BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - Part 302

[jmc]

The "leaker" claims that Nolan was supposed to be a mentor to Snyder and serve in a quality control capacity, but that Nolan never said "No" to any of Snyder's ideas (or at least, he did, but Snyder didn't take him seriously enough). They were banking on Nolan reining Snyder in, but Nolan was apathetic. The studio is also angry because he got 90% through negotiations for an Akira film, and then welshed at the last second to do Dunkirk which, guy from WB claims, isn't even that good of a script.

He said/she said, but there may be truth to it.

I'm finding all that a little hard to believe. Why would Nolan want to babysit Snyder? He wants to do his own stuff.

 

[jmc]

Sounds like utter **** to me. Nolan did indeed say no to a lot of Snyder's ideas, but Snyder completely ignored him. Nolan hated the neck snap and didn't like where Snyder was taking the character, but Snyder didn't want to take his advice.

If that's the case, would you want to stick around and try to play nice with someone like that? This can't be put on Nolan's shoulders. He delivered a vastly popular and successful franchise. If WB had wanted him to retain control, they should have put Snyder in his place and backed Nolan more. This cluster**** is of their own making.

This is exactly right. Nolan didn't force WB to continue with Snyder post MoS. I honestly can't believe WB would turn on Nolan like that, after everything he's done for them in the last 10 years, not just with Batman, but with Inception and Interstellar too, and probably even Dunkirk next year.

 

[Martha]

I'm finding all that a little hard to believe. Why would Nolan want to babysit Snyder? He wants to do his own stuff.

Just the messenger on this one. He mentioned some other stuff about how they're canceling a Looney Tunes movie because BvS didn't bring in enough profit.

I would post the screencap directly, but I'm not sure entirely sure we're supposed to post content from the site (it's 4chan).

 

[Light]

I'm finding all that a little hard to believe. Why would Nolan want to babysit Snyder? He wants to do his own stuff.

Besides you would have to be an incompetent **** for a peer to watch over you like that, I know at my job I don't have my colleagues over my should making sure I don't **** up. If someone is incapable then cut them lose and get someone who is up to the task. This world building task is to vast and to much for Snyder, no shame in him stepping down he overreached and discovered his limit.

 

[AndrewOz]

Well in truth Superman could have gone and saved Martha and then went to visit Lex all in a span of a few minutes. There was no need to depend on Batman to do any rescuing, a more plausible scenario was to have Doomsday on the lose and terrorising and killing civilians and that way Superman had to act immediately.

Exactly, the problem is that too much in this movie is just not plausible.
It's not even about the practicalities involved.
If I'm blackmailed into confronting someone I think is a dangerous lunatic that needs to be stopped, I may try to warn him about how we're being manipulated, instead of just taking his head. Especially if we're both supposed to be good guys.
Then again, the amount of effort in the set-up shows a serious level of commitment to the goal of my death.
Plus, if he was so hell bent on murdering me, as he clearly was, why didn't he just use the massive chunk of Kryptonite to load the .50 cal machine guns with Kryptonite bullets?
That would seem to be the most efficient way of ending me.
Instead, he seems to want to drag it out as long as possible, an excuse for a tortuous beating and finally use an ancient weapon to end me when I have been beaten to the point where I can no longer defend myself?
Why? So he can ensure he get's sprayed in my blood at the death stroke?
I may even (inexplicably) give him the benefit of the doubt about his motivations after he fight, especially since he seems to have calmed down and apologised.
That always takes the sting out of a beating and attempted murder.
But there's no way I'm going to trust him with my mother's life after the only thing that stopped him from murdering me was the obvious mental breakdown he just had at the mention of his mother's name.

I wouldn't be letting him within 1000 yards of my mother without my direct supervision.

If I absolutely needed Batman's help, I would have sent him after Lex. Batman should be more personally invested there anyway, after what Lex did to poor Scoot.

And I'm not even going to touch on how Lois managed to convince Perry to get her a chopper, fly to Gotham where the conflict was, land, then find the two heroes mid battle - and not one Gotham policeman or other ESU - or even another reporter - was anywhere in evidence.
That's just not plausible either.
.....Couldn't help myself. I had to touch Lois after all.

 

[jmc]

Just the messenger on this one. He mentioned some other stuff about how they're canceling a Looney Tunes movie because BvS didn't bring in enough profit.

I would post the screencap directly, but I'm not sure entirely sure we're supposed to post content from the site (it's 4chan).

If true, and I'm skeptical at this point, then I would be very disappointed at the WB execs for throwing Nolan under the bus like that and not accepting their share of the blame for this mess. From everything I've read it seems as if Snyder managed to talk Nolan around to just about every controversial idea he had. Maybe that speaks more about Snyder's ability to convinced people of his ideas than it is of Nolan inability to foresee the consequences of those ideas.

 

[Jumpman]

Sounds like utter **** to me. Nolan did indeed say no to a lot of Snyder's ideas, but Snyder completely ignored him. Nolan hated the neck snap and didn't like where Snyder was taking the character, but Snyder didn't want to take his advice.

If that's the case, would you want to stick around and try to play nice with someone like that? This can't be put on Nolan's shoulders. He delivered a vastly popular and successful franchise. If WB had wanted him to retain control, they should have put Snyder in his place and backed Nolan more. This cluster**** is of their own making.

Stop it...they had a discussion about the directing that Snyder wanted to go with. He didn't ignore Nolan. They talked and talked about it. It's called the collaborative process of filmmaking.

 

[FunkMiller]

Stop it...they had a discussion about the directing that Snyder wanted to go with. He didn't ignore Nolan. They talked and talked about it. It's called the collaborative process of filmmaking.

I've heard it told differently. But then, all of this is third hand info.

 

[jmc]

Nolan wasn't ignored, but he had to be convinced of a lot of the decisions.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Plus, if he was so hell bent on murdering me, as he clearly was, why didn't he just use the massive chunk of Kryptonite to load the .50 cal machine guns with Kryptonite bullets?
That would seem to be the most efficient way of ending me.

Haha wow, forgot all about this tbh. Why didn't he just fire Kryptonite bullets at him?

LMAO, this movie man.

 

[FunkMiller]

Nolan wasn't ignored, but he had to be convinced of a lot of the decisions.

I get the distinct impression his attitude was pretty much "fine, Zack. Do that if you want to. I'll be over here making this space movie."

 

[DarthSkywalker]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...dawn-of-justice-was-a-855m-wash/#436f5c601e08

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has been in worldwide theatrical release five weeks. And in that time, it has earned $321 million in North America and $855m worldwide. It has, offhand, around $10m domestic and another $10-$15m overseas in the tank, meaning it will probably top out at around $875-$885m globally. There has been near constant debate since its opening weekend about whether the film is a massive hit or a giant disappointment. And yet, it is neither an outright winner nor an unmitigated loser.

Regarding gross versus intended impact, it is Even Steven: The Movie (not to be confused with The Even Stevens Movie). First, the good news: The film snagged a $166.1 million opening weekend, including a boffo $81.5m opening day and a mammoth $422m worldwide debut (the fourth-biggest ever). It showed that that there is a large audience for the big-budget cinematic exploits of the DC Comics superheroes (as long as Batman is involved).

In terms of superhero movies, it sits behind only Spider-Man 3, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Iron Man 3, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and The Avengers worldwide. It is the 10th biggest Warner Bros./Time Warner TWX -2.10% Inc. release ever worldwide and their fifth biggest hit in America. Of note, adding the Dark Knight, played by Ben Affleck no less, may have only been worth about $25-30 million in America, but it was a contributor to the $200-$215m in boosted overseas grosses compared to Man of Steel ($291m U.S./$668m worldwide).

Presuming the film cost closer to the official $250 million budget as opposed to the rumored $420m (which is probably including marketing per usual), the film earned a solid 3.5x its budget in theatrical alone. And if it did cost closer to $400m, well, that doesn’t mean that Warner Bros., Rat Pac and friends have to spend that much every time the Holy Trinity gets together. Regarding raw dollars grossed, Zack Snyder’s Dawn of Justice was a big hit here and abroad.

If Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice were merely concerned with building off the relative success of Man of Steel, that would be enough. But the film was meant to be something of an opening shot in Warner Bros.’ new DC Extended Universe, a backdoor pilot for Justice League that was intended to kick off a slate of DC movies over the next five years. The goal of the film was not just to make money, but to inspire positive fandom, to get general audiences excited about what’s coming down the pike. And in that sense, it is arguably a complete failure.

The film received terrible reviews just before its release (my mixed-negative review turned out to be one of the kinder ones) and had a miserable 2.03x weekend multiplier. Those issues were not necessarily indicators of doom. Star Wars: The Force Awakens had a barely-2x weekend multiplier ($247m weekend divided by a $119m Friday), and every Transformers sequel gets terrible reviews. But the film fell 68% on its second weekend, the biggest ever for a big-budget comic book superhero movie. In the end, the film will earn around $330m in America, or just under 2x its opening weekend. That’s the lowest multiplier for a big-budget comic book movie outside of Zack Snyder’s Watchmen and Jonah Hex.

The film flamed out overseas as well, earning 46% of its eventual over/under $550 million overseas cume in those first five days, easily the worst multiplier for a big opener. The poor reviews and relatively mediocre (or indifferent) word-of-mouth created a narrative centered on what went wrong (narrative illogic that resembled incoherence, too little Superman, a bleak and kid-unfriendly tone, too little action, too much time spent setting up Justice League, etc.). The film did not inspire excitement for what comes next, but rather a mix of indifference and fear.

Had the film made significantly less money, the whole franchise might have been put on the proverbial backburner and/or rebooted yet again. Had the film been better received and/or made more money (like that magical $1 billion mark and/or Batman Begins-level praise), then everyone would be thrilled or at least cautiously optimistic, and Suicide Squad would be something of a victory lap. But the film split the difference. It made lots of money but inspired little love.

There are plenty of well-marketed, presold movies that have made money despite audience disapproval or indifference. But this isn’t The Flintstones, as John Goodman’s hype-driven 1994 smash was not intended to launch a series of Hanna Barbara movies. As such, it is the definition of a glass half full/glass half empty situation. The would-be future of the DCEU is more-or-less in the same “destination unknown” territory that it was after Man of Steel.

We don’t know if Warner Bros.’ likely attempts to emphasize how different the likes of Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad are from Dawn of Justice will be successful (I fear more for the World War I-set Wonder Woman prequel). We will still walk into Justice League part I in November of 2017 with little idea of what to expect both regarding artistic merits and financial reception. If the rest of the DCEU impresses, then the DCEU will have pulled off the superheroic job of sustaining a successful franchise off of two somewhat underwhelming initial efforts.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a winner because it will earn around $330 million domestic and $880m worldwide in theaters. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a loser because it was loathed by critics, it played out in theaters in near-record speed, and it was greeted post-opening weekend with either outright hostility or relative indifference by the majority of paying consumers. It proved that the DCEU could be a viable money maker but endangered the long-term welfare of this particular version of the DC Comics universe.

To use a running joke, “Can this franchise be saved?” Probably, since the initial interest was clearly there and audiences will presumably embrace a superior (and more kid-friendly) superhero movie featuring Batman, Wonder Woman, and their Super Friends released a week before Thanksgiving next year. Batman v Superman accomplished one goal (make money) but failed at the other goal (inspire excitement and confidence in the DCEU). In that sense, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice basically “broke even.”

 

[FunkMiller]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...dawn-of-justice-was-a-855m-wash/#436f5c601e08

Great article .

Basically, it did okay at box office, but was a horrible way to set up the DCEU. Pretty much sums it up really.

 

[jmc]

Pretty good break down of the whole thing. The problem is there's no confidence for JL.

 

[AndrewOz]

It's hard to justify him not being Superman by ignoring that calling and having a 12hr day at work then try and spend quality time with his chick after work. It doesn't make sense. Making Clark dead gives Superman a chance to lead the JL and be involved in government and military stuff.

So, he never goes out again without the suit? Or he does, but just dressed in civvies with no alter ego?
What does he do for money? For ID? How does he get a decent burger if he has no credit cards?
How do he and Lois ever spend time together in public again?
They can't go to a restaurant, a show or anywhere else together ever again without being swamped.
What happens to Lois when she's outed as Superman's girlfriend just after her boyfriend dies? They'll be under a microscope, her in particular.
Most people aren't idiots.
She'll be dead, along with Martha Kent, the first time Superman's enemies know he's busy somewhere else.
So no more Lois or Martha either.
No, Superman needs a secret identity. There are a million practical reasons why. He doesn't need a job though.

Personally, I believe Zacks plan for MoS 2, or 3 will be for Kal to realise he needs a secret identity after all.
Too many people were at Clark's funeral to get away with going back to that one. He'll spend ages coming up with a new name.
It will be Zack Snyder.

Realistically, I think they'll revise the end of this movie, state that only Martha, Lois, Diana and Bruce were around for the open casket and pretend that Martha had a symbolic funeral for Clark, as his body was never found.
Then they'll use the comic book story to explain how he comes back.

 

[matt47]

neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever mind

 

[jmc]

Dude, I wouldn't post that video. leaked footage. Just tell folks to type the video title into youtube search.

 

[jmc]

I will say watching that scene again, Gal Gadot is so freaking wooden.

 

[titansupes]

Yeah, they lean in hard on what Nolan did with the DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY not really realizing that Nolan didn't really make Batman films. He made James Bond films that featured Batman.

Now there's a load of ********.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Has there ever been anything more Batman put on film then the Interrogation scene in TDK? It captures everything about the characters of Batman, the Joker and Gordon.

 

[AndrewOz]

Haha wow, forgot all about this tbh. Why didn't he just fire Kryptonite bullets at him?

LMAO, this movie man.

A lot of this movie just seemed to suffer from having to contrive excuses for Zack to recreate the action scenes from TDKR. That's a terrible way to write, unless you're doing a direct adaptation of the work.
The main problem in this scene is that in TDKR, Batman had no intention of really hurting, let alone killing, Superman.
He really just wanted to show him that he could take him down, and provide a spectacle so he could publicly fake his death.
The tools used are not compatible with murder, so you get this logic conflict between script and visuals.
Batman comes off here more like a Bat-armoured version of the Collector (from the horror movie, not Marvel's Cosmic entity), than Miller's aggressively brutal veteran.

Zack is not a deep thinker, demonstrably, despite the unsubstantiated protestations of his disciples.

 

[FunkMiller]

Now there's a load of ********.

I must have missed the part in TDK when Batman downs a martini dressed in a tuxedo, and kills a load of bad guys before screwing a glamour model.

"The name's Man.

...Bat Man."

 

[jmc]

Has there ever been anything more Batman put on film then the Interrogation scene in TDK? It captures everything about the characters of Batman, the Joker and Gordon.

Yep. Anyone who thinks Nolan wasn't capturing the spirit of those characters is not being honest with themselves. The gripe people now have with Nolan is down to aesthetics and nothing else.

 

[matt47]

I will say watching that scene again, Gal Gadot is so freaking wooden.

Thank god someone else sees it! I think it's because english is her second language.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yep. Anyone who thinks Nolan wasn't capturing the spirit of those characters is not being honest with themselves. The gripe people now have with Nolan is down to aesthetics and nothing else.

And I don't disagree with that. He films are beautiful, but the look for Batman left a lot to be desired. Nolan drew a lot from the 70s Bond flicks as inspirations for scenes and such, but never in terms of characterization.