Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
JD
Master Member
Thanks for the info.
There are a few ways to take this...
DC/Warner isn't quite as far along as we thought - the constant/consistent casting rumors seem to support this; but, we do know the pre-production (set construction) is moving along in suburban Detroit at a quick pace and Henry Cavill has been sighted in the area, too.
Another way to look at it is... well, they're just afraid of Marvel's might. Iron Man 3 did big bank and Thor 2 did reasonable, although it didn't even surpass Man of Steel (which many feel underperformed); there's little doubt going up against Avengers 2 is going to be a mighty feat. I think DC wants to top Marvel and they just can't do that against A2.
Aligning against a Marvel film - even this "unnamed Marvel film" is a gamble. But, I think they're looking at it as Thor 2... a Marvel film that will do okay, but the power of Batfleck shouldn't be a problem against a Marvel B film. The one way Marvel can crush this film is if it is Dr. Strange - but, Dr. Strange would have to be played by Johnny Depp.
The power of an A-lister like Depp in a Marvel movie might give in an edge over Superman/Batman. But, even still - it's a gamble.
(And yes, I know Hamm is rumored to have been cast as Stephen Strange).
EyeofSauron
Master Member
this is a dumb move, every way you look at it.
thats basicly DC/fox saying, look we are important, go fight us. in reality it is like this, both movies wont make as much bank as they wouldve done if they were on seperate days. cause people will not watch both movies if it comes out on the same day.
now people will say: sure people will watch both. but lets look at it this way. a movie is expensive to a good amount of people. 12-15 bucks ticket, and about the same amount in snacks, if you go for that. not everyone has that kind of money to spend.
those movies are laid out more for males than females, and for the younger age group than the older. so the mayor viewers will be 15-30 year old males. so, this is 60 bucks instead of 30, for students, min wage earners, parents etc (its even more there cause multiple tickets) this is not an option. at least not in one month.
and given the chances, DC will lose this battle.
people have seen marvel movies, they know what quality awaits them.
on DCs side on the other hand, theres not a lot to show for. sure, batman was ok, but not as well received for the last part, and Superman was mediocre at best. still it made bank cause it didnt have to rival their spot with anyone else.
if you wouldve put up superman vs iron man, both wouldve made less money, and superman wouldve lost.
this is just basicly DC saying: look at us were important, we dont care about you.
and it will backfire.
thats basicly DC/fox saying, look we are important, go fight us. in reality it is like this, both movies wont make as much bank as they wouldve done if they were on seperate days. cause people will not watch both movies if it comes out on the same day.
now people will say: sure people will watch both. but lets look at it this way. a movie is expensive to a good amount of people. 12-15 bucks ticket, and about the same amount in snacks, if you go for that. not everyone has that kind of money to spend.
those movies are laid out more for males than females, and for the younger age group than the older. so the mayor viewers will be 15-30 year old males. so, this is 60 bucks instead of 30, for students, min wage earners, parents etc (its even more there cause multiple tickets) this is not an option. at least not in one month.
and given the chances, DC will lose this battle.
people have seen marvel movies, they know what quality awaits them.
on DCs side on the other hand, theres not a lot to show for. sure, batman was ok, but not as well received for the last part, and Superman was mediocre at best. still it made bank cause it didnt have to rival their spot with anyone else.
if you wouldve put up superman vs iron man, both wouldve made less money, and superman wouldve lost.
this is just basicly DC saying: look at us were important, we dont care about you.
and it will backfire.
JD
Master Member
Rumor: Ben Affleck injured, 'Batman vs. Superman' production delayed (update) - Batman News
Rumors are saying the delay is due to an Affleck injury.
Rumors are saying the delay is due to an Affleck injury.
JD
Master Member
EXCLUSIVE: BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN Update; Plus WB's Plan To Best Marvel
Lots of info in this article. Take a look at the pic they used of Phoenix... I look at that smile and I see Lex Luthor.
Lots of info in this article. Take a look at the pic they used of Phoenix... I look at that smile and I see Lex Luthor.
ooSuperman23
Well-Known Member
I just skimmed over that article, but the few things I read give me high hopes for this 
opcorn
opcorn
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
EXCLUSIVE: BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN Update; Plus WB's Plan To Best Marvel
the main villain role, "is still in Joaquin Phoenix’s court." This is twice that Variety has mentioned Phoenix for the part, yet they haven't revealed who the main villain is. Well, my source, General Napier, has informed me that Phoenix is "very close" to taking the role, and that the main villain is Lex Luthor. So, put two and two together and you have Joaquin Phoenix as Lex Luthor.
Cliffhangers, will actually be one key component in WB's master plan to dethrone Marvel Studios. WB realizes that Marvel films are famous for their mid- and post-credits scenes, and have no interest in copying from Marvel's playbook. WB's plan, is to end each of their films with a cliffhanger, setting up the next film in their cinematic universe. WB also wants to do short films for their lesser known characters. These short films would be played at the end of each film. That's a pretty interesting way of taking on Marvel's trademark post-credits scenes.
A viral site will be launched with a "choose your side" angle. That's about it. In the near future, be on the lookout for official casting news pertaining Joaquin Phoenix, Jason Momoa (despite his denials) and Josh Holloway.
the main villain role, "is still in Joaquin Phoenix’s court." This is twice that Variety has mentioned Phoenix for the part, yet they haven't revealed who the main villain is. Well, my source, General Napier, has informed me that Phoenix is "very close" to taking the role, and that the main villain is Lex Luthor. So, put two and two together and you have Joaquin Phoenix as Lex Luthor.
Cliffhangers, will actually be one key component in WB's master plan to dethrone Marvel Studios. WB realizes that Marvel films are famous for their mid- and post-credits scenes, and have no interest in copying from Marvel's playbook. WB's plan, is to end each of their films with a cliffhanger, setting up the next film in their cinematic universe. WB also wants to do short films for their lesser known characters. These short films would be played at the end of each film. That's a pretty interesting way of taking on Marvel's trademark post-credits scenes.
A viral site will be launched with a "choose your side" angle. That's about it. In the near future, be on the lookout for official casting news pertaining Joaquin Phoenix, Jason Momoa (despite his denials) and Josh Holloway.
JD
Master Member
Already posted. Look three posts up...
niennumb1
Master Member
It might be because it's going to be a major year for movie releases and they figure they could just make more in 2016 than when the slew of Marvel hits in 2015 plus Star Wars and other big films slated for release.
They will never best Marvel the way they are going. Disney's had a great plan of attack since day one in how they are bringing their heroes to the screen both individually and as a team. WB screwed that pooch long ago. If WB did have a plan then they would have required Nolan to keep the story pretty open-ended by the conclusion. Since they went that direction it basically closed off the "original" Bale Batman, so either the story would either involve Bruce coming out of retirement or excusing the Nolan films and just starting over (which sounds like the route they went).
It's just like they keep going, "Oops! Well... okay we'll just dismiss that storyline and not connect it even though everyone has pretty well embraced that as the modern day Dark Knight." Having the Man of Steel teaming up (or going against) The Dark Knight from the established elements we have already seen in that storyline would have ben MUCH stronger. They pretty much greatly weakened Batman as a character from the start by "redoing" his character for the film and in turn we won't emotionally feel as connected to him as we would have if it was the Batman we just had this 3-film journey with. It's really bass ackward.
How disjointed would it be if we had, say 2 Iron Man movies and then did the Avengers film, but with a new Iron Man away from those character-developing points that would strengthen his role within the team?
They will never best Marvel the way they are going. Disney's had a great plan of attack since day one in how they are bringing their heroes to the screen both individually and as a team. WB screwed that pooch long ago. If WB did have a plan then they would have required Nolan to keep the story pretty open-ended by the conclusion. Since they went that direction it basically closed off the "original" Bale Batman, so either the story would either involve Bruce coming out of retirement or excusing the Nolan films and just starting over (which sounds like the route they went).
It's just like they keep going, "Oops! Well... okay we'll just dismiss that storyline and not connect it even though everyone has pretty well embraced that as the modern day Dark Knight." Having the Man of Steel teaming up (or going against) The Dark Knight from the established elements we have already seen in that storyline would have ben MUCH stronger. They pretty much greatly weakened Batman as a character from the start by "redoing" his character for the film and in turn we won't emotionally feel as connected to him as we would have if it was the Batman we just had this 3-film journey with. It's really bass ackward.
How disjointed would it be if we had, say 2 Iron Man movies and then did the Avengers film, but with a new Iron Man away from those character-developing points that would strengthen his role within the team?
Last edited:
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
seelsa73
Sr Member
:facepalm
Problem with cliffhangers is that they tend to make the story feel incomplete and depending on the success of the film, there's always a chance that they won't follow up on said "cliffhanger" and decide to go in a completely different direction.
Superman Batman Crossover Film
It worked for LOTR. If the fellowship wasn't a cliffhanger, I don't know what was. Now, granted it didn't work for GL.
Reel
It worked for LOTR. If the fellowship wasn't a cliffhanger, I don't know what was. Now, granted it didn't work for GL.
Reel
JD
Master Member
I think DC is desperate. They're very jealous of the Marvel Movie Universe (MMU) has created and has been very successful with and they're desperate to match or top that (despite their successful Nolan Bat-films, which was simply three films without an ties to a "universe" ala Marvel). This could very easily backfire...
DC seems to be going after more older, more established actors - a lot of this is rumor, but we Affleck, Denzel Washington, Dwayne Johnson, Bryan Cranston, Holloway are all in their 40's (I hesitate to call a few of these actors A-Listers... Johnson definitely has a draw, Cranston is hot after Breaking Bad and Holloway is pretty much a bit player; Joaquin Phoenix is 39). (Notably, Robert Downey Jr. was 43(-ish) when the first Iron Man came out - while that started the MMU, he was the first... he was pretty washed up career-wise and it was an unknown if the MMU would take off as it did).
These movies take lot of time to make and a series of movies takes even longer and these actors are going to age and eventually not be available or outgrow their roles. I think casting these older actors is just a bad risk - it doesn't allow a longevity to their roles and it leads us to...
The Affleck factor. I feel that a lot of the negative reaction Ben Affleck received was due to him being BEN AFFLECK, rather than an actor that had a lower profile. I do think that's a bit unfair - yes, Affleck had his tabloid fodder adventure with Jennifer Lopez years ago, but his lifestyle has been much more low key since (despite being married to Jennifer Garner). He's proven to be a capable filmmaker and a solid actor - although that might be arguable to some.
It's the that these seasoned, established actors are instantly recognizably. At what point is he Denzel Washington playing John Stewart or just John Stewart? Or 'The Rock' playing just another action part? Does having all these big names inhibit our ability to see the roles rather than as actor in that role? (Yes, DC has cast some lesser know folks - notably Cavill and Gadot - and they're younger, too - which could mean that these two will anchor the DCMU).
Then there's this possible series of cliffhanger movies. They'd have have this tightly plotted with it all mapped out... and they'd need these movies to come out quickly. High potential for this to backfire and just leave fans with a sour taste... one bad or mediocre film or a bad performance could ruin their whole plan.
DC seems to be going after more older, more established actors - a lot of this is rumor, but we Affleck, Denzel Washington, Dwayne Johnson, Bryan Cranston, Holloway are all in their 40's (I hesitate to call a few of these actors A-Listers... Johnson definitely has a draw, Cranston is hot after Breaking Bad and Holloway is pretty much a bit player; Joaquin Phoenix is 39). (Notably, Robert Downey Jr. was 43(-ish) when the first Iron Man came out - while that started the MMU, he was the first... he was pretty washed up career-wise and it was an unknown if the MMU would take off as it did).
These movies take lot of time to make and a series of movies takes even longer and these actors are going to age and eventually not be available or outgrow their roles. I think casting these older actors is just a bad risk - it doesn't allow a longevity to their roles and it leads us to...
The Affleck factor. I feel that a lot of the negative reaction Ben Affleck received was due to him being BEN AFFLECK, rather than an actor that had a lower profile. I do think that's a bit unfair - yes, Affleck had his tabloid fodder adventure with Jennifer Lopez years ago, but his lifestyle has been much more low key since (despite being married to Jennifer Garner). He's proven to be a capable filmmaker and a solid actor - although that might be arguable to some.
It's the that these seasoned, established actors are instantly recognizably. At what point is he Denzel Washington playing John Stewart or just John Stewart? Or 'The Rock' playing just another action part? Does having all these big names inhibit our ability to see the roles rather than as actor in that role? (Yes, DC has cast some lesser know folks - notably Cavill and Gadot - and they're younger, too - which could mean that these two will anchor the DCMU).
Then there's this possible series of cliffhanger movies. They'd have have this tightly plotted with it all mapped out... and they'd need these movies to come out quickly. High potential for this to backfire and just leave fans with a sour taste... one bad or mediocre film or a bad performance could ruin their whole plan.
Those movies were always planned to be a trilogy and were all shot back to back. There's no way DC has everything that far planned ahead.
