Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 12:56:26 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Movies  |  Topic: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 39 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice  (Read 282983 times)
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14223


Reply #105 on: August 14, 2013, 05:44:54 AM

They could get Micheal Keaton for 20 times less money, and that would have people chattering too.

Hic sunt dracones.
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335


Reply #106 on: August 14, 2013, 06:18:05 AM

DC has to be very worried that the first two movies to try to kick off their Marvel style formula (Green Lantern and Man of Steel) were both bad. Marvel got rolling on the back of Iron Man, a genuinely good movie with a good star. Meanwhile DC has Ryan Reynolds and Henry Cavill in two duds. At this point there's zero reason to care about a group movie or DC films as a universe. If they can't tie in with the Nolan Batman films in some way what do they have left - Flash? Wonder Woman? Martian Manhunter? Hawkgirl? Like...Plastic Man or some shit?

Realistically speaking in seems Flash is the only hope left. Otherwise it will be like trying to combine Ben Affleck's Daredevil, Nic Cage's Ghost Rider and Eric Bana's Hulk into a group.

vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7590


Reply #107 on: August 14, 2013, 06:30:02 AM

An older Keaton would work very well actually.

~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
Evildrider
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5521


Reply #108 on: August 14, 2013, 06:31:37 AM

Realistically speaking in seems Flash is the only hope left.

Flash is getting his own show on CW now.  He's getting a backdoor pilot on Arrow this season. 
sickrubik
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2967


WWW
Reply #109 on: August 14, 2013, 07:52:23 AM

You guys are over thinking.

I remember Velorath and I were discussing Avengers before it came out about how Thor would be part of the group. I said he would just be part of the group and his appearance would be explained in a single line of throwaway dialog like "welp we repaired the space bridge with space magic yay." Velorath argued that the Thor movie made a very big deal out of him being stuck on Asgard, and that there was no way they would make that a major plot point in Thor without addressing it in Avengers. Well...

I don't think Velorath was wrong in that yes, it was stupid that Avengers didn't address Thor's situation at all. (Or stupid to make that a major plot point in Thor if it was going to be immediately dismissed) But here's the thing - people want to see an Avengers movie. Marvel wants to make an Avengers movie. Neither group is interested in a "how does Thor get back to earth?" movie being the first half of Avengers.

The Batman films are the only good DC films and the most profitable. The reason to make a Batman vs Superman movie is to have Bale fight Superman. It doesn't matter if his back is broken or he has a gimpy leg or is retired - Bale fighting Superman puts dollar signs in the eyes of movie execs. JGL fighting Superman doesn't.

Here's the thing: if you cast Bale as Batman the movie is 100% guaranteed to make tons of money. Even if you pay Bale $100 million. Dark Knight Rises made a billion dollars box office WW. Almost everyone who saw DKR will see Bale Batman vs Superman, even if they don't like the idea.

Here's the other thing: nobody green lights a movie like Batman vs Superman because they think it will be a good movie. It's not because it has a great script, or even any script. It's a money making concept. If you want continuity maybe you get JGL but movie execs want money, not continuity. Movie execs also like prestige and the Nolan / Bale Batman movies are the only superhero movies they have that get any critical acclaim.

I bet every single time this movie comes up at WB the first question is "so do we have Bale as Batman?"

I'm going to speak only from my position, and fire something back at you. You are over thinking the complaints.

You don't actually have to tell anyone about how the studio works. The reason I'm annoyed at is is simply because it doesn't make sense if they are want to compete with what Marvel is doing. It's just another sign of a misstep for WB/DC.

I also don't think the reason that Nolan's batman films were a success were because of Bale. I liked him in them, and I really enjoy him as an actor, but I don't know if it really matters for the box office draw that it was Bale. First and foremost, Batman is a much more popular cultural character than Superman is. He has a shit ton more name appeal if only because he is saturated in pop culture with 50,000 different animated shows over the last 15 years.

I understand the studios motives for doing what they are doing, I am simply pointing out that it's stupid, and that they should do better. I want an awesome Avengers level Justice League movie and they are doing everything they can to shoot themselves in the foot.

beer geek.
K9
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7441


Reply #110 on: August 14, 2013, 08:17:29 AM

The Dark Knight trilogy was great because you had many amazing people involved: Bale is a solid actor, but you can't consider him without acknowledging the acting talents of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Heath Ledger, Tom Hardy, JGL, Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Anne Hathaway, and Marion Cotillard. That is a mind-blowing roster of acting skill right there, and then behind the camera you have the equally talented Christopher Nolan and Wally Pfister.

Thinking you can take one element of that and plop it into a new franchise - one which already has a pretty terrible premise - and hoping to get something great out of it is a massive overreach.

I love the smell of facepalm in the morning
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #111 on: August 14, 2013, 08:43:23 AM

Like I said earlier, they'd need to spend a good chunk of the movie, or even a new Batman movie, establish a not-Bale Batman.

Not really. Batman is a cultural icon. Show up with Bat-ears and a cape, you don't really have to establish a new "origin." Fuck it's BATMAN. Parents died, kid went crazy, dressed up like Bela Lugosi and beats up criminals. Hell, I don't even think you have to do an origin story on a reboot.

Movie execs, however, are FUCKING IDIOTS who also think they are smarter than their audience. So yes, I can see them throwing bad money at Bale to try to shoehorn his Batman in this movie. But really, after the success of Man of Steel, it's not necessary. You have a built-in audience. The movie was a success. You don't NEED Bale especially not at that price. This is a bullshit story - at least I hope it is.

EDIT: Also, Margalis what are you smoking? Man of Steel was not a dud. It did over $288 million DOMESTICALLY on a $225 million dollar budget. Total worldwide = $648 million. That's an unqualified success by any standard.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 08:45:59 AM by HaemishM »

Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7590


Reply #112 on: August 14, 2013, 08:51:24 AM

If batman never leaves the suit it's one thing but the moment you have Bruce Wayne in a movie it will be jarring to see anyone not Nolan.  The batman movies are simply too recent and fresh in peoples minds to be used to another actor without the mask.  A non Bruce movie could work but you are seriously tying your wrists together when it comes to the script and especially to sequels which is something the studios likely want to avoid at all(60mil) costs.

~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449

Badge Whore


Reply #113 on: August 14, 2013, 08:51:52 AM

First and foremost, Batman is a much more popular cultural character than Superman is. He has a shit ton more name appeal if only because he is saturated in pop culture with 50,000 different animated shows over the last 15 years.

Tangent: I'm still amused at this because I remember when the exact opposite was true.

The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
sickrubik
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2967


WWW
Reply #114 on: August 14, 2013, 09:08:23 AM

If batman never leaves the suit it's one thing but the moment you have Bruce Wayne in a movie it will be jarring to see anyone not Nolan.  The batman movies are simply too recent and fresh in peoples minds to be used to another actor without the mask.  A non Bruce movie could work but you are seriously tying your wrists together when it comes to the script and especially to sequels which is something the studios likely want to avoid at all(60mil) costs.

But... Bale ISN'T Bats now. If it's "fresh in peoples minds", then it can't be Bale.

The only way they could do that is to have both Bale and JGL in it and JGL goes down and Bale "Returns", which arguably could work just fine. But I still don't want Snyder directing that trainwreck.

beer geek.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #115 on: August 14, 2013, 09:11:37 AM

They can recast Batman without any problem. The real question is, "What Batman are they thinking of having?" The moment it's Bale's Batman, the whole thing stops making a lot of sense. E.g., these two characters EVEN IN their respective films ("Begins" to "Rise" for Batman; "Man of Steel" for Superman) don't really belong in the same universe. They have no iconic charge off of each other, they don't really represent opposites. They have no relation. It also fucks up the idea that the appearance of Superman in "Man of Steel" catalyzes the emergence of superheroes--Batman would have introduced the concept some years previously, and if we're to believe the end of "Rise", some sort of Batman has been operating ever since even with Bruce Wayne retiring, which you get no sense of at all in "Man of Steel".

