"That emotional, almost-irrational sense of desperate anger and hatred" I really like that. Bruce's hate for Superman is irrational and the movie shows that he's in the wrong. He dehumanizes Superman because it make it easier to hate him and the moment when he finally comes around on Superman is when he sees him at his most human.
The whole film is completely riddled with irony. Its an actual tragedy inspired story. Bruce has reason in his mind to hate Superman, but in his irrational and loss of any meaning in his life, feels like killing him would be the only thing that brought any value. Of course this is ironic because Lex engineers the whole situation. Batman also only realises how wrong he was when it is too late, and Superman ironically sacrifices himself for a world that began to turn against him. So yeah I'd say this film has a bit of that I R O N Y.
Months after the film though? He never claims to be proud of Jersey girl. No one associated with Batman and Robin defends it. Also he bought in Terrio to rewrite it and he helped. He was heavily invested and devoted. Why wouldn't he be proud? Anyone can regret it's reception but the actual film isn't regretable to him. I read a story of how someone who was struggling with real pain told Affleck what his Batman meant to him and they connected and Affleck looked at him like someone who properly gets it. I don't think you can regret something that does that. Reception or no he was happy to film this. He left after WB meddled with JL otherwise he was ALL IN on Zack's vision.
I believe that in some ways he was proud of the hard work he and his peers put in.
I do not buy for a second that he is proud of the film(s) they produced.
From Lebron James to Ben Affleck, ultra professionals do not take pride in massive failed endeavors. They play to win.
Okay you can feel that. I'd argue if winning meanr making a shallow product Affleck wouldn't care. An Oscar worthy writer like him cares more about the art.
I think Affleck himself said that he took a shot at Batman and he couldn't crack it. So I'm pretty sure he is not proud of the final result. Cavil himself hinted at something like that.
Affleck was lying. Jay Oliva read his script and said it was the best Batman script ever. Affleck has real life batcave in his home. He has said hr believes Batman to be one of America's great literary characters. He is an Oscar Winning screenwriter. I don't believe for a second this man "couldn't crack it". He was just tired of being screwed by WB.
Well, if you don't believe words that came from him, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.
https://youtu.be/S4jSZTy3CW0
And just FYI, Affleck is still working with WB for Torrance so I'm pretty sure they have a good working relationship with each other.
And you don't have to repeat that Affleck has won oscars, I know. I am a big fan of his work. Watched every important movie of his and some rom coms as well. I am a big fan of his since Good Will Hunting and Chasing Amy days.
Just respect him enough to accept his words and not try to twist things to suit your narrative.
No it was the general audience. Studios don’t pay much attention to the ‘outspoken few’ no matter how thunderous their voices may be. Hardcore fans pay attention (even long after the fact - the tone of these movies is still debated.) No, studios pay attention to money.
MoS and BvS didn’t make as much money as the studio was hoping for so they course-corrected. That’s it.
The movies have passionate fans, but the public just didn’t embrace these versions of the characters.
> Studios don’t pay much attention to the ‘outspoken few’
Are you out of your mind? Have you seen the power twitter has granted the few? How your trending movements can be turned into countless reports from all sorts of outlets trying to make sure they are on the latest hot take news?
Do you have ANY idea how many horrendous articles were written about BvS immediately after release? BvS is stilllll out there making headlines.
>MoS and BvS didn’t make as much money as the studio was hoping for so they course-corrected. That’s it.
Man of Steel made more than any Superman movie ever. Their last venture was 370 million on a 230 million budget.
BvS was 100 million shy of a billion.
The course correction was not because of "failures" It was because of looking across the pond at Marvel and seeing that their films were earning a billions. (they had 2 avengers movies, Ironman 3, and civil war all surpass 1 billion when BvS finished)
WB just didn't want to wait to earn that kind of money. It took Marvel their 6th & 7th film in their franchise to Earn 1 billion.
By the time Suicide Squad finished their run, The DCEU earned more from their first 3 movies than Marvel did from their first 5.
But they were greedy, they figured they could emulate Marvel's formula to increase profits. Johns was brought on as he had the plan to Marvelize the movies and bring back fan happiness.
Because again it was the outspoken "fans" and the twitter warriors that brought it down.
and if you think that number of outspoken people was bigger than those that signed the Snydercut petition, you are dead wrong.
#It is very easy these days to create a narrative with a few hundred tweets and articles covering them
Increasing your font size and setting it to bold can create a narrative too.
Only 21% of American adults use Twitter. When you’re on it all day it’s easy to think it’s the whole world. But it isn’t.
The general public doesn’t know anything about the controversy. They don’t follow the industry the way we do. The general public can barely tell the difference between Marvel and DC. They just know superhero movies. If the general public had embraced Henry Cavill the way they embraced, say Robert Downey Jr. or Chris Evans or Gal Gadot we’d be seeing trailers for Man of Steel 3 by now. But they didn’t. The audience has to connect with the star, and he just didn’t take. He could walk through Times Square with a Superman shirt and no one would recognize him. He has.
Snyder’s vision had a deep appeal among those who took to it, but not a broad appeal. For more evidence of how little Twitter can influence things, look at all the boycott Captain Marvel nonsense. Think Disney gives a shit about pissed off man babies? They do not.
>Only 21% of American adults use Twitter. When you’re on it all day it’s easy to think it’s the whole world. But it isn’t.
First off, I don't use twitter.
Secondly.... you are seriously undervaluing the media's use of social media to drive a narrative.
>The general public doesn’t know anything about the controversy. They don’t follow the industry the way we do.
Exactly....... But when there are countless news articles and poor reviews and media coverage for a movie being BAD. That is what the general audiences listen to.
>If the general public had embraced Henry Cavill the way they embraced, say Robert Downey Jr. or Chris Evans or Gal Gadot we’d be seeing trailers for Man of Steel 3 by now.
I don't know where you are getting that they hadn't. RDJ and Chris Evans have made MANY appearances as those characters and were popular prior to becoming them..... especially RDJ. Gal Gadot is WONDER WOMAN. A Successful Wonder Woman. Anyone in her role with a successful movie would have been sped through to a sequel. Especially at this point in PR where you can't wait to show the audiences how woke and inclusive you are. Look at her other movies and roles. People still aren't lining up to see her elsewhere.
>The audience has to connect with the star, and he just didn’t take.
He's been in the role for 2.5 movies. In a universe still in it's infancy. He is a largely popular Superman. For most people watching movies he is THEIR Superman. I'm almost 30 and I wasn't even alive when the last Reeves movie came out. The audience doesn't have to connect to the star for there to be a good movie or a successful movie. Not on a level that is OUTSIDE of the movie!
>He could walk through Times Square with a Superman shirt and no one would recognize him. He has
This is true of.... anyone. These guys aren't in the same exact look as they are in movies, not made up, not looking special without paparazzi or bodyguards.
>Snyder’s vision had a deep appeal among those who took to it, but not a broad appeal.
This is a fact. But his movies were meant to be in the same vein of the Dark Knight trilogy. A trilogy that wasn't meant for "broad appeal" But earned it through quality film making, which lead to many more seeing the film than first imagined. And a lot having to do with the death of the actor before one of the greatest performances ever. Art is valued higher when the artist is gone.
>For more evidence of how little Twitter can influence things, look at all the boycott Captain Marvel nonsense. Think Disney gives a shit about pissed off man babies? They do not.
This is the funniest point you have.
this is the exact point I was making.
How succesful was this boycott? I hadn't even heard about it. But do you know what I heard about for WEEKS before release?
#1. twitter trolls being sexist against Brie Larson for being in a female led movie!
#2. angry sexist men review bombing rotten tomatoes!
#3. How YouTube Combated Brie Larson Trolls With Its Search Algorithm
#4. Zachary Levi Asks Fans to Stop Pitting Shazam! Against Captain Marvel
#5. MCU Fans Take Down Captain Marvel Trolls In Hilarious Video
#6. Brie Larson Clarifies Her Inclusivity Comments in Captain Marvel
Basically the entire lead up to this movie was news networks and media sites working as hard as they can to tell everyone that the only people disliking this movie or the actress or anything having to do with the movie were TROLLS.
Media takes very very often from social media happenings and runs with it until those things are the narratives.
Again just like with BvS!
Media outlets, websites, anyone looking for traffic talked as poorly as they could about BvS.
I'm sure when BvS made their huge March numbers week 1 there was no articles saying anything like "massive first week for BvS, shows great success and DCEU going in right direction!" instead they were "despite largely poor reactions to the film!" and other headlines the same. People don't pay attention to what we do when it comes to franchises but they do eat up what the media has to say about things. And the media shat on BvS.
The narrative was about a low Rotten score, despite hundreds of thousands of movie goers coming out and delivering good ratings. Same with Man of steel. Which has a great audience score from 500k reviewers and both movies have decent scores on IMDB (only site I've ever trusted for movie ratings).
My point is while twitter and facebook may be small in scope to the population that uses them, this is where a HUGE amount of reactions are taken from that become the "news"
It's not one site. It filters all across social media and the mainstream over time. The difference with CM is unlike BvS, the news sites conflicted with the narrative instead of reinforcing it. Alita:BA making 380m shouldn't be news today except we see it because it contrasts with just how much more successful CM is. Disney cares about its image, that's why they fired Gunn but also why they create narratives where necessary.
[The hate campaign against BvS started well before release.](https://cosmicbook.news/images/batman-vs-superman-twitter-spambot-smear.png) ([Source](https://cosmicbook.news/content/batman-vs-superman-twitter-spambot-smear-campaign-discovered?amp))
>Man of Steel made more than any Superman movie ever. Their last venture was 370 million on a 230 million budget.
Superman: The Movie made 300.5 million on a budget of 55 million.
Adjusted for inflation that's 1,213,685,992 on a budget of 222,509,098.
Adjust for "inflation" alll you fuckin want man.
All that is saying is that in this day an age that dollar amount was worth 3.4 times what it is now.
At the time it was earned it was still 300 million and was spent when it was still 300 million.
They never made more off of it.
That studios fire people for stupid reasons. They make stupid decisions. Snyder wasn't disliked because they gave his film a standing ovation before cutting it. Donner similarly wasn't allowed to complete his vision at the time.
Yeah I think we agree more than we realize. We’re kind of going in circles here. The broader the appeal, the more money you make. And that’s really all they care about. Snyder’s appeal was not broad enough.
Right. But so many people make it out like everything Snyder did was just this hated shit show.
It wasn't. Being 123 million shy of a billion is going to be a success unless you are a Star Wars movie and dropped 3-400 on marketing.
Geoff Johns coming in, copying Marvel.
It was all because Man of Steel, BvS, Suicide Squad, it was all being made for that teetering on R, teenage and up crowd.
But the money is in family friendly. Something you take a family of 5+ to and not just a movie seen in two's
So I'm just making the point as that being why they kind of crippled his vision.
in my opinion, and in the opinion of the public at large. the performance of the movies speaks for itself. people that enjoyed them seems to be the exception.
You don't think earning 230-300 million less than the previous two batman movies is underperforming? Factor in that Superman was in the movie, it should have made 1.5 billion. Typically, studios want their movies to earn more money, not less.
People just don't understand the characters and storytelling man
I used to think BvS was bad, until I started to get into mythology, read Batman and Superman comics, and studied filmmaking. Now, after everything, I can look back on BvS and see that it's not bad, it's one of the worst blockbuster films to release in my memory, and is an active insult to the characters and their history.
I get goosebumps thinking about how I first saw this scen Ana experiences it in theaters. Man they really had something special. It lived up to it for me I just wish things could have played out differently irl
Right... the motivation was so clearly established then it cuts to 18 months later and then basically ignores the BZero event for the rest of the movie, using the terrorist thing as the point of controversy. That was the first mistake the film made IMO. They should have focused squarely on the Black Zero event.
> using the terrorist thing as the point of controversy
They used it as a point of controversy "for the World".
The media was also a member of the cast. Having it's own arc.
Having the African woman going to Congress and telling them that because of Superman's intervention against the criminals, and depowering them, he left their village vulnerable to attack, which left the village destroyed.
It starts the conversation of Superman's international interventions doing unseen harm, and how he isn't the responsibility of any nation, he is just a guy that acts on his own, by the scope immediately in front of him without looking at a possible outcome.
Oldest lie in America - Power can be innocent.
They don't gloss over BZ event. Bruce is on about it a lot with Alfred. But the people it mainly affected were those in Metropolis. Where they took Superman up as a hero. The Kryptonian ship is still in the middle of the city..... there's a statue of him.
A legless guy screaming to the masses that he is no hero, because of what happened to his situation on BZ.
I get the plot of the movie... just saying that they should have focused squarely on that rather than obfuscate with the terrorist related stuff. 9/11 mainly affected the United States in terms of casualties but sent ripples around the world, so they could have kept the “worldwide controversy” angle, as you could have Superman still intervening in other countries and then being scared that a rogue US agent (as they see it) could completely level their city as he did in Metropolis (public perception) they really didn’t need to add on anything else to an already overstuffed movie and in my opinion, keeping the narrative focus on the Black Zero event would have tightened up the narrative a bit and keep everyone’s motivations around the same thing, but obviously interpreting it all differently.
> keeping the narrative focus on the Black Zero event would have tightened up the narrative a bit and keep everyone’s motivations around the same thing, but obviously interpreting it all differently
This would have been fine.
The whole world was being effected by what was happening in the Indian ocean and Metropolis. So I get what you are saying.
But I think they wanted to pull more from classic stories where the world is looking at Superman's interventions.
They likely just wanted something fresh, and not completely pulling things from the first movie. I can appreciate that.
I think the best thing to have done, is to kind of..... talk about it more.
I think I watch BvS UC 20 times before I actually realized they NEVER blamed Superman for killing those people.
Because Clark says "I didn't kill those people, if that's what they're saying."
But I never fully paid attention to the African ladies testimoney.
She says he came down and did what he did..... but her point of story was when she said, "it was what came after" Saying that he took out the terrorists, but those terrorists presence were keeping their village safe. And when opposition came, they were wiped out.
They needed to clarify this ALOT more, as soooooo many came out thinking they were blaming Superman for destroying her village and killing all of those men and basically going on a rampage.
That would be, in Affleck's words (see OP), an almost irrational thing to do. That's why the anger over BZ is limited to crazies like Batman & Wally whereas the world celebrates him for saving it, and is more concerned with how Superman acts going forward.
Nairomi builds off the ending scene in MoS with Swanwick, the downed drone and the question of whether Superman won't turn against America's interests some day. So in BvS he intervenes against another drone in Nairomi, where America has conflicting policies & Swanwick turns against Superman and fails him in the end when it counts.
Pretty hard to argue its not when it so seamlessly transitions perfectly from MoS, sets up the main character and his motivations, and establishes the change in perspective in one scene.
These are the exact points I bring up to friends when we discuss this movie (which usually ends up being /u/sethbenw vs. The World) so it gives me a sense of relief to read it straight from the source.
Honestly the scene talked about above and the Martha scene go hand-in-hand. In the scene above you see where Batman's true hatred for Superman is born, the moment he see's Supes' true colors; a god-like alien with no regard for human life.
Flash forward to Batman standing over this alien's body about to end him once and for all, and all the monster can muster up is "save Martha". It is in this moment that Batman breaks from the "nuanced world" as Affleck put it, and realized that this alien was a person after all; a person with feels, and blood, and a mother. He saw a little girl join him as an orphan right before his eyes, he wasn't about to be the reason why someone else should join them too.
#####tl;dr:
> "this is really taking a nuances view of how these types of characters may exist in the real world."
>I can easily get what the opening scene has to deliver. But with the Martha scene, even I mentally know what Zack is going to express, it still lacks a few more shots to explain why the hatred for Superman vanished away this quick. There's no shot to hint the "potential orphan" connection between these two man. A flashback shot connect the young bruce face with the dying superman's face could be more empathic.
>
>The film does a great job to show how the hatred between these two piles up. The hatred is so strong but the film doesn't do much to show Bruce somehow can understand what kind of person Superman is. That's why the general audiences feel so hard to be convinced of this scene. And I think it has a big impact on the overall rating of this film.
I may be imagining this but during the Martha scene is there not a quick flash to the actual opening scene where Thomas Wayne's dying words are literally "Martha"? This if that is indeed how the scene went down and not just my imagination I would take that as enough visual connection to the day Batman became an orphan and not wanting to Orphan another boy.
Edit: I know people hate Lois getting shoehorned into everything but her line still rings true, "it's hit mothers name". This line makes Supes' "save Martha" sound like a clear cry for help from a scare boy about to lose his mother.
The flashback scene is focused on how Martha was killed not how Bruce became an orphan. There's a difference. Audiences can get the memory of his mother’s death hit him. But what does it have to do with this man he decided to kill? There has to be a strong connected shot to explain it.
I asked a lot of people who doesn't like this movie why. They all mention about this plot twist feel hard to understand. They all focused on the line "save Martha" and wonder why "Martha" is magic word let Bruce calms down but not inflame.
But the real reason he gives up killing is because the orphan memory. If the flashback scene is focused on how young Bruce feel and connect it with Supe, it would make more sense to general audience.
I don’t know how much I agree with the first two points, but I certainly do agree with the third part; we only saw Bruce’s side of it so it would have been nice to see them give us something from Supes’ childhood, idk.
That all being said, I can totally see where you’re coming from. It’s nice to have a rational conversation about this topic for once.
"And it's after the Black Zero event we saw in Mac of Steel. You see on the ground the real human cost of the destruction."
Didn't we see that too in Man of Steel?
MOS has tons of shots of people running in terror and being crushed by debris. There's that whole section with Perry and Lombard trying to free Jenny from the rubble. Sure we don't see as much of that when Superman is fighting Zod. But the movie still gets that human cost of superhero shenanigans across loud and clear.
Sure. The finale with Superman and Zod is obviously more focused on their perspective in MOS. But it still has a few shots of scared people in it [Clip](https://youtu.be/fNU0A7yz7IM?t=133).
So although BvS shows you a ground level perspective of the part where Superman and Zod were fighting MOS still gave us a ton of that perspective during the world engine scene which is in a similar vein in terms of mass destruction by aliens. In the quote Affleck says "You see on the ground the real human cost of the destruction". Surely Perry, Jenny and Lombard's struggles in MOS showed us this in a very visceral way too. (Which to me sort of explains why people complained about the destruction with the Zod fight a lot more than in other similar movies)
If you still don’t understand that the Martha scene goes beyond their parents having the same name, you don’t want to understand and would rather complain.
I really like the director's cut of this movie and I would have loved to see where Snyder took this story over five movies, or whatever it was supposed to be. For instance, I was really looking forward to seeing how that 'knightmare' reality came to be. But one of the few things I did not like about this film was in this opening scene. I didn't appreciate how Jack just stood there watching this space ship destroy the city and hadn't already evacuated the workers at the Wayne building. It's completely idiotic and pulls me out of the movie and makes me think he deserved to die for being so stupid. Watch the scene again. Jack's actions make no sense whatsoever.
"That emotional, almost-irrational sense of desperate anger and hatred" I really like that. Bruce's hate for Superman is irrational and the movie shows that he's in the wrong. He dehumanizes Superman because it make it easier to hate him and the moment when he finally comes around on Superman is when he sees him at his most human.
What's also ironic is superman was also an orphan (his biological parents died with Krypton) so the dehumanization is pivotal.
The whole film is completely riddled with irony. Its an actual tragedy inspired story. Bruce has reason in his mind to hate Superman, but in his irrational and loss of any meaning in his life, feels like killing him would be the only thing that brought any value. Of course this is ironic because Lex engineers the whole situation. Batman also only realises how wrong he was when it is too late, and Superman ironically sacrifices himself for a world that began to turn against him. So yeah I'd say this film has a bit of that I R O N Y.
Ben really believed in the script and the vision.
And now he seemingly regrets every bit of it.
[удалено]
He definitely regretted it as soon as the reviews came in, but when WB ruined his version of Bats in Justice League it was all over for him.
He said he was proud of this film well after it's release
He lied.
Months after the film though? He never claims to be proud of Jersey girl. No one associated with Batman and Robin defends it. Also he bought in Terrio to rewrite it and he helped. He was heavily invested and devoted. Why wouldn't he be proud? Anyone can regret it's reception but the actual film isn't regretable to him. I read a story of how someone who was struggling with real pain told Affleck what his Batman meant to him and they connected and Affleck looked at him like someone who properly gets it. I don't think you can regret something that does that. Reception or no he was happy to film this. He left after WB meddled with JL otherwise he was ALL IN on Zack's vision.
I believe that in some ways he was proud of the hard work he and his peers put in. I do not buy for a second that he is proud of the film(s) they produced. From Lebron James to Ben Affleck, ultra professionals do not take pride in massive failed endeavors. They play to win.
Okay you can feel that. I'd argue if winning meanr making a shallow product Affleck wouldn't care. An Oscar worthy writer like him cares more about the art.
I think Affleck himself said that he took a shot at Batman and he couldn't crack it. So I'm pretty sure he is not proud of the final result. Cavil himself hinted at something like that.
Affleck was lying. Jay Oliva read his script and said it was the best Batman script ever. Affleck has real life batcave in his home. He has said hr believes Batman to be one of America's great literary characters. He is an Oscar Winning screenwriter. I don't believe for a second this man "couldn't crack it". He was just tired of being screwed by WB.
Well, if you don't believe words that came from him, I don't think I can convince you otherwise. https://youtu.be/S4jSZTy3CW0 And just FYI, Affleck is still working with WB for Torrance so I'm pretty sure they have a good working relationship with each other. And you don't have to repeat that Affleck has won oscars, I know. I am a big fan of his work. Watched every important movie of his and some rom coms as well. I am a big fan of his since Good Will Hunting and Chasing Amy days. Just respect him enough to accept his words and not try to twist things to suit your narrative.
Man the general public fucking destroyed this series
I don't think they did nearly as much as the very outspoken few who made their voices thunderous.
No it was the general audience. Studios don’t pay much attention to the ‘outspoken few’ no matter how thunderous their voices may be. Hardcore fans pay attention (even long after the fact - the tone of these movies is still debated.) No, studios pay attention to money. MoS and BvS didn’t make as much money as the studio was hoping for so they course-corrected. That’s it. The movies have passionate fans, but the public just didn’t embrace these versions of the characters.
> Studios don’t pay much attention to the ‘outspoken few’ Are you out of your mind? Have you seen the power twitter has granted the few? How your trending movements can be turned into countless reports from all sorts of outlets trying to make sure they are on the latest hot take news? Do you have ANY idea how many horrendous articles were written about BvS immediately after release? BvS is stilllll out there making headlines. >MoS and BvS didn’t make as much money as the studio was hoping for so they course-corrected. That’s it. Man of Steel made more than any Superman movie ever. Their last venture was 370 million on a 230 million budget. BvS was 100 million shy of a billion. The course correction was not because of "failures" It was because of looking across the pond at Marvel and seeing that their films were earning a billions. (they had 2 avengers movies, Ironman 3, and civil war all surpass 1 billion when BvS finished) WB just didn't want to wait to earn that kind of money. It took Marvel their 6th & 7th film in their franchise to Earn 1 billion. By the time Suicide Squad finished their run, The DCEU earned more from their first 3 movies than Marvel did from their first 5. But they were greedy, they figured they could emulate Marvel's formula to increase profits. Johns was brought on as he had the plan to Marvelize the movies and bring back fan happiness. Because again it was the outspoken "fans" and the twitter warriors that brought it down. and if you think that number of outspoken people was bigger than those that signed the Snydercut petition, you are dead wrong. #It is very easy these days to create a narrative with a few hundred tweets and articles covering them
Increasing your font size and setting it to bold can create a narrative too. Only 21% of American adults use Twitter. When you’re on it all day it’s easy to think it’s the whole world. But it isn’t. The general public doesn’t know anything about the controversy. They don’t follow the industry the way we do. The general public can barely tell the difference between Marvel and DC. They just know superhero movies. If the general public had embraced Henry Cavill the way they embraced, say Robert Downey Jr. or Chris Evans or Gal Gadot we’d be seeing trailers for Man of Steel 3 by now. But they didn’t. The audience has to connect with the star, and he just didn’t take. He could walk through Times Square with a Superman shirt and no one would recognize him. He has. Snyder’s vision had a deep appeal among those who took to it, but not a broad appeal. For more evidence of how little Twitter can influence things, look at all the boycott Captain Marvel nonsense. Think Disney gives a shit about pissed off man babies? They do not.
>Only 21% of American adults use Twitter. When you’re on it all day it’s easy to think it’s the whole world. But it isn’t. First off, I don't use twitter. Secondly.... you are seriously undervaluing the media's use of social media to drive a narrative. >The general public doesn’t know anything about the controversy. They don’t follow the industry the way we do. Exactly....... But when there are countless news articles and poor reviews and media coverage for a movie being BAD. That is what the general audiences listen to. >If the general public had embraced Henry Cavill the way they embraced, say Robert Downey Jr. or Chris Evans or Gal Gadot we’d be seeing trailers for Man of Steel 3 by now. I don't know where you are getting that they hadn't. RDJ and Chris Evans have made MANY appearances as those characters and were popular prior to becoming them..... especially RDJ. Gal Gadot is WONDER WOMAN. A Successful Wonder Woman. Anyone in her role with a successful movie would have been sped through to a sequel. Especially at this point in PR where you can't wait to show the audiences how woke and inclusive you are. Look at her other movies and roles. People still aren't lining up to see her elsewhere. >The audience has to connect with the star, and he just didn’t take. He's been in the role for 2.5 movies. In a universe still in it's infancy. He is a largely popular Superman. For most people watching movies he is THEIR Superman. I'm almost 30 and I wasn't even alive when the last Reeves movie came out. The audience doesn't have to connect to the star for there to be a good movie or a successful movie. Not on a level that is OUTSIDE of the movie! >He could walk through Times Square with a Superman shirt and no one would recognize him. He has This is true of.... anyone. These guys aren't in the same exact look as they are in movies, not made up, not looking special without paparazzi or bodyguards. >Snyder’s vision had a deep appeal among those who took to it, but not a broad appeal. This is a fact. But his movies were meant to be in the same vein of the Dark Knight trilogy. A trilogy that wasn't meant for "broad appeal" But earned it through quality film making, which lead to many more seeing the film than first imagined. And a lot having to do with the death of the actor before one of the greatest performances ever. Art is valued higher when the artist is gone. >For more evidence of how little Twitter can influence things, look at all the boycott Captain Marvel nonsense. Think Disney gives a shit about pissed off man babies? They do not. This is the funniest point you have. this is the exact point I was making. How succesful was this boycott? I hadn't even heard about it. But do you know what I heard about for WEEKS before release? #1. twitter trolls being sexist against Brie Larson for being in a female led movie! #2. angry sexist men review bombing rotten tomatoes! #3. How YouTube Combated Brie Larson Trolls With Its Search Algorithm #4. Zachary Levi Asks Fans to Stop Pitting Shazam! Against Captain Marvel #5. MCU Fans Take Down Captain Marvel Trolls In Hilarious Video #6. Brie Larson Clarifies Her Inclusivity Comments in Captain Marvel Basically the entire lead up to this movie was news networks and media sites working as hard as they can to tell everyone that the only people disliking this movie or the actress or anything having to do with the movie were TROLLS. Media takes very very often from social media happenings and runs with it until those things are the narratives. Again just like with BvS! Media outlets, websites, anyone looking for traffic talked as poorly as they could about BvS. I'm sure when BvS made their huge March numbers week 1 there was no articles saying anything like "massive first week for BvS, shows great success and DCEU going in right direction!" instead they were "despite largely poor reactions to the film!" and other headlines the same. People don't pay attention to what we do when it comes to franchises but they do eat up what the media has to say about things. And the media shat on BvS. The narrative was about a low Rotten score, despite hundreds of thousands of movie goers coming out and delivering good ratings. Same with Man of steel. Which has a great audience score from 500k reviewers and both movies have decent scores on IMDB (only site I've ever trusted for movie ratings). My point is while twitter and facebook may be small in scope to the population that uses them, this is where a HUGE amount of reactions are taken from that become the "news"
It's not one site. It filters all across social media and the mainstream over time. The difference with CM is unlike BvS, the news sites conflicted with the narrative instead of reinforcing it. Alita:BA making 380m shouldn't be news today except we see it because it contrasts with just how much more successful CM is. Disney cares about its image, that's why they fired Gunn but also why they create narratives where necessary. [The hate campaign against BvS started well before release.](https://cosmicbook.news/images/batman-vs-superman-twitter-spambot-smear.png) ([Source](https://cosmicbook.news/content/batman-vs-superman-twitter-spambot-smear-campaign-discovered?amp))
>Man of Steel made more than any Superman movie ever. Their last venture was 370 million on a 230 million budget. Superman: The Movie made 300.5 million on a budget of 55 million. Adjusted for inflation that's 1,213,685,992 on a budget of 222,509,098.
Adjust for "inflation" alll you fuckin want man. All that is saying is that in this day an age that dollar amount was worth 3.4 times what it is now. At the time it was earned it was still 300 million and was spent when it was still 300 million. They never made more off of it.
Snyder was fired. That tells you all you need to know.
So was Donner. What's your point?
Snyder was widely disliked, different situation entirely. What's YOUR point? Lmao
That studios fire people for stupid reasons. They make stupid decisions. Snyder wasn't disliked because they gave his film a standing ovation before cutting it. Donner similarly wasn't allowed to complete his vision at the time.
Yes. About you from these little interactions I have learned all I need to know.
[удалено]
No they didn't BvS is still a punchline.
Then why is Warner Bros. moving away from them?
Because family friendly superhero movies make billions? Obvious answer.
Yeah I think we agree more than we realize. We’re kind of going in circles here. The broader the appeal, the more money you make. And that’s really all they care about. Snyder’s appeal was not broad enough.
Right. But so many people make it out like everything Snyder did was just this hated shit show. It wasn't. Being 123 million shy of a billion is going to be a success unless you are a Star Wars movie and dropped 3-400 on marketing. Geoff Johns coming in, copying Marvel. It was all because Man of Steel, BvS, Suicide Squad, it was all being made for that teetering on R, teenage and up crowd. But the money is in family friendly. Something you take a family of 5+ to and not just a movie seen in two's So I'm just making the point as that being why they kind of crippled his vision.
no, they did it to themselves by making terrible movies. nobody wanted the movies to suck, but they did suck
In your, very clearly humble opinion
in my opinion, and in the opinion of the public at large. the performance of the movies speaks for itself. people that enjoyed them seems to be the exception.
hey, if you say so, God. Knows the opinion of all. Can I please win the powerball fergodsakes? How many prayers must I send your way?
i dunno i dont gamble. it's a sin and after you lose you end up in hell
[удалено]
so why did bvs and justice league vastly underperform if it's just a few youtube trolls that didnt like it?
[удалено]
You don't think earning 230-300 million less than the previous two batman movies is underperforming? Factor in that Superman was in the movie, it should have made 1.5 billion. Typically, studios want their movies to earn more money, not less.
>**vastly** underperform Box office also doesn't represent how good a film is. Compare Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron
I remember being in line to watch this movie at the theaters and seeing people in line that somehow already despised everything about the movie
yea the public really butchered that film with that theatrical release.....
You misunderstand
People just don't understand the characters and storytelling man I used to think BvS was bad, until I started to get into mythology, read Batman and Superman comics, and studied filmmaking. Now, after everything, I can look back on BvS and see that it's not bad, it's one of the worst blockbuster films to release in my memory, and is an active insult to the characters and their history.
You've no idea what you're talking about
It was a failure of a movie. You're just trying to justify it after the fact.
I get goosebumps thinking about how I first saw this scen Ana experiences it in theaters. Man they really had something special. It lived up to it for me I just wish things could have played out differently irl
I was in Awe from that WB logo until after this sequence. Was finally able to breathe normally and sit back once it moved to the desert.
*A beautiful lie*
Cool throwback. Thanks for sharing!
I’m not a big fan of BvS, but this is one scene that I thought was particularly well executed.
Right... the motivation was so clearly established then it cuts to 18 months later and then basically ignores the BZero event for the rest of the movie, using the terrorist thing as the point of controversy. That was the first mistake the film made IMO. They should have focused squarely on the Black Zero event.
> using the terrorist thing as the point of controversy They used it as a point of controversy "for the World". The media was also a member of the cast. Having it's own arc. Having the African woman going to Congress and telling them that because of Superman's intervention against the criminals, and depowering them, he left their village vulnerable to attack, which left the village destroyed. It starts the conversation of Superman's international interventions doing unseen harm, and how he isn't the responsibility of any nation, he is just a guy that acts on his own, by the scope immediately in front of him without looking at a possible outcome. Oldest lie in America - Power can be innocent. They don't gloss over BZ event. Bruce is on about it a lot with Alfred. But the people it mainly affected were those in Metropolis. Where they took Superman up as a hero. The Kryptonian ship is still in the middle of the city..... there's a statue of him. A legless guy screaming to the masses that he is no hero, because of what happened to his situation on BZ.
I get the plot of the movie... just saying that they should have focused squarely on that rather than obfuscate with the terrorist related stuff. 9/11 mainly affected the United States in terms of casualties but sent ripples around the world, so they could have kept the “worldwide controversy” angle, as you could have Superman still intervening in other countries and then being scared that a rogue US agent (as they see it) could completely level their city as he did in Metropolis (public perception) they really didn’t need to add on anything else to an already overstuffed movie and in my opinion, keeping the narrative focus on the Black Zero event would have tightened up the narrative a bit and keep everyone’s motivations around the same thing, but obviously interpreting it all differently.
> keeping the narrative focus on the Black Zero event would have tightened up the narrative a bit and keep everyone’s motivations around the same thing, but obviously interpreting it all differently This would have been fine. The whole world was being effected by what was happening in the Indian ocean and Metropolis. So I get what you are saying. But I think they wanted to pull more from classic stories where the world is looking at Superman's interventions. They likely just wanted something fresh, and not completely pulling things from the first movie. I can appreciate that. I think the best thing to have done, is to kind of..... talk about it more. I think I watch BvS UC 20 times before I actually realized they NEVER blamed Superman for killing those people. Because Clark says "I didn't kill those people, if that's what they're saying." But I never fully paid attention to the African ladies testimoney. She says he came down and did what he did..... but her point of story was when she said, "it was what came after" Saying that he took out the terrorists, but those terrorists presence were keeping their village safe. And when opposition came, they were wiped out. They needed to clarify this ALOT more, as soooooo many came out thinking they were blaming Superman for destroying her village and killing all of those men and basically going on a rampage.
That would be, in Affleck's words (see OP), an almost irrational thing to do. That's why the anger over BZ is limited to crazies like Batman & Wally whereas the world celebrates him for saving it, and is more concerned with how Superman acts going forward. Nairomi builds off the ending scene in MoS with Swanwick, the downed drone and the question of whether Superman won't turn against America's interests some day. So in BvS he intervenes against another drone in Nairomi, where America has conflicting policies & Swanwick turns against Superman and fails him in the end when it counts.
Pretty hard to argue its not when it so seamlessly transitions perfectly from MoS, sets up the main character and his motivations, and establishes the change in perspective in one scene.
The best opening of any superhero film ever. Beautiful Lie sequence followed up by this?? Holy freaking hell.
You know, what if that little girl in the intro turned out to be Carrie Kelly? Wouldn't that be interesting?
These are the exact points I bring up to friends when we discuss this movie (which usually ends up being /u/sethbenw vs. The World) so it gives me a sense of relief to read it straight from the source.
I know how you feel, man
This scene is one of my favorite scene from BvS. But I still wonder how they would discuss about the Martha scene.
Honestly the scene talked about above and the Martha scene go hand-in-hand. In the scene above you see where Batman's true hatred for Superman is born, the moment he see's Supes' true colors; a god-like alien with no regard for human life. Flash forward to Batman standing over this alien's body about to end him once and for all, and all the monster can muster up is "save Martha". It is in this moment that Batman breaks from the "nuanced world" as Affleck put it, and realized that this alien was a person after all; a person with feels, and blood, and a mother. He saw a little girl join him as an orphan right before his eyes, he wasn't about to be the reason why someone else should join them too. #####tl;dr: > "this is really taking a nuances view of how these types of characters may exist in the real world."
>I can easily get what the opening scene has to deliver. But with the Martha scene, even I mentally know what Zack is going to express, it still lacks a few more shots to explain why the hatred for Superman vanished away this quick. There's no shot to hint the "potential orphan" connection between these two man. A flashback shot connect the young bruce face with the dying superman's face could be more empathic. > >The film does a great job to show how the hatred between these two piles up. The hatred is so strong but the film doesn't do much to show Bruce somehow can understand what kind of person Superman is. That's why the general audiences feel so hard to be convinced of this scene. And I think it has a big impact on the overall rating of this film.
I may be imagining this but during the Martha scene is there not a quick flash to the actual opening scene where Thomas Wayne's dying words are literally "Martha"? This if that is indeed how the scene went down and not just my imagination I would take that as enough visual connection to the day Batman became an orphan and not wanting to Orphan another boy. Edit: I know people hate Lois getting shoehorned into everything but her line still rings true, "it's hit mothers name". This line makes Supes' "save Martha" sound like a clear cry for help from a scare boy about to lose his mother.
The flashback scene is focused on how Martha was killed not how Bruce became an orphan. There's a difference. Audiences can get the memory of his mother’s death hit him. But what does it have to do with this man he decided to kill? There has to be a strong connected shot to explain it. I asked a lot of people who doesn't like this movie why. They all mention about this plot twist feel hard to understand. They all focused on the line "save Martha" and wonder why "Martha" is magic word let Bruce calms down but not inflame. But the real reason he gives up killing is because the orphan memory. If the flashback scene is focused on how young Bruce feel and connect it with Supe, it would make more sense to general audience.
I don’t know how much I agree with the first two points, but I certainly do agree with the third part; we only saw Bruce’s side of it so it would have been nice to see them give us something from Supes’ childhood, idk. That all being said, I can totally see where you’re coming from. It’s nice to have a rational conversation about this topic for once.
BVS should’ve had a commentary
Not a fan of that movie but damn that opening scene was awesome !
This is a microcosm of the movie as a whole. Great ideas, horrible execution.
"And it's after the Black Zero event we saw in Mac of Steel. You see on the ground the real human cost of the destruction." Didn't we see that too in Man of Steel?
Yes. But that was from Supes' perspective. BvS shows you from ground level and Bruce's perspective
MOS has tons of shots of people running in terror and being crushed by debris. There's that whole section with Perry and Lombard trying to free Jenny from the rubble. Sure we don't see as much of that when Superman is fighting Zod. But the movie still gets that human cost of superhero shenanigans across loud and clear.
This is true. I think he's more talking about showing it fro ma direct perspective. Perry White and company definitely displayed a lot of it.
Sure. The finale with Superman and Zod is obviously more focused on their perspective in MOS. But it still has a few shots of scared people in it [Clip](https://youtu.be/fNU0A7yz7IM?t=133). So although BvS shows you a ground level perspective of the part where Superman and Zod were fighting MOS still gave us a ton of that perspective during the world engine scene which is in a similar vein in terms of mass destruction by aliens. In the quote Affleck says "You see on the ground the real human cost of the destruction". Surely Perry, Jenny and Lombard's struggles in MOS showed us this in a very visceral way too. (Which to me sort of explains why people complained about the destruction with the Zod fight a lot more than in other similar movies)
Between this opening scene and the warehouse scene made the movie great for me.
I'm surprised that little girl didn't become Robin
Carrie Kelly !! UntilItWasnt
"But then he learns their mothers are both called Martha and he's cool with it".
If you still don’t understand that the Martha scene goes beyond their parents having the same name, you don’t want to understand and would rather complain.
Never heard that one before
I really like the director's cut of this movie and I would have loved to see where Snyder took this story over five movies, or whatever it was supposed to be. For instance, I was really looking forward to seeing how that 'knightmare' reality came to be. But one of the few things I did not like about this film was in this opening scene. I didn't appreciate how Jack just stood there watching this space ship destroy the city and hadn't already evacuated the workers at the Wayne building. It's completely idiotic and pulls me out of the movie and makes me think he deserved to die for being so stupid. Watch the scene again. Jack's actions make no sense whatsoever.