Ash Ketchum

James B. Stewart decided to write about superhero films in the Business section of yesterday's New York Times and he explains why CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR did so much better than BATMAN V. SUPERMAN. Granted, there's nothing in the piece that's new to anyone here, but it's rare to see the top business writer at the Times tackle this subject and he avoids fanboy spokesmen and instead gets some good quotes from entertainment industry analysts on the subject. In the hopes that you all might find it interesting, here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/bu...rman.html?_r=0

For the record, I haven't seen either film.

PhantomStranger

Honestly, it reads like a clickbait article meant to drive traffic to the site by readers that would never regularly visit the New York Times site. It doesn't really offer much insight beyond what I've heard on this forum and other places. I'm guessing his editor pushed this angle to draw casual readers.

I think it mostly came down to Warner biting off more than they could chew in one movie. I have to believe there were five or even six separate scripts meshed into the final edit.

Decker

That article should be reprinted here :


That said, I would disagree with one small thing they mention : that BvS would have an advantage since it came out first. There's no question that an Early May release would do better than a March release date. That is the #1 weekend of the year, all things being equal.

TheMovieman

Oh good, another one of these threads.

Mike86

I dunno. Deadpool opened pretty huge this year in February which isn't traditionally a big time for superhero films. Also The Winter Soldier opened in April and did fairly well. On top of that there have been other nonsuperhero blockbuster type films that have opened around March-April and managed to do really well. I think it did have to do with the film itself and the release date shouldn't have been a factor. If anything the release date should have helped it given that there wasn't a lot of competition around the time it was released and it should have been able to draw more than it did. The film was its own victim from the poor word of mouth in my opinion.

Double_Oh_7

Civil War is a much better film. 'Nuff said

d2cheer

I would disagree very much so. Isn't it nice we can have different opinions??

TGM

Civil War: simply a better film built on the back of a dozen good to great films.

BvS: a poor to mediocre film built on the back of one other poor to mediocre film shot through a gloom lens.

Count Dooku

Do people really think that any random weekend is a better time to release a movie than any other random weekend?

I'm not saying that a holiday weekend isn't better, because obviously. . .

And obviously you'll get more kids in the movies when school is out. . .

But why would the last weekend in March be a worse or better time to release a movie than the first weekend in May, or the second weekend in October?

Basically, there was a traditional notion that summer was the time for "popcorn movies." Does anybody believe that anymore? Is there any time of year when people aren't going to turn out in the millions to see an "event movie"?

The Bus

The average NYT reader does not read DVDT or any other film site. This was in the Business section, not the Film section.

The Bus

January, late August/early September.

fumanstan

But in the context of why Civil War ended up doing much better then Batman v Superman, it basically sums up the main reason.

d2cheer

One could also argue there are more fans for Marvel. Historically they have done better and there has been many more movies. 2 Batman films made good bank but that is about it. We can argue all day about whether the recent Superman films have been...Most Marvel movies have been plain and simple.

Mike86

DC's problem is that it's always about Batman and Superman. They've pretty much tried nothing else except once with Green Lantern which failed miserably. Pretty much aside from that they've adapted stories that were one offs like 300, V For Vendetta, and Watchmen. Marvel took a chance more (partially out of necessity but still) and now DC is trying to get at that level but are doing it too late in the game and in a haphazard fashion.

fumanstan

I'd say that's a fairly flimsy argument to say there are more fans for Marvel when Superman and Batman are easily the most recognizable comic book characters in the world, especially when the previous two Batman films made more money then any Marvel movie not titled The Avengers. Man of Steel, despite mediocre reviews, made more money then any of the other standalone Marvel movies outside of Iron Man and Guardians of the Galaxy, until the recent Captain America Civil War. The audience is there and people WANT to support these DC characters.

Point is, you might disagree that Civil War is better then BvS, but it's not hard to see the rest of the critic and user reactions and acknowledge that's the common consensus and it seems clear to me the box office "winner" went to the better received movie.

E Unit

Posting this here as well, cause this is some funny shit. And speaks directly to why BvS will never be as good as Civil War. He also comments on the next Batman movie.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/jeremy-ir...145800371.html

Jeremy Irons Doesn't Even Try to Defend 'Muddled, Overstuffed' Batman v Superman

Alfred Pennyworth may be Bruce Wayne's forever-loyal butler and best friend, but Jeremy Irons is not Alfred Pennyworth. Irons, one of the great actors of the last 40 years (remember that time he played twin gynecologists in David Cronenberg's lugubrious Dead Ringers?), and one of the few things we liked about Batman v Superman, did not jump up to defend Zack Snyder's maligned movie while speaking with The Daily Mail. When the Mail mentions the "kicking" the film received from critics, Irons says, "Deservedly so. I mean it took £800 million, so the kicking didn’t matter but it was sort of overstuffed..." He goes on: "‘It was very muddled. I think the next one will be simpler. The script is certainly a lot smaller, it’s more linear...I’m tied into The Batman at the minute, which is nice because it’s a bit of income…not that I need a bit of an income..." Irons also goes on to say that he has no interest in knighthood because he doesn't need more money and fame. That's what Batman v Superman is for.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/even...red-actor.html

Supermallet

Of course everyone has their own opinions but the critical and commercial consensus is in Civil War's favor. some people will vehemently defend BvS but the general consensus is that CW is the better film and more deserving of people's money.

d2cheer

Yea I get that. But I would still make a point that Marvel (now) is way more popular and that helped its Box Office. The Civil War is a wet dream for a mash-up. Just not great IMHO.

Supermallet

I agree that it certainly didn't hurt that Marvel has consistently released good to great movies (with a few clunkers that still aren't as bad as BvS) for years, which gives people confidence in the brand and made people excited for this film because they are so invested in the characters. If DC had the patience to do that, and hired better creative teams to make their movies, they would also benefit from such audience loyalty.

Mike86

You know your film isn't great when even one of the actors points it out. Irons was easily one of the best things about the film which I was surprised by as I didn't expect to like him as Alfred.

JimRochester

Since I've liked or loved the most of the Marvel films especially Winter Soldier it was easy to get excited about Civil War. I thought Man Of Steel was terrible so it is easy top wait until BvS is in the $1 rental bin.

Mike86

I know it's your opinion but I would say the complete opposite. Civil War is the culmination of eight years worth of films and it surpasses any expectations I had for it. Batman V Superman is the film that as a Batman and to a lesser extent Superman film I should have been crazy about seeing but instead it's just a clusterfuck of a film and a massive disappointment. The thing is also that so much was riding on it to be good and set up the rest of the DC film universe which it failed at so I think it's going to be a rocky road ahead to get people back on board and to get things running smoothly. Even some things I'm excited for like the solo Affleck Batman film I'm weary of at this point.

PhantomStranger

It's pretty evident that Marvel has a greater floor of fan support for their top movie characters at the moment. If B v S was the exact same movie but had been released by Marvel, it would have passed a billion at the box office. Marvel has developed a powerful movie brand that insulates them when the movies are average.

I think the Marvel association even helped Deadpool's box office, even though Disney had nothing to do with the movie. Deadpool doesn't become a phenomenon released under the DC umbrella. It's still a hit because it's a funny movie, but I don't see it becoming one of the top R films of all time. This is clearly happening in overseas markets, where the audiences are less sophisticated about these American cultural nuances.

Why So Blu?

I'll just leave this right here…

mrhan

Well, he did win an Oscar for best actor.