If it's true, it's a terrible indicator quite aside from showing that these are guys who waste money in nearly criminal fashion.
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23611


Reply #116 on: August 14, 2013, 12:27:58 PM

EDIT: Also, Margalis what are you smoking? Man of Steel was not a dud. It did over $288 million DOMESTICALLY on a $225 million dollar budget. Total worldwide = $648 million. That's an unqualified success by any standard.
No that just means it barely broke even (or maybe are still losing money) once you add in distribution and marketing costs. A movie like Man Steel probably cost WB around $350 - $400 million total. So far they gotten about $300 - $350 million in revenue. Not only do people still not understand that studios only get about half the box office receipts they spend *a lot* of money on marketing these "tentpole" movies as in $100 - $150 million or more in extra costs.

To give you a concrete example Disney took a $200 million write down on John Carter. World wide it grossed $282,778,100 and it had an estimated production budget of $250 million.

So using my formula above you get something like $150 million in revenue - $250 million in production costs - $100 million in marketing and distribution costs = $200 million write down
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #117 on: August 14, 2013, 12:37:39 PM

The sequel is already greenlit - thus it obviously made them enough money that it cannot be considered a dud.

Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #118 on: August 14, 2013, 12:57:07 PM

Remember that studio accounting is essentially a lie no matter which way it seems to come out. It is never entirely clear who made money, what kind of money they made, or from what exactly they made it. I heard a sort of insider's talk from a producer last spring where he talked about the actual revenue streams that actually made meaningful profits for studios and investors and by his account the totality is so byzantine that only a small handful of people on any given film really know how much it's made and when that got made. Basically each film is sold at least three, sometimes five times. The theatrical take is the biggest revenue stream but some films surprise and bring in a lot in the later parts of the cycle. (Less so now with the DVD market falling so fast.)

Incidentally this guy also pointed out that the really painful thing is that the occupancy rate on theaters Monday-Thursday is usually under 5% even in summer. I pointed out that restaurants and bars have much better weekday occupancy than that, so why not press theater owners to adopt a model more like the Alamo Drafthouse, where every night is an event and where the theater owners would have a more diversified revenue stream for themselves to boot? His basic answer is: because it's a totally separate industry and Hollywood has almost no influence over how theater owners operate, but on the other hand, theater owners produce the most important revenue for Hollywood. So they're dependent on theater owners and yet can do little to nothing to suggest alternative strategies for getting butts in seats beyond marketing--or doing dumb things like paying Christian Bale $50 million. Which is why someone wants to pay him $50 million--it's how a Hollywood exec proves he's doing something to improve the bottom line, by getting casting that will get a big open, even if the cost of the casting actually makes it way more challenging to make money on the product.
Ratman_tf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3818


Reply #119 on: August 14, 2013, 02:19:17 PM

Remember that studio accounting is essentially a lie no matter which way it seems to come out. It is never entirely clear who made money, what kind of money they made, or from what exactly they made it.

Reportedly (it's on the wiki entries) the LOTR trilogy was a huge financial loss.  awesome, for real

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Line_Cinema



 "What I'm saying is you should make friends with a few catasses, they smell funny but they're very helpful."
-Calantus makes the best of a smelly situation.
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #120 on: August 14, 2013, 03:31:00 PM

They could get Micheal Keaton for 20 times less money, and that would have people chattering too.
Holy crap that's a good idea.

Like I said earlier, they'd need to spend a good chunk of the movie, or even a new Batman movie, establish a not-Bale Batman.

Not really. Batman is a cultural icon. Show up with Bat-ears and a cape, you don't really have to establish a new "origin." Fuck it's BATMAN.
In the context of any other medium, I'd totally agree. Rocksteady certainly didn't need to worry about this for Arkham Asylum smiley

But in the context of movies, there's a reason his origin story is told in every movie every time they introduce a new actor. Batman's origin is retold more often than freakin' 007 at this point.

Because it's not about Batman. It's about the movie that happens to feature an icon but which is otherwise completely subsumed by the seat-filling A-list actor likely to rally other actors and support staff to the project. Even if the link on page 3 is to a link-trolling article, you know they're driving trucks of cash over to Bale's house until he capitulates, pulls a diva tantrum, or escapes into a contract for another movie. This isn't about Batman's origin but rather Here's Why We Picked This Guy for Batman origin.

Which the way can be said all about Superman too.

Then add in the layer of importance to DC in general. They don't have an Avengers. They haven't established JLA at all, and obviously haven't figured out how to or they would have. Their entire lineup of movies is almost entirely Superman and Batman titles. Almost 60 years after the first Batman movie hit theaters, they're only now considering having both characters together. Maybe they think/hope that'll kickstart JLA, or maybe they realize these two are the only ones they can do right or something.

Whatever it is, you don't leave that kind of stuff up to any kind of financial chance at all.
Velorath
Contributor
Posts: 8980


Reply #121 on: August 14, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

I don't think it's even really a matter of whether Man of Steel made or lost money. WB had to have been expecting more from it. The pre-release hype and early ticket sales got the sequel greenlit before the movie even came out. They were riding on a wave of anticipation that looks like it started to die out the week after release with a fairly large 64.6% weekend to weekend drop as the bad reviews and word of mouth started coming out. Dark Knight Rises was similarly high with a 61.4% drop but even then that was partly a result of what happened in Auora. If you adjust for inflation and take 3D upcharges into account, Man of Steel's numbers are pretty comparable to Superman Returns domestically.
DraconianOne
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2905


Reply #122 on: August 14, 2013, 04:11:06 PM

The pre-release hype and early ticket sales got the sequel greenlit before the movie even came out.

That and the $170 million it made in licensing deals alone before the film was even released (which doesn't include the pre-sales for other distribution channels)

A point can be MOOT. MUTE is more along the lines of what you should be. - WayAbvPar
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335


Reply #123 on: August 14, 2013, 06:15:01 PM

 A big dumb movie with a lot of marketing behind it that can play overseas like Man of Steel is going to make money. I called it a dud because it had no critical acclaim, poor word of mouth and didn't rake in as much as WB was probably hoping. A lot of people were taken by the hype, saw the movie and came away disappointed, which doesn't mean good things for a sequel.

Iron Man 3 made almost twice as much money at the BO.

vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #124 on: August 14, 2013, 07:47:31 PM

I've only skimmed the last page or so, so my apologies if I'm repeating someone's point, but:

To all those thinking that Bale isn't necessary to Batman, consider the screams of outrage every time someone tries to release a Batman game without using Kevin Conroy, or how the only 'real' Joker is Mark Hamill. Any Batman film without Bale is going to attract complaints that it doesn't have Bale and he's the only person who can really play Batman. This is despite all the people who said that Bale was too soft / pretty to play Batman before the first film.

Fans are morons. They don't know what they want until you shove it in their face, then if they like it they pretend that was what they always wanted. If they don't like it, they'll complain that you should have gone with what they said.

As for Bale: that money is insurance that if "Superman Vs Batman" flops it wasn't because they should have put Bale in the film. It's a job insurance payment. And it will get fans of the other Batman films - the serious comic book films that everyone raved about - in to see the new movie as well.

Evildrider
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5521


Reply #125 on: August 14, 2013, 08:09:41 PM

Bale is no RDJ and does not deserve 60 mil. 
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335


Reply #126 on: August 14, 2013, 08:28:23 PM

Bale is no RDJ and does not deserve 60 mil. 

"Deserves" has nothing to do with it. None of these guys deserve even a tenth of the money they are paid. But it's probably not a bad investment. If another actor would cost say 10 million you're paying 50 million extra. Are you going to make 50 million more in combined box office, DVDs, etc? Probably.

Similarly if you're Marvel it's probably worth it to pay RDJ $100+ million. It's crazy but the return on investment is there.


vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
Velorath
Contributor
Posts: 8980


Reply #127 on: August 14, 2013, 08:58:16 PM

I think Bale's draw is a tad overestimated here. Batman Begins didn't do anywhere near the money the second two movies did. Heath Ledger and to a much lesser extent Aaron Eckhart helped carry the second movie, which in turn created goodwill for the third. Bale did a good job as Wayne, but his Batman voice got nothing but mockery, and Bale is not a sure-fire box office bet by any means nor do I think he was what put asses in seats for these movies.

