It reminds me the premise of my upcoming super hero novel.
It reminds me the premise of my upcoming super hero novel.
Here's the thing about polarizing movies. Take a polarizing movie, and put it side-by-side with a bland movie, and they probably have the same average reviewer score (something middle-of-the-road), but the polarizing movie is going to make a lot more money. In a review aggregator, you can even out a positive vote by casting a negative one yourself, but when it comes to sales, there's no way to "even" it out. A bland movie will simply fail to generate sales, and will therefore get a modest box office. For a polarizing movie, it doesn't matter how many tens of millions of people hate a movie. If a billion people thought it was a stupid idea, that doesn't change anything if 100 million are interested. That's a 100 million in ticket sales, even if only 9% of surveyed people wanted to watch. That's why you can't just quote sales numbers to gauge what proportion of people liked it, or were interested in seeing it. The sales figure only tells you how many people were willing to pay to see it.
Anyway, TLJ... yeah, it's supposed to be subversive by intentionally going against expectations. I think that made it a terrible sequel to The Force Awakens, which sadly I thought was a mediocre film I watched twice. That movie's overall theme was pretty on the nose: let go of the past (and buy tickets for future movies starring these young characters!). I think if it were a movie called Space Battles: The Final Space Wizard, I'd probably enjoy it more, but I'm super highly particularly about the legacy Star Wars characters, so TLJ was a massive disappointment for me.
I also don't really believe Zack Snyder really cared about crafting a great Superman tale, and was more interested in creating a commercial success so that he could direct other movies, like Batman. Sorry, just the impression that I get. Was MoS subversive? Maybe, but I figured it was mostly that he didn't want to tell the exact same Superman story over again, which ironically meant he ended up going the route of telling the only three types of Superman stories WB ever tells.
Maybe - but don't most people call Marvel movies "bland" or "samey" on some level, yet they rake in more money than DC's latest controversial takes (not to mention still have a viable IP iteration)?
Interesting. Yeah, I can see that, now that you mention it.I also don't really believe Zack Snyder really cared about crafting a great Superman tale, and was more interested in creating a commercial success so that he could direct other movies, like Batman. Sorry, just the impression that I get. Was MoS subversive? Maybe, but I figured it was mostly that he didn't want to tell the exact same Superman story over again, which ironically meant he ended up going the route of telling the only three types of Superman stories WB ever tells.
Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
www.jamiekelleymusic.com
TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/
Perhaps "bland" is the wrong word. Marvel movies might be kind of bland, but they are in the public's consciousness. In other words, people have opinions on them, i.e. they aren't indifferent toward them. And in general, even if there's nothing groundbreaking about just about any Marvel movie, people generally like them.
Here's a weird analogy: my mom and aunt like Dancing with the Stars. Sarah Palin's kid was performing, errr, "performing," and everyone knew she was terrible. My mom was somewhat sympathetic, and she said if she was really as terrible as her haters said, she'd be off the show. I went all game theory on my mom and said the reason why she lasted as long as she did, despite all the haters, is because you can't "negative" vote Palin. I mean, you could, but to do that, you essentially have to vote for everyone but Palin. That takes a lot of work to neg her, such that most fans would rather just vote a bunch of times for their favorite. So Palin, who was obviously polarizing, could survive being the most disliked person on the show because she had enough fans until the list of contestants shrank and the haters had the ability to neg her by voting for literally anyone else. Compare this to a show like Survivor in which the votes are only neg votes. The objective is not to get people to like you, it's to get people not to hate you so much they want you off the damn island.
Ticket sales are like DwtS votes. It doesn't matter so much in the short run if most people hate you, because your short term success is only determined if you have enough people who like you. The problem with DCEU is that a lot of people hated the movies, and not a lot of people liked them. With TLJ, you had a lot of people liking the movie and also a lot of people hating it. It didn't make TFA numbers, but the number itself was still pretty big. People also forget that with movies, it's not a binary like or dislike. There are generally three true states: like, dislike, and indifferent, and for most movies the bulk of the people fall under "indifferent."
TL;DR - it's possible for a lot of people to hate your movie while still raking in a ton of cash, because sales numbers don't tell you how many people have an opinion of the movie, or what the distribution of like/dislike/neutral is.
Last edited by DochaDocha; 12-10-2018 at 04:44 PM.
True - Good points! Totally agree.
--------------------
As for this movie, some were asking what that symbol is... I think the symbol is a kind of "Brightburn" emblem? Looks like two Bs, one reversed, meant to look like a skewed version of the Smallville "S" that looked like it has an 8 inside it.
It's basically an "Ultraman, the movie" idea from the looks of things, and that should work pretty well.
Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
www.jamiekelleymusic.com
TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/
Intriguing. Hopefully this will be commercially successful.
There should be more films willing to be based on "super villains", especially outside of Marvel/DC who have to be careful 'marketing' wise.
Independent productions can go into rated R territory.
Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
www.jamiekelleymusic.com
TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/
Joss Whedon added to Superman vs Justice League fight with "Do you bleed?". Me and some other people figured out that Lois' "You smell good" was dubbed over Amy Adams, because what her lips actually say in that moment after Clark says "This is home" she responds with "You spoke" and he asks "Did I not before?". Meaning that until they arrived to Kent farm Superman wasn't talking at all in Snyder Cut.
As for Knightmare sequence there are two important things:
1. That was the future that had to be prevented. So the actual timeline of DCEU wouldn't come to dark Superman.
2. Superman wasn't dark on his own will and choices like in Injustass, he was manipulated by Anti-Life Equation that Darkseid used on him as Zack Snyder explained in the comments of Vero. Superman that is forced to be evil against his own will is a much better concept that Brightburn or anything else that twists the concept.
I have admit to rolling my eyes before watching this trailer, because "kind of like" Superman is too far away from Superman to waste my time. But this isn't kind of, it's rather explicit. As if Liz is doing a parody if Diane Lane as Martha. I'm really into it, that kid is so creepy.
Plus we don't really know the plot. It could have some big Shyamalan twist.
You think injustice superman was evil by his own choice. Since when is a having a psycotic breakdown a choice. The Dude is ill. He killed his wife,child, friends, Coworkers and the life he had built. He is as much a victim as anyone. I am not saying Clark had no responsibility for his actions.but it isn't his alone to take.
So you are OK with superman being portrayed as brainwashed puppet but not OK with superman being a sympathetic villain.
The role of synderman is a hero.
The role of injusticeman is a villain
They have completely different roles. Synderman needs to be heroic while the latter doesn't.
People need to stop rippingon injusticeman.embrace the darkside.
Power directly or indirectly corrupts narrative is a low hanging fruit. Like it or not there are going to be evil superman stories. Which is great, since it give the character more flexibility.
Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 12-11-2018 at 02:38 PM.
I guess I never saw Superman as a sympathetic villain in Injustice. I take that back; I was able to sympathize with him for his loss, and he was a villain, but he wasn't a "sympathetic villain" beyond killing the Joker. His mad desire to take over to the extent he did was not a logical response at all to what happened to him. Are we supposed to accept that his loss was so unbearable that he just snapped? I guess, but again I go back to saying that this is not how Superman would respond as far as long-term solutions to a problem at hand go. It's just something there to precede, and not even explain, going from hero to villain.
Dude, nobody except for some atom bomb fallout victims and relatives to the victim on the planet has suffered, what clark has suffered. It only took dead parents to make Bruce into batman. There is a huge gap in the what kind of trauma they suffered.
It depends, people think harley is “sympathetic villain“ or “anti-hero" just because she was in an abusive relationship(I am not talking about injustice harley just the general one) . What clark suffered was much much great.
Injusticeman is a batman villain. A common theme of batman villains is that,They have mental illnesses .his measuring stick should be how much of a good villain he is. Not his moral fortitude or mental strength.
That is the thing, it was not meant to be logical choices. Clark was trying to hold the sand by gripping it tightly.Clark's paranoia was greatly amplified after the incident. Clark can snap, can't he.he is human, so to speak. He is continously underpressure and has to take constant care not take decisions that can cause damage. On top of the trauma. He should have been sent to treatment not work(that to a position of power) after the incident.it is not like superheroing is stressfree job.superman the title might be incorruptible, but Clark the man can be torn down.
I don't buy the Clark "can't snap because of infinite willpower". It is just stupid. It can be good in a silver age story or dragon ball type fighting story. But not in a more realistic setting. Anyone can snap. Bruce can snap (some would say he has already and the bat is a manifestation), Clark can snap,diana can. Again, It is not a choice.
Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 12-11-2018 at 04:51 PM.