Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice THREAD

[Monker]

Most Supes fans are Christopher Reeve fans only?

When it comes to the Superman of the movies, yes, there are those who would rather watch Superman, Superman II and even Superman III over and over again rather than give a new guy a spitwad's chance on sizzling summer asphalt.

Superman Returns damaged the brand? Stop making excuses.

Since it continues to be the focus of much criticism for being a shameless love letter (more like mutual masturbation session) to the Donner films, you can answer your own question, can you not?

This is just bullshit. Give the public a good story with good characters and they will buy tickets...regardless of who the actor is. That matters very little.

I remember back when the Superman movies first came out and how Christopher Reeve was compared to the original Superman TV series. The one critique I remember the most came from Siskle and Ebert...basically saying Christopher Reeve was "light on his feet" when he entered a scene from flight...and how George Reeve would climb a ladder and jump into the scene with so much more power and strength. Chistopher Reeve just did not represent the strength and power of Superman very well AT ALL. Frankly, they were right. It didn't matter much though.

Nowadays the TV series is forgotten and the Christopher Reeve movies are the iconic memory. It was not because of who the actor is...but because they were well written stories that were fun to watch, and rewatch. The special effects were mediocre. The acting was mediocre. The story line was fun.

So, all of this talk about "let's show them things they have never seen before..." is crap. It's a distraction. Do you want to impress me with BvS, cut out all of these extra characters and make it a movie ONLY about Batman and Superman vs. some common villain...and leave all of these other characters OUT OF THE STORY. Then you will have an excellent movie - if these guys can actually WRITE for those two characters. To me, all it seems these guys can do is write action scenes, talk about special effects, and add characters to get attention..and jump sharks.

Someone up above compared the fans to Dr. Who fans. Well, the old Dr. Who was the same way...the special affects sucked. The acting was mediocre, most of the time. But, the stories were always awesome - and that is what people cared about...not who was playing the Doctor. Well, except for Collin Baker, but that's another story...and during his run, most of the stories sucked.

[verslibre]

Batman's eyes look eerily familiar. Wonder if he's hiding an arc reactor under his bat logo? Look at that suit. Is that really Affleck in there or is it fucking Louis Anderson?

2008:

[YoungJRNYfan]

Nowadays the TV series is forgotten and the Christopher Reeve movies are the iconic memory.

False. Smallville just ended not too long ago and the entire premise of the show focused on the Reeve extension of the Superman character. Ever since 1978 when it came to the entertainment medium, fans have only known the Christopher Reeve version of Superman. Even all the way up to 2006. That's 28 years worth of pop culture's take on Superman and the refusal to try new things and when they did, the studio buried the idea. That's a long time. No wonder people are very hard to accept anything else. Frankly, Reeve's Superman is the only Superman most people in today's day age knows because nothing else was ever explored.

Hell, even the comic books couldn't let go over the recent years.

Gary Frank:



^That's Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder depicted even in the art of comic books. In every medium, a ton of people in creativness refused to try new things with Superman. Until now (Man of Steel; BvS.)

The special effects were mediocre. The acting was mediocre. The story line was fun.

Not at that time. Superman: The Movie was and always will be the Godfather of superhero films. It was the first big budget film that audiences around the globe had ever seen when it came to special effects. The tagline "You'll believe a man can fly" seriously was everything the quote was said to be.

So, all of this talk about "let's show them things they have never seen before..." is crap. It's a distraction.

Huh? Crap? A distraction? No. It's NECESSARY.

Zack Snyder:
“We decided to act as if no Superman film had been made – even though we love the films that have been made… Superman is a big responsibility but I felt he needed to be reintroduced to a generation and I thought this was a great opportunity. Superman’s always been this kind of big blue boy-scout up on a throne that nobody can really touch, so we tried to make him relatable.”

Do you want to impress me with BvS, cut out all of these extra characters and make it a movie ONLY about Batman and Superman vs. some common villain...and leave all of these other characters OUT OF THE STORY. Then you will have an excellent movie

"All these characters" you speak of will only have a few minutes, if that, of screentime in BvS. They are just setting the stage how these characters exist..they are called cameo's to get people familiar for nods to the next installment. It has been announced as such with Wonder Woman having a slightly bigger role than others, but not much. Make no mistake, the entire plot and story will focus around Superman, the antagonist of Batman and don't forget, Lex Luthor. That will be the meat. They aren't shoving characters in to the main plot-point. They are just small appearances. That's it. It's called Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. The main story will be the Superman/Batman dynamic.

playing the Doctor. Well, except for Collin Baker, but that's another story...and during his run, most of the stories sucked.

The only problem people had with Man of Steel was David S. Goyer. He has some great ideas but his writing and screenplay in cohesion with dialogue was always something of his weakpoint. Zack Snyder is a visual genius and in order for DC Superheros to work, you need the best in that regard and Snyder is just that. Now that Goyer is more of an executive producer with the DCCUniverse, it is now Chris Terrio, an Oscar winning writer that is taking over the reigns of the story and it was just what this movie and Zack Snyder needed.

[YoungJRNYfan]

2008:

[The_Noble_Cause]

Lois & Clark w Dean Cain on TV was successful initially. Smallville had a long TV run and Reeve even had a guest spot, I think. I'm not sure what your point is, YoungJrny. To many of the younger movie going generations, Reeve is an unknown. Same with Bixby as the Hulk. Neither of these late great actors have any bearing on modern versions of the characters they once inhabited. It's simple demographics. MOS had a lukewarm reception because, like Watchmen, Snyder made another lukewarm shitty movie. It was NOT due to legions of geezer fans who are accepting of Reeve and nobody else. That is just retarded.

[verslibre]

To many of the younger movie going generations, Reeve is an unknown. Same with Bixby as the Hulk. Neither of these late great actors have any bearing on modern versions of the characters they once inhabited. It's simple demographics.

