BvS The Zack Snyder Validation Thread (big rant)

[sf2]

As is GotG, and they BOTH well-exceeded financial expectations due in no small part to those positive reviews and word-of-mouth. Is someone here gonna try to argue that MoS did the same?

I loved MoS because it finally gave me a non-Donnerverse cinematic Superman, who is slightly closer to the one I know from the more contemporary comics I've loved, and I think Henry Cavill is the perfect guy to carry the mantle for the new era. But I'm also willing to acknowledge that the movie itself had a lot of problems both in story and character, and was not a film that lived up to the hype generated by the trailers and top-notch cast, nor the bar that had recently been raised by DC's other A-lister franchise. And I'm convinced that if it had gotten the reception that WB had hoped for it (which apparently some people in here think it actually got) - if it had gotten people buzzing about the triumphant return of Superman the way they were about Bats after BB - we would be anticipating an actual Superman sequel right now, rather than the Superfriends mash-up this movie has become.

I have never expected GotG to do this good as it is a total unknown comic character to most of the cinema audiences. (As compared to Captain America 2)

We will never know the actual reason why we didn’t get an actual and direct MOS sequel. That’s purely your guessing. Unless you have it from Zack or WB.
And the fact is MOS did great in term of Box office result domestically. (till to date, none of this year movies make more than it) MOS didn’t make more than it could be; aside the reasons you put, it was also because it had stiff competition and people got bad experience previously just like what BB suffered.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Because that is what we were promised in the lead up to the film. Why does a guy with all this power, with the power to enslave the planet if he so wishes... CHOOSE to be the hero instead? Why does the guy not give into temptation? Plus i think the dialogue in the trailer was "My father believed the world wasn't ready for me... what do you think?" (paraphrasing).

The film itself never really asked or answered thoses questions beyond shallow lip service. And it's a shame because they are very interesting questions.

Huh? First off, unless that's what Snyder said in an interview that I am not aware of, no. No, that is not at all what we were promised. That may have been what YOU thought, from the trailers that in no way suggested those things, but not from what I remember. As for those lines of dialogue, they are IN the movie. They are the lines that Clark speaks to Lois in the graveyard. They are the lines that convince Lois to not reveal his existence. No offense but we don't get deep motivations in many a film you champion either. (I.E. Steve Rogers hates bullies. That's his motivation in CA:TFA. End. Full stop. It's not much more than that. And that's fine.) Why does MOS have to be different with some deep seated psychological underpinnings? This is another case of those trailers being too good for their own good. What I saw from the trailers was : Trailer 1. This is going to be a serious take on the story. Trailer 2. It's going to be dramatic. Trailer Three it's going to be a story that is also going to have high action/adventure along side the drama. I got what those trailers promised. That Zimmer score did a number on people for sure, filling them with visions of a film that wasn't there. I saw the film that actually WAS advertised in those trailers.

 

[WBwins]

Just want to throw this in here-BB failed at the box office.Does that it mean it sucked and had bad WOM?No.

 

[DA_Champion]

Just want to throw this in here-BB failed at the box office.Does that it mean it sucked and had bad WOM?No.

BB had a mediocre box office due to Batman and Robin.

 

[DA_Champion]

There's no guarantee that GoTG will break 668 million so let's stop saying it as fact.

 

[WBwins]

BB had a mediocre box office due to Batman and Robin.

And the same argument cld be used for MOS "underwhelming"box office with relation to Superman rturns

 

[DA_Champion]

And the same argument cld be used for MOS "underwhelming"box office with relation to Superman rturns

And Superman 3 and Superman 4.

Fact is, the Superman franchise was coming off several stinkers.

 

[WBwins]

And Superman 3 and Superman 4.

Fact is, the Superman franchise was coming off several stinkers.

True.

 

[-Arya-]

So, I watched Dawn of The Dead again last night, and I think it's Snyder's strongest directorial effort. Between this, Watchmen, and even 300 Snyder shows that he can get solid performances from his actors and also create some genuinely emotional moments. Granted, he still needs improvement in the storytelling department, but I think many people shortchange his abilities by saying he's only a visual director.

 

[scifiwolf]

So, I watched Dawn of The Dead again last night, and I think it's Snyder's strongest directorial effort. Between this, Watchmen, and even 300 Snyder shows that he can get solid performances from his actors and also create some genuinely emotional moments. Granted, he still needs improvement in the storytelling department, but I think many people shortchange his abilities by saying he's only a visual director.

My wife found it in my DVD collection a few weeks ago, so we watched it. I loved 300 and Watchmen, along with MOS, but I was reminded how much I'm in agreement - Dawn of the Dead is still his best film. He shows a lot of restraint, which I suppose is due to budget. He's forced to do a lot with characters and script, given the confined setting of the story. However, it's still visually as strong as any movie he's done since. I'd credit him for that moreso than Matthew Leonetti, as his cinematography outside of Dawn of the Dead hasn't been as impressive.

 

[metaphysician]

And the same argument cld be used for MOS "underwhelming"box office with relation to Superman rturns

Ehhh. . . not really. If MOS performance were because of Superman Returns, it should have had a low opening weekend and stronger legs from WOM. Instead, it got the exact opposite: strong opening, crap legs. That points to it being WOM that was the problem, not prior movies.

 

[Micromind]

Ehhh. . . not really. If MOS performance were because of Superman Returns, it should have had a low opening weekend and stronger legs from WOM. Instead, it got the exact opposite: strong opening, crap legs. That points to it being WOM that was the problem, not prior movies.