Also Unsub, if you want to see fan backlash imagine the nerd rage if the Nolan/Bale Batman is "tarnished" by being put into a crap Superman movie that ends up around 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. Also Bale has very vocally made it clear he doesn't really want to come back. In the long term it doesn't make sense to try to build to the Justice League movie and its sequels unless they can get him locked down to a 2-3 movie deal.

I can see why the Studio would want to try, but to me it's one of those things that only looks like the safe bet until you really start analyzing it.
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #128 on: August 15, 2013, 12:57:12 AM

It's not that Bale has innate draw, it's that in moviegoers' minds, he is Batman.  Period.  I don't think anyone since Adam West has done the role for that long (Keaton only did two movies, right?), or with nearly as much box office success.  Even if he wasn't the one putting the asses in the seats, the association has been forged.

Mark Hamill wasn't the one putting the asses in the seats for Star Wars, but try to imagine if they'd cast somebody else as Luke in Return of the Jedi.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
MahrinSkel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10857

When she crossed over, she was just a ship. But when she came back... she was bullshit!


Reply #129 on: August 15, 2013, 01:08:50 AM

This is more like casting someone else for the trilogy Disney is doing.  Yeah, people *want* Luke, Han, and Leia to actually *be* older versions of the same characters, and the most elegant way to do that is to give the parts to actors that actually are thirty years older in the same roles.  But if Ford or Fisher didn't sign on, they'll cast someone else and nobody will give a shit, any more than Palpatine had to be the same actor in the prequels.

--Dave

--Signature Unclear
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11838


Reply #130 on: August 15, 2013, 01:39:47 AM

Luke isn't really a fair comparison. It's more like if they cast someone new as James Bond.

Where I do agree is that you wouldn't choose to introduce a new bond in the first ever Bond vs Transformers movie. Of course, I wouldn't ever make a Bond vs Transformers movie, but once you start down that road....

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Velorath
Contributor
Posts: 8980


Reply #131 on: August 15, 2013, 03:58:50 AM

It's not that Bale has innate draw, it's that in moviegoers' minds, he is Batman.  Period.  I don't think anyone since Adam West has done the role for that long (Keaton only did two movies, right?), or with nearly as much box office success.  Even if he wasn't the one putting the asses in the seats, the association has been forged.

Mark Hamill wasn't the one putting the asses in the seats for Star Wars, but try to imagine if they'd cast somebody else as Luke in Return of the Jedi.

This isn't Return of the Jedi though unless I missed the part where Luke teamed up with Superman and George Lucas had already moved on to other things. They aren't replacing Bale mid-storyline. To me, getting upset about Bale not coming back to the role for this would be like getting upset if they didn't cast him as Bruce Wayne in Arrow. I'm about as big a comic nerd as you're likely to find on these boards and I can't be bothered to summon nerd rage at the possibility of someone new being cast as Batman. That's partly because "hey guys Batman is gonna be in the next Superman movie" was news that excited me for about two minutes before I remembered Man of Steel, and partly because I though Bale was often the weakest link of Nolan's cast (but hey, he was great in The Fighter at least).  RDJ is Iron Man. Bale is the guy that happened to be wearing a Batman suit in that one Heath Ledger movie.
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449

Badge Whore


Reply #132 on: August 15, 2013, 08:19:01 AM

Luke isn't really a fair comparison. It's more like if they cast someone new as James Bond.

I'd agree with this.  Plus, it's not as if modern movie goers aren't used to batman switching around.  West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale, just for "Big" live action performances.  Bale just happened to be the last on the list. 

Bitching at this point is like the folks who bitched in 1989 that West wasn't Batman. (And yes, it did happen.)  You're replacing a concept with another.  Would West's camp fit in 1989? Fuck no.  Would Bale's fit S vs B? Depends on the script, but I certainly never saw that Batman display the intellect & cunning required to take-out the man of steel. He was the detective, not the strategist.

