'Superman V. Batman' DELAYED Until 2016

Rduce wrote:Winter Solider made more world wide and cost less to make so basically it was more profitable than Man of Steel. I think WB blinked first and did not want to chance going up against a post Avengers Age of Ultron Cap 3. Man of Steel did okay, but it was pretty much split with the fans. It was you either loved it or hated it and to save the franchise we are getting Batman tossed in to save Supes ass, which is why we do not have an honest to goodness Man of Steel 2 film, but a hybrid Justice League launch.

World War Z did nothing to cut into the profits of Man of Steel, that sounds a lot like those tards who swear Returns would have done better if Pirates had not opened the next weekend. You loved Man of Steel, good for you, but just as many did not. WB is just trying to cover their ass and not get their two biggest superhero icons having their asses handed to them by Marvel.

Goddamn, I spelled out the entire point TWICE and you still missed it. Somehow. Stupidity like that surely qualifies as a crime against humanity.

Nobody gives a fuck about the worldwide gross in this discussion. And the reason for that is because only the DOMESTIC release date for BvS has been changed. To my knowledge, the international release dates all stand. So the international/worldwide grosses mean precisely dick to this discussion. I'm not sure how much clearer and more simply I can phrase this so I sure to God hope the third time is the charm.

As far as Pirates goes, MOS had several things going for it that Singerman didn't. Specifically, it actually had a *HUGE* opening weekend. And on only a normal two day weekend, as opposed to the five day weekend Singerman had.

On top of all that, the Pirates thing is misapplied because Pirates beat the hell out of Singerman even in territories where it came out BEFORE Singerman. Those same things cannot be said of MOS and WWZ.

WWZ impacted the second weekend for MOS. You are literally the only person arguing the contrary.

But then you REALLY go for it and claim WB only put Batman into the movie to "rescue" the rebooted Superman franchise. Okay then. That's completely not true (because if MOS somehow failed at the box office, why continue the franchise at all? WB sure abandoned Green Lantern pretty fast. But I probably shouldn't confuse you here) but okay. The entire trajectory of Batman and Superman since the mid-90's and certainly since the early 2000's has been a team-up film.

WB has wanted this probably longer than you've been alive. It was first suggested that Michael Keaton would make a cameo appearance in Burton's Superman Lives movie. But that never happened (because fans whined and complained). WB made another attempt it back in 2000 or 2001 but eventually gave up on it (because fans whined and complained). During the leadup to Singerman's premiere, WB execs were quoted saying that maybe they could do a Christian Bale/BJ the Bartender team-up movie but it didn't happen (because Singerman FAILED and because Nolanites whined and complained). WB tried again just a few years later with Justice League- Mortal but it never got off the ground (because Nolanites whined and complained and Apologists threatened to go on a hunger strike).

Now, since you're an absolute derp, you're probably wondering what my point is. What I'm driving at here is that WB has wanted a Superman/Batman team-up film since before Marvel went into bankruptcy. They've been foiled at every fucking step along the way either because of douchebag "fans" like you or pretentious cock filmmakers like Chris Nolan.

The ONLY reason to do BvS is because MOS turned a profit (which it did; you don't need Apologist-approved voodoo economics to get there either) and so WB wants to capitalize on it. If MOS tanked it at the box office (which it didn't), there'd be absolutely positively ZERO reason to do BvS. WB has shown their willingness to drop failed "franchises" in the past (Green Lantern, Singerman) so why would MOS somehow be different?

It wouldn't be.

And I've spent fifteen minutes typing this bullshit knowing full well you're going to miss the entire point, make another derp "argument" and it's up for grabs which of us is stupider: you for being such a brickhead or me for giving you the time of day.

Hell if I know. Flip a coin.

Calm down CB I am actually do understand what you are trying to say, I just do not believe that WWZ had that much of an impact on MOS. People who wished to see MOS saw MOS and those that did not want to see it did not. The same for WWZ. In fact I doubt that many people orgasming as they waited to see that film had much interest in MOS. MOS as any comic book film is going to be aimed at the fans with the hope that word of mouth will bring in non fans to see what all the excitement is about. Tossing in Batman for the next film is WB to cash in on the fame or infamy of the Nolan films. I think WB panicked, I was planning on going to both films and I NEVER spend my money to see a film twice in a theater, I will wait until it is released on Bluray or PPV to see it a second time.

Godzilla reminds me of Returns, it had a great opening and then took 3 months to make it to $200 million, with the rabid fans taking bets on how many Oscars it will win. Fans are always going to protect their passions and those films that they enjoyed. I imagine when it finally opens I foresee Dawn of Justice opening to a $180 million weekend. I do expect the next Avengers film to open bigger than the last one, so I might revise my estimate as the release date approaches.

I also want to see it do as well as the original Avengers film, but MOS was disliked by just as many that sing its praises so I am hoping those that did not like it will give the second film a look, which is why I believe WB tossed in Batman this time around.

Rduce wrote:Calm down CB I am actually do understand what you are trying to say,

The entire rest of your post proves you don't.

Rduce wrote:I just do not believe that WWZ had that much of an impact on MOS.

Understand something. You are the lone voice in the wilderness on this one. There's literally NOBODY else making this argument. Nobody. Zip, zero, zilch, nada. And the reason for that is because it defies common sense, history, box office analyses and probably tons of other shit I'm forgetting.

Rduce wrote:Tossing in Batman for the next film is WB to cash in on the fame or infamy of the Nolan films. I think WB panicked,

Again, this proves you DON'T get what I'm saying. WB has wanted a Batman/Superman team-up film for damned close to twenty years. And as I said last time, douchebags inevitably derail the thing.

Moving away from history though, your view on this COMPLETELY ignores good business sense. Why would WB do a team-up movie in desperation? It's been their wet dream for so long now. If MOS didn't turn a profit (as seems to be your argument), it makes ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING SENSE WHATSOEVER to do a team-up movie right now.

Again, flash back to 2006 before Singerman premiered. WB execs were cautiously floating trial balloons about a Christian Bale/Blandon Routh team-up. Why? Because for the first time in a long time, Batman was profitable again. Singerman sinking like a turd was likely the deciding factor in derailing the proposed team-up movie. But make no mistake about it, the idea was making the rounds and getting attention... not all of which was positive.

But, as I say, Singerman bombed it so the idea was dropped.

If MOS had suffered Singerman's fate, rest assured we wouldn't have gotten a team-up movie and we certainly wouldn't have gotten an announcement of it MERE FUCKING WEEKS AFTER MOS DEBUTED.

Your argument holds absolutely no water and makes no sense whatsoever.

Rduce wrote:Godzilla reminds me of Returns, it had a great opening

See, things like this make me wonder. I didactically explained why Singerman's "great" opening weekend is completely illusory. It was spread over five days. FIVE DAYS. Had Singerman pulled those numbers on a standard two day weekend, it might've been more impressive. But Singerman opened during a VERY convenient five day weekend... and it only did $84 million. That works out to $16.8 million per day.

ROMANTIC COMEDIES HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO DO BETTER THAN THAT.

Rduce wrote:with the rabid fans taking bets on how many  Oscars it will win.

...

I truly have no clue what you mean here because the only predictions I recall any of us making were that Singerman would be lucky to get nominated for technical categories but would win NONE of them.

Guess how that turned out!

Rduce wrote:I also want to see it do as well as the original Avengers film, but MOS was disliked by just as many that sing its praises

No it wasn't. This is the part I don't think you're tracking. Sure, a bunch of Prima Donners, Apologists and a few Nolanites ranted, gnashed their teeth and howled at the moon over MOS but many core fans LOVED it and wide audiences clearly approved because MOS surpassed its own budget in the US and did it again worldwide. Seems like I'm repeating myself a lot here but you don't seem to get it so let me say AGAIN that you don't need fuzzy math to conjure up imaginary scenarios where MOS scored profit at the box office. Simple arithmetic will do the job nicely. And that's not counting the $170'ish million WB already had in hand from various product placements to off-set MOS's budget, which only makes it even MORE profitable. But WB didn't need that in order for the film to actually be successful; it was a hit all on its own.

Bottom line? The bullshit you're spouting here comes right out of the standard Apologist playbook. I've ALWAYS wondered just which side you're really on but it gets clearer and clearer every time you make a new post.

Rduce wrote:I also want to see it do as well as the original Avengers film, but MOS was disliked by just as many that sing its praises so I am hoping those that did not like it will give the second film a look, which is why I believe WB tossed in Batman this time around.

That has GOT to be one of the stupidest things ever said around here.

And we had that idiotic, racist homophobe for a while.