..And the competition and low RT ratings.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yeah, the word of mouth hurt this movie. People didn't like that Cavil's Supemran wasn't the beacon of hope Reeve's Superman was. Also, others were turned off by how much destruction was in the movie and that Superman had killed.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

So, I watched Dawn of The Dead again last night, and I think it's Snyder's strongest directorial effort. Between this, Watchmen, and even 300 Snyder shows that he can get solid performances from his actors and also create some genuinely emotional moments. Granted, he still needs improvement in the storytelling department, but I think many people shortchange his abilities by saying he's only a visual director.

I think Snyder can do better than people give him credit for. He's not the strongest storyteller, but he often aims higher than the usual director to the point at which the ideas he's going for in movies like Watchmen, Sucker Punch, and Man of Steel are quite difficult to pull off in the first place. As a guy who's often harsh on Snyder, I'm not giving him excuses. Rather I'm acknowledging that Snyder aims to be different, and can be at least a competent director.

 

[TeeKay]

There's no guarantee that GoTG will break 668 million so let's stop saying it as fact.

You're right but I think it might.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

And the same argument cld be used for MOS "underwhelming"box office with relation to Superman rturns

It definitely can.

And Superman 3 and Superman 4.

Fact is, the Superman franchise was coming off several stinkers.

Superman 3 and 4 were released in the 80s so it has no bearing modern day box office.

 

[jmc]

You can't really use the argument that SR had an effect on MoS because unlike Batman and Robin Superman Returns was actually received reasonably well. Batman and Robin put a massive mark on the Batman character as a whole. for all the debate about Superman Returns the one thing you can't argue is that it damaged the character, it might not have been what the character needed but it wasn't a knockout punch. Let's also not forget that Batman Begins was thought of by many to be part of the Burton/Schumacher series. In fact Begins more or less invented the term reboot.

 

[The Batman]

SR having some B & R-esque effect on the Superman brand is just revisionist history, really.

Fanboys hate SR more than the GA/critics do.


Much like MOS, really.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yeah, I wouldn't say it was hated, nor would I necessarily say it did. I do think an argument could be made that it underwhelmed audiences, but I think Man of Steel struggled (And is $291 million domestic and nearly $700 million world wide struggling?) because of audiences' attachment to Reeve's Superman more than anything else.

 

[jmc]

I always think of Returns as just a film that happened. It didn't make any ripples one way or the other, it just happened, left absolutely no mark and everyone moved on from it (except the fans lol).

 

[The Batman]

Yeah, I wouldn't say it was hated, nor would I necessarily say it did. I do think an argument could be made that it underwhelmed audiences, but I think Man of Steel struggled (And is $291 million domestic and nearly $700 million world wide struggling?) because of audiences' attachment to Reeve's Superman more than anything else.

I think it "struggled" because, IMO, it wasnt that strong a film, in addition to the competition that it had.

The audience isn't as attached to Reeve as people think. By MOS, Reeve hadn't been Superman in 26 years, and had been dead for nine years. This isn't some "On her Majesty's Secret Service" situation.

 

[Jekecy]

For what it's worth, I think its box office performance is largely skewed by its subpar presence overseas. 291 million, for a reboot of a character who not only just had a lukewarm film, but a poor perception since the 90s, is quite phenomenal. Even just going off the fact it was divisive amongst everyone. Just under 300 million is damn excellent. For comparison, not a single film this year has reached those numbers domestically. So imagine how big the film would have been had it actually pleased everyone.

Overseas is where the box office needs to be looked at more from WBs perspective. Superman, for whatever reason, just doesn't resonate with international audiences. If Captain America can push solid numbers overseas, no good reason why Supes can't.

 

[flickchick85]

I have never expected GotG to do this good as it is a total unknown comic character to most of the cinema audiences. (As compared to Captain America 2)

We will never know the actual reason why we didn’t get an actual and direct MOS sequel. That’s purely your guessing. Unless you have it from Zack or WB.
And the fact is MOS did great in term of Box office result domestically. (till to date, none of this year movies make more than it) MOS didn’t make more than it could be; aside the reasons you put, it was also because it had stiff competition and people got bad experience previously just like what BB suffered.

As others have pointed out, what happened to BB at the box office is nothing like what happened to MoS. The "Bad Previous Movie" stigma primarily affects opening weekends. BB had a crap opening thanks to Batman's tarnished reputation, but ultimately ended up doing quite well because it had great legs from all the positive word of mouth. MoS had the opposite experience: Great opening weekend, crap legs.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I think it "struggled" because, IMO, it wasnt that strong a film, in addition to the competition that it had.

The audience isn't as attached to Reeve as people think. By MOS, Reeve hadn't been Superman in 26 years, and had been dead for nine years. This isn't some "On her Majesty's Secret Service" situation.

I wasn't mention Reeve in a literal sense. I was saying that the perception of Reeve's Superman as a peaceful beacon of hope who was much more confident in his place in the world in addition to his abilities still lingered.

Beleive me, I don't think Man of Steel was that strong a film either, but I think that people still had some preconceived notions about Superman that was an effect of Reeve's Superman (and to a lesser extent, Routh's Superman) movies.

 

[DA_Champion]

For what it's worth, I think its box office performance is largely skewed by its subpar presence overseas. 291 million, for a reboot of a character who not only just had a lukewarm film, but a poor perception since the 90s, is quite phenomenal. Even just going off the fact it was divisive amongst everyone. Just under 300 million is damn excellent. For comparison, not a single film this year has reached those numbers domestically. So imagine how big the film would have been had it actually pleased everyone.

Overseas is where the box office needs to be looked at more from WBs perspective. Superman, for whatever reason, just doesn't resonate with international audiences. If Captain America can push solid numbers overseas, no good reason why Supes can't.

WB screwed up, releasing the movie very late overseas by which time negative buzz from the USA had cone through. I know of some Australians who didn't see it because they heard it was bad.

Marvel is smarter as it usually goes for synchronized international release, and thus they gross two dollars overseas for every dollar in north america, for most of their movies.