DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[byrd156]

Even with the negative word of mouth, I'd expect BVS to have done better, just because it has these big name heroes. Batman alone should have been enough of a draw.

I never watched the trailers for the movie, because I didn't want to be spoiled--I went on opening day with no expectations and was rather happy with the movie. But looking at the trailers now, I can see why maybe they didn't pull in audiences. There's a lot of talking, there's not many great action scenes, Superman is portrayed as a villain, Batman doesn't come off much better and the trailers don't tell a clear story that would make people want to watch.

If you look at the foreign market numbers it didn't do as well as the movies that have broken the billion dollar mark. I don't know what the trailers were like for those foreign markets, but if they were like the domestic trailers--heavy with dialogue and no visuals to get people excited for the action--then I can see why foreign audiences stayed away. They want movies with stunning action set pieces, not lots of dialogue (which they might have to read in subtitles if it's not dubbed).

Heavy dialogue is fine, the Nolan films are very heavy on dialogue. The problem with BVS is that the dialogue wasn't interesting and the story wasn't very engaging.

[Jim Kelly]

Well, I'm talking about the trailers, since I'm trying to understand what didn't pull people into the movie. I would have thought Batman, Superman--that's the pull so people must have seen something else that made them stay away. And the trailers don't show much of Superman and Batman in action together. The dialogue in the trailers is circling around the issues rather than being direct.

THE DARK KNIGHT trailer has lines--but the lines introduce the characters--they do a good job of telling you who's in the movie, what it's about and stirring up excitement over the Joker. And who is the villain in BVS--the trailers give so many possible options--they don't deliver a clear message on what the movie is about or why you need to see it.

[kjn]

Given the opening for BvS ($166M), it's clear the trailers did their job well enough.The main problem was not found in the way the film was marketed, or the trailers, but that the movie itself was a poor one, and got crushing word of mouth. It did not make the watcher care about the characters (see the Eight Deadly Words about novels: "I don't care what happens to these characters"; which given that you work with Batman and Superman is a misstep of spectacular proportions). It did have spectacle, but it was ungrounded and visually too dark. Its messaging was confused, depressing, and contradictory.

It's not even so that you can say that it underperformed on the overseas market. 38% of gross from the US market is rather normal for these types of movies.

No, BvS snatched defeat from the jaws of victory all by itself.

[Ascended]

Gotta agree with that; BvS defeated itself.

It felt like WB took MoS and all the criticism that film got, and learned all the wrong lessons.

I love what Snyder was trying to do, but he didn't get there.

[Jokerz79]

Yet, AQUAMAN was extremely faithful to the comics and made a billion. It felt like a natural fit for the Johns/Parker/Abnett runs. Hell, even Topo (or at least an ancestor of Topo) made it into the flick.

Superman can be done.

Superman has been done many times faithful on screen that's kind of my point he even had his "billion" dollar movie with Superman 1978 which made 300 million worldwide and if adjusted for inflation is a billion dollars in today's money. My point is with Superman he is a tough cookie since you can't veer to far off course with him even Aquaman while taking stories points, characters, and designs from the comics he still had a slightly different personality than comic book counterpart and while toned done greatly he still had some Justice League Dudebro aspects Snyder gave him. That's something you can't do with Superman because he's so ingrained into people's minds as one way.

Man of Steel is a well made movie and decent story with more comic elements than any big screen Superman appearance ever but the tone, personality, and direction were different than people were use too and it divided the audience. That's one big benefit the MCU had most of their characters were blank slates to most of the audience seeing the films.

[adamTPTK]

And again I feel like people forget how important editing is. I didn't like the theatrical cut, I did like the ultimate cut, and so did the people I watched it with. Another aspect, disastrously spoilery marketing. That second trailer? God, what were they thinking? It revealed 90% of the movie. I've seen people saying there was nothing left to even discover in story and they are right. Beside Superman's death, they literally revealed everything with the trailers. When Lex introduces Clark to Bruce, it gives away he's going to be behind their conflict. The stand off that reveals Diana's into AND Doomsday?! Just no comments, really (and that made nerds speculating Death of Superman is also possible, so even this was basically given away with that revelation). Hell, even Batman stopping Superman's punch made people speculate about Kryptonite. And that with Snyder stating there plenty of stuff they saved for the cinema, which never lived up to be true.
I think all of this isn't about Snyder being a bad creator, it's about him being a bad businessman. He doesn't know how to sell his product, he doesn't know how to "force" the exec to sell his product in its best shape (the plethora of his clearly superior "derictor's cuts" being proof to that) and most importantly, with his fascination of blending art house and blockbusters, he doesn't know how to appeal to the masses. In that regard, he's the anti-Nolan, a guy that actually succeeded in doing the same.

[Steel Inquisitor]

In that regard, he's the anti-Nolan, a guy that actually succeeded in doing the same.

Which is ironic, as Nolan was allegedly the one who endorsed him to direct Man of Steel.

[Korath]

In that regard, he's the anti-Nolan, a guy that actually succeeded in doing the same.

I find that Nolan is a lot harder to return to than Snyder. I honestly can't say that once the glow of one of his movies has passed, that I want to see another, even those which left me breathless at the time (The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar). Snyder's style allow for such returns to the well, IMHO.

But BvS was mostly killed by Warner who cut off key segments of the story for the theatrical release, which was beyond stupid. The whole framing of Superman and thus is doubts toward his stature as a hero felt strange in theaters because of it, for instance. BvS nonetheless approached the billion, and it would have actually achieved it, I suspect, if trailers hadn't been so revealing and the movie so cut on the editing floor. Which was a problem for Suicide Squad too. Wonder Woman managed to avoid it, and Justice League was just the child of Warner making all the wrong decisions, from not delaying the film to putting Whedon in charge when his approach jarringly contrasted with Snyder's.

If Zack had continued to helm it, perhaps it wouldn't have been what a lot of people would have wanted to see, but at least it would have been an actual movie, not the poor Frankeinstein's monster version of one it turned out to be. Snyder was the one who had chosen Jason Momoa and Gal Gadot, who proved incredible in their roles, and Fisher and Miller seemed to have far more complex and heroic roles in his version of JL, which could have helped them get a movie out as Cyborg and Flash, instead of basically sentencing those characters to limbo for the foreseeable future.

[Holt]

Well, again, it had a record opening weekend. The trailers seem to have done their job of actually getting people in. It was getting repeat business and word of mouth that was the problem.
https://variety.com/2016/film/box-of...op-1201744845/

[adamTPTK]

I find that Nolan is a lot harder to return to than Snyder. I honestly can't say that once the glow of one of his movies has passed, that I want to see another, even those which left me breathless at the time (The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar). Snyder's style allow for such returns to the well, IMHO.

But BvS was mostly killed by Warner who cut off key segments of the story for the theatrical release, which was beyond stupid. The whole framing of Superman and thus is doubts toward his stature as a hero felt strange in theaters because of it, for instance. BvS nonetheless approached the billion, and it would have actually achieved it, I suspect, if trailers hadn't been so revealing and the movie so cut on the editing floor. Which was a problem for Suicide Squad too. Wonder Woman managed to avoid it, and Justice League was just the child of Warner making all the wrong decisions, from not delaying the film to putting Whedon in charge when his approach jarringly contrasted with Snyder's.

If Zack had continued to helm it, perhaps it wouldn't have been what a lot of people would have wanted to see, but at least it would have been an actual movie, not the poor Frankeinstein's monster version of one it turned out to be. Snyder was the one who had chosen Jason Momoa and Gal Gadot, who proved incredible in their roles, and Fisher and Miller seemed to have far more complex and heroic roles in his version of JL, which could have helped them get a movie out as Cyborg and Flash, instead of basically sentencing those characters to limbo for the foreseeable future.

When it comes to Nolan, I think what makes him a better accepted creator is the fact, unlike Snyder, he did crack the average Joe appeal. Snyder's ideas are larger than life, and his characters are always prisoners of the situation. They are so rarely "relatable", let alone triumphant. They are deep in their business, entirely overwhelmed by it. They have almost no time for character moments that makes them closer to the normal. Think about both Interstellar and Inception protagonists and the human conflict that revolved around them. They missed their children, they missed their loved ones, and they were transparent about it, not burdened like Snyder's. You can easily connect to this before you get into the big scale conflict. Let's not even talk about Ledger's Joker... talking of which, as cynical as it sounds, I think his death contributed a lot to Nolan's career. Just look at his box offices before and after. Hollywood hyped up Ledger's final show so much The Dark Knight has become an event movie.
Anyway, the average Joe appeal is also superstrong with the MCU, and we all know how well they do despite having mostly mediocre content. To further make what I'm trying to say more evident, we can also look at Wonder Woman. I think Gal Gadot and Patty were able to make the character just as strongly relatable, and with that all other movie flaws there were (and I can assure, there are more flaws in story than there are in MoS!) to be overlooked because of the general appeal and protagonist(s) people can easily connect with.
I don't disagree with everything else you said.

Which is ironic, as Nolan was allegedly the one who endorsed him to direct Man of Steel.

Yeah, my only problem how he distanced himself from the backlash albeit him a major part of the overall MoS pitch. Good businessman decision, but also one of jerk.

[Lightning Rider]

When it comes to Nolan, I think what makes him a better accepted creator is the fact, unlike Snyder, he did crack the average Joe appeal. Snyder's ideas are larger than life, and his characters are always prisoners of the situation. They are so rarely "relatable", let alone triumphant. They are deep in their business, entirely overwhelmed by it. They have almost no time for character moments that makes them closer to the normal. Think about both Interstellar and Inception protagonists and the human conflict that revolved around them. They missed their children, they missed their loved ones, and they were transparent about it, not burdened like Snyder's. You can easily connect to this before you get into the big scale conflict.

This is a very interesting critique. I loved Snyder's take but this is definitely something that was lacking. Very few moments to simply exist without being so caught up in the plot. The best of the MCU stuff takes advantage of those moments. That's what makes you feel for a character.

Funnily enough I think it's what made TDKRises kind of lackluster to me.

[adamTPTK]

This is a very interesting critique. I loved Snyder's take but this is definitely something that was lacking. Very few moments to simply exist without being so caught up in the plot. The best of the MCU stuff takes advantage of those moments. That's what makes you feel for a character.

Funnily enough I think it's what made TDKRises kind of lackluster to me.

The absence of relatability was the thing that bothered me when I first watched MoS as I got out of the theater with what it's called now "mixed feelings". I didn't really liked it at first, because some of the creative decisions seemed not really well executed. Thanks to its immense rewatchability value (something that is really prevalent in Snyder's movies, as the poster above mentioned) I got around the flick many times after until I finally "got" what Snyder tried to do. In his vision we were supposed to accept that Clark is inherently a good guy, it's just the world around that is so complex and flawed which never lets him live up to his true aspiration. And then the Superman idea Jor El comes with isn't just a superhero, it isn't some alter ego, it's an ideal, it's a symbol, it's something almost ethereal. All are great concepts, but they are really hard to swallow right of the bat. And the problem is, people that come to see Superman don't necessarily want this in depth analysis and reimagination of the character. And Snyder needed to have that in mind. Initially I had issues with the fact that Clark's connection to humanity is basically summed up with his few relationships with few people he loves. Yet that's his take on the character, and I think it is pretty interesting, you should just enjoy the ride and fresh ideas. But it's easy to see why people had issues with that and its moodiness that were reflected through grayish filters on purpose. With all that said, some of the criticisms MoS got were simply hypocritical and hyperbolised.
I actually agree, TDKR is a very flawed movie, but Nolan hype is like Snyder's dissing. At some point it became a matter of masses' attitude that had no reason behind it.

[Jim Kelly]

The extended cut of BVS might have explained what was going on in more detail--but I actually understood all that when I saw the theatrical cut, so the extra scenes weren't really necessary for me. The common complaint about the theatrical cut seemed to be about editing, but I never understood what people meant by that, as they never explained themselves. Did they actually mean the craft of editing was bad--the editor failed in his art--or did they mean something about the order of the scenes?

The big thing that takes me out of the movie is Bruce's dream sequence coupled with the flashes of the would-be Justice League--and that's in both versions of the movie. Since they weren't going to make good on the dream sequence that should have been cut. I know that the "Dawn of Justice" was supposed to set up the Justice League--but if Warner hadn't given Snyder that extra chore and he had been able to leave all that out, then the movie wouldn't be trying to juggle even more things than it already was. I lost the plot when all that was dumped on me and I had a hard time remembering where we were in the story when we got back to it.

[adamTPTK]

The extended cut of BVS might have explained what was going on in more detail--but I actually understood all that when I saw the theatrical cut, so the extra scenes weren't really necessary for me. The common complaint about the theatrical cut seemed to be about editing, but I never understood what people meant by that, as they never explained themselves. Did they actually mean the craft of editing was bad--the editor failed in his art--or did they mean something about the order of the scenes?

The big thing that takes me out of the movie is Bruce's dream sequence coupled with the flashes of the would-be Justice League--and that's in both versions of the movie. Since they weren't going to make good on the dream sequence that should have been cut. I know that the "Dawn of Justice" was supposed to set up the Justice League--but if Warner hadn't given Snyder that extra chore and he had been able to leave all that out, then the movie wouldn't be trying to juggle even more things than it already was. I lost the plot when all that was dumped on me and I had a hard time remembering where we were in the story when we got back to it.

It was understandable more or less, but this isn't the only aspect that constitutes for coherent and satisfying storytelling. UC felt much more complete, clear and whole when it comes to general experience. For example I could understand why would Superman's involvement with the African event require a hearing, but seeing how burning the bodies was basically framing him personally brought the needed context for those who wanted a more cohesive idea. Also, Superman's entire arc. In TC, he feels like an entity, almost an abstract. In UC he's an actual protagonist with his own convictions, journey and doubts. It makes his side of the story to be more than just random dislike of another caped competitor. Also, the scene where Lex gets emotional around Zod's body is basically his quintessential scene. Does to the character more than anything else. Anyway, lots of people called BvS confusing and the characters motivationless. So spending more time with the characters really does help matters, and having more connective tissue in the plot is always a plus.
I agree though about the dream sequences, since when Batman is a clairvoyant? How was this even supposed to work? Headcanon says it was a quantum ripple that connected him to his future self when Flash arrived from the same future just moments after. But that is that, a headcanon. In a perfect world, BvS would be a two part dilogy IMO. First to set the conflict, second to resolve it. As it stood it was either have a very long movie released in the theater, or... well, we got that already...

[Krypto's Fleas]

Well, again, it had a record opening weekend. The trailers seem to have done their job of actually getting people in. It was getting repeat business and word of mouth that was the problem.
https://variety.com/2016/film/box-of...op-1201744845/

Nothing kills a bad product faster than good marketing.