Man of Steel Box Office Prediction Thread - - - - Part 13

[MrMaooz]

There's always seems to be two extreme positions.

MOS was successful but WB wanted a game-changer in 2015. Both financially and creatively, Superman/Batman does that.

PLus WB has nothing else big for 2015.

 

[J.Howlett]

Just MOS2. They need as much money as they can so including Batman was a business decision.

Almost every film decision at the studios is a business decision. What isn't that people can't get with that idea?

Do you think WB wanted Jack the Giant Slayer to flop? They were looking to make money off of it and create a new franchise....hence monetary business decision.

 

[Skrilla31]

Absolutely, but not because they're disappointed with Man of Steel's box office performance and critic reception as you're suggesting. They just want to capitalize on the opportunity in the immediate future. They don't wanna wait any longer to start the shared universe.

They don't wanna wait any longer because they can't wait any longer. All we've heard for the longest time now is "We're waiting to see how Man Of Steel performs and then we'll draw our conclusions from that."

Well here we are and apparently their response is to kick it into high gear. I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like careful planning to me. It sounds like they panicked and realized it was now or never. And again, that's largely due to the fact that Man Of Steel wasn't the game changer they hoped it would be.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

WB waited to see if Man of Steel was going to make a profit. That profit it made was going to determine if they wanted to go ahead and start a DC cinematic universe. Steel was always going to be the film that determined that.
And gee whiz, Mos made a big enough of a profit that WB feels comfortable in going and further starting a DC cinematic universe by throwing Batman in the MOS sequel.

All this talk about MOS being a game changer ? When was it ever going to be a game changer ? The only thing the film was going to be, was the deciding factor if WB could start a successfully profitable DC universe.

Like the direction WB is going or not, it's irrelevant, we are getting a film with Batman and Superman in 2015 and WB is going to be laughing it up, ROLLING IN DAT DOUGH

 

[STARMAN]

Henry Cavill's Superman is appearing onscreen again in 2015. Be happy. I am.

 

[Skrilla31]

WB waited to see if Man of Steel was going to make a profit. That profit it made was going to determine if they wanted to go ahead and start a DC cinematic universe. Steel was always going to be the film that determined that.
And gee whiz, Mos made a big enough of a profit that WB feels comfortable in going and further starting a DC cinematic universe by throwing Batman in the MOS sequel.

All this talk about MOS being a game changer ? When was it ever going to be a game changer ? The only thing the film was going to be, was the deciding factor if WB could start a successfully profitable DC universe.

Like the direction WB is going or not, it's irrelevant, we are getting a film with Batman and Superman in 2015 and WB is going to be laughing it up, ROLLING IN DAT DOUGH

I'm glad you're more concerned with WB's fiscal earnings than you are with making sure we get quality superhero films.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

Henry Cavill's Superman is appearing onscreen again in 2015. Be happy. I am.

Henry is playing Superman again ?

I don't know how i feel about this...

 

[ConanLives]

They're adding Batman to prepare for Justice League.

They have more confidence in MOS2 than a full-on Batman reboot film.

Yeah, this is what I think. I also think they're kind of following the Avengers/Ironman 3 example in terms of the latter getting that big bump at the box office. It's an excellent way for WB to crank up anticipation for Justice League and help transfer box office gold to future solo outings.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

I'm glad you're more concerned with WB's fiscal earnings than you are with making sure we get quality superhero films.

I don't need to be concerned with them making quality superhero films, that are also profitable. They've done that with TDK trilogy and MOS.
WB's only real misfires were Returns and GL.
And as much as fanboys like to rag on Returns, it wasn't that big of a misfire. It wasn't really profitable, but it wasn't a GL-flop that some people make it out to be.
Superman Returns isn't even a "god awful stain on Superman's reputation" that fans make it out to be as well. It's a decent but hugely underwhelming film that had too much nostalgia.

 

[kalelvis]

Look, the fact is people are going to cite the facts any way they please depending on their opinion of Man Of Steel. If you were a fan, then this announcement is evidence that WB was pleased with it. If you weren't a fan, then this announcement is evidence that WB might not have been pleased with it. Personally I lean more towards the latter.

To all the people that loved Man Of Steel. To all the people who don't believe this announcement is evidence that WB was displeased with it's performance. To all the people who are actually on board with the direction WB has ultimately decided to take, I'd like to ask you a few questions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please answer honestly, and for now just answer with yes or no. We'll get into discussion later.


1. Prior to yesterday's announcement and after having seen Man Of Steel for yourself, was there ever a point in which you felt the next logical progression for that character and that story to take in the sequel involved Batman? (Yes/No)

2. Fans touted this new Man Of Steel series would act as this generation's definitive cinematic representation of the Superman mythos. Do you believe that Batman is essential to telling that mythos? (Yes/No)

3. Assume that Man Of Steel had grossed close to a billion dollars worldwide by the end of it's theatrical run. Let's say in the neighborhood of $900-$950 million. And let's also assume it was a lot less divisive. Let's say it was incredibly well received by critics and fans alike and it's RT rating sat around 88%-90%. Assuming all of that were true, does WB still go ahead and put Batman in the sequel? (Yes/No)

4. Do you think WB's decision to fast track their own DC shared universe is largely out of pressure put on them by Marvel and the absolute monster phenomenon that was The Avengers? (Yes/No)

5. Do you think that it's a wise move to try and reintroduce general audiences to a new cinematic Batman a mere three years after Nolan's enormously successful series has seen it's end? (Yes/No)


I'm curious as to how some of you answer those questions.

I don't have a point to point answer for your questions, and I certainly see the point you are making but there is never only one way to go forward from one film to the next. If there were only one way to go we would never need to see sequels at all because what would happen would be to obvious to really care.

I posted the following in the "is it time for a team up thread" and I think it serves as a nice counter to your questions:

It is really all in the execution. If done right, it can be great. As far as showing origins, the 89 Batman made it clear it wasn't necessary. We were able to learn from the other characters that there had been sightings of "the bat". While Batman had its problems it wasn't about not having the origin.

For those of you who like MoS but are worried about Batman being in the film, consider the list of things you want to see in the sequel. For me i want to see:

Clark figuring out his role a man at the Daily Planet and a Superman in the skies of Metropolis and the rest of the world.

Clark dealing with the aftermath of the battle with Zod.

Clark becoming the beacon of hope he is meant to be.

Lex Luthor taking the stage as the "real hero" of Metropolis while trying to figure out what "the alien is up to."

I could go on but I will just get to the point of making this list; Does the appearance of Batman do anything to stop those things from being achieved?

For me the answer takes me back to where I started....it is all in the execution.

There is no brighter beacon of hope than that which is contrasted to darkness...

 

[Skrilla31]

I don't need to be concerned with them making quality superhero films, that are also profitable. They've done that with TDK trilogy and MOS.
WB's only real misfires were Returns and GL.
And as much as fanboys like to rag on Returns, it wasn't that big of a misfire. It wasn't really profitable, but it wasn't a GL-flop that some people make it out to be.

You have two options.

- You get to have sex with Jessica Alba tomorrow for one night, but you only have 30 minutes and she's not allowed to fully take her clothes off. And you guys gotta do it in a bathroom.

- You have to wait six months, but you get to have sex with Jessica Alba in a VIP suite at the Borgata in Atlantic City. You get to spend the entire night with her and all bets are off. She's ready to party.

You want something done or you want it done right?

Any way you slice it, shoehorning Batman into Superman's story doesn't help anyone but WB. It feels rushed and uninspired and it comes off as a painfully obvious - and desperate - attempt to compete with Marvel. This was not the next logical step for the Superman story to take. The only reason this is happening is because WB saw no other way. They want their Justice League movie and they'll do anything they can to make sure it happens. Even if it means churning out assembly line schlock.

 

[JangoNate]

I don't have a point to point answer for your questions, and I certainly see the point you are making but there is never only one way to go forward from one film to the next. If there were only one way to go we would never need to see sequels at all because what would happen would be to obvious to really care.

I posted the following in the "is it time for a team up thread" and I think it serves as a nice counter to your questions:

It is really all in the execution. If done right, it can be great. As far as showing origins, the 89 Batman made it clear it wasn't necessary. We were able to learn from the other characters that there had been sightings of "the bat". While Batman had its problems it wasn't about not having the origin.

For those of you who like MoS but are worried about Batman being in the film, consider the list of things you want to see in the sequel. For me i want to see:

Clark figuring out his role a man at the Daily Planet and a Superman in the skies of Metropolis and the rest of the world.

Clark dealing with the aftermath of the battle with Zod.

Clark becoming the beacon of hope he is meant to be.

Lex Luthor taking the stage as the "real hero" of Metropolis while trying to figure out what "the alien is up to."

I could go on but I will just get to the point of making this list; Does the appearance of Batman do anything to stop those things from being achieved?

For me the answer takes me back to where I started....it is all in the execution.

There is no brighter beacon of hope than that which is contrasted to darkness...

:Up: My thoughts, too.

I have no reason to fear as I've thought WB, aside from GL, has made some quality films as of late. MOS was what I've been waiting for and he's coming back with the same team, plus Batman.

 

[Skrilla31]

I could go on but I will just get to the point of making this list; Does the appearance of Batman do anything to stop those things from being achieved?.

Yes, it does. Any time spent on Batman is time taken away from Superman's development and progression.

Batman's character is wholly unnecessary to telling Superman's story.

 

[JangoNate]

You have two options.

- You get to have sex with Jessica Alba tomorrow for one night, but you only have 30 minutes and she's not allowed to fully take her clothes off. And you guys gotta do it in a bathroom.

- You have to wait six months, but you get to have sex with Jessica Alba in a VIP suite at the Borgata in Atlantic City. You get to spend the entire night with her and all bets are off. She's ready to party.

You want something done or you want it done right?

Any way you slice it, shoehorning Batman into Superman's story doesn't help anyone but WB. It feels rushed and uninspired and it comes off as a painfully obvious - and desperate - attempt to compete with Marvel. This was not the next logical step for the Superman story to take. The only reason this is happening is because WB saw no other way. They want their Justice League movie and they'll do anything they can to make sure it happens. Even if it means churning out assembly line schlock.

Any opportunity to have sex with Jessica Alba is a win in my book, no matter where it takes place or how long.

Long story short, cool opinion, bro, but that's not how we all feel.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

You have two options.

- You get to have sex with Jessica Alba tomorrow for one night, but you only have 30 minutes and she's not allowed to fully take her clothes off. And you guys gotta do it in a bathroom.

- You have to wait six months, but you get to have sex with Jessica Alba in a VIP suite at the Borgata in Atlantic City. You get to spend the entire night with her and all bets are off. She's ready to party.

You want something done or you want it done right?

Any way you slice it, shoehorning Batman into Superman's story doesn't help anyone but WB. It feels rushed and uninspired and it comes off as a painfully obvious - and desperate - attempt to compete with Marvel. This was not the next logical step for the Superman story to take. The only reason this is happening is because WB saw no other way. They want their Justice League movie and they'll do anything they can to make sure it happens. Even if it means churning out assembly line schlock.

[YT]?v=FNSZgbJsSxU[/YT]

 

[ConnorKon-El]

Any opportunity to have sex with Jessica Alba is a win in my book, no matter where it takes place or how long.

Long story short, cool opinion, bro, but that's not how we all feel.

 

[ConanLives]

You have two options.

- You get to have sex with Jessica Alba tomorrow for one night, but you only have 30 minutes and she's not allowed to fully take her clothes off. And you guys gotta do it in a bathroom.