Your primary problem is that you think you represent the majority and this is where you fail, you do not! I consider myself a core fan of Superman since I was 6 years old and sat watching “The Adventures of Superman” on my grandfather’s color television set.  I had a Superman cape that I had to wear for every episode and once I was old enough to read I was into the comics. I had them all, Superman, Action, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, Superboy, and nearly had a meltdown when the price of comics went from a dime to 12 cents, because my 50 cent a week allowance was already stretched pretty thin.

I can vividly recall standing in a line that went out the door and around the corner waiting to get in to see “Superman the Movie” in 78. There were no multi-screen theaters back then and the film was playing at the largest seating capacity theater in my Podunk 70,000 population community, so you waited in line to see it and since it was Christmas time it was a COLD wait!

Nevertheless, the 78 movie was an Epic movie event and EVERYONE wanted to see it, children and adults alike. Which is why it was one of the very few films to reach 100 million at that time.

I drifted away from the comics when I was about 14, but the Superman that I had come to know and respect was up there on that screen and I was more than satisfied with the silliness that was included. And yes, it made us believe a man could fly.

I tried to keep up with the changes to the character over the years, but I have to admit I failed miserably and by the time the television show “Lois and Clark” emerged on the scene I tuned in to see what had changed. To my surprise not that much from when I was a child. The show did not really grab me as a true Superman vehicle and after a few episodes I drifted away from it as well.

I did enjoy the animated series and when there was talk of once again bringing Superman back to the screen I was excited by the prospects of what 30 years of technological advancements in movie special effects might bring to the screen with Big Blue. Well, I knew as soon as I saw some of the first stills with BJ things were going to be very difficult to accept. All the little S shields just seemed to scream Narcissist to me. Something that the Superman I knew and loved would never be. Nonetheless, I waited breathlessly for the opening and I plunked down my money for a midnight showing of what we know as “Superman Returns”. As I left the theater that night I was in disbelief of what I had just seen and I asked my friends who had gone with me what they thought of it. “It wasn't very good” was their replay and I was relieved because I was hoping that maybe I was expecting too much and just had not gotten it.

I know you all feel that I support this film, but I never once have stated that and I dare you to find one single post of mine where I do, in fact I disliked that damn thing so much I made it a point in any forum to dissuade others to spend their money on seeing it. I also wrote a review on Amazon when the upcoming DVD was placed on the site in September of 06 which is as follows:

Singer has managed to create a film so uninspiring, unoriginal, undemanding and which is fundamentally a complete rape of the Superman mythos, that I have to wonder if Singer understands the ideals behind the character and thought that breathtaking imagery would be good enough to deliver the film.

The film is poorly paced and edited and I have to speculate if in certain scenes they just simply forgot to splice scenes in.  There are scenes so confusing and cold, I wondered if Clark forgot he was raised as a human.  Consider this: Clark/Superman who has vowed to be Earth's protector, leaves on a 5 year voyage to explore new worlds, seek out new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before, oops wrong franchise!

He leaves earth to stave off all the baddies out there on it`s own, while he goes off to search for his family tree, even though he has the stored information of the 28 known galaxies in a computer back at his fortress of solitude, which as an added enticement, he can converse with holographic recreations of mom and pop!

He apparently does this without so much as a "Goodbye', "See ya later" or a "Bite Me!"  At the exact same time, Clark Kent, takes a 5 year sabbatical to the Himalayas to look for his inner self and apparently no one at the most prestigious news organization in the world can figure out there just might be a connection!

Then to add insult to injury we do not even get to see his trip, apparently they are conserving those scenes for the director's cut DVD, which will no doubt make it to your local stores just in time for Christmas!  Upon his fiery return to earth he lands at his mother's farm in the middle of the night with such a visible fireball and resounding thud that no one notices other than dear old mom.  Of course the National Earthquake Center doesn't even notices the thud either, especially interesting when it happens in a state that usually has not thud type of activity!

Now that he has returned to earth and the elderly woman that has raised him as her own, we find very little connection or warmth.  She has been pining for him to return for 5 years, unsure if she will ever see him again and there is a total of perhaps 4 lines of dialog between them, Clark showed more warmth toward the family dog than he did his own earth mother.  This to me is a crucial aspect of the film and story, Martha is Clark's human moral compass and to wash over it is noticeably disingenuous.

Abruptly we find ourselves watching as Clark stumbles through the doors of the Daily Planet, (apparently his clumsiness which fails to allow him to make it through a doorway was not a problem in the Himalayas either, imagine that!)  A Daily Planet oddly reminiscent of a 1940's newspaper, ala The Front Page, the exception being all the LCD television screens hanging about the room.

Clark's good fortune allows him to get his old job back, (through the bad fortune of some one else dying), and soon learns that while away Lois, who looks all of 20 years old is a mother of a 5 year old, (Humm let's do the math!) nearly the wife/live in girlfriend of one of the paper's editors, (thank god for nepotism) and an award wining journalist for penning a treatise on why the world no longer needs Superman.

Clark's hunger for Lois will have to be prolonged, because at the moment she is off covering a huge space shuttle event, which everyone knows instantly is going to end badly, or should realize if they have a brain.  Once the two long lost friends do cross paths again, Lois treats Clark with such detachment and indifference, it's almost he just came back from going to the bathroom, not a 5-year absence.  Of course she could remember that he is actually Superman, in spite of the super memory eraser kiss of 26 years ago, I mean 5 years ago!

The action scenes that do exist are thrilling to watch, but there is no lead up.  There are no awe-inspiring moments that ever caused me to have one of those goose bumps moments.  Things go from these rich action scenes to worse when Singer unhinges all the ideals of Superman and makes him a creepy stalker that even the NSA would be proud of.  Why Singer thought is was a good idea to have Superman float outside a house and use his x-ray vision and super hearing to spy on 2 people he has no business spying on is beyond comprehension.

The basic story is a retread of the original movie, Lex Luther who is out of jail because Superman failed to make a court hearing  and has now conned a old lady out of her money, we are talking about Bill Gates kind of money!  He has a huge estate, a yacht the size of Rhode Island but this is not enough.  In Superman's absence he has raided the Fortress of Solitude and stolen the information crystals.  His plan is so idiotic it defies description.  Grow your own land, like sea monkeys!  There are moments of absolute wonderment, Singer over supplies us with grandiose scenes. We get imagery of Christ and scenes from Action comics #1. We get a severe beating scene that even Sam Peckinpah would tip his hat towards, but there is no sense of  joy or hope which is what Superman has always represented.

Singer has brought Superman into the 21st Century via Liberalism, and while that may please some, that the most Conservative superhero has bowed to the pressure to get with the times, what is lost is more damaging.  The very fact Singer hasn't learn that Superman doesn't reflect current speech patterns, ideals, style and time is forever lost on him and he killed the last true Boy Scout.

Superman may stumble with morality, but how can he be a leader to the world if he himself does what anyone else would do? Remember, Superman isn't called Superman because of all the powers he has, it's because what he chooses to do with those powers.  Singer forgot that, morally Superman isn't shallow. I'm not against him spying, if he acknowledges it's wrong. But he doesn't and he comes off like a creep.

This is why the opening with Martha is so crucial. Because it's his compass to better things. That even when he does struggle with his morality, someone is there is to guide him and ground him.  I also like a Superman who isn't perfect but what do these words mean if we don't put them to use: "They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son"?

Do not believe me go and look, it still is there and several found it to be helpful. I have to admit I was very passionately pissed off and bitterly disappointed by the film I saw and I got up on a soapbox.  

Now we come to Man of Steel, another film that for some reason you feel that if a person is not jumping up and down with joy and a hard on there must be something wrong with said person. A great many people did not like this film. I have to tell you something you just do not seem to accept and that is the ONLY people who go to see a Superman film is a fan. I work with a great many people of all ages and when I discussed Man of Steel with them they had no intention of going to see the film. Many of them were excited about “World War Z”, teens to early 30’s, but out of nearly 100 people, I was the ONLY one who was planning on seeing Man of Steel.

Superman is passé and perhaps past his time in terms of being a major box office draw. Sure MOS did decent numbers, but you cannot honestly sit here and say that after it opened that the Brothers Warner were not salivating over the possibility that it was going to do “Iron Man 3” numbers. Of course after it only made 116 million to IM3’s 175 million opening numbers, you have to believe they knew that was not going to happen.

So, why was I disappointed with MOS? I think that it best that I let my Amazon review speak for me:

Superman brought into the 21 Century and not in a good way. If you grew up with the 78 movie you more than likely will not enjoy this film and its lack of humanity. This new man of steel is not my man of steel and a total waste of time and money. Many younger viewers will enjoy this new version with all its gritty realism, but to me the script is as though it was written by a high school freshman with far too many plot holes for me. At any rate, if you enjoyed this film I am happy for you and deeply concerned  for the future of humankind.

