BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - Part 173

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]500483[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]500269[/split]

 

[KillerWolf]

I wonder if they will ever show the main physical villain in the trailers/tv spots. Do you guys think they will focus on Batman v Superman fight only for the trailers? It makes sense considering the title of the film.

Deep down, I am hoping they hide the main villain from the public until the movie comes out.

Yeah, same here.

I hope we won't see Kalibak in the trailer.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Yeah, same here.

I hope we won't see Kalibak in the trailer.

 

[kguillou]

I think I'm more worried about the MARKETING of the movies because, let's be honest guys, these two films will be marketed EXACTLY the same way. They'll both be marketed as a "Whose side are you on/ Two icons will clash/ the most epic superhero battle ever" kind of film. We're going to see posters and billboards of Batman and Superman staring each other down and about to clash, and we're going to get posters and billboards of Cap and Ironman staring each other down and about to clash. That is what worries me, and that is what will give the GA the impression that they are the same kind of film.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Yes because WB are rank amateurs at marketing who've never marketed blockbusters in their history.

 

[Lencho01]

Just watched this again. Still very interesting...

[YT]eTUrFYU2e_I[/YT]

[YT]fJprUlmj_Ko[/YT]

[YT]ViP5sjJflA0[/YT]

[YT]Y5oH20iHujo[/YT]

[YT]-hEJKcSxeVs[/YT]

 

[Sleiek]

Yeah, same here.

I hope we won't see Kalibak in the trailer.

and lol

Also, I look forward to what you think about that thesis video. It is long though.

And you are in for a lot of surprises. I never guessed most of the ideas shown in the video.

 

[kguillou]

Yes because WB are rank amateurs at marketing who've never marketed blockbusters in their history.

It's not that they're amateurs, but if you are in the marketing and promotion department and you are in charge of marketing a movie where two well known heroes are about to throw down you know that is going to be the main draw to get people to see the film and you will exploit that. And let's face it, that IS going to be the main draw of both BvS and Civil War to the GA. "Two of your favorite heroes about to fight, who will win? #whosesideareyouon?" lol

 

[Sleiek]

I think I'm more worried about the MARKETING of the movies because, let's be honest guys, these two films will be marketed EXACTLY the same way. They'll both be marketed as a "Whose side are you on/ Two icons will clash/ the most epic superhero battle ever" kind of film. We're going to see posters and billboards of Batman and Superman staring each other down and about to clash, and we're going to get posters and billboards of Cap and Ironman staring each other down and about to clash. That is what worries me, and that is what will give the GA the impression that they are the same kind of film.

You shouldn't be. I feel like BvS has the edge because, as a lot of you mentioned, it is fresh and because BATMAN.

Yes because WB are rank amateurs at marketing who've never marketed blockbusters in their history.

LOL

 

[John Locke]

By the time the CW marketing kicks into gear BvS's marketing will have moved on to the Dawn of Justice angle. They'll start focusing on the Trinity.

 

[Marvin]

I think I'm more worried about the MARKETING of the movies because, let's be honest guys, these two films will be marketed EXACTLY the same way. They'll both be marketed as a "Whose side are you on/ Two icons will clash/ the most epic superhero battle ever" kind of film. We're going to see posters and billboards of Batman and Superman staring each other down and about to clash, and we're going to get posters and billboards of Cap and Ironman staring each other down and about to clash. That is what worries me, and that is what will give the GA the impression that they are the same kind of film.

Well, it's already begun with WB and some of their head shot promotion.
I just find it all so interesting considering this is yet another example of a reactionary WB copying the distinguished comp.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm not worried about the marketing of either film.

 

[antoineflemming]

Yeah, I hope they never show the main physical villain. Sure, they could hint to who he is, but nothing more than that.

I certainly dont think that Civil War and Batman v Superman will be marketed the same. I dont think BvS will be marketed in a versus, who's side are you kind of way. Civil War - sure - but not BvS. I think it'll focus more on characterization, like the teaser did.

 

[Naked Shia]

I'm friend with someone who knows the sister of Snyder's gardener, and they told me the true mastermind is mister miracle. He's pissed at batman because batman beat him in an escape tour. So he wants Superman to destroy the man of flesh. Also, man of flesh will be the title of the next batman movie.

 

[Last Of Krypton]

I'm pretty positive that Marvel changed their plan for Captain America 3 once Batman v Superman was announced. The reason is the article below.

​

‘Captain America’ Writers Offer ‘Captain America 3′ Story Hint

“We’ve definitely set out on a more realistic road in the Cap movies, you know. Even more grounded than in the other MCU movies. And so it kind of rules out Cap fighting the Dinosaur Man or something like that. There are some that aren’t gonna start and other ones that — I mean there’s a couple we’re playing with right now that we really want to take elements from. Which we’ll not reveal… All I’m saying is psychotic 1950s Cap.”

