Very early reaction to Batman v Superman screening

[Nostalgiabuff]

How does this movie compare to Batman forever and Green Lantern?

I liked Batman Forever, quite a lot in fact. it was Batman and Robin that sucked apples, although the kids all loved it. this new movie it way better though

[hedrap]

I don't know if BvS got as the promotional dollars MOS did, but they need that offset to make a theatrical profit. Otherwise, it's break-even and the ROI is in ancillary, Blu-Ray and whatnot.

[MIB41]

If you got the implication that I thought this wouldn't turn a big profit, then I apologize for my lack of clarity.

I think they've already made a sizable profit.

My actual point was that that isn't the bottom line as far as moving forward unaffected by negative reception such as BvS has gotten (and is getting).

I think because of the merchandising leg of films like this, opinions tend to carry a little more weight because often times there's a direct impact to the vendors who participate in that promotion and financing of these films. Companies tied to promotional product like McDonalds or Pepsi might take a different position on a franchise should there be a highly negative reaction, which their marketing arm would not want translated to their product's image if the connotation is deemed inappropriate. In situations like Batman & Robin and Superman IV, the reviews may have been tough but the promotional tie-ins and product lines were very successful because the basic image of the heroes was intact. Most of the branding of films like that came after the fact and with the advent of online forums that harvest contempt for these movies.

So I absolutely agree with you that box office is not necessarily the final say in any of these films. But I think maybe the term best describing (in a very general way) the likelihood of another related project is the momentum gained or lost by the latest venture. Anticipation is everything to film. Iron man 3 was a direct result of people wanting to continue celebrating their love of the first Avenger's film. It caught so much business off of that film because of it's direct association and the public's fondness for the characters. Quality was only assessed after the buzz calmed down, as is often the case with allot of movies. So, in my eyes, a movie like BVS was really billed and bragged to be the first high profile step into the new DC universe of films. The marketing for WB pretty much created this monster of a problem they have now. They made lofty statements about BVS's importance and even suggested a benchmark of a billion dollars as the minimum they expected to haul from this project. So the studio set the standard high for this film and those remarks have come back to bite them and hurts the perception of this film. Had the movie been made for considerably less and the marketing been more conservative, perhaps these box office numbers would be deemed more impressive and the movie, while still very front-loaded in terms of it's business, may be getting better reception for what it did do right.

I've heard allot of people talk about the feeling of contempt expressed by critics and those who generally just don't like the film as if there was some inner prejudice to strike out against it. I'm beginning to think some of that is most likely rooted in the marketing of this film and this kind of snobbish attitude the studio and it's director emoted in making early suggestions about it's "importance" and the director's detached opinion about the fans and doing it "his way". So I believe there's been a bit of a kickback here because of the studio giving this suggestion they were "too big to fail" coupled with the fact this "great gift from the studio Gods" is not all that great after-all, hence the plunge in ticket sales.

So there are allot of lessons to take from this film, least of all, not to blow your horn too early. How all of this configures moving forward into Justice League will be interesting to watch. How the studio chooses to take a position on this reaction will be even more interesting. Hopefully they have their eyes wide open. The public's certainly are.

[enyawd72]

It's ironic really...the entire film can be summed up by one of it's own lines of dialogue.

"Don't hand me a jar of pee and tell me it's granny's sweet ice tea."

[huedell]

...I think maybe the term best describing (in a very general way) the likelihood of another related project is the momentum gained or lost by the latest venture. Anticipation is everything to film.

I agree.. it's (just about) everything in these "event movies" scenarios---as I'm learning, the more I am educated on the biz there.

Iron man 3 was a direct result of people wanting to continue celebrating their love of the first Avenger's film.

Certainly. And that's a bonus well-deserved/earned by Marvel's deliberate universe building.

Then there's the converse of "earning" with WB/DC...

