BvS Batman/Superman Pushed Back to 2016 - Part 1

[Flint Marko]

Ladies and fellas, was thinking about this film this morning, counting the months and whatnot and it just occurred to me fairly plainly that this 10 month delay is all about Justice League in 2017.

I'm sorry but if this film starts shooting in May and Snyder shoots until the end of 2014, you mean to tell me that he needs 15 months of post production to finish this film? Considering the fact that most big budget studio tentpole films do some type of post production while production is going on (as to make sure they make the release date), Snyder's gonna need 15 months to finish the editing, sound mixing, vfx, and score on this picture?

I'm sorry but no ****ing way. It is not uncommon but no, not this time. From May to December is 7 months production time. Most films today don't shoot that long, with the advancements in technology in film. 7 months and then another 15 months in post?!

WB's doing the Matrix sequels all over again with this. They're shooting two films almost at once. There will be some type of production done on the DC universe sometime in 2015, release of Superman vs. Batman in May of 2016 and then nothing?

Nope. Don't see WB letting the buzz off of Superman vs. Batman die down.

We're getting Justice League in 2017.

And before anyone links it, yes, I read the forbes.com article by Scott Mendelson on the reasoning for the May 2016 slot. Completely agree. Having said that, you don't think WB would take advantage of having this much time?

This is an interesting idea. I'd like to think they've got a larger game plan in mind but with WB I'm inclined to think they're just making it up as they go. Here's to hoping something like this would happen, cause that would be huge

 

[Mjölnir]

I agree with you that what's most important is our own opinion of a movie, and not take to heart what critics say.

However, I do want to point out that your statement about Thor 2 being generally more well-received than Man of Steel is quite inaccurate, for both critics and audiences. While Thor does have a higher audience rating and overall critic rating on RT, it only has a score of 41% from top critics, lower than Man of Steels' 53%. On Metacritic, Man of Steel has a critic score of 55% and a user score of 7.7/10, while Thor 2 has 54% and a user score of 7.8/10. On CinemaScore, which was rated by moviegoers, both films got an A-.

Point is, I wouldn't say Thor 2 was better received than Man of Steel, let alone be pretty well received.

I for one thought it wasn't a very good movie, and possibly the worst movie from Marvel Studios to date. But I can see why others would like it, for it's humor, for example.

Note that when I say "not only critics" I'm just making a call back to what the other poster wrote, my comment is just about what I've seen from audiences and the rating has been higher. I'd agree that you can treat Metacritic as the same though, despite that it's technically higher there. I haven't been on CinemaScore so that was new to me, so thanks for that.

Note, however, that my point wasn't to say that TDW is better than MoS. It was that other poster that tried to say the contrary. My point was to show that someone that thinks TDW is better doesn't have to have a bias or an agenda, which I feel I showed by giving examples of TDW being well received as it's one of the highest audience rated superhero movies ever in several places (third in the MCU).

I don't have any problems with you having, I assume, a somewhat opposite opinion of these two movies than I do. It's just two opinions and both of us know to treat them as such. As long as both of us got at least one movie they really enjoyed out of it we can be happy and I still look forward to sequels to both.

 

[Fizicks]

Note that when I say "not only critics" I'm just making a call back to what the other poster wrote, my comment is just about what I've seen from audiences and the rating has been higher. I'd agree that you can treat Metacritic as the same though, despite that it's technically higher there. I haven't been on CinemaScore so that was new to me, so thanks for that.

Note, however, that my point wasn't to say that TDW is better than MoS. It was that other poster that tried to say the contrary. My point was to show that someone that thinks TDW is better doesn't have to have a bias or an agenda, which I feel I showed by giving examples of TDW being well received as it's one of the highest audience rated superhero movies ever in several places (third in the MCU).

I don't have any problems with you having, I assume, a somewhat opposite opinion of these two movies than I do. It's just two opinions and both of us know to treat them as such. As long as both of us got at least one movie they really enjoyed out of it we can be happy and I still look forward to sequels to both.

You're right, I absolutely agree with you. I apologize if my post came across as slightly anal, with me trying to refute just small part of your post.

 

[Mjölnir]

You're right, I absolutely agree with you. I apologize if my post came across as slightly anal, with me trying to refute just small part of your post.

Nothing to apologize for, I just tried my best to clarify my original intent as much as possible this time around.

 

[georgec]

5 reasons why Warner Bros. delaying 'Batman Vs Superman' is a good thing
http://www.hitfix.com/news/5-reason...-superman-is-a-good-thing#JlTSzITFZxqIjkcu.99

 

[John-An]

Maybe critics gave Man of Steel bad reviews because it's a bad film.

Wrong!!! MOS is a great film and it did received that "reviews" because of some people wanting smth and clearly don't recieving that as (Superman being the omnipresent hero, the polemic things, wanting a comedy and more nosense things) then its a "bad film".
that's why they receive those "impartial" reviews and clearly seeing some inferior movies that got 72% and they didn't deserved it proves the point. The story of the movie has its flaws (every movie has), no doubt of that but one thing for sure this story is clearly superior to most of the cmb and is one of the best in the genre, a thing that some people have to deal with it.

 

[Masone]

Wrong!!! MOS is a great film and it did received that "reviews" because of some people wanting smth and clearly don't recieving that as (Superman being the omnipresent hero, the polemic things, wanting a comedy and more nosense things) then its a bad film. that was why they receive those "impartial" reviews and clearly seeing some inferior movies that got 72% and they didn't deserved it proves the point. The story of the movie has its flaws (every movie has), no doubt of that but one thing for sure this story is clearly superior to most of the cmb and is one of the best in the genre, a thing that some people have to deal with it.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I think..there are a lot of flaws with MOS.

I also think that critics aren't gonna give Zack Snyder anywhere near 80 percent fresh ever again. I also think that critics have a preconception that fantastical superhero movies need to be lighthearted. I also think that critics have preconceptions on how Superman should act and what a Superman movie should BE like.

I also feel that several won't give any non-Donnerverse Supes a chance, whereas still even more were expecting a TDK trilogy quality film.

Furthermore, I think the serious nature of the destruction resonated a little too well causing people to bash the film based on how upsetting it can be at times.

On the other hand, I also think that the writing is wildly uneven, the performances in some cases were too subtle for many critics to appreciate, while others are let down by the lack of deep characterization (Lois comes to mind.)

The editing is frantic, but I personally believe the direction both elevates and EMPHASIZES problems that already existed on a script level.

Combine the flaws with the movie (real or perceived) with unrealistic expectations, blind nostalgia, and an unpopular director and it's a wonder it managed to do as well as it did critically.

 

[mclay18]

Well, Disney saw an opportunity... and moved Ant-Man up to July 17, 2015. Now it's going head-to-head with WB's Pan film.

I don't know if that's an indication whether Disney will move their MCU May '16 film up to April or back a few months...

 

[J.Howlett]

Well, Disney saw an opportunity... and moved Ant-Man up to July 17, 2015. Now it's going head-to-head with WB's Pan film.

I don't know if that's an indication whether Disney will move their MCU May '16 film up to April or back a few months...

They're gonna move the May 6th Marvel movie to April. This move pretty much confirms this.

Honestly, what does Marvel gain by going up against Superman/Batman? Considering whatever film it is will not feature Iron Man or all of the Avengers, what good does it do them to go up against the two titans?

They'll move it to April.

 

[TheVileOne]

The last Peter Pan movie reboot was a flop.

 

[mclay18]

The last Peter Pan movie reboot was a flop.

I think it was only intended as a one-off film either way. I'm curious how Joe Wright's version of the tale will turn out, myself.

 

[RAE072]

Ant-man? Is that a comic?

Yes?

He was also a founding member of the Avengers with Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, and Wasp.

 

[RAE072]

Is he like Atom?

Biophysicist and Security Operations Center expert Dr. Henry 'Hank' Pym decided to become a superhero after discovering a chemical substance (Pym Particles) that would allow the user to alter his size. Armed with a helmet that could control ants, Pym would shrink down to the size of an insect to become the mystery-solving Ant-Man.[1] He soon shared his discovery with his girlfriend, Janet Van Dyne, who became his crime-fighting partner as the Wasp

Sort of.

 

[Bathead]

never mind

 

[RAE072]

They're making a movie of that? Is it like a kids/CGI animated thing?

No, I believe they're using either the Scott Lang or Eric O'Grady Ant-Man versions.

Scott Lang:

Scott Lang was a thief who first became Ant-Man after stealing Henry Pym's Ant-Man suit to save his daughter Cassie from a heart condition.[5] Reforming from his life of crime, he soon took on a full-time career as Ant-Man with the encouragement of Hank Pym.

Eric O'Grady

Eric O'Grady is a low-level agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. who stumbled upon the Ant-Man suit in S.H.I.E.L.D.'s headquarters.[9] A man of few morals and willing to lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate in order to get ahead in life, Eric stole the armor for his own selfish plans, which included using his status as a "super-hero" to seduce women[10] and humiliate and torment others.

Probably Scott Lang. Since they cast Michael Douglas in the Hank Pym role.

 

[John-An]

I think some people confuse flaws with his/her expectations of what they wanted to see no matter if that wouldn't fit in this century, especially in Superman's case.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I agree with you that what's most important is our own opinion of a movie, and not take to heart what critics say.

However, I do want to point out that your statement about Thor 2 being generally more well-received than Man of Steel is quite inaccurate, for both critics and audiences. While Thor does have a higher audience rating and overall critic rating on RT, it only has a score of 41% from top critics, lower than Man of Steels' 53%. On Metacritic, Man of Steel has a critic score of 55% and a user score of 7.7/10, while Thor 2 has 54% and a user score of 7.8/10. On CinemaScore, which was rated by moviegoers, both films got an A-.

Point is, I wouldn't say Thor 2 was better received than Man of Steel, let alone be pretty well received.

I for one thought it wasn't a very good movie, and possibly the worst movie from Marvel Studios to date. But I can see why others would like it, for it's humor, for example.

Even though they're only 10% apart, I think the green rotten tomato vs the nice red fresh tomato makes a big difference in people's minds (as if 60=great & 59=fail).

Also, people don't seem to notice that they have the same average score...6.2, which is the actual measure how much critics enjoyed the film (not what percentage of them did).

 

[Mjölnir]

Even though they're only 10% apart, I think the green rotten tomato vs the nice red fresh tomato makes a big difference in people's minds (as if 60=great & 59=fail).

Also, people don't seem to notice that they have the same average score...6.2, which is the actual measure how much critics enjoyed the film (not what percentage of them did).

While neither is very relevant (might be for some, but not me) I'd say that the tomato rating means more since that's consistent across all critics. Everyone basically gets to answer the question "did you like it?" and all answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. With the average score you have a mash up of different scales and also people using the same scale but define the grades differently. While it's the same for all movies it's a kind of average I strongly dislike.

The above is not a comment about MoS or TDW though. As said above I don't think that matters and neither were seen as great by critics.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

The tomatometer is more accurate for what it wants to tell you, but the problem is that people confuse the importance of what it's telling you. It's not a measure of quality so much as accessibility or how widely appealing something is.

A movie with a 90% tomatometer doesn't mean that they thought it was a 9/10 movie, yet that's the takeaway for a lot of people. If 100% of critics think that a movie is around a 6-7, it can still have a 100% tomatometer.

Mission Impossible Ghost Protocool had a tomatometer in the 90's but an average score in the 7's, opposed to say 12 Years a Slave or something that has an average score in the 9's, yet people talk about that Mission Impossible movie like the score was a 9/10.

It's just a shame that a lot of people see MOS as having been 'slammed by critics' while Thor TDW was 'another solid entry in the MCU'.

 

[Marvin]

I also feel that several won't give any non-Donnerverse Supes a chance, whereas still even more were expecting a TDK trilogy quality film.

A bit of a generalization but it definitely is a considerable dilemma, especially where the GA is concerned. The big blue boy scout really wasn't going to be making TDK level money(especially domestically). However, everyone and their mother can tell you that superman 'needs' to be...that. Or rather what they think superman should be.

