Watched it at home Friday night with my wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The Mrs. and I had seen it at the theater (loved it), the in-laws had not because my brother-in-law had told them he didn't like it. Well, I saw them grinning from ear-to-ear during the movie... they loved it and are going to buy the Blu-Ray.
Watched it at home Friday night with my wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The Mrs. and I had seen it at the theater (loved it), the in-laws had not because my brother-in-law had told them he didn't like it. Well, I saw them grinning from ear-to-ear during the movie... they loved it and are going to buy the Blu-Ray.
If you don't mind me asking, do your inlaws & wife read comics? What about your brother-in-law? I have this theory based on how other people have responded.
Watched it at home Friday night with my wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The Mrs. and I had seen it at the theater (loved it), the in-laws had not because my brother-in-law had told them he didn't like it. Well, I saw them grinning from ear-to-ear during the movie... they loved it and are going to buy the Blu-Ray.
If you don't mind me asking, do your inlaws & wife read comics? What about your brother-in-law? I have this theory based on how other people have responded.
M
I'm the only one who has read or reads comics. I'm mid-late 40's, and so is my BIL. FIL & MIL are in their mid-late 60's. Wife is early 40's. Probably doesn't help your theory, though!
Watched it at home Friday night with my wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The Mrs. and I had seen it at the theater (loved it), the in-laws had not because my brother-in-law had told them he didn't like it. Well, I saw them grinning from ear-to-ear during the movie... they loved it and are going to buy the Blu-Ray.
If you don't mind me asking, do your inlaws & wife read comics? What about your brother-in-law? I have this theory based on how other people have responded.
M
I'm the only one who has read or reads comics. I'm mid-late 40's, and so is my BIL. FIL & MIL are in their mid-late 60's. Wife is early 40's. Probably doesn't help your theory, though!
My theory is basically those that have experience with the source material are usually the biggest group that dislike the movie. Those that aren't familiar with the source material are the biggest group that like the movie.
I'm applying it to Star Trek: Into Darkness. Trekkies seem to have issues with it, non-Trekkies seem to really enjoy it. I'm convince 'niche' movies aren't for the diehards, but more the general audience.
Watched it at home Friday night with my wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The Mrs. and I had seen it at the theater (loved it), the in-laws had not because my brother-in-law had told them he didn't like it. Well, I saw them grinning from ear-to-ear during the movie... they loved it and are going to buy the Blu-Ray.
If you don't mind me asking, do your inlaws & wife read comics? What about your brother-in-law? I have this theory based on how other people have responded.
M
I'm the only one who has read or reads comics. I'm mid-late 40's, and so is my BIL. FIL & MIL are in their mid-late 60's. Wife is early 40's. Probably doesn't help your theory, though!
My theory is basically those that have experience with the source material are usually the biggest group that dislike the movie. Those that aren't familiar with the source material are the biggest group that like the movie.
I'm applying it to Star Trek: Into Darkness. Trekkies seem to have issues with it, non-Trekkies seem to really enjoy it. I'm convince 'niche' movies aren't for the diehards, but more the general audience.
M
I agree with your assessment... well, parts of it at least.
I don't really view ST: ID or MoS as niche movies. They’re intended to be blockbusters. When you spend that kind of money, you are not targeting your film to a niche audience. Star Trek and Man of Steel are genre movies of the science fiction and science-fantasy varieties respectively, yes, but they're still intended to be blockblusters, which by their very definition are meant to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.
Now, you could rightly say that science fiction and comics are niche markets in the publishing world, but once you take that material out of the realm of the printed page and move it to the television and movie screens, it becomes “legitimized” in the eyes of the general public. Science-fiction books are for nerds. Comics are for kids. But multi-million-dollar movies... hey, if stuff blows up, that’s cool.
But I’d argue that Star Trek was never intended for a niche audience to begin with. It’s not full-on science fiction. There was a lot of science fiction there, yes—enough to make science fiction purists fall in love with the show—but some episodes were basically westerns, the “Balance of Terror” episode is just a WWII submarine battle in space, and so on. The original Star Trek TV series was designed to make science fiction concepts more palatable to the masses. The new reboot moved the franchise even further out of the realm of pure science fiction (which is what drew most of the hardcore Trekkers to the franchise) and more into the realm of a standard adventure movie.
I would agree with @nweathington - productions that are this big and expensive are going to aim to be a four-quadrant monster success; and they would be foolish to limit themselves to trying to please comic readers (or pleasure readers at all!) because that is too small of a sub-culture.
That said, there are some giant, expensive movies that do a good job of pleasing the diehards and the general audience. (The Dark Knight and The Avengers come to mind) And others have a more mixed reception (with the diehards and general audience).
The concept of "them" and "us" has somewhat become obsolete. Geeks and Nerds are part of the mainstream now. As it has been for ages in many parts of the world outside the USA.
The concept of "them" and "us" has somewhat become obsolete. Geeks and Nerds are part of the mainstream now. As it has been for ages in many parts of the world outside the USA.
It's a lot easier to be an "out" nerd these days, but we're far from mainstream.
The concept of "them" and "us" has somewhat become obsolete. Geeks and Nerds are part of the mainstream now. As it has been for ages in many parts of the world outside the USA.
I get that. And i am not saying we are a protected class or anything like that. And we are certainly spoiled for choice when it comes to mainstream entertainment these days.
I was just picking up on what @Matt was saying about diehards. That the comic-reading fan is too small a demographic to be a sensible target. (And they know they can take us for granted anyway!)
The concept of "them" and "us" has somewhat become obsolete. Geeks and Nerds are part of the mainstream now. As it has been for ages in many parts of the world outside the USA.
I get that. And i am not saying we are a protected class or anything like that. And we are certainly spoiled for choice when it comes to mainstream entertainment these days.
I was just picking up on what @Matt was saying about diehards. That the comic-reading fan is too small a demographic to be a sensible target. (And they know they can take us for granted anyway!)
That's exactly what I was getting at. I recall seeing ST: Insurrection & Nemisis in the theatre with a Trekkie buddy of mine. Not a lot of people in the audience & they were mostly composed of Trekkies.
It goes back to the old business adage that 20% of your faithful customers compose 80% of your business sales. The trouble is trying to get more out of the remaining 80% of your customers without sacrificing the 20% of your faithfuls.
I think us diehards are somewhat more expendable to get that other 80%. I do agree it can work, such as Avengers & Nolan's Trilogy to name a couple that had fewer sacrifices. It can backfire with movies like Green Lantern.
I see MoS as being one of those borderline movies. There is definitely an overall different tone then the diehards are use to, plus the different look. Give Kent the traditional looking costume, a few more smiles, Lois not knowing the secret, & 15 minutes less of disaster porn with more of Kent's post-Zod mindset, would it be viewed more like Nolan's alterations to the Batman lore?
The average movie-goer doesn't seem to care about any of those.
The concept of "them" and "us" has somewhat become obsolete. Geeks and Nerds are part of the mainstream now. As it has been for ages in many parts of the world outside the USA.
I get that. And i am not saying we are a protected class or anything like that. And we are certainly spoiled for choice when it comes to mainstream entertainment these days.
I was just picking up on what @Matt was saying about diehards. That the comic-reading fan is too small a demographic to be a sensible target. (And they know they can take us for granted anyway!)
That's exactly what I was getting at. I recall seeing ST: Insurrection & Nemisis in the theatre with a Trekkie buddy of mine. Not a lot of people in the audience & they were mostly composed of Trekkies.
It goes back to the old business adage that 20% of your faithful customers compose 80% of your business sales. The trouble is trying to get more out of the remaining 80% of your customers without sacrificing the 20% of your faithfuls.
I think us diehards are somewhat more expendable to get that other 80%. I do agree it can work, such as Avengers & Nolan's Trilogy to name a couple that had fewer sacrifices. It can backfire with movies like Green Lantern.
I see MoS as being one of those borderline movies. There is definitely an overall different tone then the diehards are use to, plus the different look. Give Kent the traditional looking costume, a few more smiles, Lois not knowing the secret, & 15 minutes less of disaster porn with more of Kent's post-Zod mindset, would it be viewed more like Nolan's alterations to the Batman lore?
The average movie-goer doesn't seem to care about any of those.
M
I don't know that either of us can definitely speak to what the average movie-goer does or doesn't want in general. It may be that some if what kept audiences from being as positive as they were about Avengers and the Batman trilogy had some crossover with what the diehards didn't like, even if for different reasons. Or maybe not.
At the end of the day, though, there is something that kept Man of Steel from performing as well as Nolan or Whedon's films. And that may be what we will see addressed in the sequel. It will be interesting to see what changes.
The "something" that kept Man of Steel from "performing as well" as Dark Knight: One is Batman. The other is not. Solo character movies at the start of a "new" franchise. Apples to apples.
The "something" that kept Man of Steel from "performing as well" as Avengers: One is wrapping up at the finish line of a series of connected movies building a larger story, the other is not. Apples to oranges.
Fair enough. Then we would be talking over 90% fresh vs. 76%, just to judge by Rotten Tomatoes user ratings (the difference in critic scores are even greater) and Iron Man had nearly as good of an opening weekend (98M to 116M) and IMs lifetime gross is currently ahead (might change, not sure if MoS is still open some places).
So apple to apple, audiences that had to be taught what an Iron Man was seemed to like it more than a Superman movie, and it had less of a steep drop off after opening. And they have been making Superman movies for nearly 70 years, I think, so is it really the beginning of anything?
Maybe they should have found a more exciting actor to play Superman? Spent more on talent? I don't know the answer, but I think Iron Man was the greater success, especially considering they weren't starting with one of the biggest brands in the world.
(And Marvel didn't decide they had to add a bigger name to the sequel. They announced Iron Man 2 and proceeded that way.)
Fair enough. Then we would be talking over 90% fresh vs. 76%, just to judge by Rotten Tomatoes user ratings (the difference in critic scores are even greater) and Iron Man had nearly as good of an opening weekend (98M to 116M) and IMs lifetime gross is currently ahead (might change, not sure if MoS is still open some places).
So apple to apple, audiences that had to be taught what an Iron Man was seemed to like it more than a Superman movie, and it had less of a steep drop off after opening. And they have been making Superman movies for nearly 70 years, I think, so is it really the beginning of anything?
Maybe they should have found a more exciting actor to play Superman? Spent more on talent? I don't know the answer, but I think Iron Man was the greater success, especially considering they weren't starting with one of the biggest brands in the world.
(And Marvel didn't decide they had to add a bigger name to the sequel. They announced Iron Man 2 and proceeded that way.)
I agree. I think Iron Man not being one of the biggest brands in the world worked in its favor. There was an element of newness to it and perhaps even some unexpectedness. Because it was not a property that had been rehashed for 70 years no one knew quite what to expect. Then when Marvel delivered a quality product word of mouth made that success snowball.
I agree. I think Iron Man not being one of the biggest brands in the world worked in its favor. There was an element of newness to it and perhaps even some unexpectedness. Because it was not a property that had been rehashed for 70 years no one knew quite what to expect. Then when Marvel delivered a quality product word of mouth made that success snowball.
A great Super Bowl commercial didn't hurt, either.
The "something" that kept Man of Steel from "performing as well" as Dark Knight: One is Batman. The other is not. Solo character movies at the start of a "new" franchise. Apples to apples.
The "something" that kept Man of Steel from "performing as well" as Avengers: One is wrapping up at the finish line of a series of connected movies building a larger story, the other is not. Apples to oranges.
Now had you said Man of Steel to Iron Man...
I agree completely. Batman, first of all, is in a league of his own in terms of solo movies. But the competition Man of Steel faced was fierce. It was fierce this entire summer, but especially the second and third week of MOS. As an example of how fierce, Man of Steel opened huge obviously and then had a big drop to 3rd. The top two new movies that week, Monsters U and World War Z, earned more money than the ENTIRE top 10 during Batman Begins' second week (including Batman Begins). Batman Begins wasn't even all that successful. The Dark Knight and The Avengers did incredible, but they are outliers. Its beyond abnormal for movies to make $500+ million. There have been exactly 4 of them.
I'm sure they wish it had made more, but I'm also sure they feel pretty great about how it did. There were several $200+ million dollar movies this summer whose studio were probably hoping their movies would do gangbusters, and they ended up just doing "good". Man of Steel is the most successful (not adjusted for inflation) movie Warner Brothers has ever made that wasn't Harry Potter or Batman.
Edit: again in terms of competition, Iron Man's second week was.... weak. The entire top ten (Including Iron Man) earned less than the top 2 movies during MOS second week. Iron Man was at the beginning of the season, fresh. By the time Man of Steel went out the general audience had already had Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, Fast and Furious part 6, and maybe one or two other big ones.
If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
Yes, but zombies are big right now. Its riding (to some extent) on the coattails of the Walking Dead.
If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
Yes, but zombies are big right now. Its riding (to some extent) on the coattails of the Walking Dead.
M
Sure, but not nearly as big as superheroes at the movies. If we are talking coattails, then doesn't MoS have things like Avengers and the Nolan trilogy to ride?
If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
Yes, but zombies are big right now. Its riding (to some extent) on the coattails of the Walking Dead.
M
Sure, but not nearly as big as superheroes at the movies. If we are talking coattails, then doesn't MoS have things like Avengers and the Nolan trilogy to ride?
If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
Yes, but zombies are big right now. Its riding (to some extent) on the coattails of the Walking Dead.
M
Sure, but not nearly as big as superheroes at the movies. If we are talking coattails, then doesn't MoS have things like Avengers and the Nolan trilogy to ride?
That is correct, but I was referring to why WWZ didn't tank. MoS didn't either, so I'm sure the superhero fad didn't hurt the movie.
If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
It made a half billion dollars. It was a hugely budgeted, heavily marketed movie that was meant to appeal to the mass audience and opened pretty large. Again, Monsters U and WWZ earned more money by themselves than the entire top 10 during Batman Begins' second weekend and the entire top 10 during Iron Man's second week. Is "What Happens in Vegas" stiff competition for a super hero movie? was the very very mixed Speed Racer stiff competition? How about some movie called Rebound (which opened during Batman Begin's second week)? No?
Fast 6, Iron Man 3, and Star Trek, This Is The End were also still in the top 10 during Man of Steel's first three weeks. So yes, I would call that stiff competition.
In Germany, Austria and Switzerland only one superhero based movie made it into this years Top10 - Iron Man 3 ( Man of Steel pretty much failed, Thor just started but is doing great)
If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
It made a half billion dollars. It was a hugely budgeted, heavily marketed movie that was meant to appeal to the mass audience and opened pretty large. Again, Monsters U and WWZ earned more money by themselves than the entire top 10 during Batman Begins' second weekend and the entire top 10 during Iron Man's second week. Is "What Happens in Vegas" stiff competition for a super hero movie? was the very very mixed Speed Racer stiff competition? How about some movie called Rebound (which opened during Batman Begin's second week)? No?
Fast 6, Iron Man 3, and Star Trek, This Is The End were also still in the top 10 during Man of Steel's first three weeks. So yes, I would call that stiff competition.
And, of course, it didn't help that people didn't seem enthusiastic about recommending MofS, or seeing it a second time, as per some of the reporting on its big second week drop. But I think we've already talked about that. Experts projecting numbers thought MoS would maintain better than it did, and that WWZ would not do as well as it ended up doing. If you want to say that was all predestined, and the reception/word of mouth about MoS had nothing to do with it, then okay. But I disagree.
I acknowledge that competition is getting fiercer, but also if you made a Superman movie with a more enthusiastic audience and critical response, then it would make more money.
WB seems to agree- for the next one, instead of just making it look more like Batman, and say it is from the producer of Batman (as they did with MoS) they are going to actually add Batman.
And I'm sure that will pay off, financially. And maybe creatively, we'll see. I know I will be there to find out.
If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
It made a half billion dollars. It was a hugely budgeted, heavily marketed movie that was meant to appeal to the mass audience and opened pretty large. Again, Monsters U and WWZ earned more money by themselves than the entire top 10 during Batman Begins' second weekend and the entire top 10 during Iron Man's second week. Is "What Happens in Vegas" stiff competition for a super hero movie? was the very very mixed Speed Racer stiff competition? How about some movie called Rebound (which opened during Batman Begin's second week)? No?
Fast 6, Iron Man 3, and Star Trek, This Is The End were also still in the top 10 during Man of Steel's first three weeks. So yes, I would call that stiff competition.
And, of course, it didn't help that people didn't seem enthusiastic about recommending MofS, or seeing it a second time, as per some of the reporting on its big second week drop. But I think we've already talked about that. Experts projecting numbers thought MoS would maintain better than it did, and that WWZ would not do as well as it ended up doing. If you want to say that was all predestined, and the reception/word of mouth about MoS had nothing to do with it, then okay. But I disagree.
I acknowledge that competition is getting fiercer, but also if you made a Superman movie with a more enthusiastic audience and critical response, then it would make more money.
WB seems to agree- for the next one, instead of just making it look more like Batman, and say it is from the producer of Batman (as they did with MoS) they are going to actually add Batman.
And I'm sure that will pay off, financially. And maybe creatively, we'll see. I know I will be there to find out.
I've been saying that's exactly why Batman will be in the sequel. That's why I'd be silently pissed if I was Cavill.
If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
It made a half billion dollars. It was a hugely budgeted, heavily marketed movie that was meant to appeal to the mass audience and opened pretty large. Again, Monsters U and WWZ earned more money by themselves than the entire top 10 during Batman Begins' second weekend and the entire top 10 during Iron Man's second week. Is "What Happens in Vegas" stiff competition for a super hero movie? was the very very mixed Speed Racer stiff competition? How about some movie called Rebound (which opened during Batman Begin's second week)? No?
Fast 6, Iron Man 3, and Star Trek, This Is The End were also still in the top 10 during Man of Steel's first three weeks. So yes, I would call that stiff competition.
And, of course, it didn't help that people didn't seem enthusiastic about recommending MofS, or seeing it a second time, as per some of the reporting on its big second week drop. But I think we've already talked about that. Experts projecting numbers thought MoS would maintain better than it did, and that WWZ would not do as well as it ended up doing. If you want to say that was all predestined, and the reception/word of mouth about MoS had nothing to do with it, then okay. But I disagree.
I acknowledge that competition is getting fiercer, but also if you made a Superman movie with a more enthusiastic audience and critical response, then it would make more money.
WB seems to agree- for the next one, instead of just making it look more like Batman, and say it is from the producer of Batman (as they did with MoS) they are going to actually add Batman.
And I'm sure that will pay off, financially. And maybe creatively, we'll see. I know I will be there to find out.
I've been saying that's exactly why Batman will be in the sequel. That's why I'd be silently pissed if I was Cavill.
Comments
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES
M
I'm applying it to Star Trek: Into Darkness. Trekkies seem to have issues with it, non-Trekkies seem to really enjoy it. I'm convince 'niche' movies aren't for the diehards, but more the general audience.
M
I don't really view ST: ID or MoS as niche movies. They’re intended to be blockbusters. When you spend that kind of money, you are not targeting your film to a niche audience. Star Trek and Man of Steel are genre movies of the science fiction and science-fantasy varieties respectively, yes, but they're still intended to be blockblusters, which by their very definition are meant to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.
Now, you could rightly say that science fiction and comics are niche markets in the publishing world, but once you take that material out of the realm of the printed page and move it to the television and movie screens, it becomes “legitimized” in the eyes of the general public. Science-fiction books are for nerds. Comics are for kids. But multi-million-dollar movies... hey, if stuff blows up, that’s cool.
But I’d argue that Star Trek was never intended for a niche audience to begin with. It’s not full-on science fiction. There was a lot of science fiction there, yes—enough to make science fiction purists fall in love with the show—but some episodes were basically westerns, the “Balance of Terror” episode is just a WWII submarine battle in space, and so on. The original Star Trek TV series was designed to make science fiction concepts more palatable to the masses. The new reboot moved the franchise even further out of the realm of pure science fiction (which is what drew most of the hardcore Trekkers to the franchise) and more into the realm of a standard adventure movie.
That said, there are some giant, expensive movies that do a good job of pleasing the diehards and the general audience. (The Dark Knight and The Avengers come to mind) And others have a more mixed reception (with the diehards and general audience).
Maybe its different in your alpine utopia. :D
3:-O
I was just picking up on what @Matt was saying about diehards. That the comic-reading fan is too small a demographic to be a sensible target. (And they know they can take us for granted anyway!)
It goes back to the old business adage that 20% of your faithful customers compose 80% of your business sales. The trouble is trying to get more out of the remaining 80% of your customers without sacrificing the 20% of your faithfuls.
I think us diehards are somewhat more expendable to get that other 80%. I do agree it can work, such as Avengers & Nolan's Trilogy to name a couple that had fewer sacrifices. It can backfire with movies like Green Lantern.
I see MoS as being one of those borderline movies. There is definitely an overall different tone then the diehards are use to, plus the different look. Give Kent the traditional looking costume, a few more smiles, Lois not knowing the secret, & 15 minutes less of disaster porn with more of Kent's post-Zod mindset, would it be viewed more like Nolan's alterations to the Batman lore?
The average movie-goer doesn't seem to care about any of those.
M
At the end of the day, though, there is something that kept Man of Steel from performing as well as Nolan or Whedon's films. And that may be what we will see addressed in the sequel. It will be interesting to see what changes.
The "something" that kept Man of Steel from "performing as well" as Avengers: One is wrapping up at the finish line of a series of connected movies building a larger story, the other is not. Apples to oranges.
Now had you said Man of Steel to Iron Man...
So apple to apple, audiences that had to be taught what an Iron Man was seemed to like it more than a Superman movie, and it had less of a steep drop off after opening. And they have been making Superman movies for nearly 70 years, I think, so is it really the beginning of anything?
Maybe they should have found a more exciting actor to play Superman? Spent more on talent? I don't know the answer, but I think Iron Man was the greater success, especially considering they weren't starting with one of the biggest brands in the world.
(And Marvel didn't decide they had to add a bigger name to the sequel. They announced Iron Man 2 and proceeded that way.)
I'm sure they wish it had made more, but I'm also sure they feel pretty great about how it did. There were several $200+ million dollar movies this summer whose studio were probably hoping their movies would do gangbusters, and they ended up just doing "good". Man of Steel is the most successful (not adjusted for inflation) movie Warner Brothers has ever made that wasn't Harry Potter or Batman.
Edit: again in terms of competition, Iron Man's second week was.... weak. The entire top ten (Including Iron Man) earned less than the top 2 movies during MOS second week. Iron Man was at the beginning of the season, fresh. By the time Man of Steel went out the general audience had already had Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, Fast and Furious part 6, and maybe one or two other big ones.
M
M
Fast 6, Iron Man 3, and Star Trek, This Is The End were also still in the top 10 during Man of Steel's first three weeks. So yes, I would call that stiff competition.
I acknowledge that competition is getting fiercer, but also if you made a Superman movie with a more enthusiastic audience and critical response, then it would make more money.
WB seems to agree- for the next one, instead of just making it look more like Batman, and say it is from the producer of Batman (as they did with MoS) they are going to actually add Batman.
And I'm sure that will pay off, financially. And maybe creatively, we'll see. I know I will be there to find out.
M