BvS Batman V Superman Box Office Prediction - Part 1

[dalonewolf]

Domestically it'll be a monster. Will have to see what these guys do abroad when teamed up. On their own they are yet to set overseas markets alight (even the 2 TDK films). I think over $700m overseas is possible along with 4-500 domestic. More if the film can fully deliver.

Nice prediction

 

[mithravishnu]

Domestically it'll be a monster. Will have to see what these guys do abroad when teamed up. On their own they are yet to set overseas markets alight (even the 2 TDK films). I think over $700m overseas is possible along with 4-500 domestic. More if the film can fully deliver.

When two most iconic characters teams up to FIGHT its news. I am posting a newspaper clip from my local news paper which talks about BvS trailer

Spoiler

They don't need to build up movies to get people's attention. The title does that all

 

[m4st4]

My prediction is 1.2-1.3 billion by the end of April. Will it release in China? That should help as well.

Inclusion of IMAX and 3D along with enormous hype (even at this early stage) will make it a megahit, the quality could push it beyond those numbers - people won't come back if it turns out to be a first weekend only event ala so many blockbusters lately.

 

[Noctis]

just realised that the avengers age of ultrons review embargo ends today so i was wondering if man of steel had any reviews embargoes aswell, well it turns out it did and it ended on Monday the 10th of june 2013 exactly 3 days from the films premier, and look what marvels been doing with all that sweet embargo time, three epic trailers, countless TV spots, one of the most biggest world premières i have ever seen and where people are pre-booking tickets left an right, if WB can do that with BvS then i expect a ridiculously large opening weekend unaffected by a negative review whatsoever, so thats the OW sorted and if this film has legs with the audience (which im sure it does) then i predict a box office similar if not bigger then furious 7

 

[m4st4]

just realised that the avengers age of ultrons review embargo ends today so i was wondering if man of steel had any reviews embargoes aswell, well it turns out it did and it ended on Monday the 10th of june 2013 exactly 3 days from the films premier, and look what marvels been doing with all that sweet embargo time, three epic trailers, countless TV spots, one of the most biggest world premières i have ever seen and where people are pre-booking tickets left an right, if WB can do that with BvS then i expect a ridiculously large opening weekend unaffected by a negative review whatsoever, so thats the OW sorted and if this film has legs with the audience (which im sure it does) then i predict a box office similar if not bigger then furious 7

Exciting times ahead of us for sure, especially when you consider The Force Awakens is premiering in December. So many megatons in such short time, both cultural and financial.

 

[Iceman]

When two most iconic characters teams up to FIGHT its news. I am posting a newspaper clip from my local news paper which talks about BvS trailer

Spoiler

They don't need to build up movies to get people's attention. The title does that all

Nice. What country is that from?

Edit: Oh I see your location is India. Cool!

 

[Spiderdevil]

On one hand, you are correct. People do have a number of preconceptions about DC. A few days ago I called out people on the Daredevil Netflix series. I find it ridiculous that people lament how serious and dark in tone most DC movies are, yet Daredevil is praised for employing the same tone. And yes, people were excited to see the Avengers fight one another, but people are currently moaning about how silly it is for Batman and Superman to fight. I even got a text from a dear friend where he texted me just to complain about Batman fighting Superman. I admit that there is a bias toward Marvel and against DC.

How is this so difficult to understand?
The Dark tone suits Daredevil, that's why, he is not made dark and gritty for the sake of being dark and gritty like DC/WB did with MOS

Nobody had problems with TDK trilogy being dark because dark suits Batman, Marvel would face similar flak if they made Spider-man dark, Fox is getting a lot of criticism for making Fantastic 4 grounded

 

[Aejej]

MoS was loaded with action, and grittier than previous Superman films, but I don't think it qualifies as "grimdark."

OTOH, BvS now has Batman, and it will likely have a balance of grimdark and the MoS tone.

 

[Mandon Knight]

DC characters are naturally histroically darker in tone, delivery and story than Marvel.

