He said gross.
Not sure what your Deadpool hate is.
In today's comic book followers, I dare say yes. However, in the mainstream, I would have to say no. But look at today's mainstream followers. Superman movies haven't done all that well, and it wasn't until Heath Ledger came along that Batman did well either.
The same reason people pin their hopes to a certain video game's sales numbers...
Probably. But prior to this, he was almost a guarantee for a film to *not* make money at the box office:
Then again, we've been fans of him since Two Guys and a Girl (and a Pizza Place), so it wasn't like she really had to try to convince me.
- Self/less
- R.I.P.D.
- Safe House
- Green Lantern
I paid $9 and don't regret it. Even if it wasn't great it wasn't a waste.
There was a Wayne Industries logo on a satellite in Man of Steel. The same one you see on the helicopter at the beginning. They hinted at it, but very vaguely.
Kryptonite's a hell of a drug. And Superman was holding back. He even said he was. It's the first time he's ever held back in the Snyder version, but he did.
They put three large stories from the comics into this and poorly connected them. Not just you.
It's certainly being said in many places though, it rather smacks of being told that one simply doesn't understand enough to deserve to enjoy it. Balls to that
They always have been, however, this is the first movie to depict both of them at the same time.
EDIT: Derp. It just occurred to me that you may have meant something else, and they haven't been in the same universe, at least not officially, until now. There were offhand mentions and whatnot but nothing like this.
Ahha okay then, it was just strange.
Marvel is something of a different story because they've been laying the groundwork for future movies, cameos and gatherings since the original Iron Man. That might explain why you're more comfortable with heroes coming out the woodwork in the MCU as opposed to this... sudden grouping of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman in BvS.
To be honest, I can't fault your confusion because the movie does a horrible job of explaining how any of this took place even to people who know exactly what's going on. I'm one of those people and I spent a good portion of my viewing scratching my head and saying (to myself) "Wait, what?"
I think you're right, I think it would be similar to if Civil War came out first, the whole all superheroes in the same universe at once. It seems like they have rushed to get the film out? I know its a film and what not but it is a bit convenient that wonder woman is about too but that can be said for any plot really
The short answer: yes. The complicated answer is basically both have done things they haven't had any business getting away from. Both are as competent as the pen permits, both in comic books and movies. In the movie it's steeped a little bit more on the 'preventative measures' side of things by making Batman as resourceful as he can be.
I must admit I do prefer Superman. Of course they need to sell the film so it will only be what the writer allows, I do understand that. It just seems a bit like 'oh there is this god dude but the random guy in a suit is gonna be 30 seconds from killing him' I just don't see it. If it really was a fight Superman should end it in a couple of minutes but obviously then there is no film or justice league. It just seems a bit of a cheap shot at the audience, at least to me
It isn't just you, believe me.
There was a Wayne Industries logo on a satellite in Man of Steel. The same one you see on the helicopter at the beginning. They hinted at it, but very vaguely.
Ahh okay then
Kryptonite's a hell of a drug. And Superman was holding back. He even said he was. It's the first time he's ever held back in the Snyder version, but he did.
I do seem to remember something along those lines, but that doesn't make sense in a film billed as B v S to me at least. I must have missed this, how does Batman find out that Kryptonite is Superman's weakness?
They put three large stories from the comics into this and poorly connected them. Not just you.
Is it necessarily the director's responsibility to accurately recreate comic books on film? Nolan might have shied away from dedicated adaptations, but I don't think that it automatically disqualifies his films from being considered good films. Look at The Dark Knight as a prime example of this - the Joker's plan isn't to frame Batman or kidnap his girlfriend or get revenge, but rather to corrupt the idea of Batman, which is pretty revolutionary for any film, much less a comic book film (which until then had been aimed more at kids than anything else). His only real mis-step was the lack of focus in The Dark Knight Rises - it's a shame he didn't get the opportunity to work in Lincoln March and the Court of Owls; they would have worked so much better than the League of Shadows.
