BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 30

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Good point.

 

[MrsKent26]

I think he was amazing in MOS too, to be more clear. But i think he's a very average/mediocre actor outside of the Superman role. I also think that he wasn't given as much to do as Maguire in the first Spider-Man or Bale in Batman Begins. He was written/directed to stand there most of the time with a blank stare, and just ask questions and then just listen to people for entire scenes. That's what i really mean.

Rock is totally the Rock up there haha. Well, he's 2001/2002/2003 Rock anytime he's in a movie. Just now he's completely bald and sometimes sports a goatee. So he may have a bigger build and a more badass look with the goatee than he would have in wrestling. He came back to WWE the last couple years with that same look and attitude. And wrestling fans were saying that he barely the Rock anymore, it was like he was just Dwayne Johnson from the Fast and Furious movies. Or likely just being himself rather than that unique character he created in the 90s.

But i see what you're saying.

When i think of him as Darkseid though, i do think of makeup, suits, a little bit of CG.

I didn't think he was given enough to do either. Actually, I don't think anyone was given enough to do acting wise in MOS. There were good moments for everyone, but not enough of anyone. It was an issue with the movie as a whole that bugged me. But what I saw of Henry, I loved. Scenes like Zod's death, his reunion with Ma kent, pa's death, the cornfield with Lois, the entire interrogation sequence and handcuff breaking, the first flight and the "Don't play games with me" scene were what sold me. They were all different scenes and required different emotions/tones and he pulled them all off. And I think that if he had been given more, he would have pulled that off too. His physicality for the role was also good. He made it feel like he was living in superman's body, if that makes any sense. And his voice was so right for the character. Very commanding, but gentle.

But to each their own. I know not everyone liked him and that's ok.

And yeah, I would need make-up, CG and the whole shebang to not see "The Rock pretending to be Darkseid." Darkseid needs to be intimidating. I don't want the character to be a joke. If he's going to be the "Big Bad" they have to put some effort in to make it believable that the whole JL is needed to take this guy out. The Rock's dainty eyebrow and comedic charm don't sell it for me.

 

[NoLaNitE007]

Personally I don't want the Rock anywhere near DC properties.

He's a fun actor, but he's never playing a character. He's just "The Rock".

I don't want to see kids come out of the theatre saying "Did you see that cool thing the Rock did with his power ring?!"

I have no problem with seeing a box office attraction like the Rock be a part of the DCU.

Bring him on!

 

[Poni_Boy]

That's only half the battle though. If it has a poor script, then chances are people won't even care about the iconic Batman-Superman team up.

True. My guess at this point (knowing practically nothing about the film) is they're gonna front end it just like MOS. Which might even give it one of the biggest opening weekends of all time. But that's speaking for marketing, not the filmmakers. Where it goes from there is entirely up to the movie itself to deliver.

 

[kendalag]

I have no problem with seeing a box office attraction like the Rock be a part of the DCU.

Bring him on!

Yeah, otherwise he'd sign with Marvel ... be Luke Cage or something and they'd have a new comic book star and potential franchise.

... and people would be saying ... jeez WB/DC why wouldn't you look to sign someone like The Rock to help your brand.

Rock is best for business ... and as a corporation, that's all that WB worries about.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah, otherwise he'd sign with Marvel ... be Luke Cage or something and they'd have a new comic book star and potential franchise.

... and people would be saying ... jeez WB/DC why wouldn't you look to sign someone like The Rock to help your brand.

Rock is best for business ... and as a corporation, that's all that WB worries about.

Yeah. And we know that even if story is treated with some care, it's not the main priority for this universe. It's their chance to do what Marvel does. Business comes first so Dwayne is perfect.

 

[Herolee10]

Honestly, one of the things that constantly worries me about this film is if Snyder is really only thinking about focusing on how he can make the action better and bigger when he should be more concerned about how he can present the characters better and how to tell the story in a strong way.

 

[Jekecy]

It's a matter of aptitude more than anything. From all the MOS interviews and the film itself, there certainly was effort in conveying a sense of depth. Problem was many people felt it was hollow, and worse, practically all development was dropped once the third act took place.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Good points. I was going to respond to the Poni post with the same reasoning. I mean where is the proof that WB's was expecting a rebooted solo Superman film to earn 1 billion WW?

Hard for me to believe that one...especially since MOS had to come out after that very underwhelming Superman Returns film.

You guys make it sound like there's one step between $650 mil and $1 billion. Like I said, ask anyone who was privy to production talks. Expectations were upwards of what they got. But not $1 billion. As it stands with $660 mil WW they had to wait for home release to break even.

 

[NoLaNitE007]

... and people would be saying ... jeez WB/DC why wouldn't you look to sign someone like The Rock to help your brand.

Rock is best for business ... and as a corporation, that's all that WB worries about.

Exactly!

 

[NoLaNitE007]

You guys make it sound like there's one step between $650 mil and $1 billion. Like I said, ask anyone who was privy to production talks. Expectations were upwards of what they got. But not $1 billion. As it stands with $660 mil WW they had to wait for home release to break even.

Plus with sponsorships and top 5 in Blue Ray/DVD sales. MOS did pretty well for a rebooted Superman film.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Plus with sponsorships and top 5 in Blue Ray/DVD sales. MOS did pretty well for a rebooted Superman film.

That's all accounted for, and it still barely broke even. Most big budget movies (+60 mil) lose money. Just look at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. That lost WB $167 mil even counting sponsorship deals, home release, and tax breaks

Again, I'm not saying MOS was a failure. It wasn't. The sequel proves that. But it wasn't a gigantic success either. Which is a big reason they're skipping over MOS2 and going the JL route as soon as possible.

 

[roach]

are we still on this?

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Video cassettes? In 2007?

That must mean home video in general.

 

[Jekecy]

That's all accounted for, and it still barely broke even. Most big budget movies (+60 mil) lose money. Just look at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. That lost WB $167 mil even counting sponsorship deals, home release, and tax breaks.

But that's just one of the many examples of infamous "Hollywood accounting". Most prominently, how Star Wars (I forget which one) technically has not made profit to this day.

 

[Wise]

Video cassettes? In 2007?

HERESY!

 

[Pickleweasel]

That's all accounted for, and it still barely broke even. Most big budget movies (+60 mil) lose money. Just look at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. That lost WB $167 mil even counting sponsorship deals, home release, and tax breaks

Again, I'm not saying MOS was a failure. It wasn't. The sequel proves that. But it wasn't a gigantic success either. Which is a big reason they're skipping over MOS2 and going the JL route as soon as possible.

That's not true at all, if it were true then studios would not make +60mil dollar movies.

 

[Poni_Boy]

That's not true at all, if it were true then studios would not make +60mil dollar movies.

They do when you're talking about long term investments like film franchises and awards season payoffs. End of the day these types of movies are a long term investment. Avengers paid off any loses from the other Marvel movies. Harry Potter 7 1/2 paid off the other films. JL will pay off MOS. It's only a "loss" if it's not a franchise and there's no cross-promotional or awards payoff.

Also, the majority of movies made today are made for much less than $100. But you have to look at Spring, Fall and Winter to see most of those.

 

[roach]

 

[Lencho01]

[YT]MHWTMv6_Aa4[/YT]

[YT]98USOHFSGw4[/YT]

 

[Wildcard]

They do when you're talking about long term investments like film franchises and awards season payoffs. End of the day these types of movies are a long term investment. Avengers paid off any loses from the other Marvel movies. Harry Potter 7 1/2 paid off the other films. JL will pay off MOS. It's only a "loss" if it's not a franchise and there's no cross-promotional or awards payoff.

Also, the majority of movies made today are made for much less than $100. But you have to look at Spring, Fall and Winter to see most of those.

I'd have to also agree that isn't true. Way too many movies are made for that amount of money ($60 million) for it not to be a budget that profit can be seen from.

But, ultimately, I will always come to the conclusion that movies in general should have smaller budgets. When I say smaller, I don't mean shoestring budgets, but just smaller than what's been the norm (for blockbusters especially) for the last few years.

I love TDKR, for instance, but I'm still struggling to see why it cost as much/more than The Avengers.

And for the record, he's a little right about MoS, though. It wasn't nearly a failure, but think about it like this...it cost $10 million more than TA, & made nearly $1 billion less.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I'd have to also agree that isn't true. Way too many movies are made for that amount of money ($60 million) for it not to be a budget that profit can be seen from.

But, ultimately, I will always come to the conclusion that movies in general should have smaller budgets. When I say smaller, I don't mean shoestring budgets, but just smaller than what's been the norm (for blockbusters especially) for the last few years.

I love TDKR, for instance, but I'm still struggling to see why it cost as much/more than The Avengers.

And for the record, he's a little right about MoS, though. It wasn't nearly a failure, but think about it like this...it cost $10 million more than TA, & made nearly $1 billion less.

Unfortunately it's true. Here's an overview to give you an idea: http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all

And I agree about the lower budget thing. Every year it proves that smaller budgets (with the right talent behind them) give far better payout than your average $60/80/100+ mil movie. 2013 was terrible for overbudgeted movies but the trend ain't going anywhere as long as the potential for that $1 bil mark is there/

 

[Poni_Boy]

Anyone know have an educated guess for what budget for this movie is? Obviously it's higher than MOS. Just trying to figure out what kind of talent they can attract with the money they're working with.

 

[jmc]

I struggle to see why these budget are so high as well. Surely it's not just special effects is it? In theory with how technology is nowadays it should be getting cheaper to do.

 

[Wildcard]

Unfortunately it's true. Here's an overview to give you an idea: http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all

And I agree about the lower budget thing. Every year it proves that smaller budgets (with the right talent behind them) give far better payout than your average $60/80/100+ mil movie. 2013 was terrible for overbudgeted movies but the trend ain't going anywhere as long as the potential for that $1 bil mark is there/

That's interesting....as an aspiring filmmaker I've always believed that whether it's a big film production or not, as small you can get the budget is ideal.

I've seen quite a lot of smaller budgeted films (especially in the horror department) make insane money by doing the same thing big budgeted films do but better.

I really wonder when studios are going to realize less money makes people more creative?

As for this movie, I've heard anything between $220-300 million for the budget of Superman/Batman. They're already supposed to be spending $131 million of it here in Michigan.