‘Batman v Superman’ Scores $170.1 Million Domestic Opening Weekend

bvs batman banner

Update:

Deadline is reporting that Zack Snyder’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice took an additional $254 million overseas for a massive worldwide total of $424.1 million over the weekend, meaning that it has officially scored the biggest superhero movie opening of all time globally. Now we have to wait and see how it’s going to perform over the next few weeks, since there’s likely going to be a significant drop on that number starting next week. What do you guys think? Keep checking back for more updates…

Source: Deadline


 

The Hollywood Reporter has revealed that Zack Snyder’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice opened to a colossal $170.1 Million at the North American box office over the weekend. That’s the fifth highest domestic opening of all time, plus the fourth highest superhero movie debut in history.

Despite its negative critical response, the movie still managed to exceed expectations and open to an impressive amount. These numbers also indicate that this is the studio’s biggest opening weekend to date, plus the top opening ever for a Batman movie and any other big screen DC comics adaptation. Additionally, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice scored the biggest March debut of all time and the best pre-summer opening weekend yet.

The international numbers aren’t available yet, but check back later to find out how well the movie’s doing overseas. What do you guys think? Are you happy with how the movie’s currently doing at the box office? Let us know in the comment section.

Fearing the actions of a god-like Super Hero left unchecked, Gotham City’s own formidable, forceful vigilante takes on Metropolis’s most revered, modern-day savior, while the world wrestles with what sort of hero it really needs. And with Batman and Superman at war with one another, a new threat quickly arises, putting mankind in greater danger than it’s ever known before.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is out in theaters everywhere.

Source: THR

 

Michael Bezanidis

Michael Bezanidis

Michael is the Managing Editor of Heroic Hollywood. When he's not playing video games, he's usually writing about film and television.

  • Lupin

    CRITIC PROOF! The fans win!

    • Carl

      For opening weekend as expected. The fans most certainly will lose if we continue to get poor quality movies like BvS.

      • Napi

        Shut it already Carlo

      • Chris Johnson

        Carl…

        LET IT GO!!

        You didn’t enjoy the film. Fine. Understood.

        Time to move on.

        • Veronica Cristina

          guy is trying to make sense. he is telling the truth, relax dude.

          • SAMURAI36

            “Trying to make sense”, and actually making it, are 2 different things.

          • Chris Johnson

            Carl post negative comments in EVERY SINGLE BVS forum. Not some, EVERY ONE..At least in the ones I’ve read.

            And they all say the same sorts of things…all negative.

            This is why I typed “let it go”

            Does that put things into perspective?

        • Carl

          Same to you then except you love it for some strange reason.

          • SAMURAI36

            Yeah, because loving great films is somehow “strange”.

          • Carl

            What great film do you love?

          • SAMURAI36

            The one that you are hating.

          • Carl

            Fant4stic? That’s the last CBM I hated.

      • SAMURAI36

        Actually, about $300M was expected. This has already exceeded that.

        And “the fans” are clearly not losing anything, since most of us are happy.

        I really wish you would learn to stop trying to speak for everyone else. It makes you sound really delusional.

        • Carl

          Sorry but it really seems like most fans are disappointed.

          • LupeX

            Says the lone hater out here. You look pathetic and very creepy

          • Carl

            It’s creepy to not like a movie? lol

            There are hundreds of critics who agree with me so no, I’m not alone. There are also plenty of fans out there who agree with me.

          • SAMURAI36

            Where???? Show and prove these “hundreds of critics”. Links please, or leave this site and never come back.

          • Carl
          • SAMURAI36

            Yeah, you’re F’n retarded. That’s not even 200 people, so it’s not “Hundreds”.

          • SAMURAI36

            Then perhaps you should go to a site where those fans are b*tching and moaning, so you’ll feel right at home, cuz it sure ain’t here.

          • Carl

            I comment on IGN often as well. I’m fine with people disagreeing with me.

            It’s sad how you belittle fans for voicing their complaints by calling it b*tching.

          • SAMURAI36

            Dude, nobody cares about you trying to play victim.

          • Carl

            The only victim here is BvS… 😉

          • Vegas82

            Everywhere I look the audience is rating it highly. Are you sure you aren’t overflowing with poo?

          • Carl

            Audience ratings are BS. They represent a small group and have little authenticity. All the talk and articles on BvS now are about it’s numerous faults.

          • SAMURAI36

            You need pills for the psycho crap you’re spewing.

            Clearly 1000’s of fans love it. So HTF is that a “small group”?

            I swear, people need to take pysch exams to qualify for being on the internet.

          • Carl

            1000s don’t like it too.

          • SAMURAI36

            Show me a link where that’s the case. And you can’t use your beloved RT for that.

          • SAMURAI36

            Plus, I like how you try to cry victim because people are chopping up you and your opinion, but in the very next breath, you said something dumb like:

            Audience ratings are BS

            You seriously need medication.

          • JMMagwood

            Yeah, he’s a sick puppy.

  • Carl

    “Warner Bros. is now reporting Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice with a $170M opening… Rivals have the opening between $166.9M-$168.6M”

    http://deadline.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-opening-weekend-box-office-records-1201726300/

    Let’s see how it does in the long run. I really hope it has a steep drop off because this movie was a huge disappointment. Changes need to be made and heads need to roll.

    If you don’t agree that’s fine, I don’t care. I’ve seen enough fan responses to know that even they don’t love it. The critics are pretty much right with this movie. It’s a 4/10.

    • BR

      For a guy that hates this movie (even before it came out), you’re always commenting on these articles. Your life must be sad.

      • JMMagwood

        LOL You pegged him fast enough!

      • Carl

        I don’t hate, not before or after it came out. I just dislike it.

        This is also just a fun distraction for me in my free time. :)

        • SAMURAI36

          How much is Marvel paying you to trash this film? I hope it’s as much as the other “critics”.

          • Carl

            It’s the same rate. $0.00 per hour.

        • BR

          You seem to have a lot of free time. And sadly no one to spend it with.

          • Carl

            I’m engaged and with her right now.

          • JMMagwood

            I tried to tell him that earlier. He’s on here constantly blathering and wasting his time over a movie he claims he doesn’t like, even though he probably didn’t even see it. I mean this seriously. These people have real social problems.

    • SAMURAI36

      You are trying way too hard. The movie is d&mn near at a half a billion dollars, and the weekend is not even over yet. At this point, the movie will walk to a billion dollars, and all the hating turds like yourself will just stand there all bitter and miserable.

      • Carl

        I’m barely trying at all. If it hits a billion that’ll be really depressing. That will ensure that the DCEU continues it’s sub par trend.

      • JMMagwood

        Jack of clubs in the troll deck. Avoid at all costs. He stands out because he tries, at times, to come off as reasonable. He’s the worst kind of troll because you think he’s measured at first, unlike the total nutcase who goes around posting stuff about Hitler, saying “MoS” failed, and whatnot. I knew he was crackers from the first post.

  • bluetide79

    As a comic book fan who has followed batman and superman for a long time,i am slightly disappointed it opened behind Iron man 3,Avengers Age of Ultron,Avengers considering these are the 2 most iconic characters in comic book history meeting in a movie for the first time with the most iconic female superhero(Wonder woman) also showing up for the first time in movie.Hoping the drop off is not massive for next weekend.

    • BR

      Batman and Superman are definitely the most iconic. But the Marvel characters are (currently) far more popular. So this opening is great news!

      This movie is akin to a Phase 1 movie like Iron man 2. People forget how poorly that movie was received initially because the world building got in the way of the plot.

      • bluetide79

        look i am happy,it made over 150 mil,but considering avengers were unknown before 2012,it went on to make 207 mil,batman v superman opened on 6 pm on Thursday night and with Easter Holidays it should have made over 200 mil.

        • Inkaten

          A critic said “BvS will make you hate Batman, Superman and the Justice League”. Imagine thousands of those bashing the movie with that kind of negative and ridicilous criticism.
          No wonder why it happened.

        • SonOfKrpton

          It made 434 million worldwide. Which is larger than any comic book movie ever. So even if they’re not that popular in North America right now (Albeit still the most iconic), other characters don’t even come close to them on a global scale.

          • Marquis de Sade

            Yeah, in March, but we all know if this was released in the middle of the BIG BOY season, where Marvel loves to play, BvS would’ve got its azzz handed to them…Hence after daring to play CHICKEN against CIVIL WAR, they (DC) blinked and scurried off to a more safer release date. DC should be thankin’ their lucky stars that Universal isn’t releasing another FAST FURIOUS installment during the first week of April, like they usually do. LOL!

          • SonOfKrpton

            Sigh. Stop talking. Please.

            That would’ve been an extremely stupid move, and would’ve hurt both companies. As it stands, both the movies have a good chance to open over 400 million worldwide. We’re they to be released on the same date, both of them would’ve lost money. Probably would’ve gotten 250 million each or so.

            Studios know that getting money for future movies and establishing a Universe is more important than an ego-measuring contest.

            Yes, WB folded before, because they needed this to be a hit. To earn as much as possible. This movie will retain its top spot for the next three weeks. WB needs the win.
            Also, Marvel does too. Do you want them to keep making movies? Stop acting like a child then.

          • Marquis de Sade

            I ain’t actin’ like no child, I’m just here to give y’all a lil’ healthy dose of perspective. Can’t have y’all walkin’ round here with y’all’s chest all swole up, thinkin’ that DCU has arrived, when the real test comes next weekend. I’m just tryin’ to protect y’all from the slings n’ arrows of disappointment, just in case there’s a 65 to 70% fall-off, due to bad word of mouth…Cuz nuthin’ hurts my heart than to see y’all go through what y’all went through back n’ 2013 durin’ the infamous “SANK LIKE A’ BRICK” fall-off of MOS. So by all means, enjoy this here minor achievement, but do so with a healthy dose of trepidation.
            Y’all will be in my prayers.
            HAPPY EASTER!

          • SonOfKrpton

            Well, considering you’re using words like “DC played chicken” “DC would’ve had their azzzzz handed to them”….

            Happy Easter to you too.

          • Marquis de Sade

            BWAHAHAHA!

          • SAMURAI36

            You sound real silly right now, dude.

          • BR

            Dude this was hillarious. The only ppl that try to sound this thuggish are hipster doofuses. I advise everyone else here to read his last post with that in mind, you will definitely laugh out loud.

          • SAMURAI36

            So let’s see…

            MOS “sank like a brick”, even though it made nearly $700M, and that’s with having all sorts of summer blockbuster competition, and only opening to $128M.

            Looks like we’re in good hands, then, since BVS has nearly doubled that.

          • Marquis de Sade

            But it was projected to do over a billion dollars. It was projected to be the biggest movie 2013! – And it sunk like a boulder!

          • JMMagwood

            Let’s be honest, “BvS” could make a trillion dollars and that Asshat would try to convince people it failed. He’s the King of Clubs card in the troll deck. He’s on permanent ignore for me. He’s a waste of bytes.

          • SAMURAI36

            Anything to hate, huh?

          • Chris Johnson

            Second guessing. Backseat driving, Monday Morning quarterbacking.

            Pick one.

            The film is doing well and you don’t like it.

            let it go.

          • Marquis de Sade

            1 out of 12 don’t count, son. When DCU get their product numbers up, then we can debate…until then, for all intent and purposes, DCU are still wet behind the ears. They still got the price tag on em’. LOL!

          • breakerbaker

            It’s made the most of any CBM worldwide
            primarily because they opened in basically all markets on the same weekend. That’s a pretty unique set of circumstances, which is why you have other CBMs that have had significantly larger domestic openings that still didn’t have the same kind of global open.

          • SonOfKrpton

            It did. But at the same time, if you want the DCEU to exist, it needs to make money. Hopefully it’ll cross half a billion by tomorrow or day after.

            If it doesn’t make adequately, say bye-bye to DC on the big screen for probably the next 5 years.

    • JMMagwood

      Keep in mind this is March, not the summer movie season. For March, “BvS” is going amazing business.

  • Steven Rusch

    That’s the world righting the wrongs of those disgraceful critics. I have never seen outright lies being told about a movie before as is the case here. Show me one valid point in the criticism that actually is true about the movie. The story? Great story for general audience even better for comic book fans. Visuals? The master of visuals at work here. Acting? Best adaptations of all the characters to date. Yea sorry I don’t want my superman saving cats out of a tree anymore that was fine for its time but this is 2016. Costume design? Yea by far the absolute masters of this. Soundtrack? All I have to say is Wonder Woman song!!! Comic book references? Wow read a comic book and you will find so many lines from those comics(TDKR) within the movie as well as visuals from those comics. Action? Fighting? Second to none. Go watch a fight scene from any other comic book movie and then watch the fight scenes from this movie. It’s actually embarrassing how much better Zack Snyder is at this than everyone else yet he’s getting bashed for it? Mic drop. Thank you Zack Snyder, Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Gal Gadot!!!

    • LupeX

      Wholeheartedly agree. It’s such a crying shame! Your words ring true. It isn’t even funny how much better Sndyer is at this stuff than other director out there.
      I can understand having a difference of opinion but this in no way shape or form is not a bad movie

    • breakerbaker

      Here’s my problem with the story (aside from the much repeated complaint that the editing in the first half of the movie is too disjointed) is that it is a story driven by plot masquerading as a story driven by character. Consider the whole reason why they’re fighting: The movie wants you to think it’s over this big philosophical disparity between Batman’s methods and Superman’s, but then it abandons that evocative idea almost before it got started. Batman is mistrusting of Superman because of MoS (cool) and because of his experience with power corrupting people and turning good guys bad, presumably a reference to Dent (also cool). But the movie reveals that he’s pretty corrupted himself. He kills so cavalierly that the audience is left to wonder whether he ever had a no kill policy to begin with. In the car chase scene, he’s not even trying to prevent a crime. He’s trying to steal from smugglers. And to that end, he kills people. But the movie doesn’t ask us to judge that. Indeed, even Superman doesn’t seem to care when he shows up in that very scene that Batman’s killing people in the act of attempting to commit a crime himself. If this were a story driven by characters, Superman would have interrupted the fight before Batman killed a bunch of guys and if he didn’t get there soon enough to do that, he wouldn’t have simply wrecked Batman’s ride and flown off. There are men who are seriously injured or dead nearby and Superman abandons them and lets their killer off with a warning. Does that really sound like Superman to you? It doesn’t to me.

      If this were a movie about characters, then its version of Batman would be brutal but would go out of his way to avoid killing. This would add dimension to his beef with Superman. He might cause a great deal of pain and anguish, but it’s all controlled and nobody ever dies. That’s the Batman who should oppose the MoS Superman. And Superman should have been a much more earnest and purely good figure. I’m okay with him struggling over the response the world has given him, and I think it should have been great that he wanted to oppose the Batman, but he needed to be closer to the ideal for the world to strive toward that was talked about in MoS. Aside from a saving people montage, there really wasn’t much of that at all. In the first scene where we are reintroduced to him, Superman shouldn’t be spearing a regular guy through a concrete wall. He’s got super speed. The guy doesn’t even have his finger on the trigger. Superman could have made it across the room and disarmed the guy without the least amount of effort. Indeed, that’s what Superman would have done. Instead, we get a cool shot of Superman probably gravely injuring a guy because he held a gun to his lady friend.

      And another thing, what is the reveal that Lex is manipulating them both supposed to tell the audience? Is that supposed to tell us that Superman really shouldn’t have a problem with Batman’s methods? I’m pretty sure that’s what the movie is telling us, but should it be what the movie is telling us? Shouldn’t Superman still want to stop Batman? Even without Luthor? And what does the suicide bombing subplot give us other than a confirmation that Lex is purely evil? And what is interesting about a purely evil Lex Luthor? Why wasn’t Luthor a brilliant and charismatic CEO (with political ambitions) whose obsession with Superman drives him to dark places (eventually)? Isn’t it more interesting to have him be a guy whose legitimately persuasive and personable–and who wants to do great things in the world? What do we know about this Luthor other than that he hates Superman and (for some reason) Batman? And that he’s okay with blowing people up for…reasons. And why did he create Doomsday? What was Part B of that plan? This is the smartest man in the world? Knowingly creates an untamable beast to kill Superman, forgets what untamable means? None of any of these things make sense.

      I really think there was a skeleton to a great story here, but it was like at every turn they went in a direction they had no business going in. And for the first time, I found myself wondering whether the critics of MoS had a point. Maybe Zack Snyder really doesn’t understand what makes him special. Or maybe he just doesn’t like him.

      • SAMURAI36

        So I take it you didn’t like the movie?

        • breakerbaker

          I wanted to very badly. I did not. My son did, so that’s something.

          • SAMURAI36

            LOL I’m not even remotely surprised.

          • breakerbaker

            Well, a lot of the leaks that got reported here that I didn’t want to be true (e.g., SPOILER Martha Kent kidnapped) turned out to be true.

            As I’ve said before, I wanted a Superman that was moving toward being the fully realized version of the character. What I got was a guy who said he might have to kill Batman because “Nobody stays good in this world.” That’s just not Superman. I know that lots of people really dig Injustice, but a version of the character who is one bad day from being evil is not one I wanted to see in movie form, and I think this movie is taking us in that direction.

            Likewise, I was really hopeful that even though the Eisenberg casting was weird that we were actually going to get a Luthor who was closer to the comics. And for all the talk about it being a psychologically complex character, I found it to be a more campy version than Gene Hackman. He was just manipulative and evil. And it was not at all clear what he hoped to accomplish with any of his plans. What does he get out of it? Can you answer that question?

            And Batman shouldn’t be killing people. I thought Affleck was fine as Bruce Wayne, though I don’t think the character was written as well as he could have been. Affleck was fine. Frankly, Cavill was fine when he was being Clark–he was just playing a character that doesn’t resemble Superman. I didn’t like either of them whenever they were dressed in capes, which is probably not a good sign.

          • SAMURAI36

            All this says to me–and you might not like me saying this, but then again, when have you ever really liked what I’ve said to/about you?–is that you (and quite a few other folks, so you are not alone in this) have a very narrow view of what these characters can/should/will be.

            For instance:

            As I’ve said before, I wanted a Superman that was moving toward being the fully realized version of the character. What I got was a guy who said he might have to kill Batman because “Nobody stays good in this world.” That’s just not Superman. I know that lots of people really dig Injustice, but a version of the character who is one bad day from being evil is not one I wanted to see in movie form, and I think this movie is taking us in that direction.

            For one thing, I think people really underestimate the impact Supe’s mother had on him. He was the sole motivation for him in MOS. He was on the fence about the whole Zod invasion thing, until Zod threatened his mom, and then he went balls-out.

            It’s weird to me, that people can’t relate to that. If it came down to me saving my mother (RIP), or letting hundreds/thousands die, I’d gladly push the shiny red button, until my finger falls off.

            But it was obvious to me, that his “death” and pending resurrection is supposed to be his redemption. Superman’s story is far from complete, and perhaps you didn’t get the memo, but this is an Extended Universe, so there are easily 10+ more opportunities to watch Superman grow as a character.

            It’s really weird though, that people are expecting this fully formed Superman after one/two films. That’s not happened in the history of ANY character, let alone comics. It hasn’t even happened in Superman’s story in the comics, either. Based on where he is in his origin in the movie, in comparison to the comics, I’d say he’s right on track.

            Likewise, I was really hopeful that even though the Eisenberg casting was weird that we were actually going to get a Luthor who was closer to the comics. And for all the talk about it being a psychologically complex character, I found it to be a more campy version than Gene Hackman. He was just manipulative and evil. And it was not at all clear what he hoped to accomplish with any of his plans. What does he get out of it? Can you answer that question?

            Short answer: Same as above. These characters’ stories are far from done. But I’m just curious though: what’s your impression of what Lex’s motivations are in the comics?

            Long answer: Lex has always been a Xenophobe. One-part fear, one-part arrogance.

            Also, I loved the new take on Lex. For years in the comics and other media, we’d been given a Lex that was this big, burly, strapping, shrewd business tycoon of the Trump variety. Which was cool for the time.

            However, today’s Corporate CEO is more of the geeky tech variety, which is what we get with Jesse’s version. Quite apropos for the times we live in. I feel like BVS honored both versions, by pointing out that the previous incarnation was Lex’s dad.

            And Batman shouldn’t be killing people.

            Says who? He’s killed numerous times thru out his history, especially in movies. Granted, this is the most aggressive version, but the story more than explains the reason for it.

            I think people place these characters on pedestals needlessly. Granted, they are already great, but when we “Santa-Clausify” them (to quote Cornel West), they become the very unrelatable things that people already complain about them being.

            I thought Affleck was fine as Bruce Wayne, though I don’t think the character was written as well as he could have been. Affleck was fine. Frankly, Cavill was fine when he was being Clark–he was just playing a character that doesn’t resemble Superman. I didn’t like either of them whenever they were dressed in capes, which is probably not a good sign.

            All it’s a sign of, is that you view of these characters is quite narrow, perhaps a bit antiquated.

            Just curious: did you have a problem with Superman killing in the 30’s-50’s? Or killing in the JLU cartoon? Those were fully-realized versions of the character.

            Or what about how Bruce and Batman killed numerous people (both intentionally and incidentally) in the TDK trilogy? Or in practically every film he’s been in? Or in TDKR? Or in Final Crisis? Or when he carried guns in the 30’s-50’s as well?

            What’s the cut-off point for you?

          • JMMagwood

            I agree. One thing I noticed about the original poster is that for a long time he made it very clear that if it didn’t conform to a very narrow vision for what he wanted from the movie, he probably wouldn’t like it. I’m not surprised by his opinion of the film either. If you’re not open to the filmmaker’s ideas for a given project, and you have some idealized concept that you precisely want to see, you almost never like the finished product.

            I went through that with “Return of The Jedi” to some degree. It was years before I fully appreciated it, because I had all these ideas for where I wanted SW to go after “Empire.”

          • SAMURAI36

            Yeah, I don’t get the lack of flexibility that people have in their minds, with DC characters. Yet, they’re completely fine with all the liberties they take with Marvel characters.

          • breakerbaker

            Dude, MoS–a movie that I like–spends pages of exposition on the fact that Superman is going to be an ideal that humanity will strive for. It’s not based on a narrow interpretation of the character to expect this movie to move the character in that direction. But his very first scene in the movie is of him probably killing (or at least gravely injuring) a human being he could have easily disarmed. He then spends 2 hours sulking over the fact that some people don’t like him–he even seems to sulk while he’s saving people. I liked him as Clark. He seemed like a character as Clark. As Superman, he’s just a guy with super powers who appears to consider every moment in which he wears the cape to be a burden. Even when he’s saving people, you don’t get the impression that he even knows why he’s doing it. Or that he likes it. Or that he likes people.

            I will continue to defend most of MoS against what I think are unfair criticisms, but this movie is a regression for the character, when a progression is what you’d expect. He literally uses unnecessary force in the opening scene, and then spends the next hour and a half waxing on about how Batman uses unnecessary force. The movie isn’t just unfaithful to the characters that have come before; it’s unfaithful to its own premise. Superman uses unnecessary force. He doesn’t care when he wrecks the Batmobile, that there are a bunch of dead or dying bad guys all over the port. He just flies away. So why is he even upset with Batman if he’s just going to let that crap slide when he’s caught Batman red handed? How does that make sense in the context of the movie itself. Forget about what I think Batman or Superman would do if the characters more closely resembled whatever you think my narrow perspective is. What is Lex Luthor’s motivation? Focus only on what the movie tells you–not your understanding of the character from other media (if my narrow POV is irrelevant, it goes both ways). Why does Luthor want them to fight? Why does Luthor create Doomsday? Why would a brilliant man like Luthor think creating a giant, untamable beast would be a great idea? Especially if that beast only existed to kill the one guy who could stop it.

            The movie reads like four different scripts that were pieced together and that were not revised to make sense with one another. There’s so much hypocrisy and contradiction that the movie doesn’t even acknowledge that the whole enterprise is just a thin and cynical justification for a fight that doesn’t even have the decency to be an entertaining fight.

          • JMMagwood

            Sorry, but I decided not to read this diatribe after reading your last encounter with Samurai. There’s no point. You didn’t receive anything he was trying to say, and then you end it by saying he didn’t have “clear” eyes about the subject. It is a bit trollish to make those sort of statements after he explained his view of the movie.

            I’ll simply say after reading comics for 40 years, I understand that none of these film versions are definitive, and that each iteration brings elements from the comics. I see a lot of familiar elements in Cavill’s Superman, especially in relation to the loner Superman of the silver age. Is this someone slightly new for 21st century audiences? Yes, absolutely, but he’s still Superman. What’s his final act? Self sacrifice. He’s a bit sullen, but the idea is that there’s some real world aesthetic here, which is why this is heavier than most comic movies. Batman? Alfred tells you all you need to know about him. He’s become hard and cruel because of his many losses. Superman’s sacrifice at the end causes him to determine to do better in the future.

            Anyway, I loved the movie. I feel I know and appreciate the characters involved as much as anyone. You don’t like it. That’s your loss, unfortunately. I think they made a great movie, and I’m looking forward to more from Snyder et al. I guess you have the comics, the animated stuff, the tv shows, and old movies to get you through while the rest of us enjoy the DCEU movies. I just don’t have time for these back and forth things that solve little because some are determined to hate the movie, and won’t see the great work it is, for whatever their reasons. It’s more fun to talk to the many who love the movie, and talk about our favorite moments.

          • breakerbaker

            Again, I’m glad for anyone who was able to like the movie. There’s no accounting for taste, and frankly I think it’s all of our loss that it wasn’t better. Because even people who liked the movie will eventually begin to confront the truth that it’s better that they like a movie that everybody likes than one that simply they like. I suspect there will be a pretty steep dropoff from this weekend to next. It’s still going to make a ton of money, but the reaction is not good for WB or for DC, and for people like you and I who want to see more and more DC movies, the fact that this movie fails on so many levels to please so many people is not a problem that is going away.

            At any rate, it’s up to you what you do or don’t read. A good chunk of what you chose not to read is less about how these characters stack up to previous versions of themselves and more about how the things they say and do in the movie are self-contradicting and irrational. Clark’s antipathy toward Bruce’s methods are immediately contradicted by Superman’s ambivalence toward protecting or preserving the lives Batman ends or greatly damages. Likewise, Batman’s skepticism over Superman’s power and inevitable corruptibility is rendered moot by his own disregard for anyone he squares off against as the Batman. And nothing about what Lex does makes any sense in the context of the movie. It’s just a thing to move plot.

          • JMMagwood

            Oh well, you’ve labeled yourself a troll. I always knew by some of your posts you were a bit intolerant, but this post makes it clear. I’ll be putting you on ignore from now on, that’s certain.

            You write: “There’s no accounting for taste, and frankly I think it’s all of our loss that it wasn’t better. Because even people who liked the movie will eventually begin to confront the truth that it’s better that they like a movie that everybody likes than one that simply they like.”

            You ignore that YOU’RE in the minority, and ticket buyers are rating the movie highly, and repeat business is brisk. You’re the worst kind of troll, who thinks he’s than someone else because they like something he didn’t.

            Goodbye, and good riddance.

          • breakerbaker

            What am intolerant of? Other than bad writing, I mean?

            You ignore that YOU’RE in the minority, and ticket buyers are rating the movie highly, and repeat business is brisk.

            Dude, come on. Neither of us can say for certain who is in the minority. I’m pretty confident in my standing, but it’s all conjecture. What we do know is that over 100,000 people were rating the movie favorably on RT and other sites before it even premiered. Most of those people had not seen the movie. Don’t overplay your hand. I’m in the minority of people here. That’s all.

          • Marquis de Sade

            LOL! You dc fanboys are a temperamental and whiny lot, huh? Dude was bein’ civil, polite and non-pugnacious, and here you is gettin’ all snotty and sulky like a lil’ gurl.

          • breakerbaker

            …is that you…have a very narrow view of what these characters can/should/will be.

            I have no control over what they “can” or “will” be. And while I don’t think I have a particularly “narrow” perspective of what they should be, I do have a few criteria that I think are pretty firmly coded into the DNA of most iterations of the characters. Here they are:

            Batman is Bruce Wayne a brilliant billionaire industrialist. His parents were murdered in front of him when he was a boy, and years later, he uses his cunning, genius level intelligence, his peak physical prowess, and an assortment of gadgets developed by himself and/or his company to fight crime and strike fear in the hearts of the criminals in Gotham, where he lives. He does not kill people, because as a vigilante he works outside of the law, and crossing the line into killing people is sometimes the one thing that separates him from the criminals he’s trying to protect the city from.

            Superman is Clark Kent. Born on an ancient, long since dead planet called Krypton, he was saved from the fate of his home world when his parents placed him in baby-sized spacecraft as an infant. He landed in Kansas, where he was found by the Kents, who raised him as their own. It is from the Kents that he was given a strong work ethic and moral compass that always point him in the direction of doing the right thing. The sun’s radiation empowers Clark to do many extraordinary things, flying, super strength, heat/x-ray vision, etc. He lives in Metropolis, and works as a journalist at the Daily Planet. Clark has powers so great that he could rule the world if he chose to, but his sense of right and wrong is so strong that he will never so much as harm a human being, though it would often be incredibly easy for him to do so. He doesn’t always do the right thing, but it is his goal.

            I think people really underestimate the impact Supe’s mother had on him.

            I don’t have any problem with the bit in MoS where he goes berserk on Zod in Smallville. That sequence makes sense. I completely excuse him for losing control—it’s literally the first time in his life that he’s actually trying to harm somebody. It works there. I don’t think it works here. He just takes Lex’s word for it, and goes off to do what? He tells Lois he’s going to try to talk to him, but Lex doesn’t want him to talk to him. Say he does get him to talk, and Batman agrees to try to help, but they didn’t bring Martha back to Metropolis and Batman can’t help. Then what? Is he going to kill Batman even though Batman tried to help him? Honestly, other than plot, I don’t know why he didn’t just grab Luthor by the arm and fly him over to Gotham himself. I’ll bet that would be more convincing.

            As an aside, I did like that when he got there he called him Bruce. It might have been better to call him Mr. Wayne, but that’s nit-picky. I liked that we didn’t have to put up with a charade that Superman doesn’t recognize the guy in the mask.

            But it was obvious to me, that his “death” and pending resurrection is supposed to be his redemption.

            But what does he need to be redeemed for? I mean, I don’t like many of the things he did as Superman in this movie (I liked him as Clark more), but I don’t like the idea that he needs to die in order to become Superman. I’m fine with him growing into the character, which is why I originally said “moving toward” (or something to that effect) as opposed to being the fully realized version of the character. I was cool with the nascent Superman in MoS, but I almost feel like he’s less like Superman in this than he was in that, which is not a feeling I expected to get.

            These characters’ stories are far from done. But I’m just curious though: what’s your impression of what Lex’s motivations are in the comics?

            In the comics (and in other media), Lex is the world’s smartest man. He’s a narcissist and a sociopath, and though there’s an element of xenophobia and jealousy in the character’s obsession with Superman, I’ve thought he was always most interesting as a character when he’s been portrayed as somebody who truly wants to do great things and sees Superman as an obstacle to that—when in reality it’s his sociopathy and paranoia that is the real problem. I like him best as a guy who begins as more of anti-hero and progresses toward being a villain. And though I thought Eisenberg was a weird choice, I was okay with the idea that this Luthor may be more of an Elon Musk or Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg type. What I wasn’t ready for was for him to be killing people before he even shows up on screen, which I think he does in this movie. I would have been happy if he didn’t try to kill a single person in the entire movie. Because, as you say, this is the beginning of these characters. This movie ends, and the world knows he’s a bad guy.

            I feel like BVS honored both versions, by pointing out that the previous incarnation was Lex’s dad.

            Man, I disagree. To me, that felt like a throwaway line that adds nothing to the proceedings. If Lex Luthor Sr. never knows of Superman, then is he really the previous incarnation? Or his he just another guy named Lex?

            He’s killed numerous times thru out his history, especially in movies. Granted, this is the most aggressive version, but the story more than explains the reason for it.

            As I’ve said, I’m cool with him being brutal and vicious and mean—I would have preferred that the movie not tell me that the brand was a death sentence, but I was okay with the branding. I’m not okay with him crossing the killing line. Maybe a certain brand of fan is ready to cast that criterion aside as dated or silly or whatever, but I think a Batman who is so much more vicious but will not cross that line is ten times more interesting than a Batman who basically says the line doesn’t exist anymore. Especially if he’s going to try and make up some justification for taking on Superman.

            All it’s a sign of, is that you view of these characters is quite narrow, perhaps a bit antiquated.

            Are you saying that my perspective is antiquated or that I view them as being antiquated?

            Just curious: did you have a problem with Superman killing in the 30’s-50’s? Or killing in the JLU cartoon? Those were fully-realized versions of the character.

            I’m not much for the Golden Age Superman. I don’t want to quibble over whether it’s a fully realized version of the character, but the nature of the strips and books are so different from the Silver Age and beyond that it’s basically a different character. As for JLU, I’m trying to think about who he kills in that. At any rate, whoever he kills, it’s not a person (unless we’re talking about the Justice Lords thing), and as I’ve said before, I don’t care that he killed Zod. I think that was the correct choice given the circumstances.

            Or what about how Bruce and Batman killed numerous people (both intentionally and incidentally) in the TDK trilogy? Or in practically every film he’s been in? Or in TDKR? Or in Final Crisis? Or when he carried guns in the 30’s-50’s as well?

            I don’t like the Nolan movies. I like Begins, but one of the things that always bothered me was the “I don’t have to save you” line. Those movies are pretty irritating for the fact that he talks about the rule a lot, and then he ends up killing somebody—sometimes in the same scene. As for the previous movies, I don’t think anybody would really mistake any of those versions as being particularly faithful. I confess that I haven’t read Final Crisis, and I don’t think he technically kills anybody in TDKR, but even if you can point to one, I don’t think we should point to Frank Miller as the definitive Batman writer. Those books exist outside of canon for a reason.

          • SAMURAI36

            I have no control over what they “can” or “will” be. And while I don’t think I have a particularly “narrow” perspective of what they should be, I do have a few criteria that I think are pretty firmly coded into the DNA of most iterations of the characters.

            I think that last statement is where you make your mistake. There are literally 100’s of iterations of these characters. But the bigger point here, is that the iteration that they have clearly chosen from, is accurate, almost to a fault.

            It sounds like your issue is not so much with Snyder, but rather the TDKR and 1930’s versions of Batman and Superman, respectively, that he chose as iterations to tell the story.

            And this is something that you should’ve known going in. Not so much with Superman, but definitely with Batman, since they made it no secret that they were going with the older, grizzled Bruce Wayne.

            I remember you voicing your issue with him having guns prior to seeing the film (turns out he didn’t actually have or use any, except in the Knightmare dream scene), as if you weren’t aware of TDKR.

            Here they are:

            Batman is Bruce Wayne a brilliant billionaire industrialist…. {truncated}

            Superman is Clark Kent.{truncated}

            All you did, is paint the broad brush strokes of these characters. It leaves out 90-something percent of the other iterations. And, you merely stated your favorite iterations.

            In effect, all you did was prove my point.

            I don’t have any problem with the bit in MoS where he goes berserk on Zod in Smallville. That sequence makes sense. I completely excuse him for losing control—it’s literally the first time in his life that he’s actually trying to harm somebody. It works there. I don’t think it works here. He just takes Lex’s word for it, and goes off to do what? He tells Lois he’s going to try to talk to him, but Lex doesn’t want him to talk to him. Say he does get him to talk, and Batman agrees to try to help, but they didn’t bring Martha back to Metropolis and Batman can’t help. Then what? Is he going to kill Batman even though Batman tried to help him? Honestly, other than plot, I don’t know why he didn’t just grab Luthor by the arm and fly him over to Gotham himself. I’ll bet that would be more convincing.

            More convincing, for who?? And how would flying Luthor anywhere save his mother? Luthor clearly told him he didn’t know where she was being kept.

            And how are you trying to sit here and rationalize what someone SHOULD do, when their mother is kidnapped????

            This is a classic case of people criticizing others for how others did it, when they’ve never been in that position themselves, and likely would’ve done the exact same thing if they were.

            As an aside, I did like that when he got there he called him Bruce. It might have been better to call him Mr. Wayne, but that’s nit-picky. I liked that we didn’t have to put up with a charade that Superman doesn’t recognize the guy in the mask.

            Well, seeing as how Clark heard Alfred call him “Master Bruce” over the channel during the Lex hacking, there would’ve been no reason for such a pretense at that point.

            Also, calling him “Mr. Wayne” would have been equally as weird.

            But what does he need to be redeemed for? I mean, I don’t like many of the things he did as Superman in this movie (I liked him as Clark more), but I don’t like the idea that he needs to die in order to become Superman. I’m fine with him growing into the character, which is why I originally said “moving toward” (or something to that effect) as opposed to being the fully realized version of the character. I was cool with the nascent Superman in MoS, but I almost feel like he’s less like Superman in this than he was in that, which is not a feeling I expected to get.

            Apparently he needs to be redeemed from something, otherwise I really don’t get what all the complaints are about.

            And are you SURE you are familiar with these characters? Cuz it doesn’t seem like you are. The Death of Superman storyline took the character in a slightly different direction, after his resurrection.

            And a “less Superman” isn’t what I saw in this film. A Superman that saved 1000’s of people in the film, going above and beyond with doing a civic duty, etc. I’m really not sure what people want from the character.

            In the comics (and in other media), Lex is the world’s smartest man. He’s a narcissist and a sociopath, and though there’s an element of xenophobia and jealousy in the character’s obsession with Superman, I’ve thought he was always most interesting as a character when he’s been portrayed as somebody who truly wants to do great things and sees Superman as an obstacle to that—when in reality it’s his sociopathy and paranoia that is the real problem. I like him best as a guy who begins as more of anti-hero and progresses toward being a villain. And though I thought Eisenberg was a weird choice, I was okay with the idea that this Luthor may be more of an Elon Musk or Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg type. What I wasn’t ready for was for him to be killing people before he even shows up on screen, which I think he does in this movie. I would have been happy if he didn’t try to kill a single person in the entire movie. Because, as you say, this is the beginning of these characters. This movie ends, and the world knows he’s a bad guy.

            So, it’s that you were looking for a “Lex Luthor Begins” type of story?

            I really think you’re suffering from what JMMagwood stated; your personal vision for what these characters, and thereby the movies they will be appearing in, is getting in the way of what they’d been telling us for YEARS that the films will actually be.

            The Lex that we got, is exactly the Lex I was expecting. Even moreso, I should say, as Jesse blew away all my expectations.

            Man, I disagree. To me, that felt like a throwaway line that adds nothing to the proceedings.

            Proceedings? You mean the court hearing? I’m lost as to how that factors in, one way or another.

            If Lex Luthor Sr. never knows of Superman, then is he really the previous incarnation? Or his he just another guy named Lex?

            You’re conflating alot of disassociated things together here. I’m talking about the concept of Lex, totally exclusive from Superman, or any other character. And once again, you are aware that there was a Lex Sr in the comics, and that Lex never met Superman, right?

            As I’ve said, I’m cool with him being brutal and vicious and mean—I would have preferred that the movie not tell me that the brand was a death sentence, but I was okay with the branding. I’m not okay with him crossing the killing line. Maybe a certain brand of fan is ready to cast that criterion aside as dated or silly or whatever, but I think a Batman who is so much more vicious but will not cross that line is ten times more interesting than a Batman who basically says the line doesn’t exist anymore. Especially if he’s going to try and make up some justification for taking on Superman.

            1) It’s not that a certain brand of fan is casting that criterion aside, it’s that many fans of the DC Multiverse are content in realizing that this is merely ONE iteration of many. And unlike you, I (for one) like most, if not all the iterations.

            2) That said, I also realize that the DCEU is never meant to be the definitive versions of these characters. No more so than Gustin’s Flash is meant to be so, over Miller’s version. And this is yet again, something DC has explained to us numerous times over the past few years.

            3) As I’ve said numerous times since this film came out, we really didn’t see him “kill” anyone. I’d go as far as to say manslaughter was inferred, but you’ll be hardpressed to point to a single dead body anywhere in this film.

            Are you saying that my perspective is antiquated or that I view them as being antiquated?

            Weird, that you’re more concerned with your POV being viewed as antiquated, than narrow. But to answer your question, I think it’s antiquated, because it’s narrow.

            Meaning, with DC embracing their Multiverse and bringing more into prominence over the past…. I dunno, decade or so, it looks outdated to hold onto one iteration. Not saying you can’t have your fave version (I certainly have mine), but what you’re doing, seems akin to someone who only uses their smartphone to make calls. Nothing necessarily wrong with it, but you can’t be surprised when everybody else looks at you as weird for feeling that way.

            I’m not much for the Golden Age Superman. I don’t want to quibble over whether it’s a fully realized version of the character, but the nature of the strips and books are so different from the Silver Age and beyond that it’s basically a different character.

            You say “and beyond”, as if the Silver Age iteration remained a constant. It didn’t.

            Something you may not realize, is that comics are extremely cyclical. It seems like every 20 years, DC reboots/refreshes/relaunches/rebirths their universe.

            As for JLU, I’m trying to think about who he kills in that. At any rate, whoever he kills, it’s not a person (unless we’re talking about the Justice Lords thing), and as I’ve said before, I don’t care that he killed Zod. I think that was the correct choice given the circumstances.

            He killed Darkseid. He “killed” Doomsday. Both were against Batman’s wishes.

            I don’t like the Nolan movies. I like Begins, but one of the things that always bothered me was the “I don’t have to save you” line. Those movies are pretty irritating for the fact that he talks about the rule a lot, and then he ends up killing somebody—sometimes in the same scene.

            Just FYI, you are aware that Bruce “killed” just about everybody in Nanda Parbat, with the exception of Ra’s Al Ghul in begins, yes? So, do that change your view of that film?

            As for the previous movies, I don’t think anybody would really mistake any of those versions as being particularly faithful.

            Ah, so that is your issue. You’re looking for definitive versions. Refer back to what I said about the Multiverse. But, I would say that those versions were faithful at the time they came out. At least the Burton ones.

            I confess that I haven’t read Final Crisis, and I don’t think he technically kills anybody in TDKR, but even if you can point to one, I don’t think we should point to Frank Miller as the definitive Batman writer. Those books exist outside of canon for a reason.

            You need to read TDKR again. He blatantly kills someone in that story. In fact, Snyder was being quite gracious and merciful in the corresponding scene in the movie, as it pertains to the comic.

            You mentioned the Silver Age earlier for Superman, but you are aware that Batman kills in the Silver Age, yes?

            http://comicsalliance.com/batman-kills-murderer/

            These are just SOME examples.

            It’s weird that you use the “technically” point, but then have such an issue with all the technicalities in this film.

            And Miller is only one of the most influential writers of all time. Which is why 1) many of the TDKR story beats have now become canon, and 2) the reason why Snyder chose this version for the DCEU.

            That second point really needs to sit with you for awhile. The DCEU Batman is based quite heavily on TDKR, with elements of the Killing Joke and Death in the Family (other stories in which 1) Batman has “technically” killed, and 2) have become canon). All of which came from the Silver Age, mind you.

            And Superman is based heavily on the Golden Age, with elements of Death of Superman and some other stories.

            The rest of the DCEU seems to stem from the New 52, Flashpoint, several Crisis stories, and probably some others that I can’t recall at the moment.

            BVS really was a love-letter to to the entire history of DC comics. And for that I applaud them.

            I don’t know if I’m driving the point home of how your view of DC is a bit narrow (more narrow that I’d originally thought), and a bit antiquated. As such, perhaps the DCEU isn’t going to be for you.

          • breakerbaker

            There are literally 100’s of iterations of these characters.

            There really aren’t. But if you’re going to say every single individual comic and every singles individual animated show/movie represent a different iteration, then fine. Those summaries of the character apply to nearly all of them. Not just most of them. Nearly all. Each version of the character may add a bit to the character, but what I described is something virtually every version shares with virtually every other. That’s why I said it was those components that were coded into the DNA.

            And this is something that you should’ve known going in. Not so much with Superman, but definitely with Batman, since they made it no secret that they were going with the older, grizzled Bruce Wayne.

            I had no problem with it being an older or more grizzled or more cynical or more Miller-ish version of Bruce Wayne. I had a problem with him showing complete disregard for the lives of the bad guys. That’s not cynicism. That’s not “grizzled.” That’s Batman being a psychopath.

            I rememb er you voicing your issue with him having guns prior to seeing the film

            You’re misremembering. It’s true that I didn’t want him to have guns, but I also assumed that whatever guns he did carry in the movie were the Kryptonite grenade launcher. Insofar as I commented at all on that topic, it was under the presumption that he wasn’t going to be packing a machine gun, which is why I found that concept/promotional art where he had a giant machine gun perplexing.

            All you did, is paint the broad brush strokes of these characters. It leaves out 90-something percent of the other iterations. And, you merely stated your favorite iterations.

            I’m not describing any iterations. I’m describing almost all of them. There are many ways that you could say X version is unique from Y, but they basically all share this. Unless you’re going to live in the Golden Age, which would be a silly thing to do.

            More convincing, for who?? And how would flying Luth or anywhere save his mother? Luthor clearly told him he didn’t know where she was being kept.

            More convincing for Batman. He literally says he’s going to go to try to get Batman to help him. And if he doesn’t convince him, he’s going to have to kill him. He doesn’t try very hard to convince him.

            And how are you trying to sit here and rationalize what someone SHOULD do, when their mother is kidnapped????

            Because he’s Superman. And going to potentially kill somebody because your mother’s being held hostage is not an act befitting of Superman. Or Clark Kent. Or any other hero in any other movie or book in the history of literature. Superman should be a beacon of hope (as we were reminded repeatedly in MoS), and this movie’s final act begins with him deciding to do one of the least heroic things any fictional hero has ever done. That’s a problem.

            This is a classic case of people criticizing others for how others did it, when they’ve never been in that position themselves, and likely would’ve done the exact same thing if they were.

            I don’t need Superman to be perfect, but he’s supposed to be the example for us to strive toward. You can’t justify bad writing that compromises the character on a fundamental level, which is what this is, by saying any person would act the same way. He’s Superman.

            Well, seeing as how Clark heard Alfred call him “Master Bruce” over the channel during the Lex hacking, there would’ve been no reason for such a pretense at that point.

            The movie could have told us that he simply knew that Bruce was trying to steal something from Lex. Nothing specifically Batman-related was being discussed.

            Apparently he needs to be redeemed from something, otherwise I really don’t get what all the complaints are about.

            Oh, you misunderstand. I don’t think he behaved like Superman. I think he should be able to grow into Superman without forcing a Death of Superman subplot into his second movie. I don’t think he should need to be “redeemed” in order to become the beacon of hope that was promised.

            And a “less Superman” isn’t what I saw in this film. A Superman that saved 1000’s of people in the film, going above and beyond with doing a civic duty, etc. I’m really not sure what people want from the character.

            He turned a blind eye to the men Batman killed in the car chase. One thing I want from Superman is not that. I don’t want a guy who can disarm a bad guy without any risk who choses instead to probably kill the guy (or at least badly injure him). I don’t want a Superman who abandons his post as Superman because he didn’t stop a suicide bombing. I don’t want a Superman who can so easily be manipulated into contemplating murder.

            So, it’s that you were looking for a “Lex Luthor Begins” type of story?

            Um…they cast a guy in his early 30s to play a guy who’s traditionally 15 to 20 years older. I think some kind of origin story would have been the best way to go. Short of that, I would have preferred that the movie didn’t end with the entire world knowing that he’s a psychopath. Even if he needed to go to prison, it would have been better if there was a theoretical window for his rehabilitation (similar to what you get in various versions of the character in JLU and many comic iterations) in which he could leave prison a changed man (at least as far as the public is concerned). There’s no reason this version of Lex would ever get out of prison.

            your personal vision for what these characters, and thereby the movies they will be appearing in, is getting in the way of what they’d been telling us for YEARS that the films will actually be.

            If that gives you comfort, go ahead and believe it.

            The Lex that we got, is exactly the Lex I was expecting. Even moreso, I should say, as Jesse blew a way all my expectations.

            You’re conflating alot of disassociated things together here. I’m talking about the concept of Lex, totally exclusive from Superman, or any other character. And once again, you are aware that there was a Lex Sr in the comics, and that Lex never met Superman, right?

            Who’s conflating? You just said that it was nice that they revealed that this was Lex Luthor Jr. so that they could acknowledge the previous incarnation, the one people are familiar with, is Lex’s dad. In reality, they didn’t reveal that at all. They just revealed that there was another guy called Lex.

            2) That said, I also realize that the DCEU is never meant to be the definitive versions of these characters. No more so than Gustin’s Flash is meant to be so, over Miller’s version. And this is yet again, something DC has explained to us numerous times over the past few years.

            The problem with this logic is a misperception that DC has any control over what becomes the culturally definitive version. The movies have a habit of being what the broader audience interpret as the definitive version of the character. It’s not like they’re making a bunch of different kinds of Superman movies. This version is likely the only version we will have in film for another generation.

            As I’ve said numerous times since this film came out, we really didn’t see him “kill” anyone. I’d go as far as to say manslaughter was inferred, but you’ll be hardpressed to point to a single dead body anywhere in this film.

            And there’s the intellectual dishonesty I know you for. He crashes a car, within seconds grabs it with a grappling hook, drags it in and through all sorts of very solid obstacles before throwing it through another car full of people. And both cars explode. He fires a 50 caliber machine gun at a human being. That human being’s car blows up and then he drives through the wreckage. And your argument is “I didn’t see any dead bodies.”

            Weird, that you’re more concerned with your POV being viewed as antiquated, than narrow. But to answer your question, I think it’s antiquated, because it’s narrow.

            Not concerned. Just confused by your syntax.

            Meaning, with DC embracing their Multiverse and bringing more into prominence over the past….

            You’d not under the impression you’re going to get more than one version of Superman in these movies are you?

            You say “and beyond”, as if the Silver Age iteration remained a constant. It didn’t.

            That’s not what that implies. Sorry.

            He killed Darkseid. He “killed” Doomsday. Both were against Batman’s wishes.

            As I said, I don’t mind Superman killing super threats. I have a problem with a man with godlike powers killing or threatening to kill ordinary people.

            Just FYI, you are aware that Bruce “killed” just about everybody in Nanda Parbat, with the exception of Ra’s Al Ghul in begins, yes? So, do that change your view of that film?

