Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Well we are a niche collection of fans talking on a Star Trek website about superhero movies. The film has currently grossed $197,310,000 world wide, and the Saturday numbers have not been added yet. We'll know if the film sinks or swims by Monday when we get the Sunday number gross.
I didn't state it as fact. I said "i'm of the opinion". Just look at the list of things BvS did 'wrong' in the critics eyes.
- too much action
- not enough action
- great cameos
- a few good cameos
- the beginning is amazing
- the beginning is choppy
- nobody has motivation, or character moments
- Batfleck, Holly Holms, Alfred are great
- Henry doesn't do much
- Henry has more to do, and is more vulnerable, than in MoS
- The last 30 min are amazing
- The last 30 min are boring
- I was bored the whole time
- I was at the edge of my seat, even though the movie was okay
- Too dark, no humor
- Alfred and Lex are funny, and the dark tone helps
- This is not a child's movie
- Silly things happen that break tension
- Perhaps the comic book genre needs a break
- Doomsday fight is amazing
- Meh Doomsday
- Amazing Bats vs Supes fight
- Bats vs Supes skirmish?
- Tailor made for comic book fans, and nerds
- Makes comic fans, and nerds, wish it was never made
- Too many Oscar winning actors
- It's not similar to the Marvel movies
etc
- not enough action
- great cameos
- a few good cameos
- the beginning is amazing
- the beginning is choppy
- nobody has motivation, or character moments
- Batfleck, Holly Holms, Alfred are great
- Henry doesn't do much
- Henry has more to do, and is more vulnerable, than in MoS
- The last 30 min are amazing
- The last 30 min are boring
- I was bored the whole time
- I was at the edge of my seat, even though the movie was okay
- Too dark, no humor
- Alfred and Lex are funny, and the dark tone helps
- This is not a child's movie
- Silly things happen that break tension
- Perhaps the comic book genre needs a break
- Doomsday fight is amazing
- Meh Doomsday
- Amazing Bats vs Supes fight
- Bats vs Supes skirmish?
- Tailor made for comic book fans, and nerds
- Makes comic fans, and nerds, wish it was never made
- Too many Oscar winning actors
- It's not similar to the Marvel movies
etc
So?
It's 2016., we fanboys are not ostracized any more. Comic con is THE thing now.
Let's not go there. Far worse movies have been known to gross far more. The latest Transformers movie has a pretty low IMDB score, yet it somehow grossed 1.1 billion, 30% of which came from China.
Fuck, I personally contributed. Bought the overpriced 3D ticket and everything. Doesn't mean I liked the movie.
^ Hey, remember we are talking about the film being divisive among both critics and audiences. That cuts both ways you know. Like you said, the Transformers movies, the Twilight movies and the godawful Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland movie made a billion worldwide.
What I'm saying is, the audience means a lot more to films than critics. For now at least, the audience seems to be on board with BvS. Having praise from the critics wouldn't be a bad thing, but it wouldn't necessarily help, I think. I could list films that have positive scores on RT but flopped at the BO. It's a tricky situation.
What I'm saying is, the audience means a lot more to films than critics. For now at least, the audience seems to be on board with BvS. Having praise from the critics wouldn't be a bad thing, but it wouldn't necessarily help, I think. I could list films that have positive scores on RT but flopped at the BO. It's a tricky situation.
Good, so we agree that ticket sales aren't necessarily the measure of a film's popularity, let alone quality. Movies like The Force Awakens being the exception, where a sizable chunk of the 2.06 billion it earned came from repeat viewings.
That's all relative. I doubt studios give two shits about RottenTomatoes, so long as the tickets sell.
Whether the cast and crew care about what the critics have to say about them is a whole other matter, and I guess that's individual. Michael Bay obviously doesn't give a shit. I'm not so sure about Snyder, though. Or Affleck.
Well... Snyder did go to the same film school as Michael Bay. I don't think he cares. Hahahaha
Affleck likely cares though. Poor Ben.
Exactly! Hahaha<<It's like they didn't accept the film for what it was trying to do and instead rattle off a list of things it should've done.>>
Welcome to the Internet
Snyder strikes me as much more ambitious (not to mention artistic) than Bay.
No, Mach5 is right. Go onto comments threads in any Facebook post discussing the film and you'll see just the same division and disagreements.
And why would critics either want or need it to fail? Yes, I'm sure there are those who were determined to hate it but I've seen bad reviews from critics who loved Nolan's films, MCU films, The Force Awakens, etc. and from critics who patently know the lore and get all the references and Easter eggs. Quite a few reviews gave the impression that the critic genuinely wanted to enjoy the film but simply didn't.
I don't know why some people can't accept that others just didn't like the film (and, again, I'm in the camp that liked it) and have to sense some overarching conspiracy or ulterior motive.
I don't think any creative person would be indifferent about their work being this much shat upon by the critics.
From how they talk about this film I got the impression from the entire cast that they do care about this film, and whatever faults one may find in Snyder's work, you can't accuse him of of not being passionate about what he's doing.
^ I agree. He looks genuinely hurt by the reaction in the interview I cited earlier, where he mentioned getting the aesthetic right.
I don't know. Superman Returns was quite a success but audiences didn’t like the film, so Singer didn't do the sequel.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm
$391 gross against a $270 budget? That's not good. A movie has to make 2-3 times it budget back to be considered a success.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2012.htm
Hell, Man of Steel did $668 against $225 and it was considered a mild disappointment. Hence bringing in Batman to up the grosses.
$391 gross against a $270 budget? That's not good. A movie has to make 2-3 times it budget back to be considered a success.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2012.htm
Hell, Man of Steel did $668 against $225 and it was considered a mild disappointment. Hence bringing in Batman to up the grosses.
Eh, Returns was a moderate success at best. It had a monster budget of $270 mil. and made back only $391 million globally ($200M domestically). Count in the marketing costs, and the fact that WB got to keep only a fraction of the overseas earnings, and you realize it didn't even break even (from the ticket sales), let alone make a profit.
EDIT: King Kong was considered a straight-out flop at its time, despite making 550 mil. on a 200M budget.
Do critics need the film to fail? Or does a certain, invested segment of the fanbase need the film to succeed?
(I'm sure that some critics do desperately want it to fail, but those would be the usual suspects who've been wishfully predicting doom and gloom for the future of superhero movies at every opportunity for the past 15 years.)
(I'm sure that some critics do desperately want it to fail, but those would be the usual suspects who've been wishfully predicting doom and gloom for the future of superhero movies at every opportunity for the past 15 years.)
Quite a success, but not enough of a success for the studio to greenlight a sequel. Singer wanted to make it and IIRC planned to bring in General Zod and/or Brainiac but the bottom line was that SR didn't make enough money for the studio's liking. So he never got to make it.
Had it made Dark Knight-level money, he'd have gotten to make a sequel, regardless of audience liking.