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

[Sharkboy]

Why can't it be good AND have great Box Office numbers? (like the dark knight)

 

[dnno1]

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.

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.

This thread is is just a soft way of trolling for folks who want to derail this project before it barely gets off the ground and is no different from the ones on IMDb. That's why BatFan1979 and me would rather see it closed.

 

[STARMAN]

I don't think this thread needs to be closed down. The title of the thread is over the top but so what? I'm excited for this next movie but if other people aren't they can share it here without clogging up the other threads posting their concerns every two seconds. It seems reasonable enough.

 

[dnno1]

Why can't it be good AND have great Box Office numbers? (like the dark knight)

There will always be those who will hate it. That is why great box office numbers matter evem more. It gives you a measure of how many people liked it.

 

[hafizbat]

^That's not really true...

Some of the most loved movies of all time were box office duds. Fight Club, Blade Runner, even The Shawshank Redemption. All classics.

By your logic, Avatar is the best film ever made. I highly doubt many people have that opinion.

The Transformers movies suck. Terribly. Yet they make tons and tons of cash...why? Big explosions, tons of SFX. MoS had plenty of that. BvS will have plenty of that.

 

[Flint Marko]

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.

The second transformers movie made over 800 million worldwide yet was panned by critics and movie goers alike (it has an abysmal 58% user approval rate on rotten tomatoes, one of the worst I've seen).
Batman begins, however, made a little over $400 million worldwide yet was well received by fans and critics.
What caliber of film would you rather have, a transformers like success where people flock to see the film based solely on spectacle and leave disappointed, or a modest box office success where a much smaller audience goes to see it and leaves happy about the quality or the film?
The point you continually belabor over and over again is that all that matters for this film is that it gets meat in the seats, that people will turn out in droves to see it because that will qualify this film as a success.
And you know what? I'm happy for you because that is almost guaranteed to happen, a large amount of people are guaranteed to see this movie.
But for the millionth time, that is in no way shape or form what this thread is about. We are trying to talk about how we feel this movie may not be everything we feel that it should be for a variety of reasons. Some of us have legitimate concerns that we want to discuss about the quality of the film, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to.
That's why I have a problem with you saying we are "trolling", when all we're doing is discussing problems we foresee in a movie we are pretty excited about. Who the heck here is trying to "derail" this project? Who here has the power or influence to do anything like that over an Internet forum? Do you realize how paranoid that sounds?

 

[dnno1]

The second transformers movie made over 800 million worldwide yet was panned by critics and movie goers alike (it has an abysmal 58% user approval rate on rotten tomatoes, one of the worst I've seen).
Batman begins, however, made a little over $400 million worldwide yet was well received by fans and critics.
What caliber of film would you rather have, a transformers like success where people flock to see the film based solely on spectacle and leave disappointed, or a modest box office success where a much smaller audience goes to see it and leaves happy about the quality or the film?
The point you continually belabor over and over again is that all that matters for this film is that it gets meat in the seats, that people will turn out in droves to see it because that will qualify this film as a success.
And you know what? I'm happy for you because that is almost guaranteed to happen, a large amount of people are guaranteed to see this movie.
But for the millionth time, that is in no way shape or form what this thread is about. We are trying to talk about how we feel this movie may not be evverything we feel that it should be for a variety of reasons. Some of us have legitimate concerns that we want to discuss about the quality of the film, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to.
That's why I have a problem with you saying we are "trolling", when all we're doing is discussing problems we foresee in a movie we are pretty excited about. Who the heck here is trying to "derail" this project? Who here has the power or influen ce to do anything like that over an Internet forum? Do you realize how paranoid that sounds?

You are assuming that everyone who watched the second Transformers pick was dissapointed. The true fact is that the next edition made even more money than the second and it wasn't that much better or worse. If it was so bad as you are trying to illustrate then why are so many people (in the tens of millions) still going to see it? I have to conclude that the reviws ar meaningless and the popularity (and word of mouth) carry more weight.

 

[regwec]

That's really a matter of how effective the product is at reaching the consumer.

McDonald's is perhaps the most revolting food you can find in any global city; but the fact that it has such a presence and is so accessible means that a lot of mechanically reclaimed meat sludge patties are consumed.

 

[Flint Marko]

You are assuming that everyone who watched the second Transformers pick was dissapointed. The true fact is that the next edition made even more money than the second and it wasn't that much better or worse. If it was so bad as you are trying to illustrate then why are so many people (in the tens of millions) still going to see it? I have to conclude that the reviws ar meaningless and the popularity (and word of mouth) carry more weight.

As I previously outlined in my post, people will go see a movie based on spectacle and nothing more. If you don't believe me do a little experiment, ask anywhere on the internet or any one of your friends how they felt about transformers 2 and see what they say.
Odds are they hated it; that movie had terrible word of mouth and reviews but people still saw it.
And you never answered my question, which would you rather have, transformers 2 scenario or a batman begins scenario? I think me and most other people here would rather have the latter.

 

[Visualiza]

This thread is is just a soft way of trolling for folks who want to derail this project before it barely gets off the ground and is no different from the ones on IMDb. That's why BatFan1979 and me would rather see it closed.

It really isn't.

Your problem is that you look at the mildest negativity with contempt, and you assume that people who feel a certain way (but not the same way as you, of course) about this movie have ulterior motives.

As difficult as it may be for you to swallow, people have their reasons for being apprehensive about this project. Doesn't make them trolls. If anything, I'm seeing more extreme statements from the supporters. There are a lot of people saying that this movie will be awesome, amazing, movie of the year, etc; take your pick, but the point is, those statements are every bit as irrational as something like "this movie's gonna suck". Thing is, I don't think anyone here has even gone that far, not even remotely. I suppose that if you were in charge around here, then slavishly devoted sycophants would have a monopoly on discussing these movies. Thankfully, that's not the case.

If you ask me, fans like you are worse than trolls. Trolls do what they do for kicks and then they disappear; often times they don't even believe what they themselves say, but fans like you...you guys are practically religious in your dogmatism or 'devotion' to these characters, and you gang up on others in a cult-like fashion if they aren't blindly indoctrinated themselves. Your attitude is far too exclusionary to permit any sort of stimulating discussion outside of "OMG Superman so awesome!!!" It's ridiculous.

If you want this thread locked due to conduct and motives, then you may as well go right down the line and close everything on the front page, because I can assure you that there's far more examples of downright reprehensible conduct from the fans of this movie than from anyone else. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't see anyone flying off the handle or losing their cool, so there's no point in censoring people and stifling the discussion just because you have an ax to grind. Don't like the topic of this thread? There's about a dozen other active circle-jerks for you to join; take your pick.

 

[Hurm...]

Well said.

Would anyone feel more excited for these films if there was a variation of directors bringing their vision to screen? For example, Man of Steel - Snyder, BvS - A different director, and JL - another director? With Snyder at the helm of all of these features, it's really a matter of you like his style or you don't.

I am impressed that Snyder did have a virtually unrecognizable aesthetic style in MOS than in any of his other films. I'm curious to see where these films go visually.

 

[Flint Marko]

Hats off to Visualiza, you perfectly encapsulated nearly all my feelings on this matter.

Well said.

Would anyone feel more excited for these films if there was a variation of directors bringing their vision to screen? For example, Man of Steel - Snyder, BvS - A different director, and JL - another director? With Snyder at the helm of all of these features, it's really a matter of you like his style or you don't.

I am impressed that Snyder did have a virtually unrecognizable aesthetic style in MOS than in any of his other films. I'm curious to see where these films go visually.

I like Snyders handling of the visuals; from an aesthetic standpoint I know these films will be in good hands. But that's not something I'm particularly concerned about as I found man of steel to be hallow and lifeless, even though it was stunning to look at.
If there was more variety I'd definitely be excited but it all depends on who they would get. Peter Jackson? Without a doubt. Brett Ratner? Not so much.
In the proper hands, I think every movie switching styles a little bit could be interesting as long as it's coupled with a strong screenplay.

 

[Visualiza]

Truth be told, Snyder is pretty much the only thing about the movie that worries me anymore. I like most of the casting choices, and am at least open-minded about the few questionable ones. Goyer being replaced was probably the best thing they could've done if they couldn't get rid of Snyder. A mediocre director can get away with making a competent to good film if the writing is solid (e.g. Len Wiseman - Live Free or Die Hard), but I don't think I've even seen an exceptional director get by on a shoddy screenplay.

The ideal scenario for me would have been for Snyder to be replaced as well.

I'm still iffy about Cavill, but again, that's more due to the writing and Snyder's directing than anything else. He was pretty much a blank slate in MoS, and I'd actually like to see what the guy is capable of as far as interacting with other heroes, not to mention the citizens of Metropolis. I really hope he gets a chance to flex his proverbial muscles as Clark Kent the reporter in BvS as well.

 

[dnno1]

That's really a matter of how effective the product is at reaching the consumer.

McDonald's is perhaps the most revolting food you can find in any global city; but the fact that it has such a presence and is so accessible means that a lot of mechanically reclaimed meat sludge patties are consumed.

Actually, I like McDonalds. Sure, In-N-Out Burger is way better, but I go to McD's more often because of the faster service, nominal prices and convenient location.

 

[Hurm...]

I'm with you on Cavill as well. I found his performance to be pretty forgettable in MOS, but like you said, that may be due to the writing and direction of the film.

I would have been iffy about Affleck if it wasn't for his recent reboot as an director. I recently watched Boiler Room and found his performance unconvincing as hell. He's great in The Town and Argo though. I think he's been taking a much more subtle approach to his performances and that's probably the safest route when playing Batman. His casting and Terrio's involvement give me hope in this project. If this ends up being a hreat film, they better bring Terrio on board for Justice League.

Then again, MOS had Fishburne, Crowe, Shannon, Lane, Adams, and Costner. Their involvement convinced me that that film was heading in the right direction even when I felt the opposite.

We'll see.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Live Free or Die Hard was a good movie with solid writing? In what universe?

 

[Flint Marko]

Truth be told, Snyder is pretty much the only thing about the movie that worries me anymore. I like most of the casting choices, and am at least open-minded about the few questionable ones. Goyer being replaced was probably the best thing they could've done if they couldn't get rid of Snyder. A mediocre director can get away with making a competent to good film if the writing is solid (e.g. Len Wiseman - Live Free or Die Hard), but I don't think I've even seen an exceptional director get by on a shoddy screenplay.

The ideal scenario for me would have been for Snyder to be replaced as well.

I'm still iffy about Cavill, but again, that's more due to the writing and Snyder's directing than anything else. He was pretty much a blank slate in MoS, and I'd actually like to see what the guy is capable of as far as interacting with other heroes, not to mention the citizens of Metropolis. I really hope he gets a chance to flex his proverbial muscles as Clark Kent the reporter in BvS as well.

I really do think Cavill is a solid actor, he was just given next to nothing to really work with in regards to the screenplay. The character was poorly written with next to no personality or charisma, and from everything I've heard about Cavill's work on the Tudors, he is a capable enough actor. I could be wrong on that because I've never seen him in anthing other than Man of Steel, but given how even Amy Adams was struggling to make her character interesting I'm going to give Cavill the benefit of the doubt on this one.
I am also glad they replaced Goyer, but was he really fired? And is Terio as solid a screenwriter as everyone says? Is this a Zak Penn/Joss Whedon-type situation where Goyer wrote the first draft and Terio is coming in to punch it up, or is a complete rewrite? Or do we even know?

Live Free or Die Hard was a good movie with solid writing? In what universe?

I haven't seen it in a while but I remember enjoying the hell out of that movie.

 

[zryson]

Truth be told, Snyder is pretty much the only thing about the movie that worries me anymore. I like most of the casting choices, and am at least open-minded about the few questionable ones. Goyer being replaced was probably the best thing they could've done if they couldn't get rid of Snyder. A mediocre director can get away with making a competent to good film if the writing is solid (e.g. Len Wiseman - Live Free or Die Hard), but I don't think I've even seen an exceptional director get by on a shoddy screenplay.

The ideal scenario for me would have been for Snyder to be replaced as well.

I'm still iffy about Cavill, but again, that's more due to the writing and Snyder's directing than anything else. He was pretty much a blank slate in MoS, and I'd actually like to see what the guy is capable of as far as interacting with other heroes, not to mention the citizens of Metropolis. I really hope he gets a chance to flex his proverbial muscles as Clark Kent the reporter in BvS as well.

I agree with many of your points. For me the script is key to how this movie will fare; I just hope its less messy than Man of Steel and gives more weight to the characters and gives them their proper dues.

 

[Rowsdower!]

It's interesting to hear people call Amy Adams' Lois uninteresting when her character had more depth, wit, guts and intelligence than any of her previous film incarnations, who were mostly portrayed as ditsy, b**chy and... that's about it.

 

[-Arya-]

Actually, I like McDonalds. Sure, In-N-Out Burger is way better, but I go to McD's more often because of the faster service, nominal prices and convenient location.

I'm pretty sure you just confirmed his original point. Transformers is quick and easy entertainment and in its specific case, reviews carry little weight due to its popularity. You can't however generalize this one example and conclude that big box office numbers are a better indicator of quality. Demographics also play a huge role in all of this, and I think you have been ignoring that.

 

[Flint Marko]

It's interesting to hear people call Amy Adams' Lois uninteresting when her character had more depth, wit, guts and intelligence than any of her previous film incarnations, who were mostly portrayed as ditsy, b**chy and... that's about it.

I found everything about her Lois Lane to be both boring and heavy-handed, right from the get go. One of her first lines in the film, when she said something about "d*ck-measuring" to the people in the army, was especially cringe worthy.
My distaste might also stem from the fact that I never for a second bought the supposed chemistry between her and Superman. It never once appeared like they were romantically inclined towards each other until that jarring, completely unearned kiss; the romance in the first Thor movie was also poorly handled but at the very least you could tell from the way they looked at each other that there was at least some sort of physical attraction there. I know people will argue with me on this point but I didn't feel any sort of chemistry or spark between the two, especially from Superman. At one point he tells his mom that Lois is a friend, and that is seriously the warmest thing I remember him doing towards her the entire movie up until the kiss.
One reviewer said it perfectly, and I'm paraphrasing here; "Lois inexplicably appearing out of nowhere right after Superman snap's Zod's neck encapsulates everything that is wrong about her character. She feels scotch-taped onto the story at the last second out of obligation so there could be a love interest".
And just for the record, I don't blame Amy Adams for any of that.

 

[zryson]

I found everything about her Lois Lane to be both boring and heavy-handed, right from the get go. One of her first lines in the film, when she said something about "d*ck-measuring" to the people in the army, was especially cringe worthy.
My distaste might also stem from the fact that I never for a second bought the supposed chemistry between her and Superman. It never once appeared like they were romantically inclined towards each other until that jarring, completely unearned kiss; the romance in the first Thor movie was also poorly handled but at the very least you could tell from the way they looked at each other that there was at least some sort of physical attraction there. I know people will argue with me on this point but I didn't feel any sort of chemistry or spark between the two, especially from Superman. At one point he tells his mom that Lois is a friend, and that is seriously the warmest thing I remember him doing towards her the entire movie up until the kiss.
One reviewer said it perfectly, and I'm paraphrasing here; "Lois inexplicably appearing out of nowhere right after Superman snap's Zod's neck encapsulates everything that is wrong about her character. She feels scotch-taped onto the story at the last second out of obligation so there could be a love interest".

I agree with much of this - the chemistry between Adams and Cavill was very lackluster, and forced in many scenes. Chemistry is one of those things that either the actors click on screen or they dont and in Adams and Cavill case they seemed more natural together off-camera doing the rounds of the publicity for the film than on-camera together.

 

[Psycho_Sith]

I want the ten minutes of my life back that I lost reading posts in this thread...and the two minutes I spent writing a comment

 

[Flint Marko]

I want the ten minutes of my life back that I lost reading posts in this thread...and the two minutes I spent writing a comment

Took you two minutes to write this? t:

 

[jfurioso]

I found everything about her Lois Lane to be both boring and heavy-handed, right from the get go. One of her first lines in the film, when she said something about "d*ck-measuring" to the people in the army, was especially cringe worthy.
My distaste might also stem from the fact that I never for a second bought the supposed chemistry between her and Superman. It never once appeared like they were romantically inclined towards each other until that jarring, completely unearned kiss; the romance in the first Thor movie was also poorly handled but at the very least you could tell from the way they looked at each other that there was at least some sort of physical attraction there. I know people will argue with me on this point but I didn't feel any sort of chemistry or spark between the two, especially from Superman. At one point he tells his mom that Lois is a friend, and that is seriously the warmest thing I remember him doing towards her the entire movie up until the kiss.
One reviewer said it perfectly, and I'm paraphrasing here; "Lois inexplicably appearing out of nowhere right after Superman snap's Zod's neck encapsulates everything that is wrong about her character. She feels scotch-taped onto the story at the last second out of obligation so there could be a love interest".
And just for the record, I don't blame Amy Adams for any of that.

Personally, I found the scene in the interrogation room extremely successful in establishing chemistry. They are in a tense situation, being watched by possibly-antagonist government/armed-forces personnel, and their exchange showed their growing connection and how comfortable they felt about each other.