            I do know that is a likely scenario. I was actually having precisely this conversation last week with somebody who was saying that the Nolan Batman movies were better about the no killing thing than the Burton ones because they at least paid lip service to the idea. I argued the opposite because it’s not much more than lip service. Now, it’s not entirely clear how many of the ninjas he actually killed in that movie, but I agree that it’s a problem. It’s still the best of those three movies.

            Ah, so that is your issue. You’re looking for definitive versions.

            There’s a difference between being faithful and being definitive. Being definitive means that you essentially “define” the character better than any who has come before. Being faithful means that your interpretation is in line with what has come before. Currently, the definitive film Batman probably remains Christian Bale (for better or worse). Each of the iterations are unfaithful in similar ways.

            You need to read TDKR again. He blatantly kills someone in that story.

            You will have to point me to the specific issue that happens in. I just flipped through the book, and couldn’t find it.

            You mentioned the Silver Age earlier for Superman , but you are aware that Batman kills in the Silver Age, yes?

            Most of the examples in your link aren’t in even proper deaths, outside of the Golden Age obviously. And even in the ones where he kills people, it’s treated as a big deal. The problem I have with Batman killing in the movies is that he kills like it’s no big thing, and the audience is left to think of it as no big thing. And even if you want to point to a handful of mostly weak exceptions, it’s only a handful for a reason.

            It’s weird that you use the “technically” point, but then have such an issue with all the technicalities in this film.

            I don’t know what you’re referring to as a technicality.

            And Miller is only one of the most influential writers of all time.

            He is influential. He’s also terrible.

            That second point really needs to sit with you for awhile. The DCEU Batman is based quite heavily on TDKR, with elements of the Killing Joke and Death in the Family (other stories in which 1) Batman has “technically” killed, and 2) have become canon). All of which came from the Silver Age, mind you.

            You’re just talking in circles.

            And Superman is based heavily on the Golden Age

            No he’s not. That is weak. He doesn’t resemble Superman at all, aside from the fact that he probably kills a guy. Nothing else about him resembles Golden Age Superman. That’s the weakest of all rationalizations.

            The rest of the DCEU seems to stem from the New 52, Flashpoint, several Crisis stories, and probably some others that I can’t recall at the moment.

            Which in a nutshell describes why all of this is a mess.

            BVS really was a love-letter to to the entire history of DC comics. And for that I applaud them.

            I’m glad you liked it. I genuinely am. As condescending and trollish to anyone who dares disagree with you as you enjoy being, I’m glad for anybody who enjoys movies. I think it was nothing short of terrible. And I don’t think that you liking it speaks very highly of your capacity for seeing any of this with clear eyes, but that’s okay. It’s only a movie. A really, really bad movie that could have been really good.

          • SAMURAI36

            There really aren’t. But if you’re going to say every single individual comic and every singles individual animated show/movie represent a different iteration, then fine. Those summaries of the character apply to nearly all of them. Not just most of them. Nearly all. Each version of the character may add a bit to the character, but what I described is something virtually every version shares with virtually every other. That’s why I said it was those components that were coded into the DNA.

            It becomes more and more evident, with every subsequent post from you, just how unknowledgeable you are about DC’s history and universe.

            Tell me about the “DNA” of Knightmare Batman. Or Red Son Batman. Or, Red Son Superman for that matter. Or Obama Superman. Or Superman from G&M. Or Superman Prime. Or Batman Zur-En-Urr.

            I’m not even finished naming them. And these aren’t rhetorical questions, either. But we both know you’re not going to answer, and we both know you’ll blame that on me being condescending, rather than the fact that you simply don’t know.

            I had no problem with it being an older or more grizzled or more cynical or more Miller-ish version of Bruce Wayne. I had a problem with him showing complete disregard for the lives of the bad guys. That’s not cynicism. That’s not “grizzled.” That’s Batman being a psychopath.

            You never read TDKR, did you? This is just yet another example to prove it for me. You made another one later on in your post, which I’ll address shortly.

            But Old, Grizzled Batman IS a psychopath. Besides, calling Batman a psychopath is redundant anyway.

            You’re misremembering. It’s true that I didn’t want him to have guns, but I also assumed that whatever guns he did carry in the movie were the Kryptonite grenade launcher. Insofar as I commented at all on that topic, it was under the presumption that he wasn’t going to be packing a machine gun, which is why I found that concept/promotional art where he had a giant machine gun perplexing.

            Then I didn’t “misremember”. That’s exactly what I said that you said. To which I questioned you then, about how you had such a problem with that, when it’s taken straight out of the comics.

            I’m not describing any iterations. I’m describing almost all of them. There are many ways that you could say X version is unique from Y, but they basically all share this. Unless you’re going to live in the Golden Age, which would be a silly thing to do.

            This is just you being stiff-necked and incorrigible. I’ve already explained the cyclical nature of DC’s history, and you’re more content to ignore all that, in favor of your “fave iteration” of these characters, which only exists in a small window of interpretation.

            More convincing for Batman. He literally says he’s going to go to try to get Batman to help him. And if he doesn’t convince him, he’s going to have to kill him. He doesn’t try very hard to convince him.

            And then what? His mother is still in danger after he needlessly convinces Batman that they are on the “same team”.

            And then, what is Luthor doing? He’d already told Superman that if anything happens to him, Supe’s mother dies instantly.

            What part about all this are you not getting? Geez, it’s a you armchair movie directors aren’t actually making movies.

            Because he’s Superman. And going to potentially kill somebody because your mother’s being held hostage is not an act befitting of Superman. Or Clark Kent. Or any other hero in any other movie or book in the history of literature. Superman should be a beacon of hope (as we were reminded repeatedly in MoS), and this movie’s final act begins with him deciding to do one of the least heroic things any fictional hero has ever done. That’s a problem.

            I don’t need Superman to be perfect, but he’s supposed to be the example for us to strive toward. You can’t justify bad writing that compromises the character on a fundamental level, which is what this is, by saying any person would act the same way. He’s Superman.

            Yeah, I get: “He’s Superman”. The problem is, that statement is a muteable concept, and always has been. It doesn’t mean what you think (or rather, desperately wish) it means.

            Saying “he’s Superman” is like saying “I believe in God”. That can mean all sorts of different things to different people. But you stance is akin to saying “if you don’t believe in the God I believe in, in exactly the way I believe in him, then you’re a heathen that’s going straight to ACH-EE-Double-Hockey Sticks, in a Hickory Handbasket”.

            You’re the one that comes out looking/sounding like the fool, especially when the person you’re calling the heathen is trying his darndest to expose you to different versions of “God”, which you just keep waving off.

            The movie could have told us that he simply knew that Bruce was trying to steal something from Lex. Nothing specifically Batman-related was being discussed.

            Ah yes, why didn’t they spell the movie out for those that are too intellectually pedestrian to keep up? DC HATES THE GENERAL MOVIE AUDIENCE!!! :-

            Never mind Clark Kent is an investigative reporter, who was investigating Batman thru out the entire film. Between his research skills and his powers, clearly it’s a huge leap that he might figure out who Batman is, right?

            Um…they cast a guy in his early 30s to play a guy who’s traditionally 15 to 20 years older. I think some kind of origin story would have been the best way to go. Short of that, I would have preferred that the movie didn’t end with the entire world knowing that he’s a psychopath. Even if he needed to go to prison, it would have been better if there was a theoretical window for his rehabilitation (similar to what you get in various versions of the character in JLU and many comic iterations) in which he could leave prison a changed man (at least as far as the public is concerned). There’s no reason this version of Lex would ever get out of prison.

            In which of your narrow interpretations of Lex’s DNA is he somehow not a psychopath? Which one is his mental state not made known right off the bat?

            Is this a different take on Lex? Of course. But so is the Red Son version. or the Earth-3 version (you know, the one who gained Shazam’s powers, and had a baby with Super-Woman? And how’d that turn out, exactly? {and yes, that question is rhetorical, because I already know you don’t know the answer.})?

            If that gives you comfort, go ahead and believe it.

            What’s there to not believe? Was Jesse as Lex a surprise casting, at the time you saw the film?

            I’m pretty certain we’ve known about Jesse as Lex for the better part of 2 years.

            Who’s conflating? You just said that it was nice that they revealed that this was Lex Luthor Jr. so that they could acknowledge the previous incarnation, the one people are familiar with, is Lex’s dad. In reality, they didn’t reveal that at all. They just revealed that there was another guy called Lex.

            YOU are conflating. I’m talking about the style of the different Luthors. In the film, they made clear distinctions between the different iterations of Lex, and used father and son to make the distinction. It was quite crystal clear that Jesse-Lex is nothing like his father, even without actually seeing his father. However, his presence was definitely felt, especially in certain scenes.

            Again, there was so much that was apparent to me after the first viewing of this film (and even more so after the 2nd and 3rd), that you still seem to be having trouble with.

            Also, Lex in early DC lore was always kinda quirky and weird. The big, burly Lex type is a recent invention, even in the comics. For that matter, I recall one of the DC artists (Doug Mankhe, I think) saying that Geoff Johns never wanted him to draw Lex as the big, burly type, because he was always slightly twisted.

            But of course, none of this matters for you, because it doesn’t fit your narrow view of the character.

            The problem with this logic is a misperception that DC has any control over what becomes the culturally definitive version. The movies have a habit of being what the broader audience interpret as the definitive version of the character. It’s not like they’re making a bunch of different kinds of Superman movies. This version is likely the only version we will have in film for another generation.

            Yeah, imagine that: the company who owns these characters, and is in sole control of producing the product in which they appear, is not in control of which version of THEIR product people identify with.

            But I completely disagree with the movies being the definitive versions. There was an entire generation that hadn’t had a movie version, and the only version of the character they had, was the cartoons. The JLU version of Superman (and even the rest of the DCU) is what most people in their 20’s-30’s.

            And there’s the intellectual dishonesty I know you for. He crashes a car, within seconds grabs it with a grappling hook, drags it in and through all sorts of very solid obstacles before throwing it through another car full of people. And both cars explode. He fires a 50 caliber machine gun at a human being. That human being’s car blows up and then he drives through the wreckage. And your argument is “I didn’t see any dead bodies.”

            LOL, “intellectual dishonesty”. Thats comical, coming from the king of it, Mr. “I don’t get why they didn’t explain how Clark knew Bruce was Batman”.

            Anyways, We live in a world were people survived jumping out of the WTC during 911. People survive not only car crashes all the time, but some have even survived plane crashes.

            That’s not to say that nobody died, just that you didn’t see it on camera. The same way we didn’t see anyone die in MOS, or even in those janky-&ss Marvel movies (except when Black Widow shoots people at BPR, and other blatant examples).

            Personally that’s the last thing I’m concerned with, ESPECIALLY since it’s ripped directly from the source material. Speaking of which….

            You will have to point me to the specific issue that happens in. I just flipped through the book, and couldn’t find it

            Wait, what “book” are you “flipping thru”? What “issues” are you even talking about??

            You want me to give you a security blankie, and pa-pa (pacifier), and a ba-ba (bottle), and read this stuff you as a bedtime story. Sorry Linus, but I’m not doing that. READ THE D&MN BOOK!!

            And even if you are too lazy to read it, then the least you could do is Google “Batman Kills”, and see what comes up. It’s not that hard.

            Most of the examples in your link aren’t in even proper deaths, outside of the Golden Age obviously. And even in the ones where he kills people, it’s treated as a big deal. The problem I have with Batman killing in the movies is that he kills like it’s no big thing, and the audience is left to think of it as no big thing. And even if you want to point to a handful of mostly weak exceptions, it’s only a handful for a reason.

            You’re jumping all over the place. Anything to justify why your fave iterations of these characters can’t possibly kill.

            For one thing, those are just the few examples that I linked. You’re too lazy and delusional to look for yourself, and I’m not gonna post dozens of links for you.

            Secondly, There are more examples than just in the Golden Age. Which era is Knightmare Batman in?

            Also, given the nature of the story, is Batman supposed to stand around pondering the deaths he’s caused, while trying to stop Armageddon?

            He is influential. He’s also terrible.

            Granted, he’s not my fave writer, and I’m not the most in love with that particular story and iteration, but I understand DC’s decision to go with that iteration.

            But to say Frank Miller is terrible is kinda…. I dunno, strange. He’s far from terrible. Especially since his presence, along with others like Moore, Kirby, etc can felt in virtually every comic book story since their historical works.

            You’re just talking in circles.

            That means alot, coming from you, Mr. “He’s Superman!!”. Good morning pot, what color is my kettle? You’re the king of faulty arguments.

            But good way to dismiss my point, simply because you had no answer for it.

            No he’s not. That is weak. He doesn’t resemble Superman at all, aside from the fact that he probably kills a guy. Nothing else about him resembles Golden Age Superman. That’s the weakest of all rationalizations.

            OMG, it’s soooo frustrating, trying to talk to someone who is as willfully ignorant about this stuff as you are.

            Just this once, I’ll make an exception, and post a small example of what I’m talking about:

            https://youtu.be/HDVGuZ45OrQ

            You can figure out the rest.

            Which in a nutshell describes why all of this is a mess.

            Translated: “I don’t really know much about any of this stuff, but that can’t possibly be the issue with my understanding of this film.”

            I’m glad you liked it. I genuinely am. As condescending and trollish to anyone who dares disagree with you as you enjoy being, I’m glad for anybody who enjoys movies. I think it was nothing short of terrible. And I don’t think that you liking it speaks very highly of your capacity for seeing any of this with clear eyes, but that’s okay. It’s only a movie. A really, really bad movie that could have been really good.

            And there it is. There’s something wrong with me (and thereby others) for liking this film. I’ve been waiting for you to come out and say that all this time, even though I knew that you were thinking, and even implying it.

          • breakerbaker

            Dude, you can name as many Elseworld stories as you like, you’re not going to come up with hundreds of different versions of the characters. You could add all of the versions of Batman and all the versions of Superman together and you still wouldn’t end up with hundreds. If you want to condescend, and I can’t imagine a world in which you don’t want to condescend, be smarter about the language you use. Some people are not as impressed as you would hope them to be by what you think passes as knowledge.

            But Old, Grizzled Batman IS a psychopath. Besides, calling Batman a psychopath is redundant anyway.

            Not necessarily. And no. Yes, Frank Miller’s Batman is a psychopath. And yes, I’ve read the story. I own the book. No matter how much you want to make believe that nobody but you or people who agree with you know anything about these characters, it’s possible to disagree with you from a position of knowledge. Indeed, it’s easy to disagree with you from a position of knowledge. The fact that you’re blind to that is a sign of your own insecurity, but a child could read your posts and tell that you’re deeply insecure. I’ve read the book more than once. I liked it the first time, when I was in my teens. I don’t think very highly of it in my 30s.

            And then what? His mother is still in danger after he needlessly convinces Batman that they are on the “same team”.

            Yes, it’s a very stupid plan. But it is Clark’s plan in the movie. You can’t criticize me for expecting him and the movie to remain consistent. He says he has to go try to get Batman to help him or he’s going to have to kill him. “Then what?” is a fair question; however, the movie says that Batman will immediately locate where the bad guys are and take them all on single handed (despite having just used a ton of energy in his fight with Superman). So the answer to “Then what?” might be then that, except that this time Superman and Batman would go together? As I said, I don’t like the kidnapping angle to begin with, but if we’re going to go with it, let’s be consistent, people.

            Yeah, I get: “He’s Superman”. The problem is, that statement is a muteable concept, and always has been. It doesn’t mean what you think (or rather, desperately wish) it means.

            Oh, I understand pretty well that DC has had trouble at various points throughout the history of the character making the character seem relevant. That certain fans found the Boy Scout boring, and that over the last decade or two they’ve experimented with different ways to make Superman less of a Super Man. The problem isn’t that I don’t see that those cynical versions of the character exist. It’s that those versions of the character lack all of the ideals that were prophesied in MoS. That movie promises the audience an ideal that the people of Earth will strive toward. That movie tells us who Superman is supposed to be. Someone who will restrain himself when provoked, because it’s too easy to hurt people, and he doesn’t want to do that. Somebody who saves people (even people who are cruel to him) because he cares about doing the right thing–not because it’s his burden. For all of the talk about how Clark isn’t Superman in MoS, that movie does a lot to tell us who Clark is and how he’s actually not that far away from being Superman. In this movie, he takes a huge step backward. He kills or gravely harms a man in his first scene in this movie.

            LOL, “intellectual dishonesty”. Thats comical, coming from the king of it, Mr. “I don’t get why they didn’t explain how Clark knew Bruce was Batman”.

            You understand the irony of this statement, yes? You’re calling me a liar while you misrepresent what I said while also using quotation marks. I didn’t say we don’t know how he knows he’s Batman. I said the scene at Luthor’s place doesn’t reveal that he’s Batman because none of the conversation pertains to him being Batman. I’m pretty sure Superman knew Bruce Wayne was Batman the first time he looked at Batman.

            In the film, they made clear distinctions between the different iterations of Lex, and used father and son to make the distinction.

            Nope. It doesn’t even meet the lowest bar of doing that. All it does is acknowledge that his father’s name is Lex.

            Wait, what “book” are you “flipping thru”? What “issues” are you even talking about??

            I’m pretty sure I don’t have to explain to you what a graphic novel is. But I own the book. The book is split into a handful of volumes/issues that were originally released individually, but in the graphic novel, all of them are essentially chapters of the story.

            He’s far from terrible. Especially since his presence, along with others like Moore, Kirby, etc can felt in virtually every comic book story since their historical works.

            The second statement does nothing to support the first. I acknowledge that he’s influential.

            As for your video clip, I’m not even sure what you’re trying to suggest with that. That’s a series of comparisons of visual cues. It’s not about the character at all.

            And there it is. There’s something wrong with me (and thereby others) for liking this film.

            I don’t think there’s anything wrong with you for liking the movie. I think there’s something wrong with you that provided plenty of assurance that you would like the movie no matter what. We have had this discussion before, when you have told me that I’m not a fan because I didn’t like certain (at that point) rumors about the movie. You thought I was less of a fan because I would entertain the idea that any ideas that come out of the movie could be bad ideas. Just last week, before either of us had seen it, you implied that I didn’t want to like the movie because I had any uncertainty about it. It’s difficult to have a conversation with you in which I’m not reminded of the fact that you loved the movie before you saw it, so any attempt at a rational conversation on the matter is pointless.

          • SAMURAI36

            Dude, you can name as many Elseworld stories as you like, you’re not going to come up with hundreds of different versions of the characters. You could add all of the versions of Batman and all the versions of Superman together and you still wouldn’t end up with hundreds. If you want to condescend, and I can’t imagine a world in which you don’t want to condescend, be smarter about the language you use. Some people are not as impressed as you would hope them to be by what you think passes as knowledge.

            You use an outdated term like “Elsewords”, and then you wonder why I call your POV antiquated.

            You’re like the Japanese soldiers who were stuck on that island all those years, and when they finally get rescued, they don’t even realize the war is over.

            Newsflash, Hirohito: there’s no such thing as “Elsewords”, and there hasn’t been for nearly 30 years. All these iterations of these characters are considered separate characters now, and they are all a part of the Multiverse. And yes, there are hundreds of them.

            But of course you’re not gonna take my word for it, so here:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opoc-AjMlww

            and

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BYcxALtnsM

            Of course, this is just the beginning point about the Multiverse. You’d have to read Final Crisis, Multiversity, and a few other stories over the past decade or so.

            Not necessarily. And no. Yes, Frank Miller’s Batman is a psychopath. And yes, I’ve read the story. I own the book. No matter how much you want to make believe that nobody but you or people who agree with you know anything about these characters, it’s possible to disagree with you from a position of knowledge. Indeed, it’s easy to disagree with you from a position of knowledge. The fact that you’re blind to that is a sign of your own insecurity, but a child could read your posts and tell that you’re deeply insecure. I’ve read the book more than once. I liked it the first time, when I was in my teens. I don’t think very highly of it in my 30s.

            Nothing you just said, makes a d&mn bit of sense. You’re sitting here arguing with me about whether Batman kills in TDKR. YOU’RE the idiot here, for arguing about not knowing what happens in a book that you CLAIM you’ve read.

            Either concede the point, or just ignore this porton altogether, like you usually tend to do.

            Yes, it’s a very stupid plan. But it is Clark’s plan in the movie. You can’t criticize me for expecting him and the movie to remain consistent.

            Yeah… No. I’m asking YOU, what would have changed in YOUR version of the plan. The one where he flies Lex to see Batman, and then…What, exactly?

            You’re the armchair director/screenwriter here. Tell me how it’s supposed to go?

            In the meantime, I have no problem with Superman being caught between the Cylla and Charibdys. Anything short of trying to convince Batman (which he did try to do, TWICE) was going to get his mother killed. He was fighting Batman AND the clock at that point.

            Once again, this was plainly laid out in the story.

            “Then what?” is a fair question; however, the movie says that Batman will immediately locate where the bad guys are and take them all on single handed (despite having just used a ton of energy in his fight with Superman).

            Yeah, except that’s NOT what happened. I’m beginning to come to a realization; you really need to watch the movie again. You seem to be fuzzy on alot of the details.

            So the answer to “Then what?” might be then that, except that this time Superman and Batman would go together? As I said, I don’t like the kidnapping angle to begin with, but if we’re going to go with it, let’s be consistent, people.

            Except YOU said that Superman should have flown Lex over to see Batman. Even though Lex plainly said that if he does anything other than fight and kill Batman, his mother would die.

            So let’s try this again: does Superman doing anything other than what he was instructed, save his mother???

            Oh, I understand pretty well that DC has had trouble at various points throughout the history of the character making the character seem relevant. That certain fans found the Boy Scout boring, and that over the last decade or two they’ve experimented with different ways to make Superman less of a Super Man. The problem isn’t that I don’t see that those cynical versions of the character exist. It’s that those versions of the character lack all of the ideals that were prophesied in MoS. That movie promises the audience an ideal that the people of Earth will strive toward. That movie tells us who Superman is supposed to be. Someone who will restrain himself when provoked, because it’s too easy to hurt people, and he doesn’t want to do that. Somebody who saves people (even people who are cruel to him) because he cares about doing the right thing–not because it’s his burden. For all of the talk about how Clark isn’t Superman in MoS, that movie does a lot to tell us who Clark is and how he’s actually not that far away from being Superman.

            Actually, MOS never promised that he would be the ultimately ideal for humanity RIGHT AWAY. It really sickens me that people are holding DC hostage against being able to develop their characters over time, meanwhile Marvel gets 10 years and over a dozen movies to develop Iron Man.

            Just because DC promised those things in MOS, doesn’t mean they told you WHEN you would see those things. And if you’re trying to pretend that you didn’t see ANY evolution to Superman in BVS, then it’s YOU (as usual) who is being intellectually dishonest.

            In this movie, he takes a huge step backward. He kills or gravely harms a man in his first scene in this movie.

            Except in the VERY NEXT SCENE, he blatantly tells both Lois and the audience (you know, the one who you think is stupid for some reason?) that he didn’t hurt or kill anyone. So, are we adding lying to Superman’s list of sins now?

            You understand the irony of this statement, yes? You’re calling me a liar while you misrepresent what I said while also using quotation marks. I didn’t say we don’t know how he knows he’s Batman. I said the scene at Luthor’s place doesn’t reveal that he’s Batman because none of the conversation pertains to him being Batman. I’m pretty sure Superman knew Bruce Wayne was Batman the first time he looked at Batman.

            I know you think you’re saying something important here, but you’re really not. Clark didn’t look at Batman until several several scenes later. He began figuring it out (sans his vision powers, and due to his investigative abilities) the moment he listened in on Bruce’s convo with Alfred. Remember the scene where he followed Bruce down stairs?

            Nah, of course you don’t. I’m thinking you were too busy not looking at the screen, jotting down notes for how terrible the movie is.

            It doesn’t even meet the lowest bar of doing that. All it does is acknowledge that his father’s name is Lex.

            Watch the movie again.

            I’m pretty sure I don’t have to explain to you what a graphic novel is. But I own the book. The book is split into a handful of volumes/issues that were originally released individually, but in the graphic novel, all of them are essentially chapters of the story.

            Then read the book (again). If you’re smart enough to point out all these “civil liberties” that both Batman and Superman violate, then you should be able to point out the most obvious one of all, in the book that this movie is largely based on.

            The second statement does nothing to support the first. I acknowledge that he’s influential.

            Then I’m curious: for someone who felt the need to explain to me what a “graphic novel” is, why do you own TDKR, if the writer is so “terrible”? I own 1000’s of comics and at least a couple hundred GN’s, and not a single one of them is of something that I don’t like.

            As for your video clip, I’m not even sure what you’re trying to suggest with that. That’s a series of comparisons of visual cues. It’s not about the character at all.

            Just as I said: that Superman in MOS is based on the Golden Age of the character. I didn’t know that I needed an in-depth domentary on the subject, Mr. “Hold my hand sometimes, while I over-think stuff at other times”.

            I don’t think there’s anything wrong with you for liking the movie. I think there’s something wrong with you that provided plenty of assurance that you would like the movie no matter what.

            WTF does that even mean? I know you think you’re some sort of special egghead genius, but nothing you’re saying adds to a hill of beans.

            I loved this film, because it’s a good film. Simple as that. And the more I see the film, the more I like it, simply because more gets revealed for me to like.

            Unlike you, who was dumping on it months ago, before it even came out. The trailers were terrible, the casting is terrible, the director is terrible, the marketing is terrible…

            Of course I’m exaggerating (or am I?), but you’ve been setting yourself up to not like this film this entire time.

