MAN OF STEEL....OK, I'm excited now! :)

[RedWingFan]

Wow. Brilliant.

It's subtle and non-force-feeding. It's all setup and there. They established Superman's new origin and fresh take to the franchise. That was sole focus to the Supes character before ANY else. Establish big action fight sequences and take him seriously and grounded. SUCCESS. They've had Easter Eggs of a shared universe, indicating future appearances. SUCCESS. Now, the sequel and continuation of this shared universe is going to be explored and bring in DC's other biggest honcho, setting the stage for Justice League and other spinoffs like Flash to combat Marvel Studios. SUCCESS.

This is only the beginning.

Blah blah blah. Yup. MOS is the greatest movie of all time. You've been saying that before it came out too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQzO9YnYG_Y

[RedWingFan]

Huh? Marvel's "coherent" plan was to use a B-list character nobody cared about and force the team of the Avengers within that film.

Exactly. Don't forget that "B-list character" also is going to end up kicking the shit out of MOS, even though IM didn't have the benefit of 3D sales. The fact is Marvel made a far better movie at half the cost and using a "B-list character" rather than the icon that currently graces your Under-roos.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't stick around for any of Marvel's post-credit scenes. I'm sure you'd still be convinced that DC/WB have got it right by linking movies with a piece of Wayne Enterprise debris falling during a fight scene rather than those kooks at Marvel using acting and that crazy dialog stuff.

[YoungJRNY]

Exactly. Don't forget that "B-list character" also is going to end up kicking the shit out of MOS, even though IM didn't have the benefit of 3D sales. The fact is Marvel made a far better movie at half the cost and using a "B-list character" rather than the icon that currently graces your Under-roos.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't stick around for any of Marvel's post-credit scenes. I'm sure you'd still be convinced that DC/WB have got it right by linking movies with a piece of Wayne Enterprise debris falling during a fight scene rather than those kooks at Marvel using acting and that crazy dialog stuff.

Iron Man was a B-list character turned profit and popularity because A.) He was fresh, new and refreshing and B.) had a come-back actor that was perfect for the part with the characters first adaption on the big screen.

Robert Downey JR's portrayal of Iron Man and the talk of post-credits leading to the Avengers (like Nick Fury; Thors Hammer) led to the significant amount of the audiences interest.

Man of Steel had Easter Eggs, but there was no cameo's or no post credits (I've seen MOS 6 times, and each time, people stayed for end credits. Why? Because they were expecting Marvel like endings like a cameo or other references by end-credit. People were expecting some kind of cameo, like Wonder Woman, that would lead to JL. I really do think WOM was hurt because of that.)

Man of Steel had a lot working against it, especially working as a reboot to a franchise that BOMBED in 2006. DC remained conservative, showing us Easter Eggs and subtle messages to an overall universe. It was widely known way before MOS went into early production that MOS was the building block for a shared universe. It's simple. DC is trying to set up their big guns and they succeeded with teaming up 2 of the most iconic heroes for the first time EVER. It's a game changer.

The fact is Marvel made a far better movie at half the cost and using a "B-list character" rather than the icon that currently graces your Under-roos.

Dude, Superman, to the public and other forms of media, was an outdated, embarrassing character that nobody cared about any longer after the 2006 film adaption fell flat. Though an icon, don't act like just because Superman is Superman, his rebooted movie should of been off the charts. He's not as popular as he was in the 70's.

If anything, the studio knew of this problem, and tried to make him cool again to set up a broader universe. In this case, it worked and the big June opening proved there's still interest in the character. The result? Pairing him up with the new Batman, who is coming off one of the mot successful franchise's ever. If that isn't confidence, comeback and success, I don't know what is.

Also, I'm not "kidding" myself. It's obvious, for quiet some time, that WB needed to establish Superman first and foremost before jumping into cross-overs and the eventual Justice League. They need to strike the team while it's still hot. They can't wait another 3 years just for another Supes movie and then ANOTHER for a Bats stand-alone reboot and so on. It would be too late by then. This is the perfect time to do it. WB announced the sequel/Supes/Bats team-up only a month and a week into the release of MOS. Don't kid yourself. They are ready.

