Well played sir. You make a compelling case, but I counter with him punching Pantha’s head off accidentally–which made his angst funny. I think he also ripped off the arm of another of those Lame Titans and beat the guy with his own arm. While whining about how he (Prime) was just misunderstood.
Again–made his angst look lulzy.
Advantage, mine! 
Batman v Superman has made a lot of money, but it cost a whole lot of money, and cost even more to promote it, it features the two most widely known superheroes and has a big cameo by the third, and it’s supposed to usher in a big franchise for DC. Anything less than mountains of money is a disappointment. The Avengers is an obvious comparison, because with a smaller budget ($220 compared to $250 million), it made $623M domestic and $896M foreign, while so far BvS has made $325M domestic and $537M foreign. And since BvS wasn’t hugely well received, it might make it harder for the next one to be well received unless the word of mouth and reviews are insanely good.
But I doubt the DC Cinematic Universe will implode. It’s just too big of a potential goldmine, even if so far they haven’t gotten as much gold as they should have. People are eagerly anticipating Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman, and those have different directors than BvS. For movies coming up after that, I think they’ll use some of the lessons learned from the BvS reception. Probably none of the movies will be light and colorful, but they definitely figure out how to make the audience enjoy them more.
How bad will it implode? It will become a black hole of cinematic proportions. Dooming not just this generation of movies, but all DC movies until that unlikely day when someone who understands the appeal of the characters AND comic books is allowed to helm.
We’re going down.
It’s kind of just a question of getting Zack Snyder (and the echoes of Christopher Nolan) out of their system, I think.
Prior to 2011 I would have categorized zero comics in DC’s output as Soap Operas, and even at Marvel, I’d say they were cranking out sci-fantasy action pieces with soap operatic elements. Humor is a part and parcel of comic’s core DNA, and has always been, and always shall be. Even the most soap operatic of comics, 90’s X-Men, was still spanning multiple genres in every issue.
So there IS a misunderstanding of the genre here, but it’s yours.
Candid Gamera:
Definitely disagree. The 80’s Teen Titans and Legion of Super-Heroes were totally soap operas with super-powers…and, not coincidentally, the biggest hits of their time.
I always thought that several versions of the Legion (including the immediate post-Zero Hour version) would make a fantastic soap opera.
All this doom and gloom talk about the DCEU is overstated. Things are looking fine. Yes, it wasn’t critically well received, and that definitely hurt the film, but what matters is how much it made and fan reception.
As far as money, I believe the projections were that the film was going to net the studio about $400 Million, not what they were hoping for, but certainly not something to scoff at either. Moreso, it didn’t pull Avengers numbers, sure, but it’s still sitting at #7 all time for Comic Book adaptations behind Avengers, Avengers 2, Dark Knight Rises, Dark Knight, and Spider-Man 3 (which it may or may not catch up to). Again, they were hoping to hit or get really close to $1 Billion, but it’s still financially a successful film and made more money than all but 3 of the MCU films, two of which were Avengers films (to which Justice League will be more appropriate to compare anyway).
For fan reception, what I see is 71% on IMDB and 68% on Rotten Tomatoes. This is far different from the critic score. And this is comparable to Man of Steel (72% on IMDB and 75%). Yes, there’s a lot of naysayers out there, but at least speaking from my own experience (that is, ignoring critics and youtube reviews and all), I’ve talked to dozens of people about it, and I’ve only heard one person say he didn’t like it, and two others who thought it was okay. Yes, most people weren’t blown away about it, but most gave positive reviews and said they enjoyed it. More importantly, every single one of them said they were looking forward to future movies and were asking me about what the next DCEU film was, if they were going to do a Wonder Woman film, if we’d see them all team up, and when Batman gets his own film.
So, yeah, fan reception was more lukewarm to hot, and there’s many reasons for that, but the important part is that fans are still going to see more films.
The film had it’s issues, largely with pacing and editing. I disagree, though, that grey and grim is inherently a bad thing. For better or worse, DC and Warner Bros. want to have a grittier approach to the Super Hero genre; that’s what they’ve been doing for a while, not just with Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, but other properties such as Watchmen and V for Vendetta. There were a few brief moments of humor in each of those other films, but overwhelmingly they were dark. The films that didn’t do this weren’t received well. Of course, part of that is that films like Green Lantern and Jonah Hex were messes in many other ways, but that’s how they’re taking it.
And, personally, I’m okay with that. Marvel has their tone, to a certain extent, in response to the dark tone DC had already been developing, and audiences responded well to it, but DC shouldn’t just try to copy Marvel or it hurts everyone. Plus, it provides alternatives for those who want a more serious take.
And for misunderstanding the characters, I also disagree. People complain about this version of Superman, but it’s a more modern interpretation. And believe you me I grew up LOVING the Christopher Reeves Superman, but that version of him wouldn’t fly today. I unabashedly adored Man of Steel and really feel that this version of Superman is a great interpretation that will fit well in a group, where his powers are grounded within the rules of the universe they created and not either made-up, over-powered or under-powered based on what the plot requires. I also like the fact that they’re focusing on the moral and ethical dilemmas for the character. If it’s just “is he strong enough?” that’s not interesting, because we know he is. I like to see him struggle with what he should and shouldn’t do, what his obligations are and if he can balance those for his desire to have a life of his own. As for Batman, he’s been met with near universal praise, so I think there’s not much to be said there either.
