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

[Smallville13]

Poor hopeful.

I admit I really am struggling to get excited for this film. I guess it's cause I expected so much more from MOS, and then I was holding onto the hope that maybe it could be lifted by a great sequel. Now that sequel will be Batman.

I really thought that we were getting a reverent take on Superman, in the same vein as the TDK movies. Instead it's degenerating into the same machine as the Disney/Marvel films; a soulless cash-cow. Let's be clear the Marvel movies are fun, but none of them come close (spare maybe IM1) to great. Even Joss Whedon admits that. It saddens me almost that amazing people like Amy Adams, Lawrence Fishbourne, and Diane Lane are getting dragged down into this.

 

[Lord]

MoS was a weak film, but very entertaining. I'm excited for this film for the simple fact that it's the first Superman/ Batman film crossover.

But if you ask me DC should have taken things more slowlly, milk each one of their franchise and as years go past they could do a crossover once in a while, starting with World's Finest.

 

[regwec]

I think it's too soon to be upset.

This movie can still fulfill the promise of MoS in giving us the Superman we all know- remember that the first meeting with Batman was a big deal in the post-crisis origin story. The first meetings with Lex, the first kiss with Lois etc can all be a part of the same story. The fact is however, that Batman is the biggest draw in comics for the broadest audience. His presence gives everything a bit more zing, and it will hardly be played down in the marketing. The upside is that Superman stands to gain by association: he is likely to attract more interest in the long term by being assimilated in to the same world as Batman.

This could be either triumph or disaster, but it is premature to assume the latter.

 

[Herolee10]

I think it's too soon to be upset.

This movie can still fulfill the promise of MoS in giving us the Superman we all know- remember that the first meeting with Batman was a big deal in the post-crisis origin story. The first meetings with Lex, the first kiss with Lois etc can all be a part of the same story. The fact is however, that Batman is the biggest draw in comics for the broadest audience. His presence gives everything a bit more zing, and it will hardly be played down in the marketing. The upside is that Superman stands to gain by association: he is likely to attract more interest in the long term by being assimilated in to the same world as Batman.

This could be either triumph or disaster, but it is premature to assume the latter.

True; though it is somewhat difficult at times, and I speak from experience, to hold out for hope whenever I think about the current situation and all of the factors involved in this project.


Ultimately, this film will/can decide on which hero between Batman and Superman will be the "godfather" and the "leader" of the DCU regarding its line up of heroes.

 

[The Question]

Poor hopeful.

I admit I really am struggling to get excited for this film. I guess it's cause I expected so much more from MOS, and then I was holding onto the hope that maybe it could be lifted by a great sequel. Now that sequel will be Batman.

I really thought that we were getting a reverent take on Superman, in the same vein as the TDK movies. Instead it's degenerating into the same machine as the Disney/Marvel films; a soulless cash-cow. Let's be clear the Marvel movies are fun, but none of them come close (spare maybe IM1) to great. Even Joss Whedon admits that. It saddens me almost that amazing people like Amy Adams, Lawrence Fishbourne, and Diane Lane are getting dragged down into this.

Not being great doesn't make something a soulless cash cow. All of the Marvel moves have a lot of soul, even the ones that aren't very good.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Poor hopeful.

I admit I really am struggling to get excited for this film. I guess it's cause I expected so much more from MOS, and then I was holding onto the hope that maybe it could be lifted by a great sequel. Now that sequel will be Batman.

I really thought that we were getting a reverent take on Superman, in the same vein as the TDK movies. Instead it's degenerating into the same machine as the Disney/Marvel films; a soulless cash-cow. Let's be clear the Marvel movies are fun, but none of them come close (spare maybe IM1) to great. Even Joss Whedon admits that. It saddens me almost that amazing people like Amy Adams, Lawrence Fishbourne, and Diane Lane are getting dragged down into this.

Which is your opinion. A lot of people (not everyone) would consider The Avengers as great and a lot of people (not everyone) would consider the TDKT as great. A lot of people (but less) would consider MOS as great.

 

[cryptic name]

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.

