BvS Is anyone else not excited about Superman and Batman? I feel nothing but dread. - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]462109[/split]

 

[Snark88]

No i'm not trying to be edgy or go against the current here. But this movie already has two kisses of death by the names of Goyer and Snyder. You've got David Goyer who's just proven spectacularly that he can't write his way outta a paper bag, and Zack Snyder the guy who wrote Sucker Punch. I enjoyed Man of Steel, but i'll admit it did have some glaring problems in terms of it's story.

I'm sorry but these guys have not proven themselves worthy at all. If I were a studio exec, I wouldn't trust these guys with a project of this caliber.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Oh, so Superman II sucked then?

Yes.

Not a fan of any of the old films.

 

[Smallville13]

Woo! Part 1! It's vindicating that this is the first topic to get there other than casting threads.

And hopeful starts it off with a bang with a controversial statement ha.

 

[Marvin]

Yes.

Not a fan of any of the old films.

In response to this and your other post, it's not just your opinion on the quality of these films in question here

STM for example, I believe that's a highly celebrated film start to finish. Good job Puzo.

And that would be why prequels are a terrible idea: nobody wants to see their favorite movie hero before they were awesome. Would you want to see a movie about John McClane studying at the police academy, or Rambo before he got drafted? No, those would be boring as hell. People want to see the man in red and blue, flying around and punching aliens; they don't want to see his first day on the job.

Are you arguing against the audience interest in a superman origin film? I have a feeling his two origin films have been his most lucrative.

And to answer your question, if prequels can prove themselves interesting and action filled, they're not all bad. BB has it's value for example. If a rambo or die hard film came with the promise or rambo and die hard action and consequence, I'd probably be game.

 

[Marvin]

No i'm not trying to be edgy or go against the current here. But this movie already has two kisses of death by the names of Goyer and Snyder. You've got David Goyer who's just proven spectacularly that he can't write his way outta a paper bag, and Zack Snyder the guy who wrote Sucker Punch. I enjoyed Man of Steel, but i'll admit it did have some glaring problems in terms of it's story.

I'm sorry but these guys have not proven themselves worthy at all. If I were a studio exec, I wouldn't trust these guys with a project of this caliber.

The last film bombed, floped and everything in between, this film is one of the biggest hits of the year. Pretty sure the exec's path is clear.

A few mal contents can't change that.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

In response to this and your other post, it's not just your opinion on the quality of these films in question here

STM for example, I believe that's a highly celebrated film start to finish. Good job Puzo.

I'm sorry, I just find it such a moot point when someone says 'that's just your opinion'.

Of course it is.

There is nothing but opinion in a discussion like this.

 

[Loki882]

Yeah, how exactly does having a successful movie that most of the GA really like prove that Snyder/Goyer "aren't worthy." If anything, it proves the exact opposite.

 

[regwec]

I'm sorry, I just find it such a moot point when someone says 'that's just your opinion'.

Of course it is.

There is nothing but opinion in a discussion like this.

Yep, that's in my top three internet "hates".

 

[Marvin]

I'm sorry, I just find it such a moot point when someone says 'that's just your opinion'.

Of course it is.

There is nothing but opinion in a discussion like this.

I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about after a thread debating why MOS's ending is being met with such mixed reaction, when STM's is brought up(the film with far less mixed reception), your retort is that you didn't like that ending.

It would be like me making ground in this thread by saying well I liked superman snapping dudes neck. Ignoring the greater debate of how the films are being received.

Why is STM's wonky backwards yet fully triumphant ending so well received over the years? Is is a product of the times? Is it simply because that's the path to making the superman audience happy...etc
(feel free to tell me you didn't like it).

 

[Tobias]

No i'm not trying to be edgy or go against the current here. But this movie already has two kisses of death by the names of Goyer and Snyder. You've got David Goyer who's just proven spectacularly that he can't write his way outta a paper bag, and Zack Snyder the guy who wrote Sucker Punch. I enjoyed Man of Steel, but i'll admit it did have some glaring problems in terms of it's story.

I'm sorry but these guys have not proven themselves worthy at all. If I were a studio exec, I wouldn't trust these guys with a project of this caliber.

The creative team did poorly with MOS hence the poor reviews across the board.

Odd that WB brings back the same team. Especially the writing team. Batman will give the film a needed boost but he is no guarantee to overcome a poorly executed film.

But its not over till its over.

Its quite odd too that Snyder has publically criticized WB. That is not done unless there are real tensions with the studio.

One director who did that after a disappointing Superman film was Singer. And though initial plans were for SR2, Singer and WB ended up parting company.

 

[Loki882]

I know plenty of people who loved STM, yet thought the ending was BS. It wasn't really Donner's fault, but the ending didn't work regardless.

 

[The Question]

I know plenty of people who loved STM, yet thought the ending was BS. It wasn't really Donner's fault, but the ending didn't work regardless.

I think the ending works just fine. The problem is that there's a sequel after it. The entire time you're watching Superman 2, you're asking yourself "wait, why doesn't Superman just time travel again? That seemed to work really well last time." The original plan was for the time travel to happen at the end of 2, and it would have worked a lot better there.

 

[regwec]

The creative team did poorly with MOS hence the poor reviews across the board.

Over 50% were positive on RT, so this statement is factually wrong.

 

[Loki882]

Yes regwec, people keep talking about the "critical pounding" that MOS took. The movie has more positive reviews than negative and the GA liked it, so that argument is highly amusing.

 

[Wheels]

It's a combination of superheroes being seen as something that didn't deserve much thought at the time of STM, and that most people were probably just relieved that Lois didn't die.

 

[Smallville13]

Yes regwec, people keep talking about the "critical pounding" that MOS took. The movie has more positive reviews than negative and the GA liked it, so that argument is highly amusing.

Yeah. But even the 'fresh' reviews are pretty average on it.

 

[The Question]

Yes regwec, people keep talking about the "critical pounding" that MOS took. The movie has more positive reviews than negative and the GA liked it, so that argument is highly amusing.

I'm not sure it's that clear cut.

I think that discrepancy between the critical rating and the GA rating doesn't tell us anything, it raises a lot of questions. Really, it raises one: Why is there such a discrepancy? I think there needs to be a discussion about what it exactly means, instead of assuming it means one thing or another. Because, seeing that kind of discrepancy in the numbers, that doesn't tell me "wow, most people in the GA are dumb" or "wow, most critics are snobs who just like to hate things." It tells me that I have no idea what these numbers are telling me and it's best that we figure it out.

 

[EssayM]

Just a note: SR, for all the negative rep it's built up, wasn't really that big of a disaster. According to Wikipedia, it got pretty good reviews when it came out and, while it didn't quite break even, it came pretty close (204 mil budget, 391 mil box office). Whereas Man of Steel has gotten veeerry divided reviews and had a second week drop on par with Green Lantern.

I'm not saying either film is good or bad, I'm just saying it's not all black and white.

 

[regwec]

Just a note: SR, for all the negative rep it's built up, wasn't really that big of a disaster. According to Wikipedia, it got pretty good reviews when it came out and, while it didn't quite break even, it came pretty close (204 mil budget, 391 mil box office). Whereas Man of Steel has gotten veeerry divided reviews and had a second week drop on par with Green Lantern..

But MoS went on to get good international BO, and coast into profit.

 

[Tobias]

Just a note: SR, for all the negative rep it's built up, wasn't really that big of a disaster. According to Wikipedia, it got pretty good reviews when it came out and, while it didn't quite break even, it came pretty close (204 mil budget, 391 mil box office). Whereas Man of Steel has gotten veeerry divided reviews and had a second week drop on par with Green Lantern.

I'm not saying either film is good or bad, I'm just saying it's not all black and white.

Yes. And for all the supposed good GA reviews, MOS had very poor legs. On a par with GL.

WB looks at drops/holds and such and I think one reason they are doing basically a Bats vs Sups sequel instead of a stand-alone MOS2 is that they felt the next film would do more poorly than MOS. Tomb Raider syndrome.

I think that is why another stand-alone Superman film may not be in the cards. WB may decide to use Supes in team films only. Like WF or JL.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yes. And for all the supposed good GA reviews, MOS had very poor legs. On a par with GL.

WB looks at drops/holds and such and I think one reason they are doing basically a Bats vs Sups sequel instead of a stand-alone MOS2 is that they felt the next film would do more poorly than MOS. Tomb Raider syndrome.

I think that is why another stand-alone Superman film may not be in the cards. WB may decide to use Supes in team films only. Like WF or JL.

I guess WB really took that letter your wrote to heart and realized that MOS was a huge bomb. Thank God we have devoted fans like you.

 

[Tobias]

I guess WB really took that letter your wrote to heart and realized that MOS was a huge bomb. Thank God we have devoted fans like you.

Sadly they didn't take it to heart - I politely encouraged them to consider changes to the team. Which so far they haven't. But there is clearly tension between Snyder and WB so there is always hope.

It may be a case where WB is going to take a more direct role in the next film and that may or may not work - you know, films made by committee and all.

 

[Marvin]

Yes. And for all the supposed good GA reviews, MOS had very poor legs. On a par with GL.

WB looks at drops/holds and such and I think one reason they are doing basically a Bats vs Sups sequel instead of a stand-alone MOS2 is that they felt the next film would do more poorly than MOS. Tomb Raider syndrome.

I think that is why another stand-alone Superman film may not be in the cards. WB may decide to use Supes in team films only. Like WF or JL.

MOS opened with a(domestic) figure twice as high as GL,then went on to accumulate a ongoing total that is more or less 3x greater than GL's totals...

Not to mention that some reports have GL's budget higher than MOS.
I personally don't understand how you can keep comparing this film to GL, then again my math isn't all that great.

Also if you think adding bats to this has film is simply because MOS didn't do as well as you thought it should and not because of a multitude of other reasons, you might just have too much to prove here.

 

[Smallville13]

Dread.