Dawn of Justice vs Civil War vs Apocalypse

[The Batman]

Good thing I wasn't only talking about this thread, then.

Anyway, I think that, in terms of BO, it can go either way between DOJ and CW. I think a lot of people overrate the appeal of Batman/Superman. Bats and Supes squaring off may bring people to the theater initially, but what will keep them coming back?

CW has so much good momentum going into it. TWS being a well received film. RDJ as Iron Man playing a role in the flick, and the fact that Marvel Studios has become a trusted studio in terms of making marvel flicks.

Quality wise, I can see X-Men taking it.

 

[Killer]

Good thing I wasn't only talking about this thread, then.

I never saw anyone saying it in this forum, and i certainly doesn´t believe it was the only reason that made film be so divisive. I´m only defending it had an impact.

 

[Flint Marko]

I feel like Marvin's post confirmed what I've thought all along: He's so fixated on that "People were too attached to Donner" argument, that he honestly believes thats the only reason MOS' detractors didn't like the film. I'd like to be proven wrong on that, as believing that there is only one reason that people dislike that film is silly, and sounds like the ideology of someone who loves MOS so much that he/she is unwilling to accept that there are people who dislike the film for legitimate reasons.

It's a pretty common excuse among MOS supporters that the Reeve's films were, in some ways, an obstacle that a lot of people could not get past that made them dislike the movie. There's a lot to discredit that, but I find it funny that here we are, once again, addressing it.

The factors are really not that numerous, if we really pay attention to the reviews. A lot of the criticism is just too vague and could easily be applied to a good perentage of the CB movies, if not all of them. Just the fact that MoS is crucified for certain things that are much more tolerated in other action movies just proves to me that a lot of people went to see the movie not willing to accept in a Superman movie certain things they would easily accept in other films.

If you have a strong idea of what a character should be, and if you´re very emotionally attached to previous incarnations, like many people are, it might be difficult for you to judge the movie with the same eyes you would judge something that you knew nothing about and had absolutely no value to you. This is a pretty natural human behaviour.

The fact that people in their reviews give you reasons to not have liked the movie that may seem logic to you doesn´t mean that the criticism consciously or subconsciously wasn´t aggravated by certain preconceptions. Plus, you can´t seriously expect critics to say they didn´t like this movie because it was too different from the Donner one, even though many reviews strongly allude to it. They will obviously try to find a more acceptable reason to trash the movie, and that´s really not very difficult to do.

You are, once again, pulling things out of thin air and making huge assumptions to support your argument, despite all evidence to the contrary.
If it was not clear before, it has become abundantly apparent to me that you have made up your mind on the the topic at hand and won't listen to anything else. The fact that you can sit here and say that all the criticisms against MoS are "vague" or "can be applied to any other CBM" show me that you either have not spent any time reading through what the detractors have to say (there is a lot of it), or you are being deliberately obtuse. I'm inclined to think the latter.
It is widely believed that MoS was a flawed movie on many levels. There is a lot to criticize, and a lot of aspects that rubbed people the wrong way. Whether you like it or not that is a fact; you can go all over the internet and find multiple people saying as much.
And unlike you when I read reviews, I don't assume the critic has ulterior motives or preconceived notions. I listen to what they say, compare it to the movie at hand, and see if that carries any weight with me. Making blanket statements and generalizations about what is really going on in someone's head when they criticize MoS is foolish and, once again, based on absolutely nothing concrete.

It would be hard for you to find in this thread anyone saying that was the only reason.

Even if you admit that it isn't the "only" reason (which is odd, because you just told me the other criticisms were "not that numerous" and "vague"), you are arguing as if it is a major reason, which is almost as outlandish.

 

[The Batman]

It's a pretty common excuse among MOS supporters that the Reeve's films were, in some ways, an obstacle that a lot of people could not get past that made them dislike the movie. There's a lot to discredit that, but I find it funny that here we are, once again, addressing it.

I mean....you can tell from the trailers alone that MOS wasn't going to be like Donner, so...who are we trying to fool here? Its an overblown scapegoat argument, nothing more, nothing less.

Even if you admit that it isn't the "only" reason (which is odd, because you just told me the other criticisms were "not that numerous" and "vague"), you are arguing as if it is a major reason, which is almost as outlandish.