Again, you are off the mark, amigo. The Incredible Hulk was a low-budget TV series. Yes, you'll get a look of bewilderment if you ask a 15-year-old who Bill Bixby was. However, Christopher Reeve is anything but an unknown. "He's the guy who played Superman" is the answer you'll get. Those were theatrical releases not known just for being the first major superhero film with a sizeable budget, they represented an endeavor to portray a comics character with some gravitas, never mind the buffoonery in the 3rd & 4th films. Kneel Before Zod is perpetuated in memes. And John Williams' memorable theme? That's another enduring aspect of the '70s-'80s movies. "Reeve is an unknown" — seriously?!

MOS had a lukewarm reception because, like Watchmen, Snyder made another lukewarm shitty movie. It was NOT due to legions of geezer fans who are accepting of Reeve and nobody else. That is just retarded.

No, a bunch of p.c. nuts went ballistic because Superman killed his opponent. They failed to understand that said opponent felt like committing genocide on a planetary scale to resurrect his dead world.

[verslibre]

This is just bullshit. Give the public a good story with good characters and they will buy tickets...regardless of who the actor is. That matters very little.

A superhero film without advanced VFX will be akin to a modern Star Wars or Star Trek installment that chooses to revisit stop-motion and Claymation monsters. I love the '70s campiness of a flick like Laserblast but that's not going to go over with audiences today.

I remember back when the Superman movies first came out and how Christopher Reeve was compared to the original Superman TV series. The one critique I remember the most came from Siskle and Ebert...basically saying Christopher Reeve was "light on his feet" when he entered a scene from flight...and how George Reeve would climb a ladder and jump into the scene with so much more power and strength. Chistopher Reeve just did not represent the strength and power of Superman very well AT ALL. Frankly, they were right. It didn't matter much though.

It's one thing to acknowledge their sentiment, and another to accept or rebut it. They grew up with Reeves and they preferred him. I grew up with Reeve yet I think Cavill is the right guy for the reboot. To say Chris Reeve didn't adequately represent the strength and power of Superman for the time is pretty funny, though. That's like saying George Reeves didn't represent his speed adequately because they didn't have the FX to properly portray that aspect of Superman's abilities. When Reeve spins into a fast circle and literally drills his way downward into Luthor's lair, that's Superman to me. When Cavill comes in from the left side of the screen like a blur and diverts Faora from killing a pilot, that's Superman to me. And when I was a small kid and George Reeves ran towards an open window and jumped out of it (because I didn't know he would just land on a mattress on the other side), that was Superman to me, too!

Nowadays the TV series is forgotten and the Christopher Reeve movies are the iconic memory. It was not because of who the actor is...but because they were well written stories that were fun to watch, and rewatch. The special effects were mediocre. The acting was mediocre. The story line was fun.

The FX in Superman were great for the time and the acting wasn't just serviceable, it was good to great. Hackman and Kidder were fantastic. At the time, Reeve killed it. Everyone loved the guy, children and adults alike.

So, all of this talk about "let's show them things they have never seen before..." is crap. It's a distraction.

I'd love to see you say the same thing regarding the Iron Man films and Avengers. "The long tracking shot that shows every Avenger beating down the Chitauri and their mech-whale? Wotta distraction!" I'll make sure I stay on high ground because the backlash flood will carry you away.

When Hulk turned Loki into a rag doll, that was made possible via FX, i.e. it was something we'd never seen [onscreen] before.

Do you want to impress me with BvS, cut out all of these extra characters and make it a movie ONLY about Batman and Superman vs. some common villain...and leave all of these other characters OUT OF THE STORY. Then you will have an excellent movie - if these guys can actually WRITE for those two characters. To me, all it seems these guys can do is write action scenes, talk about special effects, and add characters to get attention..and jump sharks.

Rumor has it that Diana/WW has a smaller but significant role and won't be in the movie that much, save that it will end on a cliffhanger after the three unite to face their foe — who that is, we still don't know. A Doomsday Easter Egg was dropped in MoS, but I don't think it will be him. They should save him for MoS2 if they want to use him sooner than later. Bets are on Metallo. I'd love to see Brainiac. That would be crazy-cool.

Cyborg and Aquaman will have cameos, at best.

Someone up above compared the fans to Dr. Who fans.

That was a joke because your partner-in-crime called all the people cheering the BvS teaser, and I quote, "virginal dorks" and "tools."

[verslibre]

"Why DC won the weekend..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nyJdygahRI&feature=player_embedded

[verslibre]

On the topic of movies that introduce/have a lot of characters:

Here's part of what Marv Wolfman, veteran comics writer/editor (Crisis on Infinite Earths, Night Force, Teen Titans/New Titans, Tomb of Dracula, John Carter, Warlord of Mars) wrote on his FB about Guardians of the Galaxy.

The movie somehow manages to introduce God knows how many characters all at once, as opposed to in individual movies, and it does it so you can easily understand who everyone is and what they want. Trust me, that's not an easy thing to do. Yeah, I might know who Starlord is (I was the editor of that first Starlord story) but the fact is that Noel did, too, and she never read those 1970s books. The movie is fast and furious and overall funny. Everyone's already talking about Rocket Raccoon, but the surprise really is Groot. I never thought my favorite character in a movie would be an almost talking tree. But he's great.

See? it's not an impossible thing.

[Monker]

False. Smallville just ended not too long ago and the entire premise of the show focused on the Reeve extension of the Superman character. Ever since 1978 when it came to the entertainment medium, fans have only known the Christopher Reeve version of Superman. Even all the way up to 2006. That's 28 years worth of pop culture's take on Superman and the refusal to try new things and when they did, the studio buried the idea. That's a long time. No wonder people are very hard to accept anything else. Frankly, Reeve's Superman is the only Superman most people in today's day age knows because nothing else was ever explored.

Hell, even the comic books couldn't let go over the recent years.

And, in 1978 you could say the same thing about George Reeve. He was the only vision of Superman for over 20yrs. He was even chosen because he resembled the comics at that time.

So, you are just making excuses by saying this and that about people not accepting anything else. The simple fact is Christopher Reeve did it in 1978, so somebody else can do the same with a well written movie.

Not at that time. Superman: The Movie was and always will be the Godfather of superhero films. It was the first big budget film that audiences around the globe had ever seen when it came to special effects. The tagline "You'll believe a man can fly" seriously was everything the quote was said to be.