The first film was destined to be a sorta sacrificial lamb. That's just the way the trepid but needing of change, audience works these days. A blond short and stout bond needed to gain their trust given the preconceptions. Same deal here, the sequel's reception will be telling. It's box office is all but certain.

 

[NoLaNitE007]

Well, Disney saw an opportunity... and moved Ant-Man up to July 17, 2015. Now it's going head-to-head with WB's Pan film.

I don't know if that's an indication whether Disney will move their MCU May '16 film up to April or back a few months...

I'm glad WB's snatched that coveted May 6th slot in 2016 away from Marvel. I hope Disney/Marvel tries to release their solo Dr Strange film on the same day as Batman vs Superman. Even if a miracle happens and they get Depp...they will be destroyed. Especially if The Rock does come on board the BvsS and JL films.

Fox might consider releasing X Apocalypse, but that is a long shot. They don't want to lose money.

Pan may wind up being more for families than some uninteresting character like AntMan. Than again they hired a comedian like Rudd to play him, so the they will try to play up the over the top humor as much as possible. That is what Feige and his Marvel films are all about now.

Hugh Jack and Bardem may be cast in Pan. Pirates being involved is always an attraction for families. However, Feige is just going to bring in some Avengers to try and spice up that AntMan a bit....otherwise the general public really wouldn't give a damn about some character named AntMan IMO.

 

[NoLaNitE007]

Ladies and fellas, was thinking about this film this morning, counting the months and whatnot and it just occurred to me fairly plainly that this 10 month delay is all about Justice League in 2017.

I'm sorry but if this film starts shooting in May and Snyder shoots until the end of 2014, you mean to tell me that he needs 15 months of post production to finish this film? Considering the fact that most big budget studio tentpole films do some type of post production while production is going on (as to make sure they make the release date), Snyder's gonna need 15 months to finish the editing, sound mixing, vfx, and score on this picture?

I'm sorry but no ****ing way. It is not uncommon but no, not this time. From May to December is 7 months production time. Most films today don't shoot that long, with the advancements in technology in film. 7 months and then another 15 months in post?!

WB's doing the Matrix sequels all over again with this. They're shooting two films almost at once. There will be some type of production done on the DC universe sometime in 2015, release of Superman vs. Batman in May of 2016 and then nothing?

Nope. Don't see WB letting the buzz off of Superman vs. Batman die down.

We're getting Justice League in 2017.

And before anyone links it, yes, I read the forbes.com article by Scott Mendelson on the reasoning for the May 2016 slot. Completely agree. Having said that, you don't think WB would take advantage of having this much time?

Yep. That is a huge post prod timeline. I also think WB's will be shooting Justice League after BvsS.

This is what they are prepping for.

 

[mkilban2]

I'm glad WB's snatched that coveted May 6th slot in 2016 away from Marvel. I hope Disney/Marvel tries to release their solo Dr Strange film on the same day as Batman vs Superman. Even if a miracle happens and they get Depp...they will be destroyed. Fox might consider releasing XMen Apocalypse, but that is a long shot. They don't want to lose money.

Pan may wind up being more for families than some uninteresting character like AntMan. Hugh Jack and Bardem may be cast also. Especially with pirates being involved in Pan. However, Feige is just going to bring in some Avengers to try and spice up that film a bit....otherwise the general public wouldn't give a damn about some character named AntMan.

Lol hate Marvel much?

Jeez did they kidnap your kids or steal your job?

Ant Man will do fine up against Pan (probably do very well considering its coming 2 months after AoU) and untitled 2016 project will probably do fine up against BvS (300-500mil range would be respectable as a new solo project I'd assume) or be moved since its far off anyways.

I don't think it's as big as a competition as you make it out to be, Marvels money will be there on name alone, and WB will for sure make it big on BvS, at least 2-300mil more than what MoS made. (Putting it around 800-900m I think right?)

 

[D.P.]

Yep. That is a huge post prod timeline. I also think WB's will be shooting Justice League after BvsS.

This is what they are prepping for.

Makes more sense than "Goyer sucks and Terio has to fix his mistakes" posts.