I just tried typing 'Batman vs Superman is awesome' into google, just to see if I could find some positive reviews, and even before that came up as the auto-suggestion, 'Batman vs Superman is awful' was suggested first (along with other less than positive suggestions) and even the review which was given with the 'awesome' search, is pretty critical of it...
Basic Instinct 2 has an even *lower* rating than BvS. But guess what? That doesn't matter if you enjoy it. The same goes for BvS. One person thinks a movie is great. Another person thinks it is dogstuff. Both people are equally "right". That same logic is true of *both* BvS and Basic Instinct 2.
He appears to have agreed with you already nagus...
To be clear, he doesn't need to agree with me. But since you are saying he did, which comments specifically are you referring to?
I'm saying sometimes it's ok just to let things drop. You already brought up the 'dog TRIBBLE' comment up after it was largely resolved and appear to be repeating yourself over and over again despite the fact the person you are 'arguing' with appears to have similar thoughts regarding your definitions of a good/bad movie.
I just tried typing 'Batman vs Superman is awesome' into google, just to see if I could find some positive reviews, and even before that came up as the auto-suggestion, 'Batman vs Superman is awful' was suggested first (along with other less than positive suggestions) and even the review which was given with the 'awesome' search, is pretty critical of it...
Basic Instinct 2 has an even *lower* rating than BvS. But guess what? That doesn't matter if you enjoy it. The same goes for BvS. One person thinks a movie is great. Another person thinks it is dogstuff. Both people are equally "right". That same logic is true of *both* BvS and Basic Instinct 2.
I don't think it having a lower rating than BvS is really relevant, because that's just a subjective view, and one thing being worse, does not necessarily make the other thing 'better'... Difference is, if someone was to say Basic Instinct 2 was dogshit, I wouldn't necessarily question their assessment. I might say that I disagree and that I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't demand a justification for why they think it's dogshit... In fact, I'd be happy to accept that that is a majority opinion, and that my opinion of it is an atypical one... I'm not ashamed to say I like the film, because I could list things I actually liked about it (beyond the obvious of Sharon Stone getting naked) I'm not simply giving it an automatic free-pass 'just because', but I understand some of the critiques (maybe not to the extent it's been criticised, but certainly some of the points made)
I just tried typing 'Batman vs Superman is awesome' into google, just to see if I could find some positive reviews, and even before that came up as the auto-suggestion, 'Batman vs Superman is awful' was suggested first (along with other less than positive suggestions) and even the review which was given with the 'awesome' search, is pretty critical of it...
Basic Instinct 2 has an even *lower* rating than BvS. But guess what? That doesn't matter if you enjoy it. The same goes for BvS. One person thinks a movie is great. Another person thinks it is dogstuff. Both people are equally "right". That same logic is true of *both* BvS and Basic Instinct 2.
I don't think it having a lower rating than BvS is really relevant, because that's just a subjective view, and one thing being worse, does not necessarily make the other thing 'better'... Difference is, if someone was to say Basic Instinct 2 was dogshit, I wouldn't necessarily question their assessment. I might say that I disagree and that I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't demand a justification for why they think it's dogshit... In fact, I'd be happy to accept that that is a majority opinion, and that my opinion of it is an atypical one... I'm not ashamed to say I like the film, because I could list things I actually liked about it (beyond the obvious of Sharon Stone getting naked) I'm not simply giving it an automatic free-pass 'just because', but I understand some of the critiques (maybe not to the extent it's been criticised, but certainly some of the points made)
Right on. And there we have it: just because other people may not like a movie does not mean it is a "bad" movie. One person's pile of dogstuff is another person's great movie, or vice versa.
You already brought up the 'dog TRIBBLE' comment up after it was largely resolved
You are confused. I did not "bring up" anything, I was quoting a post that was made *today*.
It may have been mentioned, but as I said it was 'largely resolved' when the two of you agreed regarding subjective opinions. By re-highlighting the 'dog TRIBBLE' comment you appear to have ret-conned the former agreement regarding subjective opinion.
You already brought up the 'dog TRIBBLE' comment up after it was largely resolved
You are confused. I did not "bring up" anything, I was quoting a post that was made *today*.
It may have been mentioned, but as I said it was 'largely resolved' when the two of you agreed regarding subjective opinions. By re-highlighting the 'dog TRIBBLE' comment you appear to have ret-conned the former agreement regarding subjective opinion.
Anyhoo, good night
Heh, I think you are reading too deeply into a silly conversation. But have a good one!
I just tried typing 'Batman vs Superman is awesome' into google, just to see if I could find some positive reviews, and even before that came up as the auto-suggestion, 'Batman vs Superman is awful' was suggested first (along with other less than positive suggestions) and even the review which was given with the 'awesome' search, is pretty critical of it...
Basic Instinct 2 has an even *lower* rating than BvS. But guess what? That doesn't matter if you enjoy it. The same goes for BvS. One person thinks a movie is great. Another person thinks it is dogstuff. Both people are equally "right". That same logic is true of *both* BvS and Basic Instinct 2.
I don't think it having a lower rating than BvS is really relevant, because that's just a subjective view, and one thing being worse, does not necessarily make the other thing 'better'... Difference is, if someone was to say Basic Instinct 2 was dogshit, I wouldn't necessarily question their assessment. I might say that I disagree and that I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't demand a justification for why they think it's dogshit... In fact, I'd be happy to accept that that is a majority opinion, and that my opinion of it is an atypical one... I'm not ashamed to say I like the film, because I could list things I actually liked about it (beyond the obvious of Sharon Stone getting naked) I'm not simply giving it an automatic free-pass 'just because', but I understand some of the critiques (maybe not to the extent it's been criticised, but certainly some of the points made)
Right on. And there we have it: just because other people may not like a movie does not mean it is a "bad" movie. One person's pile of dogstuff is another person's great movie, or vice versa.
For sure, but I would think it's safe to say that the swingometer of judgement of BvS, is not that it's a good movie, but that it's going to be a disappointment and a bit of an embarassment for all involved...
I just tried typing 'Batman vs Superman is awesome' into google, just to see if I could find some positive reviews, and even before that came up as the auto-suggestion, 'Batman vs Superman is awful' was suggested first (along with other less than positive suggestions) and even the review which was given with the 'awesome' search, is pretty critical of it...
Basic Instinct 2 has an even *lower* rating than BvS. But guess what? That doesn't matter if you enjoy it. The same goes for BvS. One person thinks a movie is great. Another person thinks it is dogstuff. Both people are equally "right". That same logic is true of *both* BvS and Basic Instinct 2.
I don't think it having a lower rating than BvS is really relevant, because that's just a subjective view, and one thing being worse, does not necessarily make the other thing 'better'... Difference is, if someone was to say Basic Instinct 2 was dogshit, I wouldn't necessarily question their assessment. I might say that I disagree and that I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't demand a justification for why they think it's dogshit... In fact, I'd be happy to accept that that is a majority opinion, and that my opinion of it is an atypical one... I'm not ashamed to say I like the film, because I could list things I actually liked about it (beyond the obvious of Sharon Stone getting naked) I'm not simply giving it an automatic free-pass 'just because', but I understand some of the critiques (maybe not to the extent it's been criticised, but certainly some of the points made)
Right on. And there we have it: just because other people may not like a movie does not mean it is a "bad" movie. One person's pile of dogstuff is another person's great movie, or vice versa.
For sure, but I would think it's safe to say that the swingometer of judgement of BvS, is not that it's a good movie, but that it's going to be a disappointment and a bit of an embarassment for all involved...
Yes, BvS has gotten the same general panning as Daredevil and Basic Instinct 2. So all 3 of those movies would be a "disappointment" and "embarrassment for all involved", from a general perspective(individual viewer opinion notwithstanding).
I just tried typing 'Batman vs Superman is awesome' into google, just to see if I could find some positive reviews, and even before that came up as the auto-suggestion, 'Batman vs Superman is awful' was suggested first (along with other less than positive suggestions) and even the review which was given with the 'awesome' search, is pretty critical of it...
Basic Instinct 2 has an even *lower* rating than BvS. But guess what? That doesn't matter if you enjoy it. The same goes for BvS. One person thinks a movie is great. Another person thinks it is dogstuff. Both people are equally "right". That same logic is true of *both* BvS and Basic Instinct 2.
I don't think it having a lower rating than BvS is really relevant, because that's just a subjective view, and one thing being worse, does not necessarily make the other thing 'better'... Difference is, if someone was to say Basic Instinct 2 was dogshit, I wouldn't necessarily question their assessment. I might say that I disagree and that I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't demand a justification for why they think it's dogshit... In fact, I'd be happy to accept that that is a majority opinion, and that my opinion of it is an atypical one... I'm not ashamed to say I like the film, because I could list things I actually liked about it (beyond the obvious of Sharon Stone getting naked) I'm not simply giving it an automatic free-pass 'just because', but I understand some of the critiques (maybe not to the extent it's been criticised, but certainly some of the points made)
Right on. And there we have it: just because other people may not like a movie does not mean it is a "bad" movie. One person's pile of dogstuff is another person's great movie, or vice versa.
For sure, but I would think it's safe to say that the swingometer of judgement of BvS, is not that it's a good movie, but that it's going to be a disappointment and a bit of an embarassment for all involved...
Yes, BvS has gotten the same general panning as Daredevil and Basic Instinct 2. So all 3 of those movies would be a "disappointment" and "embarrassment for all involved", from a general perspective.
Absolutely so... I was reading that the reactions to Basic Instinct 2, is why the studio shelved plans for a third film... I think the situation with Suicide Squad may be a similar reaction to the reception of the movie...
I just tried typing 'Batman vs Superman is awesome' into google, just to see if I could find some positive reviews, and even before that came up as the auto-suggestion, 'Batman vs Superman is awful' was suggested first (along with other less than positive suggestions) and even the review which was given with the 'awesome' search, is pretty critical of it...
Basic Instinct 2 has an even *lower* rating than BvS. But guess what? That doesn't matter if you enjoy it. The same goes for BvS. One person thinks a movie is great. Another person thinks it is dogstuff. Both people are equally "right". That same logic is true of *both* BvS and Basic Instinct 2.
I don't think it having a lower rating than BvS is really relevant, because that's just a subjective view, and one thing being worse, does not necessarily make the other thing 'better'... Difference is, if someone was to say Basic Instinct 2 was dogshit, I wouldn't necessarily question their assessment. I might say that I disagree and that I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't demand a justification for why they think it's dogshit... In fact, I'd be happy to accept that that is a majority opinion, and that my opinion of it is an atypical one... I'm not ashamed to say I like the film, because I could list things I actually liked about it (beyond the obvious of Sharon Stone getting naked) I'm not simply giving it an automatic free-pass 'just because', but I understand some of the critiques (maybe not to the extent it's been criticised, but certainly some of the points made)
Right on. And there we have it: just because other people may not like a movie does not mean it is a "bad" movie. One person's pile of dogstuff is another person's great movie, or vice versa.
For sure, but I would think it's safe to say that the swingometer of judgement of BvS, is not that it's a good movie, but that it's going to be a disappointment and a bit of an embarassment for all involved...
Yes, BvS has gotten the same general panning as Daredevil and Basic Instinct 2. So all 3 of those movies would be a "disappointment" and "embarrassment for all involved", from a general perspective.
Absolutely so... I was reading that the reactions to Basic Instinct 2, is why the studio shelved plans for a third film... I think the situation with Suicide Squad may be a similar reaction to the reception of the movie...
Yeah, that very well could be. That said, I think money will matter more than scores though. If it makes a decent profit margin, then will probably do more. If not...not. Basic Instinct 2 didn't even break even, so that's a pretty obvious matter of dollars and sense(pun intended) in hollywood. Which is probably a shame for the fans, but that's business. Either way, I'm not really interested in Suicide Squad myself, so oh well.
I expect the "Suicide Squad" movie to be along the same lines of "Deadpool", a deeply dark but kooky and funny movie.
I'm OK with that cause that's what I expect from those kind of characters.
So, at this point I think, I'm going to enjoy that movie much more than I did BvS.
<shrug>
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I expect the "Suicide Squad" movie to be along the same lines of "Deadpool", a deeply dark but kooky and funny movie.
I'm OK with that cause that's what I expect from those kind of characters.
So, at this point I think, I'm going to enjoy that movie much more than I did BvS.
<shrug>
I think part of the equation with BvS was simply how much people love the main characters. What I mean by that is, when you are dealing with characters people love, they are going to be much more critical of how you handle them if they don't think they were "done right". On the other hand, the Suicide Squad members have far less name recognition(don't get me wrong, I know there are super fans of every character, but I'm talking in general). So, the point is, I think people will be more forgiving of characters they don't have a deep emotional connection with than they are if they don't see Batman or Superman being handled the right way.
For me, the Batman character has always been a dark character, so I don't really have a problem with the way he was portrayed in this particular film.
Affleck was no better or worse than how Batman has been played by several actors through the years.
On the other hand, I think the writers have completely missed the boat with this portrayal of Superman.
They've gone too far into the deep dark psyche, that we all realize Superman probably has, but really don't want to see acted upon or even depicted for any more than a few moments in a movie.
Supe's knows deep down he could be evil, but also has the fortitude to never call upon that part of himself no matter what.
And don't even get me started on this particular Lex Luthor... I was thinking WTF to myself, every time he opened his mouth.
Now there's a character portrayal that would fit perfectly in a Suicide Squad film.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Enh, "dark" in a Superman story isn't really bad. It's been done a lot. To me the issue is when Superman stops acting like Superman. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
For me the maximum over-dose of "darkness" is what ruined it.
I really liked 300 & The Watchman, but I expected them to be dark in mood and atmosphere.
(that is the type of comics they are)
I kinda feel this might be part of the problem. They knew Watchmen, 300 and the Nolan Batman movies were more or less dark movies and thought that meant people want dark movies. But people don't associate "Dark" with Superman.
That said, this was not really my problem with the movie. The movie was partially confusing with the weird dream sequences they used to set up the future story arc of their Justice League universe. On top of that, it felt like the characters had barely real dialog, they were exchanging monologues, they weren't really connecting. I didn't like Lex Luthor at all, he just seemed like some kind of crazy man.
I also didn't like that Lois Lane's investigations didn't provide anything that was actually useful to the plot. it was at best exposition about how Lex was manipulating things, but the real strong point would have been if her investigations secured them an ally or allowed her to inform Batman or Superman of something actionable.
Overall, they tried to cram too much into the plot, which required too much insider knowledge to understand.
The Marvel movies worked pretty well on their own, you didn't need to know the comics to understand what was going on.
Also Marvel tends to have a bit more dialog where people actually talk with each other.
And they also took their time to build up the "franchise". You just cannot rush this, and there isn't really a need to, either - DC will still have good material when Marvel has already lost steam.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Enh, "dark" in a Superman story isn't really bad. It's been done a lot. To me the issue is when Superman stops acting like Superman. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
I don't think Superman's handling of Batman was very Superman like.
He decides that Batman is a threat, runs up to him, destroys his car, and threatens "stop this or else" and flys off. That's not Superman. It's also symptomatic of my dialog problem. They exchange statements and some threats, and that's it. They don't actually talk with each other. They should actually challenge each other view points with actual arguments.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I just tried typing 'Batman vs Superman is awesome' into google, just to see if I could find some positive reviews, and even before that came up as the auto-suggestion, 'Batman vs Superman is awful' was suggested first (along with other less than positive suggestions) and even the review which was given with the 'awesome' search, is pretty critical of it...
Basic Instinct 2 has an even *lower* rating than BvS. But guess what? That doesn't matter if you enjoy it. The same goes for BvS. One person thinks a movie is great. Another person thinks it is dogstuff. Both people are equally "right". That same logic is true of *both* BvS and Basic Instinct 2.
I don't think it having a lower rating than BvS is really relevant, because that's just a subjective view, and one thing being worse, does not necessarily make the other thing 'better'... Difference is, if someone was to say Basic Instinct 2 was dogshit, I wouldn't necessarily question their assessment. I might say that I disagree and that I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't demand a justification for why they think it's dogshit... In fact, I'd be happy to accept that that is a majority opinion, and that my opinion of it is an atypical one... I'm not ashamed to say I like the film, because I could list things I actually liked about it (beyond the obvious of Sharon Stone getting naked) I'm not simply giving it an automatic free-pass 'just because', but I understand some of the critiques (maybe not to the extent it's been criticised, but certainly some of the points made)
Right on. And there we have it: just because other people may not like a movie does not mean it is a "bad" movie. One person's pile of dogstuff is another person's great movie, or vice versa.
For sure, but I would think it's safe to say that the swingometer of judgement of BvS, is not that it's a good movie, but that it's going to be a disappointment and a bit of an embarassment for all involved...
Yes, BvS has gotten the same general panning as Daredevil and Basic Instinct 2. So all 3 of those movies would be a "disappointment" and "embarrassment for all involved", from a general perspective.
Absolutely so... I was reading that the reactions to Basic Instinct 2, is why the studio shelved plans for a third film... I think the situation with Suicide Squad may be a similar reaction to the reception of the movie...
Yeah, that very well could be. That said, I think money will matter more than scores though. If it makes a decent profit margin, then will probably do more. If not...not. Basic Instinct 2 didn't even break even, so that's a pretty obvious matter of dollars and sense(pun intended) in hollywood. Which is probably a shame for the fans, but that's business. Either way, I'm not really interested in Suicide Squad myself, so oh well.
Keyword being 'if', there're questions of if it's going to make a profit... Equally, I'd have to say $$s alone isn't a true judge of if a movie (or anything) is good or bad, merely of popularity... And absolutely, business is business... Equally, I don't think there actually needs to be a Basic Instinct 3... Sharon Stone has reportedly said that she's not interested in appearing in it, but would like to direct it... The idea of someone else playing Catherine, I don't know... Now, if they were to do a prequel showing her killing her parents as a child, and then her escapades at Berkeley, that I could accept as needing a different actress, and would add something to (I'm wary of using the word 'franchise') but anything else, I'd just see as using a well known title to sell a movie, rather than really 'having a story worth telling'... As for the fans of Batman and Superman... The studios want to be careful not to make them feel like they're being used as easy money, because if they turn on the studios, the studios won't get another cent out of them... But yeah, Suicide Squad doesn't interest, and I think might be a step toward the fans losing interest/feeling ripped off...
I expect the "Suicide Squad" movie to be along the same lines of "Deadpool", a deeply dark but kooky and funny movie.
I'm OK with that cause that's what I expect from those kind of characters.
So, at this point I think, I'm going to enjoy that movie much more than I did BvS.
<shrug>
I think part of the equation with BvS was simply how much people love the main characters. What I mean by that is, when you are dealing with characters people love, they are going to be much more critical of how you handle them if they don't think they were "done right". On the other hand, the Suicide Squad members have far less name recognition(don't get me wrong, I know there are super fans of every character, but I'm talking in general). So, the point is, I think people will be more forgiving of characters they don't have a deep emotional connection with than they are if they don't see Batman or Superman being handled the right way.
Yes, very much this... As I said, I genuinely love the character of Catherine Tramell... I would not want to see her being badly written/acted... That the critics slammed Sharon Stone's acting in Basic Instinct 2: Meh, she played the character exactly how the character is... Maybe not what the critics wanted to see, ie there was no crossing the legs upskirt shot, but there was a 'leg cross', which was clearly intended as a reference to the original, and another scene where she hoists her dress and straddles a chair backwards... The chair back prevents anything from being seen, but the implication is clear, and that is how Catherine behaves and carries herself... I'd hold 'authenticity of the character' above 'standard of acting'...
Enh, "dark" in a Superman story isn't really bad. It's been done a lot. To me the issue is when Superman stops acting like Superman. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
I don't think Superman's handling of Batman was very Superman like.
He decides that Batman is a threat, runs up to him, destroys his car, and threatens "stop this or else" and flys off. That's not Superman. It's also symptomatic of my dialog problem. They exchange statements and some threats, and that's it. They don't actually talk with each other. They should actually challenge each other view points with actual arguments.
This time Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) go down the craphole along with the Kryptonian hero. The result is ugly in every sense of the word—grimy, incoherent and a stupefying bore; everybody looks like they need a bath and the movie is as drained of fun as it is of light and color.
Batman v Superman is a hot, steaming heap of trash.
Hmmm... Batfleck was one of my prime reasons for not wanting to watch BvS, so I'm not interested in watching this movie either, but, I did enjoy Argo, so I expect Affleck will (on a technical level) do a good job with it...
Equally, I'd have to say $$s alone isn't a true judge of if a movie (or anything) is good or bad,
Good or bad has nothing to do with the point I was making. As movies are a business, if they make a decent profit they will make more(see Transformers). Whether they are "good" or "bad" is a completely separate issue from my point.
I actually think this is a good thing. Some of the most common reactions I have heard/read to BvS are:
Too dark
Jessie Eisenberg was terrible
Affleck and Gadot were surprisingly good
Regarding the darkness, the reason why BvS seemed too dark is because it was also a Superman movie, and they forced the natural darkness of Batman onto the Superman character, making him feel wrong. But for a solo Batman movie, that wouldn't be an issue. Regarding Jessie, I doubt he would be in the movie, so that also wouldn't be an issue. And lastly, even many of the people who didn't like BvS on the whole still thought Affleck did a good job.
So for all of those reasons, plus the fact that Affleck is apparently a pretty decent director, this movie may be a lot better than BvS turned out to be.
I understand that the studio wants to make as much money as possible. I completely get that.
I also understand that when other movies make a billion dollars, you would like to make that too. I completely get that.
I also understand that if the 4th movie in the Jurassic Park franchise can make a billion dollars, that putting the 2 most popular superheroes ever in a single movie should have also been able to make that much if not more. I completely get that.
All of that said, the official budget of BvS is 250mil. To date, it has made 785mil. So, even if it never made another penny, it has already doubled it's budget. So while I do understand the points I just mentioned above, and that it may not have made as much as they would have liked, it certainly didn't bomb.
Equally, I'd have to say $$s alone isn't a true judge of if a movie (or anything) is good or bad,
Good or bad has nothing to do with the point I was making. As movies are a business, if they make a decent profit they will make more(see Transformers). Whether they are "good" or "bad" is a completely separate issue from my point.
Yes, that's very true, as I said, business is business... Equally, movies also exist as entertainment, and as such, require and rely on audience interest and appreciation to be economically viable... A film which offers nothing of interest, is simply not going to draw enough viewers to be truly worthwhile, so in that regard, it falls on the studio to come up with something worth watching to actually capture the audience's interest, rather than simply treating the audience like rubes who will watch any release...
For example:
Basic Instinct 3:
Forty eight-year old Catherine Tramell meets an attractive young fan at the signing of her latest novel. They are also an aspiring crime-writer, and want to learn the secret of her method...
Basic Instinct 3:
Eleven-year old Catherine Tramell kills her parents 'to see if she could get away with it'... Years later at Berkeley, one of her professors attracts her attention...
Which would you consider the more interesting premise? IMHO, the latter could be used to delve into the origin, motivations and psychology of Catherine... The former, would simply be an opportunity for her to TRIBBLE and murder (which already happened in the first two movies) and would just be a rehash of the two... It might get some viewers, but would likely be panned as being unimaginitive and derivitive, where the latter, would (I believe) generate more interest and be doing something different to the first two movies, so avoid criticism for lack of originality...
As mentioned, Sharon Stone has said that she's not interested in reprising the role of Catherine in Basic Instinct 3, but is keen to direct it... So Option 1 would have to involve casting another actress in an established and iconic role, in an ongoing trilogy, hoping that she would carry the role, and expecting audience to accept the re-cast, and thus pretty much just trading on the title... Option 2, on the other hand, would require the casting of two younger actresses due to the setting, thus avoid the issues coming from re-casting Catherine as an adult. It would still be trading on the title, but would at least be bringing a different depth to the character, rather than simply retreading established plot points in the hopes that 'brand familiarity' may put a few bums on seats... Yes, business is business, but repeat customers are more loyal than passing trade, so deserve a worthwhile product
I understand that the studio wants to make as much money as possible. I completely get that.
I also understand that when other movies make a billion dollars, you would like to make that too. I completely get that.
I also understand that if the 4th movie in the Jurassic Park franchise can make a billion dollars, that putting the 2 most popular superheroes ever in a single movie should have also been able to make that much if not more. I completely get that.
All of that said, the official budget of BvS is 250mil. To date, it has made 785mil. So, even if it never made another penny, it has already doubled it's budget. So while I do understand the points I just mentioned above, and that it may not have made as much as they would have liked, it certainly didn't bomb.
Have a look at the review I linked, which shows the drop off rates, and the kind of movies BvS is now in the same leagues as... By those comparisons, it most certainly has bombed...
I understand that the studio wants to make as much money as possible. I completely get that.
I also understand that when other movies make a billion dollars, you would like to make that too. I completely get that.
I also understand that if the 4th movie in the Jurassic Park franchise can make a billion dollars, that putting the 2 most popular superheroes ever in a single movie should have also been able to make that much if not more. I completely get that.
All of that said, the official budget of BvS is 250mil. To date, it has made 785mil. So, even if it never made another penny, it has already doubled it's budget. So while I do understand the points I just mentioned above, and that it may not have made as much as they would have liked, it certainly didn't bomb.
So there are no actual numbers for what the marketing would be, just a guess? If that is the case, and we take the 150mil guess as true, then we have a new budget of 400mil. And your last sentence said that a movie would have to more than double the investment to be "successful". Since BvS is currently at 785 mil, it will most likely go over 800 before leaving theaters. So by your own last sentence, this movie would probably pass the "successful" mark.
I understand that the studio wants to make as much money as possible. I completely get that.
I also understand that when other movies make a billion dollars, you would like to make that too. I completely get that.
I also understand that if the 4th movie in the Jurassic Park franchise can make a billion dollars, that putting the 2 most popular superheroes ever in a single movie should have also been able to make that much if not more. I completely get that.
All of that said, the official budget of BvS is 250mil. To date, it has made 785mil. So, even if it never made another penny, it has already doubled it's budget. So while I do understand the points I just mentioned above, and that it may not have made as much as they would have liked, it certainly didn't bomb.
So there are no actual numbers for what the marketing would be, just a guess? If that is the case, and we take the 150mil guess as true, then we have a new budget of 400mil. And your last sentence said that a movie would have to more than double the investment to be "successful". Since BvS is currently at 785 mil, it will most likely go over 800 before leaving theaters. So by your own last sentence, this movie would probably pass the "successful" mark.
No, that's not what valoreah said, you're trying to twist their words to call it 'successful'... Here's what was actually said:
With those kinds of numbers, it's generally desired by the studio for the movie to break the billion dollar mark at the box office. Seems to me Hollywood always wants to more than double their investment to consider a film "successful".
While BvS may have doubled the investment, it's not broken the billion dollar threshold which studios desire...
Comments
I'm saying sometimes it's ok just to let things drop. You already brought up the 'dog TRIBBLE' comment up after it was largely resolved and appear to be repeating yourself over and over again despite the fact the person you are 'arguing' with appears to have similar thoughts regarding your definitions of a good/bad movie.
You are confused. I did not "bring up" anything, I was quoting a post that was made *today*.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Right on. And there we have it: just because other people may not like a movie does not mean it is a "bad" movie. One person's pile of dogstuff is another person's great movie, or vice versa.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
It may have been mentioned, but as I said it was 'largely resolved' when the two of you agreed regarding subjective opinions. By re-highlighting the 'dog TRIBBLE' comment you appear to have ret-conned the former agreement regarding subjective opinion.
Anyhoo, good night
Heh, I think you are reading too deeply into a silly conversation. But have a good one!
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
For sure, but I would think it's safe to say that the swingometer of judgement of BvS, is not that it's a good movie, but that it's going to be a disappointment and a bit of an embarassment for all involved...
Yes, BvS has gotten the same general panning as Daredevil and Basic Instinct 2. So all 3 of those movies would be a "disappointment" and "embarrassment for all involved", from a general perspective(individual viewer opinion notwithstanding).
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
Yeah, that very well could be. That said, I think money will matter more than scores though. If it makes a decent profit margin, then will probably do more. If not...not. Basic Instinct 2 didn't even break even, so that's a pretty obvious matter of dollars and sense(pun intended) in hollywood. Which is probably a shame for the fans, but that's business. Either way, I'm not really interested in Suicide Squad myself, so oh well.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I'm OK with that cause that's what I expect from those kind of characters.
So, at this point I think, I'm going to enjoy that movie much more than I did BvS.
<shrug>
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I think part of the equation with BvS was simply how much people love the main characters. What I mean by that is, when you are dealing with characters people love, they are going to be much more critical of how you handle them if they don't think they were "done right". On the other hand, the Suicide Squad members have far less name recognition(don't get me wrong, I know there are super fans of every character, but I'm talking in general). So, the point is, I think people will be more forgiving of characters they don't have a deep emotional connection with than they are if they don't see Batman or Superman being handled the right way.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
For me, the Batman character has always been a dark character, so I don't really have a problem with the way he was portrayed in this particular film.
Affleck was no better or worse than how Batman has been played by several actors through the years.
On the other hand, I think the writers have completely missed the boat with this portrayal of Superman.
They've gone too far into the deep dark psyche, that we all realize Superman probably has, but really don't want to see acted upon or even depicted for any more than a few moments in a movie.
Supe's knows deep down he could be evil, but also has the fortitude to never call upon that part of himself no matter what.
And don't even get me started on this particular Lex Luthor... I was thinking WTF to myself, every time he opened his mouth.
Now there's a character portrayal that would fit perfectly in a Suicide Squad film.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
My character Tsin'xing
That said, this was not really my problem with the movie. The movie was partially confusing with the weird dream sequences they used to set up the future story arc of their Justice League universe. On top of that, it felt like the characters had barely real dialog, they were exchanging monologues, they weren't really connecting. I didn't like Lex Luthor at all, he just seemed like some kind of crazy man.
I also didn't like that Lois Lane's investigations didn't provide anything that was actually useful to the plot. it was at best exposition about how Lex was manipulating things, but the real strong point would have been if her investigations secured them an ally or allowed her to inform Batman or Superman of something actionable.
Overall, they tried to cram too much into the plot, which required too much insider knowledge to understand.
The Marvel movies worked pretty well on their own, you didn't need to know the comics to understand what was going on.
Also Marvel tends to have a bit more dialog where people actually talk with each other.
And they also took their time to build up the "franchise". You just cannot rush this, and there isn't really a need to, either - DC will still have good material when Marvel has already lost steam.
He decides that Batman is a threat, runs up to him, destroys his car, and threatens "stop this or else" and flys off. That's not Superman. It's also symptomatic of my dialog problem. They exchange statements and some threats, and that's it. They don't actually talk with each other. They should actually challenge each other view points with actual arguments.
My character Tsin'xing
I just read this... Kinda puts things in perspective...
Good or bad has nothing to do with the point I was making. As movies are a business, if they make a decent profit they will make more(see Transformers). Whether they are "good" or "bad" is a completely separate issue from my point.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I actually think this is a good thing. Some of the most common reactions I have heard/read to BvS are:
Regarding the darkness, the reason why BvS seemed too dark is because it was also a Superman movie, and they forced the natural darkness of Batman onto the Superman character, making him feel wrong. But for a solo Batman movie, that wouldn't be an issue. Regarding Jessie, I doubt he would be in the movie, so that also wouldn't be an issue. And lastly, even many of the people who didn't like BvS on the whole still thought Affleck did a good job.
So for all of those reasons, plus the fact that Affleck is apparently a pretty decent director, this movie may be a lot better than BvS turned out to be.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I understand that the studio wants to make as much money as possible. I completely get that.
I also understand that when other movies make a billion dollars, you would like to make that too. I completely get that.
I also understand that if the 4th movie in the Jurassic Park franchise can make a billion dollars, that putting the 2 most popular superheroes ever in a single movie should have also been able to make that much if not more. I completely get that.
All of that said, the official budget of BvS is 250mil. To date, it has made 785mil. So, even if it never made another penny, it has already doubled it's budget. So while I do understand the points I just mentioned above, and that it may not have made as much as they would have liked, it certainly didn't bomb.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
For example:
Basic Instinct 3:
Forty eight-year old Catherine Tramell meets an attractive young fan at the signing of her latest novel. They are also an aspiring crime-writer, and want to learn the secret of her method...
Basic Instinct 3:
Eleven-year old Catherine Tramell kills her parents 'to see if she could get away with it'... Years later at Berkeley, one of her professors attracts her attention...
Which would you consider the more interesting premise? IMHO, the latter could be used to delve into the origin, motivations and psychology of Catherine... The former, would simply be an opportunity for her to TRIBBLE and murder (which already happened in the first two movies) and would just be a rehash of the two... It might get some viewers, but would likely be panned as being unimaginitive and derivitive, where the latter, would (I believe) generate more interest and be doing something different to the first two movies, so avoid criticism for lack of originality...
As mentioned, Sharon Stone has said that she's not interested in reprising the role of Catherine in Basic Instinct 3, but is keen to direct it... So Option 1 would have to involve casting another actress in an established and iconic role, in an ongoing trilogy, hoping that she would carry the role, and expecting audience to accept the re-cast, and thus pretty much just trading on the title... Option 2, on the other hand, would require the casting of two younger actresses due to the setting, thus avoid the issues coming from re-casting Catherine as an adult. It would still be trading on the title, but would at least be bringing a different depth to the character, rather than simply retreading established plot points in the hopes that 'brand familiarity' may put a few bums on seats... Yes, business is business, but repeat customers are more loyal than passing trade, so deserve a worthwhile product
So there are no actual numbers for what the marketing would be, just a guess? If that is the case, and we take the 150mil guess as true, then we have a new budget of 400mil. And your last sentence said that a movie would have to more than double the investment to be "successful". Since BvS is currently at 785 mil, it will most likely go over 800 before leaving theaters. So by your own last sentence, this movie would probably pass the "successful" mark.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
While BvS may have doubled the investment, it's not broken the billion dollar threshold which studios desire...