Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Greg_S_H, Feb 9, 2010.
I guess i might have to buy you one.
Looks like the next film will have Batman and Superman in it.
I'm unsure about how they will make this work, i think a direct sequel would be better but the comic book movie fans will love it.
A Batman / Superman team up movie now redefines definition of 'bad timing' for both characters given the state of their current respective movie incarnations.
A Superman movie that ends with Metropolis flattened and no repercussions and a new Batman that replaces the Nolan one with no setup.
I've just never understood why the idea of Superman and Batman teaming up gets people excited. Superman doesn't need Batman's help. I'd much rather see a straight up MoS sequel.
How does it work geographically to merge the two characters' worlds? Aren't Gotham City and Metropolis symbolic substitutions for the same space (i.e. New York City)?
On,y in the same way that Oakland and San Fran are the same city.Metropolis and Gotham are essentially across a bay from each other.On most "maps" Gotham is basically somewhere in south Jersey and Metropilos is somewhere on the Delaware bay in the state of Delaware.
On "Smallville", Metropolis is visible from Smallville, which is clearly in Kansas, putting Metropolis in Kansas too. That never made sense to me. Gotham City alternates between being New York and Chicago, depending on whether the story calls for a shoreline. Sent from my SCH-S738C using HTF mobile app
One of the things that's always bugged me about DC comics stuff is the multitude of fictional cities. But regardless of being fictional, they've always been their own separate cities in the DC Universe as far as I can remember.
How is MAN OF STEEL performing at the box-office in relation to its budget?
Will most likely end with less than $300M domestic and $700M total wordwide. Yeah, not the one billion dollar smash most fanboys were predicting, hence Batman to the rescue!
As of now, it's the third highest grossing movie of the year (domestic and worldwide) and I agree with your estimation of making about $700 million worldwide. That total would put it somewhere near or into the 50 highest grossing movies ever made. Anyone that expected this movie to make a $1 billion (a feat which 16 movies in history have managed) doesn't know what they're talking about.
It could gross a trillion dollars but it still wouldn't be a good movie.
Given its gross, I think it's fair to say that the bulk of the audience doesn't agree with you or it would have made much less than what it did.
I can't help it that the bulk of the audience is wrong.
That's assuming people don't walk out of a movie (after they've paid their admission) and decide they don't like the film. It's happened to me a time or two (just this summer!). The box office doesn't record satisfaction, just filled seats.
Sure but a movie doesn't become one of the 50 or 60 biggest grossing movies ever made because there was a majority of people saying "What a piece of shit!" as they left the theater. Movies that have bad word of mouth don't become the third highest grossing movie of the year. I'm not talking about the quality of the movie, I'm purely talking about how much the average viewer liked it and based on its gross, I think it's very fair to say that many people liked it.
To give another example, the Twilight movies made a ton of money. The ones I've seen are terrible but I can all but guarantee that the audiences that saw those movies, enjoyed them.
It's telling that there have been more comments in this thread speculating about the box office receipts and what they will mean for the future of the franchise rather than expressing any genuine enthusiasm for the movie itself.
There's another 11 page thread that where the movie was discussed. Once that thread started, this one just sorta turned into a talk about its box office gross.
Worldwide as of July 29: $643,962,067