You started this discussion by questioning my claim that this movie's reception was not significantly influenced by preconceived notions; you cite him killing as a sort of sign that these ideas and expectations are present, but that isn't relevant to what I have been arguing. Especially since most of the discussion has centered around the Reeves films.
Your entire point is that some people have ideas and expectations when it comes to Superman. Great, please point me to where I outright denied that existed. I even acknowledged as much in a previous post saying there were probably a handful of people who weren't going to like the movie no matter how good it was because of an attachment to the Reeves movies. That is not the point I was making. (I also think it's worth mentioning that your average joe does not care as much about Superman as you, I, or Mark Waid, but I digress).
Making the claim that the movie was hindered from being more widely accepted because of said notions is exactly what I am arguing against. If you are going to make such a claim of an external influence bringing down the films overall reception, then the burden of proof is on you, because as I have pointed out (and will continue to do so) many people are unsatisfied with how the film was put together. I have a feeling you are either going to continue to brush that aside or talk around it, but that's the hard truth. If it were better made, with a better script, better characterization, better dialogue, it would have gotten a more positive reaction. I have a feeling you are going to say "oh well that's true for every movie" but that is, once again, dancing around the issue.
I don't buy for a second that an even remotely significant portion of the population came in with ideas of what Superman should or should not be and harshly judged the film based solely on that; not on it's own merit, but on their own ideas. As I said, the reception it got is because a lot of people found the film to be largely unsatisfying.
You sort of dance around that by saying "a lot of people like movies that aren't well-made", but I have yet to see you admit that the film was disappointing to a good deal of people and that might be due to the film just not being that good in their eyes, instead of resorting to the phantom scapegoat of preconceived notions. Why is that so difficult to accept?
I actually entered into this discussion specifically pointing out the flaw in your nolan citation. The one in which you asserted that even with all the innumerable changes present, it received no controversy and this is supposedly because it was simply well made. You want to weigh on the idea that all things are equal save for the quality of the film. This is where your comparison fell apart. My intention isn't to argue which film yielded the better quality, only that they both have very different circumstances and your comparison is 'null'.
-Just what did nolan so fundamentally change?
-Just how consistent had the batman vision been up and till that point?
-Was it the 'first' time there was a clear murder?
-Was his mentor alfred all of a sudden giving 'backwards' advice etc..
It would be like making the same claim about all the changes "ant man" will have yet because it's better made ignoring the circumstance of the lack of general ant man preconceptions and their relationship to the GA or even fans.. It's possible that Nolan's films 'changes' were overlooked because it was 'better' I'm not denying or getting into that. I'm pointing out the clear flaw in your comparison nothing more. My point was that you need to try again. I'd stop there but it's saturday.
You keep using the term 'many people' you use it to describe amounts such as 'the handful' of people you claim love Reeve(though I'd be careful there because "Thebatman" thinks the Reeve stuff is a red herring vs the greater cannon), you use it to describe the many people that didn't like the film. That's great. Because as I said there are many people that don't like any such thing. You may think that's throwaway but you are now missing my point. Because you can't tangibly quantify it, you can't actually overlook any of it. Just look at the 'many people' that don't like Interstellar. A great 'many people' and the film's reception has been mixed by definition. It happens.
But did any of this mixed reception come by way of preconception as to characters actions or did people simply not like the characters actions. You see the latter is what I would describe as fair where as the former is what I would describe as nonsense and unfair. When Hathaway's character get's a little wonky halfway through, the criticism is inherent to the film and the film alone. When Jon kent starts making decisions, the criticism is coming from all sorts of places and not inherent to the film alone. I don't even care if that's exclusive to a fraction of the audience, the fact is that it exists and it not right period. That this phenomena is even present taints the discussion and reception of the singular film and not all singular films have to deal with this in the same way, thus it's not fair in a discussion when all these films are measured against each other, it's almost pointless.
Which brings me to what I see as your point, and that is seemingly that you don't think a significant enough amount of the population this and that...Well we'll never know about the actual numbers but what do we know for sure.
-That unlike Antman/The Gladiator, massive amounts of people are at least aware of such things. The CNN anchor could tell you plenty of things about what superman is and how he would reaction to certain things pre-viewing, not so much Scott Lang.
- That unlike Batman(see 60s vs 70s vs early 90's vs late 90's), these things have been very singular for a very long time.
-And that massive amounts, NOT ALL, of discussion was centered on these 'changes'. Again unlike say Pacific Rim or Interstellar.
That's great that you admit that you think that the Reeve lovers were prone to hating this film. You happen to be arguing against someone else on that because I never go so far. I'd sooner say their reception would be affected, and even that it wouldn't be fair but I couldn't tell you which way they would swing. Another problem here is that you are lumping my argument in with other stuff. Again, my point was that of all the things that are influencing the films so called mixed reception, one of the things is this preconception issue. It exists here where it doesn't else where. If you want to get into just how insignificant a factor it is that's all well and good but my point is that it's very much present and that when you are comparing it to films even like these ASM ones or a PRim or a Thor, films that are seemingly just a little less mixed in their reception, it may then boil down to taking all things into consideration at the very least. Because for all your claims that the film is just that much worse than the aforementioned...I digress.
The film is disappointing to to a good deal of people due to them not liking it for all sort of reasons, one of those reasons may very well be it's quality. Happy? This is hardly difficult for me to see or 'admit'. It's almost like I'm being Strawmaned into the position of someone that thinks the film deserved a 96 on RT but because of my scapegoat mentality, I'm now defending it's 50 score. I said it's a factor, a dumb factor at that. Perhaps one that has it landing a hand full of points below films it actually shares an average rating with
Films have all sorts of factors for losing points, this just happens to be a factor I despise entirely. Also, I never once ever argued against the admission that some people don't like the film due to it's quality. Here's where I say the same thing about every film ever made. They all of them lose points for things. The one thing I cannot say about every film ever made is the issue of preconception and in just what way that has affected the mixed reaction. However significant it may or may not have been, not all films have to play this game as handicapped as MOS. Could it have over come that handicap by being a subjectively better film for these people? Sure but just what would it have been had this handicap not existed whatsoever? Maybe Pacific Rim can shed some light on the issue given it's quality maybe not. In closing, preconceptions play a large part in if something meet's audience expectations. Fanboys, hardcore or lesser so are known to behave a certain way when you change their ish around. It's spoofed on BigBangTheory even. What happens when you have massive amounts of the GA with one foot in the pool? It has a larger effect on the conversation. The Tornado scene is a master class on this imo. I also see no point in going on, but for the actual reason that you keep confusing just what is it I'm saying. Notice my clear admission to that which you asked me to, does nothing to conflict with my points as I keep stating them? That's usually a clear sign.
But I digress, Xmen will come in third, I doubt it will hit a billion.