I liked Man of Steel quite a bit, and I loved Batman Begins, which Goyer had the most input on of the three Nolan batflicks, so nope. I'm pretty damn excited.

 

[Smallville13]

Which is your opinion. A lot of people (not everyone) would consider The Avengers as great and a lot of people (not everyone) would consider the TDKT as great. A lot of people (but less) would consider MOS as great.

Yes, and I would never take that away from any of them. But I think I'm being pretty objective that in terms of actually a great film, the likes of Citizen Kane, The Godfather, 2001, etc, The Dark Knight is really the only superhero film that comes close. I know it gets evangelized too much around here, but smarter film scholars than us would admit it to be true. It's a generational film.

I wanted something close to that for Superman, which I believe is possible, but it really isn't anymore. Batman/Superman is a fanboy film to it's core.

That said I expect Batman/Superman to be a good film, possibly at least as good as MOS. But I can't expect any better from Snyder/Goyer.

 

[STARMAN]

Overall, I think the Marvel films play it safer.

I'm excited for this film. Not feeling dread. Some caution. But I can't wait till they start filming.

 

[D.P.]

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.

So, let me get this straight OP.

You're telling us that the man who had a hand in writing Blade, The Nolan trilogy, and Man of Steel can't "write his way out of paper bag"?

Snyder gave us really solid 300 and Watchmen films, and most recently the superb MOS, and your one knock against him is Sucker Punch?

Please tell me what you have contributed to the genre OP.

 

[The Question]

You're telling us that the man who had a hand in writing Blade, The Nolan trilogy, and Man of Steel can't "write his way out of paper bag"?

1: Using Man of Steel as an example of Goyer being a good writer when the guy you're arguing with said that he thought Man of Steel was badly written doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

2: With the first two Blade movies and the Dark Knight trilogy, he was working with Guillermo Del Toro and the Nolan brothers respectively, all of whome are fantastic storytellers. The criticism against Goyer us usually that he's a fine ideas man who's great when he works with other people who make up for his weaknesses as a writer, but on his own he's pretty crap. Blade Trinity, the Blade film that was all him with no Del Toro involvement, is an example of this.

Snyder gave us really solid 300 and Watchmen films, and most recently the superb MOS, and your one knock against him is Sucker Punch?

Again, using Man of Steel as an example of Snyder's superb work when the guy you're arguing with is working from the basis that Man of Steel was bad isn't a very good debate tactic.

It's like:

Debator 1: This candidate is terrible, because he supports Bill 114 and Bill 114 if a horrible piece of legislation.

Debator 2: How can you say the candidate is terrible? He supports the superb Bill 114!

See how that doesn't work?

As for 300 and Watchmen, 300 was a well made but ultimately stupid action movie and Watchmen wasn't a very good movie at all. It had good things in it because of the source material it was adapted from, but it didn't adapt that source material well or work well as a film on it's own.

Yes, and I would never take that away from any of them. But I think I'm being pretty objective that in terms of actually a great film, the likes of Citizen Kane, The Godfather, 2001, etc, The Dark Knight is really the only superhero film that comes close. I know it gets evangelized too much around here, but smarter film scholars than us would admit it to be true. It's a generational film.

I wanted something close to that for Superman, which I believe is possible, but it really isn't anymore. Batman/Superman is a fanboy film to it's core.

That said I expect Batman/Superman to be a good film, possibly at least as good as MOS. But I can't expect any better from Snyder/Goyer.

I see what your saying, and I mostly agree.

I think my thing is that I don't think Man of Steel was even as good as any of the Marvel movies. Avengers may be further away from Citizen Kane than The Dark Knight is, but it's much better made and has a lot more genuine heart than Man of Steel. At least I think so. I wanted at least that for Superman.

Heck, I wasn't even looking for Man of Steel to be like The Dark Knight. I was looking for Batman Begins. The Dark Knight can come after that.

 

[Lord]

So, let me get this straight OP.

You're telling us that the man who had a hand in writing Blade, The Nolan trilogy, and Man of Steel can't "write his way out of paper bag"?

Snyder gave us really solid 300 and Watchmen films, and most recently the superb MOS, and your one knock against him is Sucker Punch?

Please tell me what you have contributed to the genre OP.

You do know that the "you can't do better" isn't a good argumente right? It's not our job to to do those films, we're costumers, and costumers do have the right to complain if they dislike the product they receive

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Yes, and I would never take that away from any of them. But I think I'm being pretty objective that in terms of actually a great film, the likes of Citizen Kane, The Godfather, 2001, etc, The Dark Knight is really the only superhero film that comes close. I know it gets evangelized too much around here, but smarter film scholars than us would admit it to be true. It's a generational film.

I wanted something close to that for Superman, which I believe is possible, but it really isn't anymore. Batman/Superman is a fanboy film to it's core.

That said I expect Batman/Superman to be a good film, possibly at least as good as MOS. But I can't expect any better from Snyder/Goyer.

That's an understatement.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Agreed. What's funny and weird about this entire scenario is that on one hand, I do agree that this feels like a natural progression to the story in the sense of humanity responding to the presence of Superman on Earth now, but on the other hand, given on how it's the freaking Batman that's being used here, it just feels like it's out of place with the situation.

I mean I think it's safe to agree that an majority of fans don't feel that a Superman/Batman film was the right step to go right after MOS.

I sincerely hope that Goyer and Snyder know on how many issues people had with MOS because if they try to be ignorant about it while going into this film, then that won't mean good things for us.

right now, this is really a big gamble, more so than the Avengers was in my honest opinion. Why? Because of Goyer and Snyder. Those two can either give something good or something terribly bad. I haven't seen any evidence to say that they could give something great as of yet.

And what's more irritating is that I keep reading on other places on how people think this is a new batman film already, ignoring Superman's presence in it. It kind of makes you wonder if people are just happy to see Batman again and couldn't care less about Superman being in it, let alone on how he'd be portrayed against the Caped crusader.

Honestly, if Goyer and Snyder do well, I'll give them credit when and where it's due. But if they regress the character of Superman back to the drawing board after this, I hope that there's a huge outcry that's let out, enough to state to the studios that no one wants to see them ever near the material again in the same degree like how no one wants to see Joel touching Batman's films anymore.

And that's just it, you can't have a shared universe now and not have another hero step up after Superman makes a public appearance especially how the ending of MOS went down. Marvel is obviously a shared universe and what happened after Iron Man made a public appearance, Fury showed up. In this case, it is Batman.

 

[Mr. Dent]

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.

I agree with this. Nothing good can come from the combination of those two being given even more to handle. Snyder could barely hold Man of Steel together, how is he going to handle a movie with both Batman and Superman in it, and what should be a more complex story? Let alone Justice League? I seriously have a bad feeling the movies are just going to devolve into spectacle as the only saving grace because Snyder can't direct an engaging story to save his life. Not to mention Goyer should not be writing so many scripts. He's an idea guy, not a writer. Man of Steel's dialogue was shallow at best. I almost dread what will be put on screen in terms of Batman/Superman's relationship. If there isn't good banter between them then they already failed not only the Batman/Superman movie but Justice League as well.

And I seriously don't understand why WB is giving Snyder so much responsibility. He choked Watchmen, both critically and commercially, and his Superman film was even more critically panned than Superman Returns and got by at the box office completely on hype alone.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I agree with this. Nothing good can come from the combination of those two being given even more to handle. Snyder could barely hold Man of Steel together, how is he going to handle a movie with both Batman and Superman in it, and what should be a more complex story? Let alone Justice League? I seriously have a bad feeling the movies are just going to devolve into spectacle as the only saving grace because Snyder can't direct an engaging story to save his life. Not to mention Goyer should not be writing so many scripts. He's an idea guy, not a writer. Man of Steel's dialogue was shallow at best. I almost dread what will be put on screen in terms of Batman/Superman's relationship. If there isn't good banter between them then they already failed not only the Batman/Superman movie but Justice League as well.

And I seriously don't understand why WB is giving Snyder so much responsibility. He choked Watchmen, both critically and commercially, and his Superman film was even more critically panned than Superman Returns and got by at the box office completely on hype alone.