The last part of that might not make much sense to those unfamiliar with the comics, but Markus is almost certainly referring to the fourth Captain America, William Burnside – a super-fan who took up the mantle while the real Steve Rogers was cooling off in the North Atlantic. Due to improper use of the Super Soldier Serum, both Burnside and his sidekick Jack Monroe (who took on the role of Bucky Barnes) eventually went insane with paranoia and had to be knocked out and placed into cryogenic stasis. This is what happens when cosplay goes too far.
It’s an interesting direction for the Captain America movie franchise to take, considering how tightly Burnside’s story was tied to 1950s politics and the anti-communist sentiment of the time. The Red Skull re-emerged during this story arc as Albert Malik, a Communist who disguised himself as US Senator Joseph McRooter and tried to destabilize America through a program of McRooterism: accusing innocent America civilians of being communists.​

http://screenrant.com/captain-america-3-plot/

Captain America:Winter Soldier is without a doubt my favourite Marvel Studio film. It has the perfect mixture of humour and seriousness for a Marvel film.

 

[Vonter-Voman]

They could hide the other villain (if there is one) in their direct marketing campaign, but then there would still be toys and collectibles that could spoil who it is :/

 

[antoineflemming]

Well, it's already begun with WB and some of their head shot promotion.
I just find it all so interesting considering this is yet another example of a reactionary WB copying the distinguished comp.

That's a load of crap. The facing down stuff has been from El Mayimbe, who is unreliable. The one banner we've seen that has been officially from WB has featured the DC Trinity. Cut the crap. WB has not been copying Marvel in a reactionary manner. Marvel throwing Iron Man into the Cap 3: The search for Bucky in order to compete with BvS (when they shared the same date) was reactionary. Marvel turning the film into Civil War and throwing Avenger after Avenger into that film. Marvel desperately working out a deal with Sony just to get Spidey on loan and shoehorning that character into their film so that they cant attempt to counter the hype surrounding BvS is reactionary.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm pretty positive that Marvel changed their plan for Captain America 3 once Batman v Superman was announced. The reason is the article below.

​

http://screenrant.com/captain-america-3-plot/

Captain America:Winter Soldier is without a doubt my favourite Marvel Studio film. It has the perfect mixture of humour and seriousness for a Marvel film.

I think they made changes in response to the competition. I know some will accuse me of thinking that because of bias or what have you but that has been my thought for a long time now. It's not even a knock against them, I just think that it's the truth.

 

[antoineflemming]

They could hide the other villain (if there is one) in their direct marketing campaign, but then there would still be toys and collectibles that could spoil who it is :/

Without a doubt, there's another villain that causes the destruction seen in the Wonder Woman picture and in the teaser trailer (Batman walking out of what looks like the same rubble). Not only that, but the synopsis mentions a new threat that quickly rises, that isnt connected to batman v superman.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That's a load of crap. The facing down stuff has been from El Mayimbe, who is unreliable. The one banner we've seen that has been officially from WB has featured the DC Trinity. Cut the crap. WB has not been copying Marvel in a reactionary manner. Marvel throwing Iron Man into the Cap 3: The search for Bucky in order to compete with BvS (when they shared the same date) was reactionary. Marvel turning the film into Civil War and throwing Avenger after Avenger into that film. Marvel desperately working out a deal with Sony just to get Spidey on loan and shoehorning that character into their film so that they cant attempt to counter the hype surrounding BvS is reactionary.

Marvin Gardens is not being serious. He is making fun of the reaction DC gets, even when they do something first, they are copying in some people's eyes.

 

[antoineflemming]

Marvin Gardens is not being serious. He is making fun of the reaction DC gets, even when they do something first, they are copying in some people's eyes.

Good to know, then.

Marvin, disregard what I said then.

 

[John Locke]

I think they made changes in response to the competition. I know some will accuse me of thinking that because of bias or what have you but that has been my thought for a long time now. It's not even a knock against them, I just think that it's the truth.

I got to say I agree with this. There were rumors that Cap 3 was going to be Steve's last hurrah, focus on Steve and Bucky, and it was going to be titled Fallen Son. Then it was announced that it was on the same day as BvS and all those rumors died out and Civil War started.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Listen I was really excited for Cap 3 and Mos2 but both, for different reasons, morphed into other films and that's okay. I've mostly made my piece with it all. I get to see Cap and Supes again so whatever, I can't really complain.

 

[Urich Leeds]

I'm pretty positive that Marvel changed their plan for Captain America 3 once Batman v Superman was announced. The reason is the article below.

​

http://screenrant.com/captain-america-3-plot/
.

Oh they definitely did.

Another piece of evidence is that they only signed RDJ to two more films post AOU (IW Part I and II), And had to renegotiate for a third (and pay him out the wazoo) when they decided to make Cap 3 a Civil War film.

They (and Marvel diehards) would never admit it, but Civil War is only happening to take the wind out of DC (and BvS's) sails. It wasn't gonna happen until DC made their announcement in 2013. And IIRC, Feige even said they wouldn't.