 

[Killer]

You are, once again, pulling things out of thin air and making huge assumptions to support your argument, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I´m sorry, but there´s absolutely no evidence that people´s preconceptions about the character didn´t play any type of role in the way the movie was received.

The fact that you can sit here and say that all the criticisms against MoS are "vague" or "can be applied to any other CBM" show me that you either have not spent any time reading through what the detractors have to say (there is a lot of it), or you are being deliberately obtuse.

See, here is the thing i was talking about: You really don´t understand what i´m saying. I write oranges and you understand lemons. You just don´t get it, and i have no idea why. I never said "all the criticisms"; i said "a lot of the criticism". Can you tell difference between the two?

It is widely believed that MoS was a flawed movie on many levels. There is a lot to criticize, and a lot of aspects that rubbed people the wrong way. Whether you like it or not that is a fact; you can go all over the internet and find multiple people saying as much.

All movies are flawed and all movies have a lot to criticize. What´s your point, exactly? That MoS Isn´t perfect? You´re bringing up a discussion that nobody was even having. You´re just creating a whole new argument all by yourself.

And unlike you when I read reviews, I don't assume the critic has ulterior motives or preconceived notions. I listen to what they say, compare it to the movie at hand, and see if that carries any weight with me. Making blanket statements and generalizations about what is really going on in someone's head when they criticize MoS is foolish and, once again, based on absolutely nothing concrete.

I do the exact same thing as you do. And i´ve come to the conclusion that plenty of people went to see the movie with strong preconceived notions. As i said before, it´s not a theory, it´s a fact. And it´s not a fact because i´ve convinced myself that this critic or that critic is full of preconceptions. It´s a fact because i´ve confirmed in first hand that a good number of people really do that. I´ve seen it in person, i´ve heard it from them, i´ve felt it, i´ve done it and i know it´s just normal human behaviour. It´s a fact. It exists.

Now, what´s the percentage of people that go watch a movie with those types of preconceived notions? It is 80%? It is 50%? It is 1%? I don´t know, you don´t know, nobody knows, and i´m not interested in speculating around that. I´m simply stating it is, indeed a factor.

Even if you admit that it isn't the "only" reason (which is odd, because you just told me the other criticisms were "not that numerous" and "vague"), you are arguing as if it is a major reason, which is almost as outlandish.

Nope. That´s not what i said. That´s what you want me to say, because then you will be right by saying that i´m wrong, and you want to be right, wich you´re not now, and you´ll never be as long as you keep refusing the fact that preconceived notions can have an impact in the way the movie is gonna be perceived.

 

[Killer]

I mean....you can tell from the trailers alone that MOS wasn't going to be like Donner, so...who are we trying to fool here? Its an overblown scapegoat argument, nothing more, nothing less.

From the trailers i didn´t know Superman was going to kill. From the trailers i didn´t know the movie was going to be so serious all the time. From the trailers i didn´t know the destruction scene was going to be so massive and long. From the trailers i didn´t know this wouldn´t even be close to be as romantic as the Donner universe. Are you seriously trying to suggest that people can judge an entire movie by the trailer?

And even if the trailer really gave a lot away. Do you truly believe that everybody that pays to watch a movie believes they will love it? Plenty of people go to the movie theaters believing they will probably not be impressed by the movie. I do it, my friends do it, many people do it. They just go out of curiosity. And critics go because that´s their job.

 

[Marvin]

You spend a great deal of time discussing the act of "killing" in the movie when that was only one item on a pretty long list of common complaints against MoS. I personally had no problem with him killing Zod, and the rampant destruction is pretty far down on my list of general complaints about the film, because as Tony Stark began to point out, there is a lot wrong with Man of Steel. You brush his description off and say "oh, well that could be used to describe a lot of different movies", but that doesn't address the issue and it isn't exactly true. Look at how many comic book movies have come out in the past couple years to critical acclaim, and note the differences between those movie and MoS.

I spend a great deal of time discussing what? Killing? That's kinda interesting for I feel I spend a very little bit of time doing so. That was kinda the point on this last post, given what I said about this discussion being done to death and out of place. I wanted to provide a short and decisive example on the issue of preconception and double standard and I choose just the one and very large(I say large because I saw it discussed alot even though you supposedly did no such thing, it kinda comes up so bloody often that people on the BvS boards have a day for it, there are memes and such etc) issue and exmaple that I felt could focus on the matter at hand. That was all, notice the batman example.
If you want me to get into all that I think about the films criticism, that which I find both fair and unfair, perhaps you may find that in an 2013 threads or simply threads dedicated to such things in the appropriate sections. Again in this section, I read someone wax poetic about this film being given a fair shake, and I interjected on the(sheer and basic) presence of preconception and double standard, I provided my very relevant reference and I tried to peace out.

There is a complaint about the dialogue in this movie, I have alot to say about it, but then again is this really the place and does anyone really want to get into it again and again in a thread which this exact title...If so, you'll hear me spend a great deal of time discussing that. Period.

Again, double standard and preconception. It exists. Is it the determining factor, dunno, don't care(anymore), but every time I hear there is no such thing, an angel loses it's wings. My challenge was getting you explain the reception given all my examples, and convincing me that it would happen without any sort of preconception. That the tree can kill and smile and I hear not two words about it yet...I digress.

Now you want to talk about the difference between a film getting critical acclaim vs MoS. That's all well and good but you are probably talking to the wrong person given my loud views both on the state of film criticism as well as subjective criticism on art in general. However, I'd inversely find myself asking you about the difference between films that find themselves in the 50 to 70 percentiles and just what is going on there that is so clearly discernible. Whether it be these Thor films or as someone pointed out above, Pacific Rim. Surely it's not 'dialogue'.

I feel like Marvin's post confirmed what I've thought all along: He's so fixated on that "People were too attached to Donner" argument, that he honestly believes thats the only reason MOS' detractors didn't like the film. I'd like to be proven wrong on that, as believing that there is only one reason that people dislike that film is silly, and sounds like the ideology of someone who loves MOS so much that he/she is unwilling to accept that there are people who dislike the film for legitimate reasons.

Sorry but that's all you. You are the one that honestly believes that's the only reason I think detractors don't like the film. I used the words 'factor' and 'presence' for a reason above. But here we are again in the old 'only reason' strawman.

If I said that I think there is a race issue North America, that there is a presence of it. Then I said a film like Blade may have encountered such an issue in it's reception. You would then find yourself in the role of: "There goes marvin again, he honestly believes that's the only reason...detractors...didn't like..etc"

Againk, never said piss all about 'only reason'. You will however find plenty of folks denying it's presence and or impact on any significant level and thus 'Marvin' swoops down from the church tower. Only to then deal with deflections that it is in fact the supporters doing the generalizing.

 

[Marvin]

From the trailers i didn´t know Superman was going to kill. From the trailers i didn´t know the movie was going to be so serious all the time. From the trailers i didn´t know the destruction scene was going to be so massive and long. From the trailers i didn´t know this wouldn´t even be close to be as romantic as the Donner universe. Are you seriously trying to suggest that people can judge an entire movie by the trailer?

That's so funny because those are all things that have been complained about ad infinitum(that last one by Dean Cain of all people), that these things that seemingly bothered allllot of people, and bothered them alllllot, weren't in these same trailers that we are now being told were received so amazingly and with open arms. It's almost like trailers don't actually give away all that much about a movie at the end of the day. What's more, that people don't fill in the blanks often times to their own prerogative.
Amazing. It's one of the argument I find particularly obtuse tbh.

And even if the trailer really gave a lot away. Do you truly believe that everybody that pays to watch a movie believes they will love it? Plenty of people go to the movie theaters believing they will probably not be impressed by the movie. I do it, my friends do it, many people do it. They just go out of curiosity. And critics go because that´s their job.

That in this day and age: Marvel(for example) haters don't pay for Marvel movies and watch the things with chips and begrudging sentiments on their shoulders? Never. That people don't walk into modern remakes of their beloved 80/90's things even after having bashed the new Terminator(example) trailer into the ground? I'm supposed to assume that these millions of people that keep paying for the Transformers movies are supportive supporters and nothing else.
Again, amazing.
Amazing Spiderman to be more to ironic and relevant.

 

[Flint Marko]

Now, what´s the percentage of people that go watch a movie with those types of preconceived notions? It is 80%?

Nope, definitely not.

It is 50%?

Eh, warmer...

It is 1%?

Hey, you're pretty close!

I spend a great deal of time discussing what? Killing? That's kinda interesting for I feel I spend a very little bit of time doing so. That was kinda the point on this last post, given what I said about this discussion being done to death and out of place. I wanted to provide a short and decisive example on the issue of preconception and double standard and I choose just the one and very large(I say large because I saw it discussed alot even though you supposedly did no such thing, it kinda comes up so bloody often that people on the BvS boards have a day for it, there are memes and such etc) issue and exmaple that I felt could focus on the matter at hand. That was all, notice the batman example.
If you want me to get into all that I think about the films criticism, that which I find both fair and unfair, perhaps you may find that in an 2013 threads or simply threads dedicated to such things in the appropriate sections. Again in this section, I read someone wax poetic about this film being given a fair shake, and I interjected on the(sheer and basic) presence of preconception and double standard, I provided my very relevant reference and I tried to peace out.

There is a complaint about the dialogue in this movie, I have alot to say about it, but then again is this really the place and does anyone really want to get into it again and again in a thread which this exact title...If so, you'll hear me spend a great deal of time discussing that. Period.

Again, double standard and preconception. It exists. Is it the determining factor, dunno, don't care(anymore), but every time I hear there is no such thing, an angel loses it's wings. My challenge was getting you explain the reception given all my examples, and convincing me that it would happen without any sort of preconception. That the tree can kill and smile and I hear not two words about it yet...I digress.

Now you want to talk about the difference between a film getting critical acclaim vs MoS. That's all well and good but you are probably talking to the wrong person given my loud views both on the state of film criticism as well as subjective criticism on art in general. However, I'd inversely find myself asking you about the difference between films that find themselves in the 50 to 70 percentiles and just what is going on there that is so clearly discernible. Whether it be these Thor films or as someone pointed out above, Pacific Rim. Surely it's not 'dialogue'.

Sorry but that's all you. You are the one that honestly believes that's the only reason I think detractors don't like the film. I used the words 'factor' and 'presence' for a reason above. But here we are again in the old 'only reason' strawman.

If I said that I think there is a race issue North America, that there is a presence of it. Then I said a film like Blade may have encountered such an issue in it's reception. You would then find yourself in the role of: "There goes marvin again, he honestly believes that's the only reason...detractors...didn't like..etc"

Againk, never said piss all about 'only reason'. You will however find plenty of folks denying it's presence and or impact on any significant level and thus 'Marvin' swoops down from the church tower. Only to then deal with deflections that it is in fact the supporters doing the generalizing.

Just to clarify I meant that you spent a good deal of time discussing "killing" in your post.
If Superman murdering Zod was truly the biggest problem people had with the movie then maybe your argument about the tree vs superman would hold weight, but so many different aspects of the movie are criticized on a regular basis, showing that is far from the biggest problem. That renders that argument null and void.
Here's something to consider: maybe a lot of people did not like MoS because they didn't find it to be well-made? Is that so difficult to accept?

 

[Marvin]

Just to clarify I meant that you spent a good deal of time discussing "killing" in your post.
If Superman murdering Zod was truly the biggest problem people had with the movie then maybe your argument about the tree vs superman would hold weight, but so many different aspects of the movie are criticized on a regular basis, showing that is far from the biggest problem with the movie. That renders that argument null and void.
Here's something to consider: maybe a lot of people did not like the movie because they didn't find it to be a well-made movie? Is that so difficult to accept?

If that's what you meant then you should revisit my followup post. I talked about killing because it frames the issue of preconception and the presence of it. Not because it's why people hate this movie. Where did I say 'murdering' zod was the biggest problem people had...I said it was an issue people had and I begged you to explain why. The only thing Null and Void is you missing that very clear point.

case in point

Originally Posted by Mark Waid
And I loved, loved, loved that scene where Clark didn’t save him, because Goyer did something magical–he took two moments that, individually, I would have hated and he welded them together into something amazing. Out of context, I would have hated that Clark said “You’re not my real dad,” or whatever he says right before the tornado. And out of context, I would have loathed that Clark stood by frozen with helplessness as the tornado killed Jonathan. But the reason that beat worked is because Clark had just said “You’re not my dad,” the last real words he said to Pa. Tearful Clark choosing to go against his every instinct in that last second because he had to show his father he trusted him after all, because he had to show Pa that Pa could trust him and that Clark had learned, Clark did love him–that worked for me, hugely. It was a very brave story choice, but it worked.

It's funny that Mark Waid said that the Tornado scene involved two very brave decisions. I wonder why he would use the word brave. As if those decisions are inherently bold, daring etc when it comes to movies, cbms' even. Or if he meant something else, something pertaining to the presence of a preconceived expectation from the character. One so pertinent and known that such decisions would be considered brave.

Alot of people like movies that aren't well made. I find things alot easier to accept than you might think.

 

[Killer]

Nope, definitely not.

Eh, warmer...

Hey, you're pretty close!

Good to know you have access to all that information. I don´t.

 

[Flint Marko]

If that's what you meant then you should revisit my followup post. I talked about killing because it frames the issue of preconception and the presence of it. Not because it's why people hate this movie. Where did I say 'murdering' zod was the biggest problem people had...I said it was an issue people had and I begged you to explain why. The only thing Null and Void is you missing that very clear point.

case in point
It's funny that Mark Waid said that the Tornado scene involved two very brave decisions. I wonder why he would use the word brave. As if those decisions are inherently bold, daring etc when it comes to movies, cbms' even. Or if he meant something else, something pertaining to the presence of a preconceived expectation from the character. One so pertinent and known that such decisions would be considered brave.

Alot of people like movies that aren't well made. I find things alot easier to accept than you might think.

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?

 

[Killer]

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.

One thing i can tell you: The only way that can even come close to be true is if the entire world is drastically different from absolutely everyone i know, because from my personal experience a good percentage of the people has that "problem".

I can´t speak for everybody, but i can give you a quick example: I know that i wouldn´t have the same opinion of the new TMNT movie if the old movies weren´t in my mind, because during the entire movie i kept wishing that it had some of the best elements of the 1990 film, and that really had an impact on my opinion about the movie. I saw the movie with 4 people, and 3 of them showed similar preconceptions. So, unless me and my friends are a group of ET´s instead of just 5 regular dudes, i highly doubt those percentages are as small and insignificant as you believe.

Hell, forget about me and my personal experiences. Do a quick browse around the web and find out for yourself the amount of people trashing the film because the turtles weren´t exactly what they expected them to be.

 

[Flint Marko]

One thing i can tell you: The only way that can come even close to be true is if the entire world is drastically different from absolutely everyone i know, because from my personal experience a good percentage of the people has that "problem".

I can´t speak for everybody, but i can give you a quick example: I know that i wouldn´t have the same opinion of the new TMNT movie if the old movies weren´t in my mind, because during the entire movie i kept wishing that it had some of the best elements of the 1990 film, and that really had an impact on my opinion about the movie. I saw the movie with 4 people, and 3 of them showed similar preconceptions. So, unless me and my friends are a group of ET´s instead of just 5 regular dudes, i highly doubt those percentages are as small and insignificant as you believe.

Hell, forget about me and my personal experiences. Do a quick browse around the web and find out for yourself the amount of people trashing the film because the turtles weren´t exactly what they expected them to be.

TMNT was also a crap movie. If they had made a better one, it's possible your fondness for the old franchise would never have popped up in your head since you wouldn't be comparing the two and the many ways the 2014 version failed.
If we are going to bring up our friends and people around us, I don't know anyone under the age of 30 who has seen the old Christopher Reeve's superman movies. Never heard them referenced, never heard them brought up by anyone my age, but I have heard several of these same people bring up their dislike for MoS.
Once again you are making a scapegoat where there isn't one and keep insisting it exists, when you have nothing concrete to prove that. I'm pretty much done with this conversation since we are off-topic and going around in circles.

 

[Killer]

TMNT was also a crap movie. If they had made a better one, it's possible your fondness for the old franchise would never have popped up in your head since you wouldn't be comparing the two and the many ways the 2014 version failed.
If we are going to bring up our friends and people around us, I don't know anyone under the age of 30 who has seen the old Christopher Reeve's superman movies. Never heard them referenced, never heard them brought up by anyone my age, but I have heard several of these same people bring up their dislike for MoS.
Once again you are making a scapegoat where there isn't one and keep insisting it exists, when you have nothing concrete to prove that. I'm pretty much done with this conversation since we are off-topic and going around in circles.

What do you have to prove that i´m wrong? Nothing. Zero.