Are we going to ignore the fact that the audience ratings across the board were much higher for MOS than SR. MOS has a 7.7 on IMDB while SR has a 6.2 as just one example.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

I agree with this. Nothing good can come from the combination of those two being given even more to handle. Snyder could barely hold Man of Steel together, how is he going to handle a movie with both Batman and Superman in it, and what should be a more complex story? Let alone Justice League? I seriously have a bad feeling the movies are just going to devolve into spectacle as the only saving grace because Snyder can't direct an engaging story to save his life. Not to mention Goyer should not be writing so many scripts. He's an idea guy, not a writer. Man of Steel's dialogue was shallow at best. I almost dread what will be put on screen in terms of Batman/Superman's relationship. If there isn't good banter between them then they already failed not only the Batman/Superman movie but Justice League as well.

And I seriously don't understand why WB is giving Snyder so much responsibility. He choked Watchmen, both critically and commercially, and his Superman film was even more critically panned than Superman Returns and got by at the box office completely on hype alone.

Are we going to ignore the fact that the audience ratings across the board were much higher for MOS than SR. MOS has a 7.7 on IMDB while SR has a 6.2 as just one example.

And a metacritic user score of 7.9. And an RT user score of 4/5.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

A World's Finest movie coming before a Justice League movie (which was clearly inevitable) makes sense in a lot of ways. The Superman/Batman relationship is the most iconic superhero-superhero relationship in all of comics by many light years and would threaten to overshadow the rest of the JL members. It probably still will anyway, but at least there is an opportunity to establish a large portion of the dynamics between the two beforehand. More importantly, coming straight off of the events of MoS, there are plenty of obvious ways to make Bruce Wayne/Batman relevant to Superman's story, enhance his arc and highlight what makes Superman who he is. My doubts come with Snyder/Goyer's ability to execute what should be some exciting concepts on paper into a script that satisfies.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

And a metacritic user scoreof 7.9. And an RT user average score of 4/5.

Yup, but those who hate the movie are apparently unable to look at the situation objectively. Hey, you hate the movie, fantastic. But let's not ignore certain things.

 

[The Question]

Are we going to ignore the fact that the audience ratings across the board were much higher for MOS than SR. MOS has a 7.7 on IMDB while SR has a 6.2 as just one example.

IMDB and RT aren't very effective or accurate polling models. First and foremost, it relies on people who seek out those websites and volunteer their ratings without being asked. That cuts out a huge portion of the population. Second, the question asked is "rate this movie on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10." That's not going to give you a very nuanced answer, and not everyone is going to have the same standards for what gets a 5 and what gets a 1, even if they have the exact same opinions about the film. Also, their sample sizes tend to be very small, never usually more than 400 people. It's generally accepted than you need at least a sample size of 800 people to get even close to an accurate view of national opinion. ALSO, we have to acknowledge that Superman is a pre-existing property and neither IMDB or RT distinguishes between users who are fans with pre existing biases and users who aren't, so we have no way of knowing how many of the people in the sample were hardcore Superman fans and which ones were not and how much that may have skewed the numbers.

IMDB and RT really aren't that useful in gauging what people think about movies.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

IMDB and RT aren't very effective or accurate polling models. First and foremost, it relies on people who seek out those websites and volunteer their ratings without being asked. That cuts out a huge portion of the population. Second, the question asked is "rate this movie on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10." That's not going to give you a very nuanced answer, and not everyone is going to have the same standards for what gets a 5 and what gets a 1, even if they have the exact same opinions about the film. Also, their sample sizes tend to be very small, never usually more than 400 people. It's generally accepted than you need at least a sample size of 800 people to get even close to an accurate view of national opinion. ALSO, we have to acknowledge that Superman is a pre-existing property and neither IMDB or RT distinguishes between users who are fans with pre existing biases and users who aren't, so we have no way of knowing how many of the people in the sample were hardcore Superman fans and which ones were not and how much that may have skewed the numbers.

IMDB and RT really aren't that useful in gauging what people think about movies.