Hell if you want to get all pedantic about it, even Conroy isn't the "only" batman voice for the last 20 years and there's only been rage from the nerdiest of nerdy nerds about it.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000177/?ref_=tt_cl_t1

The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #133 on: August 15, 2013, 08:33:51 AM

If there's any character in the world that can be recast at will, it's Batman. That's not a hypothetical, it's a demonstrated reality. The audience for Nolan's trilogy was there first for *Nolan*: it was his take on the character that really sold the films. Second they were there for Heath Ledger and stayed around for the third film.

As long as they don't put a wildly inappropriate guy in the cowl, they can do anybody really. The only thing that matters is having them decide which Batman this is and how he fits into a universe that has a Superman. That cannot be the Nolan Batman--that will fuck the film up right there and then. It can't be Miller's Batman from DKR either--that character is totally dependent upon a long-established relation between Batman and Superman.
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #134 on: August 15, 2013, 08:35:05 AM

I'd agree with this.  Plus, it's not as if modern movie goers aren't used to batman switching around.  West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale, just for "Big" live action performances.  Bale just happened to be the last on the list.

Kilmer was 1995, Clooney was 1997.  The target "modern movie goer" demographic wasn't old enough to see those movies when they came out.   awesome, for real

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #135 on: August 15, 2013, 09:28:39 AM

Luke isn't really a fair comparison. It's more like if they cast someone new as James Bond.

And yet the Bond franchise, for as bad as some of those movies have done, have gone along just fine with new actors playing Bond (as well as a lot of the supporting cast as well).

Batman, like Bond, has become a cultural icon. To anyone that is 30 years old, Batman has already been portrayed by at least 2 people, up to 4 people if you are old enough to go back to the first or second Keaton movie. Moviegoers really aren't tied to one actor for iconic roles. Hell, they've already seen 2 Supermen in the last decade. 2 Bilbo Baggins. Moviegoers aren't going to boycott Superman 2 because Christian Bale isn't playing Batman - nerdragers MIGHT (but probably won't) but as movies like Pac Rim and Snakes on a Plane have already proven, THOSE DIEHARD FANS DO NOT FUCKING MATTER TO HOLLYWOOD.

$60 million is a CRAZY STUPID amount of money for one actor who isn't even the main star of the movie. Maybe if that much cash is being tossed around to sign Bale up for 2-3 movies, maybe I could see that. But that's not what this story would have us believe. That's why I call it a bullshit story. Any idiot that pays an actor that much money based off the performance of his last movie (which really only did about 4-5 times that amount of money total) deserves to have their studio burned to the ground.

Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #136 on: August 15, 2013, 09:35:49 AM

I don't think a studio is looking at this in terms of boycotting or nerd rage -- they don't give a flying fuck about nerds.  We all know this.  What they're going to look at it in terms of is whether the average idiot is going to see the trailer and accept this movie as part of the latest Batman franchise (which has a proven track record) and go see it on that basis, or if they're going to think it looks like some kind of Asylum ripoff and wait for it to hit Netflix.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
K9
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7441


Reply #137 on: August 15, 2013, 10:13:11 AM

And yet the Bond franchise, for as bad as some of those movies have done, have gone along just fine with new actors playing Bond (as well as a lot of the supporting cast as well).

I think people actually want the person playing Bond to change over time. Ideally each actor would get three-four films as Bond, then they get someone new in.

I love the smell of facepalm in the morning
Pennilenko
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3472


Reply #138 on: August 15, 2013, 02:39:44 PM

Batman movies are about the fucking Batman. Nobody gives a shit who fills the suit so long as Batman does Batman shit, to villains, while using gadgets that are bad ass and clever.

"See?  All of you are unique.  And special.  Like fucking snowflakes."  -- Signe
sickrubik
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2967


WWW
Reply #139 on: August 15, 2013, 02:46:08 PM

And yet the Bond franchise, for as bad as some of those movies have done, have gone along just fine with new actors playing Bond (as well as a lot of the supporting cast as well).

I think people actually want the person playing Bond to change over time. Ideally each actor would get three-four films as Bond, then they get someone new in.

Is that what people want, or is that just what they expect?

beer geek.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 39 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Movies  |  Topic: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC