News On Future Films Based on Comics/Paranormal/Sci-Fi

[sunshineblotters]

Marvel should've put up Thor 3 against BvS. That would have slaughtered BvS. Even with DC spamming Nolan's name every chance they got MoS barely did better than TDW

 

[rfx45]

God, do you ever spew out something that make sense or are simply not biased?

You mean Batman? Superman aint got fans. All their fans are DC or Batman fans who would watch the movie without Bats. But everyone thinking Nolan's name wasnt 90% of the selling point of those films is in for a rude awakening. ****, even with Nolan's name batman begins only pulled $205M. That's less than ASM 1 which was a repeat of SM1 in the eyes of the casual moviegoer

BvS is a movie people will pay to hate. Battfleck's butt chin will be talk of the nerd community on that day. On top of the fact that DC movies are more miss than hit. Luckily for them the casuals dont equate **** like Watchmen, Green Hornet, and Jonah Hex with DCs name.

I mean seriously, this is the stupidest of stupidest reasons ever.

Afflecks chin, really?

Man of Steel made $670m worldwide, Begins made $375m worlwide, TDK and TDKR $1b each. Yeah majority are flops. SR and GL are the only two flops from the DC Universe. 4-2, yah that's a more miss than hits, right?

Then you say the films made money because of Nolan then continue to blast the how much money Begins made? Makes no sense.

Yeah, there are no Superman fans. I don't even have to respond to such a stupid post.



You really know nothing. At least google the crap you are thinking before you type.

Hell you admitted yourself you like MoS but again you are just talking out of your a** like usual.

But hey, you are too illiterate to read more than a sentence so I am just going to go ahead and expect a dumb gif or pic, a typical troll response.

 

[sunshineblotters]

I liked MoS but then again I like most of Nolan's work. Again i am not doubting how much money Nolan makes, but they dont have that going for them anymore

 

[sunshineblotters]

And I was looking at domestic since I am not sure if those movies would open same day in europe or would open earlier again. But yes I googled the box office. You literally echoed my point. the only two flops werent Nolan projects

EDIT: My logic was wrong to check domestic. Should've found week 1 sales.

 

[kvsm23vs24]

Nolan was barely making a name for himself with Begins...

 

[sunshineblotters]

Nolan was barely making a name for himself with Begins...

I understand. Nolan wasnt a big name so they had little to sell BB with. So what are they using to sell BvS? Battfleck? Eisenberg? Gadots mediocre acting skills? What?

 

[rfx45]

MoS isnt Nolans project, i was actually surprised very few knew of his involvement in the film.

As a matter of fact, Nolan was on MoS set once and only for like an hour. Everything was Snyders and Goyer. Hell Goyer had to convince Nolan for the ending.

That does echo your sentiment because you nullified your argument when you said people go for Nolan and say Begins makes very little money, which isnt even true.


And you are still wrong that they are more miss than hits.

 

[sunshineblotters]

No because I said DC films were more miss than hits. Not DC Cinematic universes. YOU put that in my mouth. I specifically named movies that were not part of the DC cinematic universe. But I didnt see most of them so IDK if the DC logo was in the beginning of the movie or not.

I did say that DC is lucky few people even know those were DC characters

So really who's the troll? Nice try RFX. Nice try.

 

[rfx45]

No i didnt you even said DC were lucky Watchmen, Jonah Hex werent included.


And you are still the troll for sure. Without a doubt.

Half of the things you say makes no sense.

 

[sunshineblotters]

I said lucky the casual moviegoer doesnt equate those movies with DC. As in "Luckily most people don't know that filth was DC".

Alright. Tell yourself that. Just cuz you can't pick up internet sarcasm

 

[rfx45]

I dont have to tell myself, plenty here can vouch for it.



But if you're going to include all DC properties even those that wasnt produce by WB, then you have to include all Marvel properties including those not produced by Marvel like Daredevil, Elektra, first Hulk, etc...

And include the good one likes V for Vendetta, Constantine, etc...

And technically, Watchmen wasn't a flop. Green Hirnet wasnt by WB iirc.

 

[sunshineblotters]

All the people who knew not to respond to Battfleck's buttchin? Those guys who can spot the sarcasm? Okay. I'm sure there is a huge list.

Fine you win. DC has more hits than flops but all its flops didnt have Nolans name attached to it in any way. Just like BvS wont. But watch DC pull off some **** like "The sequel to the film executive produced by Nolan"

 

[rfx45]

So what? Nolan has done 3 films which to you, Begins wasnt considered a success for some reason so your point is only 2 of Nolans films were successful.

And if you really want to dig deeper, SR wasn't a flop because the budget was over inflated due to the failed 90s and 2000s films that went nowhere but they already spent money on them. Singer likely used about half of the reported $270m budget so it makes the worldwide cum of $390 seems like its a flop.

 

[nawghtyhare]

Damn calm down
The movies are all just make believe

 

[CP1708]

I don't even need to check who RFX is arguing with, I already know.

Throw him on ignore man, it'll save you the keystrokes bruh.

 

[shogun]

Damn calm down
The movies are all just make believe

It's real to some people.

 

[rfx45]

We just having a typical NT discussion. Ya'll act like this is out of the norm.



We werent arguing whether it makes sense that Superman can fly or not.

 

[sunshineblotters]

So what? Nolan has done 3 films which to you, Begins wasnt considered a success for some reason so your point is only 2 of Nolans films were successful.

And if you really want to dig deeper, SR wasn't a flop because the budget was over inflated due to the failed 90s and 2000s films that went nowhere but they already spent money on them. Singer likely used about half of the reported $270m budget so it makes the worldwide cum of $390 seems like its a flop.

Hollywood nor the box office don't take no excuses. SR was a flop

Begins being a flop is words you put in my mouth. I said that it only made 205 domestic with Nolan's name. Which is a lot but the ASM, which people avoided because they didnt want to see the same movie twice (their words not mine) did 262. I was just illustrating that these huge numbers from those DC flicks were because of Nolans name being attached to the film in some way. BB didnt do as well because Nolan aint have a name yet.

BvS does not have the magic wand that is Christopher Nolan's name! Though it stands a chance with Cap 3 (but I think Marvel got this Cap 3 will "win) It would not stand a chance against Thor, their second strongest solo franchise. Nolans name was attached to MoS. Even if he didnt do anything they tossed Nolans name around ever chance they got and MoS did 35M more than TDW worldwide (which is nothing)

 

[danger style]

Not sure if late but it looks like Batman vs. Superman is gonna go head to head with Captain America 3. Should be interesting

BvS will no doubt be huge but it's kinda hard to predict Cap 3. Will it just continue riding the wave Marvel's been on and be bigger than ever or could fatigue set in for Marvel franchises? Cause by that point we would have gotten non stop releases 8 years straight and for Cap it would be his fifth starring role in 6 years time

 

[rfx45]

So what? Nolan has done 3 films which to you, Begins wasnt considered a success for some reason so your point is only 2 of Nolans films were successful.

And if you really want to dig deeper, SR wasn't a flop because the budget was over inflated due to the failed 90s and 2000s films that went nowhere but they already spent money on them. Singer likely used about half of the reported $270m budget so it makes the worldwide cum of $390 seems like its a flop.

Hollywood nor the box office don't take no excuses. SR was a flop

Begins being a flop is words you put in my mouth. I said that it only made 205 domestic with Nolan's name. Which is a lot but the ASM, which people avoided because they didnt want to see the same movie twice (their words not mine) did 262. I was just illustrating that these huge numbers from those DC flicks were because of Nolans name being attached to the film in some way. BB didnt do as well because Nolan aint have a name yet.

BvS does not have the magic wand that is Christopher Nolan's name! Though it stands a chance with Cap 3 (but I think Marvel got this Cap 3 will "win) It would not stand a chance against Thor, their second strongest solo franchise. Nolans name was attached to MoS. Even if he didnt do anything they tossed Nolans name around ever chance they got and MoS did 35M more than TDW worldwide (which is nothing)

Actually you are wrong, Hollywood does take "excuses" but technically it isn't an excuse. Execs know SR was saddled with past failed attempts, you just don't want to see it as such because it disproves your point. But what else is new?


And TDW was coming from the strengths of Avengers, same as IM3. If you want to compare origins for origins, MoS made $670m, in comparison Thor 1 made $450m, Cap1 made $370m. IM beats out MoS though but MoS made a strong showing and if we are going to follow trend where sequels makes significantly more, then BvS should make close to a billion. Hell it united two of DC biggest heroes.

BvS isn't going to fail just because Nolan isn't involved and you really are just blind to think it will. This is a film everyone have been waiting for, way before Avengers even became a possibility. I just can't fathom someone thinking the film will fail or flop because Nolan isn't attached to it.

It makes more sense if your argument were the casting but you used Affleck chin instead and Nolans involvement. That is why no one takes you seriously.

MoS didn't make $670m just because Nolan was attached to it. A movie that you liked and Nolan had very little involvement with. It just makes no damn sense to doubt a film you yourself enjoyed w/o the guy you thought had a hand in it.

 

[mronegative]

Damn calm down
The movies are all just make believe

It's real to some people.

 

[Master Zik]

Probably already mentioned but it should be cleared up now about who is ducking who between Marvel and DC. They pushed back MOS 2 from the date it would've been going up against Avengers 2 to the date of an unnamed Marvel movie in 2016 and now avoided that by making it release a week earlier.

WB/DC don't want no problems.

 

[rfx45]

Was it confirmed that DC moved it a week earlier? I thought it was just a rumor in Brazil? Plus that rumor was made even before Marvel announced Cap3 for that date.

 

[Master Zik]

I didn't say anything about Cap 3. At the time it was an unannounced Marvel movie that had the date. I'm not saying they changed it cuz it's Cap 3, I'm saying they changed cuz they don't want to go head to head with a Marvel movie (and hey, especially one that isn't a debut/origin).

Not a 100 if it's confirmed but I've seen it now on a few sites.

 

[sunshineblotters]

Actually you are wrong, Hollywood does take "excuses" but technically it isn't an excuse. Execs know SR was saddled with past failed attempts, you just don't want to see it as such because it disproves your point. But what else is new?


And TDW was coming from the strengths of Avengers, same as IM3. If you want to compare origins for origins, MoS made $670m, in comparison Thor 1 made $450m, Cap1 made $370m. IM beats out MoS though but MoS made a strong showing and if we are going to follow trend where sequels makes significantly more, then BvS should make close to a billion. Hell it united two of DC biggest heroes.

BvS isn't going to fail just because Nolan isn't involved and you really are just blind to think it will. This is a film everyone have been waiting for, way before Avengers even became a possibility. I just can't fathom someone thinking the film will fail or flop because Nolan isn't attached to it.

It makes more sense if your argument were the casting but you used Affleck chin instead and Nolans involvement. That is why no one takes you seriously.

MoS didn't make $670m just because Nolan was attached to it. A movie that you liked and Nolan had very little involvement with. It just makes no damn sense to doubt a film you yourself enjoyed w/o the guy you thought had a hand in it.

But Man of Steel came from the strenghts of the Nolanverse Batman Movies. There is just no arguing that. Yes it is a different franchise but it was the "post Dark Knight" version of Superman. If we are comparing origin to origin it would be way more fair to compare IM to Superman Returns which IM beat something like 620M to 391M. Except for Hulk and Cap all the Marvel movies so far has done better than that.

Second of all if they keep tossing Nolans name around in promo material how is the general public going to know he truly wasnt involved? They do not keep track of this. Nolans name definitely sold tickets.