[YoungJRNY]

This was dated May 23d, close to a month before MOS's release and before the BO numbers.

Henry Cavill Wants a Superman Batman Crossover Movie

http://www.movieweb.com/news/henry-cavi ... over-movie

This was WB's preferred direction all along for a shortcut to the eventual Justice League. I'm just glad WB has balls and is actually going through with it. Regardless, it's huge

[verslibre]

KEVIN SMITH: "Who the fuck on the planet is not going to go?!"

KS thinks Superman/Batman will make TWO billion worldwide, or at least "four times" what MoS has made. Sounds reasonable to me. http://smodcast.com/episodes/132-2/

[verslibre]

To some extent, Warner Bros has been painted into a corner. You have a Superman movie that they spent WAY too much money making compared to what it brought in. I'm not saying it didn't make money--just that it should have made a lot more for the budget they threw at it.

Say...you DO know that Superman Returns cost about fifty million more to make than MoS, right? And domestically it made about eighty million less than MoS has. I don't remember anyone taking Returns to task over being a monumental failure on a commercial level. Critically, it was a different story, but a lot of people accepted it for what it was. They were even going to do a sequel...thank God that didn't happen, though.

Then, you have a Batman "franchise" where the immediate future is iffy at best considering it's basically at reboot stage. The idea is good, but the timing screams desperation. Unlike the Marvel movies, where there seemed to be a coherent plan, this seems to be throwing stuff at the wall trying to get something to stick.

I don't get the desperation banner-waving. Look at it this way: there HAS been another solo Superman movie, already. It's called...Man Of Steel! See, Superman Returns took up a slot, but they didn't run with that ball. MoS essentially does two things in one movie: it encompasses everything we got in the '78/'80 movies without being a Donner circle jerk and presents those elements with new material and much more action. The only people complaining (granted, there seem to be many) are those who still pine for Superboyscout.

So it's time for the next movie, and why not bring in the other of the Two Biggest Superheroes DC has? Warner Bros. dropped no hints this was going to happen, it's unprecedented, caught everyone by surprise and again, gives fans something they've been waiting for. And yes, the payday guarantee is going to be a big one.

ALSO...it means the Batman franchise doesn't have to be rebooted independently for him to be in the Justice League movie, which is now five years away instead of ten years away.

$600 million is the minimum to greenlight a sequel. $40 million is chump change at this point. The key point is that it has BARELY reached the bar for a sequel. It should be sitting at $400 domestic, which gives Warner Bros. a decent return on their investment. It's not good business sense to spend $600 million to make $40 million. Thus being the previous point....they spent WAY too much on that movie for the reception it received. It wouldn't be a big deal if they spent $150 million on the movie. They would be happy, and you would probably get Superman 2 and THEN your combo film. Instead, they are rushing it.

More like $80M domestically and these things are looked at in terms of worldwide grosses. Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises and Iron Man 3 are "billion dollar movies" because their worldwide grosses all crossed the billion mark. But I don't have to tell you that!

Sure, it's the plan to eventually team them up. You think they are going to let Marvel have all the fun and all that money to themselves?!?!? Warners is scrambling playing catchup after seeing the box office that the Avengers brought in. It will probably work unless they totally screw it up, but don't kid yourself. Warner Bros. wasn't ready to do this just yet.

There's evidence to the contrary. Green Lantern (the movie TNC insists is brilliance incarnate) was the movie that was to introduce the other JL characters besides Superman and Batman. But it crashed and burned. WB cooled their jets. We had to wait a little longer for another Superman film, and with the Nolan films being buzz-heavy and getting critical thumbs-up right and left, their attitude was "Whatever, we've still got another Batman movie and all our other money-making properties."

[Pelata]

[The_Noble_Cause]

There's evidence to the contrary. Green Lantern (the movie TNC insists is brilliance incarnate) was the movie that was to introduce the other JL characters besides Superman and Batman. But it crashed and burned. WB cooled their jets. We had to wait a little longer for another Superman film, and with the Nolan films being buzz-heavy and getting critical thumbs-up right and left, their attitude was "Whatever, we've still got another Batman movie and all our other money-making properties."

Green Lantern did have a post-credits set-up like the Marvel films. I didn't say GL was brilliant. I thought it was a very solid first movie to set-up a new franchise. Like Goldeneye or Casino Royale or the Zorro films, Campbell's films usually deliver for me. GL was no exception. Maybe the intergalactic spacey elements made it too corny to connect with wider audiences. Who knows? Reynolds is something of a box office kiss of death, no matter how many A-list franchise properties he is attached to.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Negativity and naysayers are welcome. It's what these places are all about, but you're simply spinning rubbish in favor of your opinion like claiming MOS is a dud when it CLEARLY and factually isn't while using tactile insults to look good. It's not working as good here as it did in the Steve Augeri lipping-thread.

MOS performed below expectations. I'm not spinning rubbish. Domestically, it dropped over 50% in its first weekend and continued to fade from the pop culture radar. I didn't say it was a Ishtar-size flop, but I can't believe that WB is happy with its performance. MOS was promoted as if it was part of the Nolan Bat trilogy and it simply did not bring in Nolan numbers.

The true story of the summer is how WWZ managed to overturn expectations and become a solid sleeper hit. I saw The Conjuring last nite. Ever since Saw, James Wan has been a director to watch out for and he is really at the top of his game with this. Just a cinematic Coney Island dark ride spring-loaded with frights at every turn. Do yourself a favor and check it out. Awesome. Everything The Evil Dead remake should have been and more.

[The_Noble_Cause]

....$600 million is the minimum to greenlight a sequel. $40 million is chump change at this point. The key point is that it has BARELY reached the bar for a sequel. It should be sitting at $400 domestic, which gives Warner Bros. a decent return on their investment. It's not good business sense to spend $600 million to make $40 million. Thus being the previous point....they spent WAY too much on that movie for the reception it received. It wouldn't be a big deal if they spent $150 million on the movie. They would be happy, and you would probably get Superman 2 and THEN your combo film. Instead, they are rushing it.

Wow. Someone who talks sense. How refreshing.

[The_Noble_Cause]

MOS had a ton working against it...

Given the talent, budget, and pedigree of the character involved, it actually had a TON going for it. The fact that MOS barely limped across the 600 million mark tells you something went terribly wrong in the final product. Or, like the two HULK films, the character simply isn't catching on anymore.

[verslibre]

MOS had a ton working against it...

Given the talent, budget, and pedigree of the character involved, it actually had a TON going for it. The fact that MOS barely limped across the 600 million mark tells you something went terribly wrong in the final product. Or, like the two HULK films, the character simply isn't catching on anymore.

Or maybe people were hesitant to spend $9-12 to see it in the theater because of Singer's movie.

You'd better believe a lot of people didn't see Dredd because of the stigma left by the 20-year-old Judge Dredd movie with Stallone!

I've even seen remarks about people not wanting to commit to next year's Godzilla film by Gareth Edwards, in spite of everything I hear pointing to them handling the character properly, because of the corny 1998 flick with Matthew Broderick. Godzilla's been around for sixty years.

[verslibre]

....$600 million is the minimum to greenlight a sequel. $40 million is chump change at this point. The key point is that it has BARELY reached the bar for a sequel. It should be sitting at $400 domestic, which gives Warner Bros. a decent return on their investment. It's not good business sense to spend $600 million to make $40 million. Thus being the previous point....they spent WAY too much on that movie for the reception it received. It wouldn't be a big deal if they spent $150 million on the movie. They would be happy, and you would probably get Superman 2 and THEN your combo film. Instead, they are rushing it.

Wow. Someone who talks sense. How refreshing.

Selective reading is never "refreshing."

[YoungJRNY]

MOS performed below expectations. I'm not spinning rubbish. Domestically, it dropped over 50% in its first weekend and continued to fade from the pop culture radar.

Huge drop indeed, but it shattered WB's expectations of predicting $70-$80 million dollars opening weekend and is the highest grossed superhero reboot of all time (which is impressive because many thought the Superman Returns abombination was fresh in peoples minds so early just 6 years later.)

You are still ignoring the factual numbers of Man of Steel stabilizing and bringing in GREAT numbers after the big drop that second weekend. This June summer season smashed ALL kinds of records. WB dropped the ball with MOS's release date. No doubt if they would have release this in mid-July slot, MOS would have easily brought in atleast $100 million more to the totals.

Superman is an icon, but he needed some fixing. Batman's the money maker for obvious reasons. Superman needed this retooling and it succeeded and MOS did what it was supposed to do. I'm not saying it could and should have done better, of course it could have, but MOS didn't perform below expectations. It met them. WB is very happy that this succeeded into finally setting up their cross-overs.

MOS was promoted as if it was part of the Nolan Bat trilogy and it simply did not bring in Nolan numbers.

YES. EXACTLY. This is the problem, right here. Lets be real. BB wasn't a BO hit and was up against the same issues Superman had with coming off of a suicidal franchise like Batman & Robin. TDK caught steam, they brought in the worlds most famous villain and the actor who performed this villain passed away, which brought even more people to the theaters.

TDK was the perfect storm at the right time for Batman to strike and because of it, was this generations "IT" movie and made Batman humongous, more than he already was in the comics.

MOS is a totally different scenerio. Get these Nolan-esq numbers out of your head for a rebooted, struggling character like Superman and realize it performed exactly the way it did and is bringing us the DARK KNIGHT "IT" movie for 2015.

People think Bats is going to come in to save the day. I beg to differ. This new Bat is going to be under high scrutiny and will always be compared to Bale. The casting of this is very, very fragile and delicate and the studio is confident enough in pairing this new Bats up with Cavill's Superman. All eyes on this. Pretty exciting and AGAIN, ballsy for WB.

The true story of the summer is how WWZ managed to overturn expectations and become a solid sleeper hit. I

Won't argue with that there, which was huge competition for the MOS crowd. America's latest sweetheart is zombies and had some cool action in it that cut into the same MOS crowd. Competition was huge this summer season and WWZ was surprisingly one of them. And to think this movie was a cluster-fuck of epic proportions making the damn thing.

[verslibre]

MOS was promoted as if it was part of the Nolan Bat trilogy and it simply did not bring in Nolan numbers.

Batman was not promoted to be a part of the film.

People now know that Batman IS a part of the next movie...so let's see how that one does.

The true story of the summer is how WWZ managed to overturn expectations and become a solid sleeper hit.

I liked it, too, but WWZ is another expensive movie ($200M, estimated) that has taken six weeks to make its money back. As of last weekend (five weeks in release), it had barely limped over the $175M line domestically, with the rest coming from abroad. So by your standards, it has also underperformed.

[verslibre]

WB dropped the ball with MOS's release date.

That's all it really boils down to. If it had three weeks all to itself, it would have hit $400M on home turf in the same time frame.

[YoungJRNY]

To some extent, Warner Bros has been painted into a corner. You have a Superman movie that they spent WAY too much money making compared to what it brought in. I'm not saying it didn't make money--just that it should have made a lot more for the budget they threw at it.

Say...you DO know that Superman Returns cost about fifty million more to make than MoS, right? And domestically it made about eighty million less than MoS has. I don't remember anyone taking Returns to task over being a monumental failure on a commercial level. Critically, it was a different story, but a lot of people accepted it for what it was. They were even going to do a sequel...thank God that didn't happen, though.

Then, you have a Batman "franchise" where the immediate future is iffy at best considering it's basically at reboot stage. The idea is good, but the timing screams desperation. Unlike the Marvel movies, where there seemed to be a coherent plan, this seems to be throwing stuff at the wall trying to get something to stick.

I don't get the desperation banner-waving. Look at it this way: there HAS been another solo Superman movie, already. It's called...Man Of Steel! See, Superman Returns took up a slot, but they didn't run with that ball. MoS essentially does two things in one movie: it encompasses everything we got in the '78/'80 movies without being a Donner circle jerk and presents those elements with new material and much more action. The only people complaining (granted, there seem to be many) are those who still pine for Superboyscout.

