March Movies: Batman V. Superman, 10 Cloverfield Lane...

[shrader]

I get the complaints. It's not for everyone. I personally had no problem with it. My main thought walking out though was that I can't wait for the solo batman movie. That ass kicking was right out of the Arkham video games. It's going to be a very different version of the character than we've ever seen on the big screen.

[unbillievable]

That's exactly what I'm talking about, that's the sort of thing they either needed to cut out, or expand on, what they settled on was confusing to non fans.

DC is trying to jump into the middle instead of working up to it. -Marvel had mid grossing Thor and CAmerica to push first. Nolan's Batman, or the 4 current TV series' aren't connected either. Wasted opportunity to bring in an established audience.

I get the complaints. It's not for everyone. I personally had no problem with it. My main thought walking out though was that I can't wait for the solo batman movie. That ass kicking was right out of the Arkham video games. It's going to be a very different version of the character than we've ever seen on the big screen.

 

So they went with the video game character? Interesting choice.

[shrader]

DC is trying to jump into the middle instead of working up to it. -Marvel had mid grossing Thor and CAmerica to push first. Nolan's Batman, or the 4 current TV series' aren't connected either. Wasted opportunity to bring in an established audience.

 

So they went with the video game character? Interesting choice.

Just with the style of the fighting anyway, far more brutal than anything before. He's out there to hurt people.

 

As for introducing characters, they'll do that in some way with the non-big 2. Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg will get an introduction of some sort.

[unbillievable]

Just with the style of the fighting anyway, far more brutal than anything before. He's out there to hurt people.

 

As for introducing characters, they'll do that in some way with the non-big 2. Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg will get an introduction of some sort.

 

Have no clue about Cyborg, and the last 4 Terminator movies bombed (not to mention Robocop).

 

Interested in how they incorporate water into Aquaman. Please. Please. Please. let it not be about Global Warming.

 

I'm hyped for Wonder Woman after seeing Gadot's version in B v S.

Flash could be the wildcard. Is it going to be like Twilight? or Guardians of the Galaxy? He's targeted more as a YA character in previous live-action versions. If he turns into an EMO Goth, I'm done.

Edited April 4, 2016 by unbillievable

[shrader]

 

Flash could be the wildcard. Is it going to be like Twilight? or Guardians of the Galaxy? He's targeted more as a YA character in previous live-action versions. If he turns into an EMO Goth, I'm done.

 

His look definitely wasn't what I was expecting.

 

I'll throw spoilers on this one for people who haven't seen it yet:

 

 

They set up a very interesting possibility with the whole nightmare sequence. If they ever decided to go with what that whole scene was a reference to, we would be seeing a very different side of superman than anything we've ever seen. The boy scout character for superman does make it tougher to make interesting movies, but if they were to flip that around, they will get a ton of attention.

 

[Dorkington]

 

I'd love to see an Injustice setup, because frankly Superman isn't all that interesting as the Reeves boyscout, to me... At least in this universe they got it 'right' by being consistent on him being a reluctant hero. He wasn't Superman until the Kryptonians came to town. Historically speaking he's never been fully invested in being a hero. With that much power he should be able to fix most of the world's ills within days, but he doesn't, because he's too invested/interested in living a simple life with Lois and the Kent family. DC comics have touched upon this a couple times with Batman calling him out on that, or what would happen if Wayne had Superman's powers.

 

[Doc]

Saw it yesterday and read a few things about the movie:

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Why superhero movies are headed in the wrong direction

 

"The release of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, which was greeted withnegative reviews, a huge opening weekend at the box office, and then aprecipitous drop, has inspired a new wave of hand-wringing about the state of superhero movies. With that in mind, a refreshing cultural nugget surfaced online Monday: a conversation between two of the most influential comic-book directors, Richard Donner and Christopher Nolan, on the appeals and challenges of the genre. The easiest thing to take away from it? Hollywood’s superhero trend, like so many fads the industry previously embraced, is headed in the wrong direction.

 

(snip)

 

In 1978, Superman was the most expensive film ever made, at a budget of $55 million ($200 million in today’s dollars). Donner’s innovations included realisticfront-projection photography to make its hero soar through the sky—as the film’s tagline went, “You’ll believe a man can fly.” In Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, directed by Zack Snyder (at the cost of around $250 million), there’s hardly a minute that isn’t swept up in a cacophony of computer-generated effects, from apocalyptic dream sequences featuring giant dragonfly soldiers to an epic showdown with a gigantic alien monster called Doomsday that shoots lasers from his roaring face. When Snyder’s Superman (played by Henry Cavill) flies, he blasts into the air with a sonic boom; it’s all very impressive, but doesn’t land with much weight.

(snip)

“What CGI is incredible for is if you photograph something and then you manipulate it. But if you ask the CG artists to produce things whole-cloth ... to me as an audience member your brain can always tell the difference,” Nolan says. Donner spends much of the interview picking Nolan’s brain about particular images in his Batman movies—the waterfall of the Batcave, the plane hijacking inThe Dark Knight Rises, and that film’s use of New York City’s bridges in its climax. His question is always the same: How much of that was real? The answer is almost always: most of it, with a little bit of computer enhancement. Donner’s gasp of astonishment at learning that Nolan’s team dammed up a river for weeks to achieve the proper waterfall flow is the most delightful moment of the conversation.

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/04/richard-donner-christopher-nolan-superhero-movies/476757/

 

Link to the video (25 minutes long) of Donner and Nolan chatting: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3gkirp_christopher-nolan-and-richard-donner-a-conversation_shortfilms

[Dorkington]

You think the CGI/visuals in BvS are bad?

 

Other than Doomsday, I thought they nailed the visuals, CGI or not.

[Deranged Rhino]

You think the CGI/visuals in BvS are bad?

 

Other than Doomsday, I thought they nailed the visuals, CGI or not.

 

I still haven't seen it so I can't comment. I do think the reliance upon CGI over practical effects in a general sense is hurting the product of tent pole flicks. CGI is a tool, and can make things amazing. But too much of it causes a disconnect in viewer's minds, no matter how good it looks it still looks fake. I know in the stuff I work on I'm always pushing for less CGI and more in camera FX. You get better performances from the actors, and it's also a lot more creatively fulfilling.

 

That's not to say I'm against CGI. I just prefer a better balance.

[shrader]

 

I still haven't seen it so I can't comment. I do think the reliance upon CGI over practical effects in a general sense is hurting the product of tent pole flicks. CGI is a tool, and can make things amazing. But too much of it causes a disconnect in viewer's minds, no matter how good it looks it still looks fake. I know in the stuff I work on I'm always pushing for less CGI and more in camera FX. You get better performances from the actors, and it's also a lot more creatively fulfilling.

 

That's not to say I'm against CGI. I just prefer a better balance.

Problem is, I do t think you can do a character like superman without a lot of it. Some may think that will ultimately hurt the superhero movie trend, but I don't think so.

 

I do wish they'd go more towards the cartoon route with all of this stuff though. They can do anything they want there. DC had some really good stuff over the years and I wouldn't mind seeing more of that instead.

[unbillievable]

It has nothing to do with the CGI. Hollywood is trying to come up with a formula, when there is only one thing audiences want: To Be Entertained.

 

If CGI was the problem, then animated movies would still be hand drawn. No one cares about the effects. They spent 3 movies trying to re-do Yoda and no one noticed because the story (and acting) sucked.

 

It's not about superheroes.

[Deranged Rhino]

It has nothing to do with the CGI. Hollywood is trying to come up with a formula, when there is only one thing audiences want: To Be Entertained.

 

If CGI was the problem, then animated movies would still be hand drawn. No one cares about the effects. They spent 3 movies trying to re-do Yoda and no one noticed because the story (and acting) sucked.

 

It's not about superheroes.

 

You're right, it's not about superheroes. It's about risk.

 

The WGA strike of 2007, coupled with the financial collapse, gave the studios the excuse and leeway to completely reorganize how they develop movies. Development budgets were slashed, slates were reduced, and marketing departments took over for the development departments in the studio pecking order. Risk, or more appropriately avoiding risk, has become the Hollywood ethos. Relying on existing IP reduces risk because existing IP comes with a built in audience. The fact that superheros are identifiable across cultures and lend themselves to action oriented movies -- which in and of themselves are more translatable across cultures -- makes selling them abroad easier. Comedies don't translate in Asia, but Superman is Superman.

 

Movie studios no longer make movies in the 10-75 million dollar range as they're just too risky. You get a better RoI on big budgets than you do smaller movies, so the middle class movies and budgets in Hollywood have been vaporized. The thing is, most of the best movies ever made were made for the price range Hollywood now ignores. Also those types of movies, by nature of being cheaper, are traditionally the best training grounds for up and coming directors, actors, writers, and producers and by eliminating them Hollywood is shooting itself in the foot. They're no longer churning out stars or young-big named directors who can grow into brands of their own and put butts in seats.

 

But worse than all that is the simple fact you can't make great art if you're afraid of taking risks. The best you can hope for is forgettable fare that passes the smell test but fails to leave a lasting impact on audiences.

[unbillievable]

Another problem is that no one is going to waste $10 on art. The tickets have gotten so high that the movie better be high budget or it's not worth it. Those kinds of movies are better on Netflix. You want to make a mid level movie with a lot of talking? Pitch it to HBO.

[Deranged Rhino]

Another problem is that no one is going to waste $10 on art. The tickets have gotten so high that the movie better be high budget or it's not worth it. Those kinds of movies are better on Netflix. You want to make a mid level movie with a lot of talking? Pitch it to HBO.

 

False. Completely and utterly false.

[unbillievable]

 

False. Completely and utterly false.

 

Name one "artsy" movie that made money at the theater. They're all rentals now. Ask any movie-goer, we're all more discriminating with our money. The only holdouts are animated. family films (because the parents are in it for the night out, not the movie).

 

The most successfull recently? American Hustle, Wolf of Wallstreet, barely grossed in the 100-200 million range.

 

People in the movie industry are living in the past. The days when theaters were the only option are gone. Stop blaming the studio for adjusting to the consumer. Adapt or die.

Edited April 8, 2016 by unbillievable

[Deranged Rhino]

Name one "artsy" movie that made money at the theater. They're all rentals now. Ask any movie-goer, we're all more discriminating with our money. The only holdouts are animated. family films (because the parents are in it for the night out, not the movie).

 

The most successfull recently? American Hustle, Wolf of Wallstreet, barely grossed in the 100-200 million range.

 

People in the movie industry are living in the past. The days when theaters were the only option are gone. Stop blaming the studio for adjusting to the consumer. Adapt or die.

Your analysis is deeply flawed and superficial.

 

The studios did not adjust to the customer. That's the problem. They adjusted their slates based purely on opportunity and following the too big to fail model. Put enough money into a movie's marketing and you're guaranteed a roi regardless of the film's quality. That strategy leaves less money for other films, thus we've seen a dramatic reduction in the number of movies made by each studio annually.

 

This wasn't done to cater to the customer, it was done to wrest power from the WGA and development departments all over Hollywood. The past eight years have been a result of that decision, not the result of customers only wanting to see tent pole films.

 

And as for those two movies you mentioned, neither Marty nor O'Russel would have careers today had the studio model that's in practice today been around in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Also, apart from earning close to 300 million domestically, both those films pulled in 15 Oscar nominations between them.

[Deranged Rhino]

In case anyone's still interested in this stuff, this article is pretty interesting: http://variety.com/2016/film/opinion/batman-v-superman-warner-bros-superhero-suit-1201749164/

 

 

When I finally caved for a second viewing of Zack Snyder’s “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” I spotted only six or seven other people in the theater. Even following a dramatic 69% second weekend drop, I couldn’t believe my eyes.

This is “Batman v Superman,” a blockbuster event meant to jump start an entire cinematic universe, yet in its 13th day of release, the superhero pic only mustered $2.8 million, a number that couldn’t even match Marvel’s “Ant-Man” ($3 million), Snyder’s previous foray “Man of Steel” ($4 million) or even Tim Burton’s 1989 introduction to “Batman” ($4.36 million). It was a heavily front-loaded release, to be sure: a $166 million opening was a rallying cry for proponents in the face of countless critical pans. But at this point, hitting the magic $1 billion figure in worldwide grosses seems to be out of reach.

If all the recent release date shuffling and rumored restructuring of the Warner Bros. status quo didn’t make it clear, those numbers certainly should: They’re close to hitting the panic button in Burbank this week.

Reports suggest an ongoing culture shift at the studio, with fewer original titles being greenlit as WB doubles down on franchise generators like DC Comics, Lego and Harry Potter. Certainly there’s a fever, what with Disney printing money from the “Star Wars” and Marvel hit parade. But the hot seat is getting hotter, as this is the year Warner chairman and CEO Kevin Tsujihara’s chickens come home to roost.

(snip)

Nevertheless, we’re left with a movie in which a central character literally sits down to watch trailers for three other movies. “Batman v Superman” is bursting at the seams, desperate to make up the ground DC has lost to Marvel over the past seven years. You can almost picture the boardroom meeting: “We need our Avengers now.”

Ironically, the studio’s franchise potential was stalled by the very filmmaker who ignited interest in this new era of comic book movies over a decade ago: Christopher Nolan. Nolan was adamant for years that his Batman not exist in any shared universe with other characters from the DC canon. “It was like, ‘Thank you very much, we’ll take it from here,'” a source says. “He would just do it, and deliver.”

(snip)

And that’s what seems to be missing: overriding vision. Warner Bros. strives to be a filmmaker-friendly studio that would like to make an artist-centered model work, and at least conceptually, that’s commendable. But when you’re dealing with something as ungainly as an entire comic book universe, a certain amount of oversight — artistically invested, not corporate — feels only necessary. So the big problem, as far as I see it, remains this lack of a central node, someone akin to Marvel’s Kevin Feige who is intimately attuned to the source material, drawing the various strings together.

(snip)

I’m told production exec Jon Berg and and Time-Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes are taking more of a hands-on approach now, paying closer attention to overarching story concerns, but someone well-versed in both production and DC’s minutiae is what’s needed.

 

 

And this isn't helping reduce the stress levels in Burbank: http://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/batman-v-superman-box-office-melissa-mccarthy-boss-1201749288/

[Punching Bag]

I saw the movie later than most of the crowd and I disliked major parts of it.

• It never explained how the Riddler took over Lex Luthor's mind (I do not think Jesse Eisenberg was playing Lex Luthor at all)
• Clark Kent was spending all of his time concentrating on Batman which again makes it seem that Superman is the real person not Clark Kent who he grew up as.
• Batman was too easily baited to attack Superman.
• Doomsday seemed to be combination of Bizarro and Doomsday and was very odd combination
• Ben Affleck's portrayal of Bruce Wayne was disjointed as if he was chained to Christian Bale's version and not added what
• It appeared that they killed Jimmy Olson off because Superman film team (if there is one left) had no use of character

There were parts I did like

• Alfred seemed well portrayed
• Diane Lane seemed more comfortable in her portrayal of Martha Kent
• Ben Affleck's portrayal of Batman was great and it was obvious he spent a lot of time getting ready for role both physically working out and researching the character.
• Wonder Woman's insertion was done very well and I specially liked the lines

 

[Wonder Woman arrives to fight Doomsday]

Superman: Is she with you?

Batman: I thought she was with you.

 

In my opinion the Warner Brothers/DC film universe is starting out too dark but that is they way the comics universe is these days and I think reason for drop in sales.

 

 

 

Too bad they can't just sell the rights back if it flops.

 

Despite being the foundation of the franchise, Batman ruined the universe. Trying to hammer that tone and style to fit other characters is a mistake. B v S (in the comics) was epic because it contrasted the ultra light Superman, with the deeply dark Batman. If they're both goth, it sucks.

 

Unlike others, the only film I still have high hopes for is Wonder Woman. Modernizing her actually fits. I expect Suicide Squad to be average and Aquaman to bomb worse than Fantastic Four. (has anyone ever like Mamoa in anything?)

According to the BvS film Wonder Woman was in the "Man's World" 100 years ago (World War I time frame) and was unhappy about it then; how much worse must it be now? At least she can dress differently which she took full advantage of. Wonder what brought her back other than designer clothes?

 

I liked Mamoa in Stargate Atlantis and IF they play him as an underwater barbarian I think he will do well; can he carry a movie I do not know.

 

 

Problem is, I do t think you can do a character like superman without a lot of it. Some may think that will ultimately hurt the superhero movie trend, but I don't think so.

I do wish they'd go more towards the cartoon route with all of this stuff though. They can do anything they want there. DC had some really good stuff over the years and I wouldn't mind seeing more of that instead.

It appears they are still making animation films - I liked "Justice League: Throne of Atlantis" but disliked "Justice League: Gods and Monsters"; I do not tend to watch the post-Flashpoint Batman films these days. Warner Brothers has been a bit spastic since Flashpoint changes which brought his this very alien Superman for who Clark Kent appears to be just a disguise.

[Deranged Rhino]

Ouch: http://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/box-office-the-boss-batman-v-superman-melissa-mccarthy-1201749869/