Daredevil is one of Marvel's darkest characters thematically and the series mirrors that, I applaud DC / WB for reflecting this tone and I think they will do the DC universe (excuse the pun), justice.

 

[Bruce Malone]

A few years ago it was all about weekend debut but now I think WOM and legs are pretty important factors.

Based on MoS opening weekend of 116,000,000 there was little excuse for the film not being able to have crossed the 300 million mark domestically.

GOTG "only" debuted with 94 million but made it all the way to 330 million mainly based on positive word of mouth.

 

[DarthAlani]

WOM and having MonstersU/WWZ hurt MOS legs big time.

 

[Marvin]

How is this so difficult to understand?
The Dark tone suits Daredevil, that's why, he is not made dark and gritty for the sake of being dark and gritty like DC/WB did with MOS

Nobody had problems with TDK trilogy being dark because dark suits Batman, Marvel would face similar flak if they made Spider-man dark, Fox is getting a lot of criticism for making Fantastic 4 grounded

Two issues with this. You are saying that no one complained about WB making TDKT dark and gritty(fair enough). You are suggesting the dc/wb flack all stems from mishandling superman.
Funny enough, DC supposedly only makes Batman and or Superman movies. So in the span of two characters, people have he gull to accuse dc of turning all their stuff and characters dark? Here I thought it was based on a some string of colourful characters they have consistently turned dark, but really it's only superman?

Well they made a Green Lantern movie but I imagine that's a monkey wrench in the entire argument.

The second issue I have with your line of thinking is that you(and others) assume to know what suits or works for a character. As if there isn't light non serious takes on DareDevil, or that very successful batman during he 60's or some of his modern cartoon shows. Imagine how stupid it would be for someone to then claim that dark/serious doesn't suit Batman? Especially if hey hadn't yet seen a writer take it there. Cinematically, batman wasn't dark till Burton, and all the fans of Adam West could have made an argument about what look was best for the material at that point.
This is where someone might suggest that unlike batman, superman doesn't have any celebrated dark/serious stories. This would also be the part where that someone is wrong.

In conclusion, this is the major issue with people limiting their ability to do this to looking at what they know of source material and preconceptions. Anything is possible, great writing can make bond work in Moore's fun or in Daniel craigs dark grit. If you've read things like Kingdom Come or Action comics 775 or Alan Moore's superman you might appreciate that this material can do well in various Tones. Just like Cap.

The issue with the daredevil thing is that there are droves of people suggesting that comic books and the movies associated with them should be lighter and more fun in general, TDK vs Avengers if you will.
Apparently there is room for all sorts of things, it only took the marvel green light to ok it.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Two issues with this. You are saying that no one complained about WB making TDKT dark and gritty(fair enough). You are suggesting the dc/wb flack all stems from mishandling superman.
Funny enough, DC supposedly only makes Batman and or Superman movies. So in the span of two characters, people have he gull to accuse dc of turning all their stuff and characters dark? Here I thought it was based on a some string of colourful characters they have consistently turned dark, but really it's only superman

You are right to an extent but they show now signs of changing and are going the same way with BvS, it looks even darker, hence they deserve the criticism for now

The second issue I have with your line of thinking is that you(and others) assume to know what suits or works for a character. As if there isn't light non serious takes on DareDevil, or that very successful batman during he 60's or some of his modern cartoon shows. Imagine how stupid it would be for someone to then claim that dark/serious doesn't suit Batman? Especially if hey hadn't yet seen a writer take it there. Cinematically, batman wasn't dark till Burton, and all the fans of Adam West could have made an argument about what look was best for the material at that point.
This is where someone might suggest that unlike batman, superman doesn't have any celebrated dark/serious stories. This would also be the part where that someone is wrong.

Again you are partly right, these characters have been around for 6-7 decades and practically every tone and direction has been tried with them in the comics

But it all boils down to, What are the character's best work? What is it's tone? What is the Public perception of the Character? What universally suits him?

Just ask yourself those questions, for Batman and Daredevil you can easily say they are tragic characters with dark back stories and their best works are done by Frank Miller and those are dark/grim while for characters like Superman and Spider-man you will say they are colourful, charismatic characters who represent hope.

And the difference between DC and Marvel is that Marvel takes every character to its merit and assigns him a tone while DC has thrown everything Superman stands for, out the window and is trying to ape Nolan

Less than 0.0001% of the people who actually watch the movie have read adequate comics to understand that Superman has dark stories too, so why not make movies of how the GA perceives Superman ? This doesn't mean that there should be no room for change but what is the need for a complete turn around in character ?

The thing is, Daredevil is being critically acclaimed and people are going- 'Oh so now dark and gritty is good, and when DC used it in MOS they received a bludgening, Bias! Bias!'

Those sort of posts make me facepalm because firstly, it doesn't come down to tone only, Daredevil had humane, relatable and vulnerable hero who was charismatic, well developed and had lots of layers, the supporting characters was extremely well developed aswell, the plot was rich with a great balance of action, drama and emotion. Can this be said about MOS?

Secondly, WB/DC was and is universally praised for their dark and gritty TDK trilogy, and even non DC studios like Fox and Sony have received a lot of criticism for their approach on Fantastic Four reboot and the Amazing Spider Man series, where is the Bias?

 

[Marvin]

But it all boils down to, What are the character's best work? What is it's tone? What is the Public perception of the Character? What universally suits him?

Less than 0.0001% of the people who actually watch the movie have read adequate comics to understand that Superman has dark stories too, so why not make movies of how the GA perceives Superman ? This doesn't mean that there should be no room for change but what is the need for a complete turn around in character ?

The problem here is that you are assuming the amount of people that have seen this material prior to the films actually matters in the grand scheme, enough to cater to their perceptions to a tonal degree. Films aren't made to be catered to the fans, I say this for because dozens of entities exists in hollywood that start from a scratch and it's that group of people, the ones that aren't 'these kinds of fans' that sustain the industry. I see the benefits but it's not the make or break imo.
At the end of the day you ask yourself, does the studio stand to gain if they make the best possible Mad Max for it's fans, or the best possible Mad Max for the billions of people that both un initiated or even 'know the brand in passing'. I argue the latter and if that's true, who gives a damn about analyzing what this niche market of people perceives or best perceives, just give them the best possible thing ever.
Moreover, who's to say what they perceive is the best possible option? As I've said before, if all these fans have or had ever seen of Batman was Adam West, would that mean Nolan's(TDK) would be a poor endeaver at the outset and one not worth pursuing because it wasn't the 'best things these fans have yet seen'? In art the goal has to be the pursuit of the best possible option and exploring that. Seeking out the truth if you will, not simply giving some niche group what they are used to.

As for your question of best works, I would argue we haven't yet seen the actual best work until we have every piece of work based on the character ever accumulated. I think the problem here is that you are looking to what has been proven to work in the past and shutting the door there. I am weary of this because it's means if you pulled this same gambit prior to the 70's then you would be making a mistake with both Batman and Daredevil imo, and this new DD series might then suffer this same flawed analysis. It's a flawed way of going about such things and surely not a timeless one. Sometimes an artist has a great vision for something and they see a greater truth...
As for what are superman's best works, that's arguable. It may be the bright colorful ones it may be the more serious(mos inspired) ones. Some may even argue(not me) that it's Death of superman depending on your measure. You aren't in the position to discern, nor am I, and again, maybe next year some Frank Miller will come around and do that thing they do, maybe it will a film that enlightens us about how this character "best...". Though I personally feel Joe Kelly kinda already did.

As for mos ditching 100% of what the character stands for, you've lost me there. They didn't make a Punisher movie.

Those sort of posts make me facepalm because firstly, it doesn't come down to tone only, Daredevil had humane, relatable and vulnerable hero who was charismatic, well developed and had lots of layers, the supporting characters was extremely well developed aswell, the plot was rich with a great balance of action, drama and emotion. Can this be said about MOS?

I find it fickle to compare things like development and layers and supporting...in a 13 hour drama vs a 1.5 hour movie. Just thinking on it now, the mcu has 11 or so films among their entire run and even that isn't comparable to the time afforded to dd to tell it's story. Even if it was 11 focused mcu films about the same person. If you ask your same question in relation to DD vs TWS you would most likely come down on the side of DD given your questions. I'd say the same about Breaking Bad's character devel vs TDK or Game of Trones(with it's millions of characters) vs LOTR..Time. Just saying.

Secondly, WB/DC was and is universally praised for their dark and gritty TDK trilogy, and even non DC studios like Fox and Sony have received a lot of criticism for their approach on Fantastic Four reboot and the Amazing Spider Man series, where is the Bias?

Pretty sure whatever people are claiming is he 'bias' isn't removed when it happens every non marvel studios project. It would re-enforce it in a way. But I can't speak for everyone on that end, I don't really walk with the bias group. I do know fans of a certain brand tend to look for all sorts of reasons to come down on fox/sony/universal and using the popular talking point may just be another weapon.

In closing I would tell you to ask yourself at the end of the day, if someone told the studio to spend 300mill on the best possible timeless Power Ranger movie they could make that would speak to/challenge ...etc audiences all over the world of all different ages(even the seniors), would it come down to what the 'fans' have best perceived so far? Because I would argue even Joseph's Kahn's parody and how that was received challenged this conceit. I just find the former a flawed and limited way of approaching an artistic project.

 

[Spiderdevil]

The problem here is that you are assuming the amount of people that have seen this material prior to the films actually matters in the grand scheme, enough to cater to their perceptions to a tonal degree. Films aren't made to be catered to the fans, I say this for because dozens of entities exists in hollywood that start from a scratch and it's that group of people, the ones that aren't 'these kinds of fans' that sustain the industry. I see the benefits but it's not the make or break imo.
At the end of the day you ask yourself, does the studio stand to gain if they make the best possible Mad Max for it's fans, or the best possible Mad Max for the billions of people that both un initiated or even 'know the brand in passing'. I argue the latter and if that's true, who gives a damn about analyzing what this niche market of people perceives or best perceives, just give them the best possible thing ever.

Things are different for Superman, Batman or Spider-man, they are iconic characters as opposed to Mad Max or even other superheroes
There is very little space for different tones. People have a perception of these particular 3 heroes, would you want a Batman that jokes around? Or a Spider-man that doesn't quips and jokes but is a brooding dark character?

So Why would you prefer a Superman who is dull, plank face (sorry Cavill,its the truth) who broods around than the charismatic hero people want to see?

As far as these 3 are concerned, there are no people who only 'know the brand in passing', everybody has a fixed perception about the personality of these three

I agree to your post but only for characters who people knows very little about, Iron Man and Star Lord for example, there aren't as iconic as Superman/Batman/Spider-man, so Marvel could make them into whatever they liked and thought was best even though it turned out be different from their comic book versions, nobody cared. Its unknown character like these you can give the 'best possible'

They aren't supposed to make films to find the 'best possible' for these iconic heroes, the best possible is already out there with almost a century of experimenting in comic book stories, you have to 'adapt', not invent, not for iconic characters like these

Moreover, who's to say what they perceive is the best possible option? As I've said before, if all these fans have or had ever seen of Batman was Adam West, would that mean Nolan's(TDK) would be a poor endeaver at the outset and one not worth pursuing because it wasn't the 'best things these fans have yet seen'? In art the goal has to be the pursuit of the best possible option and exploring that. Seeking out the truth if you will, not simply giving some niche group what they are used to.

It will be then an adaption in name only, just like Fox F4 is turning out to be, just guys with same names and similar powers, rest everything is different

There is a different between adaption and inspiration

As for your question of best works, I would argue we haven't yet seen the actual best work until we have every piece of work based on the character ever accumulated.

Comic Books are for accumulation, movies are not. Movies are for adaption

I find it fickle to compare things like development and layers and supporting...in a 13 hour drama vs a 1.5 hour movie. Just thinking on it now, the mcu has 11 or so films among their entire run and even that isn't comparable to the time afforded to dd to tell it's story. Even if it was 11 focused mcu films about the same person. If you ask your same question in relation to DD vs TWS you would most likely come down on the side of DD given your questions. I'd say the same about Breaking Bad's character devel vs TDK or Game of Trones(with it's millions of characters) vs LOTR..Time. Just saying.

Just compare TDK trilogy to DD, both compare pretty well, I find DD a better adaption, most prefer TDK, its comparable because TDK is a well made trilogy, the difference of time isn't much either, 8 Hrs vs 13 Hrs.
Now DC/WB could have gone the same way with MOS and tried to make a decent trilogy, but they were too hungry for money so they showed Batman and God knows who else into "his sequel"

Pretty sure whatever people are claiming is he 'bias' isn't removed when it happens every non marvel studios project. It would re-enforce it in a way. But I can't speak for everyone on that end, I don't really walk with the bias group. I do know fans of a certain brand tend to look for all sorts of reasons to come down on fox/sony/universal and using the popular talking point may just be another weapon.

Because Marvel is the only one doing things the right way, for the most part
Fox has received plenty of love for their recent work on X-men and that's because they have done things right

The Bias only exists in imagination

In closing I would tell you to ask yourself at the end of the day, if someone told the studio to spend 300mill on the best possible timeless Power Ranger movie they could make that would speak to/challenge ...etc audiences all over the world of all different ages(even the seniors), would it come down to what the 'fans' have best perceived so far? Because I would argue even Joseph's Kahn's parody and how that was received challenged this conceit. I just find the former a flawed and limited way of approaching an artistic project.

If what you said is true, then why don't we start inventing new supporting characters and Villains for the CB movies? Why limit yourself to the ones from the comics? Its art afterall. Hell lets give Clark Kent a side-kick like Foggy Nelson, it would make him relatable

Like I said before, CBMs are adaptations, you have to stay true to it, what's the use if its not that? It would be their Superhero in name only

Like I said, Fox's Fantastic Four Reboot is the best example, of course it hasn't been released yet
It might be a decent movie, probably the best Fantastic Four on the big screen, but if the rumors are correct and from the looks of the trailer, its fantastic four in name only, its more of a squeal to 'Chronicle'

 

[queendarkness12]

If what you said is true, then why don't we start inventing new supporting characters and Villains for the CB movies? Why limit yourself to the ones from the comics? Its art afterall. Hell lets give Clark Kent a side-kick like Foggy Nelson, it would make him relatable.

Isn't he called Jimmy Olsen?

 

[rockandrollsoul]

Because Marvel is the only one doing things the right way, for the most part
Fox has received plenty of love for their recent work on X-men and that's because they have done things right

The Bias only exists in imagination

Like I said before, CBMs are adaptations, you have to stay true to it, what's the use if its not that? It would be their Superhero in name only

Marvel is absolutely NOT the only one doing things right.

Fox, as you pointed out, has done very well with DOFP, First Class, and to a lesser extent The Wolverine, but they have their missteps as well with Wolverine Origins.

WB/DC knocked it out of the park with TDKT, stumbled with Green Lantern, and had a moderate success with MoS (whether you like to admit that or not).

Marvel has made some truly great movies (Iron Man, Winter Soldier, GotG), some good movies (Thor, Avengers, CA, TIH, IM3) and some not so good movies (Thor TDW, IM2).

All the studios have made great movies and all have made bad movies. Marvel's brand is simply a behemoth and, because of that, the bias is very real.

Also, dark Superman stories are very much true to the comics and the character.

 

[Marvin]

Comic Books are for accumulation, movies are not. Movies are for adaption

That's an interesting rule...
I feel like you are talking about things like lord of the rings and watchmen, beat for beat adaptations, as opposed what the majority of these movies actually are. STM and TDK, First Class weren't based on any one story line but rather loose adaptations. We're confusing things. I'm talking about if it's possible for a story teller to take the established material in a direction other than that which a group of fanboys deem the definitive. I'm proposing a film maker pulls a frank miller in a movie prior to it happening in a comic book. Why isn't this acceptable?

Now DC/WB could have gone the same way with MOS and tried to make a decent trilogy, but they were too hungry for money so they showed Batman and God knows who else into "his sequel"

Not to make this a marvel vs dc thing but you do realize just about all the marvel sequels(let's take TWS for example) are jam packed with handfuls of name and costumed characters right? As for doing an event film this early in the trilogy, I recall both Thor and Cap not actually getting sequels prior to avengers. Shouldn't be a problem for DC.

If what you said is true, then why don't we start inventing new supporting characters and Villains for the CB movies? Why limit yourself to the ones from the comics? Its art afterall. Hell lets give Clark Kent a side-kick like Foggy Nelson, it would make him relatable

I see no reason why they should be limited. Thank God James Bond isn't only using villains from the material, hey are getting brilliant creators do make awesome stuff for the cinematic audience. If a comic book writer like Scott Snyder or Grant Morrison can add brilliant villains to the mythos of what it is they are working on, I see no reason why a filmmaker should be at a disadvantage when it comes to producing within that mythology. I mean this very instant, the star wars stuff is adding all sorts of stuff to the mythos(kylo ren) as opposed to just using "dude" again and again...
Also, Superman does have mild mannered side kick already.

Like I said before, CBMs are adaptations, you have to stay true to it, what's the use if its not that? It would be their Superhero in name only

If TDK movie came about during the 60's and was called a batman adaptation 'in name', would you have it in you to see it's quality for what it is, or would you be talking about how it's not based on the batman comics/media prior to the 60's? My entire point is about one's ability to recognize and accept quality(because we are talking about, quality) with or without it being accurate(to adam west).

They aren't supposed to make films to find the 'best possible' for these iconic heroes, the best possible is already out there with almost a century of experimenting in comic book stories, you have to 'adapt', not invent, not for iconic characters like these

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I respect your opinion but in this instance I find that view very much narrow to say the least. Why a film can't be the source of re-invention but comic books can...

Thirdly, as for a stoic non 'talky' superman, it's been done and celebrated again and again. If you want argue how this wasn't superman and or good, I suppose that will be that. I however think that approach is perfectly viable.

Bringing this back to the box office, I think history has proven that the money will come if something is great, not simply a slave to whatever it is the fanboys deem the best of the source material. This approach is fail safe, the former is not.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

That's an interesting rule...
I feel like you are talking about things like lord of the rings and watchmen, beat for beat adaptations, as opposed what the majority of these movies actually are. STM and TDK, First Class weren't based on any one story line but rather loose adaptations. We're confusing things. I'm talking about if it's possible for a story teller to take the established material in a direction other than that which a group of fanboys deem the definitive. I'm proposing a film maker pulls a frank miller in a movie prior to it happening in a comic book. Why isn't this acceptable?

Not to make this a marvel vs dc thing but you do realize just about all the marvel sequels(let's take TWS for example) are jam packed with handfuls of name and costumed characters right? As for doing an event film this early in the trilogy, I recall both Thor and Cap not actually getting sequels prior to avengers. Shouldn't be a problem for DC.

I see no reason why they should be limited. Thank God James Bond isn't only using villains from the material, hey are getting brilliant creators do make awesome stuff for the cinematic audience. If a comic book writer like Scott Snyder or Grant Morrison can add brilliant villains to the mythos of what it is they are working on, I see no reason why a filmmaker should be at a disadvantage when it comes to producing within that mythology. I mean this very instant, the star wars stuff is adding all sorts of stuff to the mythos(kylo ren) as opposed to just using "dude" again and again...
Also, Superman does have mild mannered side kick already.

If TDK movie came about during the 60's and was called a batman adaptation 'in name', would you have it in you to see it's quality for what it is, or would you be talking about how it's not based on the batman comics/media prior to the 60's? My entire point is about one's ability to recognize and accept quality(because we are talking about, quality) with or without it being accurate(to adam west).

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I respect your opinion but in this instance I find that view very much narrow to say the least. Why a film can't be the source of re-invention but comic books can...

Thirdly, as for a stoic non 'talky' superman, it's been done and celebrated again and again. If you want argue how this wasn't superman and or good, I suppose that will be that. I however think that approach is perfectly viable.

Bringing this back to the box office, I think history has proven that the money will come if something is great, not simply a slave to whatever it is the fanboys deem the best of the source material. This approach is fail safe, the former is not.

 

[InJustice]

How is this so difficult to understand?
The Dark tone suits Daredevil, that's why, he is not made dark and gritty for the sake of being dark and gritty like DC/WB did with MOS

Nobody had problems with TDK trilogy being dark because dark suits Batman, Marvel would face similar flak if they made Spider-man dark, Fox is getting a lot of criticism for making Fantastic 4 grounded

I hope you know the difference between grounded and dark/gritty. MOS wasn't even close to dark at all. Was it serious and grounded? Sure.

Call it semantics but it's important to note the distinction.

 

[Marvin]

I hope you know the difference between grounded and dark/gritty. MOS wasn't even close to dark at all. Was it serious and grounded? Sure.

Call it semantics but it's important to note the distinction.

It definitely is an odd distinction for some. I find TWS and TDK to actually be dark and gritty in ways.
I think there is something about the last and second last scenes of MOS that really put a stamp on it's tone in contrast to the last and second last scene of TDK. That of hopeful and such.

But still, The Crow, Dredd..dark, and gritty.
I'd describe MoS as more (self) serious and grounded. Looking ahead, it could have been about a colourful hero saving things and putting bad guys away but instead WB opted for another deconstruction. That of questioning power and godhood and human nature in the face of it...very different than Thor, which is actually about a god. This is the DC way, for better or worse. Bring on Suicide Squad.
I also assume the flash will be far more straight forward and traditional.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Marvel is absolutely NOT the only one doing things right.

Fox, as you pointed out, has done very well with DOFP, First Class, and to a lesser extent The Wolverine, but they have their missteps as well with Wolverine Origins.

WB/DC knocked it out of the park with TDKT, stumbled with Green Lantern, and had a moderate success with MoS (whether you like to admit that or not).

Marvel has made some truly great movies (Iron Man, Winter Soldier, GotG), some good movies (Thor, Avengers, CA, TIH, IM3) and some not so good movies (Thor TDW, IM2).

All the studios have made great movies and all have made bad movies. Marvel's brand is simply a behemoth and, because of that, the bias is very real.

Also, dark Superman stories are very much true to the comics and the character.

You clear things up yourself, all studios have had success, but Marvel has had least or no misteps, their worst movies is Thor 2 which is still a lot better than worst movies of other studios (TASM2, Green Lantern, Origin/X3)

So that's important, once you release a turd like Green Lantern/TASM2/X3 you lose the trust and its really difficult to win it back again, Fox had to work really hard and make two great movies ( First Class, Wolverine) to get that trust back for DoFP, Sony just gave up.

There is no Bias, the reviews for AoU has been mixed-to-positive and it could well become mixed

The problem with DC is that they haven't begun their universe in the best possible way, MOS was a moderate success financially, sure, but it had failed to garner good WOM for the universe, for the most part, nothing even close to what Iron Man did for Marvel back in 2008

 

[Spiderdevil]

That's an interesting rule...
I feel like you are talking about things like lord of the rings and watchmen, beat for beat adaptations, as opposed what the majority of these movies actually are. STM and TDK, First Class weren't based on any one story line but rather loose adaptations. We're confusing things. I'm talking about if it's possible for a story teller to take the established material in a direction other than that which a group of fanboys deem the definitive. I'm proposing a film maker pulls a frank miller in a movie prior to it happening in a comic book. Why isn't this acceptable?

They are loose adaptations sure, but they kept the core values (Tone, Personality, Characterization) the same
I have no problems with new and different stories, I just want them to keep the core values same, for the most part

Not to make this a marvel vs dc thing but you do realize just about all the marvel sequels(let's take TWS for example) are jam packed with handfuls of name and costumed characters right? As for doing an event film this early in the trilogy, I recall both Thor and Cap not actually getting sequels prior to avengers. Shouldn't be a problem for DC.