Nevertheless, I do believe that these two Youtube reviews pretty much nail down the problems for me;





As you can see not EVERYONE enjoyed the film as much as you do. And that is fine, because you cannot please every one and what I find offensive is that because a person has a contrary opinion to yours they have to be imbeciles. That is the simple narrow mindless idiocy that makes you sound like those who have been defending Returns for the last 8 years.

I do not know much about the film rating business, but I do feel it is indicative of a how most the viewing public views films by the rating information provided by guide data companies. Just recently MOS was being shown on a premium movies channel and that service rated it 2 out of 4 stars. My Roku gives a rating of 2 ½ stars out of 4. The same movie guide gives Returns a 3 out of 4 stars, which I find offensive and the 78 version gets 3 ½ out of 4.  

Now since we all know I have to be wrong so your fragile manhood is not shaken go and rip and tear, show the world your are the kings of your fiefdom. I am getting ready to drive to a set where there is suppose the be some action scenes shot today if rumors can be believed.

Actually junior, YOU are the one with your panties in a knot. You seem to rely on hyperbole, and an overabundance of "victim mentality".

I'm not going to quote your post, that would be foolish to try and tackle THAT wall of text. But right off the bat I'll say you just proved colorsblend right about 'World War Z' having an affect on 'MOS's box office take, even though you attempted to argue the contrary. So admit you were WRONG for once. It's there and you can't take it back.

Now as for your Amazon "review", I say: So what? Do you truly not understand what we at the SingersSupermanSucks Blog did? We had the PRESIDENT of Warner Bros. reading our passionate outrage and hate for that film. We also had other executives telling certain of us to keep up the fight, because the right people were seeing what we were saying. This includes Bryan "Rapes The Kiddies" Singer and BJ "I'm Box Office Poison" Routh. Quite a difference from a DVD review, eh? Even if we had a 1% hand in killing a Singerman sequel, and I bet it was more than that, it's still more than ANY OTHER Superman fan can claim.

You seem to think we don't believe there are people who don't like 'MOS'. I've seen no one claim this. Not once. But YOU said it was "50/50", and that's just fucking bullshit. 75/25? Maybe. More like 80/20. But we're old enough, and wise enough, to know we live in a world full of hate-filled assholes. People who would rather be snarky instead of accurate. Negative cunts will take the time to post their bullshit online, where as people who like something are secure enough in their likes/dislikes that they don't need "validation" from the hive-mind. I see plenty of retarded shit posted about 'Expendables 3' online, people calling it "horrible" and other such nonsense. But guess what? It's the best of the bunch and I have no quibbles about feeling that way. Do I need to find every website I can to spout how much I enjoyed it, and try to clutch onto others who feel the same?

Fuck no.

You didn't like 'MOS'? Whoopty-fuckin'-do. But do us a favor, and post a review outlining these numerous "plot-holes" you have imagined, and we'll see if you're man enough to admit you were wrong when we dissect & counter it. 'Man Of Steel' ain't no 'Dark Knight Rises'.

Hey Rduce, you post your review but you don't provide a link?! I mean, c'mon! For verification purposes LOL.

There's some incredibly flawed logic inherent to your post. #1, you're taking your anecdotal experience and applying it to the entire country. That logically opens the door for me to cite my own anecdotal experience and point out that I knew very few people who weren't at least mildly interested in seeing MOS. And not just core fans either. We're talking about people only peripherally involved in geekdom and even more civilians. Some were excited as hell, others were only mildly interested, like I said. NONE looked down their nose at it.

You might say that's an isolated incident in one part of the country at only one particular moment... and you'd even be right... but you did it first.

#2 you've made several bizarre arguments that don't relate to each other. You've tried to argue that MOS didn't make money (which isn't true), only Superman fans are interested in Superman films (also not true) and that wide audiences weren't/aren't interested in Superman. Going back to the facts (our specialty around here; we leave emotional outbursts and cheap melodrama to the Apologists), came damn close to $300 million JUST IN THE UNITED STATES.

Speaking of which, no film released so far in 2013 has outgrossed MOS... and unless something REALLY changes with Guardians of the Galaxy, none of them will either (fact- at this point in MOS's release, it had a $20 million lead on GOTG, not that you'll hear too many of the haters bringing up that little fact). This includes the "post-Avengers" Captain America- The Winter Soldier. Now, I enjoyed TWS but I won't let my affection for the film blind me to the lackluster numbers.

I originally had more in mind to say but I've got a hot pizza calling my name in the kitchen. That's more important to me right now.

OK now. Let me get this straight. When Christopher Reeve was active in the film franchise, the longer time went on, the more boring it got to duh general audiences, especially by the 3rd & 4th installments. Of course that wasn't necessarily Reeve's fault. You can blame a lot of that on mismanagement of the film franchise. Duh Salkinds & Donner may have gotten the ball rolling but yeah, obviously things went awry. So not all Reeve's fault.

However, with that being said, there are things that went wrong with the way Clark Kent/Superman was portrayed that, whether you blame Reeve, the writers, the producers, whoever, that I think cemented a lot of people's opinions of the character who weren't true fans. Superman was too all-powerful, who could do anything, thus making him boring. Reeve's Kent was a stumbling, bumbling idiot that bordered on slapstick. Superman himself was the 'big blue boyscout', etc., etc. So what I'm saying is that I think duh general public got tired of this interpretation.

So what's my point? Well, in the comics they did different things to Superman over the years to renew public interest & in some of them it worked, such as Byrne's reboot & the whole 'death' saga. But the film franchise just ended up in development hell.

Fast forward to more recent times. Gough & Millar tried to give us a different take with SMALLVILLE which, although not perfect, I loved it! And it wasn't the same old, same old either. Yet all so-called fans could do is whine & complain. See where I'm going with this? "That ain't my Superman!" Because it wasn't Reeve. But I thought Reeve had gotten old & passe to them? So Bryan Singerman tries to give them what they want & derailed the franchise again for having no vision.

But David Goyer supposedly pitches an 'original' idea to duh Nolan & he buys it but it suspiciously sounds to me like he ripped off Smallville! But Zack Snyder ends up directing, trying to deliver this 'different' interpretation, one in which Superman is not the big blue boyscout & all these 'fans' can whine about is that it's not SUPERMAN: the MOVIE.

So let me get this straight. Back in the day Reeve's version became old & boring to these fans. Now in the modern age of superhero films they try to give us a different take on the character, who maybe ain't a boyscout but at the same time is more like the comics & yet, Cavill is no Reeve. But I thought they got tired of Reeve's version?! IT. WAS. BORING! Or was it only boring when it suited their purposes?

So when Reeve wore the crown, they washed their hands of him. Now that the torch is passed to someone else, he ain't Reeve! Does this make any sense?

Apologist Puncher wrote:Actually junior, YOU are the one with your panties in a knot. You seem to rely on hyperbole, and an overabundance of "victim mentality".

I'm not going to quote your post, that would be foolish to try and tackle THAT wall of text. But right off the bat I'll say you just proved colorsblend right about 'World War Z' having an affect on 'MOS's box office take, even though you attempted to argue the contrary. So admit you were WRONG for once. It's there and you can't take it back.

Now as for your Amazon "review", I say: So what? Do you truly not understand what we at the SingersSupermanSucks Blog did? We had the PRESIDENT of Warner Bros. reading our passionate outrage and hate for that film. We also had other executives telling certain of us to keep up the fight, because the right people were seeing what we were saying. This includes Bryan "Rapes The Kiddies" Singer and BJ "I'm Box Office Poison" Routh. Quite a difference from a DVD review, eh? Even if we had a 1% hand in killing a Singerman sequel, and I bet it was more than that, it's still more than ANY OTHER Superman fan can claim.

There are a lot of overlooked chapters in Superman's history. Fact is SSS and the rest of us will probably never get credit for whatever we contributed to the franchise being rebooted. And I don't care if SSS and his blog were "only" 1% of the decision; our actions contributed something to Singerman's demise. Don't know about the rest of you but my head's held high for that.

The fact that we separated Superman from a child-molester... well, how could that possibly be a bad thing?

I'm STILL blown away by how many people are willing to sweep that under the rug, incidentally.

Oh, something else. A friend of mine is a Prima Donner. He's a good friend, don't get me wrong, but a Prima Donner he remains. He's taken potshots at MOS on a few occasions even though he's never even seen it ("Superman would never kill anybody," says the guy who loves Superman II and the Supergirl Saga from the comics and even halfheartedly defends Superman IV).

So he's been going on and on about Guardians and all that stuff, how more awesomerestedbesteverest it is and everything. He's tempered his pre-release comments though, which originally revolved around billions of dollars at the box office and all that because the way it's shaping up right now, GOTG is very unlikely to cross the $300 million threshold in the US or come anywhere near the $665 million MOS hit worldwide.

Of course, it's like he refuses to acknowledge that the way things are shaping up now, GOTG will fall short at least $100 million worldwide of where MOS landed... in spite of the fact that MOS faced competition that GOTG just won't. But maybe I shouldn't confuse him with the facts.

So. No review? Not even a response?

Typical.

Apologist Puncher wrote:So. No review? Not even a response?

Typical.

???

thecolorsblend wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:So. No review? Not even a response?

Typical.

???

I challenged Rdouche to post a review of 'Man Of Steel' pointing out these "numerous plot holes" he claims the movie has, so it can be read and countered. He not only HASN'T, but he hasn't bothered to even respond to any of the follow-up posts.

Methinks this guy doesn't know the difference between a plot hole, and an instance of "convenience". 'MOS' had a few of the latter, but not many of the former.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:So. No review? Not even a response?

Typical.

???

I challenged Rdouche to post a review of 'Man Of Steel' pointing out these "numerous plot holes" he claims the movie has, so it can be read and countered. He not only HASN'T, but he hasn't bothered to even respond to any of the follow-up posts.

Methinks this guy doesn't know the difference between a plot hole, and an instance of "convenience". 'MOS' had a few of the latter, but not many of the former.

Ah. Plenty of movies have plot conveniences. Michael Corleone just HAPPENS to come back from the war right as Barzini is getting ready to make his move. Ilsa and Victor stop in at Rick's the very same night Rick gets his hands on the letters of transit. Superman makes his debut right as Lex Luthor is getting ready to hijack a nuke to set off an earthquake in California.

As you say, it's part of any story. If you can't accept a story's premise... well, fiction probably isn't for you.

Exactly.

A plot hole is where a filmmaker goes out of his way to show that kryptonite depowers Singerman so much, that he gets his ass kicked like a little bitch, and is unable to even throw a punch back. THEN, goes and shows him lifting a fucking CONTINENT of the stuff, with a piece stuck in his side. Or, makes sure we see that Bruce Wayne is so penniless, that his car is repo'd THE DAY AFTER HE LOSES ALL HIS MONEY, and then that Gotham city is completely cut-off from the outside world that no one gets in or out. But all of a sudden, Bruce Wayne saunters into view in the heart of Gotham, sporting a brand new silk suit?

Plot holes.

Lois Lane showing up right after Superman snaps Zod's neck is convenient. Not a plot hole.

Movie to be split in two?

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=113385

BATMAN v SUPERMAN To Be Split In Two? ENTER THE KNIGHT Rumored Part 1 Subtitle

It was initially rumoured that Batman v Superman and Justice League would shoot back to back, but are we now getting a two-part version of the former? A supposedly leaked image claims that will be the case, with the first part reaching us...THIS YEAR?! Read on for details.
By Josh Wilding - 1/9/2015

The image below popped up on Imgur this morning, and as you might imagine, it has already started creating a lot of buzz on social media websites. Chances are that it's a fake, like so many other supposedly "leaked" images we've seen in the past (people are bored and have too much time on their hands to make these things I guess). Let's for a minute assume that it is real though. Is it so hard to believe that Warner Bros. would split Batman v Superman into a two-part movie?

They've certainly been shooting long enough for that to be the case, and while you may think it would be odd for them to have not announce Enter The Knight ten months before the release date stated below, how much have we seen of The Fantastic Four? (which is less than six months away)

This would actually be a great weekend for Batman v Superman: Enter The Knight to open too, as there's little to no serious competition during, before, or after that weekend. For now, take this with a pinch of salt; while it's nice to think that we'll get to see the Caped Crusader and Man of Steel battle it out in 2015 - the movie's original release year - it seems unlikely Warner Bros. wouldn't have announced this when they unveiled their slate of DC Comics movies last year...

The one thing that makes me think this is POSSIBLE is, supposedly the Brps. Warner have had October 23, 2015 reserved for quite some time with no film slated for that date.

Hopefully this means they see something great on their hands, and are not just looking to cash-in by splitting it in two.......