Comments on: Too Big To Fail: What ‘Batman v Superman’ Tells Us About Blockbuster Culture

By: Fantastic article. And I have to admit, Martha\'s comment made me crack up, a more perfect example of mondless fanbot crankery couldn\'t have been penned, I almost wonder if Martha is a troll or a plant.

Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

James

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

ok ok – we get it, The Playlist didn\’t like Batman V Superman. Can we move on now?

By: Marco

Marco — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Sorry Jessica, but I don\’t understand all these terrible, awful reviews and comments for a film that is weak just as every other blockbuster. I live in Italy, the film perform well at box office, but the critics were not so harsh. To me it\’s clear that BvS it\’s divided almost exactly in two parts: the first one it\’s interesting, bold, complex. The second one, that starts with the two heros fighting, it\’s a mess. I don\’t know why you hope the film fail at box office: I didn\’t read the same analysis fo the awful Age of Ultron, the childish and implausible Jurassic World, or the even worst Harry Potter\’s last chapters, or the Hunger Games sequels. I wish I could read all these comments way before…

By: Salem

Salem — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Well, it opened worse than Iron Man 3 despite 3 years of inflation and it\’s going to be beaten domestically by Deadpool, an R-rated flick which cost $58m, so it\’s not like a huge success or anything.

By: Dominic

Dominic — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Critics hate it, everyone else loves it. I think this shows more of a disconnect between actual people and what critics think people want.

By: ROLAND RAT

ROLAND RAT — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Great article. It\’s worth mentioning that while blockbusters like BvS sometimes turn out to be terrible, a lot of very talented people work extremely hard over several years to make and market them. A $250m+ movie is not an easy ship to steer.

By: Arthur

Arthur — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Very well written but at the same time so angry… I can feel the frustration seeping through the spaces. I think talking about it now wouldn\’t make much of a difference. If the huge drop is an indication of where it would end up, time will tell.
My take on the contradicting "serious" comments is different though. Snyder is taking it "serious" as a material but Goldstein is telling the critics not to take it "seriously" as a movie. And to be honest, we really shouldn\’t. It never felt much like a movie for me anyways but a live-action comic book on the big screen, which is what Snyder has been doing all his career ever since 300. No adaptation process, simply put the panels on the screen. Either way, just let it be and move on. I love The Playlist and watching you guys getting so worked up over this is kind of silly. Winning the debate at this stage doesn\’t really prove anything anyways. It\’s the money that will ultimately decide the directions of any blockbusters. It\’s got a life of its own.

By: Micahael H.

Micahael H. — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

This is a good article. I like all kinds of movies, but do I have to love only the popular ones and dislike ones that aren\’t. Is the public, of which I\’m part, never mistaken? Or hoodwinked? Or advertised to death? Are all the young people always right? Always? Zack Snyder would win more friends if he didn\’t respond to critics directly lol. If the movie is a lark, is fun, is just entertainment, why be so serious? Why take it personally? Unlike a restaurant, a movie you pay up front. Can you imagine the grosses of many movies, if you paid, coming out? Wow, I bet they\’d be different. Go see what you want, if that\’s BVS, so be it. But if it\’s small movie or a foreign film, so be it also.

By: James VDB

James VDB — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

A well-written analysis, Jessica. Your last paragraphs remind me of what Spielberg predicted in 2013: "There’s going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen mega-budget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that’s going to change the paradigm”—forcing the industry to rethink its reliance on gargantuan spectacles." He was talking about this kind of movies.

By: cirkusfolk

cirkusfolk — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

This whole, the people have spoken idea based on its weekend BO is ridiculous. Of course people will go see it, it sounds cool. Just because they bought a ticket doesn\’t mean they liked it and are on its side. Most of the whole group I saw it with didn\’t like it, yet we still contributed 100 dollars towards its BO. The article mentioned its low meta critic score. That\’s how you judge if the audience liked your film or not. They have to buy a ticket to see it in the first place and form an opinion. The studio is just trying to spin it their way why sighing a huge sigh of relief. Believe me, they would rather have made a movie that got terrible reviews but made money than a movie that got great reviews but didn\’t make money.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

@Daniel – Abrams made a financially successful movie, which was what he was hired to do. He dare not made an artistically ambitious movie, which to industry insiders would be taken as a challenge to the guys who currently own that niche. As for Snyder making the movie "bad on purpose", the message is not just to critics, but the entire class of people which they represent – upper middle class liberals. You see the big ticket sales from his film just as you see the huge turnout at Trump rallies. The people who go to those things want to send a message to the rest of us.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Dave – this is conspiracy theory nonsense. Disney & Lucasfilm hired J.J. Abrams to make a successful movie, but he didn\’t have enough backing to challenge \’the Spielbergs\’ of Hollywood to make the movie good, even though the better the movie it is, the more successful it is? And Zack Snyder made the movie \’bad on purpose\’ even though there are literally billions of dollars riding on it, just to send a message to the critics? That\’s bonkers.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Yeah – the authority with which you speak is kinda funny. Who are you? Seriously?

Also, I read an article about critics jumping on the band wagon, too scared to voice opinions that differ from their counterparts. Seems like that\’s the case here.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Also, with films like Zac Snyder\’s, he purposefully throws in certain elements which critics and educated audiences will turn their nose at in the same way that Trump says things that will offend liberals. It\’s bad on purpose, to send a signal us that there are large numbers of people who reject the parameters of what is considered "good" currently. The message is that if the critics and the better heeled people who form their readership consider something to be "good", then we will go the opposite direction on purpose, till our dollars and votes make you come to us.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

I think the "custodial" attitude of JJ Abrams and other filmmakers of his generation has to do with the fact that he doesn\’t have the backing to challenge the Spielbergs of Hollywood for artistic supremacy. Spielberg and Lucas among with a handful of other filmmakers still own the niche of "quality blockbusters". When Spielberg and other old hands step down from the filmmaking side of things, I think you\’ll see the new generation of blockbuster helmers take more bold artistic decisions. You don\’t dare make a better product than Dad if you\’re in Dad\’s company. Not while he still has the keys to the house.

By: BILL

BILL — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

But I liked the film. In fact, I enjoyed it moreso than any previous Marvel film – to date. So, what does that mean?

Surely I\’m not alone in appreciating Snyder\’s blockbuster epic, and it\’s a little disheartening to read how GODAWFUL most of these reviews and "think-pieces" make it out to be.

You\’re a blogger, for chrissake. What have you done with your life besides be miserable and condescending while at the same time offering no solutions to the so-called problem. This webiste has actively campaigned against Dawn of Justice from the get-go. Had it been directed by anyone other than Zack Snyder, I doubt it would\’ve received this level of spite. It this film truly worse than Thor: The Dark World? Answer me that

By: cirkusfolk

cirkusfolk — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Agreed. This article said everything I wish I could\’ve. I gave the film a shot, and it was worse than Man of Steel. I don\’t want bad movies to make money because it only celebrates bad filmmaking. Sorry.

By: Rafael

Rafael — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Spot on article Jessica, great reading. Congrats.

By: Macks

Macks — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

I\’m one that usually leans on the side of certain critics being pretentious and just not really getting it, but this is not the case with BvS. This movie is bad. As a fan of the Batman comics, cartoon, video games and previous (good) movies, I was really disappointed in this movie, for all the reasons pointed out by pretty much every critic that gave their honest opinion about the movie. It\’s emotionally hollow, uninteresting and totally disjointed. What\’s more disappointing is that this movie COUlD have been really, really good… as a third act. Snyder just jumped right into three different massive franchises (not including the awkward foreshadowing of the additional JLA characters) with one long streak of explosions and god-awful dialogue. I bought the blu-ray pack of the Nolan trilogy immediately after watching this. Need to cleanse myself.

By: Carl

Carl — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

One of the problems that I had with the film is that there were few surprises in there, which for me was due to the way the film was marketed. Imagine how much more of a revelation it would have been if we did not know that Gal Gadot was playing Wonder Woman, or that Doomsday was going to be the final fight. Even the best line (Do you bleed? You will) was in the trailer. I can understand wanting to promote the film as best as possible, but just the fact it was Batman vs Superman would have been enough to get bums on seats.

By: Karen Silkwood

Karen Silkwood — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

Martha, why even bother commenting something so rude? If you don\’t enjoy reading critics or well-written analyses such as this, just look the other way.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

I don\’t go to blockbusters opening weekend but two adult friends did and both enjoyed it. The bottom line is they crushed numbers but $800M is a huge bar to be profitable. Let\’s see how next week figures come in for a "terrible" movie

By: Martha

Martha — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

F uck you Jessica . .. Go eat a d – ick. You critics can eat turd

By: Fantastic article. And I have to admit, Martha's comment made me crack up, a more perfect example of mondless fanbot crankery couldn't have been penned, I almost wonder if Martha is a troll or a plant.

Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

James

By: Jacob

Jacob — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:52:00 +0000

I really enjoyed the movie. I do really disagree with your review and your superior, elitist tone in this review and article.You\’ve illustrated what Speilberg said about the elitists of his days that hated Jaws. In your mind, a large commercial success cannot equal a good movie. The numbers don\’t lie. People like this movie. The numbers always tell the story. The rebooted Fantastic 4 was crap, and the audience recognized it. So, your issue isn\’t really with the movie, but with all of these people all over the world that did like the movie.