re: Embargo on BvS is to be lifted TONIGHT at 6 pm EDT

Agreed

quote:

---

don't understand who someone can love or hate a film before seeing it. Call me crazy.

---

That's like saying you can't judge a candidate based on his policies and past voting record. Of course you can, and it's usually pretty easy to predict his next result.

quote:

---

Zack Snyder may have his flaws but I see the stuff within him that it takes to be a good filmmaker.

How many people were down on James Gunn before the release of Guardians of the Galaxy and a year and a half ago? I don't remember that many people saying, "Well...he was one of the directors of Movie 43, so let's temper our expectations." That film was easily one of the worst of the century so far, and yet no one used it against Gunn in the build-up to the release of Guardians of the Galaxy.

---

Bad example. At the time, no one really knew who James Gunn was, like D-List director. But for those who did he had Slither, Super, and Troma stuff under his belt. All excellent stuff. And he was taking a relatively unknown property. Everyone called Guardians of the Galaxy a gamble before it was released, because of Gunn and because of the property. Gunn had some nerd cred, that's about it, and everyone knew that.

GotG was a huge risk. Some predicted that if it failed, that was a big problem for the MCU. There was a ton of that discussion before the movie was released about that. On this board too.

Snyder's been a B-List director since DotD/300. 300 probably grossed more money than all of Gunn's non-GotG films combined. He directed the last Superman movie. And I don't think people question is technical skills as a director, Snyder is pretty great at action sequences. It's his need to insert his style into the narrative (he doesn't covet writers), and his lack of empathy for characters. He puts style over substance and story 90% of the time. He's an action movie director, and a good one, that's often tried to do more but can't.

Also, most people say "Snyder" when they probably mean "Snyder+Goyer." The director is the easiest one to blame.

quote:

---

GotG was a huge risk.

---

Not as big of a risk as you might think. Yeah...a lot of people ON THIS BOARD were saying this movie was a big risk for Marvel and its MCU, but it really wasn't. Marvel had already established its brand with the success of phase one and had hit another commercial home run with Iron Man 3 as well as Captain America: Civil War. Both films made incredible amounts of cash even if one of them was mediocre.

With all of that success, Marvel could afford to make a film like Guardians of the Galaxy and not really hurt itself if the film was a commercial disappointment.

quote:

---

Not as big of a risk as you might think. Yeah...a lot of people ON THIS BOARD were saying this movie was a big risk for Marvel and its MCU, but it really wasn't. Marvel had already established its brand with the success of phase one and had hit another commercial home run with Iron Man 3 as well as Captain America: Civil War. Both films made incredible amounts of cash even if one of them was mediocre.

With all of that success, Marvel could afford to make a film like Guardians of the Galaxy and not really hurt itself if the film was a commercial disappointment.

---

But unknown director, unproven property, not necessarily just the brand. All I'm saying is it's a bad comparison against Gunn. Snyder, at the time and probably still, is more popular and well known than Gunn. Superman and Batman > GotG by a hundred thousand light years. Snyder can be questioned because, and rightfully so, because he's already made one Superman film, and he's shown an inability to change is style from film to film.

These are two different situations.

quote:

---

Here is what I am hearing, reading a few reviews:

Better than MoS by miles.

---

I would hope so.

quote:

---

Comparisons of Jesse Eisenberg's Lex to Heath Ledger's Joker.

---

Heads will explode, including mine (and I wasn't totally against the casting).

quote:

---

Basically the Avengers but surpasses it in scope and plot development similar to the Dark Knight Rises.

---

Avengers was a checklist movie. Entertaining, but not very personal.

quote:

---

Even with 2.4 run time and fewer showings, will probably crack 200 mill opening weekend.

---

Would be nice. I'll be happy with $150, but if the good word of mouth continues through the week we could see $200.

I'm seeing a lot of mixed reactions. I have no doubt that this film will be as polarizing as MOS was. I might stay away from this board for a while

Here's a guy who hated everything about it (including the score), but gives it a fresh rating: YouTube Video

Here's a woman who hated MoS, hated the casting of Affleck, but loves BvS: Review





.

quote:

---

I think based on the polarizing reaction to Man of Steel, BvS was also a risk at $250-$400 mil. Whatever the hell they spent on it.

---

It's not the budget that makes it a risk, it's using Snyder's joyless world But it still isn't a risk. It's a Superman movie, it will financially succeed.

quote:

---

ETA: But, GotG was a bigger one. However, if it fails, Marvel is less affected. If BvS fails, bye bye DC for awhile.

---

I wouldn't say that. And this has no chance to fail. None.