Moderator: Andrew
YoungJRNYfan wrote:RT audience score settled at 68% with a 3.7/5 rating. Not bad for a site like RT who panned the movie. Besides, we all know sites like IMdB is a more accurate barometer when it comes down to how fans or audiences rank films. IMdB ranks Batman V Superman at 72% with a 7.2/10 rating with 50,000+ more users who ranked the film compared to RT. With DC being darker and much broodier, it's not perfect but at the same time, no matter what you say, people are looking forward to the DCEU. Wonder Woman got people talking and the Flash's warning has people debating what is happening. Mission accomplished. It's all good.
Monker wrote:YoungJRNYfan wrote: Wow, when 70% is seen as "not bad", that really says it all. Complete denial that the movie sucks.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
verslibre wrote:I predict when RDJ is done, they won't recast that role for years, because the next guy will have a hard act to follow. Though they have no idea what the comics Tony is like (nor do they care), audiences will regard it the same had they tried to recast "Dirty" Harry Callahan, i.e. not well at all.
RedWingFan wrote:Nobody in the theater gave 2 shits that Superman "died" at the end. There's no emotional attachment to the guy after 2 movies.
YoungJRNYfan wrote:Even as a big fan of the DCEU, I outright admit where DC's wrongdoing's can turn some people or the audience off and that's okay with me. It's actually pretty easy to pick out. Any fans of MoS or BvS will admit the films faults. But not once did any of you Marvelites ever question or admit some of the things Marvel may be doing that may have lost some fans along the way (and they have; not every movie is good. Every film has its flaws.) Which brings up the question: Who REALLY is in denial?
YoungJRNYfan wrote:"GREEN LANTERN CORPS" ENLISTS KYLE RAYNER; "THE FLASH" CASTING THESE 5 CHARACTERS
http://www.comicbookresources.com/artic ... characters
The_Noble_Cause wrote:RedWingFan wrote:Nobody in the theater gave 2 shits that Superman "died" at the end. There's no emotional attachment to the guy after 2 movies.
Superman spends most of BvsS acting aloof and pensive. Plus, he plays second banana to Affleck's Batman. So his sacrifice just doesn't resonate in any way. Nobody is rooting for Cavill's dour goth version of Superman. He's simply, just, 'there.'
Monker wrote:I spose you are just sposed to care about him because, hey, he's Superman.
RedWingFan wrote:We could also go by first week box office drop off too, but trust me you don't want to do that. Lol. DC's box office drops Reminds me of the old cheech and chong Christmas skit. "Man, her cookies were so good, I could almost eat one"
Monker wrote: So, you guys are actually excited that Green Lantern is going to be kind of "buddy" film?
YoungJRNYfan wrote:RedWingFan wrote:We could also go by first week box office drop off too, but trust me you don't want to do that. Lol. DC's box office drops Reminds me of the old cheech and chong Christmas skit. "Man, her cookies were so good, I could almost eat one"
The drops are big and most action blockbusters are always frontloaded, but that's no indication if a person liked a movie or not. There's so many factors in BO receipts that are impossible to pin-point.
The_Noble_Cause wrote: Superman spends most of BvsS acting aloof and pensive. Plus, he plays second banana to Affleck's Batman. So his sacrifice just doesn't resonate in any way. Nobody is rooting for Cavill's dour goth version of Superman. He's simply, just, 'there.'
Yup. And it doesn't work because we've have one film, Man of Steel, which is essentially Superman Begins, and another, BvsS, which is busy and all over the place. This is a Superman that wearily puts his tights on one leg at a time as he debates a mid-life career change. Doomsday simply put him out of his misery.
YoungJRNYfan wrote:Monker wrote: So, you guys are actually excited that Green Lantern is going to be kind of "buddy" film?
That's a ways down the road, and everything surrounding that project is rumor at best, so it's all speculation. Are you familiar with Green Lantern? Do you know that there isn't just ONE Green Lantern? And did you know the team of Green Lantern (The Green Lantern Corps) consists of fun/funny personalities like Hal Jordan (why do you think Ryan Reynolds was cast in the first one?) and characters like Guy Gardner? Considering the Lanterns operate as intergalactic cops in each of their respective sectors in the known galaxy ontop of having multiple personalities operating AS Green Lanterns in their own establishment, it makes sense to see them interact in some sort of "buddy" way if you understood the characters that are rumored to be used in 'Green Lantern Corps'.It's almost like Lethal Weapon meets Star Wars. Green Lantern Corps has big potential.
The_Noble_Cause wrote: Batman vs Supes is just a massive creative failure.
..now being ret-conned into a Bat-centric universe.
YoungJRNYfan wrote:You bring up some interesting points, but I think they are misleading in what Snyder is actually doing with Superman that are going right over people's heads, and that's fine because we are so use to Superman being told only one way.
In some universe's or movies, "death" is usually the payoff after a great buildup of character. Here, Superman is built up (like you say) as a conflicted hero trying to do the right thing, but in a "gothic"(?) type of way as he "puts his tights on one leg at a time" because the world around him simply doesn't "care" for him. That's the point. If this "world" doesn't care for him, why should we(the audience?)
His "death" isn't the payoff or what's at stake for Superman in this world. His death is simply his rebirth in many ways. You say Doomsday puts Superman out of his misery, but that's not what is manipulatig the audience to "like" Superman. The audience see's this Superman as broken, "aloof" and in misery, so how awesome is it going to be to see Superman come back to cheers, smiles and tears from the same ones who doubted him or questioned his importance? That's the point.
Beloved characters go through the arc of being loved and we feel that MISERY and pain when they perish.
Monker wrote:YoungJRNYfan wrote:Monker wrote: Stop it with all of the "Comic Book speak".
Monker wrote:Wow, when 70% is seen as "not bad", that really says it all. Complete denial that the movie sucks.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:verslibre wrote:I predict when RDJ is done, they won't recast that role for years, because the next guy will have a hard act to follow. Though they have no idea what the comics Tony is like (nor do they care), audiences will regard it the same had they tried to recast "Dirty" Harry Callahan, i.e. not well at all.
RDJ had to fight to get chosen for the part. He wasn't an A-lister at the time. The big draw was the movie itself. Marvel may wait a few years, but I think they would have no problem recasting the role. In several interviews, Kevin Feige has already said that the plan is to re-cast Iron Man just like James Bond.
Monker wrote:If it went over people's heads, then the story telling FAILED. Do you not see that you are making excuses
He is not 'built up' as anything.
If the world doesn't care for him, and the audience doesn't care for him...
and there is definitely no point in a death scene.
But, as you say above, the audience doesn't care if he is broken or not, in 'misery' or not. He's just sorta going through the motions until he has to fight Batman and then Doomsday.
Superman comes in saving people from terrorists and Clark jumps into the tub with his girl.
Even Bruce comes in witnessing the city being destroyed and acting in a human and relatable way.
Wonder Woman comes in as Diane.
Superman/Clark didn't and therefore everything about the character arc was missed
...and his death was pointless.
verslibre wrote:Actually, Favreau fought to get him in there. They're buddies. The studio didn't want RDJ. He was regarded as a burnout at that point. His is one of the biggest Hollywood comebacks ever.
Monker wrote:People who went to see BvS were not going in expecting to see Ant-man or Guardians of the Galaxy. They were expecting this dark and brooding "war" between Batman and Superman set in a TDK meets MOS sorta world. Anybody who paid ANY attention or watch ANY trailer, or saw ANY poster knew what to expect. Instead of getting what they expected, they got a mash up of crap with 45mins of decent actions.
Monker wrote:People didn't like it because it was "dark", they didn't like it because it sucked.
Monker wrote:I said right up front that I had absolutely no interest in seeing Ant-Man because the entire concept sounds stupid. I have not gone on and on defending Iron Man 2 or 3, or Thor:TDW. I think you guys are way too critical of them, even compared to your own rankings at times, However, Marvel has not ignored 10,000 years of storytelling and gone and tried to reinvent it and completely screwed up a movie in the process...BvS deserves the critique it received from critics, and fans. It's a BAD MOVIE....not simply filled with lame jokes and dialogue. Snyder showed how horrible of a story teller he really is, and frankly, DC should replace him before he gets too far into Justice League.
YoungJRNYfan wrote:Henry Cavill’s Superman May End Up Having A Very Different Look In Justice League
http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/henr ... ce-league/
YoungJRNYfan wrote:If Batman V Superman is a massive creative failure, then you can't turn around and say how DC can't wait for an Affleck lead solo film to rush into production because Affleck's Batman IS a creative product of Batman V Superman.
YoungJRNYfan wrote:Pump the breaks. Lets wait and find out. Charles Roven and Snyder already said they are placing Supe's solo on their board and Snyder said they never announced a Super solo to allow the events in BvS play out first. I would bet Superman gets his solo either after JL1 or immediately after JL2.
verslibre wrote:Monker wrote:Wow, when 70% is seen as "not bad", that really says it all. Complete denial that the movie sucks.
Have you patented the recipe for your Weaksauce® ?
Back in grammar school when I first learned about numbers and percentages, we were shown that something like "7/10" reads "7 out of 10," or in this case, 7 out of 10 people like the movie. Which is more than half, if you're into fractions.
The "beloved" Ant-Man: 7.4/10 (based on 272K user ratings) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478970/?ref_=nv_sr_1
You'll notice a few Marvel movies have settled into comparable scores:
Iron Man 2: 7.0/10 (based on 503K user ratings) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228705/?ref_=nv_sr_3
Thor: 7.0/10 (based on 513K user ratings) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/?ref_=nv_sr_3
Even the billion dollar-grossing Iron Man 3 is at 7.3 – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1300854/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Not everything sits at 8.5 (or higher), or, in the case of The Dark Knight, 9.0 (based on 1.6M ratings): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/?ref_=nv_sr_1
IMO, IMDb is a far better source to gauge what people like than RT.
verslibre wrote:Dozens of people I've spoken to in "real life" — friends and friends-of-friends, relatives, acquaintances, total strangers — (minus one) have told me they loved or liked BvS.
“There have been 11 or 12 movies so far, all with a fairly traditional structure. Our pitch to them was: People will tell you they love chocolate ice cream — until you give it to them five days a week. It’s time to give them some rainbow sherbet. Kevin [Feige] is a maverick and he’s very sensitive to how people are responding to his content. He said he thought we might be right. And after they announced Batman v. Superman, he said, ‘you guys are absolutely right.’ We needed to do something challenging with the material or we were going to start to lose the audience.”
The_Noble_Cause wrote:verslibre wrote:Actually, Favreau fought to get him in there. They're buddies. The studio didn't want RDJ. He was regarded as a burnout at that point. His is one of the biggest Hollywood comebacks ever.
And Feige fought for him too. But Downey had to screen test for the part and the head of Marvel, Avi Arad, flat-out did not want him. When was the last time an A-list actor had to screen test? Downey was a risky gamble and he's lucky Marvel picked him - not the other way around. Nobody was chasing Downey down for the role.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Iron Man is no different than Batman or Bond and it really matters very little who plays him. The character is larger than any one actor. And if you don't think Marvel believes that, go ask Ed Norton.
Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests