ScottyHawkeye

Beam Me Up ScottyHawkeye

481 18125 34 12
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Ben Affleck Won't Be In The Batman, But That Doesn't Mean He's Done Playing Batman

With the recent reveal that Ben Affleck won't star in Matt Reeves' The Batman, and that a younger actor would be Batman, many have taken this to mean he won't be Batman anymore, this is not the case. If we go back to the original report from Deadline it says "This is the one that Matt Reeves has been attached to as writer and director. Ben Affleck, we hear, will not be donning the Dark Knight’s tights after playing the Caped Crusader in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Suicide Squad and Justice League and that’s because this movie will focus on a younger Bruce Wayne." This doesn't say Ben Affleck is not going to play Batman anymore it means he won't be Batman in Reeves' movie because it takes place 30 years before BVS. This means Ben Affleck still has two more movies left on his contract. According to IGN, one of those could be Suicide Squad 2, this probably means he'll get more screen time than he got in the first movie. Another possibility, which was recently floated by Ray Fisher, is that Ben Affleck will return for Justice League 2. Yet another possibility suggests that Ben Affleck is planning on directing and starring in his own Batman movie, this was suggested by one of Affleck's staffers in October of 2018, his staffer told Hollywood Life "He is back in shape not only for his health but he has a new-found love on doing Batman at least one more time again. He feels he isn’t finished with what he wants to do with the character. There has been talk about replacing him, but he is now seeing what he might lose and really wants to play the character again. Especially seeing what Joaquin Phoenix is doing with the Joker character," and he continues with "He would really like to take the character of Batman and visit a more serious tone and side of the character and working with someone like Joaquin would absolutely spark his creative juices. He wants to figure something out with Warner Brothers to don the cape one more time." Other possibilities include Ben Affleck returning for Birds of Prey, or Nightwing or Batgirl, if those projects aren't canned. Right now all we know is that he won't star in The Batman, which disappoints me, but it is unknown if he completely done playing the character. If nothing else Affleck could do a Thomas Jane and return for a fan film.

19 Comments

19 Comments

Avatar image for theamazingspidey
TheAmazingSpidey

18624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheAmazingSpidey  Online

I truly think Affleck's run is over and we won't see him in another film. Sure, if DC chooses to exercise that last film on his contract, he is legally obliged to show up and do another film, but I doubt they will. MoS and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice were both polarising, and it's evident through the change in colour palette, the transition toward a more lighthearted, hopeful universe, the decision to focus on a younger Batman, and even Henry Cavill's uncertain future as Superman, that Warner Bros is trying to distance themselves from the world Snyder created.

Everything from the abandonment of the "no-kill rule" to the creative choice to cast an older Batman, which positions him to be already older than some of his greatest stories, and the "Martha" scene were wrapped in controversy, and I can't imagine that Walter Hamada wants nothing more than to distance himself from all that BS. Especially if Matt Reeves's Batman is a success... why would you even bother going back to a Batman that many people feel is a betrayal and disgrace to the material?

He is back in shape not only for his health but he has a new-found love on doing Batman at least one more time again. He feels he isn’t finished with what he wants to do with the character. There has been talk about replacing him, but he is now seeing what he might lose and really wants to play the character again. Especially seeing what Joaquin Phoenix is doing with the Joker character," and he continues with "He would really like to take the character of Batman and visit a more serious tone and side of the character and working with someone like Joaquin would absolutely spark his creative juices. He wants to figure something out with Warner Brothers to don the cape one more time."

I'm going to call BS on this source. 1st of all... I've never heard of Hollywood Life before. 2nd of all: Joaquin Phoenix's movie is set in 1980, which would make Affleck's Batman a child at the time (a young Bruce Wayne has already been cast for Joker), and that movie is intended as the first in a series of one-shot, standalone movies under the banner of DC Black/Dark.

Avatar image for ravenvice01
RavenVice01

4915

Forum Posts

90401

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 52

@theamazingspidey: I agree it's not a total loss for us. I mean Affleck was an ok Batman like Val Kilmer not as bad as Clooney. I wish Bale would come back but he refuses to put on the cape and cowl unless nolan is attached.

Avatar image for theamazingspidey
TheAmazingSpidey

18624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@ravenvice01: I actually thought Ben Affleck gave the best live-action Batman performance and it’s difficult for me to imagine anyone else in the role. But on the flip side, casting such an old Batman was a pretty silly decision for a cinematic universe.

Avatar image for ravenvice01
RavenVice01

4915

Forum Posts

90401

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 52

@theamazingspidey: I concur. It was foolish. Fortunately, Snyder will be involved in other projects and steer clear away from DC/ WB. James Wan is a hot commodity because his Aquaman brought in a billion.

James Gunn may also bring in a lot of money for WB since he managed to put together a profitable band of misfits. I hope his suicide squad movie is a sequel and not a reboot. Suicide squad wasn't terrible aside from the Enchantress conflict and joker's poor portrayal. It was also very profitable.

Avatar image for theamazingspidey
TheAmazingSpidey

18624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheAmazingSpidey  Online

@ravenvice01:

James Wan is a hot commodity because his Aquaman brought in a billion.

Also delivered a billion dollar hit with Furious 7. He's a studio man through and through. I'm certain WB wants him to direct AQM2, It's only a matter of whether he accepts.

I hope his suicide squad movie is a sequel and not a reboot. Suicide squad wasn't terrible aside from the Enchantress conflict and joker's poor portrayal. It was also very profitable.

Suicide Squad was profitable, but a lot of people overestimate how much audiences liked it. It had a tremendous opening (133 million worldwide), but it's legs weren't all that great. It had a multiplier of 2.43x, which is less than Man of Steel, Wonder Woman and Aquaman. Not terrible, but the success of the movie relied primarily on great marketing, which might be difficult to replicate now that people have seen the movie and are "not falling for it again."

That said, the article I read said that The Suicide Squad will star a mostly new casting. It'll likely be a soft reboot, with a few of the main cast returning, a few of them getting the boot, and a slew of new characters. I think that's the best way to go. That way you can satisfy the fans of the first movie, all the giving James Gunn the creative freedom to create something fresh.

Avatar image for scottyhawkeye
ScottyHawkeye

481

Forum Posts

18125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 120

Edited By ScottyHawkeye

@theamazingspidey: a lot of what made those films polarizing was the writing, not the acting. Fans and critics responded well to Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill's portrayal of Batman and Superman, and seeing how fans are responding to Cavill's uncertain future and Affleck not being in this Batman movie with an uncertain future too, I'd say it would be in WB's best interest to listen to the fans. Think about it they kept Gal Gadot and Jason Mamoa despite how polarizing Batman V Superman and Justice League were. If any thing casting wasn't the problem, it's writing.

What you named were writing decisions, the Martha and the Batman killing people, were decisions made by the writers. I believe that if The Batman is successful it might increase his interest in the character. Ben Affleck wasn't who many thought betrayed the source material, it was the writers writing his script that betrayed the source material.

I didn't learn about Hollywood life, until Newsarama and CBR(Comic Book Resources)reported Affleck's return to Batman which linked the Hollywood Life article. Always go to the original source, I'm a Political Junkie and that's often what I do when I read up on current events. I think what the staffer meant was that Affleck wants to do a similar film to what Joaquin Phoenix is doing with the Joker, and he wants Joaquin's help in making that film. It sounds like he's saying that Affleck wants to talk to Jaoquin and see what Todd Philips and Martin Scorsese are doing with Joker, and do likewise with Batman.

Avatar image for scottyhawkeye
ScottyHawkeye

481

Forum Posts

18125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 120

@ravenvice01: fact of the matter is that Nolan was involved in Batman V Superman, and Bale still didn't return. I will say Ben Affleck is a lot better than Kilmer, I personally thought he was on par with Keaton and Bale. No one can be as good as Kevin Conroy.

I will say Suicide Squad was a hot mess other than Deadshot, Harley, and Boomerang, the Film was a mess. I agree that Enchantress was lame, I'll also add that it had the pacing of a Michael Bay movie. The thing I'll say about Joker is that Leto was barely in the movie, so it's hard to really judge him. Ayer even admitted that Joker should've been in the movie more, maybe Batman would've been in the movie more too.

Avatar image for theamazingspidey
TheAmazingSpidey

18624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@scottyhawkeye: How is this even comparable?

Seeing how fans are responding to Cavill's uncertain future and Affleck not being in this Batman movie with an uncertain future too, I'd say it would be in WB's best interest to listen to the fans.

Not at all, actually. Fans only make up a minority of moviegoers. The movie studio gets most of their revenue from average moviegoers, the people who couldn't care less that Affleck has been replaced.

Think about it they kept Gal Gadot and Jason Mamoa despite how polarizing Batman V Superman and Justice League were. If any thing casting wasn't the problem, it's writing.

Those are terrible examples. Sure, Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa played roles in Batman v. Superman and JL, but a) they had fairly small roles b) their portrayals in those movies weren't really wrapped in controversy. In fact, Wonder Woman was praised by many as the best part of Batman v. Superman, and most general audiences liked what they saw of Momoa in JL and c) By the time Dawn of Justice and JL dropped, respectively, Wonder Woman and Aquaman were already in production, and both turned out to be tremendous hits and last of all d) there's no narrative reason to reboot or recast, whereas Batfleck is an ageing Batman, which is a terrible decision to start a cinematic universe with.

You can say "the writing was the issue, not the performances", but humans are emotional creatures, and when people see the trailers for an upcoming Batman film with Ben Affleck as the star, they will associate it with the bad experience they had with Batman v. Superman.

And even forgetting audience association, think about narrative association. It's clear as the sun that WB is trying to remodel their cinematic universe, and don't want a 50 year old Batman who has broken his no-kill rule, running rampant in their cinematic universe. You expecting Warner Bros to keep Affleck is like expecting the Marvel Cinematic Universe to keep Andrew Garfield, or for Sony to keep Tobey Maguire for The Amazing Spider-Man. Why would they keep the old actor when they're essentially rebooting the character? That defeats the purpose of trying something new.

"Hm... The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was the lowest grossing Spider-Man movie and received the worst critic reception of any Spider-Man movie. Time to reboot and bring a younger Spider-Man into the MCU. You know what we should do tho? Bring back Andrew Garfield. After all - the writing was the issue, not Garfield!"

I believe that if The Batman is successful it might increase his interest in the character.

Yes. It will. And assuming the movie is successful, they will march forward with that interpretation of the character and green light more sequels.

Avatar image for scottyhawkeye
ScottyHawkeye

481

Forum Posts

18125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 120

@theamazingspidey said:

Not at all, actually. Fans only make up a minority of moviegoers. The movie studio gets most of their revenue from average moviegoers, the people who couldn't care less that Affleck has been replaced.

The constant casting changes often give average moviegoers "superhero movie fatigue." Think about it, within 10 year we had 3 different Spider-men. Imagine already casting a new Batman already.

Those are terrible examples. Sure, Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa played roles in Batman v. Superman and JL, but a) they had fairly small roles b) their portrayals in those movies weren't really wrapped in controversy. In fact, Wonder Woman was praised by many as the best part of Batman v. Superman, and most general audiences liked what they saw of Momoa in JL and c) By the time Dawn of Justice and JL dropped, respectively, Wonder Woman and Aquaman were already in production, and both turned out to be tremendous hits and last of all d) there's no narrative reason to reboot or recast, whereas Batfleck is an ageing Batman, which is a terrible decision to start a cinematic universe with.

I get your points here, but I will add many also thought that Ben Affleck was the best part of BVS. I many ways he was like Heath Ledger, almost everyone thought he'd be terrible in the role and then were proven wrong. However no one prejudged Gadot and Mamoa when they were casted to play the role like they did Affleck, so that's probably why Wonder Woman and Aquaman were green lit before Batman, and now we're getting a Batman prequel instead of a narrative continuation.

You can say "the writing was the issue, not the performances", but humans are emotional creatures, and when people see the trailers for an upcoming Batman film with Ben Affleck as the star, they will associate it with the bad experience they had with Batman v. Superman.

The problem with that thinking is that usually trailers excite fans regardless of the quality of the previous movie. Look at the people who were fooled into giving Michael Bay 3 more Transformers movies after the disastrous second installment, or the fact that we ended up getting 2 more Star Wars prequels after episode one. Humans may remember bad experiences, but they are easily swayed by promising movie trailers and will think this looks good and give the greedy corporations more $$$.

You expecting Warner Bros to keep Affleck is like expecting the Marvel Cinematic Universe to keep Andrew Garfield, or for Sony to keep Tobey Maguire for The Amazing Spider-Man. Why would they keep the old actor when they're essentially rebooting the character? That defeats the purpose of trying something new.

"Hm... The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was the lowest grossing Spider-Man movie and received the worst critic reception of any Spider-Man movie. Time to reboot and bring a younger Spider-Man into the MCU. You know what we should do tho? Bring back Andrew Garfield. After all - the writing was the issue, not Garfield!"

Talk about bad examples, it's been well established that The Amazing Spider-man and Spider-man movies weren't set in the MCU. If Marvel were to bring Andrew Garfield's Spider-man into the MCU, they'd have to explain why the Avengers ignored the events of the Amazing Spider-man movies, people pretty much knew that an MCU Spider-man wouldn't be Garfield or Maguire. It would be more like bringing Garfield back for Venom or Morbius, I actually see no reason not to bring him back for those movies, Venom already happened, but why not Morbius. Sony fired him before their deal with Marvel was complete. Better examples would be Terrance Howard and Edward Norton, because they ended up being recasted without rebooting their franchises. If anything what's going on with the DCEU Batman is similar to the Nolanverse's two Ra's Al Ghuls, or the two Han Solos, one is the older version, and the other is the younger version.

Yes. It will. And assuming the movie is successful, they will march forward with that interpretation of the character and green light more sequels.

That would be assuming that WB hasn't already milked the life and energy around the character

Avatar image for theamazingspidey
TheAmazingSpidey

18624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@scottyhawkeye:

The constant casting changes often give average moviegoers "superhero movie fatigue." Think about it, within 10 year we had 3 different Spider-men. Imagine already casting a new Batman already.

Superhero fatigue isn't a thing. Black Panther and Infinity War are the 3rd and 4th highest grossing movies of all time domestically (Black Panther is only beaten by Titanic and Avatar) and Black Panther and Infinity War are the 9th and 4th highest grossing movies. In terms of recasting, Spider-Man: Homecoming had the 3rd Spider-Man within a decade, and grossed 880 million, higher than ASM, ASM2, Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. The numbers indicate that "superhero movie fatigue" isn't a thing when it comes to recasting. Audiences don't care.

The problem with that thinking is that usually trailers excite fans regardless of the quality of the previous movie. Look at the people who were fooled into giving Michael Bay 3 more Transformers movies after the disastrous second installment, or the fact that we ended up getting 2 more Star Wars prequels after episode one. Humans may remember bad experiences, but they are easily swayed by promising movie trailers and will think this looks good and give the greedy corporations more $$$.

There are a couple of things wrong with this paragraph. Audiences weren't fooled into giving Michael Bay 3 more Transformers movies. Regardless of your opinion of Bayformers (I think me and you can both every almost every Bayformers movie is trash), the fact of the matter is that those movies had audiences (particularly foreign audiences, such as China) who enjoyed and loved those movies.

And you know what happened when The Last Knight failed? Paramount wised the f*ck up and did their best to reinvent the brand with Bumblebee, exactly what Hamada is trying to do by replacing the current DCEU Batman with a new version of the character and with a new character.

In fact, your "audiences will forget bad experiences if you show good trailers" is refuted by the box office numbers of Justice League. Despite "promising" trailers, JL had a 93 million opening, the lowest opening weekend of any DCEU movie (the freaking Justice League movie had a lower opening than a Suicide Squad movie.... let that sink in). For comparison, Batman v. Superman had a 166 million opening. That 73 million decrease just shows you how much audience interest lessened after audiences saw and didn't like BvS.

Walter Hamada would be a fool to look at that and think "y'know what we should do? Double down on what we're doing. THAT will bring us results."

Even Paramount, in the wake of The Last Knight's financial failure, cancelled Transformers 7 and tried something radically different with Bumblebee.

You know the saying: "insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Talk about bad examples, it's been well established that The Amazing Spider-man and Spider-man movies weren't set in the MCU. If Marvel were to bring Andrew Garfield's Spider-man into the MCU, they'd have to explain why the Avengers ignored the events of the Amazing Spider-man movies, people pretty much knew that an MCU Spider-man wouldn't be Garfield or Maguire. It would be more like bringing Garfield back for Venom or Morbius, I actually see no reason not to bring him back for those movies, Venom already happened, but why not Morbius. Sony fired him before their deal with Marvel was complete. Better examples would be Terrance Howard and Edward Norton, because they ended up being recasted without rebooting their franchises. If anything what's going on with the DCEU Batman is similar to the Nolanverse's two Ra's Al Ghuls, or the two Han Solos, one is the older version, and the other is the younger version.

There are two scenarios for this "new Batman":

  1. The movie is essentially a soft-reboot of Affleck's Batman. The DCEU Batman just happens to be younger now, and we just have to deal with it. Similair to how FoX-Men handles continuity.
  2. The movie is a prequel that follows a younger version of Affleck's Batman.

Based on the first scenario, Affleck is replaced by this younger Batman, and is essentially a reboot. Therefore, his recasting is akin to Tom Holland replacing Andrew Garfield.

In the second scenario, we're following a younger Batman in a prequel, and the recasting would be comparable to Alden Ehrenreich replacing Harrison Ford.

I think it's more likely to be the latter.

Avatar image for scottyhawkeye
ScottyHawkeye

481

Forum Posts

18125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 120

Superhero fatigue isn't a thing. Black Panther and Infinity War are the 3rd and 4th highest grossing movies of all time domestically (Black Panther is only beaten by Titanic and Avatar) and Black Panther and Infinity War are the 9th and 4th highest grossing movies. In terms of recasting, Spider-Man: Homecoming had the 3rd Spider-Man within a decade, and grossed 880 million, higher than ASM, ASM2, Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. The numbers indicate that "superhero movie fatigue" isn't a thing when it comes to recasting. Audiences don't care.

That might disprove super hero movie fatigue or it might mean that audiences haven't caught it yet. How long did it take for Westerns to become less profitable? I'd like to believe that super hero movie fatigue won't ever happen, but I can't help but to think it might happen in the near future.

There are a couple of things wrong with this paragraph. Audiences weren't fooled into giving Michael Bay 3 more Transformers movies. Regardless of your opinion of Bayformers (I think you and I can both agree every almost every Bayformers movie is trash), the fact of the matter is that those movies had audiences (particularly foreign audiences, such as China) who enjoyed and loved those movies.

Yes we can agree that Bay's movie sucked

And you know what happened when The Last Knight failed? Paramount wised the f*ck up and did their best to reinvent the brand with Bumblebee, exactly what Hamada is trying to do by replacing the current DCEU Batman with a new version of the character and with a new character.

I wouldn't say the Last Knight failed, it underperformed in comparison to it's predecessors. The Last Knight still made $605.4 million of a $217–260 million budget. Yes, Travis Knight took a very different approach than Michael Bay did, in the same light that James Wan and Patty Jenkins did with WW and Aquaman, even Zach Snyder changed tings up for JL.

In fact, your "audiences will forget bad experiences if you show good trailers" is refuted by the box office numbers of Justice League. Despite "promising" trailers, JL had a 93 million opening, the lowest opening weekend of any DCEU movie (the freaking Justice League movie had a lower opening than a Suicide Squad movie.... let that sink in). For comparison, Batman v. Superman had a 166 million opening. That 73 million decrease just shows you how much audience interest lessened after audiences saw and didn't like BvS.

Are you sure that was entirely result of the poor reception of BVS, and not the poor marketing campaign, the bad press the movie was getting after Snyder's departure, or that it was released around the time of Thor Ragnorak? Keep in mind that Dark Knight brought about Hellboy II's financial failure.

Walter Hamada would be a fool to look at that and think "y'know what we should do? Double down on what we're doing. THAT will bring us results."

That doesn't necessarily mean making casting changes. Making tonal changes like Batman readopting the No-kill rule, like Aquaman and WW did with their character. Aquaman even changed Aquaman's costume.

  1. The movie is essentially a soft-reboot of Affleck's Batman. The DCEU Batman just happens to be younger now, and we just have to deal with it. Similar to how Fox-Men handles continuity.
  2. The movie is a prequel that follows a younger version of Affleck's Batman.

Based on the first scenario, Affleck is replaced by this younger Batman, and is essentially a reboot. Therefore, his recasting is akin to Tom Holland replacing Andrew Garfield.

In the second scenario, we're following a younger Batman in a prequel, and the recasting would be comparable to Alden Ehrenreich replacing Harrison Ford.

The first scenario you gave sounds more like Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy replacing Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen, where they became the official Professor X and Magneto, but Stewart and McKellen still got their outings as the characters in Logan and DOFP, before the focus completely shifted to McAvoy and Fassbender. Holland replacing Garfield is more in line with Affleck replacing Bale.

Only time will tell.

Avatar image for theamazingspidey
TheAmazingSpidey

18624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheAmazingSpidey  Online

@scottyhawkeye:

That might disprove super hero movie fatigue or it might mean that audiences haven't caught it yet. How long did it take for Westerns to become less profitable? I'd like to believe that super hero movie fatigue won't ever happen, but I can't help but to think it might happen in the near future.

Well, until it's proven otherwise, your "recasting will cause superhero fatigue" argument falls flat, based on previous data and how audiences have reacted to past recasting.

Your assumption is based on nothing.

I wouldn't say the Last Knight failed, it underperformed in comparison to it's predecessors. The Last Knight still made $605.4 million of a $217–260 million budget. Yes, Travis Knight took a very different approach than Michael Bay did, in the same light that James Wan and Patty Jenkins did with WW and Aquaman, even Zach Snyder changed tings up for JL.

Nope. It's been known for quite a while that The Last Knight lost money. Here is the CEO of Viacom confirming that Transformers: The Last Knight lost an outstanding 100 million.

It is a failure, and even if it brought in profit (which it didn't), a 700 million decrease in gross is tremendous.

Are you sure that was entirely result of the poor reception of BVS

Yes. I am sure.

and not the poor marketing campaign

What poor marketing campaign? The trailers were solid.

the bad press the movie was getting after Snyder's departure

You mean the "bad press" that 98% of general audiences don't even hear or give a shit about?

or that it was released around the time of Thor Ragnorak

You seriously think that a Justice League movie opened low because it opened up 3 weeks after Ragnarok? You really think a 73 million decrease in box office is because a Thor movie?

Let's just ignore the fact that last year, a Deadpool movie dropped 3 weeks after Infinity War, the 4th biggest movie ever, and managed to open up to 125 million.

Or the fact Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom opened up a week after The Incredibles 2, and managed to open up to 148 million.

A Thor movie coming out 3 weeks beforehand is no excuse for a JL movie to open up to 93 million.

It should be able to go toe-to-toe with a Thor movie and come out on top in it's sleep. This is supposed to be a historic cinematic event.

The fact that the first Justice League movie, which should be an event, was hurt by a Thor: Ragnarok movie, is indicative of how Batman v Superman turned people off from the movie.

Keep in mind that Dark Knight brought about Hellboy II's financial failure.

Um. Where did you reach this conclusion from? The first Hellboy grossed less than 100 million, and the second one grossed 160 million.

Why would you expect it to gross anymore than that? It's a Hellboy movie, not the first ever Justice League movie.

I don't get where you got the "Hellboy II's financial failure" idea from. It grossed what I would expect from a Hellboy sequel.

That doesn't necessarily mean making casting changes. Making tonal changes like Batman readopting the No-kill rule, like Aquaman and WW did with their character. Aquaman even changed Aquaman's costume.

Dude.... I have no idea what you're trying to argue. As much as I loved Affleck's performance as Batman, starting a cinematic universe with a Batman who is already 45 and past his best years and stories is a decision Warner Bros doesn't stand by, and if they want to change that... why not? They want to do a younger Batman, wtf is the point of keeping Affleck? Do you want a 46-year old Ben Affleck with CGI used to make him younger? Why not just cast a new guy?

Avatar image for scottyhawkeye
ScottyHawkeye

481

Forum Posts

18125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 120

@scottyhawkeye:

That might disprove super hero movie fatigue or it might mean that audiences haven't caught it yet. How long did it take for Westerns to become less profitable? I'd like to believe that super hero movie fatigue won't ever happen, but I can't help but to think it might happen in the near future.

Well, until it's proven otherwise, your "recasting will cause superhero fatigue" argument falls flat, based on previous data and how audiences have reacted to past recasting.

Your assumption is based on nothing.

We'll just have to wait and see. May not have been 2018, but it still might happen

Loading Video...

Nope. It's been known for quite a while that The Last Knight lost money. Here is the CEO of Viacom confirming that Transformers: The Last Knight lost an outstanding 100 million.

It is a failure, and even if it brought in profit (which it didn't), a 700 million decrease in gross is tremendous.

No Caption Provided

Google is your friend. It has the worst rating of the 5, and had the worst performance of the 5. To say it was a complete failure is an overstatement.

Are you sure that was entirely result of the poor reception of BVS

Yes. I am sure.

and not the poor marketing campaign

What poor marketing campaign? The trailers were solid.

the bad press the movie was getting after Snyder's departure

You mean the "bad press" that 98% of general audiences don't even hear or give a shit about?

or that it was released around the time of Thor Ragnorak

You seriously think that a Justice League movie opened low because it opened up 3 weeks after Ragnarok? You really think a 73 million decrease in box office is because a Thor movie?

Let's just ignore the fact that last year, a Deadpool movie dropped 3 weeks after Infinity War, the 4th biggest movie ever, and managed to open up to 125 million.

Or the fact Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom opened up a week after The Incredibles 2, and managed to open up to 148 million.

A Thor movie coming out 3 weeks beforehand is no excuse for a JL movie to open up to 93 million.

It should be able to go toe-to-toe with a Thor movie and come out on top in it's sleep. This is supposed to be a historic cinematic event.

The fact that the first Justice League movie, which should be an event, was hurt by a Thor: Ragnarok movie, is indicative of how Batman v Superman turned people off from the movie.

Keep in mind that Dark Knight brought about Hellboy II's financial failure.

Um. Where did you reach this conclusion from? The first Hellboy grossed less than 100 million, and the second one grossed 160 million.

Why would you expect it to gross anymore than that? It's a Hellboy movie, not the first ever Justice League movie.

I don't get where you got the "Hellboy II's financial failure" idea from. It grossed what I would expect from a Hellboy sequel.

For the Hellboy stuff revert to the video above. I'd say it was a combination of various elements, one being the poor reception to BVS, but also the lack of Superman in the marketing campaign. The negative attention from faux controversies, and the suppression of the RT score.

Dude.... I have no idea what you're trying to argue. As much as I loved Affleck's performance as Batman, starting a cinematic universe with a Batman who is already 45 and past his best years and stories is a decision Warner Bros doesn't stand by, and if they want to change that... why not? They want to do a younger Batman, wtf is the point of keeping Affleck? Do you want a 46-year old Ben Affleck with CGI used to make him younger? Why not just cast a new guy?

They might not find someone who can play the role as well as he could, IE Mark Ruffalo replacing Edward Norton, and that could have worse effects than keeping him. Ben's Batman already formed the Justice League and mentored young heroes, the issue being how will a Young Batman make sense. If they're going to do a James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart dynamic where this new Batman is the past Batman and Ben Affleck is the current Batman that's fine, and as you can see Fox shifted their focus on McAvoy, but still allowed Stewart a proper outing. My point was that they really don't need to change casting they can make Affleck's Batman return to his old ways, just like they made Cavill's Superman a boy scout. However I'd rather not use CGI to change Affleck's appearance, seeing how the moustache turned out. Only time will tell.

Avatar image for theamazingspidey
TheAmazingSpidey

18624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@scottyhawkeye:

We'll just have to wait and see. May not have been 2018, but it still might happen

And an asteroid might hit the world tomorrow and end humanity. And tomorrow, everyone might just become bored of going to the cinemas to watch any movie. But there's no signs of those happening, so they're worthless to discuss. You're pulling hypotheticals out of the ass and using them in place of substantial evidence, when the numbers show that the superhero genre right now is prosperous than ever.

Google is your friend. It has the worst rating of the 5, and had the worst performance of the 5. To say it was a complete failure is an overstatement.

I don't get what's so hard to understand about the CEO of Viacom telling you that the movie lost money. It was a loss for the studio. That is a failure.

For the Hellboy stuff revert to the video above.

I watched the video above and it still doesn't explain how Hellboy 2 classifies as an underperformance. Hellboy 2 made 60% more money than the first movie, which is a tremendous success for a sequel. What else did a expect from a Hellboy movie?

Comparing Hellboy II: The Golden Army's first week to it's second week, you can see that the movie dropped from #1 to #5, below The Dark Knight, but also below Mamma Mia!, Hancock and Journey To The Centre of The Earth, so obviously there was more at play than just The Dark Knight.

Last of all, Justice League ISN'T Hellboy. It's the freakin Justice League movie. A Hellboy movie losing to a Batman film, one of the most recognisable fiction characters in pop-culture history, makes perfect sense to me. It should be expected by anyone. What ISN'T logical is a Justice League movie losing to Thor. Justice League, the second most recognisable superhero team in the world. The team with Batman, Flash, Wonder Woman and Superman, some of the most iconic characters in pop culture history. Your Hellboy analogy isn't comparable, and there are a slew of movies I listed which opened shortly after another major film, and still performed exceptionally well. But you proceeded to ignore those examples.

I'd say it was a combination of various elements, one being the poor reception to BVS

The most prominent one.

but also the lack of Superman in the marketing campaign

Ha.

I'm doubtful of how much the absence of Superman hurt the trailers. WW opened up to $103 million with just Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad opened to $133 million without Superman.

Second of all, it was obvious to anyone with half a brain, that Superman would return. Sure, general audiences don't keep up with the nitty-gritty of film news in the same way that we do, but most of them aren't idiots. Not only did they show the dirt rising at the end of BvS, Superman's presence in the trailer could be felt by others referencing him in dialogue, and they had that shot of Alfred saying "he said you would come. Now let's just hope you're not too late."

Even if Superman's absence hurts the trailer, that's just further proof of how significant BvS's negative impact was. A JL movie shouldn't need to plaster Superman all over it's marketing to get people to see it. It has Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg sharing the screen for the first time. That should be enough of a selling point, and if anything, Superman's absence should fuel curiosity (in the same way that Marvel is holding off on showing any of the deceased Avengers in the Endgame marketing, and those trailers are doing huge numbers).

The fact that Superman's absence was enough to hurt the box office is very telling of how little audiences gave a shit after the box office.

The negative attention from faux controversies

You mean the controversies that general audiences don't even know about?

and the suppression of the RT score

This is one thing we can agree on. But here's the thing? Those reviews wouldn't have mattered if general audiences actually liked BvS. Movies like Venom, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen, Minions and The Hangover: Part II have all proved that reviews aren't enough to sink a movie, so long as audience interest is still there. The fact that JL was damaged by reviews is proof of how little audience interest there was in the aftermath of BvS.

They might not find someone who can play the role as well as he could, IE Mark Ruffalo replacing Edward Norton, and that could have worse effects than keeping him

Look. I absolutely love Ben Affleck's portrayal of Batman. I thought he was exceptional and the best live action Batman performance we've gotten. But make no mistake. There are thousandsif not millions of talented actors who could alsoplay a solid Bruce Wayne. And even if they're notas good as Ben Affleck, they don't need to be. It will be difficult if not near-impossible to top Heath Ledger's Joker, but that doesn't mean Joaquin Phoenix can't be a great Joker. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen are both absolutely iconic in their roles, but that didn't stop audiences from embracing the portrayals of James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender.

Recasting has been done numerous times in the past and it's been shown that, like anything, it can work, or it cannot work. Ben Affleck isn't even on the level of a Robert Downey Jr. or a Hugh Jackman, and the Batman character has been recast numerous times. So long as they cast a solid actor, they'll be fine.

Ben's Batman already formed the Justice League and mentored young heroes, the issue being how will a Young Batman make sense.

It doesn't need to make any sense, TBH. I think it's likely the DCEU will just adopt the X-Men mentality of "who gives a f*ck about continuity." Those movies are flooded with continuity errors, from Patrick Stewart's Xavier dying in The Last Stand and returning in Days of Future Past with no logical explanation, Wolverine meeting Sabretooth in the first X-Men and not knowing who he is, despite X-Men: Origins showing them growing up together, among a sea of other continuity errors that make no sense whatsoever, yet they still make it work. I think WB will basically just be like "yup, Batman is younger now. Deal with it." I'm also curious how that will work in the scope of a cinematic universe, but I feel like the DCEU is pretty much f*cked in that regard, and WB might know that too.

Here is the WB Chairman, Toby Emmerich, saying that they basically aren't focusing on the cinematic universe aspect anymore:

We are far less focused on a shared universe. We take it one movie at a time. Each movie is its own equation and own creative entity. If you had to say one thing about us, it's that it always has to be about the directors.

Avatar image for scottyhawkeye
ScottyHawkeye

481

Forum Posts

18125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 120

@scottyhawkeye:

We'll just have to wait and see. May not have been 2018, but it still might happen

And an asteroid might hit the world tomorrow and end humanity. And tomorrow, everyone might just become bored of going to the cinemas to watch any movie. But there's no signs of those happening, so they're worthless to discuss. You're pulling hypotheticals out of the ass and using them in place of substantial evidence, when the numbers show that the superhero genre right now is prosperous than ever.

I'm not going to lie that made me laugh. In all honesty the genre could end up like the Western Genre.

I don't get what's so hard to understand about the CEO of Viacom telling you that the movie lost money. It was a loss for the studio. That is a failure.

It was a failure by the franchises standards.

I'm doubtful of how much the absence of Superman hurt the trailers. WW opened up to $103 million with just Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad opened to $133 million without Superman.

Why would Superman be in a Wonder Woman or Suicide Squad movie, he isn't widely associated with either. Superman is widely recognized as the leader of the Justice League, so showcasing a Justice League without Superman in 90% of the marketing wasn't a good idea. Killing him off in Batman V Superman wasn't a good idea.

Second of all, it was obvious to anyone with half a brain, that Superman would return. Sure, general audiences don't keep up with the nitty-gritty of film news in the same way that we do, but most of them aren't idiots. Not only did they show the dirt rising at the end of BvS, Superman's presence in the trailer could be felt by others referencing him in dialogue, and they had that shot of Alfred saying "he said you would come. Now let's just hope you're not too late."

Even if Superman's absence hurts the trailer, that's just further proof of how significant BvS's negative impact was. A JL movie shouldn't need to plaster Superman all over it's marketing to get people to see it. It has Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg sharing the screen for the first time. That should be enough of a selling point, and if anything, Superman's absence should fuel curiosity (in the same way that Marvel is holding off on showing any of the deceased Avengers in the Endgame marketing, and those trailers are doing huge numbers).

General audiences not keeping up with the nitty gritty is actually a good reason to put Superman every where, that way BVS wouldn't be spoiled for anyone who didn't see it, and those who did would know that the ending scene in BVS meant what they thought. It might have actually drawn more people to see how Superman came to life. The first Avengers movie plastered all of its members in the trailers, and it succeeded despite week movies like Iron Man 2 and Thor preceding it.

This is one thing we can agree on. But here's the thing? Those reviews wouldn't have mattered if general audiences actually liked BvS. Movies like Venom, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen, Minions and The Hangover: Part II have all proved that reviews aren't enough to sink a movie, so long as audience interest is still there. The fact that JL was damaged by reviews is proof of how little audience interest there was in the aftermath of BvS.

Those are films that many would call Rotten proof, usually RT score go hand and hand with Box office performance, every now and then you'll get an RT proof film like Venom.

Look. I absolutely love Ben Affleck's portrayal of Batman. I thought he was exceptional and the best live action Batman performance we've gotten. But make no mistake. There are thousands of not millions of talented actors who could also play a solid Bruce Wayne. And even if they're not as good as Ben Affleck, they don't need to be. It will be difficult if not near-impossible to top Heath Ledger's Joker, but that doesn't mean Joaquin Phoenix can't be a great Joker. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen are both absolutely iconic in their roles, but that didn't stop audiences from embracing the portrayals of James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender.

I won't deny that they could find a good understudy and/or replacement, my concern is we could end up getting a Kilmer replaces Keaton scenario or worse a Clooney replaces Kilmer. That hasn't left a good feeling in my stomach having more than one actor play the same version of Batman. However that doesn't mean we'll get that again. We might get a Ruffalo replaces Norton, where Ruffalo is fine in the role, but not as good as Norton, and it's a shame Norton isn't doing this movie. Or the more desired which McAvoy replacing Stewart where Stewart was given a proper outing, before McAvoy completely took over the role.

Recasting has been done numerous times in the past and it's been shown that, like anything, it can work, or it cannot work. Ben Affleck isn't even on the level of a Robert Downey Jr. or a Hugh Jackman, and the Batman character has been recast numerous times. So long as they cast a solid actor, they'll be fine.

Even the Jackman's being replaced.

It doesn't need to make any sense, TBH. I think it's likely the DCEU will just adopt the X-Men mentality of "who gives a f*ck about continuity." Those movies are flooded with continuity errors, from Patrick Stewart's Xavier dying in The Last Stand and returning in Days of Future Past with no logical explanation, Wolverine meeting Sabretooth in the first X-Men and not knowing who he is, despite X-Men: Origins showing them growing up together, among a sea of other continuity errors that make no sense whatsoever, yet they still make it work. I think WB will basically just be like "yup, Batman is younger now. Deal with it." I'm also curious how that will work in the scope of a cinematic universe, but I feel like the DCEU is pretty much f*cked in that regard, and WB might know that too.

The Last Stand had an end credits scene where it shows the lifeless body Professor X was talking bout earlier in the movie, and in that end credits scene Professor X says hi to the doctor and the doctor says Charles. Wolverine's memory was erased, unless you're talking about Sabretooth, in that case maybe his memory ended up being erased too. The MCU has continuity errors too. How did Pepper get the extremis serum out of her system? I'd hope DC wouldn't go down the Fox path, but it may seem that way.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for theamazingspidey
TheAmazingSpidey

18624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@scottyhawkeye:

In all honesty the genre could end up like the Western Genre.

It could. Eventually. But that doesn't look to be soon, and if it does occur, it won't be because they recast Batman as another dude ^_^

It was a failure by the franchises standards.

For the umpteenth time, it was a failure by any standard. A movie that loses money is a failure.

Why would Superman be in a Wonder Woman or Suicide Squad movie, he isn't widely associated with either. Superman is widely recognized as the leader of the Justice League, so showcasing a Justice League without Superman in 90% of the marketing wasn't a good idea. Killing him off in Batman V Superman wasn't a good idea.

My point is that a superhero movie doesn't need Superman to succeed. Justice League or not, Batman and Wonder Woman are both brands that have proven to yield great success in and of themselves, and should be a big enough draw for viewers. Avengers: Endgame isn't utilising Spider-Man, Black Panther, most of the Guardians or Doctor Strange in it's marketing, yet you can bet your ass the movie will still be a tremendous success in spite of that.

Sure, Superman is a staple of the JL brand, but so are Batman and Wonder Woman, who should be enough to turn the movie into a success. Only a fool would think "you know, I love Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg, but I'm not going to see this movie merely because Superman might not be in it." Especially when anyone with half a brain knows he'll be resurrected.

General audiences not keeping up with the nitty gritty is actually a good reason to put Superman every where

General audiences don't keep up with the nitty gritty, but they aren't idiots. I don't know what type of people you hang out with, but everyone I spoke to knew he was coming back.

Unless you're 5, you know they aren't going to permanently kill Superman in their second film.

The first Avengers movie plastered all of its members in the trailers, and it succeeded despite week movies like Iron Man 2 and Thor preceding it.

Neither of those films were weak. Iron Man 2 more than tripled it's budget, and for all it's flaws, was a functional, accessable, entertaining popcorn movie. It scored a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes, so it had solid reviews. Thor also tripled it's budget and had a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. Bear in mind this was a C-list character who general audiences didn't care for at the time. I have no idea where you drew this conclusion of either of those movies being weak.

Those are films that many would call Rotten proof, usually RT score go hand and hand with Box office performance, every now and then you'll get an RT proof film like Venom.

Um... so... you think that audiences will flock to see a Venom movie despite the reviews.... but the first ever movie with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman all sharing the screen.... isn't critic proof?

No Caption Provided

We might get a Ruffalo replaces Norton, where Ruffalo is fine in the role, but not as good as Norton, and it's a shame Norton isn't doing this movie.

Lol I don't agree at all with your assessment here, but ok.

Even the Jackman's being replaced.

Further proof of my argument, then.

The Last Stand had an end credits scene where it shows the lifeless body Professor X was talking bout earlier in the movie, and in that end credits scene Professor X says hi to the doctor and the doctor says Charles. Wolverine's memory was erased, unless you're talking about Sabretooth, in that case maybe his memory ended up being erased too.

That's.... a lot of maybe's lol. I haven't even scratched the surface of the continuity errors:

  1. There is a 20-year gap between First Class and Days of Future Past, but McAvoy and Fassbender both barely seem to age physically.
  2. In First Class, they introduce an adult version of Emma Frost in 1962. In X-Men: Origins, a teen version of Emma Frost is introduced, and that is set in the late 70s, almost two decades after.
  3. In The Last Stand, Moira is introduced as a Scottish geneticist who resides in Muir Island. In First Class, she is portrayed as an American CIA operative.
  4. The radically differing versions of Bolivar Trask in The Last Stand and Days of Future Past.
  5. The radically differing versions of Caliban in Apocalypse and Logan.
  6. In the first X-Men movie, Xavier discovers Logan for the first time. However, in First Class, which is set decades before, it is shown that Xavier meets Logan at a bar, attempting to recruit him, and in X-Men: Origins, also set decades before, Xavier is shown meeting Logan.

I think WB will follow this "who gives a f*ck about continuity?" approach.

Avatar image for scottyhawkeye
ScottyHawkeye

481

Forum Posts

18125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 120

@scottyhawkeye:

In all honesty the genre could end up like the Western Genre.

It could. Eventually. But that doesn't look to be soon, and if it does occur, it won't be because they recast Batman as another dude ^_^

Might not put the final nail in the coffin, but it may be one of many factors that could potentially kill the genre.

My point is that a superhero movie doesn't need Superman to succeed. Justice League or not, Batman and Wonder Woman are both brands that have proven to yield great success in and of themselves, and should be a big enough draw for viewers. Avengers: Endgame isn't utilising Spider-Man, Black Panther, most of the Guardians or Doctor Strange in it's marketing, yet you can bet your ass the movie will still be a tremendous success in spite of that.

I never said Super Hero movies needed Superman in order to succeed, my point was that you'd expect a Justice League movie to showcase all of it's members. Endgame did show Spider-man in it's marketing via TV screens showing fallen members.

Sure, Superman is a staple of the JL brand, but so are Batman and Wonder Woman, who should be enough to turn the movie into a success. Only a fool would think "you know, I love Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg, but I'm not going to see this movie merely because Superman might not be in it." Especially when anyone with half a brain knows he'll be resurrected.

It might have disinterested die hard Superman fans, sure they may know he's coming back, but not knowing how he'll be depicted following his resurrection may be offsetting. It's a good reason not to have killed him off in his second on screen appearance.

Neither of those films were weak. Iron Man 2 more than tripled it's budget, and for all it's flaws, was a functional, accessable, entertaining popcorn movie. It scored a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes, so it had solid reviews. Thor also tripled it's budget and had a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. Bear in mind this was a C-list character who general audiences didn't care for at the time. I have no idea where you drew this conclusion of either of those movies being weak.

They were both utilized in very popular Saturday morning cartoons, and Iron Man even had his own. Sure they weren't as recognizable as Spider-man, but they were a lot more popular than the Guardians of the Galaxy prior to their on screen debuts. Even then 70 odd scores don't show a sign of greatness, Ghostbuster (2016) and Superman Returns have 70% scores on Rotten Tomatoes, and those films were baaaddd.

Um... so... you think that audiences will flock to see a Venom movie despite the reviews.... but the first ever movie with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman all sharing the screen.... isn't critic proof?

It's a bizarre world we live in.

Even the Jackman's being replaced.

Further proof of my argument, then.

Just because it's happening doesn't mean it will be well received

That's.... a lot of maybe's lol. I haven't even scratched the surface of the continuity errors:

  1. There is a 20-year gap between First Class and Days of Future Past, but McAvoy and Fassbender both barely seem to age physically.
  2. In First Class, they introduce an adult version of Emma Frost in 1962. In X-Men: Origins, a teen version of Emma Frost is introduced, and that is set in the late 70s, almost two decades after.
  3. In The Last Stand, Moira is introduced as a Scottish geneticist who resides in Muir Island. In First Class, she is portrayed as an American CIA operative.
  4. The radically differing versions of Bolivar Trask in The Last Stand and Days of Future Past.
  5. The radically differing versions of Caliban in Apocalypse and Logan.
  6. In the first X-Men movie, Xavier discovers Logan for the first time. However, in First Class, which is set decades before, it is shown that Xavier meets Logan at a bar, attempting to recruit him, and in X-Men: Origins, also set decades before, Xavier is shown meeting Logan.

I think WB will follow this "who gives a f*ck about continuity?" approach.

The list never ends

Avatar image for theamazingspidey
TheAmazingSpidey

18624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheAmazingSpidey  Online

@scottyhawkeye:

I never said Super Hero movies needed Superman in order to succeed, my point was that you'd expect a Justice League movie to showcase all of it's members. Endgame did show Spider-man in it's marketing via TV screens showing fallen members.

And the Justice League trailer had the "he knew you would come. Now let's just.... hope you're not to late" scene. What is your point?

It might have disinterested die hard Superman fans, sure they may know he's coming back, but not knowing how he'll be depicted following his resurrection may be offsetting.

And these "die hard" Superman fans aren't going to go to the movies because they aren't sure how he'll be depicted? Are you sure you know what "die hard" means, Scotty?

They were both utilized in very popular Saturday morning cartoons, and Iron Man even had his own. Sure they weren't as recognizable as Spider-man, but they were a lot more popular than the Guardians of the Galaxy prior to their on screen debuts.

Of course they were more popular than GoTG, but you've set the bar incredibly low. They weren't A or even B-list characters.

Even then 70 odd scores don't show a sign of greatness, Ghostbuster (2016) and Superman Returns have 70% scores on Rotten Tomatoes, and those films were baaaddd.

So.... if you're going to ignore solid reviews and box office success, what metric are you going to use to measure whether people liked Iron Man 2 and Thor?

That's your problem. You neglect evidence, and instead elect to pull evidence out of the ass.

It's a bizarre world we live in.

What a shitty, tenuous and thin-veiled response. This is some of the worst debating and critical thinking skills I've come across in this site lol.

Avatar image for scottyhawkeye
ScottyHawkeye

481

Forum Posts

18125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 120

@theamazingspidey:

And the Justice League trailer had the "he knew you would come. Now let's just.... hope you're not to late" scene. What is your point?

Even then were people that thought that would be Green Lantern, and all kinds of rumors that were preposterous.

And these "die hard" Superman fans aren't going to go to the movies because they aren't sure how he'll be depicted? Are you sure you know what "die hard" means, Scotty?

A die hard fan is someone who is obsessed with something. I'm not talking about purists. I was just making some observations based on this.

Of course they were more popular than GoTG, but you've set the bar incredibly low. They weren't A or even B-list characters.

Thor wasn't a B-list character, but I would say Iron Man was. One he had a very popular animated series, which was still had reruns being aired at the time the movie came out. He had enough name recognition that people would be familiar with Iron Man by the time the movie came out, as I said no where near as recognizable as Spider-man, but he was no C-lister.

So.... if you're going to ignore solid reviews and box office success, what metric are you going to use to measure whether people liked Iron Man 2 and Thor?

That's your problem. You neglect evidence, and instead elect to pull evidence out of the ass.

Rotten Tomatoes isn't necessarily the best indicator of a film's reception, largely because of how RT determines a good review. A 3-5 five star review is considered good by RT standards, that's why Thor 2 and Spider-man 3 are consider good by RT standards, Metacritic does have a better ratings system though it's still not great. I never denied that people liked those movies, I just pointed out using an RT score isn't the best indicator of how well received a movie is. I know someone that like Biodome, and it's sits at 4% on RT and 1% on Metacritic.

What a shitty, tenuous and thin-veiled response. This is some of the worst debating and critical thinking skills I've come across in this site lol.

Venom did something to distinguish itself from other films in the genre and wasn't cought up in universe building, many thought it was fresh from looking at the previews. Meanwhile Justice League was more of the same to a lot of people and it didn't really do anything to make itself stand out.