Lex did get some complaints, and I understand why. He’s an attempt at a new take on the character, trying to update the 90s power-suit billionaire Clancy Brown gave us to the 21st century eccentric billionaire Jesse Eisenberg did. Some people loved it, some people hated it. I’m one of the few people that’s ambivalent, where I see what they were trying to do, and parts worked and parts didn’t. But even still, I’m not sure why this is such a horrible thing. One of Marvel’s biggest flaws in their films is weak villains. Loki has been a shining point, but so many others have forgettable, one-note villains. That’s not the worst thing, Fiege himself said that it’s deliberate because they don’t want to take the emphasis off the hero, which is understandable, as some of DC’s most iconic villains can, at times, overshadow the hero. For instance, Joker did this in both the 89 Batman and in The Dark Knight. I thought Zod was great in MoS and we’ll see a lot more villains in Suicide Squad, so I think we should reserve judgment at least until that film hits.
First, as pointed out above, this film out performed all but 3 films in the MCU, two of which were full team-up films and the other being Iron Man 3, which I think owes part of it’s success to being the first film after the first Avengers film. That said, I do expect that Civil War will out-perform BvS. Either way, let’s wait and see how Justice League does and even if it doesn’t perform AS well as Avengers, it doesn’t have to, as long as it’s successful and profitable.
As for Deadpool, it’s a fantastic film and I loved it, but you’re factually wrong on two counts. First, it’s not an MCU film, it’s part of Fox’s X-Men Universe. Second, it’s about $100 Million behind BvS and came out over a month sooner; it’s not going to catch BvS. On a not strictly factual point, as much as I loved Deadpool too, that tone is very specific to THAT character. That kind of humor and that kind of violence works for him. That level of humor just plain wouldn’t work for most other characters, particularly not Batman and Superman. I think part of why it did so well is because it was a completely fresh approach, where even with a couple Marvel films having more humor, none were straight up comedies. Again, great film, but I don’t want to see DC, or Marvel for that matter, looking at it and just trying to duplicate that.
This is a false rumor. They ARE doing reshoots, but almost every film does. The idea that it didn’t have enough jokes in it was quickly squashed by a new trailer like a week or two later that had plenty of other scenes with jokes in it. The director said that they were offered more money to up some of that action. Regardless, we should wait to see the film before we judge it.
This stuff happens. Consider that Ant-Man lost it’s director after years in development due to creative differences. People started saying it was going to be Marvel’s first flop; it did just fine. Apparently, he’d spent a long time working on it, was attached to it being a certain way and, for whatever reason, Marvel didn’t think it would fit in their Universe without some tweaks. Similarly, there’s been people that they’ve made offers to that turned down big roles or directing gigs (eg, Joaquin Phoenix and Ava DuVernay for Doctor Strange and Black Panther respectively). Other notable actors have left because of behind-the-scenes drama (Edward Norton, Terence Howard, Hugo Weaving all come to mind). It’s one thing if they cycle through many directors, like The Crow remake, but losing a single director isn’t time to assume everything is collapsing.
And even with the director leaving, they’re still keeping the script and he’s still attached to other Warner Brothers films. So it at least sounds like it’s amicable not the doom and gloom “I want to make it fun and funny” “NO! YOU’RE FIRED!” that some people are making it out to be. Hell, Lord and Miller were being considered at one point. If anything, because of the character, I expect it to have a lot more levity than films focusing on Superman and Batman do. It’s not coming out for two years and not slated to go into production for a while. Let’s see what kind of director they bring in next and how his filmography compares. Frankly, I’m not all that impressed with Grahame-Smith’s as it is.
Again, I think the scenario of calling it a debacle is way overstated and way too soon. They’re two films in, and both were very profitable. Compare this to Marvel, where Iron Man was surprisingly successful, but The Incredible Hulk under-performed, was plagued with drama, and people were complaining about how it didn’t match tone, yadda yadda. Warner Brothers has already bet big on the DCEU, Suicide Squad is coming in a few months, Wonder Woman has wrapped and is in post-production, and Justice League is filming right now. They’re at least confident enough to have not halted the Justice League filming despite it not starting for two weeks after BvS hit, and that’s at least a $250 Million investment (rumored $500 Million for both planned Justice League films, presumably a little cheaper for the second with some reused sets and costume design).
In short, it took Marvel several films to get their footing, why isn’t DC being afforded the same? Hell, why does it even have to be a DC vs. Marvel thing at all? DC doesn’t have to be AS successful to still be profitable, it doesn’t have to have as much broad appeal to make fans happy. I say, let’s see through Justice League before we start declaring it a debacle doomed to fail.
Civil War sounds like a rather dark and gritty premise, too.
I’m willing to bet it will have plenty of humorous lines and light hearted moments though.
The thing is, you can have some dark and gritty. You just can’t make that the only thing you have.