            We have had this discussion before, when you have told me that I’m not a fan because I didn’t like certain (at that point) rumors about the movie. You thought I was less of a fan because I would entertain the idea that any ideas that come out of the movie could be bad ideas. Just last week, before either of us had seen it, you implied that I didn’t want to like the movie because I had any uncertainty about it. It’s difficult to have a conversation with you in which I’m not reminded of the fact that you loved the movie before you saw it, so any attempt at a rational conversation on the matter is pointless.

            So wait…. Even though you admit to everything I said above, that somehow makes you doing the exact opposite of what you said I did/do, better than what I did/do?

            It’s okay to look for reasons ahead of time to dislike it, but not to like it?

            Dude, I’m pretty sure that whatever drugs you’re on, are illegal in the Continental US.

          • breakerbaker

            Newsflash, Hirohito: there’s no such thing as “Elsewords”, and there hasn’t been for nearly 30 years.

            Just in case anybody needed a reminder of your fraudulence, it’s 2016. Thirty years ago is 1986. The first official comic to use the Elseworlds brand did so in the early 90s. and the Elseworld brand was in use for over a decade after that. The concept of the Multiverse, which goes back to Crisis of Infinite Earths, is older than the Elseworlds imprint. But it’s fun to have you talk down to me for knowing things you apparently don’t know yourself.

            Here’s a list of Elseworlds publications.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Elseworlds_publications

            The most recent that I notice is from 2007. The oldest is from 1989, and it wasn’t originally an Elseworlds story. But sure, 30 years. Okay.

            You’re sitting here arguing with me about whether Batman kills in TDKR. YOU’RE the idiot here, for arguing about not knowing what happens in a book that you CLAIM you’ve read.

            Again, I was going through the book the other day. In Dark Knight Triumphant (the second or third comic in the seires), Batman does the crash through the wall bit that is paid homage to in the Martha Kent scene. Just as in BvS, there is a hostage situation and just as in the movie, Batman uses an assailant’s gun to end it. Unlike the movie, the book doesn’t make it explicitly clear that anybody is dead. There is a panel of him firing the gun once. And a panel of the bad guy falling as Batman takes the kid from his arms. There’s no indication of even a wound in the panel showing the bad guy, despite his full face and torso being visible.

            There is another scene later in the book where Batman has brought his tank of a Batmobile to the scene of a bunch of the mutant gang members. There are explosions all over that scene, but the narration seems to make it clear that the explosions are from RPGs bouncing off the Batmobile, so again Batman doesn’t kill anybody.

            Then, there’s the scene with the Joker, in which Batman literally stops short of killing the Joker (because Batman doesn’t kill people), and the Joker magically breaks his own neck.

            It really irritates me that I had to read that crap book again just to confirm what I already knew. So thanks for that!

            Actually, MOS never promised that he would be the ultimately ideal for humanity RIGHT AWAY.

            As I’ve already said, I am okay with a Superman who needs time to grow. I’m okay with him being uncomfortable with his place in the world. I’m not okay with a Superman who begins this movie having taken a step backward. He was clearly keeping tabs on Lois, but he arrives too late to save anybody but Lois–whom he uses unnecessary force to rescue. He then makes no attempt to track down the mercenaries who just killed a bunch of people. Dead human beings don’t seem to matter to this version of the character, and that’s a bad place to start.

            Except in the VERY NEXT SCENE, he blatantly tells both Lois and the audience (you know, the one who you think is stupid for some reason?) that he didn’t hurt or kill anyone.

            That’s one of my favorite scenes in the movie. That’s not what he said. He said “I didn’t kill those men.” That’s all he said. The audience already knew he didn’t kill those men because they saw them murdered in a fire fight.

            Remember the scene where he followed Bruce down stairs?

            I do remember that scene! Nothing in that scene implies to somebody who doesn’t already know (i.e., the audience) that Bruce Wayne is Batman. You can assume that all kinds of things happen off screen (your favorite brand of filmmaking is apparently the kind that you do in your own head to make sense of what is actually given to you by the movie), but if you stick with what the movie actually gives you, though Clark may have been suspicious of Bruce Wayne, he didn’t know he was Batman until he looked Batman in the eye. I just like that the movie didn’t feel it necessary to have a sequence in which we’re shown him looking behind the mask (which has been done many times in the animated shows and movies).

            Watch the movie again.

            I probably will. But not because I think it’s going to give me insight into Lex Sr. The line in the film is almost a carbon copy of the line he uses in the fake Wired interview from several months ago.

            Then I’m curious: for someone who felt the need to explain to me what a “graphic novel” is, why do you own TDKR, if the writer is so “terrible”? I own 1000’s of comics and at least a couple hundred GN’s, and not a single one of them is of something that I don’t like.

            I own it because I bought it many, many years ago. I did like it when I originally read it, when I was a teenager. I bought the copy I have several years later, and probably didn’t even read it immediately. I kept it because I keep things. I have way too many books of all kinds. I don’t like all of them. I haven’t even read all of them. And no, it doesn’t surprise me that you like everything you own. What might surprise me is you disliking anything with a DC logo on it.

            Just as I said: that Superman in MOS is based on the Golden Age of the character.

            The problem is that the video doesn’t even begin to suggest that. The video has very little to do with “character” and almost everything to do with visual similarities.

            WTF does that even mean?

            It means that the nature of your fandom has created a kind of existential bias in which disliking something you want to like is treated as a possibility that it is your job to quash. This movie could have failed on any number of levels that it actually succeeded on and you still would have defended it. Because you’re misguided enough to think that’s your job as a fan.

            Unlike you, who was dumping on it months ago, before it even came out.

            I know that you don’t understand this because again, that is the nature of your fandom, but that didn’t happen. At all.

            It’s okay to look for reasons ahead of time to dislike it, but not to like it?

            Again, I did not do this. This was my most anticipated movie of the last many years. You don’t believe that because it’s important to your sense of righteousness and sanctimony that you don’t. But it doesn’t matter. It’s hardly the only thing you’re flat out wrong about.

            Dude, I’m pretty sure that whatever drugs you’re on, are illegal in the Continental US.

            What drugs are illegal in the lower 48 but legal in Alaska and Hawaii? Don’t answer that.

          • SAMURAI36

            Just in case anybody needed a reminder of your fraudulence, it’s 2016. Thirty years ago is 1986. The first official comic to use the Elseworlds brand did so in the early 90s. and the Elseworld brand was in use for over a decade after that. The concept of the Multiverse, which goes back to Crisis of Infinite Earths, is older than the Elseworlds imprint. But it’s fun to have you talk down to me for knowing things you apparently don’t know yourself.

            Here’s a list of Elseworlds publications.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

            The most recent that I notice is from 2007. The oldest is from 1989, and it wasn’t originally an Elseworlds story. But sure, 30 years. Okay.

            LMFAO!! Wiki, that’s your source? I have several of these books on my shelf, and I can say with utmost certainty that most of them are in-contintuity books/stories. Such as:

            –Several of the annuals (TT, Deathstroke, Superman/Batman, etc)

            –JSA Liberty Files

            –B/S Worlds Funniest

            But hey, feel free to trust Wiki.

            Otherwise, 30 years may have been a stretch, more like 20 years. But the point remains (which you seem to refuse to acknowledge), there is no more Elseworlds. And all the stories that were actual Elseworlds, have been absorbed into the Multiverse.

            Again, I was going through the book the other day. In Dark Knight Triumphant (the second or third comic in the seires), Batman does the crash through the wall bit that is paid homage to in the Martha Kent scene. Just as in BvS, there is a hostage situation and just as in the movie, Batman uses an assailant’s gun to end it. Unlike the movie, the book doesn’t make it explicitly clear that anybody is dead. There is a panel of him firing the gun once. And a panel of the bad guy falling as Batman takes the kid from his arms. There’s no indication of even a wound in the panel showing the bad guy, despite his full face and torso being visible.

            There is another scene later in the book where Batman has brought his tank of a Batmobile to the scene of a bunch of the mutant gang members. There are explosions all over that scene, but the narration seems to make it clear that the explosions are from RPGs bouncing off the Batmobile, so again Batman doesn’t kill anybody.

            Then, there’s the scene with the Joker, in which Batman literally stops short of killing the Joker (because Batman doesn’t kill people), and the Joker magically breaks his own neck.

            It really irritates me that I had to read that crap book again just to confirm what I already knew. So thanks for that!

            LOL, I love how you call me intellectually dishonest, for not seeing bodies laying around, yet you do the same thing for several of those scenes.

            Good luck with that.

            As I’ve already said, I am okay with a Superman who needs time to grow. I’m okay with him being uncomfortable with his place in the world. I’m not okay with a Superman who begins this movie having taken a step backward. He was clearly keeping tabs on Lois, but he arrives too late to save anybody but Lois–whom he uses unnecessary force to rescue. He then makes no attempt to track down the mercenaries who just killed a bunch of people. Dead human beings don’t seem to matter to this version of the character, and that’s a bad place to start.

            This is no different from the Batmobile scene; we don’t know what Superman did after the scene, because it cuts to another scene. As someone that reads comics, I’m quite familiar with the notion that some things happen off-panel.

            But seeing as you’re the type that needs his hand held thru the entire experience, then I really don’t know what to tell you.

            That’s one of my favorite scenes in the movie. That’s not what he said. He said “I didn’t kill those men.” That’s all he said. The audience already knew he didn’t kill those men because they saw them murdered in a fire fight.

            Weird that that’s one of your fave scene in the whole movie, but okay.

            But “those men” includes the one he flew thru the wall when he saved Lois.

            I do remember that scene! Nothing in that scene implies to somebody who doesn’t already know (i.e., the audience) that Bruce Wayne is Batman.

            Ah yes, the “audience”. Not sure why you’ve appointed yourself as the audience’s savior.

            Anyways, I never said it was supposed to be obvious. But that scene demonstrates that Clark is putting it together that there is more about Wayne than meets the eye.

            You can assume that all kinds of things happen off screen (your favorite brand of filmmaking is apparently the kind that you do in your own head to make sense of what is actually given to you by the movie),

            You mean, the kind that assumes I’m intelligent enough to follow along, without spelling everything out for me? Gotcha.

            but if you stick with what the movie actually gives you, though Clark may have been suspicious of Bruce Wayne, he didn’t know he was Batman until he looked Batman in the eye.

            Looked him in the eye, when exactly? The point of the scene was to demonstrate suspicion in Clark’s mind, which was clearly done. By the time he stood face to face with Batman in the Batmobile scene, that was likely the confirmation.

            I just like that the movie didn’t feel it necessary to have a sequence in which we’re shown him looking behind the mask (which has been done many times in the animated shows and movies).

            At last, we are in agreement. But, this is the mindset that I appreciated thru out the entire film.

            I probably will. But not because I think it’s going to give me insight into Lex Sr. The line in the film is almost a carbon copy of the line he uses in the fake Wired interview from several months ago.

            Whatever your reason for going to see it again, I think everybody should go for at least a second viewing. I absolutely promise that everyone will find something in the film on the second go-round, that they might have missed on the first. I know I sure did.

            I own it because I bought it many, many years ago. I did like it when I originally read it, when I was a teenager. I bought the copy I have several years later, and probably didn’t even read it immediately. I kept it because I keep things. I have way too many books of all kinds. I don’t like all of them. I haven’t even read all of them. And no, it doesn’t surprise me that you like everything you own. What might surprise me is you disliking anything with a DC logo on it.

            Uhmm, okay. But you’d be quite wrong, as far as me and DC goes. True, I love the brand, but they have some things that I could care less than less about.

            Things such as:

            –LOSH. Try as I might, I’ve NEVER liked the Legion. I always thought it was a dumb concept, with all the silly &ss names (Bouncing Lad, and whatnot).

            –Doom Patrol. Geez, what a stupid looking team, with dumb powers.

            –Lois Lane. Never been a fan. I feel like she adds nothing to Superman’s story, and I’m of the camp that feels like Supes should be with WW.

            –Booster Gold. God, I hate him. Silly character that feels like he belongs more in Marvel than DC.

            –Blue Beetle (Ted Kord). Same as above. I actually like the Reyes version of BB (with the armor) alot more.

            There might be a few more, but those are the ones that come to mind. And guess how many books based on those characters that I own?

            The problem is that the video doesn’t even begin to suggest that. The video has very little to do with “character” and almost everything to do with visual similarities.

            Except those scenes were ripped directly from the early Superman comics (adapted for modern times, of course). For you to say that’s not based on the Golden Age, is like saying Affleck’s Batman is not based on TDKR.

            Superman’s bullish personality, sullen demeanor, etc, are all GA qualities. he didn’t start smiling sheepishly until about the late Silver Age, early Bronze Age.

            It means that the nature of your fandom has created a kind of existential bias in which disliking something you want to like is treated as a possibility that it is your job to quash. This movie could have failed on any number of levels that it actually succeeded on and you still would have defended it. Because you’re misguided enough to think that’s your job as a fan.

            LMAO, thanx for the psychoanalysis, Freud. Because it can’t POSSIBLY be that the film simply met my expectations. I can’t possibly like Snyder’s storytelling style. It’s not possible that I liked 4 out of his 6 films. No, something is clearly wrong with me, because I like the film. Which means, something wrong with all the other people who liked it as well.

            Too bad you’re not willing to turn that psychology degree that I doubt you even have around on yourself.

            So allow me to do it for you:

            Likewise, you’ve spent so much time looking for reasons to not like this film, that it comes to no shock or surprise to anyone that you didn’t like it.

            Tell me Sigmund, which of these is the more likely scenario?

            I know that you don’t understand this because again, that is the nature of your fandom, but that didn’t happen. At all.

            You’re lying. We’d had several debates over the past several months about BVS. Everything from the trailers, to the actors, to the marketing, to the director. You say you were excited from the SDCC thing, but that was before the time we started talking, so I can’t vouch for that. But you’ve been largely negative and nitpicky for most of the time I’d seen you. So much so, that I even accused you of being a Marvel fan, based on the way that you nitpicked DC, but had virtually nothing to say about Marvel.

            But of course you’re going to tell me that I’m making all this up.

            , I did not do this. This was my most anticipated movie of the last many years. You don’t believe that because it’s important to your sense of righteousness and sanctimony that you don’t. But it doesn’t matter. It’s hardly the only thing you’re flat out wrong about.

            Dude, tell this story walking. I’m beginning to believe that you do what you do subconsciously, without even realizing it.

          • unpaidpundit

            I’m not a huge Batman fan, but I don’t think he wears body armor in the comics, either. When fighting bad guys who are going to rain a hail of bullets on you, not have protection is unrealistic. This is an older, more cynical, somewhat paranoid Batman who has become rather brutal. On the other hand, we were not shown for certain that Batman actually killed anyone in this story.

          • SAMURAI36

            I’m not a huge Batman fan, but I don’t think he wears body armor in the comics, either.

            Batman has been wearing body armor in the comics since the late 80’s.

          • breakerbaker

            Some iterations of the Batsuit are clearly some kind of body armor, but it’s true that that hasn’t always been the case, which is also why he sometimes gets hurt and it’s good to have Alfred around.

            As for whether he killed people. Go watch the Batmobile chase again. He grappling hooks a car full of guys drags it around, crashing it into every wall and obstacle and then uses it as a weapon to destroy another car. He killed many times in this movie.

          • SA2

            that didn’t necessarily mean he killed them. He just did what he felt necessary to stop those bad guys but then they died. But batman felt that he wasn’t accountable by that action because those guys CHOSE to be there and they wanted to stop him and help Lex. So be it. He’s like “It’s not my fault you guys died while stoping me”. Plus, he has suffered a lot, and with the arrival of superman? that doesn’t help him even one bit. It made him worse. That’s my own opinion.

      • Mohd Nazri

        I totally agree with you. Superman is not super anymore. Superman is the symbol of HOPE and this version of Superman is hopeless!! Zack Snyder has ruined Superman.. :(

        • xxjinzaxx

          Superman is beyond super. He is the entire legacy of the DC universe. What Zack Snyder did is incorporate all elements of Superman from the very first version of Superman to Man of Steel. He combined them all, essentially. To have hope and know what that is, you have to have lost everything and still trust. Otherwise it’s shallow and unrealistic. Sorry this is not the version you grew up with, but you can still buy comics specific to the traits you prefer.

          • Mohd Nazri

            Well.. he lost his biological parents and the whole of Krypton!! That is pretty much everything. The way he is being depicted in that movie, as if he is hopeless. I really hope that they will bring back the Superman whom we all love!! I believe there is still hope.. :)

          • xxjinzaxx

            You are assuming everyone sees Superman the way you do. I think the movie does a great job showing the fallacy in that, by also showing that not everybody thinks of Superman as this great symbol of hope. Some even want to kill him. The DC movies have delved into murky waters – politics, morality, sacrifice, fanaticism. I can see how those things suck out the fun in things, but it’s what makes DC interesting for some of us and differentiates itself from the clowns running around in costume.

          • Mohd Nazri

            Relax.. Man of Steel is my favourite Superman movie!! Chill 😉

          • SAMURAI36

            Like most people, you really don’t know much about Superman’s history.

    • unpaidpundit

      I love the Wonder Woman theme, as well. It sounds inspired by Led Zepplin’s “Immigrant Song,” which is fitting. Wonder Woman is an immigrant to man’s world, and the music is so aggressive and barbaric sounding.

    • JMMagwood

      Great post.

  • Brian Ray

    Great movie don’t care how anyone else feels I love the #DC character’s and it had to set up the entire future of this slate no easy task I love this movie and can’t wait till Aug for SS! Go see this movie folks! And guess what I can love Marvel characters also so bring them both on great time to be a comic book fan and in the case of BvS great time to be a Graphic novel fan!

  • breakerbaker

    A drop off of some kind is inevitable, but with virtually no competition, it’s had to predict what it will be. If this were the middle of the summer, I would imagine a 170M domestic take to turn into something in the neighborhood of 60M, which would be an enormous drop. I wouldn’t be shocked if that or even worse than that is what things would look like next week, but I could imagine a scenario where it’s a more respectable 80M. I definitely expect a sharp drop owing to a word of mouth that will be mixed at best, but the lack of competition is a bit of a wild card.

  • JMMagwood

    $424 million worldwide and a lot of positive word of mouth for “Batman v Superman.” Good news all around. There’s a few bitter types that don’t like it, but it’s clear now they’re being drowned out. This is a big win for fans looking forward to DCE’s upcoming schedule. Rejoice! This one really punched the critics and the haters in the mouth!

    • SAMURAI36

      This has really confirmed what I’ve always known, which was Marvel and their fans really don’t want any competition. They wanna remain the only gig in town that’s on the top of the mountain.

  • Zwelethemba Ngcobo

    I liked the movie, i liked man of steel also… Im glad the movie is doing well and if there are people who ddnt like it they have a right to say so… Iv already seen it twice and will see it again and buy the blu ray even 4k if i can get it in 4k… i even bought the sound track on itunes i love the movie so i support it if u dont like the movie dont see it, and dont support it… simple, i personally dont even give a shyt what critics have to say if i like the trailers i see thhe movie i like to judge from my self, we should stop with all the marvel v DC bull if u like the movie go watch it… if u dont like it dont go… and if you area marvel fan boy and u hate DC dont go watch the movie, ur allowed to hate it if u want

    • SAMURAI36

      Yeah, I’ve seen it 3 times already, and plan to see it a couple of more times at least, while it’s still in the theaters. I will definitely get the director’s cut when it comes out.

      I would watch this film everyday, if I could.

      • Zwelethemba Ngcobo

        Yeah man if u like it support it… so we can get more movies with these charecters

  • SAMURAI36

    At this point, BVS will walk to a $billion. I give it 2 more weeks, max.

    • LupeX

      I’d say 3 weeks max.
      Another 270m, 150m then 90m

      • SAMURAI36

        I’m good with that.

    • Bjax

      I’m betting it tops out around $850 million.

      • Marquis de Sade

        Damn, you must be psychic! LOL!

    • Marquis de Sade

      LOL! Dang, was you wrong! – More like $869 million.

  • phnxgrl

    It just proves DC fanboys will like anything at first coming from DC/ WB. Personally I think the DC television universe is better done with a shoe string budgets too!

    • Chris Johnson

      Really? AOU, IM2, IM3????

      Bad films in my opinion. Yet, eaten up by Marvel fans.

      So, your point?

      • phnxgrl

        Well I never said anything about Marvel did I? I gave my opinion of this film! It is barely acceptable for a Third rate TV Flash Episode. I happen to like the Flash TV show! So I ‘m not anti DC only ANTI DC Movies so far in this DECU. They need to do much better than this slop!

        • Chris Johnson

          Perfectly understandable viewpoint. You said DC fanboys. Typically people who say that are Marvel ONLY fans. If I mistakenly included you as one of them, my apologies.

          I just disagree about BVS. I loved the move. I also love the shows on TV.

          • phnxgrl

            Ah I did not say garbage. It is livable but it could have been much better with Character development!

      • phnxgrl

        I was expecting something close to Nolan’s Dark Knight what I got was a bowl full of swill!

    • Marquis de Sade

      Well you can’t fault them. After all, they’re quite a malnourished lot. Can you imagine bein’ fed MOS leftovers since 2013??? – Oh the horrors!
      You can imagine they’re goin’ back for seconds and thirds like starved wretches from a third world village.

      “PLEASE, SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER BOWL OF MEDIOCRITY?”

      • phnxgrl

        I love it! LOL! But unfortunately it is true!

        • Marquis de Sade

          “Your mommy is named Martha?”
          “Yes. Is your mommy named Martha too?”
          “Yes.”
          “I’m sorry I tried to kill you. Now we are BESTEST SUPER FRIENDS!”

          If I was Chris Terio, I would be embarrassed to put my name on that script/dreck. I would’ve ALAN SMITHEE’D that with the quickness. LOL!

          • phnxgrl

            You are too funny but in essence that is the script line. LOL which is so sad!

          • Marquis de Sade

            Tell me about it! It was like this script was a series of AD HOC sketches. I mean it was fun for what it was, but in essence, it was the equivalent of that LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN movie adaptation with less cheese, but still cheesy none the less.

          • phnxgrl

            Yes it was very badly disjointed there is no collective whole. However, there were some glimmers but those were quickly extinguished!

          • unpaidpundit

            You are semi-illiterate.

          • phnxgrl

            Thank you but you really need to work on your Alinsky. It is very weak!

  • Chris W

    It’s still Sunday, or is this estimating for Sunday?

    • Marquis de Sade

      Yeah, it’s an estimation. Monday afternoon, they will release the actual numbers.

  • Hinscher

    Wow the haters are out in full force it seems.
    Funny seeing the same few people in EVERY article about this movie bashing it.

    • xxjinzaxx

      That puts it into perspective. It’s virtually a minority that really dislikes the film. The same group goes from site to site to spread their view. It doesn’t help their case. Most certainly they are not going to convince anyone.

  • sintheticreality2

    Just got back from seeing it a second time. Liked it even more. The way they augured a certain supervillain in the end was chilling.

  • JMMagwood

    Happy Easter to all who celebrate the Holiday. To those fans who don’t, Happy Batman v Superman Box Office Success Day! To the rest… Well.. Hmm… We gotta come up with something for you guys… Happy Wet Blanket Day? Yeah! HWBD!

    • SAMURAI36

      LMFAO

  • unpaidpundit

    Remember, folks, the recent “Fantastic Four” film also got negative reviews, and tanked. It is not true that just any superhero dreck is going to do well at the box office. “BvS” is succeeding with movie goers because the trailers looked great, and word of mouth appears to be solidly positive. Many people who have seen the movie are bewildered as to why the media film critics thought it was bad. Lots of fans have already seen the film multiple times (including me).

    • HORSEFLESH

      The Opening Weekend without any competition was strategically guaranteed; it’s the 3 weeks to follow which will be the film’s real challenge.

      • unpaidpundit

        I don’t think you can say that there is absolutely no competition. If “BvS” had not opened this weekend, lots of people would have gone with their kids to see “Zootopia.”

        • HORSEFLESH

          Zootopia has been out for a week now and there’s no direct competition for BvS – only counter.

          • Marquis de Sade

            Correction, this is Zootopia’s third week of release.

    • H.I McDunnough

      Brilliant. I’m so sick of hearing “of course it’s making money, the fanboy’s are gonna pay to see it no matter how bad it is!!” That just doesn’t mean anything these days. The big reason people will avoid a movie to the point that it tanks hard at the box office?……..Bad word of mouth via the people you trust and come in contact with daily. I’ve been to the theater to see BVS twice now. Each time it was packed to the rafters and at the end of each showing I’ve seen people clapping and talking about how great it was. That being said, I’m the only person out of all my comic reading friends that has seen the FF reboot. I paid 2.99 to rent it on demand and I felt cheated.

  • JMMagwood

    There’s a lot of stuff out there about how poisonous this negativity via the internet has become. Some people live for it, but here’s some food for thought.

    http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/03/27/dc-rebirth-liam-sharp-and-social-media-negativity/

  • El

    wth this site was always going on about advance ticket sales being second only to star wars and beating Jurassic World and Avengers 1 and 2 then it goes and opens less than iron man 3 so what happened? I take it advance ticket sales isnt a sign of potentially breaking records right, because they made this seem like it would do a Jurassic world.