Trailer

I don't know the source material and the trailer was nothing special.

Marvel, you have to do better.

Wholly disagree with you. If they trust the source material it'll be fantastic.

(02-19-2014 01:39 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  Trailer

I don't know the source material and the trailer was nothing special.

Marvel, you have to do better.

Think Stars Wars meets Ghostbusters.

If they can do Guardians, they can do any of their characters. What guarantees it will be a hit is Bradley Cooper as Rocket Raccoon. Should really be something.

wait and see. this will be bigger than avengers.

Marvel doesnt have to do better they are making whats going to be a blockbuster with a raccoon while DC cant make a good superman

(02-19-2014 07:10 PM)MemphisFan95 Wrote:  Marvel doesnt have to do better they are making whats going to be a blockbuster with a raccoon while DC cant make a good superman

Ain't that the truth. You can almost guarantee this will make more than Man of Steel. How can a Marvel raccoon movie be better than freakin Superman?

Warner Bros and DC just flat do not get it. They are blind without Nolan writing and directing.

(02-20-2014 09:16 AM)TigerNK Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 07:10 PM)MemphisFan95 Wrote:  Marvel doesnt have to do better they are making whats going to be a blockbuster with a raccoon while DC cant make a good superman

Ain't that the truth. You can almost guarantee this will make more than Man of Steel. How can a Marvel raccoon movie be better than freakin Superman?

Warner Bros and DC just flat do not get it. They are blind without Nolan writing and directing.

Man of Steel, which many of us liked, made $670 million globally.

That's more than every Marvel Studios movie except the Avengers and Iron Man 3. So unless Guardians surprises like the first Iron Man, it's unlikely it will earn more money than Man of Steel. GotG will probably be more inline with the first Thor and Captain America which both did around $400 million.

As far as DC being horrible, since Batman Begins, they have done eight movies. Green Lantern and Jonah Hex had horrible reviews and flopped. The Watchmen got good reviews and did ok, barely making it's money back in Box Office. Superman Returns got good reviews and made money, but I think most people were disappointed. Obviously the Nolan batman movies and Man of Steel did gangbusters business (but I will add BB grossed less than SR globally, but SR's budget was almost twice as high).

So DC's problem has been more about not release enough movies and having a couple bombs.

But Marvel was an independent company that saw film companies making big money off their properties and in order to increase revenue took a gamble to make its own movies. They had completely control of creative decisions. Iron Man was a huge blockbuster and probably paid off the loan that funded the movies. Incredible Hulk wasn't as big but probably turned a profit. So Marvel was in a good financial position and was bought by Disney for much more than it would have paid before the movies.

DC, on the other hand, is owned by Time Warner, which owns a movie studio, WB, which will make all creative decisions. WB only will produce three or four tentpoles a year, and in the 2000s, had the Harry Potter franchise (and indirectly, the LOTR). So there wasn't the urgency to make DC movies except Supes and Bats.

Now that Harry potter is done, there is now more urgency.

I would like DC to have control like marvel controls their movies. The DC cartoon movies that come out three or four times a year have been incredible and are the only films I personally purchase with regularity.

I think all involved considered the domestic box office for MOS to be disappointing. Considering inflation, it only did a little better than Superman Returns. With a focus on more action and putting Nolan's name on it, they thought it would do much better. I think they were hoping for it to do Iron Man numbers, since both were considered origin stories. Iron Man did much better than MOS when you factor in ticket price inflation.

The problem is it just wasn't considered a really good movie. Most people that saw it just kind of said "meh, it's OK." It didn't have the lighting in a bottle factor that Avengers had. The proof is in the pudding. If they were so happy with MOS, they wouldn't be bringing in Batman this early in the game. They especially wouldn't be casting someone like Ben Affleck in the role.

(02-20-2014 10:37 AM)TigerNK Wrote:  I think all involved considered the domestic box office for MOS to be disappointing. Considering inflation, it only did a little better than Superman Returns. With a focus on more action and putting Nolan's name on it, they thought it would do much better. I think they were hoping for it to do Iron Man numbers, since both were considered origin stories. Iron Man did much better than MOS when you factor in ticket price inflation.

The problem is it just wasn't considered a really good movie. Most people that saw it just kind of said "meh, it's OK." It didn't have the lighting in a bottle factor that Avengers had. The proof is in the pudding. If they were so happy with MOS, they wouldn't be bringing in Batman this early in the game. They especially wouldn't be casting someone like Ben Affleck in the role.

MOS did $291 million domestically. SR did $200 million. Factoring inflation, SR would be $255 million. MOS opened at $117 million. SR opened $52 million. Studios get a higher percentage of gross early because they get a higher percentage from theaters in opening weeks. SR has longer legs in US, but MoS's global gross was much bigger than the global gross of SR.

$291 million is not a disappointing US gross. The disappointment was that the movie was front loaded, but that gross is probably bigger than most would have expected for a Superman movie.

Nolan's name got $270 million for Inception.

Iron Man did $318 million US and $585 million worldwide in 2008. Therefore MoS's gross is bigger than Iron Man.

Personally I love MoS. I understand the criticism, but I'm excited for the sequel.

(02-20-2014 11:54 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  Nolan's name got $270 million for Inception.

Keep in mind Inception was an original story and MOS was the most recognizable figure (real or fictional) in the world.

(02-20-2014 12:15 PM)TigerNK Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 11:54 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  Nolan's name got $270 million for Inception.

Keep in mind Inception was an original story and MOS was the most recognizable figure (real or fictional) in the world.

Maybe in the US, but I don't think Superman is especially popular away from the US. Spider-Man and Batman are probably bigger away from here.

But I meant as far as using Nolan's name to sell a movie. Inception and the Dark Knight trilogy are his only blockbusters (but I LOVE the Prestige!).

To me, Nolan made three great batman movies and people are afraid of what anyone else can do. I'm not sold on Zack Snyder, but IMO the action sequences in MoS were top-notch. I also liked the lack of humor. Man of Steel was cold. I loved it. Superman Returns was nothing but emotion, I hated it.

If the Man of Steel sequel is done right (and I mean critics give it top marks and it gets a A cinemascore), it will probably do $450-500 million domestic.

But I will admit there is something missing in Watchmen and MoS that keep them from being true classics that you have that scene you can recite verbatim. Even if both movies looked good and had good scenes.

I guess you missed story in MoS. To me it was origin story where Clark Kent doesn't know he is supposed to be sappy yet.

I think the problem with MOS is that it wasn't particularly good at any one thing. Didn't have the humor or "lightning in a bottle" of The Avengers. Didn't have ground breaking special effects. Didn't have a romantic angle. Didn't have a great villain. It just didn't have anything about it that made people recommend it to other people. I think there was a lot of excitement about it, since it was being marketed as a newer take on the character from the guys who made The Dark Knight. That explains the big opening. The lack of the legs shows that the people who saw it didn't enthusiastically recommend it to others like they did with things like Titanic, Jurassic Park, The Avengers even Iron Man 3.

(02-20-2014 12:56 PM)TigerNK Wrote:  I think the problem with MOS is that it wasn't particularly good at any one thing. Didn't have the humor or "lightning in a bottle" of The Avengers. Didn't have ground breaking special effects. Didn't have a romantic angle. Didn't have a great villain. It just didn't have anything about it that made people recommend it to other people. I think there was a lot of excitement about it, since it was being marketed as a newer take on the character from the guys who made The Dark Knight. That explains the big opening. The lack of the legs shows that the people who saw it didn't enthusiastically recommend it to others like they did with things like Titanic, Jurassic Park, The Avengers even Iron Man 3.

The lack of legs could be an indication of displeasure, but the film still earned two and a half times it's opening weekend, which was one of the biggest opening weekends of all time. The movie's box office had a similar trajectory as the domestic grosses of the Harry Potter movies in the middle. Most blockbusters box office is front loaded though.

As far as romance, it's been a while since I saw Iron Man, but didn't MoS have as much romantic hints between Lois Lane and Superman as Iron Man had between Tony Stark and Pepper?

Plus Man of Steel has Lois knowing the secret identity. I think Amy Adams was good as Lois Lane.

Before I mentioned that MoS didn't really have those classic moments... But I forgot... Some of Russell Crowe's lines were classic.

I can't believe you think the Zod and Superman fight wasn't great.

Zod was amazing. He made for a good tragic villain.

(02-20-2014 01:46 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 12:56 PM)TigerNK Wrote:  I think the problem with MOS is that it wasn't particularly good at any one thing. Didn't have the humor or "lightning in a bottle" of The Avengers. Didn't have ground breaking special effects. Didn't have a romantic angle. Didn't have a great villain. It just didn't have anything about it that made people recommend it to other people. I think there was a lot of excitement about it, since it was being marketed as a newer take on the character from the guys who made The Dark Knight. That explains the big opening. The lack of the legs shows that the people who saw it didn't enthusiastically recommend it to others like they did with things like Titanic, Jurassic Park, The Avengers even Iron Man 3.

The lack of legs could be an indication of displeasure, but the film still earned two and a half times it's opening weekend, which was one of the biggest opening weekends of all time. The movie's box office had a similar trajectory as the domestic grosses of the Harry Potter movies in the middle. Most blockbusters box office is front loaded though.

As far as romance, it's been a while since I saw Iron Man, but didn't MoS have as much romantic hints between Lois Lane and Superman as Iron Man had between Tony Stark and Pepper?

Plus Man of Steel has Lois knowing the secret identity. I think Amy Adams was good as Lois Lane.

Before I mentioned that MoS didn't really have those classic moments... But I forgot... Some of Russell Crowe's lines were classic.

I can't believe you think the Zod and Superman fight wasn't great.

Zod was amazing. He made for a good tragic villain.

There wasn't enough Zod IMO.

(02-20-2014 02:59 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 01:46 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 12:56 PM)TigerNK Wrote:  I think the problem with MOS is that it wasn't particularly good at any one thing. Didn't have the humor or "lightning in a bottle" of The Avengers. Didn't have ground breaking special effects. Didn't have a romantic angle. Didn't have a great villain. It just didn't have anything about it that made people recommend it to other people. I think there was a lot of excitement about it, since it was being marketed as a newer take on the character from the guys who made The Dark Knight. That explains the big opening. The lack of the legs shows that the people who saw it didn't enthusiastically recommend it to others like they did with things like Titanic, Jurassic Park, The Avengers even Iron Man 3.

The lack of legs could be an indication of displeasure, but the film still earned two and a half times it's opening weekend, which was one of the biggest opening weekends of all time. The movie's box office had a similar trajectory as the domestic grosses of the Harry Potter movies in the middle. Most blockbusters box office is front loaded though.

As far as romance, it's been a while since I saw Iron Man, but didn't MoS have as much romantic hints between Lois Lane and Superman as Iron Man had between Tony Stark and Pepper?

Plus Man of Steel has Lois knowing the secret identity. I think Amy Adams was good as Lois Lane.

Before I mentioned that MoS didn't really have those classic moments... But I forgot... Some of Russell Crowe's lines were classic.

I can't believe you think the Zod and Superman fight wasn't great.

Zod was amazing. He made for a good tragic villain.

There wasn't enough Zod IMO.

Two words for you: origin story. If they didn't do what they did in the end, could always go back to the well.

If Marvel could do TV as well as DC and DC could do movies like Marvel - all would be good...