Your top 5 things that needs to be "fixed" for the Batman reboot

[shauner111]

For me, The Avengers had the same detrimental flaw as all Marvel Studio stuff: it didn't feel like a real film at all, but an advert for things yet to come. All of those movies are designed to offer just enough to get a pass while setting up the next product for distribution. It is all about keeping the assembly line running; minimum wage and a ten minute coffee break every four hours. Quality control makes sure everything is exactly the same. Movies that misfire are trucked off to the reboot department.

I would hate to see Batman turned into something so hollow, predictable and cynical.

 

[shauner111]

You do realize that almost everyone on the planet has compared the Avengers to Transformers with the exact opposite intention? Specifically, to point out how Transformers has stupid comedy, annoying/bland characters, and incomprehensible action scenes, whereas Avengers has clever humor, likable characters, and thrilling action scenes? I mean, you're entitled to your opinion and all, but comparing it to a Michael Bay film is kind of a weak accusation.

It's better than Transformers, well better than the last 2. I haven't seen the first since 2007 but from memory ill say it felt on par with the first. But it's probably better all together.

Likeable characters? A couple. Maybe Hulk and Iron Man were pretty much the only characters I liked.

Clever humor? There was some funny stuff but also a lot of eye rolling b.s where they were trying too hard to be funny consistently.

Thrilling action sequences? I cant really remember any off the top of my head. Ive seen action now in Man Of Steel, TDKT (prologue especially), Pacific Rim and Star Trek: Into Darkness that make the action in Avengers look like a toy commercial.

It's certainly above the Michael Bay level. Obviously. But it's the same approach to popcorn fluff.

 

[Snow Queen]

You do realize that almost everyone on the planet has compared the Avengers to Transformers with the exact opposite intention? Specifically, to point out how Transformers has stupid comedy, annoying/bland characters, and incomprehensible action scenes, whereas Avengers has clever humor, likable characters, and thrilling action scenes? I mean, you're entitled to your opinion and all, but comparing it to a Michael Bay film is kind of a weak accusation.

You may feel that way, but I feel the opposite. I didn't feel that the characters were likable (bar Bruce and Tony), the action scenes thrilling and the jokes lost their charm after the first viewing. Transformers is definitely worse but it's the same bland and interchangeable stuff to me.

 

[EssayM]

shauner111:But to say if Batman can take out a guy with one punch then they should rethink their villain? That's stupid as hell. Riddler and Penguin and many others fall into that category. Being physical, tough on the exterior, isn't necessary in being a threatening or well written villain.

Let me clarify: I don't mind a physically average villain who can outsmart Batman or provides a psychological challenge. I also don't think a character has to look like Bane to be interesting or a worthy threat. Scarecrow, on the other hand, not only isn't a physical threat, but about all he can do is spray Batman with fear gas so that he hallucinates about his parents. That might lead to an interesting evolution in Batman's character, but not any sort of actual conflict with the Scarecrow, merely with Bruce himself. On top of that, he's not an interesting character, just a grown up nerd using science to get revenge on imaginary bullies; he comes off more pathetic than threatening. All, I'm saying is, he's a one-note character that presents very little challenge to Batman, physical or mental.

regwec:For me, The Avengers had the same detrimental flaw as all Marvel Studio stuff: it didn't feel like a real film at all, but an advert for things yet to come. All of those movies are designed to offer just enough to get a pass while setting up the next product for distribution. It is all about keeping the assembly line running; minimum wage and a ten minute coffee break every four hours. Quality control makes sure everything is exactly the same. Movies that misfire are trucked off to the reboot department.

I would hate to see Batman turned into something so hollow, predictable and cynical.

DC doesn't do the exact same thing?

MessiahDecoy123: Avengers to me was like reading a comic book. It showed people what makes goofy concepts like Avengers appealing to geeks of all ages.

Batman is a somewhat less goofy concept but there are other ways to show the public what makes the the comics and BTAS so appealing to geeks of all ages.

Embracing the comics and portraying them accurately means something different to the Batman universe than it does the Avengers' universe but it can be done.

Use the dark imaginative world of Batman to touch something real within us. A Batman movie shouldn't be a 2-hour apology for being a comic book.

Totally agree with this.

 

[Batmoan]

Here's my 5 things i'd change

1. The Bat voice. I get the need to change your voice to protect your identity, but just drop it an octave or something, don't sound like you have throat cancer.

2. I'd like to see more detective work being done by Batman. He is the world's greatest detective, at least show him do something. But not too much, or it erases the need for any GCPD personnel, and no batman film is right with a barely functional Commissioner Gordon (my one issue with the Burton films, that the Nolan films totally nailed. )

3. Maybe add 1 sidekick, but not Robin. Maybe have oracle as his communications specialist, leaving Lucius Fox for gadgets, not his right hand man.

4. More TAS influences. Maybe have Gotham designed the way it was portrayed in TAS, a very dark and Gothic style, like the Burton movies. BB had a good portrayal of the underside of Gotham, bleak and hopeless, maybe explore that theme for the whole city.

5. Maybe a more traditional Batmobile should be used. I like the tumbler and Batpod, but the Bat in TDKR was too gimmicky, almost like it belonged in a Schumacher film. Go back to the design used by Keaton's Batman, but modernise it where necessary.

 

[EssayM]

Well, now that I've refreshed the page...

To each their own with The Avengers, I guess. Still, I don't see what was unlikeable about Thor, Cap, Hawkeye, Black Widow, or Fury. They certainly weren't bland. Moreover, I felt the banter had character even when it wasn't particularly funny ("I have a plan - attack!" isn't funny, but it tells you who Tony Stark is), and the action scenes were engaging because you could see the civilians in peril and could see what was at stake. Also, Loki was a perfect villian, charming and funny in his own way, yet menacing and a genuine threat to the heroes. Anyone who says the Avengers was all light happy fun (or "popcorn fluff"), I can easily point to Loki casually murdering SHIELD agents, carving a dude's eye out of his skull, the things he threatens to do to Black Widow and Hawkeye, the speeches he makes about humans always kneeling. The movie has serious stuff in it, it just knows when to give the audience and the fans what they came to see. That, among all else, is the quality I want to see a Batman movie (and really all of the DCU) emulate: use good characters and story to back up the action. All plot and no action can be just as bad as all action and no plot.

 

[shauner111]

Hawkeye is the blandest goddamn character ever especially portrayed by Renner. Thor was useless the entire movie (Whedon's fault). I saw nothing at stake. Not once did I feel like anything bad was gonna happen. Hiddleston did well but Loki as the villain was a joke considering you have 6 superheroes getting together to fight a character that isn't even on par with General Zod in terms of power.

Murdering shield agents who then come back to life? Yeah...

I hope the DCU stays away from that approach. They need to carve their own identity and they can with more substance and maturity in their films. Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman deserve that.

 

[hafizbat]

Well, they tried the "mature" approach with Man of Steel, and it was a critical bust. Not everything has to be so serious and thought provoking. Sometimes people just want to see heroes save the day, plain and simple. I think the astounding success of The Avengers and Marvel films as a whole speak for themselves, and the reception of Man of Steel also says something. As Joss Whedon said "I'm not ready to make superheroes postmodern yet". I love both the TDK trilogy and Marvel/The Avengers. I don't see why one has to choose. They're both great in what they're trying to be.

And to whoever says every Marvel film is a trailer for the next, I can see why you might think that, but that complaint is not applicable to The Avengers. Every solo film led up to it and there's nothing in The Avengers like that.

Also, it's called a "shared universe" for a reason...

 

[hafizbat]

Also, I honestly cannot believe how someone can say The Avengers' action wasn't as good as Man of Steel or Star Trek or whatever. Tbh, that's downright hating and it's very clear. The Avengers has the BEST action of any big action flick, yes including Man of Steel.

It had heart, which was lacking in MoS.

I remember getting chills when the Hulk returned and took out the leviathan in one punch, and the Avengers assmebled.

I remember the scene of them all working together, it was great.

I remember the heroes fighting amongst themselves (Iron Man vs Thor, Thor vs Hulk) and the tension I felt while still being wowed.

I remember Cap being Cap and giving orders like a boss.

I remember Stark's act of sacrifice which brought his character to a whole new level.

Point is, all the action in The Avengers had heart, meaning, and was varied and thrilling.

All I remember from MoS is Supes crashing through buildings....and buildings....and buildings....and a satellite.

 

[EssayM]

I really feel silly defending The Avengers this much, but oh well, might as well...

1. Hawkeye's blandness I guess I can give you, though I've certainly seen worse and he at least left an impression on me.

2. Useless? I seem to recall he told them Loki's plan and motivation, fought the Hulk when he was out of control, made several efforts to get Loki to give up his plan, fought alongside the team in the final battle. Hell, he was the older brother of the bad guy! He was the only one who knew the enemy personally!

3. An alien invasion led by a power-mad dictator equals nothing at stake?

4. Since when is Zod a barometer for all villains? Zod has powers and abilities appropriate for fighting Superman. Loki's are suited for the Avengers: as a trickster god, he can amplify the resentment they already have for each other to distract them, as well as the staff's mind control abilities that allow him to take control of Hawkeye's skills and Selvig's intelligence. And anyway, weren't you just telling not to judge a character by his powers?

5. They came back to life? When did that happen? I remember Loki stabbing and blasting some when he came out the tesseract, and later he stabbed Coulson...were any of those characters resurrected in some scene I missed?

6. Substance and maturity aren't exclusive from fun, nor is having a unique identity. Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman also deserve that.

 

[shauner111]

Coulson is back on SHIELD in a stupid ret-con move. I guess that death meant nothing.

Nothing at stake, meaning I didn't feel it. I never felt like any civilians were in danger or the superheroes were going to get hurt or die. It doesn't help when the trailer shows Hulk catching Iron Man from the sky so his moment made me feel nothing because me and everyone else in the theater knew Hulk was going to catch him....since well.......it hadn't happened yet.

The only reason why Loki was chosen was so they can give Thor an excuse to be a part of the team so it made sense within the story. Loki is just a jealous brother in these movies who whines and wants to control everything. My point was you have Loki who isnt' even close to Zod's level of power and yet Superman can take him on. It takes 6 members to take on somebody like Loki and his army. I mean...a threat like Loki is something Superman handles on a monthly basis all by himself. You don't feel it when you watch it but once you see MOS it becomes clear how much they exaggerated Loki's threat.

To me, it was just a fun popcorn summer blockbuster with no substance. Americanized to the point where of course the entire alien invasion on planet earth is only in New York. You don't see the world reaction to such a groundbreaking event. It's just played for fun and games.

I like some meat on mah bones, if you know what I mean!

Then of course the whole thing feels like one big commercial for a sequel that has Thanos. And they're not even doing that villain until the 3rd movie, so I guess the second wont have huge stakes either because theyre all just going to save the day until the big bad Thanos rolls around. Im sick of Marvel's assembly line b.s. It's like fast food for movies.

Trust me, DC has a lot to blame. Look at Green Lantern or past Batman movies of the 90s. But they don't need to follow anybodys patterns.

Oh and MOS has action that makes Avengers look like a Saturday morning cartoon. Even ElMayimbe who loves marvel movies and LOVED the avengers said the same thing. There's some solid action scenes with Hulk and maybe Cap if my memory serves me correctly. But nothing on the level of MOS.

Most of the final fight in Avengers felt like stupid action with no meaning. Going from hero to hero while Hawkeye is diving off buildings shooting arrows and Cap and the rest are communicating through invisible ear pieces. But I get the MOS building battle complaints too. It was a bit much. Ill give you that. But at least their fight was personal and we saw the stakes a hundred times more. You felt the danger and the emotion. The action in the avengers was just playful like if you were watching Fast and The Furious or Transformers minus Bay's stupid quick shots.

 

[hafizbat]

Coulson is back on SHIELD in a stupid ret-con move. I guess that death meant nothing.

Nothing at stake, meaning I didn't feel it. I never felt like any civilians were in danger or the superheroes were going to get hurt or die. It doesn't help when the trailer shows Hulk catching Iron Man from the sky so his moment made me feel nothing because me and everyone else in the theater knew Hulk was going to catch him....since well.......it hadn't happened yet.

The only reason why Loki was chosen was so they can give Thor an excuse to be a part of the team so it made sense within the story. Loki is just a jealous brother in these movies who whines and wants to control everything. My point was you have Loki who isnt' even close to Zod's level of power and yet Superman can take him on. It takes 6 members to take on somebody like Loki and his army. I mean...a threat like Loki is something Superman handles on a monthly basis all by himself. You don't feel it when you watch it but once you see MOS it becomes clear how much they exaggerated Loki's threat.

