All-purpose, running Geek thread (formerly Battlestar Galactica thread)

Kevin Smith is a drug-addled putz who often shows predictably poor judgment in the arts.

 

Here's the podcast:
Hollywood Babble-On

 

This is going to draw some criticism my way, but I have to say for the record that I have not seen the movie.

That said, I think this is all interesting within the context of the blockbuster model, a topic I tried to discuss in relation to another movie I hadn't seen.
In the former case, it was a a discussion of innate aesthetic value vs. attempting to ensure market appeal across the broadest possible spectrum.
This time, it's just an issue of simple economics. This movie is looking at a projected domestic box office north of $400m yet will be considered a loser?
That is unfathomable to me. I have no idea why studios gamble in the blockbuster game. The cost-benefit breakdown seems totally out of wack.

 

Studios gamble because the payoff is so big. Disney is basically just printing money with Marvel and Star Wars. And sometimes it's not even because of a great movie (Iron Man 3, for example). When they find one that pays off, the studios will ride it until it doesn't produce anymore, then wait 10-15 years and bring it back for more.

 

From the article:

The steep decline in the Batman v Superman numbers points to the unfortunate likelihood that, apart from DC Comics fans, North American audiences don’t like the movie very much. This is problematic for Warner Bros in two critically important ways. First, if the picture’s audience evaporates too quickly its chances for reaching profitability will be threatened. As a friend who is a key player in the Transformers franchise tells me, “These tent-pole action pictures don’t really make as much money as you’d think. The difference between the revenues and the expenses can be pretty slim.”​

 

But with the right action movie, the money doesn't just come from the film. There's merchandising to take into consideration. Disney expects to make a ton in merchandising from The Force Awakens. They have made a ton on the Marvel movies, too. Again, it's a gamble. A big budget action-movie can lead to a small profit, a blockbuster that you milk for sequels and merchandise for decades, or you're left with nothing. But the potential for a huge return is a lot more for that kind of movie than for an Academy Award nominee. Haven't seen many "Spotlight" action figures or t-shirts.

 

You are talking about a scenario in which you require record or near record box office to make it work.
That seems like a long-term losing approach.

 

John Wick v Frank Castle

Who ya got?

 

Buck-
Yes, but the payoff is huge.
The making of the next two or three Star Wars movies is basically paid for.
Snyder and Affleck don't care, they make their big bucks and the next creative team(s) have to worry about sustainability.

 

Just got back from Batman vs. Superman. God that was as awful as expected.

It hopped around between so many different plotlines indiscriminately that it legitimately felt disorienting. The writing was just bad. It felt like someone with no writing experience was stringing together tropes because that's all they know of what goes into movies. Dream sequence! Car chase! Training montage! Reporter meeting with politician! Fight scene where they both run at each other! The President is on the phone authorizing nukes! And every single goddamned scene had to be filmed in the dark with storms.

Superman's power level varied wildly from second to second based on the needs of the plot. This is always a danger with Superman, but it got really bad in this one. And Batman, maybe keep punching him with your special suit made of metal that can harm him rather than breaking a porcelain sink over his back. Also, the voice thing is becoming a franchise self-parody, intentional or not.

If you took someone with no cultural context for the characters and showed them the movie, they could be forgiven for not being sure who to root for and settling on Lex Luthor until the final third. He at least had coherent motivations and took logical steps to see them come to fruition. He wasn't any crazier or more evil than Batman was.

For the love of Jordan, EVERYONE KNOWS HOW BATMAN STARTS. I don't need to see the Waynes die in front of their child every single time you retell it. I certainly don't need to see it again 90 minutes later because you think I won't remember why Batman is angsty. I promise you, I got it.

And finally, anytime you have your characters explain their motivation for an important action as "I just have a feeling," you should take that as your clue that you are doing bad writing. Come up with anything better than that for why your insane iteration of Batman is starting the Justice League.

 

I saw BvS twice, springing for IMAX the second time. I really enjoyed it. Not sure what the fuss is about. This isn't supposed to be high art. It's mindless fun. I don't put much into box office numbers either. For one, I don't see a dime so what do I care? Two, if it bombs we'll get a reboot in 5-10 years anyway. These types of movies aren't going anywhere as ling as there's money to be made in merchandising. This is the third version of Batman in less than 30 years.

 

Part of the fuss may just be disappointment. People just want more. There are enough fans of these types of movies who went through the hype for Avengers and saw it mostly deliver for them to be upset if BvS doesn't. (I'm saying this is my interpretation of other people's reactions. I'm not sure if the movie deserves the criticism or not and won't be until I see it.)

Also, is it fair to say the movie takes itself more seriously than the MCU movies? Mindless is fine, but at least have fun when you go there.

To be clear, I'm talking about why people care about the quality of the movie. I have no personal opinion to offer regarding the quality yet. I've just heard enough spoilers that I'm not bothering to duck away from the thread until I see this one.