'Batman v. Superman' Fallout: Warner Bros. Shakes Up Executive Roles (Exclusive)

[wire28]

How was GOTG not a risk. You have a proven and successful forumula and your next move is a big budget move starring a tree and racc00n with a gun, both which talk.

For people that love to trash marvel as being "formulaic", deciding to scrape the bottom of the barrel for characters even more obscure than the ones you already have control over is a giant business risk. And let's not even get on Antman. The name alone was a risk because what casual viewer is marking the calendar to see a movie called Ant Man

That's why the projections were all over the place and no one had them doing nearly as well as they did. Those are risks. Putting batman and superman in the same movie, adding in Wonder Woman and lex, and finally choosing to move it up to avoid your competition is as risk averse as you can get come on

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Marvel had to release Guardians of the Galaxy or the Inhumans or some other team. Guardians was the best choice. What other options are there? They needed to flesh out the MCU. They need characters for the Infinity series. They can't use X-Men. They can't use F4. They did not yet have rights to Spider-Man.

Risky? Maybe but what other choice was there? And Inhumans has been shelved.

 

[Tasha And]

I would respectfully disagree on the court scene which is my favorite part of the entire scene. The PREDICTABLE thing to expect is to hold a Senate court hearing and have Superman come through and give this all-American speech about so-called "truth, justice, and the American way". You come in prepared and expecting it, and Lex Luthor had OTHER plans which, for me, caught people off-guard. It was something that even Superman admits caught him off-guard, saying he wasn't looking and it humbled him something serious. Terrorism, no matter where it is coming from isn't going to wait for anyone... it comes at the least expected moment and that was a proper moment to do it right BEFORE Superman gets heard, because the whole agenda was tarnish the image and worship of Superman to the public eye and allowing the government to give Lex exclusive right and authorization to take him down by any means necessary.

In the end, through the Christian allegory of God sacrificing his life to save mankind, you see how people embraced Superman with an universal statement that he's within all of us. Even changed the mindset of Batman in regards of humanity by stating that people are good. You didn't NEED some cliche Superman speech that we seen or heard time and time. You need a tale where you see how terrorism and political gain from terrorism works, you need to see how people FAITH is tested or even shattered and blaming GOD for everything bad that happens, and you need to SEE how GOD is willing to sacrifice his life for WE can live.

I said this plenty of times, the entire story of BvS is a Christian allegory of the Passion of Christ.

I have a question for you. Do you think a story about a savior that sacrifices himself for the world is something fresh, or not cliche? Have we not seen Christian allegories in hundreds of stories from the Matrix, to Star Wars, to Game of Thrones, Mass Effect, etc again and again and again?

You seem to be arguing against cliches, but the Christian allegory is one of the most overused and cliche story devices in all of storytelling, so tell me how this cliche is any different or fresher than the others?

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

BvS is no more ambitious than anything Marvel has put out . You can laugh at the tone of Guardians of the Galaxy, but the decision to throw those characters on the screen with that budget, in that setting, was way more ambitious and riskier from a studio perspective than deciding to throw Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, Doomsday, The Flash, and Aquaman on a screen.

Everything you brought up; accountability and whatnot wasn't explored in any real substantive way, no truly unique or clever angle was explored, they just presented the common talking points of the subject and scowled at each other instead of having a thought out conversation without a clear winner. I mean, did Wonder Woman even say one word to Superman in the entire movie?

Drowning a film in dour music and a blue and grey color filter simply presents the illusion of taking a subject serious, but it's all undermined by CG monsters, stupid plot solutions, fake deaths, and hollow character moments. A 3 hour release would have been slightly more ambitious and certainly a bigger risk, considering it would have meant fewer screens, but ultimately the film was just an on the surface exploration of it's themes, no matter how many times people say it's deeper than the average comic book movie. No, it's just as silly, just as reliant on action, just as reliant on one note mustache twirling villains, but it's also presented as if it's better than that, which is why it gets laughed at instead of tolerated.

Disagree with the bold. There was nothing risky about GotG. Just because the characters were not well known doesn't make it risky. So is every new pixar movie risky then? GotG was a typical family style action comedy.

 

[Benjamin Sisko]

Kinda hard to even do a soft reboot because Superman died.

At this point imo it's full reboot or bust. Recast Supes, get rid of Snyder and Terrio... just start over.

Nah, the actor isnt the prolem, it's whats he's being dealt with.

Luthor however was horribly miscasted.

 

[Benjamin Sisko]

DC will win the war, bank on it.

 

[Uno]

Now a $175M movie starring D-list characters that include a talking tree and racc00n, directed by the guy best known for directing Slither and writing the Scooby Doo movies, isn't "risky"

Ted a rated R talking bear movie came out before it and made millions. What Marvel did is "unheard" of , we never seen freak looking super heroes

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

As for this DC shyt. All I care is Batman and Batman-related characters. Harley, Joker, the Robins, etc. DC should really just focus on that.

They should delay other projects after releasing WW and just focus on a world around Batfleck imo.

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

DC will win the war, bank on it.

Depends on which "war"

Critically sure they have a chance 5 years from now to have a better catalog.

Financially, it's impossible for them to make more money the Marvel/Disney they could make more than Marvel/Fox

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

Now a $175M movie starring D-list characters that include a talking tree and racc00n, directed by the guy best known for directing Slither and writing the Scooby Doo movies, isn't "risky"

So are Pixar movies risky?

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

People keep using that "talking racc00n" as if kids don't love talking animals

 

[Northern Son]

People who want every movie to be a "HAHA" comedy lack maturity and the ability to critically think tbh

A lot of people have exposed themselves.

A false dilemma, or false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted.

 

[Tasha And]

If you don't think a big budget, summer blockbuster space opera with talking trees, aliens, and rac00ns is riskier from a studio than a dark film with superman and batman, then you just don't understand the production aspect of film-making. No one is saying Guardians is the riskiest movie of all time, it did have the Marvel brand to help it succeed, but the argument is that it was far riskier than a Batman and Superman movie, no matter how dark that movie is. If you disagree with that then I really don't know what to tell you but to pay more attention to the production of films.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Nah, if you can't handle watching a dramatic sequence then you are soft

 

[Uno]

If you don't think a big budget, summer blockbuster space opera with talking trees, aliens, and rac00ns are riskier from a studio than a dark film with superman and batman, then you just don't understand the production aspect of film-making. No one is saying Guardians is the riskiest movie of all time, it did have the Marvel brand to help it succeed, but the argument is that it was far riskier than a Batman and Superman movie, no matter how dark that movie is. If you disagree with that then I really don't know what to tell you but to pay more attention to the production of films.

It was not as risky as having a female led super hero movie or black/minority super hero lead movie.