Again, at best you’re talking soap operatic elements in a mishmash of other genres, and they were slavishly aping the formula of the X-Men - but I was focusing on the period immediately prior to 2011, in any case. So, strongly strongly disagree right back atcha.
We don’t want broad humor like they tried in Green lantern. What we want is witty, snappy dialog, the kind that elicits a quick laugh and a release of tension in the middle of dramatic scenes… Realistic stuff.
“Puny God” “We have a Hulk” “He’s adopted.” “And Hulk?..Smash!”
I think the target they should be aiming for is action thriller. Superhero movies should be going after the same tone you have in the Mission: Impossible or Raiders of the Lost Ark or James Bond or Star Trek or Jason Bourne franchises. Some comedy, some drama, but not an excess of either.
I think you can take it further than that.
Never mind the disappointment that was Incredible Hulk, which failed to even double its budget; consider what else came out after the hit that was Iron Man:
Captain America, which grossed more than 2.5x its budget, which was (a) good news, and (b) a better return on investment than Batman Begins; and
Thor, which grossed almost 3x its budget, which was even better news; and
Iron Man 2, which grossed more than 3x its budget.
Those were what rightly gave people hope for a successful Avengers movie. You noted that none of 'em grossed as much as Batman v Superman – but let me add that, given their budgets, none of 'em came close to doing what BvS is still doing; yeah, it’s at $862 million and counting, but it’s also at 3.45x and counting.
If those Marvel Cinematic Universe films had pulled in an extra sixty-five million apiece, each of 'em still would’ve – well, yes, failed to gross as much as BvS; that goes without saying. But they also would’ve still failed to hit the 3.45x mark.
I don’t mind the concept of darker superhero movies in general. Big chunks of BvS is based on DKR, which itself is extremely dark. I liked Deadpool and I am eagerly awaiting Netflix’s Punisher series, even though their interpretation of the character was more Garth Ennis than Chuck Dixon.
What concerns me more is that I don’t think DC itself is in control of the movies. All evidence suggests that Zack Snyder is calling the shots and there is turmoil over whose interpretation is the “right” one. Also, I agree with others who point out that just making a movie “dark” doesn’t mean the director understands why they are doing it or how to use it to best effect.
I’m interested to see whether Watchmen, BvS, and Deadpool herald a “dark age” of superhero movies, the same way Alan Moore, Frank Miller, and Rob Liefeld paved the way for a “dark age” of comics in the 90’s.
I agree, at least for Snyder - for me it feels pretty clear that he just doesn’t quite get what makes good comic book movies work, and the sooner they move on from him, the better for DC.
I think the DC cinematic universe is too far set in stone to truly implode now - they’ll find new directors if needed for the Aquaman and Flash movies, they won’t just give up for a few years like they did after the Green Lantern fiasco - but it won’t surprise me if the movies do poorly enough that they scale things back. After Aquaman/Flash/Wonder Woman/solo Batman film they’ll likely just move onto Justice League, and then re-evaluate from there. I kinda doubt the individual side movies will do well enough to give us, say, Aquaman 2 and 3, for example, like Thor or Iron Man has.
It’ll be very telling, I think, to see how Suicide Squad turns out.
I don’t think it’s fair to lump Deadpool in as “dark” - it’s R, but it’s a raunchy R. Completely different from the “dark” in Watchmen and BvS, which is more “joyless” than anything else. Deadpool is the exact opposite of joyless.
And also: “Let me get this straight. You think that your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands; and your plan, is to blackmail this person?” [beat] “Good luck.”
The Dark Knight got it close to right, but it had the advantage of building off Batman Begins. That was actually a fairly light-hearted movie. If you go back and watch it, BB is not especially gritty. Yeah, there’s some fairly hefty emotional weight in spots, but overall it has a fairly typical happy outcome. Villains are thwarted, hero wins, lessons are learned, and life goes on. TDK turned that around and showed the cost of such a battle, without trivializing the previous movie.
Here’s one significant point, out of that: its much easier to take a a light series and explore darkness, than to do the reverse. The Winter Soldier was a very strong dark movie because Captain America had such a bright tone to it. Sure, there was evil and loss along the way. But it was in part due to seeing how bright the world was, or seemed to be even in an evil time, that made it effective to show darkness staining what should have been a time of hope of prosperity.
The problem with the DC movies is that they’ve confused “serious” with “humorless.” You can address enormously serious issues, respectively, and still allow a little levity to sneak in. I mean, Schindler’s List had more laugh lines than Batman v. Superman. When your adolescent power fantasy about men in tights punching space monsters is more solemn than a movie about the actual Holocaust, you badly need to recalibrate your approach to the material.
BvS is a disaster when you look at the big picture: financially it will barely break even, critically it was panned and audience word-of-mouth has been terrible. That’s pretty much the opposite of what you want from a film intended to jump-start a major franchise. The DCEU absolutely is in trouble, and they need to right the ship pronto if they don’t want it to blow up in their faces.
IMHO, it is salvageable, but they need to ditch Snyder ASAP. He’s their biggest liability.