we need!? That's for the peasants who work in TV!

I agree, but cautiously. Films do spend way too much money. The Veronica Mars movie was made for about six million dollars. Granted, that is with a lot of people working on it as a labor of love, but it is still an example of a movie that still feels and looks like a complete movie, without going crazy with the budget. Most movies today could be made for much less money, and a lot of TV shows do prove that filming on a shorter schedule doesn't mean that it has to look cheap.

That said, cutting too many corners will make movies look bad. A lot can be covered by adding scenery in the computer, but when you stick to sound stages too much, it does feel claustrophobic. And sticking to basic camera angles because you can't afford to get creative will come with a cost as well. So yes, they should reconsider how they do things, but they shouldn't take it to extremes. Some of Marvel's stuff has taken it too far.


Okay, well this is probably just my interpretation of Superman, but one of his best powers in my opinion is "super-hope" - he doesn't let all the bad stuff bother him.  It doesn't matter how many times Lex does something bad, Superman always believes in him.  So that's why I sorta visualizing him smiling when he's saving people.  I think he's just as interested in making a connection with the person he's saving as he is about saving the next one.  I don't get that vibe from Cavill's Superman.  If you're right, the weight of the world is weighing him down, and he's letting it affect his work.

My biggest problem with Superman has always been that those writing him view him as "Superman". They don't think about his motivation, or his inner monologue, or his emotional state, because he's "Superman". Because of this, he is usually a very flat character. He's an ideal, who recites perfect lines of inspiration because those writing him are basing their work on an image that they've had in their head since they were kids.

To me, "super-hope" is more alien than what we have in BvS. To have him fly around as the perfect person, doing perfect things is not something that I have ever related to. And I don't think it's right for the character. He is supposed to be human in every way except for those added powers. He is the version of us that can make a difference. He should feel the way we feel. He should think the way we think. Those writing him should look at his situation, where he comes from, how he grew up, who he loves, what motivates him, and they should write him just as they would write any normal person... except, he can fly, lift things, use heat vision, etc.

Smallville was a huge step forward. I am thinking of writing up a character breakdown of Clark from the point of view of a writer, so I won't get into a lot of that here. But what I see on the screen looks real to me. For the first time on the big screen, I can understand what is going on in Superman's head. I know why it killed him to kill Zod. I know why he was begging Batman to save Martha. I know why he always sees the flood raging on or the fire burning, more than the people who are thanking him for being a god.


And what's weird is that I don't think it's how he was characterized in the first movie.  I do think there's a lot of hope in Man of Steel (my problem was the ending).  But it does not translate to BvS....which found a way to almost ignore one of the two title characters in two and a half hours.  And what I would've done with the run time would've been to eliminate the entire Lois subplot.  Let Bruce be the only detective, make the hearing about Metropolis...not whatever happened in Africa, and let Lex get caught in the act (which is sorta what happens in the "Communion" deleted scene if I'm guessing correctly where that scene would've fit in).
Throw in a big action piece for Superman and a scene that either explains why Superman always looks so damn sad/angry/upset.


I probably would have opened with a sequence of some big heroic event by Superman. His saving the day and everyone cheering.

But, would that serve the plot of this movie? His arc in this movie is about being chased by the darkness. No matter how much he tries to hold back the rushing waters, people still suffer (the flood seems to be a recurring theme, from the moment he gets into the tub with Lois, causing water to overflow from the tub, to the flood victims, to the Jonathan Kent sequence). He killed Zod, which was fully justified and heroic, but it went against every fiber of his being. All he does is feel for people and he tries to save them, but it never stops. He goes from one disaster to another, and no matter how hard he pushes himself, he is surrounded by death.

He wants to fight the darkness. He wants to put an end to it (Batman is the darkness in this scenario), but nobody else sees it the way he does. People suffering isn't headline news, and his view of the world and the people who live in it are outdated.

To me, this is the same Superman as in Man of Steel. But "coming out" doesn't make his life perfect or even good. He hasn't yet figured out how to make that life work, if there even is such a way.

I think his rebirth could be a doorway to that. Having friends and allies who do what he does could make a big difference. He may not feel so isolated. He may be happier by the time we get to the next big Superman movie (I assume that there will be another Superman movie at some point, just like it was always a safe bet that there would be a Batman movie). But I hope they don't make him happier at the expense of the humanity that this franchise has finally given the character.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, I don't really think "super-hope" is any more alien than being able to fly.  I don't want Clark to be perfect - but I don't want the world's troubles to get to him.  I want him to be able to see passed the bad to see the good.  When he sees someone....Batman, Lex, whoever....I want him to see the best of them.  To know they can be saved.  Because I don't think Clark's power is just catching people when they fall from a building - it's catching them when they lose themselves. 

And the screenwriter seemed to think that too because the script seems to say that the movie is Superman saving Batman.  That Clark knows that Bruce is a hero, and he wants to show him.  Clark was willing to kill for the greater good with Zod because he felt he had no choice.  He begs Zod to stop, and he realizes that there was no other way.  Zod tells him there is no other way.  And you're right - making that decision kills him.

In this movie, he gives Bruce every chance, and he's willing to die to save Bruce.  It's actually a great follow-up to what happened in Man of Steel because it's exactly what everyone wanted him to do in the first movie.  Find the way to save the day without killing ("If I wanted it, you'd be dead already").  Move the fight somewhere isolated.  If anyone has to die, it should be Clark.  And in the end, it's Clark's humanity that forces Batman to save a life when he's spent the whole movie trying to end one.

And you're a writer.  You have a great sense of story.  If you were able to see that story, then you're better at it than me because Zack Snyder distorted the script until that whole storyline was lost on me.  If he opens with the train story from the prequel comic, for example, then you see this man doing everything correctly to save the day.  To minimize loss at all costs.  Then I'd make a handful of minor changes.  If Snyder really wanted the image of Clark floating over the houses, I'd show that Clark is surveying the damage so he can super-speed everyone to safety without missing anyone (x-ray vision, for example).  I'd show the whole rocket sequence or not show it at all.  When he saves the people in the Mexican fire, I'd have him make eye contact and smile with the person he's saving, letting them know that they're alright.  He'd, of course, be focused on the rest of the people, but he'd make everyone feel at calm.

When Superman faces Batman, I wouldn't make it about threats.  Superman would walk over and make sure the Batmobile is disabled (so no one else has to die). 

"What are you doing?  I know you're a hero.  You've saved Gotham time and time again.  I used to read about it all the time.  What happened?"
"You happened.  You flew in and killed thousands.  I'm going to stop you."
"We're on the same side.  You have to believe me."
"I'll never believe you.  I'm here to stop you."

Clark shakes his head, knowing he can't win this argument right now.  He floats away.

"Do you bleed?  You will."

For the story to work, Clark has to be the protagonist.  But Snyder didn't want that.  So the villain becomes the protagonist, and the whole tone is lost.

I believe BvS is a great movie that got twisted into a bit of a mess.  Still good....but no longer great.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Regardless of quality, I think the economics would indicate that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN spent too much money on something that wasn't a universal crowdpleaser, and if you're spending $500 million, you have to make a universal crowdpleaser if you intend to get a decent return on your investment. As it stands, BVS is making strong ticket sales, but it's not getting repeated ticket sales; it's not drawing people back to see it again and again and again in the way the audience wanting to see Han and Chewie in theatres a second and third and fourth time took THE FORCE AWAKENS to two billion.

I'm all for artistic expression and stylized storytelling that makes Informant happy, but I'm not sure it's worth a half a billion dollars when $54 million seems adequate for making Informant happy via Marvel's Netflix shows.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

As it stands, BVS is making strong ticket sales, but it's not getting repeated ticket sales; it's not drawing people back to see it again and again and again in the way the audience wanting to see Han and Chewie in theatres a second and third and fourth time took THE FORCE AWAKENS to two billion.

Exactly.  I saw Force Awakens and Deadpool each twice in theaters.  I saw BvS once, and there hasn't been a reason to see it again yet.  None of my friends have asked me to see it with them, and I'm not eager to go out there and see it again.  I'm eager to see the extended edition, hoping it'll be a better story with everything thrown back in.

But that's the problem with the movie not being fun.  Movies like Requiem for a Dream and Seven are fantastic movies, but they aren't movies I'm really in a mood to go back and revisit.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, I don't really think "super-hope" is any more alien than being able to fly.  I don't want Clark to be perfect - but I don't want the world's troubles to get to him.  I want him to be able to see passed the bad to see the good.  When he sees someone....Batman, Lex, whoever....I want him to see the best of them.  To know they can be saved.  Because I don't think Clark's power is just catching people when they fall from a building - it's catching them when they lose themselves.

The thing is, we have a lot of Superman movies and TV shows. We have a lot of images of Superman being the ideal person. What we don't have are a lot of people building that character as they would any other character that they were writing. From the ground up, trace that character, how he thinks, how he feels. He is supposed to be very human, on an emotional and mental level. That is the point of the character. Despite being an alien with these amazing powers, he is still one of us. He should be written like a person, not a symbol (because, as I said, we already have that version of him in a ton of other adaptations).
That has always been my problem with Superman. Everyone writing him treated him like an alien. The character identified with kryptonians more than humans. He is above us and never one of us. Clark Kent is an act. And the Superman in Man of Steel, and even in Batman v Superman is the opposite of all of that.

I'm not saying that the movie was perfect. I'm not saying that I wouldn't have liked to see more of Clark's life as Superman. Hell, I want another Superman movie sooner rather than later. Down the line, they could even introduce Supergirl and have Clark showing her this world and how to be the best person that she can be, and it can show how far he has come in life. (or Superboy, if they don't wan to step on too many toes, which doesn't seem to bother them with The Flash, but whatever). But I think that this is a valid version of Clark. I think it's unfair to say that Snyder is just out to make things broody and grim an ugly, or that the violence in Man of Steel goes against the nature of the character. I came across one discussion online that pointed to this clip from the Justice League cartoon:  https://youtu.be/6BJ1-trrgqc

Yeah, the circumstances in that video aren't the same as in MoS. They're an idealized, watered down, children's cartoon version. But some of the shots are almost identical to the Battle of Metropolis.

I know what Superman is supposed to be. I know what people expect from him. It's just that I've been waiting my whole life for someone to take him seriously as a character and I'm glad that someone finally did it. I'd like to get my hands on the actual script and see what's on the page, versus the screen. I don't think that it was distorted. I think it just played with the perception of Superman, seeing him through the eyes of various people throughout the movie.


Regardless of quality, I think the economics would indicate that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN spent too much money on something that wasn't a universal crowdpleaser, and if you're spending $500 million, you have to make a universal crowdpleaser if you intend to get a decent return on your investment. As it stands, BVS is making strong ticket sales, but it's not getting repeated ticket sales; it's not drawing people back to see it again and again and again in the way the audience wanting to see Han and Chewie in theatres a second and third and fourth time took THE FORCE AWAKENS to two billion.

What is a universal crowdpleaser? If we assume that it is even possible for something like that to exist, it would have to be something so devoid of vision and so lacking in depth that the audience would have no reason to think about the movie at all. What movie is both universally beloved and actually good and meaningful? What book, music or painting could even claim such a thing?

I think that you're forgetting a vital piece of information in regards to ticket sales and repeat ticket sales. Young children will not be seeing Batman v Superman or Suicide Squad. A lot of those kids have seen the Marvel movies. My nephew dressed up as Rocket from Guardians of the Galaxy for Halloween last  year. My niece will not be dressing up like Harley Quinn... *ever*, I hope.
That fact alone drops ticket sales a ton.  Those little kids are the ones who want to see movies over and over and over. And when those kids can't go, it means that many family outings will be redirected toward whatever cartoon is out at the moment.
Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. The family friendly Superman movies and shows are still out there, making money for the studio. These new movies are being aimed at older fans, and apparently toward fans of the comics, since these are not the mainstream versions of the characters that we have seen on the screen before. These are more like something from the comic books.

Break down Batman v Superman in your head and convert the imagery to comic book art. It works perfectly well. Comic book movies aren't usually made with the same mentality as comic books, but these characters have reached a point where that's possible.


I'm all for artistic expression and stylized storytelling that makes Informant happy, but I'm not sure it's worth a half a billion dollars when $54 million seems adequate for making Informant happy via Marvel's Netflix shows.

I'm still not sure if the marketing budget was ever confirmed. Is it just a rumor or do we know that for a fact?

Either way, fair enough. Though the scale of a Superman movie is going to be bigger than Daredevil. I don't want them cheaping out when it comes to a battle with Zod or Doomsday. They really went for it with these films. They have only used the biggest villains so far. Like I said, I'm sure there's a happy middle ground between a bargain basement movie and what they actually spend on these films. smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

I'm still not sure if the marketing budget was ever confirmed. Is it just a rumor or do we know that for a fact?

All estimates, but they seem reasonable to me given the film and promotional campaign. All budgets are estimates in the end. Studios do not release official numbers, but unless they deny the figures, I accept them as being within a reasonable margin of error. The numbers are supplied by production sources and I see no reason to think that Deadline, Collider, Box Office Mojo and Birth Movies Death choose numbers at random.
http://deadline.com/2016/03/batman-v-su … 201726300/

Informant wrote:

What is a universal crowdpleaser? If we assume that it is even possible for something like that to exist, it would have to be something so devoid of vision and so lacking in depth that the audience would have no reason to think about the movie at all. What movie is both universally beloved and actually good and meaningful? What book, music or painting could even claim such a thing?

Looking at the highest grossing films of all time (adjusted for inflation), I think it's probably aspirational inspiration. GONE WITH THE WIND, TITANIC, THE SOUND OF MUSIC and ET speak to the universal human desire to find love and emotional connection, and then survive the pain of losing it. STAR WARS and TEN COMMANDMENTS speak to the universal human desire to find strength, power and ability within one's self. AVATAR speaks to the universal human desire to see new worlds.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do the movie that was BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN, just that the size of the audience for a very serious, grim, dark, philosophical superhero film is clearly not high enough to sink half a billion into it. The first Nolan BATMAN film had the same aspirations of serious cinema and it was in no way a box office smash -- but the budget was modest, so the film was a financial success even if it didn't set financial records and it built goodwill through strong reviews and home video sales leading to the superb results of the two sequels.

It's sort of like Yahoo and COMMUNITY. Yahoo lost at least $30 million on it. The audience wasn't big enough for what it cost versus what it earned in advertising. I loved Season 6, but I find it difficult to claim investing in it was a sound financial decision.

MAN OF STEEL had mixed reviews and made 668 million at box office, so to make a sequel that needed to earn 1 billion at box office just to just about break even wasn't the greatest idea. Warner Bros. thought the hype of Batman and Superman sharing the screen would make BVS the most important cultural event in superhero history. Again, without getting into quality -- I think it's clear that BVS is not seen that way by the world at large.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, that's the thing.  Marvel movies are fun and stupid and goofy.  But they're for everyone (kids, adults, etc).  So they can be financial successes because a) the audience is larger and b) people go see it multiple times.  We know that there are less people going to see BvS multiple times because the box office numbers dropped big time after the first week.  Everyone that wanted to see the movie saw it the first week, and then the stragglers saw it.

The other problem is that kids cannot see this movie.  There were tons of reports of kids running out of the theater crying.  The movie is too dark, it's too violent, and it has none of the fun of the Marvel movies.  They should've just gone for the R rating because I don't know if they would've lost any of their audience. 

WB probably banked on Dark Knight Trilogy numbers, and this was never going to be that.  It's a Man of Steel sequel with Ben Affleck as Batman added to the cast.  The original movie was divisive, the casting was divisive, and the look of the movie was divisive.  WB got cocky, and they're paying for it.

The next movie probably won't be as big of a budget, and it probably won't get the same level of marketing.  Hopefully they learn their lesson.  Because there's clearly a market for this, but it isn't as big as they thought.