They usually are useful. Why do great movies have high ratings and bad movies have low ratings? It must be somewhat accurate. Plus, it's the only evidence we have so we should be able to use it. I thought hardcore Superman fans hated the movie, I could be mistaken though.

IMDB has 200,000 (for MOS) so far I think.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

IMDB and RT aren't very effective or accurate polling models. First and foremost, it relies on people who seek out those websites and volunteer their ratings without being asked. That cuts out a huge portion of the population. Second, the question asked is "rate this movie on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10." That's not going to give you a very nuanced answer, and not everyone is going to have the same standards for what gets a 5 and what gets a 1, even if they have the exact same opinions about the film. Also, their sample sizes tend to be very small, never usually more than 400 people. It's generally accepted than you need at least a sample size of 800 people to get even close to an accurate view of national opinion. ALSO, we have to acknowledge that Superman is a pre-existing property and neither IMDB or RT distinguishes between users who are fans with pre existing biases and users who aren't, so we have no way of knowing how many of the people in the sample were hardcore Superman fans and which ones were not and how much that may have skewed the numbers.

IMDB and RT really aren't that useful in gauging what people think about movies.

Well, it's the best we have at the moment so I am using it. But can't say I am not surprised you would dismiss it since you dislike MOS so much. Let's just continue to dismiss everything positive MOS has accomplished/received, grades, scores, box office numbers, there is always a twist on why the reception it has received isn't good enough for certain people's "standards".

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

IMDB and RT aren't very effective or accurate polling models. First and foremost, it relies on people who seek out those websites and volunteer their ratings without being asked. That cuts out a huge portion of the population. Second, the question asked is "rate this movie on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10." That's not going to give you a very nuanced answer, and not everyone is going to have the same standards for what gets a 5 and what gets a 1, even if they have the exact same opinions about the film. Also, their sample sizes tend to be very small, never usually more than 400 people. It's generally accepted than you need at least a sample size of 800 people to get even close to an accurate view of national opinion. ALSO, we have to acknowledge that Superman is a pre-existing property and neither IMDB or RT distinguishes between users who are fans with pre existing biases and users who aren't, so we have no way of knowing how many of the people in the sample were hardcore Superman fans and which ones were not and how much that may have skewed the numbers.

IMDB and RT really aren't that useful in gauging what people think about movies.

Except the sample size here is 250000 for RT and 200000 for IMDb, so that point is pretty irrelevant here. Yeah you can't distinguish between pre-existing fans and those who aren't. But when you combine these large sample sizes with the box office and A- CinemaScore, it's pretty obvious what the answer is. And even if you won't look at what the data in front of you presents, you certainly don't have anywhere close to a strong case for the box office being on "hype alone."

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Well, it's the best we have at the moment so I am using it. But can't say I am not surprised you would dismiss it since you dislike MOS so much. Let's just continue to dismiss everything positive MOS has accomplished/received, grades, scores, box office numbers, there is always a twist on why the reception it has received isn't good enough for certain people's "standards".

"Objectivism doesn't work."

 

[The Question]

They usually are useful. Why do great movies have high ratings and bad movies have low ratings? It must be somewhat accurate. Plus, it's the only evidence we have so we should be able to use it. I thought hardcore Superman fans hated the movie, I could be mistaken though.

IMDB has 200,000 (for MOS) so far I think.

We should absolutely use it. My whole point is that we should acknowledge the fact that we don't really know what the numbers tell us at a cursory glance, and 75% rating or a 25% rating doesn't necessarily mean that 75% of people who saw a movie liked or hated it. There are lots of other factors that their polling models don't take into account that we have to if the numbers are going to mean anything.

Well, it's the best we have at the moment so I am using it. But can't say I am not surprised you would dismiss it since you dislike MOS so much. Let's just continue to dismiss everything positive MOS has accomplished/received, grades, scores, box office numbers, there is always a twist on why the reception it has received isn't good enough for certain people's "standards".

I dismiss it because it's an inaccurate polling model. My standards have nothing to do with the movie, they're standards of data accuracy.