So it's time for the next movie, and why not bring in the other of the Two Biggest Superheroes DC has? Warner Bros. dropped no hints this was going to happen, it's unprecedented, caught everyone by surprise and again, gives fans something they've been waiting for. And yes, the payday guarantee is going to be a big one.

ALSO...it means the Batman franchise doesn't have to be rebooted independently for him to be in the Justice League movie, which is now five years away instead of ten years away.

$600 million is the minimum to greenlight a sequel. $40 million is chump change at this point. The key point is that it has BARELY reached the bar for a sequel. It should be sitting at $400 domestic, which gives Warner Bros. a decent return on their investment. It's not good business sense to spend $600 million to make $40 million. Thus being the previous point....they spent WAY too much on that movie for the reception it received. It wouldn't be a big deal if they spent $150 million on the movie. They would be happy, and you would probably get Superman 2 and THEN your combo film. Instead, they are rushing it.

More like $80M domestically and these things are looked at in terms of worldwide grosses. Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises and Iron Man 3 are "billion dollar movies" because their worldwide grosses all crossed the billion mark. But I don't have to tell you that!

Sure, it's the plan to eventually team them up. You think they are going to let Marvel have all the fun and all that money to themselves?!?!? Warners is scrambling playing catchup after seeing the box office that the Avengers brought in. It will probably work unless they totally screw it up, but don't kid yourself. Warner Bros. wasn't ready to do this just yet.

There's evidence to the contrary. Green Lantern (the movie TNC insists is brilliance incarnate) was the movie that was to introduce the other JL characters besides Superman and Batman. But it crashed and burned. WB cooled their jets. We had to wait a little longer for another Superman film, and with the Nolan films being buzz-heavy and getting critical thumbs-up right and left, their attitude was "Whatever, we've still got another Batman movie and all our other money-making properties."

Wow. Someone who talks sense.

[verslibre]

Wow. Someone who talks sense.

Why, thank you, sir.

Superman/Batman is the single most buzz-heavy item to come out of SDCC13. The Avengers news is up there, but it's not as high and Godzilla's stealing a lot of its thunder (because it comes out next year).

[The_Noble_Cause]

I liked it, too, but WWZ is another expensive movie ($200M, estimated) that has taken six weeks to make its money back. As of last weekend (five weeks in release), it had barely limped over the $175M line domestically, with the rest coming from abroad. So by your standards, it has also underperformed.

I didn't like it at all. Aside from its international travelogue aspect, WWZ brought nothing new to the zombie table. Best modern zomb flick for me is 28 Weeks Later (as a reference, the gold standard for me is Romero's Day). As for WWZ's performance.....bear in mind, WWZ was plagued with reports of re-shoots, firings, delays, and alot of drama. So the fact that it's been so competetive has really been suprising. I wouldn't hold it up to the same b.o. expectations as Superman tho. Superman is already a name brand.

[verslibre]

I liked it, too, but WWZ is another expensive movie ($200M, estimated) that has taken six weeks to make its money back. As of last weekend (five weeks in release), it had barely limped over the $175M line domestically, with the rest coming from abroad. So by your standards, it has also underperformed.

I didn't like it at all. Aside from its international travelogue aspect, WWZ brought nothing new to the zombie table.

The only thing (maybe) is the "solution" JMS came up with for curbing the pandemic. It was a good, entertaining, well-paced movie. The problem I had with it is its PG-13 rating. No gore (and an R rating would've cut down on its box office).

Best modern zomb flick for me is 28 Weeks Later (as a reference, the gold standard for me is Romero's Day).

Dawn for me. I love Day, too, natch.

As for WWZ's performance.....bear in mind, WWZ was plagued with reports of re-shoots, firings, delays, and alot of drama.

Which Brad and the director deny, too (I don't believe them). The entire third act is an eleventh hour revision. The original ending had Brad Pitt's character joining the Russian army and turning into a Rambo-like zombie hunter. I don't think it would have worked.

So the fact that it's been so competetive has really been suprising. I wouldn't hold it up to the same b.o. expectations as Superman tho. Superman is already a name brand.

Zombies are hot, hot, hot, though. The Walking Dead is hot shit (or shit-hot, if you prefer that phrasing). And Max Brooks' book (which they basically licensed just to use its title) is a household piece of zombie culture. WWZ is also the first zombie film to be shot with that kind of scale and budget.

[verslibre]

As of July 21, 2013, Man of Steel has earned $285,000,474 in North America and an estimated $350,000,000 in other countries, for a worldwide total of $635,000,474,[7] making it the highest grossing Superman film ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Steel_(film)

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'd be interested to learn just what of JMS's WWZ script was used. From what I read, his version was more like the book.

[YoungJRNY]

Man, they look great together

[verslibre]

Awesome.

Did you see this yet?

[YoungJRNY]

Awesome.

Did you see this yet?

Yeah, I saw that across many boards around the time MOS trailer #3 came out. That fight scene would be about accurate

[RedWingFan]

Awesome.

Did you see this yet?

Yeah, I saw that across many boards around the time MOS trailer #3 came out. That fight scene would be about accurate

True. Because one character is basically indestructible (and boring). Which is why he can't carry his own series of movies. Someone needs to make a clip reflective of box office receipts, which would show Iron Man beating Superman like a little bitch with a Kryptonite dildo and then Batman coming to his rescue by pulling the dildo out of Supermans ass.

[YoungJRNY]

True. Because one character is basically indestructible (and boring).

Yep. And you STILL saw a SUPERMAN movie

Which is why he can't carry his own series of movies

With this logic, neither can IRON MAN. Didn't Nick Fury show up at the end to promote the AVENGERS? Nice try, though.

Someone needs to make a clip reflective of box office receipts, which would show Iron Man beating Superman like a little bitch with a Kryptonite dildo and then Batman coming to his rescue.

Iron Man had cameo performances of Sameul L. Jackson as Nick Fury setting up a team of AVENGERS. Talk about coming to the rescue? Of course that is going to be a pretty big sleeper with an A-LIST celebrity like RDJR playing Tony Stark.

Contrary to your belief, Iron Man didn't do it alone and set up movies like Thor and Captain America while MAN OF STEEL ended with Clark Kent at the Daily Planet (no cameo to hide behind its own success) and still opened up to the biggest June Box Office opening of all time and successfully rebooted his franchise when it was down in the SHITTER with Superman Returns in 2006, but it's Batman coming to the rescue, huh?

You're just scared of the WF'S teammp finally knocking MARVEL FANBOYS likes yourself back down to Earth. I understand.

[The_Noble_Cause]

....but it's Batman coming to the rescue, huh?

Yup. Not sure how anyone can deny this. Desperate move from a desperate stillborn franchise. MOS may have made a little more bank than Superman Returns, but the buzz is about the same. Nobody really gives a fuck.

[YoungJRNY]

Yup. Not sure how anyone can deny this. Desperate move from a desperate stillborn franchise.

Wrong. Even if MOS would have brought in 1.5 billion at the BO, it's now known that WB's plan all along was to follow up the MOS sequel with WORLDS FINEST.

If MOS were to bomb and the buzz would of been, as you would call it, "nobody giving a fuck" then the studio would of just went ahead with the solo Bat reboot for 2015 and non-reference the continuation of MOS and would of saved Supes's next appearance in the Bat reboot and into the JL.

MOS brought in the numbers the studio wanted and WB wasted NO TIME in announcing the sequel at SDCC (where WB is usually silent.) WB simply wanted Superman and Batman back out on screen as soon as possible and instead opted to go ahead with a Superman/Batman crossover if MOS were to succeed.

MOS may have made a little more bank than Superman Returns,

A little? Man of Steel has grossed $636,818,000 WW; 245,736,808 more than Superman Returns on a $45 million lesser budget. Pretty substantial for a reboot.

Nobody really gives a fuck.

The buzz is actually quite high but you don't necc count for everybody

[Memorex]

Looking at all the big failures of big-budget movies this summer, I'd say MOS looks stellar, financial performance-wise.