Your example proves that there are people who never saw STM and dislike MoS. But i didn´t really say those people didn´t exist, did i? You keep putting words in people´s mouth, wich only shows to me that you can´t really counter-argue what i´m actually saying. You gotta pretend that i said stuff that i never said in order to go on with this discussion, otherwise, you just don´t have a valid argument to keep going on.

My example proves that there are people who go watch a movie with preconceptions and that ends up having an impact in the way they see the movie. That´s all i ever said. You can´t really prove i´m wrong, because i´m not. As i said before, this isn´t an opinion. It is common for people to do that. Deal with it.

 

[Marvin]

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.

 

[Killer]

You´re wasting your time. Flint Marko, like many other Marvel fans, is really not interested in accepting the possibility that a movie he enjoys to see being hated might, indeed, be a victim of other factors outside of its quality as an action flick. It suits him to believe that the ONLY REASON is that the movie is full of flaws. Nothing else had an impact in the ratings.

 

[Marvin]

You´re wasting your time. Flint Marko, like many other Marvel fans, is really not interested in accepting the possibility that a movie he enjoys to see being hated might, indeed, be a victim of other factors outside of its quality as an action flick. It suits him to believe that the ONLY REASON is that the movie is full of flaws. Nothing else had an impact in the ratings.

I don't think it's entirely fair to assume anyone's intentions so absolutely.
But I see what you are getting at. However it would be just as easy for someone to argue that supporters are not interested in accepting the possibility that the mixed reaction has nothing to do with of the films merits.
The trouble is that neither you or I is saying the latter. Only that other things could have and no doubt played a 'factor'. And it's 10x bolder an assumption to claim they didn't than to claim they did for it's factors that make up a whole. The key word being factor.
He's not even the worst of them, every few random posts you'll read something about such things not existing whatsoever. It's crazy when you say that it could have affected 'some' peoples views(not all) in a pool of mixed reaction, and yet still have to contend with these debates. I could right now pull up various youtube genre film industry personalities that do this very thing yet I have to be constantly told that it either didn't exist or it's insignificant.

 

[flickchick85]

You´re wasting your time. Flint Marko, like many other Marvel fans, is really not interested in accepting the possibility that a movie he enjoys to see being hated might, indeed, be a victim of other factors outside of its quality as an action flick. It suits him to believe that the ONLY REASON is that the movie is full of flaws. Nothing else had an impact in the ratings.

Best not start making generalizations. You know members of all other fandoms are capable of and prone to the same, and don't pretend you're a bastion of objectivity here.

 

[See Cap Run]

You´re wasting your time. Flint Marko, like many other Marvel fans, is really not interested in accepting the possibility that a movie he enjoys to see being hated might, indeed, be a victim of other factors outside of its quality as an action flick. It suits him to believe that the ONLY REASON is that the movie is full of flaws. Nothing else had an impact in the ratings.

He never said the fact of it being full of flaws was the only factor in people disliking MOS, just that it was likely the most significant factor.

 

[Killer]

He never said the fact of it being full of flaws was the only factor in people disliking MOS, just that it was likely the most significant factor.

He completely discarded that possibility. Me and the other fella were just saying that preconceptions might have been one of the factors, and Flint Marko was arguing against that, so he obviously doesn´t believe it could have actually played any type of role in the reception of the movie. He even acted like he knew exact percentages, wich just proves how close minded and wrong he was about this whole subject.

 

[Tony Stark]

And you are assuming the critics who pointed out the flaws in the film are either lying or deceived about their criticisms. It seems silly.

 

[Killer]

And you are assuming the critics who pointed out the flaws in the film are either lying or deceived about their criticisms. It seems silly.

It´s amazing how i can explain something over 10 times and there are still people who won´t get it. Just amazing.

What i said 10 times: Preconceived notions about the character of Superman had an impact in the way some people judged the movie.

What Marvel fans understood: Everybody who pointed out the flaws are either lying or deceived about their criticisms.

Please, tell me you´re just joking and you actually know that was not what i or anybody else said in this thread.

Maybe i´m just expecting too much from people. Maybe nowadays, to want people to understand what i actually say is asking too much. Maybe it´s a mistake to expect others to have the same simple capabilities as me.

 

[Tony Stark]

You were complaining that critics gave bad reviews to MoS but gave good reviews to a movie like Pacific Rim, and that the criticisms were "generic" and could be applied to any movie. So you are in essence saying that they are being dishonest about their criticisms.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Oy vey... This thread.