A majority of fans here are Pro DC, so why would they be anti DC?
Depends on what we're talking about, when anyone speaks about movie, everyone seems to love whatever Marvel does but hates when DC does it. Like Marvel is planning to make Scarlet Witch a teenager, no one seems to be bothered by it, but if the same was done to Wonder Woman everyone would've freaked out.
I can't believe the backlash all this is getting. My dream for Batman would see an unknown fill the roll and really do it justice. Ben Affleck was never even in my mind as an option. But, here we have it. Lets reserve judgement until we actually see some footage. And why do I get the feeling that people the most disturbed by this are really into fan casting?
Actually it only made 649,375,976$ and compared to the Ironman, Batman, Spiderman and Avengers films it ranked really low for such an iconic character. It ranked a 7.6/10 when Dark Knight ranked 9/10
Even though, that's besides the point, I really enjoyed MoS, but I meant the actor (Henry Cavill) was stale, and Ben Affleck after playing Daredevil is even more stale.
Bale should of returned.
To be fair, Man of Steel more than doubled the money Batman Begins raked in, made about 60 million more than the first Iron Man, and only about 50 million less than The Amazing Spider-Man. The Avengers and the rest of the Dark Knight and Iron Man trilogies only made substantially more due to the fact that they were riding off of well established sequels and universes.
So truthfully for an "origin" or "reboot" film, it performed quite well in comparison with the others.
Wow, I had no idea Bryan Cranston was cast as Luthor... that's just awesome.
Actually it only made 649,375,976$ and compared to the Ironman, Batman, Spiderman and Avengers films it ranked really low for such an iconic character. It ranked a 7.6/10 when Dark Knight ranked 9/10
Even though, that's besides the point, I really enjoyed MoS, but I meant the actor (Henry Cavill) was stale, and Ben Affleck after playing Daredevil is even more stale.
Bale should of returned.
To be fair, Man of Steel more than doubled the money Batman Begins raked in, made about 60 million more than the first Iron Man, and only about 50 million less than The Amazing Spider-Man. The Avengers and the rest of the Dark Knight and Iron Man trilogies only made substantially more due to the fact that they were riding off of well established sequels and universes.
So truthfully for an "origin" or "reboot" film, it performed quite well in comparison with the others.
Tbf Begins was released like 8 years ago, didn't have 3D or that kind of heavy marketing, not to mention Superhero movies weren't that popular like they are now(except Spider-Man) especially Superman and Batman, you can compare it Superman Returns. Same with Iron Man 1, he was a nobody, the movie didn't have 3D, came out in 2008. ASM was a reboot, reboot movies don't do good at BO and it came out 5 year after the first trilogy. MoS also had a very big budget.
Tbf Begins was released like 8 years ago, didn't have 3D or that kind of heavy marketing, not to mention Superhero movies weren't that popular like they are now(except Spider-Man) especially Superman and Batman, you can compare it Superman Returns. Same with Iron Man 1, he was a nobody, the movie didn't have 3D, came out in 2008. ASM was a reboot, reboot movies don't do good at BO and it came out 5 year after the first trilogy. MoS also had a very big budget.
The original Spider-Man made over $800 million. X-Men 1 and 2 combined nearly made $700 million. Heck, even the Burton film back in '89 made over $400 million. Not all comic book films were flourishing as they are today but Batman is still Batman. Besides Superman and Spider-Man, he is easily the most distinguishable hero on the planet. Batman Begins wasn't hindered by the "lack" of special effects or a great cast. It just performed as it did, and better than the original Burton film at that.
@deranged_midget: Batman wasn't that big after Batman and Robin, Christopher Nolan and Bale were almost unknown, its still the lowest attended Batman movie except Batman and Robin, X1 made 300 mils and X2 400 mils, that's comparable to Begins and Superman Returns, all of these were released around 2001-2005.
