REVIEW: Wonder Woman Can't Save Dull "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"

[Charlie Rock]

Well, wouldn't that mean that the no-kill policy was due to editorial meddling and that the creators had no intention of their heroes having a no-kill policy?

Robin was the result of editorial meddling. Should we scrap him/her?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Yeah I had a friend on fb knocking the movie then the next day he's raving about it. I'm like "I thought you hated it." He's like "Oh yeah that was before I saw it." wtf.

I think the biggest problem with the film is the Superman part to start the film. It is one of the key problems with it. But as far as a Batman movie goes....Snyder nailed it pretty solid. A great Batman costume , a solid Batman who uses his skills and more. If anything , after some weak performances by Bale (beyond Batman Begins) , Affleck really restored a good movie version of the character.

[CliffHanger2]

I think the biggest problem with the film is the Superman part to start the film. It is one of the key problems with it. But as far as a Batman movie goes....Snyder nailed it pretty solid. A great Batman costume , a solid Batman who uses his skills and more. If anything , after some weak performances by Bale (beyond Batman Begins) , Affleck really restored a good movie version of the character.

Yeah I agree Affleck and Snyder did a great job on Batman. I understand ppl have problem with Snyder's version of Superman but it's the most successful version in about 30 plus years. That's saying something.

[brettc1]

$835M at the box office so far, but its just limping along now.

Will maybe get to between $900M and $1B by the time it leaves Cinemas but that's only two thirds of what each of the Avengers movies brought in with the same kind of budget. With a production cost of $250M plus advertising that is "break even and a bit" money.

[CliffHanger2]

Ppl keep talking about marketing with this movie for whatever reason. With that type of mentality no movie is profitable. Critics have been consistently wrong with this movie first they said it would flop then oh it wont reach 800 mil then it's no chance at a bil now-well it'll reach a bil but it's still a failure. It's like cmon now stop the hate.

[dragonmp93]

Yeah I agree Affleck and Snyder did a great job on Batman. I understand ppl have problem with Snyder's version of Superman but it's the most successful version in about 30 plus years. That's saying something.

Well, this movie made the amount of money that a Batman movie with Wonder Woman as a guest star would do.

[brettc1]

Ppl keep talking about marketing with this movie for whatever reason. With that type of mentality no movie is profitable. Critics have been consistently wrong with this movie first they said it would flop then oh it wont reach 800 mil then it's no chance at a bil now-well it'll reach a bil but it's still a failure. It's like cmon now stop the hate.

It's not hate, it's math.

Ultron was profitable because it had a $400M dollar budget including marketing, and and you can aim for about a 40% of the box office gross going back to the studio once you take into account the adjusted figures of foreign currencies. Strange is it may sound to some, cinemas do not sell tickets and then give ALL the box office to the studio.

So based on that forumula, Ultron needed to make a billion dollars to start making a profit. It made $1.4B, so that means the studio invested $250M, made it all back, and then made another $160M on top of that (40% remember - that percentage of $400M means $160M back to the studio).

That's a good investment.

BvS has the same budget, and the same formula. It has not yet started to make a profit for its studio. It probably won't lose money, but it won't make a lot either. Breaking even is not a good investment for studios. Shareholders want to see profits. When they see an extravaganza like BvS just breaking even, and then they see something like Deadpool that cost a quarter to make and pulling in money hand over tiny regenerating fist, they have a right to question how the studio is investing its resources.

This is very simple math - the more money you SPEND, the more money you need to MAKE BACK before you have turned a profit.

[Osiris-Rex]

Now even Jesse Eisenberg considers Batman v Superman to be a failure.

"Jesse Eisenberg Blames Editing for Batman v Superman Failure"

http://www.inquisitr.com/3021838/jes...erman-failure/

[CliffHanger2]

It's not hate, it's math.

Ultron was profitable because it had a $400M dollar budget including marketing, and and you can aim for about a 40% of the box office gross going back to the studio once you take into account the adjusted figures of foreign currencies. Strange is it may sound to some, cinemas do not sell tickets and then give ALL the box office to the studio.

So based on that forumula, Ultron needed to make a billion dollars to start making a profit. It made $1.4B, so that means the studio invested $250M, made it all back, and then made another $160M on top of that (40% remember - that percentage of $400M means $160M back to the studio).

That's a good investment.

BvS has the same budget, and the same formula. It has not yet started to make a profit for its studio. It probably won't lose money, but it won't make a lot either. Breaking even is not a good investment for studios. Shareholders want to see profits. When they see an extravaganza like BvS just breaking even, and then they see something like Deadpool that cost a quarter to make and pulling in money hand over tiny regenerating fist, they have a right to question how the studio is investing its resources.

This is very simple math - the more money you SPEND, the more money you need to MAKE BACK before you have turned a profit.

So you're saying AOU had a 400 mil dollar budget made 250 back plus 160 that's 410 mil sounds like they broke even to me. Like I said by that standard every movie is a failure in fact heads rolled after AOU with Bendis and co being shuffled out of the creative process. Don't get me wrong I liked AOU and it made a billion something dollars so it's hard for me to see something like that as a failure.

From what I've read WB was saying they'd be happy with the movie doing around 825 it's already past that. Add to that a lot of marketing costs were offset by co-partners for the movie. But going back to the hate thing there were ppl saying it wouldn't do that and at 700 mil in under 3 weeks it had no chance at a billion. Now those ppl are changing their story.

[basbash99]

So you're saying AOU had a 400 mil dollar budget made 250 back plus 160 that's 410 mil sounds like they broke even to me.

No, the poster is saying about 40% of the 1.4 billion Avengers made goes back to the studios. 40% of 1.4 billion is 560 million, so with a budget of 400 million the studios reaped about 160 million PROFIT. Your math is off because of the reference to "250 back" in your statement.. replace that 250 by 400 and you've got it correct (at least according to brettc's post)

By similar reasoning, if BvS comes out of this weekend (somehow) having earned 900 million overall, the return to studio is about 360 million. Whether or not BvS makes a profit or not is something I think only the studio/stockholders will really know, with the kind of money they are making and the creative accounting they use it shouldn't be hard for them to at least represent BvS as breaking even.

Aside from profit, WB was looking to launch multiple franchises with this film and it seems like they are still on track to do so; in that respect I would say this film met expectations. As opposed to something like Green Lantern which was supposed to launch a franchise but failed and cause the studio to go back to the drawing board.

[brettc1]

So you're saying AOU had a 400 mil dollar budget made 250 back plus 160 that's 410 mil sounds like they broke even to me. Like I said by that standard every movie is a failure in fact heads rolled after AOU with Bendis and co being shuffled out of the creative process. Don't get me wrong I liked AOU and it made a billion something dollars so it's hard for me to see something like that as a failure.

From what I've read WB was saying they'd be happy with the movie doing around 825 it's already past that. Add to that a lot of marketing costs were offset by co-partners for the movie. But going back to the hate thing there were ppl saying it wouldn't do that and at 700 mil in under 3 weeks it had no chance at a billion. Now those ppl are changing their story.

Then you need to go back and read the post again. I said that with its budget of $400 million including marketing it made back its money AND it made around $160 million in profit.

Frankly I still don't see it making a billion and am prepared to say so right now and admit later if I got it wrong. But BvS only made $9M last weekend and that's less than half of what Ultron pulled in on the same weekend after opening. With Civil War coming out that number is only going to get worse, especially if Civil War is the hit everybody is expecting.

[brettc1]

No, the poster is saying about 40% of the 1.4 billion Avengers made goes back to the studios. 40% of 1.4 billion is 560 million, so with a budget of 400 million the studios reaped about 160 million PROFIT. Your math is off because of the reference to "250 back" in your statement.. replace that 250 by 400 and you've got it correct (at least according to brettc's post)

By similar reasoning, if BvS comes out of this weekend (somehow) having earned 900 million overall, the return to studio is about 360 million. Whether or not BvS makes a profit or not is something I think only the studio/stockholders will really know, with the kind of money they are making and the creative accounting they use it shouldn't be hard for them to at least represent BvS as breaking even.

Aside from profit, WB was looking to launch multiple franchises with this film and it seems like they are still on track to do so; in that respect I would say this film met expectations. As opposed to something like Green Lantern which was supposed to launch a franchise but failed and cause the studio to go back to the drawing board.

Thanks.

And I agree with you that this movie has enough pull to keep the franchise alive. But really I think a lot now falls onto the shoulders of Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman. MoS and BvS both had a lot of money sunk into them and their returns, while okay and good enough to keep going, were not the electrifying start that Marvel had with Iron Man. I don't think WB with trash can their whole super hero movie line, but they need to hit some home runs or at least a triple pretty soon. And that may call for a rethink in the way the movies are being put together.

[CliffHanger2]

Then you need to go back and read the post again. I said that with its budget of $400 million including marketing it made back its money AND it made around $160 million in profit.

Frankly I still don't see it making a billion and am prepared to say so right now and admit later if I got it wrong. But BvS only made $9M last weekend and that's less than half of what Ultron pulled in on the same weekend after opening. With Civil War coming out that number is only going to get worse, especially if Civil War is the hit everybody is expecting.

Okay so AOU cost around 400 mil in all and only profited 160 mil am I reading it right this time? heheh. That's still not success if your judging movies like that.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Now even Jesse Eisenberg considers Batman v Superman to be a failure.

"Jesse Eisenberg Blames Editing for Batman v Superman Failure"

http://www.inquisitr.com/3021838/jes...erman-failure/

He blames editing for the film and his portrayal of Lex Luthor. At no point does he proclaim the film a failure. . He hasn't seen the film and claims he never watches his movies. But here was the article...

Jesse Eisenberg has yet to see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. But the actor, who played Lex Luthor in the blockbuster, has devised his own reasons for why the film might have been critically mauled and for why his incarnation of the iconic villain didn’t quite match what was originally in the script.
The Oscar-nominated actor, who received this nod for his work in The Social Network, was asked by MTV News about the poor response to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. While he admitted that he hadn’t yet seen the film, he did provide this possible explanation for why people failed to connect with his character.
“It’s a very complicated mythology that I was able to wrap my head around while we were filming, but I think there were certain editorial choices that I was not aware of that they put in retroactively,” Eisenberg remarked.

There’s every chance that we could get to see the bits Eisenberg teases above that Zack Snyder left on the cutting room floor. Just before Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was released, it was teased that there an R-rated version of the film had been cut. It’s also since been confirmed that the first edit of the film came in at around four hours long.
Obviously, to make way for its release, this had to be sliced down to the final running time of two hours and 31 minutes.
Discussing his reaction to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Jesse Eisenberg insisted that he wasn’t adversely affected by the mostly negative reviews to the film, because he simply doesn’t pay attention to them. In fact, Eisenberg admitted that he lives in a bubble and he hasn’t even seen the movie in the first place.
Eisenberg emphatically declared, “I watch no movies I’ve been in, I read nothing about them.”
His Now You See Me 2 co-star Dave Franco was so shocked by this remark that he immediately quizzed him about the last film that he saw that he starred in. This led Dave Franco to admit that he did actually watch Zombieland, but only because Woody Harrelson dragged him to.
But even though he has yet to see his performance as Lex Luthor in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Jesse Eisenberg admitted that he would still jump at the opportunity to return to Warner Bros.’ DC Extended Universe as the villain.
This is mostly because of the people he worked with, as Jesse Eisenberg insisted that it was “just an honor to be part of that group” before praising Zack Snyder as a visual genius and lauding Chris Terrio’s script-writing abilities.
Warning: There are some Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice spoilers ahead. So if you’ve yet to see the blockbuster, then you probably shouldn’t read ahead.
In all likelihood, Jesse Eisenberg will return to as Lex Luthor somewhere down the line. The end of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice found Lex Luthor imprisoned after his villainous antics led to the death of Superman and huge destruction.

At the end of the film, after being approached by Batman, Lex Luthor insists that there is more evil on the horizon, which obviously is a tease to the likes of Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, Justice League Part 1, and Justice League Part 2.
In all likelihood, we’re only likely to see Lex Luthor’s return in the latter two films, especially since Jesse Eisenberg seems as much in the dark about his possible involvement in the franchise as the rest of us.

Its a nice click baity article with "He blames failure of Batman V Superman" But in no words in that does Eisenberg claim the film was a failure. He more or less blames some editing choices for the critical bashing the film took as did his character.

[CliffHanger2]

No, the poster is saying about 40% of the 1.4 billion Avengers made goes back to the studios. 40% of 1.4 billion is 560 million, so with a budget of 400 million the studios reaped about 160 million PROFIT. Your math is off because of the reference to "250 back" in your statement.. replace that 250 by 400 and you've got it correct (at least according to brettc's post)

By similar reasoning, if BvS comes out of this weekend (somehow) having earned 900 million overall, the return to studio is about 360 million. Whether or not BvS makes a profit or not is something I think only the studio/stockholders will really know, with the kind of money they are making and the creative accounting they use it shouldn't be hard for them to at least represent BvS as breaking even.

Aside from profit, WB was looking to launch multiple franchises with this film and it seems like they are still on track to do so; in that respect I would say this film met expectations. As opposed to something like Green Lantern which was supposed to launch a franchise but failed and cause the studio to go back to the drawing board.

Okay, I'm just saying it's be hard to argue BvS is a failure at this point which some ppl are still doing and yeah to me that would be hate.