The marketing for WB pretty much created this monster of a problem they have now. They made lofty statements about BVS's importance and even suggested a benchmark of a billion dollars as the minimum they expected to haul from this project.

i don't blame them for doubling down---- too bad they did so with as much of a misfire as I could imagine they could muster with a Batman and Superman movie. I'm not particularly enjoying being a DC fan at the moment (tho' I shall recover quick enough!)

How all of this configures moving forward into Justice League will be interesting to watch. How the studio chooses to take a position on this reaction will be even more interesting. Hopefully they have their eyes wide open. The public's certainly are.

All signs are pointing to exactly what I (and many here at the Museum) want: A coordinated public relations damage control on behalf of WB via the voices behind the Aquaman (recent statement re: "fun"), Flash/Cyborg (recent statement re: "fun"), and Suicide Squad (reshoots!) film projects.

Speaking of the Suicide Squad situation--- I can't believe they revealed that they were fooling people with the fun tone of the recent trailer. Nerds on the whole didn't like the BvS trailer where 90 percent of the the humor in the whole film was shown (apparently it was too cringeworthy and they wanted more action), but I loved that trailer and felt manipulated when I saw the actual movie, and realized it wasn't going to be that fun after all.

[MIB41]

Certainly. And that's a bonus well-deserved/earned by Marvel's deliberate universe building.

Then there's the converse of "earning" with WB/DC...

You hit the nail on the head right there. No matter how "popular" or familiar fans of comics might be with their heroes, you still have this massive population called the general public who are less informed and need some backstory to help drive these kinds of films. It's always made sense to me that if you want to build towards an ensemble of characters (like the Avengers or Justice League) you are best serviced to celebrate those high profile heroes separately in order to justify that union. To me, starting off with a union tends to dilute the relevance of the heroes individually because now you have conditioned the general audience to see them in a group environment. And I think that applies in all genres. When Stallone made the Expendables with that ensemble of aging action stars I understood the gimmick, but I immediately thought to myself, "You just took yourself out of circulation to do anymore solo projects in your preferred genre because you just validated the stereotype and devalued everyone else by saying you can't do it alone anymore". And that turned out to be true. But I digress...

So WB making this film of rushed cameos leading into a Justice League film that has more question marks than anticipation is, to me, about as backwards as it gets. And once these characters are introduced, there may not be any interest in a stand alone film if they are not engaging enough in this ensemble. Like Snyder is going to make a charming and enduring character out of any of them. Marvel can enjoy both ways because they already established the lead heroes in individual movies. So those projects carry their own separate strengths as solo pieces while contributing to the greater creation of the Marvel universe. The general public can be fans of this universe without having to pick up a single comic book. To me that is the smart way to do it. Of course as time goes on and more and more heroes share space in these individual movies, it might take away the relevance of doing anymore Avengers films. But we'll save that for another discussion!

i don't blame them for doubling down---- too bad they did so with as much of a misfire as I could imagine they could muster with a Batman and Superman movie. I'm not particularly enjoying being a DC fan at the moment (tho' I shall recover quick enough!)

What reads as an odd contradiction to me is how faithful in spirit the television product seems to be towards the DC universe while the movie incarnations seem to be run by people more detached and less engaged to the source material. The theatrical leg of the business almost seems ashamed of it's comic book roots. I don't particularity regard Snyder as a real fan of the comics. He's this fella who has a very artsy approach to fantasy-style films (like 300). But because he was tapped to do the Watchmen, he got pulled into this world he seems to know little about and has even more disdain for it's fans than George Lucas and the Star Wars tribe.

But above and beyond my dislike for the director, I just think the days of having to constantly reinvent the Burton Batman in black rubber with a stronger reference to Frank Miller's 'Dark Knight Returns' is just played out. I think we've graduated from that. If the public can embrace and celebrate Antman, Deadpool, and Guardians of the Galaxy then I think it's a safe bet they would go hog wild for a Jim Aparo or Neil Adams Batman. I would just like to see these heroes returned to their most popular comic book roots. It's not 1978 anymore. Gentleman, we have the technology...

Speaking of the Suicide Squad situation--- I can't believe they revealed that they were fooling people with the fun tone of the recent trailer. Nerds on the whole didn't like the BvS trailer where 90 percent of the the humor in the whole film was shown (apparently it was too cringeworthy and they wanted more action), but I loved that trailer and felt manipulated when I saw the actual movie, and realized it wasn't going to be that fun after all.

You know I might be the only person on this planet within a defined circle of folks referred to as 'comic-book fans' who thinks this is the most ill-conceived train wreck of idea that has come down the alley in a long time. And when I heard about it's budget being as big as BVS? I couldn't help but think about the debacle of Green Lantern. Personally I think this has zero chance of profitability. ZERO. First, the name is completely unfamiliar to anything the general public has a clue about. I even had to look it up when I first heard about it. Second, it's most iconic character, the Joker, does not remotely look like any other incarnation from film or popular comics that one would associate with the villain so there's a sense of removal there. And lastly nothing in the trailers really makes it look all that engaging. It looks as confusing in concept as the treatment appears in trailers. Add in the fact this film not only has to shoulder the bad press from BVS, but will be the followup act to another high profile film like Civil War. Then couple that with the DVD releases of Deadpool and probably BVS on the market, PLUS kids getting ready to go back to school in a week or so after it's release, I doubt there will be ANY appetite for another film in this genre composed mostly of secondary characters. I think the critics will kill it and the public, not knowing what this is, will listen to those reviews as well. It's not critic proof like Batman and Superman are. I just think it is completely DOA.

[huedell]

To me, starting off with a union tends to dilute the relevance of the heroes individually because now you have conditioned the general audience to see them in a group environment.

I agree... but I think there's a middle ground between what Marvel has done and "rushing the whole deal" as WB wants to do. Twosome "Brave & Bold" type team-ups would have complimented the BvS idea well, but they should have left the rest of the JL out of BvS for the reason you mentioned IMHO. The "villain team-up" approach of villains (if done right) is a great outside-of-the-box approach to jumpstart the cinematic DCU... more on that in a sec.

...projects carry their own separate strengths as solo pieces while contributing to the greater creation of the Marvel universe. The general public can be fans of this universe without having to pick up a single comic book. To me that is the smart way to do it. Of course as time goes on and more and more heroes share space in these individual movies, it might take away the relevance of doing anymore Avengers films. But we'll save that for another discussion!

There's nothing about that assessment that I don't like. We already saw the Avengers team-up twice. Now I want to see a Cap, Hulk and Spidey threesome team-up together in a flick... surprise me.

What reads as an odd contradiction to me is how faithful in spirit the television product seems to be towards the DC universe while the movie incarnations seem to be run by people more detached and less engaged to the source material. The theatrical leg of the business almost seems ashamed of it's comic book roots. I don't particularity regard Snyder as a real fan of the comic...

Ugh. I'm the real victim here Ha. But, seriously, what I'm getting at is that while I'm a huge Marvel fan and an even HUGER DC fan, I don't have patience for the T.V. shows---and really--- not that much drive to see the movies either. I cherrypick---and try to catch the well-recommended ones that I've missed at home...months, maybe years later. Then, here you have a movie I really want to enjoy in the theater like BvS---and it falls quite short of expectations. Dang.

But above and beyond my dislike for the director, I just think the days of having to constantly reinvent the Burton Batman in black rubber with a stronger reference to Frank Miller's 'Dark Knight Returns' is just played out. I think we've graduated from that. If the public can embrace and celebrate Antman, Deadpool, and Guardians of the Galaxy then I think it's a safe bet they would go hog wild for a Jim Aparo or Neil Adams Batman. I would just like to see these heroes returned to their most popular comic book roots. It's not 1978 anymore. Gentleman, we have the technology...

You said it... not me See, I want what you just said YOU want... but I wouldn't want to be the one to turn this stuff TOO far to how I'd like it as far as a lighter film. I'm thnking of the general public. But I agree with your taste, and I hope WB/DC takes strides in that direction. I too am sick of the Burton, Nolan trajectory that takes us ever deeper into "If it's darker and dryer... it HAS to be better" territory.

You know I might be the only person on this planet within a defined circle of folks referred to as 'comic-book fans' who thinks this is the most ill-conceived train wreck of idea that has come down the alley in a long time. And when I heard about it's budget being as big as BVS? I couldn't help but think about the debacle of Green Lantern. Personally I think this has zero chance of profitability. ZERO. First, the name is completely unfamiliar to anything the general public has a clue about. I even had to look it up when I first heard about it. Second, it's most iconic character, the Joker, does not remotely look like any other incarnation from film or popular comics that one would associate with the villain so there's a sense of removal there. And lastly nothing in the trailers really makes it look all that engaging. It looks as confusing in concept as the treatment appears in trailers. Add in the fact this film not only has to shoulder the bad press from BVS, but will be the followup act to another high profile film like Civil War. Then couple that with the DVD releases of Deadpool and probably BVS on the market, PLUS kids getting ready to go back to school in a week or so after it's release, I doubt there will be ANY appetite for another film in this genre composed mostly of secondary characters. I think the critics will kill it and the public, not knowing what this is, will listen to those reviews as well. It's not critic proof like Batman and Superman are. I just think it is completely DOA.

Interesting take on Suicide Squad. I hope you're wrong about a lot of that stuff.... although I can see that stuff's potential for being the future.

Here's what I'll say:
There's no reason Suicide Squad shouldn't be GREAT.

It has the double-threat writer AND director from one of my ALL-TIME favorite films "Training Day". If Suicide Squad is indeed killed by the critics, I will be aghast, astounded and any number of other outraged things

It also has Harley Quinn and Will Smith---cameos from Batman and who knows who else----that could really boost the thing.

As I said earlier Suicide Squad was a wonderfully unique tactic to battle the MCU with--- a DCU villain team-up movie like SS presents SO many opportunities for DC cinematic universe-building that other approaches lack. Hopefully, SS will take advantage of those opportunities and make up for their recent missteps

[weshightower21]

I know a lot of these filmmakers have huge egos and they want the film to be "theirs" and distance themselves from what has come before in certain aspects but I think if they incorporated the JW Superman theme into these films it could make a world of difference. I don't mean play it throughout, but certain select scenes. The best example I can come up with is when superman crushes Zods hand in Superman 2. That scene still gives me chills in a good way. BTW I have seen the film and I did enjoy it. The movie is pretty joyless though IMO.

[Spyweb007]

Warner Brothers seems to be sticking to their guns and not changing the plan for the upcoming DC movies, I only wish they had that much conviction back when Superman Returns and Green Lantern came out. I think both of those could have been course corrected in their respective sequels and we would be well into the DC movie verse by now. Both of those movies had problems falling short of their potential, but I think they would have been easier fixes as the general tone did not feel too far off, unlike Man of Steel, and apparently what most people feel about Batman V Superman also. Green Lantern need a better villain and a bit more off-Earth action, and Sinestro would have been a great villain as portrayed. Superman Returns needed a bit more action and a little less rehash of Lex's Land scheme. Biggest problem would be dealing with the kid in the future movies.

[MIB41]

Warner Brothers seems to be sticking to their guns and not changing the plan for the upcoming DC movies, I only wish they had that much conviction back when Superman Returns and Green Lantern came out. I think both of those could have been course corrected in their respective sequels and we would be well into the DC movie verse by now. Both of those movies had problems falling short of their potential, but I think they would have been easier fixes as the general tone did not feel too far off, unlike Man of Steel, and apparently what most people feel about Batman V Superman also. Green Lantern need a better villain and a bit more off-Earth action, and Sinestro would have been a great villain as portrayed. Superman Returns needed a bit more action and a little less rehash of Lex's Land scheme. Biggest problem would be dealing with the kid in the future movies.

In terms of changing direction, they couldn't say anything about that publicly even if that decision was made, because it could potentially impact the business BVS is getting right now. If any changes have been made we won't know anything about them for some time. Snyder could easily be bound to a disclosure agreement in his contract that doesn't allow him to speak publicly about any high level changes (even those that impact him).

[Nostalgiabuff]

I think the biggest issue with WB is they have no faith in their characters. if they did, they would have introduced each character in their own movie and then spun them into Justice League, just like Marvel did. instead, we get a rushed push of all these characters pushed into BvS just so they can be introduced and set up the 2 justice league movies. I hope they can course correct and get us some great movies, but if not, we always have Marvel movies

[emeraldknight47]

I think the biggest issue with WB is they have no faith in their characters. if they did, they would have introduced each character in their own movie and then spun them into Justice League, just like Marvel did. instead, we get a rushed push of all these characters pushed into BvS just so they can be introduced and set up the 2 justice league movies. I hope they can course correct and get us some great movies, but if not, we always have Marvel movies

If WB/DC were smart, they would sell all the movie rights for their characters to Disney/MARVEL and then let MARVEL Studios start making movies of DC characters. Yeah, it would seem a little weird seeing the MARVEL Studios logo come up before or after the DC logo, but MARVEL Studios seems to have a far better handle on how to interpret comic-book characters for the big screen and still retain whatever it is that makes them great characters. It would never happen, but it's an interesting idea to entertain...

[huedell]

If WB/DC were smart, they would sell all the movie rights for their characters to Disney/MARVEL...It would never happen, but it's an interesting idea to entertain...

I dunno, man. I can see it happening. Just the movies, right?

I mean, look at what Disney swung with Fox/Spidey.

And, look at the BIG Lucasy bucks Disney invested in their "sci-fi/space opera fantasy" potential earnings, so as not to look to their reboot of their Black Hole franchise to carry that weight.

Disney may see something like this as comparatively worth their while. And WB/DC may feel lame duck enough to concede.

That'll fast track that Marvel Universe Vs. DC Universe film franchise REAL quick

[hedrap]

Marvel would never agree because they feel the market is too crowded to begin with. They had superhero no-competes at every studio before the Disney merge.

I liked the idea of spinning all of the characters out of JLA. I don't like starting it in BvS. They panicked and it backfired.

The biggest problem WB has is the mistrust of their own designs. When you compare the BvS costumes to Civil War and Doctor Strange...what excuse do they have for deviating so dramatically?

The multicerse approach seems to be causing more problems than expected. They originally envisioned it as a way to short-hand knowledge about secondary characters and instead the TV guys have more support than the film. Only way that works is if everyone is working on a per-case basis. That way when something bombs, the people responsible are gone. You can't offered guarantees like Affleck and Snyder had.

Snyder's reason for not using Grant Gustin is flat-out asinine as he's incapable of admitting he won't use him, simply because he won't get the credit. If you're in charge at WB, you know the draw Gustin and Ammel have become. It's your job to tell Snyder the choice is no longer his and he needs to work with them and figure it out.

[huedell]

Marvel would never agree because they feel the market is too crowded to begin with. They had superhero no-competes at every studio before the Disney merge.

Wouldn't such a "no-compete" mindset pre-Disney merge and the overall present attitude of Marvel thinking it's overcrowded to begin with be the type of factors that support an agreement to take on DC film properties, just as much as "not" to?

I mean, if Marvel played their cards right contract-wise (utilizing Disney's bankroll, stock holders, etc) they could exchange a streamlining of DC characters (aka lessening the competition) with the stats to diagram that kind of DC streamlining plan that STILL supported better franchise results for DC characters in the movies than they have at present.

Heck, I propose that if it wasn't for a few billion dollar risk that Disney would have to take (along with a very strategic contract--like the one I played with above---that'd aim to please goals of both parties ala the Spidey deal with Fox), they'd both be likely considering such a deal right at this moment.