@deranged_midget: Batman wasn't that big after Batman and Robin, Christopher Nolan and Bale were almost unknown, its still the lowest attended Batman movie except Batman and Robin, X1 made 300 mils and X2 400 mils, that's comparable to Begins and Superman Returns, all of these were released around 2001-2005.
Batman and Robin didn't permanently salt the wound after it's release. Besides film, he had arguably the most recognized and well received animated shows, even to this day. He's the one superhero with the most films on the market and the second most successful (financially) behind Spider-Man. I wouldn't say his popularity had dwindled that much by Begins.
Christopher Nolan was relatively unknown I will give you that much, but Bale was not. Neither were Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman or Michael Caine.
Batman and Robin didn't permanently salt the wound after it's release. Besides film, he had arguably the most recognized and well received animated shows, even to this day. He's the one superhero with the most films on the market and the second most successful (financially) behind Spider-Man. I wouldn't say his popularity had dwindled that much by Begins.
Christopher Nolan was relatively unknown I will give you that much, but Bale was not. Neither were Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman or Michael Caine.
Not permanently but temporarily, it still effected the GP, Superman had a well received animated show and a live-action show, that not a very big factor IMO. Yeah But Superman(one less movie) and Wolverine(2 less movies) are very close in terms of number of movies. And Bale wasn't that well known, there's also the fact that Begins had two unknown(to the GP) villains in it while MoS had a very popular villain. And Batman is financially more successful than Spider-Man actually.
Not permanently but temporarily, it still effected the GP, Superman had a well received animated show and a live-action show, that not a very big factor IMO. Yeah But Superman(one less movie) and Wolverine(2 less movies) are very close in terms of number of movies. And Bale wasn't that well known, there's also the fact that Begins had two unknown(to the GP) villains in it while MoS had a very popular villain. And Batman is financially more successful than Spider-Man actually.
Supermans animated show wasn't nearly as well received as Batman's nor did it spawn what is considered to be one of the best superhero films to date by many, which was an animated film no less. Wolverine has only had two solo films and while he's a large part of the X-Men films, he can't attribute to it's entirety not that it really matters. I wouldn't really say that the general audience was affected that much at all.
Fair point regarding a relatively unknown cast of villains but Man of Steel had a largely unknown cast on the flipside. Cavill didn't have a single noteworthy role unless you count Immortals, Michael Shannon is more recognized with indie films and television rather than big budget films, and you have Lawrence Fishburne as Morpheus from the Matrix Trilogy. Aside from that, Russell Crowe was the only actor that the general audience would've noticed.
Christian Bale was widely recognized for his work in The Machinist and American Psycho and still is outside of his work as Batman.
Supermans animated show wasn't nearly as well received as Batman's nor did it spawn what is considered to be one of the best superhero films to date by many, which was an animated film no less. Wolverine has only had two solo films and while he's a large part of the X-Men films, he can't attribute to it's entirety not that it really matters. I wouldn't really say that the general audience was affected that much at all.
Fair point regarding a relatively unknown cast of villains but Man of Steel had a largely unknown cast on the flipside. Cavill didn't have a single noteworthy role unless you count Immortals, Michael Shannon is more recognized with indie films and television rather than big budget films, and you have Lawrence Fishburne as Morpheus from the Matrix Trilogy. Aside from that, Russell Crowe was the only actor that the general audience would've noticed.
Christian Bale was widely recognized for his work in The Machinist and American Psycho and still is outside of his work as Batman.
Well the X-Men movies well mainly Wolverine and friends. But Begins was effected by B&R, if it wasn't then the opening weekend should have been better, its opening weekend was lower than Batman and Robin in terms of attendance, Begins true success was in its staying power. The Machinist and American Psycho weren't mainstream successes, Bale's popularity at that time can be comparable to Shanon's before MoS, the supporting cast isn't that big of a factor, the people care more about the lead, the villain, the love interest and the director.
Well the X-Men movies well mainly Wolverine and friends. But Begins was effected by B&R, if it wasn't then the opening weekend should have been better, its opening weekend was lower than Batman and Robin in terms of attendance, Begins true success was in its staying power. The Machinist and American Psycho weren't mainstream successes, Bale's popularity at that time can be comparable to Shanon's before MoS, the supporting cast isn't that big of a factor, the people care more about the lead, the villain, the love interest and the director.
I'll agree to disagree. No reason to continue pointlessly arguing that single fact. The Machinist and American Psycho aren't mainstream successes? Perhaps in regards to not breaking records, but for Bale's career, I'd say they did wonders to propel him in the direction that he has substance and diversity in his acting. Most actors who broke into big budget films can't say that.
Again, I can't say that I agree with you. A supporting cast is just as, if not more important than the lead character himself. Kick Ass would've absolutely BOMBED if it were not for the fantastic supporting roles of Hit-Girl, Mark Strong, the kid from Superbad and even Nic Cage. An even better example is literally every Tarantino film. Both Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained were PRAISED for their supporting cast more so than the leads.
I'll agree to disagree. No reason to continue pointlessly arguing that single fact. The Machinist and American Psycho aren't mainstream successes? Perhaps in regards to not breaking records, but for Bale's career, I'd say they did wonders to propel him in the direction that he has substance and diversity in his acting. Most actors who broke into big budget films can't say that.
Again, I can't say that I agree with you. A supporting cast is just as, if not more important than the lead character himself. Kick Ass would've absolutely BOMBED if it were not for the fantastic supporting roles of Hit-Girl, Mark Strong, the kid from Superbad and even Nic Cage. An even better example is literally every Tarantino film. Both Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained were PRAISED for their supporting cast more so than the leads.
What I actually meant to say that he wasn't a box office draw, neither were Caine, Neeson, Oldman at that time, they couldn't bring huge numbers of crowds to see their movies like Depp, Cruise, Hanks and even Sandler. They are very well known for their acting obviously but we're discussing box office here and acting does not necessarily equals box office.
Depends on the movie, if people go to a Batman movie they'd be more interested in Batman and the villain, if they go to a Superman movie, the majority would be more interested in Superman, Lois and the villain. But when they want to see a movie like Ocean's series they'd be more interested in the whole cast, Kick Ass wasn't a box office success so I wouldn't bring it up and I'll defend your point with Wanted, the supporting cast was one of biggest reasons the movies did good at BO. And almost every Tarantino movie lacks a true lead, its more power lies on the whole cast and the plot.
Haven't seen anything on the homepage because we've heard nothing even close to official yet. There were already rumors and Cranston said he's interested so it's no surprise if this is true, but I'm not posting anything 'till we get a bigger site confirming or a flat-out official statement.
Ben Affleck as Batman?? So weird. Heck, I still think of him as Daredevil, lol.
@ximpossibrux: MOS was not at all a flop. It made almost 700 million and it was only hated by few
Actually it only made 649,375,976$ and compared to the Ironman, Batman, Spiderman and Avengers films it ranked really low for such an iconic character. It ranked a 7.6/10 when Dark Knight ranked 9/10
Even though, that's besides the point, I really enjoyed MoS, but I meant the actor (Henry Cavill) was stale, and Ben Affleck after playing Daredevil is even more stale.
Bale should of returned.
@ximpossibrux: MOS was not at all a flop. It made almost 700 million and it was only hated by few
No it didn't make 700 mils yet and it was hated by many although it was loved by more people. And yes it wasn't a flop but not upto the level for a character like Superman with all the 3D, heavy marketing and a very big budget.
It's budget was $240 Mil and it has taken in $400 Mil more than that. That's before it's Japan release (only happened this weekend) and before any other earnings get taken into consideration (such as merchandising and DVD/Blu-Ray sales).
It hasn't ranked "really low" either when compared to contemporaries. It had the highest opening weekend for a superhero origin film of all time, and has also taken in more than Batman or Iron Man's origin films in worldwide gross takings (with Japan's addition to still come). It also set the world record for a June release, and only Iron Man 3 (so it's 3rd movie in the franchise not counting Avengers) has beaten it this year. For some perspective, Batman Begins worldwide gross takings at the box office was $374 Mil. MoS has doubled that. It's also the most successful Superman film of all time, and is the 10th largest Summer opening in history as well...
Financially this film has been a huge success for WB. Bigger than any other chance they've taken. Dark Knight had the fact that Batman Begins had been so successful AND Heath Ledger's death going for it, and Iron Man 3, as stated was the 3rd in a franchise. Avengers was also building off 4 previous character movies - none of which have earned what MoS earned - the only one that came close is Iron Man 2 (so a sequel), and even then MoS has earned more. In fact the only one you mentioned that has actually beaten MoS at the box office as an origin movie is Spiderman. Thor, Captain America, Iron Man and Batman all earned less than Superman - so I'd say his iconic status is still firmly being upheld.
Cavil has been lauded by critics as being an amazing Superman (including critics who didn't rate the film very highly) so his performance being "stale" is a very minority viewpoint I'd say. Everything else about the film "failing" or "not being as good" is hyperbole - opinion and nothing more. It generally comes down to either "too long" or "disaster porn" complaints - from people who are fine with the same issues in Avengers - meaning their expectations were the issue not the movie itself. Like I said - opinion.
And to quote Jay & Silent Bob "Affleck was da bomb in Phantoms yo!" (also add in Argo, The Town, Goodwill Hunting, and Hollywoodland - just saying, Daredevil had waaaaaaaaay more wrong with it than Affleck's performance).
.
It's budget was $240 Mil and it has taken in $400 Mil more than that. That's before it's Japan release (only happened this weekend) and before any other earnings get taken into consideration (such as merchandising and DVD/Blu-Ray sales).
It hasn't ranked "really low" either when compared to contemporaries. It had the highest opening weekend for a superhero origin film of all time, and has also taken in more than Spider-Man or Iron Man's origin films in worldwide gross takings (with Japan's addition to still come). It also set the world record for a June release, and only Iron Man 3 (so it's 3rd movie in the franchise not counting Avengers) has beaten it this year. For some perspective, Batman Begins worldwide gross takings at the box office was $374 Mil. MoS has doubled that. It's also the most successful Superman film of all time, and is the 10th largest Summer opening in history as well...
Financially this film has been a huge success for WB. Bigger than any other chance they've taken. Dark Knight had the fact that Batman Begins had been so successful AND Heath Ledger's death going for it, and Iron Man 3, as stated was the 3rd in a franchise. Avengers was also building off 4 previous character movies - none of which have earned what MoS earned - the only one that came close is Iron Man 2 (so a sequel), and even then MoS has earned more. In fact the only one you mentioned that has actually beaten MoS at the box office as an origin movie is Spiderman. Thor, Captain America, Iron Man and Batman all earned less than Superman - so I'd say his iconic status is still firmly being upheld.
Cavil has been lauded by critics as being an amazing Superman (including critics who didn't rate the film very highly) so his performance being "stale" is a very minority viewpoint I'd say. Everything else about the film "failing" or "not being as good" is hyperbole - opinion and nothing more. It generally comes down to either "too long" or "disaster porn" complaints - from people who are fine with the same issues in Avengers - meaning their expectations were the issue not the movie itself. Like I said - opinion.
And to quote Jay & Silent Bob "Affleck was da bomb in Phantoms yo!" (also add in Argo, The Town, Goodwill Hunting, and Hollywoodland - just saying, Daredevil had waaaaaaaaay more wrong with it than Affleck's performance).
.
First of all I never said it was really low, it didn't have the highest attendance in a opening weekend for CBMs and worldwide it had less attendance than Spider-Man and Iron Man. Comparing Batman Begins and MoS isn't fair as I said in my conversation with @deranged_midget. And I said he was stale IMO, never said anything about the critics or other fans views. And opinion does effect movies, not talking about Cavil's performance but the movie itself.
Edit : I also said that it didn't make 700 mils yet.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment