You sound like Fox News, "Some people claim" or "Most are saying." Who are these people? As a singular moviegoer and a movie fan, the reception to BB was universally positive. MOS, which I think is slightly better than BB, has obviously divided fans and critics.
These people are the same people who gather around the Journey forums and bitch and moan about Steve Augeri lip-singing to a pre-recorded track and claim party-foul. Fanboy communities. Forums. You'd be surprised how ill BB was received by the fanbase at first (hell, you got a Bat-fan right above you in favor of what I'm saying.) Of course, it held the test of time and sprung in a new age of comic-book movies.
As for the critics, that's one thing. This movie didn't meet their flow chart (drama, love-story, pacing, etc.) Being this movie headlined by a Zack Snyder film to begin with (a critical whipping-boy) this film was behind the 8-ball, especially coming off the of hideous love-story of Superman Returns (a critical success but an audience SPLAT.)
I disagree with the divided fanbase. Of course, fanboys of the silver age of comic-books rely so heavily on the Christopher Reeve-era and refuse to let go of it their vision of the character that was slammed down our throats for 3+ decades, but the audience response is rated much higher, in the "good-great" mixed reviews. Superman Returns had a 57% audience rating and Man of Steel has an impressive 82% audience rating and is rated an "A-" by other cinematic audiences.
In fact, the social-media feeds tracked over 100,000 responses to Man of Steel and the positives outweigh the negative reviews by a large 4-1 margin. The GA as a whole, loves and embraced Man of Steel.
The Twittersphere gave Man of Steel a solid thumbs-up on its opening weekend, with positive comments outweighing negative by nearly four to one.
In a total of more than 100,000 mentions, Man Of Steel received 58,000 positive comments and 16,000 negative via Twitter, with the rest neither strongly for or against.
In a word, nearly 11% of all comments described Man of Steel as “awesome” while around 10% gave the movie a simple “good” rating as the highest level of social media interaction for the film came in around midnight Friday (CST), within hours of its opening across the United States.
Our infographic offers more detailed analysis of Man of Steel’s Twitter engagement based on the types of conversations recorded – even offering a comparison between the way it was received by male and female moviegoers.
http://www.business2community.com/infog ... el-0531880My point is, Perry White is not a black guy. Never has been. I'm sure Jaden Smith will make a great replacement for Cavill in a few years time. Any interest? No? Well, just why exactly the hell not, YoungJRNY? What is your point? Are you racist or sumthing?
Yep, I'm racist.
Dude, I get what you're saying. There is simply nothing wrong with it either regardless of your argument. Marvel jumped the shark years ago and like I said, absolutley nothing wrong with Fishbourne as Perry White. If it works, then why bag on an argument for the sake of arguing the merits of Hollywoods direction in silver-screen casting? Doesn't bother me none. To me, it comes down to the best embodiment of the character and Fishbourne makes a fantastic Perry White. I don't get into anything else but that.
Care to explain why no one at the Planet recognizes Clark? Yea, let's conveniently brush that under the rug, but in the meantime, here's a fifteen minute scene explaining that Superman's suit is made out of a lightweight space age carbon fiber. Woo hoo!
Well, that entire concept could be explored within the sequel and different takes could form with Clark's partnership with his Daily Planet co-workers. There's no telling whether anybody at the Daily Planet will question that fact. Lois Lane was the ONLY one who had a face to face encounter with Superman and Clark Kent alike, so there is no reason for the Daily Planet to immediate recognize Clark as Supes. It's simply his mythos. A sequel could get interesting regarding this.
As for the suit, it's entertainment factor. Some people, especially younger fans who would want things explained, enjoy back-stories in how an iconic-suit came to be. It's simply apart of the comic-book mythos that were never explained on screen, but they are there within the pages. It's no different than billionaire Bruce Wayne spending a half an hour building the bat-suit or Iron Man spending countless of hours molding his Iron.
They didn't really spend that much time explaining Superman's suite. It was quickly said by Jor-EL and Superman mentioned it once in the interrogation scene. Nothing as big as your making it out to be. It's an origin story following a recent blueprints.
You sound bi-polar. One minute you are promoting this film for the way it breaks free from old fogy past film/comic traditions, and now you are cowering behind them. The ending was laughable.
Bipolar? That's rich. Not cowering behind the comic-book mythos. In fact, most of this movie pulls straight from the comic-books than any other adaption has done before. That was the point. This was an entire understanding that even though they were going with a more fresh approach and reintroduction of the character, they were still going to hold true to the source material and make it different, but yet, not entirely unrecognizable. That's FACT.
I can assure you, WB is very concerned over this weekend's steep drop off. If it's domestic performance continues to nose dive, the franchise will be mothballed.
You can assure me. Now who sounds like Foxnews? Here's the thing. MOS did a bombastic OW and shattered even WB's expectations of that total. It's going to continue to make money and should settle around a number that is MORE than good enough to require a sequel. There will be a MOS2. The DC Universe is, and always was, going to rely more on how that film performs. It will most likely set-up the new Batman character and the larger world around it. MOS is simply the ground being cleared, MOS 2 would be the foundation.
