BvS Skepticism Regarding the Film - Part 5

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]484013[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]483191[/split]

 

[rockandrollsoul]

Iron Man 2: $623,933,331
Iron Man: $585,174,222
Thor: $449,326,618
Captain America: The First Avenger $370,569,774
The Avengers: $1,518,594,910

The Avengers made one billion more than Iron Man 2, the highest grossing Marvel film at the time (In fact, the two highest grossing Marvel films prior to The Avengers were both Iron Man films, featuring the fan favorite Robert Downey Jr). The Avengers made nearly four times the amount of Thor, and over four times the amount of Captain America. It was $510 million shy of making more than all of those films combined. Sorry, but The Avengers didn't make that kind of money from everyone having seen all of the solo films. It rode on the novelty of the concept and RDJ. Thanks for playing.

Exactamundo! The majority of people I know who saw The Avengers loved it despite not having seen most or any of the preceding solo films. And, honestly, those who had weren't crazy about any of them with the exception to the first Iron Man. (I personally enjoy Thor and thought both Iron Man 2 and Captain America were pretty bad/forgettable.) This didn't stop people from going out in droves and raving about The Avengers.

I would also argue that the solo films do very little to actually set up The Avengers besides superficially shoehorning some SHIELD/post-credit scenes in there. DC's approach of having JL be a direct sequel to ONE film (BvS) actually makes a lot more sense to me. Instead of fumbling through the 1st act in order to bring these characters together, we get an entire movie that builds to the formation of the JL.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

Exactamundo! The majority of people I know who saw The Avengers loved it despite not having seen most or any of the preceding solo films. And, honestly, those who had weren't crazy about any of them with the exception to the first Iron Man. (I personally enjoy Thor and thought both Iron Man 2 and Captain America were pretty bad/forgettable.) This didn't stop people from going out in droves and raving about The Avengers.

I would also argue that the solo films do very little to actually set up The Avengers besides superficially shoehorning some SHIELD/post-credit scenes in there. DC's approach of having JL be a direct sequel to ONE film (BvS) actually makes a lot more sense to me. Instead of fumbling through the 1st act in order to bring these characters together, we get an entire movie that builds to the formation of the JL.

This.

 

[dnno1]

I have to agree with Boom's comment. Avengers was a senstation and that is mostly why the film did well at the box office. There was also brand recognition from the other franchises ( Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America).

 

[Lencho01]

The JL film they were going to do a few years back also took the approach of only telling you what you needed to know in regards to the heroes' past if it had anything to do with the story at hand. Batman (and Aquman sorta) were the only ones to get that treatment. For everyone else it was "Here they are."

 

[Destructus86]

I'm hoping they give Superman a bit more personality this time around...

 

[Boom]

Cavill was at his best in MoS when he was being charming. The somber, super-serial stuff, not so much.

 

[The Shape]

Now that Clark's done being the "lost soul" that he was in MOS, I imagine he'll be more upbeat and personable throughout.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, I think so. Unless they decided to make the whole movie about Superman being guilt-ridden for destroying parts of Metropolis (like some fans seem to really, REALLY want for some reason).

 

[spiderral]

Cavill was at his best in MoS when he was being charming. The somber, super-serial stuff, not so much.

Now that Clark's done being the "lost soul" that he was in MOS, I imagine he'll be more upbeat and personable throughout.

From the new set photo, it looks as if Superman's suit will be a bit brighter and more vibrant and blue as opposed to the darker MoS one so I'm hoping that that's what they're going for this time around, it will work nicely in contrast to Batman.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

Yeah, I think so. Unless they decided to make the whole movie about Superman being guilt-ridden for destroying parts of Metropolis (like some fans seem to really, REALLY want for some reason).

It's not that fans want it, but it seems like they would go that route. The rumors about an Anti Superman vibe would definitely make Sups moody.

 

[The Batman]

I'm hoping they give Superman a bit more personality this time around...

He's gonna need it if fans don't want Batman stealing the show.

 

[Boom]

He's gonna need it if fans don't want Batman stealing the show.

Batman .

 

[hafizbat]

He's gonna need it if fans don't want Batman stealing the show.

You already know that's gonna happen anyway.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

He's gonna need it if fans don't want Batman stealing the show.

haha. Batman can just make a 20 second appearance and no amount of charm from the Boy Scout will trump the Batman.

 

[The Batman]

You already know that's gonna happen anyway.

IMO, it will if the Superman in this film is reminiscent of the more modern versions.

A Superman based off the Golden Age version though...

 

[Lencho01]

Cavill was at his best in MoS when he was being charming. The somber, super-serial stuff, not so much.

I thought he was stilted in some of those scenes. Bad choice of which take to use.

 

[Lencho01]

IMO, it will if the Superman in this film is reminiscent of the more modern versions.

A Superman based off the Golden Age version though...

I do wonder though, would it seem too drastic of a change if he were like the Golden Age and New 52 versions? Or if he does act that way, would it be just an act and be the whole "Superman is what I do" approach?

Even so, if he were like this guy, I know I'd be smiling...

http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/4538268.html

 

[I Am The Knight]

He's gonna need it if fans don't want Batman stealing the show.

Well, the director might want ol' Bats to steal the show a little bit

 

[The Batman]

I feel like this movie is gonna be an indication of just how much Snyder is actually into Superman, in comparison to Batman.

I do wonder though, would it seem too drastic of a change if he were like the Golden Age and New 52 versions? Or if he does act that way, would it be just an act and be the whole "Superman is what I do" approach?

Even so, if he were like this guy, I know I'd be smiling...

http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/4538268.html

GA/Early New 52 Supes is exactly what a modern comic audience would like, IMO. Members of the GA go on about how Superman is boring, and fans go on about how they're sick of the boy scout/Donner approach. GA style Supes is far away from that, and bringing that Supes to the big screen would be DC getting back to the characters roots.

 

[Lencho01]

GA/Early New 52 Supes is exactly what a modern comic audience would like, IMO. Members of the GA go on about how Superman is boring, and fans go on about how they're sick of the boy scout/Donner approach. GA style Supes is far away from that, and bringing that Supes to the big screen would be DC getting back to the characters roots.

Exactly. There's no way they could call that dude boring. How can you not love a guy who'd crack up at the sadness and pain he's caused supremacists and other corrupt people?

 

[The Question]

I really want a montage of Superman destroying military drone aircraft, catching terrorists with zero civilian casualties, siding with protestors and defending them from riot cops, and stealing food from corporate warehouses to give to impoverished communities, all set to Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son."

They need to cut out all of this vague, noncommittal Jesus crap and bring Superman back to his roots as a gives no ****s socialist agitator.

That'd be one hell of a Superman movie.

Exactly. There's no way they could call that dude boring. How can you not love a guy who'd crack up at the sadness and pain he's caused supremacists and other corrupt people?

Man, if you can't have a good laugh at the pain and suffering of Nazis, there's something wrong with this world.

I mean, they're Nazis. They ****ing suck.

 

[The Question]

I would also argue that the solo films do very little to actually set up The Avengers besides superficially shoehorning some SHIELD/post-credit scenes in there.

They establish and develop the characters. The purpose of the solo films wasn't to set up the plot of The Avengers, it was to set up who these individual characters are as people and what they're all about, so that when they finally got to The Avengers they wouldn't be saddled with the incredibly difficult task of establishing and developing these complicated, weird, and wildly different characters from whole cloth. The plot elements were a tertiary concern at best.

 

[DA_Champion]

They establish and develop the characters. The purpose of the solo films wasn't to set up the plot of The Avengers, it was to set up who these individual characters are as people and what they're all about, so that when they finally got to The Avengers they wouldn't be saddled with the incredibly difficult task of establishing and developing these complicated, weird, and wildly different characters from whole cloth. The plot elements were a tertiary concern at best.

Right, but the majority of viewers had not seen tge characters before.

I myself had seen TIH, IM, IM2, CA, once each when they came out, I slept through most of CA, and I had not seen Thor, and I'm a superfan if the genre. Imagine normal people.

A lot of Avengers had probably watched none of the movies.