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

I don't have much opinion on Affleck because he was stuck in such a godawful script. He definitely looked the part of Bruce Wayne.

 

Movie theaters take a rake of what, 20- to 35- percent of ticket sales depending on the week (less in the opening week, more the longer it stays in theaters), right? So $800M looks like it's already a decent profit, somewhere in the neighborhood of $170M. And that's without figuring in product placements and tax breaks to recoup costs, or merchandising profits.

The movie is going to make a decent profit, and certainly won't be a "loser" in a financial sense.

 

Variety reported the $800 million break-even figure, though Warner Bros. claims that number is inflated. The movie is definitely going to make money. I figure it ends up around $1.2-1.4 million when all is said and done, unless it sees a bigger than expected dropoff this weekend. But it definitely didn't break even off ticket sales from its first weekend unless movie industry analysts are worse at guessing these things than you are.

Why ‘Batman v Superman’ Is Still a High-Stakes Bet

 

Admittedly, I forgot to take the theaters' stake into account.

 

I think we both agree that this movie ends up making a good chunk of money. The only question is how big of a chunk. I think one telling stat will be merchandising. Disney is going to make a mint off Star Wars merchandise. BvS doesn't lend itself to kids asking for the toys next Christmas, though, so it won't bring in nearly as much.

 

Finally saw Batman v Superman over the weekend. When a friend asked me how it was, my immediate, no-thought response was "a mess."

I left feeling like there was a great story in there somewhere. There were parts that had me intrigued, mainly the stuff that involved Batman chasing down Superman (the reverse seemed forced and totally hypocritcal). I bought Affleck as Batman and actually liked seeing his side of the Metropolis disaster, his reasoning for hating Superman and how he planned to stop him. But just about everything else in the movie felt crammed in.

They practically force-fed us Doomsday and the reveals of the rest of the Justice League. I thought Wonder Woman kicked ass in the climatic fight, but her presence was essentially explained by "Oh, and this woman is mysterious. Just go with it." And all the wish-washing about Superman, is he good or is he a problem, was so over the top that I literally rolled my eyes several times throughout the movie.

And as Fart mentioned above, the entire movie is so weighted down by its own importance that it sucked dry and potential for it being a fun movie. Batman is tortured. Superman is tortured. Lois is tortured. Lex is evil without really much of an explanation. It was so gloom and dark. There was no hero. I didn't care about any character in the movie, which was difficult for me because I've been a Batman and Superman fan for years.

I had several other problems with this movie, but overall my main problem was that it felt like it was in a rush. In a rush to catch up to the Avengers, maybe. In a rush to move on to the next movie/movies. I think if you chop off some of the many appendages of the movie, leave me with just the meat of Batman facing down Superman and subtly hint toward the future, and you have great one.

 

Saw it again with Wife of Fart over the weekend. It is pure dreck. I will omit details for those who haven't made it to the movies yet.
Someone is bound to make a campy Batman movie in the Cesar Romero/Jack Nicholson vein, and it will be hailed as the next best thing.
I don't want to see any fucking superhero with a complex. They are supposed to be better than this.

 

Was Nicholson campy? I thought his Joker struck just the right balance of campy and psychotic. Not as nihilistic as Ledger's Joker, obviously, but still someone you don't want to mess with. I mean, he turned one rival into a burnt corpse in a conference room and shot his most trusted henchmen and childhood friend just because he was bummed out.
The Joker has always been a work in progress, depending on the era. Nicholson's Joker, I think, captures a lot of the more common elements through the years.

 

Batman:
Nicholson chewed a hell of a lot of scenery in that movie, even during "quiet" moments.
I dunno, maybe it was not intended to be campy, but it is just dripping with '80s if you watch it now.

 

At the time Nicholson was a solid joker. In hindsight - and compared to Ledger - he's closer to the Romero side of things.
As Fart said, totally 80s.

 

True, but isn't that also one of the Joker's character traits? Or at least at the time?

 

Also true, but I also think Romero is on one extreme side of the spectrum and Ledger was on the other. Nicholson was more of a centrist -- campy and fun, right up until the moment he shoots you in the face.