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...
No, you simply don't understand what the term "bomb" means. In movies a "bomb" is a movie that fails to break even, such as Basic Instinct 2 with a budget of 70mil and a box office of 38. BvS, on the other hand, will double it's budget(even if we use the hypothetical budget of 400 mil).
So no, BvS won't make as much money as the studio would have liked, but not making as much as you would like and being a "bomb" that can't break even are 2 completely different things.
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...
No, you simply don't understand what the term "bomb" means. In movies a "bomb" is a movie that fails to break even, such as Basic Instinct 2 with a budget of 70mil and a box office of 38. BvS, on the other hand, will double it's budget(even if we use the hypothetical budget of 400 mil).
So no, BvS won't make as much money as the studio would have liked, but not making as much as you would like and being a "bomb" that can't break even are 2 completely different things.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware that "bomb" had a defined criteria, just that it was a term for an unseccessful or unpopular film... Either way, BvS can hardly be considered a successful film given the massive drop off, and, as in the linked article, it's in the company of films which are not particularly well thought of...
No, that's not what valoreah said, you're trying to twist their words to call it 'successful'... Here's what was actually said:
No, I was referring to HIS last sentence, that HE wrote:
Seems to me Hollywood always wants to more than double their investment to consider a film "successful".
So like I said, going by HIS own statement, if BvS more than doubles it's budget it would be "successful" by his statement.
You are just confused about who said what.
I'm not confusing what he said at all. You are deliberately ignoring the previous sentence which mentions the billion dollar threshold, just so you can point out that BvS has doubled its investment, thus, by that criteria, being considered successful... As mentioned, if they want a billion dollars to consider a film successful, they don't have that...
Fair enough, I wasn't aware that "bomb" had a defined criteria, just that it was a term for an unseccessful or unpopular film... Either way, BvS can hardly be considered a successful film given the massive drop off, and, as in the linked article, it's in the company of films which are not particularly well thought of...
Yes, "box office bomb" has pretty much always meant movies that can't even turn a profit. Whether they received good reviews or not is a different subject.
I'm not confusing what he said at all. You are deliberately ignoring the previous sentence which mentions the billion dollar threshold, just so you can point out that BvS has doubled its investment, thus, by that criteria, being considered successful... As mentioned, if they want a billion dollars to consider a film successful, they don't have that...
No, you are still confused. He did *not* say a movie had to make a billion to be successful, he said the studios DESIRED it to make that much. The only thing he said about being "successful" was doubling it's budget. You see, you are confusing 2 different things:
1) desire
2) success
I know many business owners in real life. Many of they are not making as much money as they would LIKE to. But many of them are still making a decent profit margin, making them successful. "Desire" and "successful" are 2 different things, which you are confusing as the same.
If you will actually read that page, you will see that any other factors are in CONJUNCTION(see definition) with a box office failure. So even if a movie gets terrible reviews, if it doubles it's budget then it isn't a bomb.
With 2 of the biggest most recognizable characters in the world, this movie should have been breaking all kinds of box office records
Yes, you are now agreeing with what I said in my earlier post:
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.
Can we at least agree that this film is a disappointment commercially, regardless of whether it's "successful" or not? It's two of the world's most iconic superheroes in the same movie - it should be doing a lot more than $800Mn USD.
Can we at least agree that this film is a disappointment commercially, regardless of whether it's "successful" or not? It's two of the world's most iconic superheroes in the same movie - it should be doing a lot more than $800Mn USD.
After a disappointing weekend that saw it lose to a horrible Melissa McCarthy comedy in only its third week of release, Batman vs. Superman looks poised for a total domestic run between $325 and $340 million. That’s below Deadpool, Furious 7 and even American Sniper and certainly not what Warner Bros. had hoped for their big (and expensive) movie. Current projections indicate that Batman vs. Superman won’t turn a profit when all is said and done. Hoping to inch closer to profitability, Warner Bros. is reportedly mulling the idea of releasing Zack Snyder’s extended, R-rated cut of Batman vs. Superman directly to theaters.
Is it safe to officially recognize Batman vs Superman as 'dogshit' yet?
You can call it anything you want. That is the great thing about a subjective opinion: you are no more right or wrong than anyone else. That said, there are 3 fairly OBjective ways to "measure" a movie:
1) critical reviews/scores
2) audience reviews/scores
3) box office
The critics' obviously hate this movie. No disagreement there. The audience reviews/scores have not been AS bad as the critics, but even they are getting below the 70% mark now:
Finally, it seems the movie is making less money than expected. So on all 3 accounts, purely from an objective perspective, the movie is definitely a disappointment.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware that "bomb" had a defined criteria, just that it was a term for an unseccessful or unpopular film... Either way, BvS can hardly be considered a successful film given the massive drop off, and, as in the linked article, it's in the company of films which are not particularly well thought of...
Yes, "box office bomb" has pretty much always meant movies that can't even turn a profit. Whether they received good reviews or not is a different subject.
No, you are still confused. He did *not* say a movie had to make a billion to be successful, he said the studios DESIRED it to make that much. The only thing he said about being "successful" was doubling it's budget. You see, you are confusing 2 different things:
1) desire
2) success
I know many business owners in real life. Many of they are not making as much money as they would LIKE to. But many of them are still making a decent profit margin, making them successful. "Desire" and "successful" are 2 different things, which you are confusing as the same.
I understand the semantic distinction, but you're avoiding the notion that a billion dollars is a figure apparently now held as a desired threshold for a movie to have been considered a success... As I mentioned, yes, BvS has doubled its investment, but it hasn't hit the billion dollars, and according to the drop-off record, is in the company of movies like Man of Steel, Green Lantern and Fantastic Four (and surprizingly, Watchmen...) so likely going to go down in movie history as a miss, rather than a hit...
Equally, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this observation:
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
Having just seen the film at the cinema they will not have made money from the six people at our viewing! And as for the film I missed the bit where Frodo and Gandalf passed through.. (I am sure people who have seen it will know where I am coming from here)
I understand the semantic distinction, but you're avoiding the notion that a billion dollars is a figure apparently now held as a desired threshold for a movie to have been considered a success...
To clarify, I'm not avoiding the "notion", but I think you are still confusing a goal with requirement. Wanting to make a billion dollars is a great goal, but doubling your budget is still a great thing too. I don't deny the studios want to make as much money as possible, I'm just not sure that "1 billion or fail" is set in stone anywhere. "Success" and "Failure" are 2 polar opposite ends of the spectrum, and making 785 mil(so far) is closer to the "success" end of the spectrum than the a bomb/failure end.
Equally, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this observation:
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
Honestly, I have no idea about this subject. You are a superfan of that franchise, so I defer to your judgement which scenario the fans would prefer.
Having just seen the film at the cinema they will not have made money from the six people at our viewing! And as for the film I missed the bit where Frodo and Gandalf passed through.. (I am sure people who have seen it will know where I am coming from here)
When a cinema has less than a dozen people in the audience, that's not a good sign
To clarify, I'm not avoiding the "notion", but I think you are still confusing a goal with requirement. Wanting to make a billion dollars is a great goal, but doubling your budget is still a great thing too. I don't deny the studios want to make as much money as possible, I'm just not sure that "1 billion or fail" is set in stone anywhere. "Success" and "Failure" are 2 polar opposite ends of the spectrum, and making 785 mil(so far) is closer to the "success" end of the spectrum than the a bomb/failure end.
That's true, but again, massive drop-off in interest over the second week, cinemas with less than a dozen people at a screening, and from what I could see yesterday, primarily negative reviews... The $$ take of the movie is not the only criteria of success, and if people aren't in any hurry to go watch it, it's not a good situation, nor a good omen for the movie's place in history...
Honestly, I have no idea about this subject. You are a superfan of that franchise, so I defer to your judgement which scenario the fans would prefer.
One hardly needs to be a superfan to see one example being a sorry re-hash relying on audience loyalty, and the other of actually contributing a new idea to a franchise, or the notion that treating viewers like rubes who will just watch whatever a studio puts out isn't the best way to go... Contemporary audiences are more sophisticated than to just swallow any appropriately branded tripe a studio puts out, so need to be, if not 'catered for' precisely, certainly considered in terms of what they will or will not soend the $$s to see, because as we agree, the movie industry is a business aiming to make $$s
Contemporary audiences are more sophisticated than to just swallow any appropriately branded tripe a studio puts out, so need to be, if not 'catered for' precisely, certainly considered in terms of what they will or will not soend the $$s to see, because as we agree, the movie industry is a business aiming to make $$s
The great thing about people is they are all different. That being the case, you can't lump audiences into the same category and talk about how "sophisticated" they are. Again, they keep making more Transformers(and now Ninja Turtles) movies because they make money. The fact that they get bad reviews isn't stopping them. Some people enjoy what you consider to be "appropriately branded tripe", and those people aren't "wrong" just because they may not be as 'sophisticated' as you are.
To clarify, I'm not avoiding the "notion", but I think you are still confusing a goal with requirement. Wanting to make a billion dollars is a great goal, but doubling your budget is still a great thing too. I don't deny the studios want to make as much money as possible, I'm just not sure that "1 billion or fail" is set in stone anywhere. "Success" and "Failure" are 2 polar opposite ends of the spectrum, and making 785 mil(so far) is closer to the "success" end of the spectrum than the a bomb/failure end.
That's true, but again, massive drop-off in interest over the second week, cinemas with less than a dozen people at a screeing, and from what I could see yesterday, primarily negative reviews... The $$ take of the movie is not the only criteria of success, and if people aren't in any hurry to go watch it, it's not a good situation, nor a good omen for the movie's place in history...
Contemporary audiences are more sophisticated than to just swallow any appropriately branded tripe a studio puts out, so need to be, if not 'catered for' precisely, certainly considered in terms of what they will or will not soend the $$s to see, because as we agree, the movie industry is a business aiming to make $$s
The great thing about people is they are all different. That being the case, you can't lump audiences into the same category and talk about how "sophisticated" they are. Again, they keep making more Transformers(and now Ninja Turtles) movies because they make money. The fact that they get bad reviews isn't stopping them. Some people enjoy what you consider to be "appropriately branded tripe", and those people aren't "wrong" just because they may not be as 'sophisticated' as you are.
And that's not really a good thing... That is, as I said, putting out mediocre fluff with the right branding so the masses will bite on it... It may be business, but aiming for the lowest possible denominator is hardly anything to be proud of...
I watched a movie in the hopes that a character might flash some t|ts and a55, I'm far from sophisticated Equally, given the internet's ability to give everyone a voice, reviews would suggest that modern audiences are pretty sophisticated, and know the difference between a good and a bad film, and that they express that well... Folks like that need/deserve better than 'bare minimum' franchise-fodder, but quality output
And that's not really a good thing... That is, as I said, putting out mediocre fluff with the right branding so the masses will bite on it...
Once again, there are plenty of people that like/enjoy what you consider to be "mediocre fluff", and those people aren't wrong just because they have different taste than you.
And that's not really a good thing... That is, as I said, putting out mediocre fluff with the right branding so the masses will bite on it...
Once again, there are plenty of people that like/enjoy what you consider to be "mediocre fluff", and those people aren't wrong just because they have different taste than you.
And I'm not suggesting they are wrong... What I'm suggesting, is that if a studio only caters to the bare minimum, pumping out franchise fillers, then they're going to have to expect results like BvS and the like experience, rather than producing films which really capture an audience attention and are put together well enough to get good reviews... It's been noted that the re-shooting of Suicide Squad is as a reaction to the audience reaction to BvS, and just as a restaurant which consistently gets bad reviews will lose customers and likely eventually close, studios may find that if they continually put out hollow try-hard films, then audiences may simply disappear from cinemas, and wait till movies hit bargain bins or hit a tv service, which would put a significant dent on a studios income from a movie... It would be bad for business...
studios may find that if they continually put out hollow try-hard films, then audiences may simply disappear from cinemas, and wait till movies hit bargain bins or hit a tv service, which would put a significant dent on a studios income from a movie... It would be bad for business...
I do agree that if audiences stop coming, that is bad for business. I also agree that BvS having a major dropoff means people are not coming back, which is bad for business. Despite the not insignificant profit it has already made, there is no argument that BvS has not met studio goals.
studios may find that if they continually put out hollow try-hard films, then audiences may simply disappear from cinemas, and wait till movies hit bargain bins or hit a tv service, which would put a significant dent on a studios income from a movie... It would be bad for business...
I do agree that if audiences stop coming, that is bad for business. I also agree that BvS having a major dropoff means people are not coming back, which is bad for business. Despite the not insignificant profit it has already made, there is no argument that BvS has not met studio goals.
And this is all I was meaning with my example of the two potential plots for Basic Instinct 3... Tired re-works, while unquestionably making some money, won't do as well financially, or be as well recieved critically, as a movie which is well thought out and well put together... If film studios want to keep getting money from cinema ticket sales, then they really need to up their game from the recent spate of remakes and franchise-dependent money-grabs, and produce some decent output...
Well I watched it today... and I still don't get why people think it was TRIBBLE.
Oh and Wonder Woman knew about Doomsday not because anyone called her but because she saw Doomsday on the news.
I actually liked the pictures of the various heroes. The idea used in universe is that Alexander Luthor had been collecting data on people with powers, then Batman and Wonder Woman stole the data. I particularly liked the 1918 pic. That was a neat touch.
Also I don't think that thing with Batman seeing the future was a dream.... I think it's a psychic projection... and a dangling plot thread.
Also it's super creepy that the painting in Lex's study has pictures of Parademons on it...... And yes, they explicitly spell out in the movie that it's Alexander Luthor and not the same guy people usually think of as Lex Luthor.
Well I watched it today... and I still don't get why people think it was TRIBBLE.
Different people have different opinions. That's pretty easy to understand.
Also it's super creepy that the painting in Lex's study has pictures of Parademons on it...... And yes, they explicitly spell out in the movie that it's Alexander Luthor and not the same guy people usually think of as Lex Luthor.
Those weren't "parademons", they were *actual* "demons". It was a biblical picture of angels fighting demons.
Well I watched it today... and I still don't get why people think it was TRIBBLE.
Oh and Wonder Woman knew about Doomsday not because anyone called her but because she saw Doomsday on the news.
I actually liked the pictures of the various heroes. The idea used in universe is that Alexander Luthor had been collecting data on people with powers, then Batman and Wonder Woman stole the data. I particularly liked the 1918 pic. That was a neat touch.
Also I don't think that thing with Batman seeing the future was a dream.... I think it's a psychic projection... and a dangling plot thread.
Also it's super creepy that the painting in Lex's study has pictures of Parademons on it...... And yes, they explicitly spell out in the movie that it's Alexander Luthor and not the same guy people usually think of as Lex Luthor.
There has been some word from people behind the scenes that the "Knightmare" sequence as it is called was not a dream but a temporal memory like what happened with Flash when he changed the past in "The Flashpoint Paradox", including the appearance of Flash in the Batcave at the end of the sequence.
Yeah, at first it seems like a weird dream based on Batman's paranoia, but certain parts were oddly specific.... Firepits, the giant Omega symbol on the ground.... Parademons! Those don't make sense if it's "just a dream". And of course the Flash portal where he talks about Lois.
Also it's super creepy that the painting in Lex's study has pictures of Parademons on it...... And yes, they explicitly spell out in the movie that it's Alexander Luthor and not the same guy people usually think of as Lex Luthor.
Those weren't "parademons", they were *actual* "demons". It was a biblical picture of angels fighting demons.
And yet they looked almost identical to the Parademons in the future apocalypse vision.
And yet they looked almost identical to the Parademons in the future apocalypse vision.
By "almost identical" you mean dark colored humaniods with wings? If so, I can agree to that. But they were pretty clearly stereotypical demons from the bible, not actual parademons. Here is a comparison:
The painting:
The parademon that knocks out Batman:
You will note the clear difference between a naked demon in the painting and a parademon wearing armor in Batman's dream. Also, the demons in the painting have bat-like wings, while the parademons had more insect like wings:
That said, yes I do think the painting was intentionally suggestive, but no I don't think it was supposed to imply those were actual parademons in the painting. The entire movie was making 'god' and 'devil' references, so this biblical painting was just another one of them.
About the dream: it wouldn't make sense for Batman to be dreaming about Parademons and Omega symbols when he would have no idea who Darkseid is at that point. That suggests it is more than just a dream. Having said that, I don't think that scenario will ever become a "reality" in the DC movies. Darkseid will certainly attack Earth at some point, but and there may be some series of events that could lead to an "evil" Superman, but I think they will be doing some time of time travel to *prevent* that from happening, rather than ever actually getting to that point(kind of like X-Men: Days of Future Past).
Correction: Cyborg superman did not throw doomsday to apokolips. He tied him to an asteroid that got picked up by a freighter that was traveling there.
Comments
No, you simply don't understand what the term "bomb" means. In movies a "bomb" is a movie that fails to break even, such as Basic Instinct 2 with a budget of 70mil and a box office of 38. BvS, on the other hand, will double it's budget(even if we use the hypothetical budget of 400 mil).
So no, BvS won't make as much money as the studio would have liked, but not making as much as you would like and being a "bomb" that can't break even are 2 completely different things.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
No, I was referring to HIS last sentence, that HE wrote:
So like I said, going by HIS own statement, if BvS more than doubles it's budget it would be "successful" by his statement.
You are just confused about who said what.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yes, "box office bomb" has pretty much always meant movies that can't even turn a profit. Whether they received good reviews or not is a different subject.
No, you are still confused. He did *not* say a movie had to make a billion to be successful, he said the studios DESIRED it to make that much. The only thing he said about being "successful" was doubling it's budget. You see, you are confusing 2 different things:
1) desire
2) success
I know many business owners in real life. Many of they are not making as much money as they would LIKE to. But many of them are still making a decent profit margin, making them successful. "Desire" and "successful" are 2 different things, which you are confusing as the same.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
If you will actually read that page, you will see that any other factors are in CONJUNCTION(see definition) with a box office failure. So even if a movie gets terrible reviews, if it doubles it's budget then it isn't a bomb.
Yes, you are now agreeing with what I said in my earlier post:
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Yes, a few pages ago:
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I understand the semantic distinction, but you're avoiding the notion that a billion dollars is a figure apparently now held as a desired threshold for a movie to have been considered a success... As I mentioned, yes, BvS has doubled its investment, but it hasn't hit the billion dollars, and according to the drop-off record, is in the company of movies like Man of Steel, Green Lantern and Fantastic Four (and surprizingly, Watchmen...) so likely going to go down in movie history as a miss, rather than a hit...
Equally, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this observation:
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
Still waiting to be able to use forum titles
To clarify, I'm not avoiding the "notion", but I think you are still confusing a goal with requirement. Wanting to make a billion dollars is a great goal, but doubling your budget is still a great thing too. I don't deny the studios want to make as much money as possible, I'm just not sure that "1 billion or fail" is set in stone anywhere. "Success" and "Failure" are 2 polar opposite ends of the spectrum, and making 785 mil(so far) is closer to the "success" end of the spectrum than the a bomb/failure end.
Honestly, I have no idea about this subject. You are a superfan of that franchise, so I defer to your judgement which scenario the fans would prefer.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
One hardly needs to be a superfan to see one example being a sorry re-hash relying on audience loyalty, and the other of actually contributing a new idea to a franchise, or the notion that treating viewers like rubes who will just watch whatever a studio puts out isn't the best way to go... Contemporary audiences are more sophisticated than to just swallow any appropriately branded tripe a studio puts out, so need to be, if not 'catered for' precisely, certainly considered in terms of what they will or will not soend the $$s to see, because as we agree, the movie industry is a business aiming to make $$s
The great thing about people is they are all different. That being the case, you can't lump audiences into the same category and talk about how "sophisticated" they are. Again, they keep making more Transformers(and now Ninja Turtles) movies because they make money. The fact that they get bad reviews isn't stopping them. Some people enjoy what you consider to be "appropriately branded tripe", and those people aren't "wrong" just because they may not be as 'sophisticated' as you are.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I watched a movie in the hopes that a character might flash some t|ts and a55, I'm far from sophisticated
Once again, there are plenty of people that like/enjoy what you consider to be "mediocre fluff", and those people aren't wrong just because they have different taste than you.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I do agree that if audiences stop coming, that is bad for business. I also agree that BvS having a major dropoff means people are not coming back, which is bad for business. Despite the not insignificant profit it has already made, there is no argument that BvS has not met studio goals.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Oh and Wonder Woman knew about Doomsday not because anyone called her but because she saw Doomsday on the news.
I actually liked the pictures of the various heroes. The idea used in universe is that Alexander Luthor had been collecting data on people with powers, then Batman and Wonder Woman stole the data. I particularly liked the 1918 pic. That was a neat touch.
Also I don't think that thing with Batman seeing the future was a dream.... I think it's a psychic projection... and a dangling plot thread.
Also it's super creepy that the painting in Lex's study has pictures of Parademons on it...... And yes, they explicitly spell out in the movie that it's Alexander Luthor and not the same guy people usually think of as Lex Luthor.
My character Tsin'xing
Different people have different opinions. That's pretty easy to understand.
Those weren't "parademons", they were *actual* "demons". It was a biblical picture of angels fighting demons.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
By "almost identical" you mean dark colored humaniods with wings? If so, I can agree to that. But they were pretty clearly stereotypical demons from the bible, not actual parademons. Here is a comparison:
The painting:
The parademon that knocks out Batman:
You will note the clear difference between a naked demon in the painting and a parademon wearing armor in Batman's dream. Also, the demons in the painting have bat-like wings, while the parademons had more insect like wings:
That said, yes I do think the painting was intentionally suggestive, but no I don't think it was supposed to imply those were actual parademons in the painting. The entire movie was making 'god' and 'devil' references, so this biblical painting was just another one of them.
About the dream: it wouldn't make sense for Batman to be dreaming about Parademons and Omega symbols when he would have no idea who Darkseid is at that point. That suggests it is more than just a dream. Having said that, I don't think that scenario will ever become a "reality" in the DC movies. Darkseid will certainly attack Earth at some point, but and there may be some series of events that could lead to an "evil" Superman, but I think they will be doing some time of time travel to *prevent* that from happening, rather than ever actually getting to that point(kind of like X-Men: Days of Future Past).
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008