To me, it was just a fun popcorn summer blockbuster with no substance. Americanized to the point where of course the entire alien invasion on planet earth is only in New York. You don't see the world reaction to such a groundbreaking event. It's just played for fun and games.

I like some meat on mah bones, if you know what I mean!

Then of course the whole thing feels like one big commercial for a sequel that has Thanos. And they're not even doing that villain until the 3rd movie, so I guess the second wont have huge stakes either because theyre all just going to save the day until the big bad Thanos rolls around. Im sick of Marvel's assembly line b.s. It's like fast food for movies.

Trust me, DC has a lot to blame. Look at Green Lantern or past Batman movies of the 90s. But they don't need to follow anybodys patterns.

Oh and MOS has action that makes Avengers look like a Saturday morning cartoon. Even ElMayimbe who loves marvel movies and LOVED the avengers said the same thing. There's some solid action scenes with Hulk and maybe Cap if my memory serves me correctly. But nothing on the level of MOS.

Most of the final fight in Avengers felt like stupid action with no meaning. Going from hero to hero while Hawkeye is diving off buildings shooting arrows and Cap and the rest are communicating through invisible ear pieces. But I get the MOS building battle complaints too. It was a bit much. Ill give you that. But at least their fight was personal and we saw the stakes a hundred times more. You felt the danger and the emotion. The action in the avengers was just playful like if you were watching Fast and The Furious or Transformers minus Bay's stupid quick shots.

Haha, I usually agree with you when it comes to stuff about the TDKT, but I believe you are way off base here my friend. No offense, but you sound like a total fanboy of DC haha. "Assembly line" Marvel? Marvel is doing something that takes guts and the talent to pull it off. They're making an entire shared universe, bringing the comic books to life on screen, and their financial success should be proof enough that the world is LOVING IT. If MoS' action was so good, why does it have a not only disappointing, but downright ATROCIOUS rating on RT? Most critics panned it. Can you explain why? It had the "best" action, the mature stuff, the serious tone, and the villain who, according to you, made you feel things were at stake. So why did it fail so bad compared to The Avengers? I'd like to hear what you think, rather than your continuous bashing of all things Marvel...

Also, I'm sorry but your argument about Zod being more powerful than Loki is incredibly childish and hard to take seriously....if you want to play that game,

EVERY SINGLE VILLAIN IN THE TDK TRILOGY WAS WEAKER THAN LOKI. But does that matter? ANY of the 4 main Avengers could EASILY take out Ras, Scarecrow, Two-Face, Joker, even Bane (who was the toughest thing Batman ever faced). Does that make Batman worthless??? Or dimish the stories in TDKT in any way?? I honestly cannot comprehend what you are trying to say by saying Zod was more powerful than Loki, which therefore means MoS was better than The Avengers....

And one last thing, how could you possibly say the whole movie was a trailer for Thanos when Thanos was on screen for 10 SECONDS AFTER THE CREDITS? He wasn't mentioned by name even ONCE during the whole entire movie, and even the after credits tease was for comic fans who know who Thanos is. Most of the GA have no idea who the "purple guy at the end" was. What kind of trailer doesn't mention even once what it's previewing? Ridiculous and complete fanboy nonsense, I'm sorry to say.

 

[Kryptonian Titan]

Haha, I usually agree with you when it comes to stuff about the TDKT, but I believe you are way off base here my friend. No offense, but you sound like a total fanboy of DC haha. "Assembly line" Marvel? Marvel is doing something that takes guts and the talent to pull it off. They're making an entire shared universe, bringing the comic books to life on screen, and their financial success should be proof enough that the world is LOVING IT. If MoS' action was so good, why does it have a not only disappointing, but downright ATROCIOUS rating on RT? Most critics panned it. Can you explain why? It had the "best" action, the mature stuff, the serious tone, and the villain who, according to you, made you feel things were at stake. So why did it fail so bad compared to The Avengers? I'd like to hear what you think, rather than your continuous bashing of all things Marvel...

Also, I'm sorry but your argument about Zod being more powerful than Loki is incredibly childish and hard to take seriously....if you want to play that game,

EVERY SINGLE VILLAIN IN THE TDK TRILOGY WAS WEAKER THAN LOKI. But does that matter? ANY of the 4 main Avengers could EASILY take out Ras, Scarecrow, Two-Face, Joker, even Bane (who was the toughest thing Batman ever faced). Does that make Batman worthless??? Or dimish the stories in TDKT in any way?? I honestly cannot comprehend what you are trying to say by saying Zod was more powerful than Loki, which therefore means MoS was better than The Avengers....

This.

 

[Shikamaru]

If MoS' action was so good, why does it have a not only disappointing, but downright ATROCIOUS rating on RT? Most critics panned it. Can you explain why? It had the "best" action, the mature stuff, the serious tone, and the villain who, according to you, made you feel things were at stake. So why did it fail so bad compared to The Avengers?

I don't agree with what Shauner is saying about Marvel but I would like to respond to this question nonetheless.

In a nutshell, the reason why critics panned MoS is because they don't understand what Superman in the modern times is supposed to be. Based on most of the reviews that panned it, these critics seem to be under the impression that Superman is supposed to be a lighthearted cheesy superhero story with a two-dimensional "I am a superhero and I love you random citizen!" version of Superman and that you can't really have a mature and serious tone in a Superman film. A lot of them are also too nostalgic for the Donner films and criticized MoS for not being more like them (I loved the Donner films too BTW but I don't let my nostalgia for them blind me like how critics do).

 

[hafizbat]

I don't agree with what Shauner is saying about Marvel but I would like to respond to this question nonetheless.

In a nutshell, the reason why critics panned MoS is because what Superman in the modern times is supposed to be. Based on most of the reviews that panned it, these critics seem to be under the impression that Superman is supposed to be a lighthearted cheesy superhero story with a two-dimensional "I am a superhero and I love you random citizen!" version of Superman and that you can't really have a mature and serious tone in a Superman film. A lot of them are also too nostalgic for the Donner films and criticized MoS for not being more liked them (I loved the Donner films too BTW but I don't let my nostalgia for them blind me like how critics do).

Yknow, I am in total agreement of your post. For the record, I really liked MoS, thought it was awesome. Call me weird, but I like The Avengers, TDKT, MoS, Xmen stuff etc. I just love superheroes in general. I thought Cavill was perfect as Superman and like you, I think this is a superman for the new generation. I saw MoS in theaters 3 times. MoS was awesome IMO. As much as it pained me though, I had to bring up its critical reception in order to bring a reality check to the whole "Avengers suck" stuff going on in here, and I'd like to hear what Shauner thinks about MoS' critical reception.

 

[shauner111]

Haha, I usually agree with you when it comes to stuff about the TDKT, but I believe you are way off base here my friend. No offense, but you sound like a total fanboy of DC haha. "Assembly line" Marvel? Marvel is doing something that takes guts and the talent to pull it off. They're making an entire shared universe, bringing the comic books to life on screen, and their financial success should be proof enough that the world is LOVING IT. If MoS' action was so good, why does it have a not only disappointing, but downright ATROCIOUS rating on RT? Most critics panned it. Can you explain why? It had the "best" action, the mature stuff, the serious tone, and the villain who, according to you, made you feel things were at stake. So why did it fail so bad compared to The Avengers? I'd like to hear what you think, rather than your continuous bashing of all things Marvel...

Also, I'm sorry but your argument about Zod being more powerful than Loki is incredibly childish and hard to take seriously....if you want to play that game,

EVERY SINGLE VILLAIN IN THE TDK TRILOGY WAS WEAKER THAN LOKI. But does that matter? ANY of the 4 main Avengers could EASILY take out Ras, Scarecrow, Two-Face, Joker, even Bane (who was the toughest thing Batman ever faced). Does that make Batman worthless??? Or dimish the stories in TDKT in any way?? I honestly cannot comprehend what you are trying to say by saying Zod was more powerful than Loki, which therefore means MoS was better than The Avengers....

And one last thing, how could you possibly say the whole movie was a trailer for Thanos when Thanos was on screen for 10 SECONDS AFTER THE CREDITS? He wasn't mentioned by name even ONCE during the whole entire movie, and even the after credits tease was for comic fans who know who Thanos is. Most of the GA have no idea who the "purple guy at the end" was. What kind of trailer doesn't mention even once what it's previewing? Ridiculous and complete fanboy nonsense, I'm sorry to say.

Some of my comments weren't fair. The stuff about Thanos or Loki is not fact, but it's just how im sick of Marvel Studios and their movies along with their post credit scenes. Im just REALLY fed up with it so I apologize for going on a rant.

BTW when I say Marvel, im talking mainly about the studio. I don't feel the same about Spider-Man or X-Men most of the time.

Critics aren't the fans or the general audience, at least not the critics who were giving MOS such a bad name. The GA loves the movie. It's a huge hit and it's getting a sequel and quite possibly a shared universe of its own. The critics who were slamming were basing it off of nostalgia and the only complaints ive heard thus far was that there was TOO much action. Not that the story elements were bad, quite the contrary. Or that the action was bad..nope, everyone seems to agree that the action in MOS is beyond amazing. Just too much of it. Nevertheless there's still a level of maturity and emotion that I think WB should run with to create their own persona.

I still believe Marvel (the studio) are doing assembly line b.s. It's just not what I like to watch, sorry. I AM a DC fanboy. Always have been even though I love a few Marvel characters. I wont apologize for it.

Batman is not a super-powered being, you cant compare. I can however compare my childish thoughts of Superman being able to handle Loki in his sleep while 6 heroes have trouble pulling it off. Because I feel like Superman can not only do it, but in MOS they give audiences a vulnerability and emotion and MATURITY to the character all at the same time. Which are things I don't believe Iron Man and the majority of the others have when you watch these movies.

I don't believe they treated Cap or Thor with the proper respect they deserve.

 

[regwec]

DC doesn't do the exact same thing?

DC does not have a film studio as a subsidiary, through which to make samey, bland and leaden adverts for other adverts about its costumed commercial properties. So, no, DC doesn't do the same thing at all. For all its faults- and I am tireless in identifying them- the Batman trilogy is on a completely different plane to Marvel's output.

Well, they tried the "mature" approach with Man of Steel, and it was a critical bust. Not everything has to be so serious and thought provoking. Sometimes people just want to see heroes save the day, plain and simple. I think the astounding success of The Avengers and Marvel films as a whole speak for themselves, and the reception of Man of Steel also says something. As Joss Whedon said "I'm not ready to make superheroes postmodern yet". I love both the TDK trilogy and Marvel/The Avengers. I don't see why one has to choose. They're both great in what they're trying to be.

I don't care what the critics say; in the modern era they seem to be more interested in whether movies are "competent" within their own arbitrarily drawn paradigm. The fact that, broadly speaking, the critics liked The Avengers and disliked MoS goes a long way to discrediting their collated opinions as any kind of arbiter of taste or quality, for me.

What you seem to be arguing for is for comicbook movies to aim squarely at the lowest common denominator, like The Avengers. I am so grateful that, so far, WB has allowed directors not to do that.

Avengers to me was like reading a comic book. It showed people what makes goofy concepts like Avengers appealing to geeks of all ages.

Batman is a somewhat less goofy concept but there are other ways to show the public what makes the the comics and BTAS so appealing to geeks of all ages.

Embracing the comics and portraying them accurately means something different to the Batman universe than it does the Avengers' universe but it can be done.

Use the dark imaginative world of Batman to touch something real within us. A Batman movie shouldn't be a 2-hour apology for being a comic book.

I completely agree with that, which is why I am so insistent that Marvel's film factory is not treated as some kind of benchmark for how to make comicbook movies. I would rather have movies that are occasionally pretentious and frustrating, like Nolan's Batman trilogy, or rough around the edges like MoS, than movies which feel like they have been designed by an accountant and a robot to hit just enough of the demographic's g-spots to sell further movie-tisements and toys.

It is my hope that the right creative decisions can be made by producers and directors of DC-based movies without reference to the Marvel stuff.

 

[EssayM]

Wow, shows how much can happen overnight on the Internet. This is a lot for me to respond to, so let me be brief...

I'm not suggesting that DC should completely copy the Marvel Approach in it's films; heck, I don't even see the need for DC to adopt the same Shared Universe approach. They're different properties, tell different stories if you have to. All I'm saying is they could learn from Marvel in terms of how to ground fantastical concepts without taking the fantasy out of them, and how to get fans and GA alike excited and coming back for more.

And for those saying the GA loved the movie, I would just like to point out something I saw on Wikipedia:

"However, on its second weekend, against stiffer competition, Man of Steel's box office fell almost 65%—almost 68%, if the Thursday night gross is included. Box Office Mojo called it an 'abnormally large drop', close to the second weekend decline for Green Lantern."

Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3695&p=s.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Steel_(film)#cite_note-125
Meanwhile, The Avengers made over a billion dollars worldwide and is currently the third-highest-grossing film of all time.

Just saying.

 

[regwec]

Yeah, The Avengers was a supremely efficient commercial enterprise. It felt like it, too, which is why I will never watch it again.

I would like the next Batman film to be a proper film.

 

[EssayM]

So you prefer the next Batman movie to be one that barely anyone sees and makes no money, thus guaranteeing no sequel and an even longer wait for a Justice League movie, as long as it's a "proper film" in your eyes? Filmmakers have to eat, you know.

 

[dmc]

1. Lose the bat growl (batman should still have a menacing deep voice though)
2. Allow whichever actor is playing Batman to be able to breathe properly with the cowl on, although I don't remember this being a problem with any other version.
3. Delve deeper into his detective side

I don't think that's asking for too much. If there's one thing that I'd love to see carried over to the reboot, if possible, is Hans Zimmer's score. Was just listening to 'Why do we fall', chills every time.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I completely agree with that, which is why I am so insistent that Marvel's film factory is not treated as some kind of benchmark for how to make comicbook movies. I would rather have movies that are occasionally pretentious and frustrating, like Nolan's Batman trilogy, or rough around the edges like MoS, than movies which feel like they have been designed by an accountant and a robot to hit just enough of the demographic's g-spots to sell further movie-tisements and toys.

It is my hope that the right creative decisions can be made by producers and directors of DC-based movies without reference to the Marvel stuff.

I think you're mistaking Avengers as soulless, lazy paint-by-numbers filmaking when it simply exposes the true appeal of comics in a way 95% of superhero movies fail to do.

The Nolan approach has been done and any attempts to copy it will end up confused distortions (I'm looking at you Zack Snyder).

Find a gifted director who appreciates the best comics, BTAS and the Arkham video game series has to offer and show the side of Batman's appeal that's not a slave to plausibility. It won't look or feel like Avengers or Nolan-verse.

 

[shauner111]

So you prefer the next Batman movie to be one that barely anyone sees and makes no money, thus guaranteeing no sequel and an even longer wait for a Justice League movie, as long as it's a "proper film" in your eyes? Filmmakers have to eat, you know.

He never said that.

 

[shauner111]

I think you're mistaking Avengers as soulless, lazy paint-by-numbers filmaking when it simply exposes the true appeal of comics in a way 95% of superhero movies fail to do.

The Nolan approach has been done and any attempts to copy it will end up confused distortions (I'm looking at you Zack Snyder).

Find a gifted director who appreciates the best comics, BTAS and the Arkham video game series has to offer and show the side of Batman's appeal that's not a slave to plausibility. It won't look or feel like Avengers or Nolan-verse.

It is. It doesn't expose the true appeal of the comics. The comics (at least the ones I read) have substance attached to it, there's a message. Maybe it captured the Avengers comics properly, I don't know because I don't have any interest in reading comics from those specific characters. But if it's accurate, that tells me there's nothing but fluff coming from those characters in the source material, or you're just mistaken and Joss Whedon fluffed it up way more than it really is.

What was a confused distortion about MOS? It was a Superman film. A science fiction film about first contact, because well, Kal-El IS an alien from another planet. It striked a balance of fun/sci-fi action with CG (they are super-powered beings afterall) along with emotional integrity and some realism added to Smallville and the Kents. This is just the way Superman is.

I do however agree with what you're saying at the end there, with BTAS & Arkham. That's the way to go. But im not expecting it to be as crazy as that. Im expecting it to be somewhere in between that and Nolan's films.

 

[EssayM]

He never said that.

He may not have, but unlike your criticism, which for the most part seem to be valid complaints, regwec's seems to be simply that it was a film made with the intention of making money. I was simply asking, would he prefer a movie designed to crash and burn financially, so long as it met his standards? Art and commerce are inseparable; one cannot exist without the other.