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

[Hurm...]

^Exactly. Dnno, none of your box office talk is relevant to anything we are saying or to this thread. We are talking about the creative elements of the film here...

 

[Flint Marko]

Umm... the studio and their stakeholders? If a film wasn't successful at the box office we wouldn't get a sequel. Didn't you think about that? That is not always the case with a quality film. It is folks like you who are changing the rules by saying quality (a subjective property) > quantity (an objective property), when the latter is actually the bottom line and a direct measure of a film's popularity. Sure, the film, "Her" won Academy awards this year, but for a $47 million worldwide gross on a $23 million investment, I seriously doubt we will be seeing a sequel released as a summer blockbuster. Furthermore, sure, Nolan directed these film, but David S. Goyer still gets credit for his part as a writer.



You are trying to dictate the conversation by saying the film has to be quality, when the real goal here is to make a film that will be the most popular thing to see come summer of 2016. Quality and Quantity doesn't always equate here, but quality is very important.

Dude quality is literally the only thing we are arguing about here.

 

[The Endless]

Sounds to me he's more worried about DoJ outgrossing whatever Mavel film comes out in 2016.

 

[dnno1]

Are you or me stakeholders in Warner Brothers? Are we going to make any money from this films success?

No?

Then when should we care about how popular or how much money it makes? I want a top quality film. I want a film worthy of these characters, that does them... justice!

Well actually we are stakeholders since we want to see more films in this genre (I am presuming that is what you also want). So the answer is yes and we should care since we want to see more films.

 

[dnno1]

Dude quality is literally the only thing we are arguing about here.

I shouldn't be, and in fact there is a thread on this forum about box office predictions, so what you say is not quite true.

 

[Flint Marko]

Sounds to me he's more worried about DoJ outgrossing whatever Mavel film comes out in 2016.

That's exactly what this sounds like.

I shouldn't be, and in fact there is a thread on this forum about box office predictions, so what you say is not quite true.

I'm talking about in this specific thread. Some of us are worrisome about the quality of the film itself, and that is what we are expressing. What are you not getting about this here?

 

[The Endless]

Well actually we are stakeholders since we want to see more films in this genre (I am presuming that is what you also want). So the answer is yes and we should care since we want to see more films.

I want to see good films in this genre.

If this film is rubbish but makes 2 billion dollars at the box office... i won't be excited for future movies by these film makers.

This film will make enough money to warrant sequels regardless of quality though. So our only concern should be that we see these characters we love done justice on the big screen.

 

[dnno1]

I want to see good films in this genre.

If this film is rubbish but makes 2 billion dollars at the box office... i won't be excited for future movies by these film makers.

This film will make enough money to warrant sequels regardless of quality though. So our only concern should be that we see these characters we love done justice on the big screen.

But, in truth, how can you call something rubbish if it makes $2 billion dollars? To me is seems that a lot of people liked it. That is why quality is a subjective property of a film since it is only what is in the mind of the person viewing the film, and by that rationale, you can't really judge a film's quality scientifically by just using a hand full of people who call them selves critics or even a subset of the fanbase who said they liked it or not.

 

[The Endless]

Something being liked and something being good are sometimes two very different things.

I really like Harold and Kumar get the Munchies. I prefer watching it to something like Citizen Kane. But is it a better film than Citizen Kane? haha **** no.

 

[regwec]

Endless is right; if you want a movie first and foremost to make a lot of money, then you are probably wishing for the blandest thing possible that will hit the lowest common denominator across the whole world.

The sweet spot for me is for a movie to be interesting enough that it doesn't necessarily top the box office, but attracts enough committed fans to allow for a sequel if one is needed or merited. It doesn't usually work out that way. Though it made about $1.5bn, I would swap The Avengers for a cup of tea. Dredd and Solomon Kane, both of which I loved, made about $400 between them. Such is life.

 

[dnno1]

^Exactly. Dnno, none of your box office talk is relevant to anything we are saying or to this thread. We are talking about the creative elements of the film here...

That's exactly what this sounds like.

I'm talking about in this specific thread. Some of us are worrisome about the quality of the film itself, and that is what we are expressing. What are you not getting about this here?

Well, like I said, that is not true. When this thread started, the very second post talked about money. This is not literally about quality, not totally. Yes, my point is relative here.

 

[The Endless]

Well for me, Avengers hit the sweet spot. It did the characters i've been reading about for 20 years absolute justice. Just so happened the rest of the world seemed to like it to.

But Dredd is awesome for sure

 

[dnno1]

Endless is right; if you want a movie first and foremost to make a lot of money, then you are probably wishing for the blandest thing possible that will hit the lowest common denominator across the whole world.

That's not necessarily true. People have different tastes (that is true), and because of that there should be different types of films to suit the tastes of those particular markets. It may sometimes be the case that you make a film for a certain market and not enough people like it for it to make a profit, but that doesn't mean that a studio is wishing for the blandest thing to make the largest profit.

The sweet spot for me is for a movie to be interesting enough that it doesn't necessarily top the box office, but attracts enough committed fans to allow for a sequel if one is needed or merited. It doesn't usually work out that way. Though it made about $1.5bn, I would swap The Avengers for a cup of tea. Dredd and Solomon Kane, both of which I loved, made about $400 between them. Such is life.

Sure, you can look at it that way, but what is important is that the ideal film satisfies all stakeholders be it the investors, the producers, or the people who spend the money and time to watch the film.

 

[dnno1]

Something being liked and something being good are sometimes two very different things.

I really like Harold and Kumar get the Munchies. I prefer watching it to something like Citizen Kane. But is it a better film than Citizen Kane? haha **** no.

Just for the record, "Citizen Kane" never made its money back at the box office and was the downfall of Orson Wells' career as a filmmaker. Even though it is considered a classic today, I doubt that they will ever do a remake of that particular film today since it would be and atavism (although a contemporary version is not out of the question). Even though the critics liked the film, it only won one Academy Award (for best writer).

 

[Son of Coul]

Just for the record, "Citizen Kane" never made its money back at the box office and was the downfall of Orson Wells' career as a filmmaker. Even though it is considered a classic today, I doubt that they will ever do a remake of that particular film today since it would be and atavism (although a contemporary version is not out of the question). Even though the critics liked the film, it only won one Academy Award (for best writer).

...What? It was his first movie and launched his career as a filmmaker to superstardom among the critics. And it didn't make a lot of money because the man it was based off of, William Randolph Hearst, extorted most of the Hollywood community and intimidated movie theater chains, forcing it into a limited release.

 

[Flint Marko]

Well, like I said, that is not true. When this thread started, the very second post talked about money. This is not literally about quality, not totally. Yes, my point is relative here.

No, your point is ridiculous and you're grasping at straws.
Look at what we are discussing now, not a year ago, right now.
We are discussing quality, while you are somehow bringing the box office into it when that is a secondary concern if anything.
No one's going to deny that this will most likely be a box office smash, but we are saying that the quality of the film itself might not live up to expectations.
That is the whole discussion.

 

[dnno1]

No, your point is ridiculous and you're grasping at straws.
Look at what we are discussing now, not a year ago, right now.
We are discussing quality, while you are somehow bringing the box office into it when that is a secondary concern if anything.
No one's going to deny that this will most likely be a box office smash, but we are saying that the quality of the film itself might not live up to expectations.
That is the whole discussion.

This conversation started up a day ago after it ended back in August of last year. Even if you go back a couple of pages, you will see comments about box office results. I'm sorry but I am not being ridiculous and you my friend are wrong.

 

[dnno1]

...What? It was his first movie and launched his career as a filmmaker to superstardom among the critics. And it didn't make a lot of money because the man it was based off of, William Randolph Hearst, extorted most of the Hollywood community and intimidated movie theater chains, forcing it into a limited release.

He never was that serious as a director after that film. He may have (he never won another Oscar again until 1971, some 30 years later and that was an honorary award).

 

[Flint Marko]

This conversation started up a day ago after it ended back in August of last year. Even if you go back a couple of pages, you will see comments about box office results. I'm sorry but I am not being ridiculous and you my friend are wrong.

What is so hard to get about this.
We, the people currently in this discussion, are talking about the quality of the movie and how we are concerned with how the film will turn out. In a movie discussion thread box office talk will inevitably come up but that in no way is the point of the discussion. So you can scour this thread all you want to find posts where people bring up BO numbers, it doesn't matter because that is not the point of the thread, and more importantly it is not what any of us were talking about. Go back and re read the discussion, catch up.
I don't know why I'm still going on with you about this, at this point you're either trolling or just insanely stubborn.

 

[Hurm...]

I give up...

 

[BatFan1979]

So, sorry to come late to this party, but how was this thread not locked down before it got this many posts? I mean without going back and reading them all, just by the thread title I thought for sure a moderator would have nipped it in the bud. Anyway, since its not, I've got to say Im EXTREMELY excited about this film...curious about the Lex part though, but willing to wait to judge until I see it.

 

[Hurm...]

Why would it warrant being locked? There have been some great posts in this thread that outline some potential criticisms. Not a single one of these recent posts was bashing the film.

 

[Flint Marko]

If we were mindlessly jumping on this film saying it was definitely going to suck and that no one should be excited then yes, it should be closed. But so far this has been a nice place to discuss some of our apprehensions about this movie in a civil manner; I do have my worries and complaints and bringing them into other threads might be bothersome to people who don't share my outlook and might view me as a debbie downer.

 

[zryson]

Most of the time, I'm optimistic about this movie.

But...occasionally, I have moments were I fear it will be something horrible, like a live action version of The Dark Knight Returns. If something so odious came to pass, it would mark the first time I've walked out of a movie and demanded my money back. I've always thought people who claimed to have done that were over-dramatic, but dammit, it would happen if that's how this movie turns out. I know folks who aren't that concerned with Superman's portrayal probably wouldn't mind this or even hope for it, but I would hate it.

When it comes to Batman/Superman I've put a lot of my hopes about the movie with Terrio. I'm optimistic he has turned out a great story because with several of these characters (Batman, Luthor, Wonder Woman, etc) being new interpretations I just hope they treat the characters right on screen.

 

[dnno1]

What is so hard to get about this.
We, the people currently in this discussion, are talking about the quality of the movie and how we are concerned with how the film will turn out. In a movie discussion thread box office talk will inevitably come up but that in no way is the point of the discussion. So you can scour this thread all you want to find posts where people bring up BO numbers, it doesn't matter because that is not the point of the thread, and more importantly it is not what any of us were talking about. Go back and re read the discussion, catch up.
I don't know why I'm still going on with you about this, at this point you're either trolling or just insanely stubborn.

Yeah, I got that, and I am trying to tell you that's all relative. What really matters is that they produce a film that a large group of people will see and what a hand full of critics may or may not like does not necessarily mean that a particular film is good or bad for that market of people that want to see it. The best way to see that is by looking at the box office numbers.