Oh, please. The effects were not that great....give me a good Blaster instead of Superman's laser eyes. First big budget film when it comes to special effects - just not true. People first believed men could fly in "2001: A Space Odyssey", despite what Hollywood hype and propaganda may say.

[/quote]

So, all of this talk about "let's show them things they have never seen before..." is crap. It's a distraction.

Huh? Crap? A distraction? No. It's NECESSARY.[/quote]

No, it's not. A good STORY is necessary. Come on, the effects in Star Trek:TOS were so lame but the series is classic scifi because of the STORIES. The effects in the old Dr. Who were even more lame and they are classic SciFi because of the STORIES. The effects in the old "The Day the Earth Stood Still" are lame by today's standards (and, BTW, you would think Superman: The Move would have improved on the laser eyes, decades later) but it is BETTER than the remake...because of the STORY.

I could go on and on about this...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DCa4DwpWAk

"All these characters" you speak of will only have a few minutes, if that, of screentime in BvS.

Wonder Woman is right up there in the press. She will get more than a few minutes...as you said. Probably because they want a bit of T&A to sell the film to guys.

Can you not see that ALL of this is to draw tickets...and NONE of it has to do with writing? They should all seriously consider STFU and spend all of this energy WRITING and not coming up with more gimmicks to excite the public.

The more I read about this film, the less interested I am.

The only problem people had with Man of Steel was David S. Goyer. He has some great ideas but his writing and screenplay in cohesion with dialogue was always something of his weakpoint. Zack Snyder is a visual genius and in order for DC Superheros to work, you need the best in that regard and Snyder is just that. Now that Goyer is more of an executive producer with the DCCUniverse, it is now Chris Terrio, an Oscar winning writer that is taking over the reigns of the story and it was just what this movie and Zack Snyder needed.

I don't have a problem with MoS. But, where they are taking BvS is just sad. It was a cool idea...but all of this marshmallow fluff is making it too sticky sweet and gross.

[Monker]

It's one thing to acknowledge their sentiment, and another to accept or rebut it. They grew up with Reeves and they preferred him. I grew up with Reeve yet I think Cavill is the right guy for the reboot. To say Chris Reeve didn't adequately represent the strength and power of Superman for the time is pretty funny, though. That's like saying George Reeves didn't represent his speed adequately because they didn't have the FX to properly portray that aspect of Superman's abilities. When Reeve spins into a fast circle and literally drills his way downward into Luthor's lair, that's Superman to me. When Cavill comes in from the left side of the screen like a blur and diverts Faora from killing a pilot, that's Superman to me. And when I was a small kid and George Reeves ran towards an open window and jumped out of it (because I didn't know he would just land on a mattress on the other side), that was Superman to me, too!

Siskle and Ebert was when George jumped out of a window or a ladder, it was much more powerful and strong then watching Christopher being strung up on wire and floating about like an angel. The other fact is that George was much more muscular and "looked" physically stronger than Christopher. Also, George's version of Clark Kent was much more realistic than the buffoon that Christopher portrayed.

[/quote]
The FX in Superman were great for the time and the acting wasn't just serviceable, it was good to great. Hackman and Kidder were fantastic. At the time, Reeve killed it. Everyone loved the guy, children and adults alike. [/quote]

they were STILL not bleeding edge fantastic. That is a simple fact. Were they good? Sure. But, don't pretend that it was the best of that time.

I'd love to see you say the same thing regarding the Iron Man films and Avengers. "The long tracking shot that shows every Avenger beating down the Chitauri and their mech-whale? Wotta distraction!" I'll make sure I stay on high ground because the backlash flood will carry you away.

The Iron man films also lost steam because they could not recapture the writing of the first Iron Man move. The Avengers movie did not have to drag the viewers through introducing characters and such. We already "knew" all of the characters...because they could concentrate on introducing them to the audience in their own film. Hawkeye was not necessary, of course.

When Hulk turned Loki into a rag doll, that was made possible via FX, i.e. it was something we'd never seen [onscreen] before.

and, they could have done it in other ways to make the same point without the CGI. The point of that scene was "puny god" not how Hulk tossed him around. it was the LINE - the WRITING that mattered.

Do you want to impress me with BvS, cut out all of these extra characters and make it a movie ONLY about Batman and Superman vs. some common villain...and leave all of these other characters OUT OF THE STORY. Then you will have an excellent movie - if these guys can actually WRITE for those two characters. To me, all it seems these guys can do is write action scenes, talk about special effects, and add characters to get attention..and jump sharks.

Someone up above compared the fans to Dr. Who fans.

That was a joke because your partner-in-crime called all the people cheering the BvS teaser, and I quote, "virginal dorks" and "tools."

I know that. But, it's also true. You can say the same thing about Trek fans, "Get a life." You can say the same thing about Star Wars fans. It doesn't matter. The point is - they are not fans because of the SFX. They are fans because of the STORY TELLING.

[Monker]

On the topic of movies that introduce/have a lot of characters:

Here's part of what Marv Wolfman, veteran comics writer/editor (Crisis on Infinite Earths, Night Force, Teen Titans/New Titans, Tomb of Dracula, John Carter, Warlord of Mars) wrote on his FB about Guardians of the Galaxy.

The movie somehow manages to introduce God knows how many characters all at once, as opposed to in individual movies, and it does it so you can easily understand who everyone is and what they want. Trust me, that's not an easy thing to do. Yeah, I might know who Starlord is (I was the editor of that first Starlord story) but the fact is that Noel did, too, and she never read those 1970s books. The movie is fast and furious and overall funny. Everyone's already talking about Rocket Raccoon, but the surprise really is Groot. I never thought my favorite character in a movie would be an almost talking tree. But he's great.

See? it's not an impossible thing.

I don't know much about Guardians of the Galaxy. But, again, it seems you are talking about a group of heroes that seem to be written to be together (I don't know)...with their own dynamics written into the characters to play off of each other in a dramatic way. To me, this is akin to introducing Han, Luke, Ben, Leia, and Yoda....they are NOT individual "superheros"...they are at their best when they play together. You could also say the same thing about "Lord of the Rings" or "The Hobbit".

The fact is Batman and Superman are individual superheros in most people's minds. This is more like Freddy vs. Jason. As far as I know, Michael Meyers from Halloween didn't make a cameo in that movie.

[verslibre]

I don't know much about Guardians of the Galaxy. But, again, it seems you are talking about a group of heroes that seem to be written to be together (I don't know)...with their own dynamics written into the characters to play off of each other in a dramatic way. To me, this is akin to introducing Han, Luke, Ben, Leia, and Yoda....they are NOT individual "superheros"...they are at their best when they play together. You could also say the same thing about "Lord of the Rings" or "The Hobbit".

The fact is Batman and Superman are individual superheros in most people's minds. This is more like Freddy vs. Jason. As far as I know, Michael Meyers from Halloween didn't make a cameo in that movie.

Yes, and no, not necessarily. You keep saying it's all in the writing. I say: exactly. You're contradicting yourself.

Justice League.



Think about the Avengers. Thor is a Norse god who's fought battles on myriad worlds, but apparently he can hang with mere mortals on Earth in Tony Stark's pad.

[Monker]

You are trying to equate putting together Batman and Superman to the Avengers.

Which came first in comic history: The Avengers or Justice League?

I ask became, to me, Justice League seems like a RESPONSE to the Avengers. If DC were smart, they would LEAD, and not simply respond to what Marvel is doing. They would play to the STRENGTH of their characters and not try to manipulate the characters to be in competition with Marvel.

Marvel seems to thrive on character based stories with groups working together. DC seems to thrive on individual superhero based characters who save the day on their own. I'm sure their is a huge rivalry between Marvel and DC. IMO, Marvel wins hands down - no contest - because DC is following their lead...instead of paving their own road.

That is the basis of my argument.

When characters are CREATED to be together, it works. No gimmicks required. When they are NOT, gimmicks and hype have to be used. DC is all about gimmicks and hype right now.

I don't know much about Guardians of the Galaxy. But, again, it seems you are talking about a group of heroes that seem to be written to be together (I don't know)...with their own dynamics written into the characters to play off of each other in a dramatic way. To me, this is akin to introducing Han, Luke, Ben, Leia, and Yoda....they are NOT individual "superheros"...they are at their best when they play together. You could also say the same thing about "Lord of the Rings" or "The Hobbit".

The fact is Batman and Superman are individual superheros in most people's minds. This is more like Freddy vs. Jason. As far as I know, Michael Meyers from Halloween didn't make a cameo in that movie.

Yes, and no, not necessarily. You keep saying it's all in the writing. I say: exactly. You're contradicting yourself.

Justice League.



Think about the Avengers. Thor is a Norse god who's fought battles on myriad worlds, but apparently he can hang with mere mortals on Earth in Tony Stark's pad.

[verslibre]

Siskle and Ebert was when George jumped out of a window or a ladder, it was much more powerful and strong then watching Christopher being strung up on wire and floating about like an angel. The other fact is that George was much more muscular and "looked" physically stronger than Christopher. Also, George's version of Clark Kent was much more realistic than the buffoon that Christopher portrayed.

Are you sure about that?



Famous pic of Chris working out for the first movie.

The FX in Superman were great for the time and the acting wasn't just serviceable, it was good to great. Hackman and Kidder were fantastic. At the time, Reeve killed it. Everyone loved the guy, children and adults alike.

they were STILL not bleeding edge fantastic. That is a simple fact. Were they good? Sure. But, don't pretend that it was the best of that time.

Do you know that Superman's budget was much larger than Star Wars'? It's safe to assume you, like many others, use the 1977 film as a benchmark for the time, but all the FX got glossed up and touched up in major, major ways for the video rerelease.

I'd love to see you say the same thing regarding the Iron Man films and Avengers. "The long tracking shot that shows every Avenger beating down the Chitauri and their mech-whale? Wotta distraction!" I'll make sure I stay on high ground because the backlash flood will carry you away.

The Iron man films also lost steam because they could not recapture the writing of the first Iron Man move.

The second film was rushed because certain people wanted moola. The third movie suffered because they handed the reins to Shane Black. There it is, in a nutshell.

The Avengers movie did not have to drag the viewers through introducing characters and such. We already "knew" all of the characters...because they could concentrate on introducing them to the audience in their own film.

Well, guess what? We already know Superman. Batman is plenty familiar and doesn't require a full-blown origin retelling in this film, thankfully. Wonder Woman will appear but they're not delving into her origin for this film. That's for later. Then we'll get quick intro to two more characters, and that will set up Justice League. I don't see the problem, as long as the story cooks with fire.

When Hulk turned Loki into a rag doll, that was made possible via FX, i.e. it was something we'd never seen [onscreen] before.

and, they could have done it in other ways to make the same point without the CGI. The point of that scene was "puny god" not how Hulk tossed him around. it was the LINE - the WRITING that mattered.

No, that's half the point. First, you write it down. Then you film it. Then you add effects. With a scene like that, it's the whole package or nothing. If Hulk went "Puny god!" and reached for Loki, and the camera cut away and returned later to just show Loki lying there, it wouldn't have worked. It worked because the action was actually shown — which produced the desired effect.

Someone up above compared the fans to Dr. Who fans.

That was a joke because your partner-in-crime called all the people cheering the BvS teaser, and I quote, "virginal dorks" and "tools."

I know that. But, it's also true. You can say the same thing about Trek fans, "Get a life." You can say the same thing about Star Wars fans. It doesn't matter. The point is - they are not fans because of the SFX. They are fans because of the STORY TELLING.

And the characters. But nobody is disputing that. You just assume story is taking a back seat to effects. If that were the case, they'd just package it as a video game.

[verslibre]

You are trying to equate putting together Batman and Superman to the Avengers.

No, I'm talking about teams.

Which came first in comic history: The Avengers or Justice League?

The Justice League of America aka JLA first appeared at the beginning of 1960 in The Brave & The Bold. Later that fall, it got its own title. So #1 = 1960.

Avengers #1 followed three years later, minus a month.

The Fantastic Four first appeared in 1961 and The X-Men #1 also appeared in (late summer) 1963.

A lot of Marvel's more popular Silver Age characters are "answers" to DC characters. Daredevil, Iron Man, and (much later) Moon Knight are ALL riffs on Batman. The X-Men are Stan Lee's version of DC's Doom Patrol, who appeared three months earlier. (Yes, they worked that fast in those days.) The Doom Patrol's mentor was also a guy in a wheelchair.

Then there's the interesting story with Swamp Thing (DC) and Man-Thing (Marvel). One of each character's' two respective creators were roomies, and took their ideas to their publishers around the same time. Swamp Thing became the more famous of the two, especially after Alan Moore began writing him in the '80s. So while there's no way to gauge which came first, Marvel's Man-Thing looks a HELLUVA lot more like an old 1950's muck creature called The Heap. So again, Marvel riffed an older character.

I ask became, to me, Justice League seems like a RESPONSE to the Avengers. If DC were smart, they would LEAD, and not simply respond to what Marvel is doing. They would play to the STRENGTH of their characters and not try to manipulate the characters to be in competition with Marvel.

To recap, it's not DC's fault they haven't rolled out as many films as Marvel Studios has. DC is a Warner company, and that's the reason why. Warner has many other successful properties.

IMO, Marvel wins hands down - no contest - because DC is following their lead...instead of paving their own road.

Just a reminder: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises collectively earned 2.46 billion dollars in the theaters, never mind how well they've done on DVD and Blu-ray.

WB/DC had to start over (again) after Superman Returns.

So while DC isn't as far ahead as Marvel, they're not exactly stranded in Guam, either.

And believe me, when people see the very first full trailer that shows DC's two greatest characters onscreen for the first time ever, that alone could change the playing field. A lot.

[YoungJRNYfan]

And, in 1978 you could say the same thing about George Reeve. He was the only vision of Superman for over 20yrs. He was even chosen because he resembled the comics at that time.

So, you are just making excuses by saying this and that about people not accepting anything else. The simple fact is Christopher Reeve did it in 1978, so somebody else can do the same with a well written movie.

For the record, I'm not talking about Henry Cavill in any sense of the word because out of all of the bellyaching purists out there that had beef with Man of Steel because they simply couldn't handle a more edgier take on the Superman mythology and the world they surrounded the character in, Henry Cavill was and still is til this day considered one of the best things about the film and how natural he fits as a modern day Superman. Henry was basically universally accepted as the right man for the role. He owns this unmistakin charm that fans can't wait to see explored.

George Reeves Superman and Christopher Reeve's Superman were still the same Superman in retrospect to the " TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY" of going about things. Very patriotic with all things campy and happy-smiley and everything else that comes with the Red, White and Blue Apple Pie eating Boy-scout that Supes will forever be synonymes with.

When compared to "Reeve's" Superman, it's more of the ideology of his character more than Reeve himself. People struggled to see a different take on the Man of Steel because quite frankly, he wasn't saving cats from trees, smiling at the camera constantly or honoring the boy scout mentality to a tee like Reeve's Superman did.

As a result, backlash ensued because Snyder decided to get ballsy with Superman as we've never seen before and it rubbed people the wrong way. The way I see it, even in the midst of the naysayers, this direction is the best choice for Superman moving forward and the entire reason was to break away from the Donnerverse/Reeve interpretation.

Oh, please. The effects were not that great.

Yes they were. In fact, Superman: The Movie holds up more-so than any other classic during that time period. There's no way around the fact that Superman: The Movie was the first of what was to come when it came to big budget films and how they showed off Superman's capabilities of flight and impossible feats seen at that time.

Wonder Woman is right up there in the press. She will get more than a few minutes...as you said. Probably because they want a bit of T&A to sell the film to guys.

The studio has been very hesitant with the Wonder Woman character over the years when it comes to the big screen because they want the character to represent honor and pride when it comes to the toughness of a female character as a main lead. You don't take one of the worlds most recognizable women ass-kickers in pop culture and turn her into nothing but T&A. WB has said as such that they want to create the hero every strong-willed woman can look up to and represent. T&A is NOT what Wondy is all about and is something the studio is heavily avoiding.

Can you not see that ALL of this is to draw tickets...and NONE of it has to do with writing? They should all seriously consider STFU and spend all of this energy WRITING and not coming up with more gimmicks to excite the public.

Come on man. Atleast respect my posts enough to read them as I read yours. You're, for some reason, refusing to acknowledge that this team on BvS is taking all the necessary leads to make this story work as one of the strong points and be right up there with the incredible visuals of Zack Snyder with the hiring of Oscar Award Winning screen writer in Chris Terrio.

Again, David S. Goyer has been the overall problem when it comes to screenplay. His ideas are insanely awesome but he needs a filter and not only was Terrio brought in to clean up BvS, he's going to be the sole creator in Justice League while David.S Goyer shuffles over to more of a producing role.

‘Batman vs. Superman’ Script Getting Rewrite by ‘Argo’ Writer
http://screenrant.com/batman-vs-superma ... is-terrio/

The more I read about this film, the less interested I am.

That's cool dude. To be honest, I want to know what you're reading because everything you have said about this film and your concerns written above, the complete opposite is happening whether it be the lashout with too many characters when obviously cameo's will be worked in at best and the whole "storytelling" argument, to which that is being handled with care with the added addition of Chris Terrio. Legitimate concerns are one thing, we all have them. Besides, sometimes people are born to be proven wrong.

I don't have a problem with MoS. But, where they are taking BvS is just sad. It was a cool idea...but all of this marshmallow fluff is making it too sticky sweet and gross.

So, um, where are they taking it? Who's dick to I have to suck to get this kind of insider knowledge?!

[YoungJRNYfan]

To recap, it's not DC's fault they haven't rolled out as many films as Marvel Studios has. DC is a Warner company, and that's the reason why. Warner has many other successful properties.

Bingo, bingo...and BINGO.

Besides, lets not act like Marvel was the first studio EVER in founding a shared universe. Lets get real, they just beat WB to it. WB, as a studio, tried lifting a Justice League movie and Batman/Superman teammup movie for a long time. Marvel deserves credit for all of their insane success, but the pedestal needs lowered, only if it's just a notch.

2008's cast of Justice Leauge: MORTAL before falling through:



The failure to Superman Returns and Green Lantern paved the way for Marvel Studio's to bust out their approach and set WB back years. Enter Man of Steel.

[RedWingFan]

An article from 2010,

"Marvel's Avengers team-up film is generating mega-buzz, but DC has no plans to follow suit with the Justice League, Geoff Johns told NYCC. Because DC's characters are "bigger than Marvel's." He'd rather build them up separately than "smashing them together."

http://io9.com/5659404/no-plans-for-a-j ... eoff-johns

We do have a very different attitude about how you build a content slate. And it isn’t necessarily about connecting those properties together to build into a single thing,” Nelson continued. Their intention will be to create great stories for each of their properties, but not have them inter-connect with each other. “We think we’ve got great stories and characters that will lend themselves to great standalone experiences, and that’s the way we’re focusing on it,” she said.

http://www.killerfilm.com/articles/read ... ague-46943

And here they are "smashing them together". They know there's a right way to do things, and they said, screw it, and are going for a quick cash grab. Case closed.

[verslibre]

So you're a "Marvel Zombie"? Got it.

[YoungJRNYfan]

An article from 2010,

"Marvel's Avengers team-up film is generating mega-buzz, but DC has no plans to follow suit with the Justice League, Geoff Johns told NYCC. Because DC's characters are "bigger than Marvel's." He'd rather build them up separately than "smashing them together."

http://io9.com/5659404/no-plans-for-a-j ... eoff-johns

We do have a very different attitude about how you build a content slate. And it isn’t necessarily about connecting those properties together to build into a single thing,” Nelson continued. Their intention will be to create great stories for each of their properties, but not have them inter-connect with each other. “We think we’ve got great stories and characters that will lend themselves to great standalone experiences, and that’s the way we’re focusing on it,” she said.

http://www.killerfilm.com/articles/read ... ague-46943

And here they are "smashing them together". They know there's a right way to do things, and they said, screw it, and are going for a quick cash grab. Case closed.

You're THAT desperate to pull up an article from 4 years ago? Again, things changed with Man of Steel. They didn't decide to do Justice League NOW and go into it NOW. It's been well known across the industry that Man of Steel was the tentpole for the DCCinematic Universe. Technically, they aren't "mashing them all together" in one film. We're getting Batman V Superman first with most of the others barely having roles. Justice League will go straight into production after BvS.

Justice League Production Hinges on ‘Man Of Steel’ Box Office Success

“Further out, the studio’s planning a “Justice League” tentpole — encompassing DC Comics mainstays Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, the Flash and the Green Lantern — on the order of Marvel’s “The Avengers.” Will Beall is scripting but no director has been attached yet."

http://nerdbastards.com/2013/01/29/just ... e-success/


David Goyer on Justice League and the Man of Steel Sequel

"It would be disingenuous to say Warner Bros doesn’t hope that this would be the starting point for a shared universe. And Zack has said that Bruce Wayne exists in this universe. It would be a different Bruce Wayne from Chris’ [Nolan] Dark Knight trilogy, and it would be disingenuous to say that Zack and I haven’t had various conversations on set, around ‘what if’ and ‘moving forward’.

That having been said, it’s all going to depend on the next few weeks. Warner Bros has hopes that there will be more Man Of Steel films, and that this will be the beginning of a shared universe. We could meet Batman, or Wonder Woman, or the Justice League in these movies. But they all hinge on box office reception."

While the film is already doing really well, Goyer talked more about what we can see if Man of Steel performs as well as Warner Bros. hopes it will.

"I think Warner Bros has seen – and Chris deserves the biggest credit for this – that we were able to revitalise Batman and put it into the first billion dollar superhero film. And they’re hoping that Superman will be revistalised as well. And if we can do Batman and Superman, then maybe we can move on to Wonder Woman, and The Flash, and characters like that."

Case closed.

[RedWingFan]

"We could meet Batman, or Wonder Woman, or the Justice League in these movies. But they all hinge on box office reception."

And if we can do Batman and Superman, then maybe we can move on to Wonder Woman, and The Flash, and characters like that."

Thanks for posting this. This just shows how uncommitted those suits are at WB/DC. "...then MAYBE we can move on to Wonder Woman, The Flash, and characters like that."?????? That doesn't fucking piss you off as a DC fanboy???? Seriously????

B v. S is gonna make money. It can't fucking miss. Even a shitty JL movie will probably be profitable. It can't miss. Then they move on to WW. If that shit tanks? Fuck you Flash, GL, Aquaman, fuck you and the seahorse you rode in on!

CASH GRAB!!! They said right here as soon as one of these fuckers ends up in the red we're pulling the plug on this shit.

I pulled an article from 2010 for a reason. That was before they got fucking dollar signs in their eyes. They were going to introduce their characters individually, ala GL. But they saw what that got them. Into the red. So they moved onto plan B, the CASH GRAB!!!! I'm sure by now you have your fingers in your ears saying, "LALALALALALA". But that doesn't change reality. If you think I'm just pissing in your Cheerios I'm just bracing you for when WB pulls the plug on your universe because they have NO FAITH in their fucking characters outside of Batman. You can bet your ass that MOS2 is also hinging on those gutless comments above too.

Do you think if Guardians of the Galaxy bombs this weekend Marvel is going to pull the plug on the rest of phase II and phase III? Fuck no, they think they got great stories to tell with great characters, they're charging full steam ahead. Marvel has a fucking talking Racoon firing a fucking machine gun and over at WB you have a bunch of pussies at DC who can't commit to their fucking characters.

Feel free to post more quotes and articles that bolster my point. Saves me time.

[Monker]

"We could meet Batman, or Wonder Woman, or the Justice League in these movies. But they all hinge on box office reception."

And if we can do Batman and Superman, then maybe we can move on to Wonder Woman, and The Flash, and characters like that."

Thanks for posting this. This just shows how uncommitted those suits are at WB/DC. "...then MAYBE we can move on to Wonder Woman, The Flash, and characters like that."?????? That doesn't fucking piss you off as a DC fanboy???? Seriously????

B v. S is gonna make money. It can't fucking miss. Even a shitty JL movie will probably be profitable. It can't miss. Then they move on to WW. If that shit tanks? Fuck you Flash, GL, Aquaman, fuck you and the seahorse you rode in on!

CASH GRAB!!! They said right here as soon as one of these fuckers ends up in the red we're pulling the plug on this shit.

I pulled an article from 2010 for a reason. That was before they got fucking dollar signs in their eyes. They were going to introduce their characters individually, ala GL. But they saw what that got them. Into the red. CASH GRAB!!!! I'm sure by now you have your fingers in your ears saying, "LALALALALALA". But that doesn't change reality. If you think I'm just pissing in your Cheerios I'm just bracing you for when WB pulls the plug on your universe because they have NO FAITH in their fucking characters outside of Batman. You can bet your ass that MOS2 is also hinging on those gutless comments above too.

Do you think if Guardians of the Galaxy bombs this weekend Marvel is going to pull the plug on the rest of phase II and phase III? Fuck no, they think they got great stories to tell with great characters, they're charging full steam ahead. Marvel has a fucking Racoon firing a fucking machine gun and over at WB you have a bunch of pussies at DC, If you don't think so you're in complete denial.

Feel free to post more quotes and articles that bolster my point. Saves me time.

I completely agree with you.

Here's the difference between DC and Marvel. Green Lantern doesn't do well...they stop the JL from moving forward and rethink things and decide to launch into via Superman. Hulk has not one, but TWO, mediocre movies. Not only do they move on to their Avengers path, but they include the Hulk in on the movie...and he has some of the more memorable moments. THAT is having faith in the franchise and going back and concentrating on the character and doing it right.

Guardians won't bomb. In fact, I think it's going to be a decent hit. When I saw the first preview, I thought, "WTF? Did Marvel just go bonkers? Who the hell thought this was a good idea? Why is this a summer release and not a March release?" HOWEVER...their marketing WORKS. It is coming off as more of a comedy than a "superhero" movie. It's a spoof...something different to shake things up, with funny characters who look like they will interact well. It looks REALLY good...fun and entertaining. That is what people go to these movies for: to be entertained by well written stories.

DC seems to be totally missing that point. They seem to think the very fact that Batman and Superman are in the same movie will make it as huge as Avengers, that SFX sell tickets, cameos sell tickets, hype sells tickets...everything sells tickets except the story.

They are right - to a point. "Snakes on a Plane" had all the hype the internet could generate. Hell, hype CREATED the movie. Hype WROTE, "Get these mother fucking snakes off my mother fucking plane." Getting Samual L. Jackson added tot he hype. But, the movie BOMBED because that's all it was - hype.

BvS won't bomb...MoS will sell tickets. The last Batman series will sell tickets. So, BvS will have it's day. But, I have not seen much AT ALL that shows me that BvS is going beyond the hype to make it a good movie that will sell past the DC fans who will be in the theater on opening day.

[verslibre]

Here's the difference between DC and Marvel. Green Lantern doesn't do well...they stop the JL from moving forward and rethink things and decide to launch into via Superman. Hulk has not one, but TWO, mediocre movies. Not only do they move on to their Avengers path, but they include the Hulk in on the movie...and he has some of the more memorable moments. THAT is having faith in the franchise and going back and concentrating on the character and doing it right.

Not all of the movies have been made by Disney/Marvel. They got the rights back to some of the characters, but Sony still has Spider-Man and Fox still has the Fantastic Four.

Hulk was made by Universal. They got Hulk back and made Incredible Hulk as a soft reboot and installed him in the same universe, which is why RDJ had a cameo as Tony Stark. Mark Ruffalo wants a solo Hulk film but it doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon with the MCU's roster as dense as it already is.

And let's get something straight. There is NO "DC Studios" like there is a Marvel Studios under Disney. It's just Warner. Believe me, it's been annoying enough to see Warner focus on DC's properties at a tedious rate, but we're finally just about there. You guys doing your maniacal "DC sucks! Marvel rules! Told you so! Told you so!" schoolyard dance doesn't change anything or alter any sentiments. We won't even see a trailer to BvS for a while. Many actors are in talks to play certain roles, but they're keeping a tight lid on things.

Meanwhile, enjoy what's out there without pissing all over BvS at every available opportunity. It gets old.

GotG should do well because it's space opera and is a part of the MCU. It's no doubt an FX-intensive, action-laden "big dumb fun" popcorn movie with lots of explosions and corny dialogue. And yes, Rocket Raccoon (or just "Rocket" for the movie). I like stuff like that.

[verslibre]

Thanks for posting this. This just shows how uncommitted those suits are at WB/DC. "...then MAYBE we can move on to Wonder Woman, The Flash, and characters like that."?????? That doesn't fucking piss you off as a DC fanboy???? Seriously????

Geez, dude. Calm down.

Do you think if Guardians of the Galaxy bombs this weekend Marvel is going to pull the plug on the rest of phase II and phase III? Fuck no, they think they got great stories to tell with great characters, they're charging full steam ahead. Marvel has a fucking talking Racoon firing a fucking machine gun and over at WB you have a bunch of pussies at DC who can't commit to their fucking characters.

No, they aren't going to necessarily pull the plug on anything. But they CAN play with the release dates. That's why they placed Captain America 3 opposite BvS after the great reception it got. Meanwhile, Thor: TDW didn't blast off the way they thought it would, and it doesn't have a release date yet. It's not even written, whereas Cap 3 is ready to go, all scripted up and already in preproduction.

I don't think it's that they're a bunch of pussies, they just have a bunch of other extremely profitable properties to siphon revenue from. Who do you think is putting out these Hobbit movies, dude?

[verslibre]

P.S. The Guardians weren't all specifically created to be a team, either. They all showed up at different times, in different titles, in the '70s, except for Groot, who first appeared in 1960 as a tree monster the size of a building. The movie is based on retooled versions of those characters.

[YoungJRNYfan]

"We could meet Batman, or Wonder Woman, or the Justice League in these movies. But they all hinge on box office reception."

And if we can do Batman and Superman, then maybe we can move on to Wonder Woman, and The Flash, and characters like that."

Thanks for posting this. This just shows how uncommitted those suits are at WB/DC. "...then MAYBE we can move on to Wonder Woman, The Flash, and characters like that."?????? That doesn't fucking piss you off as a DC fanboy???? Seriously????

B v. S is gonna make money. It can't fucking miss. Even a shitty JL movie will probably be profitable. It can't miss. Then they move on to WW. If that shit tanks? Fuck you Flash, GL, Aquaman, fuck you and the seahorse you rode in on!

CASH GRAB!!! They said right here as soon as one of these fuckers ends up in the red we're pulling the plug on this shit.

I pulled an article from 2010 for a reason. That was before they got fucking dollar signs in their eyes. They were going to introduce their characters individually, ala GL. But they saw what that got them. Into the red. So they moved onto plan B, the CASH GRAB!!!! I'm sure by now you have your fingers in your ears saying, "LALALALALALA". But that doesn't change reality. If you think I'm just pissing in your Cheerios I'm just bracing you for when WB pulls the plug on your universe because they have NO FAITH in their fucking characters outside of Batman. You can bet your ass that MOS2 is also hinging on those gutless comments above too.

Do you think if Guardians of the Galaxy bombs this weekend Marvel is going to pull the plug on the rest of phase II and phase III? Fuck no, they think they got great stories to tell with great characters, they're charging full steam ahead. Marvel has a fucking talking Racoon firing a fucking machine gun and over at WB you have a bunch of pussies at DC who can't commit to their fucking characters.

Feel free to post more quotes and articles that bolster my point. Saves me time.

Don't fly off the handle and lose your cool or anything . That's all fine and dandy and all, but no, it doesn't piss me off as a DC fan only because WB has finally opened their eyes and put together their plan. Finally. Was I pissed before to be face palm in my seat during films such as Superman Returns and Green Lantern while the Bat Trilogy soaked up all the glory? Sure.

Look, it's NO news that WB is a studio that is heavily hesitant on their supehero properties. They aren't a studio like Marvel Studios that need to bank on their superhero properties to keep their fortunes in line. That's the difference.

Now, according to you and TNC, Man of Steel was a disappointment and an under-performer, which completely contradicts your point above in how WB would fold the DCCUniverse because they have no faith in their characters.

In fact, judging by their track record, WB finally got their SHIT in line, committed a month into Man of Steel's release, introduced Batman V Superman, introduced Wonder Woman and committed even HARDER into Zack Snyder to lift Justice League off its roots.

That doesn't piss me off. This is coming from a studio that was hesitant in everything they did with their superheros, including Superman.

WB stuck their stick in the sand and are finally confident enough and believe in the team that they have to give us something GREAT. They were JADED by films like Superman Returns and Green Lantern. All they needed was somebody, in their eyes, to pull this off and they committed. GOOD ON DC. ROCK-N-Roll. Again, that doesn't piss me off. That excites me. Marvel fanboys are spoiled as all hell. It's DC's time now.

But, I have not seen much AT ALL that shows me that BvS is going beyond the hype to make it a good movie that will sell past the DC fans who will be in the theater on opening day.

You haven't seen much at all because...there IS not much at all. Again, who's dick to I have to suck? This film is two years away man! Other than official set photos and a plethora of RUMORS, this thing is guarded better than the United States Pentagon. We know nothing of this story and film, NOTHING but a few officially released photos. NOTHING.

Oh, again. CHRIS TERRIO. The story is going to be S-O-L-I-D.

[YoungJRNYfan]

That's why they placed Captain America 3 opposite BvS after the great reception it got. Meanwhile, Thor: TDW didn't blast off the way they thought it would, and it doesn't have a release date yet. It's not even written, whereas Cap 3 is ready to go, all scripted up and already in preproduction. I don't think it's that they're a bunch of pussies, they just have a bunch of other extremely profitable properties to siphon revenue from. Who do you think is putting out these Hobbit movies, dude?

^Fanfucking tastic!

[verslibre]

Now, according to you and TNC, Man of Steel was a disappointment and an under-performer, which completely contradicts your point above in how WB would fold the DCCUniverse because they have no faith in their characters.

Aw, man! You just derailed their argument. They're back into their treehouse figuring out what else they can use.

WB stuck their stick in the sand and are finally confident enough and believe in the team that they have to give us something GREAT. They were JADED by films like Superman Returns and Green Lantern. All they needed was somebody, in their eyes, to pull this off and they committed. GOOD ON DC. ROCK-N-Roll. Again, that doesn't piss me off. That excites me. Marvel fanboys are spoiled as all hell. It's DC's time now.

What doesn't get talked about (probably because it's a Marvel Studios production) is the fact that Incredible Hulk flopped. It's a decent film, much better than Hulk, but the reason it wasn't as disastrous a flop as Green Lantern is that it didn't cost as much to make. It only grossed $18M more domestically, but its budget was $50M less. Worldwide, it made around $40-45M more than GL. What made Incredible Hulk make $134M here was that it had no massive competition, so its drop-off wasn't as steep in the weeks following its opening (which was a halfway decent $55M).

Now consider this: to the general public, Hulk is a much more famous character than Green Lantern. You'll get more people who recognize Hulk anyday, yet he's not as effective as a solo character — unless they do World War Hulk, which still involves a shitload of other Marvel characters, AND requires Planet Hulk to set it up. I'd personally love to see an adaptation of WWH, but I don't think they'd put their chips on it.

Warner probably wanted to sit back (again, while raking it in from their numerous other properties) after the GL bomb to see how Marvel did. Once they saw a comics franchise-universe is viable, they finally switched the light from green to red. These are hundreds of millions of dollars they're pushing into the middle of the table.

[RedWingFan]

Double post