BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - Part 91

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]484863[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]484629[/split]

 

[Jekecy]

What most people don't realize is MOS out-grossed EVERY single Phase 1 Marvel film besides The Avengers. Not to mention it made more cash than Thor TDW Phase II film and looks to beat Captain America TWS domestically as well.

MOS is DC's 1st film in their Phase I, so I think that's pretty impressive.

Well on the flipside it can be looked at as Superman beat out B and C-list heroes who really made their pop culture debut with the aforementioned films. Prior to Marvel's breakout success, would this accomplishment be considered great?

I think the bar is a bit different for both Supes and Batman. Regardless of who the "top dogs" are right now.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

 

[Pickleweasel]

Well on the flipside it can be looked at as Superman beat out B and C-list heroes who really made their pop culture debut with the aforementioned films. Prior to Marvel's breakout success, would this accomplishment be considered great?

I think the bar is a bit different for both Supes and Batman. Regardless of who the "top dogs" are right now.

So then it did what it's suppose to do, and that is somehow a knock against it?

 

[Jekecy]

So then it did what it's suppose to do, and that is somehow a knock against it?

Not what I said. It's not a negative, but it's not some overwhelming victory either. Its success is being a near 300 million dollar domestic grossing reboot, on a franchise that was already stale. Besting Marvel's second/third tier lineup is not.

 

[Marvin]

Well on the flipside it can be looked at as Superman beat out B and C-list heroes who really made their pop culture debut with the aforementioned films. Prior to Marvel's breakout success, would this accomplishment be considered great?

I think the bar is a bit different for both Supes and Batman. Regardless of who the "top dogs" are right now.

For the most part, it WB has to do alot to not be seen as under performing. Their competition has the opposite scenario and seemingly over performs regardless due to just what 'list' people think their characters are working with. At this point I wonder if people think IM4 will be seen as some over performing Blist production. It's not about the name, it's about the circumstance. Ignoring all the sequels, Pixar films are about original properties and regardless of that, they are seen as the Alist animation they are for a reason; that is, the current circumstance of the pixar brand. If people actually took some time to assess these things and not simply rally around the 'names' it might be more clear.

Like BB, MOS was about a brand that wasn't at it's best going in and coming off of a film that put the audience in a certain mind about the brand, same deal with TIH in a way. How did MOS do compared to BB?
The question being, just what did it need to do to be seen as successful as it's competition? Outgross their sequels?

 

[Pickleweasel]

Not what I said. It's not a negative, but it's not some overwhelming victory either. Its success is being a near 300 million dollar domestic grossing reboot, on a franchise that was already stale. Besting Marvel's second/third tier lineup is not.

Meh 100 million more than Iron Man 200 million more than Thor 300 million more than Cap (3 billion dollar franchises all of which are now considered successful/popular characters/franchises) all with worse reviews and more competition seems impressive to me.

 

[hafizbat]

Meh 100 million more than Iron Man 200 million more than Thor 300 million more than Cap (3 billion dollar franchises all of which are now considered successful/popular characters/franchises) all with worse reviews and more competition seems impressive to me.

Some people just don't get the fact that money made does not equal quality. MoS was on par (can't really call it impressive when something as new and wacky as GotG does similar numbers) at the box office, but was it was not as good as the Marvel films you mentioned.

I don't get why some people disregard RT ratings as if they're some sort of conspiracy/joke, then tout box office earnings to state how "impressive" a movie is. At the very least, RT is a much better indicator of a movie's actual quality than the B.O. Transformers, anyone? Or on the opposite end, Edge of Tomorrow?

 

[Jekecy]

The question being, just what did it need to do to be seen as successful as it's competition? Outgross their sequels?

I'm saying it's undermining the brand to compare it to newcomers like Marvel. That is regardless of whether or not those other films did well. The circumstances and baggage are different going into this universe building. Again, saying "Superman beat out Iron Man, Thor, Cap, and Hulk" is just relaying the obvious and expected. I'd rather compare it to its own bar it set for itself.

 

[Pickleweasel]

Some people just don't get the fact that money made does not equal quality. MoS was on par (can't really call it impressive when something as new and wacky as GotG does similar numbers) at the box office, but was it was not as good as the Marvel films you mentioned.

I don't get why some people disregard RT ratings as if they're some sort of conspiracy/joke, then tout box office earnings to state how "impressive" a movie is. At the very least, RT is a much better indicator of a movie's actual quality than the B.O. Transformers, anyone? Or on the opposite end, Edge of Tomorrow?

We weren't talking about how good the movie was......

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Lego Batman 3 Brainiac trailer:

[YT]1jkbBA27zSs[/YT]

 

[Zionite1]

We weren't talking about how good the movie was......

yeah discussion was whether Mos underwhelming financially.

 

[Marvin]

I'm saying it's undermining the brand to compare it to newcomers like Marvel. That is regardless of whether or not those other films did well. The circumstances and baggage are different going into this universe building. Again, saying "Superman beat out Iron Man, Thor, Cap, and Hulk" is just relaying the obvious and expected. I'd rather compare it to its own bar it set for itself.

It's only undermining if those 'lesser' brands were under performers(supposedly they weren't). For example, if superman beat out Avatar part one(something wholly original), would that count for something or would it be another undermine cause the later is a new comer? Thus my point about looking at what's actually in front of us and not simply the brands and such. The circumstance being Avatar had Cameron and a few other things and MOS is coming off of Returns and is a reboot etc.

What's more as big as superman may or may not be, his box office success history is the actual bar. Robocop may be the biggest cyborg brand in american cinema, but that doesn't dictate that I have to expect his next film to make 350mill domestic on that reasoning alone, considering what the brands actual history demonstrates.

 

[Marvin]

I don't get why some people disregard RT ratings as if they're some sort of conspiracy/joke, then tout box office earnings to state how "impressive" a movie is. At the very least, RT is a much better indicator of a movie's actual quality than the B.O. Transformers, anyone? Or on the opposite end, Edge of Tomorrow?

That boils down to how you define quality. Neighbors opened exceptionally high this year cause it was entertaining, not because it was more 'quality' than Dallas Buyers. I would imagine people want to know if the entertainment they are paying for is worth their money, not simply if it's the highest so called quality. If it was the latter that people were actually concerned with then our top highest attended films every year would be those Oscar films.
The measure of a quality film as it pertains to this discussion is about entertainment imo. How else do these same RT critics justify their Sharknado 2 scores.

It's always fun to hear the BO vs RT discussion fade when a film that get's high scores also makes money(plenty this year). Till then, there is always TF to scape goat.

 

[jasontodd]

Some people just don't get the fact that money made does not equal quality. MoS was on par (can't really call that impressive when something as new and wacky as GotG does similar numbers) at the box office, but was it was not as good as the Marvel films you mentioned.

I don't get why some people disregard RT ratings as if they're some sort of conspiracy/joke, then tout box office earnings to state how "impressive" a movie is. At the very least, RT is a much better indicator of a movie's actual quality than the B.O. Transformers, anyone? Or on the opposite end, Edge of Tomorrow?

Man of Steel was not as good as Iron Man or Thor? It's all subjective obviously, but I would be interested in hearing a breakdown of what exactly made Thor and Iron Man superior to Man of Steel.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Simple:
It was fun and teh colorz!!!

 

[shauner111]

I think it's on par with Iron Man. But it s**ts all over Thor. Either way i would rather spend time watching Superman than Iron Man.

 

[Pickleweasel]

I'd rank it

Iron man
Mos
Cap 1
Thor

But that wasn't even what was being discussed idk why he felt the need to type out 2 paragraphs that had nothing to do with anything

 

[shauner111]

Cap 1 sucked but i was a fan of Winter Soldier. WS and IM are the only Marvel movies i like besides the recent Guardians of the Galaxy which i loved.

 

[Boom]

People look at box office totals because it is a far more accurate representation of a film's reception by the general population.

RottenTomatoes scores are typically comprised of up to 250 reviews made by professional film critics, which is a pretty limited source pool considering that millions of people go to see movies. Then RT limits its reviewers to two grading options, fresh or rotten, which may not be very indicative of how a reviewer actually felt. I've seen plenty of reviews where the reviewer had mixed feelings skewed more towards positive, yet the review was counted negative. I've seen reviews where the reviewer had mixed feelings skewed more towards the negative, and it was counted as positive. So again, RT is a very small and very limited resource when it comes to determining a film's success with the general audience.

As much as it pains me to say this, A LOT of people in the world like the Transformers films. The box office totals prove this quite profoundly, and the horrible reviews each film received don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Quality is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

Good points Boom! Especially the last sentence.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Simple:
It was fun and teh colorz!!!

Seriously. I like the first Thor movie but I found MOS to have a much better story, better acting from supporting cast members (I'd say the leads were about equal), and more impressive visuals, special effects and action. Also, the score in MOS kicks Thor's ass from here to Asgard to Jotenmotenbagotenheimenheim.

 

[Broseph44]

Man we need more news or something. We go in circles. Destruction discussion, MOS hate, then we start comparing to marvel movies. Vicious cycle.