- You have to wait six months, but you get to have sex with Jessica Alba in a VIP suite at the Borgata in Atlantic City. You get to spend the entire night with her and all bets are off. She's ready to party.

You want something done or you want it done right?

Any way you slice it, shoehorning Batman into Superman's story doesn't help anyone but WB. It feels rushed and uninspired and it comes off as a painfully obvious - and desperate - attempt to compete with Marvel. This was not the next logical step for the Superman story to take. The only reason this is happening is because WB saw no other way. They want their Justice League movie and they'll do anything they can to make sure it happens. Even if it means churning out assembly line schlock.

On the contrary, I think it's a very smart move by WB using WF to compete and counter the Avengers juggernaut...even before the Justice League behemoth starts rolling.

 

[Skrilla31]

Any opportunity to have sex with Jessica Alba is a win in my book, no matter where it takes place or how long.

Long story short, cool opinion, bro, but that's not how we all feel.

And here in lies the problem. Fanboys are content with table scraps.

 

[Skrilla31]

On the contrary, I think it's a very smart move by WB using WF to compete and counter the Avengers juggernaut...even before the Justice League behemoth starts rolling.

The big selling point for JL was always the first interaction of Superman and Batman. That won't be there now since we're getting it here first.

The JL movie is going to be severely anti-climactic.

 

[ConanLives]

The big selling point for JL was always the first interaction of Superman and Batman. That won't be there now since we're getting it here first.

The JL movie is going to be severely anti-climactic.

It's going to ramp up excitement for Justice League to the max...if done properly.

 

[Marvin]

Yes, it does. Any time spent on Batman is time taken away from Superman's development and progression.

Batman's character is wholly unnecessary to telling Superman's story.

Any time spent of a villain would take way from Superman's development and progression....

or would it.

 

[kalelvis]

Yes, it does. Any time spent on Batman is time taken away from Superman's development and progression.

Batman's character is wholly unnecessary to telling Superman's story.

Ultimately any character brought into the movie will do what you are saying, even if they were in the first movie. Lois, Perry, possibly Jimmy, could all take away from Superman's development if they are going about business in the film that doesn't relate to Superman progression. But I their business will be completely connected to whatever is happening with Superman. Why would the character of Batman/bruce Wayne be any different. So long as his actions connect to the through line for Superman, it could be awesome.

As with any other character in any film there is the potential to pull the story away from the main protagonist. That will be the tricky part, making sure that Superman stays in the position of main protagonist.

I can think of a long list of movies that have a clear protagonist and still have a strong co-protagonist that in no way diminishes the "development and progression" of the main character...Lethal Weapon (1 and 2), the Lord of the Rings movies, etc. There is a main character who has a clear story line that can not be achieved without the strong second character's story.

Is there the potential for disaster, yes, but if done right, it could be the best Superman and Batman movie to date.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

And here in lies the problem. Fanboys are content with table scraps.

I just want to take a moment Skrilla31 and personally thank you, seriously. You have become one of my favorite posters on this site. The way you can make great, generalizing comments like

Granted I believe you all have incredibly low standards and would have loved the movie no matter what pile of dogs*** they would have thrown at you but that's beside the point. Then again, maybe ignorance is bliss. Who knows.

is just wonderfully great to read and respond to. You have given this section of the SHH! Boards a breath of fresh air, you have given the users here a real entertaing show.
I just want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Any time spent of a villain would take way from Superman's development and progression....

or would it.

True. I still would have preferred MOS2 first, but I'm coming around on the idea. Just have to think of it along the lines of Batman filling a "villain" role in this movie.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I just want to take a moment Skrilla31 and personally thank you, seriously. You have become one of my favorite posters on this site. The way you can make great, generalizing comments like is just wonderfully great to read and respond to. You have given this section of the SHH! Boards a breath of fresh air, you have given the users here a real entertaing show.
I just want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart.