It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
One more detail that's annoying about BvS.
Pray tell, @Risico007, why would a man carry around a giant blade weapon if he wasn't going to absolutely dice the hell out of people with it? It's impossible not to kill people when waving that sucker around. The simple fact that Bruce allowed such a weapon to be used, long before Jason met his end, tells us that he was fine with killing even before that mess with Joker. This not only goes against the precious comics Snyder pretends to swear by, but also continues to poke holes in the weak and opaque motivations of his Batman, who we still haven't gotten proper explanations about. If Jason's death isn't the driving force of his ramped up violence, what is? It worries me that he just enjoys it at this point.
And, as others have said, Bruce is far removed from Bond, in a vast many ways. Unfortunately for us, I don't think Snyder realizes this yet.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Guess-How-Many-Lines-Superman-Actually-Had-Batman-V-Superman-125667.html
BoxOffice
@BoxOffice
BATMAN V SUPERMAN took in $0.65M on Monday; North American total stands at $311.98M #BatmanVSuperman
Wow...
Me: I still love it a great deal and that bit with Batman fighting in the warehouse near the end still has me giddy.
An added bonus is that I finally made it through the whole movie without running to the restroom, lol
Some people, however, maintain that it's a failure of a film, trusting the possibly correct - I don't know - claims made by some source on the Internet that the film has to hit outrageously high numbers to be a success. Perhaps WB management did screw up at some point and had no alternative but to go over budget. Then so be it. The problem for me is that some folks here use those numbers as an argument against the film, which is poor reasoning, people! "Look, see how bad a film BATMAN V SUPERMAN DAWN OF JUSTICE is because it's made almost as much money as SPECTRE in less than one fifth of the time but that money is barely enough to break even because they went nuts at Warner's and pushed the expenses way too far?!" Point is, it's the single most grossing Superman film ever and it's the third most grossing Batman film ever, behind the box office freaks THE DARK KNIGHT and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.
Now we have posts like "hey, look, another week has passed and so-and-so is doing a lot better at the box office than BATMAN V SUPERMAN DAWN OF JUSTICE; this movie is a total disaster!" Nonsense. It isn't. But of course if I sat behind my computer every day, arms folded, checking out boxofficemojo, ready to slam a film of my choosing, I'm sure I could find several negatives to back up my criticism. Remember The Force Awakens? It went over 2 billion dollars ... but it didn't beat Avatar so, uhm, 'stinkerrrrr!'.
Of course box office results are the only source of criticism left. For arguing that this superhero film is all about style and not about substance is like saying that Duke Nukem 3D was a terrible video game because it failed to come with a peace message from Ghandi. And saying that "this is not MY Batman / Superman, therefore this is not a good film" is a sign that some people don't know how major superhero comic books work.
I'm not here to make a case for BATMAN V SUPERMAN DAWN OF JUSTICE being the greatest superhero film ever for I too have some complaints. But they are minor enough to be easily countered by a few pretty impressive positives the film gave me. I'm always willing to talk about the film itself, what we all think the film did right or wrong. But I've grown a little tired of these box office related arguments which make absolutely no sense any more in the context of the 830 million already pulled from our wallets. If WB spent too much money on this film, then fine, we can't give it back to them just yet. But that's not - repeat, NOT - a valid argument against the finished film.
Obviously the movie has its supporters, much like any film does. Many people can't understand what's so damn special about the Bond movies but we just have to accept people like what they like and don't like and for most BvS was a terrible movie, terribly made and had woefully underperformed. The FACT that the movie sans ancillaries hasn't even broken-even just goes to show how misjudged and mismanaged this movie was handled. Most things in life can make money but a movie of this nature isn't just to generate revenue and its not even to just about make a profit but to make a sizeable profit that justifies the investment of resources into making the movie in the first place.
$311 million domestic??? After how many weeks??? Civil War is tracking at $200million+ on its opening weekend!!
Facts are facts and the numbers advocate those facts with crystal clarity. For a movie that's supposed to officially set the ground work to set up its own movie universe, this thing is a certified dud.
So in that regard it is a failure.
Artistically BvS can be debated. Snyder's style has been well known for a long time now. It was clear from the beginning how BvS would look.
Style over substance, yes, with Snyder you get that. He did do some great work, BvS doesn't belong to it.
Nonetheless at the end of the day BvS is a comic book movie that can be regarded as flawed and maybe even mediocre. The user ratings on RT and Imdb are between 69 and 72% which sounds right to me.
The reason for the widespread negativity is the disappointment the movie brought to so many. Once some time has passed, the disappointment goes away and you accept the movie like it is, what else can you do.
Personally I am glad there is another Batman movie and more to come, Batfleck alone makes BvS worthwile, Wonder Woman/Diana Prince is the icing on the cake.
The Supes stuff though is probably another coffin nail to the Superman franchise.
There's something about the character's god like omnipotence combined with squeaky clean image that is just dull to me. In a way, I'm not surprised that even a flawed Batman stole the show in BvS. How else could it have really gone, if you think about it. Batman is just so much more complex as a character.
---
Regarding BvS being a box office failure - only in respect to the 'suits' overestimating its potential and supposedly overbudgeting it imho. I don't think its box office is all that bad realistically speaking. It has done far better than MoS even on an inflation adjusted basis. Even more notable is its foreign gross, which has decimated the previous film (+37%) even with a stronger US $, which if taken into account would have shown it to be even stronger. SP for example made 20% less overall than SF and 35% less in the US, so it's important to put things in perspective.
Having said that, box office is not the 'be all and end all' and I'm certain it could have done better with a few tweaks and better press.
That's THE ONLY way to go with such a character. And only THEY went there IMHO.
Not this:
It's such a shame too, because in MoS Henry showed that he could be the perfect Superman, and they don't give him a damn thing to do in this film. He mopes around, never smiles, never gets a chance to show the public that he's a good man and worthy of their trust. Why does BvS go out of its way to try and make him seem bad on the level of Luthor?
Henry plays Superman's innocence and incorruptibility in MoS so well, and that character is completely absent in BvS, for whatever reason, with a poor imitation in his place. Where are the moments like in the comic page above where Superman saves a person from committing suicide, devoting all his time and energy on one suffering person in a world full of pain? Why can't we ever see that?
Because Snyder subconsciously despises Supes or he simply doesn't get the character!
The following pretty much summed up my feelings and some of the issues I had with the film.
Snyder keeps trying to make the same excuse, that Cavill's Superman isn't the one we know and love yet, but that in later films, he'll develop to fit that role. Why we must wait this long, as the DCEU crumbles before us, I will never know.
The funny thing is that this Superman was closer to the one of the comics in MoS than he ever was in BvS, almost to the point that he's essentially a different character. So, as much as Snyder likes to make it look like this Superman is progressing into being the beacon of light and hope that we all know and love, that isn't the case when you really analyze his development film to film. BvS is a massive regression in every way. In MoS Superman is light, caring, innocent, determined and strong in the face of the opposition of the entire world. In BvS he cracks to public pressure, allows himself to be smeared and broken by Luthor, and openly labels himself as a bad guy. Yeah, I'm sure Jor would be through the roof proud with him son there. Christ almighty. And now, Snyder is setting up Injustice as future DCEU story, which is a major arc where Superman is THE BAD GUY. Why the hell does this man never want to give us the good natured Superman of the comics we've always wanted to see?!
I just want Superman to be portrayed as what he has always been portrayed as: a good guy that doesn't let his values get corrupted by the likes of Luthor. That is not what we have in BvS, I'm sorry. A Superman that isn't a boy scout isn't Superman at all, and the defense that characters go through tonal changes all the time doesn't really stand up here, because that is an indispensable part of who he is as a character, and always has been.
I rest my case.
I totally understand where you're coming from, but I also understand the logic of what they attempted to do. I think you have to take into account that while you, I and others have read various Superman comics over the years, a lot of the general public don't really care about him as character. The idea of an incorruptible, selfless deity doesn't offer much in the way of drama or conflict, which is why the modern films have all struggled to break through. It's not just coincidence. I'm not saying that they executed their concept perfectly in BvS, but I thought there was something interesting in there.
This. Well said
http://www.slashfilm.com/batman-v-superman-robin-weapon/
Why is Jason Todd the Robin of BvS. I don't see any evidence of that.
Furthermore neither Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney or Bale ever got depicted as ice-cold killers. Batfleck on the other hand is. That has nothing to do with comic reality just with the way it comes across the screen.
Snyder ruined Supes character, he really tried hard to ruin Batman as well, luckily he just scratched Batman, nothing serious that can't be undone by Affleck for his solo Batfleck movie.
This is where the disconnect begins, where I don't see the "big deal" in it because I don't read comic books at all. I've seen arguments made that people hate Batman killing because it's not him/not the character they grew up with, but if that's the case, aren't there technically numerous different "versions" of Batman, then, and this is just one of them? I just think if Batman was executing the mentally handicapped in comic books nearly 80 years ago, how is it so shocking in film now?
The issue with Batman killing is exactly as @BondJasonBond006 explains it; how we've all explained it time and time again, yet somehow people still don't get it.
Comparing Nolan's Batman to Ben Affleck's Batman is beyond an insult, for starters. Bale's Batman always went into every scenario doing his best to ensure everyone was safe, even the most disgusting criminals. Affleck's Batman, however, has no regard for that sort of thing and napalm bombs the hell out of people, runs them over with his batmobile, stabs them in the chest, and on and on and on, with nary a consequence or regret. When people die in Nolan's films, it's because of the tragic nature of Batman's job to protect his city and that he can't save everyone, even when his hands don't get bloodied. In the case of Affleck's Batman, people die just 'cause; this Batman could take everyone out non-lethally, yet he decides simply not to. At times, he really appears to enjoy it, too.
Has Batman killed in the comics before? Of course, most namely Kane's horrific early years where Batman is essentially a hypocritical gun-toting monster with a cape (he even had the horns!). It's no big news around here how much I hate that initial vision of the character, but I accept that it existed and that the World War II era of comics needed a reactionary hero who shot first and asked questions later; why that person had to be Batman, I'll never know.
Around the 70s, however, a new interpretation of the Batman character came, one that added weight to the man and gave him principles that made sense; gave him actual depth. A man whose parents were gunned down in front of him no longer shot people with a gun, because, that would be stupid. Batman developed a sense of strong morality and steeled values that he only rescinded as a last resort. He hated the idea of killing, of using guns, the whole nine. Over time, Alfred was the only person who he allowed to so much as carry a gun. This was the way Batman has been for 40 years, half of his history in the comics, folks.
When Batman does have to kill, it's always a tragic choice and one he always regrets and feels unbelievably crushed by. He understands the value of human life and doesn't stomach crossing the lines that those like Joker so willfully skip over. When Batman kills, if he ever does, he should never enjoy it, nor should he be so militaristic and explosion-happy as Affleck's Batman is. Every kill should tarnish his soul even more, not give him adrenaline. For Christ's sake, Frank Castle is not Batman.
I can accept different versions of a character, but this Batman and his new rules weren't properly set up, and the information we've got about Robin's weapon only continues to support the idea that Jason's death didn't make him start killing and that Snyder has well and truly lost the plot.
The true tragedy in all this is just how much lost potential we have laying in ruin from this film. A ruin that makes Metropolis at the end of MoS look like a minor disaster.
I will say, though, that if there needed to be a "reason" for Batman to kill, the death of Robin would be a damn good one, coupled with the fact that this Batman is much older and more grizzled and has had a lot more weigh in on than, say, younger versions of the character. Seems with the Tech Manual link I posted yesterday that they ruined that opportunity, sadly.
To those that don't like the killing, I'd suggest you tweak expectations for the solo 'Batman' installment, because if after all this time Batman IS a killer in BvS, you can be damn sure he'll be one in that, too.
What was that- ten guys at least standing right there who got blown up?
Hardly necessary but badass nevertheless!
I think the worst thing Batfleck did was kick that hanging man into the other man about to toss the grenade (and the assorted car related shenanigans)
0Brady, have you had a chance to give it a second viewing? I'd bed you might like it more for round 2! ;)