TWS and Thor 2 were jampacked with characters, but they were mostly supporting characters of the respective heroes, I would have no problem with a Batman movie having Catwoman or Robin for example

Although I will surely agree that Marvel is getting hungry too, I don't agree with their vision of shoving in Iron Man and a whole plethora of Avengers in what is supposed to a Captain America movie, I would have preferred them to make it a more personal story, and expanding the story of The Winter Soldier, I would have preferred had they made Civil War a separate avengers movie

Similarly I wasn't too thrilled to hear that RDJ/Iron-man could have an important role in the Spider-man reboot

As for Cap and Thor not having Sequels, they did have a first movie right? Marvel went through the painstaking process of making a world war period piece like TFA and a difficult to adapt Asgard before going for the Avengers and it paid off

I am not asking for a Batman individual movie yet, everybody knows who Batman is, but characters like Wonder Women, Flash, Aquaman need their own movie to establish them before being shoehorned into a Justice League movie, this would have not only made their characterization great but would have built great anticipation for JL and would have saved that movie ample time

Do you think TA would have been as good if it had to take 15 minutes each to explain Captain America and Thor's origins and back story?

I see no reason why they should be limited. Thank God James Bond isn't only using villains from the material, hey are getting brilliant creators do make awesome stuff for the cinematic audience. If a comic book writer like Scott Snyder or Grant Morrison can add brilliant villains to the mythos of what it is they are working on, I see no reason why a filmmaker should be at a disadvantage when it comes to producing within that mythology. I mean this very instant, the star wars stuff is adding all sorts of stuff to the mythos(kylo ren) as opposed to just using "dude" again and again...
Also, Superman does have mild mannered side kick already.

I don't think staying true to the comics in terms of Tone, characters , villains or personalities is a 'limitation'. I am not asking them to limit the story to a particular adaptation, just the core values

If TDK movie came about during the 60's and was called a batman adaptation 'in name', would you have it in you to see it's quality for what it is, or would you be talking about how it's not based on the batman comics/media prior to the 60's? My entire point is about one's ability to recognize and accept quality(because we are talking about, quality) with or without it being accurate(to adam west).

The comparison isn't fair because Batman in the 60s would be just be a 20 years old character, as opposed to an almost 80 year old icon now
Everybody today and their father and grandfathers know who Batman is and how his environment is supposed to be

 

[Aejej]

Although I will surely agree that Marvel is getting hungry too, I don't agree with their vision of shoving in Iron Man and a whole plethora of Avengers in what is supposed to a Captain America movie, I would have preferred them to make it a more personal story, and expanding the story of The Winter Soldier, I would have preferred had they made Civil War a separate avengers movie

Absolutely. They're rushing into that, but DC gets roasted everyday for reintroducing Batman in the second chapter of the DCCU.

I am not asking for a Batman individual movie yet, everybody knows who Batman is, but characters like Wonder Women, Flash, Aquaman need their own movie to establish them before being shoehorned into a Justice League movie, this would have not only made their characterization great but would have built great anticipation for JL and would have saved that movie ample time

I think there's more flexibility here. Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are among the most famous superheroes, and Wonder Woman is getting her own movie before Justice League. The Brave & The Bold (the Flash/Green Lantern movie) and Aquaman will come later. Justice League will increase the popularity of these characters.

Before '08, the general public was far more familiar with the likes of Spider-Man, Hulk and Captain America where Marvel is concerned. Individual entries for Iron Man and Thor were much more critical for the Avengers film to work. Black Panther is getting his own movie, which is another reason a movie that focuses on the Civil War storyline should have been delayed and the Winter Soldier storyline expanded upon. The Winter Soldier received extremely favorable feedback and the continuation of that story would be welcomed, but instead we're getting something much heavier, and on top of that, they want to do Ragnarok for the next Thor movie. With the Infinity War split into two movies, it's akin to giving the average CBM enthusiast (meaning the non-reader) a right, a left, another right, and another left in quick succession.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Warcraft was pushed back to June 10. I think Divergent 3 will move up eventually.