255 comments

1. 

   SBHM

   January 3, 2017

   lol you're on your own there Chris. I'm with Keaton.

   1. 

      ryrizzo

      January 3, 2017

      Agreed. Forever was awful.

      1. 

         Yanni Spiridakis

         January 3, 2017

         well, you know what? I'd say it was an ok cartoon movie for teenagers, but not a Batman movie for Batman fans

         1. 

            OGmacrazy

            January 3, 2017

            If anything, it was ok for children. No way, no how teenagers with a slight taste in movies would get suckered in with Tommy Lee Jones pathetic Two Face, and Carrey's over-acting...
            Batman fans or not, it was just a bad movie.

      2. 

         ShadowGuardian

         January 3, 2017

         I almost hate it more than Batman and Robin. Not because it's worse, but because you go from the excellent Burton verse to that crap. After BF, you know what to expect with B&R. I also find B&R to be more entertaining as it just goes all they way with the stupid slapstick stuff, basically making it a Batman parady. Forever doesn't have that going for it IMO.

   2. 

      Kane

      January 3, 2017

      I thought 'Forever' was the shits

      but I thought it was just me as it was wildly popular at the time, which I couldn't see why

2. 

   Worlds Finest Comments

   January 3, 2017

   The only thing about Batman Forever I can still honestly say holds up well is "Kiss from a Rose".

   1. 

      TØM

      January 3, 2017

      What a song. Totally didn't fit the film in any way at all. But what a song.

   2. 

      residentgrigo

      January 3, 2017

      "The End is the Beginning is the End" from B&R is way better. That´s films strongest aspect, perfected in Watchmen.

3. 

   Theclaw Yaww

   January 3, 2017

   They SUCKED(still better than Suicide Squad)

   1. 

      BrandonA RealNigga

      January 3, 2017

      Yea right Suicide Sqaud was a great movie...fuck you

      1. 

         Matthew Whitaker

         January 3, 2017

         LOL! That is like saying, "The Nazis were good!"

      2. 

         Theclaw Yaww

         January 3, 2017

         Hahaha good that you like it but it was not a great movie

      3. 

         Ryan

         January 3, 2017

         Suicide squad sucked massive dickkk why can't they jus make a movie that's not so shitty

         1. 

            CeeEye

            January 4, 2017

            Incompetence?

         2. 

            AnotherGreenDay

            January 4, 2017

            Suicide squad did not suck, The script wasn't an Oscar winning script, it was a bit weak, but it was a much better movie than First Avenger, The incredible Hulk and Thor!
            And, Suicide Squad had B list characters in it, compared to Hulk, captain America............... and Thor at that matter.

      4. 

         CeeEye

         January 4, 2017

         BvS sucked.

         1. 

            AnotherGreenDay

            January 4, 2017

            No dude......... Ironman 3 sucked, Civil War was weak, and Antman sucked.

            1. 

               CeeEye

               January 4, 2017

               Ironman 3 did suck. Civil War sucked part from the airport scene which was go good it was worth the ticket by itself.

               Antman was spectacular...sorry Spiderman...

   2. 

      ShadowGuardian

      January 3, 2017

      I really hate Suicide Squad, but these are easily worse.

      1. 

         Theclaw Yaww

         January 3, 2017

         Nah atleast they knew they were fucking stupid and cheesy

         1. 

            Spencer Jacobson

            January 6, 2017

            At the time these movies had NO idea they were stupid and cheesy, that's blatant revisionist history. Lots of people like them at the time.

            1. 

               Theclaw Yaww

               January 6, 2017

               You are truly stupid if you belive that. They had a bat credit card of course they made it cheesy on purpose

      2. 

         CeeEye

         January 4, 2017

         BvS was worse. For both the writing and characterization were so random and awful the movies were actually boring. When people are looking at their phones during the 'battle' with Doomsday, you know you have a problem.

         1. 

            AnotherGreenDay

            January 4, 2017

            That's the kind of shit i saw with Ironman 3, The only ones who think that BvS sucked is Marvel fans!
            BvS was a really good movie that made 873 million without the kiddie fanbase. How you come to the conclusion it was a shit movie i don't know.
            Captain america winter soldier only made 714.4 million, and cap came from the billion dollar Avengers movie and has the kiddie fan base. So if BvS sucked, WS must be one of the worse movies made.
            Also Civil War took a 74% drop on its second week, WOW.

            1. 

               CeeEye

               January 4, 2017

               I think it sucked because I am a DC fan, and moreover, a Superman fan.

               I came to the conclusion that it was a 'shit movie' by watching it.

               BvS made a profit of ~208 million to CWS profit of ~262 million.

               Is it your assertion that Cap has a bigger 'kiddie fan base' than Superman? lol.

               BvS took a 86% drop, against nothing significant opening against it -- set a record for it. Sorry Fantastic Four. I guess by your logic that is a WOOOW!

   3. 

      Kane

      January 3, 2017

      https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

   4. 

      Saudefh Sauri Denis

      January 4, 2017

      way better, forever was supposed to be like that since the begining, but squad its a dissapointment :/

4. 

   Ramon Pesante

   January 3, 2017

   Second worse Batman Movie of all time.

5. 

   Sergio

   January 3, 2017

   Lol. I love keaton. Chris you cant defend forever and B&R when even Schumacher himself publicly apologized for both.

   1. 

      BatmanNewsChris

      January 3, 2017

      Stop trying to ruin my childhood!

      1. 

         Joshua Smith

         January 3, 2017

         Just because you're a fan doesn't mean you have to force yourself to like garbage! I'm 35 and hardcore batman 'til the wheels fall off, but this movie has never made it to any list of mine......EVER!!!

         1. 

            Ryan

            January 3, 2017

            The only thing that's getting forced here is that pickle in ur butt.

            1. 

               Joshua Smith

               January 3, 2017

               Ooh I need some ice for that wicked burn! Thanks for the trip back to 5th grade there buddy!!

      2. 

         Kane

         January 3, 2017

         Ha!

         I think Schumacher and his neon dildos did that

         I could never understand how getting acid thrown in your face; turns half of it white

         1. 

            Bill Agans

            January 19, 2017

            white? harvey's bad side turned purple & blue.

            1. 

               Kane

               January 20, 2017

               Batman - pre acid

               https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

               Batman Forever - post acid

               https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

            2. 

               Bill Agans

               January 20, 2017

               it didn't turn half of it white. they completely changed his race before that happened.

      3. 

         residentgrigo

         January 3, 2017

         http://25.media.tumblr.com/...

      4. 

         ArkhamFreak

         January 3, 2017

         I loved Batman forever and the star wars prequels as a child yet I hated The Dark Knight with a passion. Now TDK is tied for my favorite movie and I hate the Schumacher films and the SW prequels now that I have matured.

         1. 

            CeeEye

            January 4, 2017

            Downvote for not using the words 'gritty' or 'tone'.

      5. 

         hush

         January 4, 2017

         i watched it as a kid and enjoyed it. i think if we call a batman film for kids then its ok. call it a batman film for adults and its a bit of a joke.

6. 

   Andi Wettleson

   January 3, 2017

   Comparatively speaking, Batman Forever does suck. But it's not a total dumpster fire like Batman & Robin. The score is good, I have no problem with Kilmer as Batman, Tommy Lee Jones over the top Two Face is a guilty pleasure who just spurts out wonderfully ridiculous lines, Jim Carey is Jim Carey and overall it's just a whacky 90's action movie. Things can be MUCH worse than that. It's definitely no Batman or Batman Returns but if you wanna have some fun while wasting two hours, you could definitely pick a far shittier movie.

   1. 

      Bill Agans

      January 19, 2017

      carrey*

7. 

   Brett Botbyl

   January 3, 2017

   I think Schumacher's vision was just too contrary to the previous films. Vision is one thing, but a series requires continuity. Shatter the line, lose cohesion.

8. 

   TØM

   January 3, 2017

   Batman: Feeling Amazing
   Batman Returns: Feeling Great
   Batman Forever: Upset Stomach
   Batman & Robin: Diarrhea Explosion

   1. 

      Matthew Whitaker

      January 3, 2017

      Batman: Feeling Amazing
      Batman Returns: Feeling Great
      Batman Forever: Upset Stomach
      Batman & Robin: Family raped and killed

   2. 

      Ryan

      January 3, 2017

      Lol

9. 

   Guy

   January 3, 2017

   As a kid, I never understood why Keaton had to walk away from reprising his role as Batman; but now looking back at it, I'm glad he walked away. Schumacher's tones just don't match what Keaton had established as Batman.

   Despite the tonal shift and a change in actors in Batman Forever, it was still enjoyable for me growing up. When Batman & Robin came out, even as a kid, I knew something was totally off. I missed the dark/gothic grit the first two had. I wanted something that the afternoon/saturday morning cartoons couldn't offer.

   In short, even though I loathe Schumacher's take on Batman - a small part of me appreciates those films for contributing to my childhood.

10. 

    boywonder

    January 3, 2017

    Forever is watchable but just barely. And what is this "Batman & Robin" you speak of, that never happened...

    1. 

       IamTheOneWhoKnocks

       January 3, 2017

       Lol!

    2. 

       Canucks Fan

       January 3, 2017

       https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

       :)

       1. 

          Swaggersaurus

          January 3, 2017

          Sweet costume, really COOL to see Mr. Freeze as a little kid.

11. 

    GaboPSN

    January 3, 2017

    I enjoyed them as a kid...

12. 

    IamTheOneWhoKnocks

    January 3, 2017

    "Why does everything have to be so dark?" Not surprisingly, Keaton definitely understood Batman. This is what DCEU needs to get right in order for its universe to have success. Batman has to be dark, Superman not so much, Wonder Woman either, and neither the Flash. But they can't be all rosy either, DCEU has the unenviable task of managing this light/dark spectrum within their characters. Unlike MCU where they are just making all their characters light and fluffy. This is why I believe the DCEU will be on top in the cinematic universe once they get this right, for we'll have diversity, and the fans will not get tired and not get superhero fatigue.

    1. 

       Halberdier17

       January 3, 2017

       I think we will get the light Superman in Justice League I feel that is what they were working towards with Man of Steel and Batman v Superman.

       "It's always darkest before the dawn and the dawn is rising"

       1. 

          IamTheOneWhoKnocks

          January 3, 2017

          True, can't wait for Justice League to be honest. That movie is going to be something else.

       2. 

          jrvc

          January 3, 2017

          Well Terrio himself said that even before the BvS release

       3. 

          CeeEye

          January 4, 2017

          Yes. I am sure it has all been a ZS master plan from the beginning.

    2. 

       Supporter

       January 3, 2017

       Agreed except for this "Unlike MCU where they are just making all their characters light and fluffy."

       1. 

          Rust

          January 3, 2017

          Same. After recently going back and watching all the Marvel movies, I have to say this claim is just as overblown as the claim that MoS was depressing and smile-less, or that BvS had no humor whatsoever (not that it needed it, but it was there and it was charming - everyone loved Alfred).

          The Iron Man and Captain America movies have some pretty dim circumstances and topics for their title characters to deal with, and even Guardians of the Galaxy touches somewhat on things like loneliness.

          Batman and Superman films obviously do tend to have a much higher gravity of drama, sense of stakes, and deeper element of moral philosophy, but that doesn't mean Marvel is on the stark (pun intended) opposite of the spectrum with no darkness or hardship whatsoever.

          I would more say it's like a 70/30 ratio for Marvel, and 30/70 for DC. Both of those approaches are perfectly awesome and valid.

          1. 

             CeeEye

             January 4, 2017

             All DC has to do is learn how to make good films and they might have a point. Absent of film craft none of the above matters.

    3. 

       Ryan

       January 3, 2017

       From the way it looks no one has fatigue from marvel jus seems like they make the best movies that keep ppl wanting to come back..

       1. 

          CeeEye

          January 4, 2017

          Nothing succeeds like success. Marvel has built a brand and the currency with moviegoers that DC has (not intentionally) shunned. DC is trying to buy on credit for future endeavors which will supposedly correct the missteps of the past. They are fighting an uphill battle and deploying an uncoordinated and certainly at times semi-trollish marketing campaign that would create headwinds for any endeavor.

          1. 

             AnotherGreenDay

             January 4, 2017

             Ironman - 585.2 million
             The incredible Hulk - 263.4 million
             Ironman 2 - 623.9 million
             Thor 449.3 - million
             Captain America First avenger - 370.6 million

             Winter soldier - 714.4 million............ Post Avengers
             Antman - 519.3 million...................... Post Avengers
             Thor the dark world - 644.6 million............. Post Avengers
             Gaurdians of the galaxy - 773.3 million.......Post Avengers
             Doctor Strange - 773.3 million.....................Post Avengers

             IF BvS is so bad, These marvel movies have a huge child following, and that's all they pulled at the box office. The critics and audiences, are worlds apart. The way the critics go on about marvel movies, does not show the same box office.

             But yet.................. The Critics bashed BvS and the box office numbers show different?? 873 million. That's with the unestablished Affleck as Batman, the Negative writing, about how Dark Man of steel was, and no kiddie fan base.

             The only films that made over a billion, for Marvel post Avengers, are the movies with Ironman in them mate. you seem to forget the ones that don't reach those highs. Downey Junior as Ironman, is a well established character now, from over 8 years. Cavill, Affleck, Gadot are not established in there roles yet as the DCeu has only had 3 years.

             Civil war, Ironman 3, Avengers Assemble, Age of Ultron, made over a billion, All have the well established Downey junior as Ironman.

             So out of 14 Marvel extended universe movies, only 4 of them made over 775 million.

             1. 

                CeeEye

                January 4, 2017

                Profit:
                Avengers =933,612,988
                Avengers Age of Ultron = 740,403,694
                Deadpool = 628,832,979
                GoG = 321,128,629
                CWS = 262,064,267
                Doctor Strange = 219,056,837
                Iron Man = 212,714,222
                BvS = 208,260,194
                Thor 2 = 192,371,402
                Antman = 173,511,965
                Superman the Movie = 153,918,018
                MoS = 69,545,518
                Thor = 50,326,618
                CAFA = - 1,830,226
                The Incredible Hulk = I haven't rechecked my math but it seems to have lost a huge amount of money... could -135 mil be right?

                So yeah -- WB/DC has some work to do...

                Interesting note that Superman the Movie beat MoS in terms of profitability, even in 1978 dollars. In 2016 dollars it places 3rd with 563,684,608 in profits.

                That Marvel does or does not have an appeal to a different demographic has relevance to BvS -- how?

                Marvel is the clear juggernaut in cinema profit over DC, if you consider the flims you have listed. I added the more profitable ones for Marvel. I think you must have forgotten about them.

                I also haven't corrected the dollars for changes in CPI over time. For example Iron Man made 235,906,961 2016 dollars of profit.

                The critics and the audience are not that apart on BvS -- how else to explain the catastrophic drop after the pre-sales went away?

                Your numbers are naive, but take them at face value -- I would put 775 million x 4 in my pocket with a smile. So would WB/DC if they could figure out a way to do it.

                Need a hug?

                BTW interesting create date on this profile Flash of All Worlds/Batmario/jrvc. You really need to vary your grammatical and punctuation errors more if you are going to maintain so many sock puppet accounts...

             2. 

                AnotherGreenDay

                January 5, 2017

                I know the AA, AOU, CW,IM3 made over a billion. But they all have Ironman in them. A character built over 8 years.

                Profit??
                DC made like three movies dude in the EU!?
                your getting carried away there.........
                you have not mentioned any of Nolan's franchise, The Red movies, Shumackers franchise, burtons franchise!? because the way your doing it they should be there??
                You can't just choose the ones you see fit!!

                Any thing i mentioned are all in the Extended universe's. Also the reeves franchise is in the 80's, And keatons Batman was 80's and 90's, times and money were totally different.
                You have to fix for inflation, when taken movies from those times.
                Deadpool is a part of the Xmen franchise.

                In marvels extended universe they have made 14 movies, only 4 of them hit over 775 million. The 4 movies have been post Avengers and all have the well established, Downey Junior as Ironman. The 5 that didn't make over 775 million were also post avengers, with characters from the avengers movie.
                No matter what way you look at it, they only made 700 million. Movie goers don't say "hey Deadpool only made this much, so lets stop at 700 million. If Deadpool had cost 300 million to make, it would of only still made 700 million.
                It was fluke it made that profit.They did not expect it to do so well, thats why it had a small budget.

                Also you are fixing numbers to suit marvels favour, BvS cost 410 million for production and marketing which means it made 460 million. You added extra marketing prices on BvS???

             3. 

                CeeEye

                January 5, 2017

                You haven't heard of profit? It is the part of the financials that determine if DC will ever make another ZS film after JL.

                Yes, as noted in the post, in 2016 dollars the profit for Superman the Movie made 563,684,608, putting it at #3 on the list.

                You started it -- presumably without understanding the financials. Take them as a group or movie by movie. All the studios have successes and all have failures. What is inarguable is that Marvel has the most profit. This means, that if you are a fan of Marvel heroes, you are in good shape. There will be a constant flow.

                If you are a fan of DC heroes, you have a problem. Regardless of how you feel about the ZS films, unless DC can start making money on the Marvel scale, fewer films will come, and at a slower pace, with less consistent results.

                Nothing succeeds like success.

                "you're" is the contraction of "you are".

             4. 

                AnotherGreenDay

                January 5, 2017

                Yes see your jumping off what was said in the comment about BvS been a shit movie!?
                My point is Marvel have done worse in a lot of there movies, So are they shit???
                Is first avenger, the worse movie made??
                Is Thor the worse movie made??
                Is The incredible Hulk the worse movie made??
                Is Antman the worse movie made??
                I know about profit, but BvS has done well with movie goers, It made 873 million, 460 million profit for Ben Afflecks first outing as Batman.
                It is not a shit movie...........
                So WB were a bit enthusiastic, with marketing, but the movie still made 873 million without the kiddie franchise. That is around the same numbers all the harry potter movies made. How many of those movies were made??

                Do you ever here fans say every time, Oh man that first Avenger movie was the shittiest movie i've ever seen, Because lets face it, That was a B-list movie with an A-list character,
                No...... we respect it for what it is, Another great comic book adaptation, that only leads to something better.

                "I LOVED BVS" and so did many others, and the more i watch it, the more you can take in how much it didn't get the credit it deserves. I hate when people just,for a like or thumbs up, just jump on the wagon with comments like oh that was really bad, it was the worse movie ever, it's just ridiculous.

                "Fans of comics", they are not fans of comics, because comics change origin stories all the time, so they would be use to seeing different incarnations of these characters,
                "but yet" seem to be stuck in Nolan verse, or marvel colourful and joke for every occasion superhero movies. That's boring now, the kids love it, but i want something with a darker story to it, and not campy with one liner jokes from every character.
                I want something more serious as i take these characters very serious.

             5. 

                CeeEye

                January 5, 2017

                Avengers981,227,250
                Batman937,688,630
                Avengers Age of Ultron740,403,694
                Iron Man 3707,392,457
                Deadpool628,832,979
                Spider-man 1606,541,795
                Nolan Batman 1574,465,916
                Superman569,804,503
                Captain America Civil War488,304,495
                Nolan Batman 2441,355,993
                GoG326,908,944
                Spider-man 2321,757,384
                CWS267,305,552
                Ironman238,519,903
                Spider-man 3238,144,653
                Doctor Strange219,056,837
                BvS208,260,194
                Thor 2199,296,772
                Antman176,635,180
                Amazing Spiderman 1153,583,327
                Batman 3111,718,164
                Iron Man 2101,770,197
                Batman 292,918,449
                MoS72,049,157
                Fantastic Four65,742,154
                Thor54,000,461
                Amazing Spiderman 231,295,969
                CAFA-1,963,832
                FF 2-66,059,604
                Superman 4-92,297,497
                Batman 4-141,816,489
                Incredible Hulk-151,976,715
                Superman 2-166,695,454
                FF Reboot-338,103,051
                Superman Returns-718,745,445

                There you go. Profits adjusted to 2016 dollars. BvS 17th on the list.

                BvS sucked.

                Please post your source for demographics about any movie you are asserting made money from that demographic. Absent of this, that whole line is considered fictitious.

                I may have the interest in running the financials for Harry Potter, but not at the moment. Also, as you have invoked 'kiddie franchise' without any rational support for the claim, I invoke the fictitious clause.

                One never 'here' fans say anything. Sometimes one 'hears' them say things.

                I believe you believe what you are saying. I don't know that this makes your position sound or accurate.

                It wasn't the worst movie ever, nor was it the worst movie I have ever seen. It was, however quite, quite, bad. As a fan of DC comics, and the heroes, I require much, much, better.

                I don't mind a serious superhero film. I simply with ZS took film making seriously. A bad comedy or a bad serious film are both still bad.

             6. 

                AnotherGreenDay

                January 6, 2017

                BvS should be under Civil war. And you did not take 50% ticket sales off any other movie only BvS?? WTF!
                Where are you going with BvS profits were only 220 million??
                Your basing your knowledge around the decision that Screenrant fans came up with, "it has to make a billion to deem itself a good success". BvS for budget "AND" marketing and distribution was 420million. It made 873 million!? BvS profits were over 400 million dude.
                The marketing and distribution was rumoured at 165 million, it had a 250 million production budget.

                Your bull shit assumption........
                So take 50% off civil war thats 244 million profit, take 50% of avengers thats 448 million profit. You are fixing numbers to make BvS profits worse than they were.

             7. 

                CeeEye

                January 6, 2017

                873 was the box office, not the profit. Are you sure you are aware of what profit means?

                Given that studios are pretty famous for not publishing marketing budgets, I used a proxy for all my calcs. I considered this a net win for BvS, because there were rumors of a massive marketing surge to drive all the butts into seats by presale or opening weekend (given they were anticipating the cliff it would fall off in week 2). In other words, my estimate for the marketing budget was less than the figure you use. Given that budget the profit is only ~33 mil.

                For me, profit is what you have left after selling a product and have paid the cost of making the profit.

                In other words, shooting budget + marketing budget = cost

                What sets against that is the revenue generated -- box office. What you may be missing here is that the theatres take 50% of the box office.

                In other words, the number to beat based on your assessment of the budget was 840,000,000, leaving it with 33,000,000 in profit. This drops it to 25th or 26th on the list in terms of profitability.

             8. 

                AnotherGreenDay

                January 6, 2017

                I think we're lost in translation mate!?
                I know 873 is not profit, we've established that....I hope!
                873 take away 420 equals 450 million??
                250 million(production budget) plus 165 million(Marketing and distribution) adds up to 415 million, this is what was forked out over all for this movie. The movie made 873 million?

                No one knows about these ticket numbers, because your just throwing these numbers together yourself, to make your argument sound.
                The cinemas take a percentage of the ticket sales, they don't take percentage of the movies profits?? WB don't say we made
                450 million profit but we still have to give cinemas there percentage.
                450 million is what they made from the movie!
                That's what they've got back.

                "165 MILLION" was forked out for "MARKETING" and "DISTRIBUTION"!?

                "250 MILLION" was forked out for "PRODUCTION"!?

                415 million invested into BvS.
                873 million returned.
                leaves 458 million profit.

                And i'm suppose to take your numbers in, when you can't do simple math!? Hahaha

             9. 

                CeeEye

                January 6, 2017

                BvS for budget "AND" marketing and distribution was 420million.

                You are arguing with yourself. You provided the 420.

                You almost have the math right:

                873/2 = The studio's portion of the Box Office (which is what tickets some people call ticket sales, which is how you sell a movie.)

                It doesn't matter what marketing budget you use, the rest of the math is the same.

                The 'ticket numbers' are not my own, but referenced from boxofficemojo.com. I used global box office.

                The cinema's 50% of the ticket sales is their revenue. Debit out their cost for running the cinemas and that is their profit.

                The contraction for 'they are' is 'their', not 'there'.

                They made 33 mil in profit, by your numbers.

                873 was returned overall, but only 50% of that 873 was returned to the studio.

                It isn't challenging math, but if you don't know the basic concepts you will never arrive at the correct math.

             10. 

                 AnotherGreenDay

                 January 6, 2017

                 yes the theatres get 50% of "TICKET SALES" not 50% percent of WB profits! You can't be for real. WB got back 450 million. There profit was 450 million after there 50% ticket sales.
                 WB handed out 420 million for BvS and got back 450 million profit. Thats what they got. Your numbers are bull shit mate!?

             11. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 7, 2017

                 yes the theatres get 50% of "TICKET SALES" not 50% percent of WB profits!

                 box office
                 Definition of box office
                 b : income from ticket sales (as for a film)

                 Ergo, when a cinema sells tickets, they receive what you are calling ticket sales, and I am calling box office. Per the dictionary, and common business practice, these terms are synonymous.

                 The cinema is then bound to turn over 50% of their ticket sales (the studio sells no tickets), to the studio, which is where the bulk of the studio's revenue associated with a movie release comes from.

                 Therefore, the studio has to make (production budget + marketing budget) * 2 in order to break even on a film release. Anything over and above that amount is the studio's profit.

                 If the Box Office is 873mil, the theatres give WB 436 mill. This is their revenue. If you subtract the cost to make the film from that, using your 420 figure, they only made 16 mil in profit.

                 Revenue and profit are not synonyms. Sales and profit are not synonyms.

                 This is true whether or not you are aware of it, whether or not you agree with it, and whether or not you admit it

                 'There profit' should be written 'Their profit'.

                 http://www.grammar.cl/engli...

             12. 

                 AnotherGreenDay

                 January 7, 2017

                 yes mate your just saying what i'm saying but putting a little twist on it. WB profits were over 400 million. That's what they've got back. The shit your writing is what BvS deals with everyday. WB profits were over 450 million for BvS. Not 450 million but they still have to pay theatres. When people are clearly twisting things to work against the movie, how can you take their comments seriously.
                 I can't say it any clearer for you........
                 Theatres take 50% of "TICKET SALES"
                 Not 50% of WB profits.
                 WB profits were 450 million.
                 that's what they've got back for this movie.
                 that is all WB's.
                 Marketing and distribution was 160 million.
                 It did not come to the same amount of the movies budget which was 250 million. All WB payed out for the movie "all together" was 420 million.
                 The only movie you took 50% of ticket sales for was BvS??
                 You did not do this with any other movie in your list. you are talking absolute bull shit mate.

                 Avengers 1.5 billion
                 the budget was 220 million but they spent 260 million on production.
                 200 million marketing. I'm been kind at 200 million marketing they spent well more than that. it was rumoured they were handing millions out for TV and internet spots to promote the movie. That marketing and distribution was over a whopping 350
                 But anyway's we'll say 200 million.

                 1 billion profit take away "50%" of ticket sales equals 500 million profit.
                 This is your bull shit assumption....................
                 That the Avengers profits was only 500 million. Give over!

                 BvS didn't do as well as expected, you don't have to make it sound worse than what it was!? This is just stupid.

             13. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 7, 2017

                 Again, you might do well to check a dictionary your argument seems to be with them, not with me.

                 I agree that if you ignore the standards definition of 'profit' and replace it with the standard definition of 'revenue' your point seems valid, if uninteresting. Uninteresting because your hubristic cheering assumes that the studio either made the movie for free, or that in some bizarre accounting acrobatics, you only count cost when you consider Marvel films, and not when you consider DC films.

                 for your reference:
                 profit
                 2
                 : the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions; especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost

                 revenue
                 2
                 : the gross income returned by an investment

                 The studios don't sell the tickets. The theatres do. The studios cannot pay the theatres revenue from the tickets sales that they never make. Either way, the studio only ingests 50% of the ticket sales/box office. This is revenue . Once you subtract the cost of making the product, what is left is the studio's profit.

                 The revenue, in total for BVS was 873,260,194. The studio's 50% of that was 436,630,097. Whatever the number you use for cost would be subtracted from 436,630,097 in order to reveal profit.

                 (total revenue/2) - cost = profit

                 My version of this works out to:

                 (873,260,194/2)-420,000,000 = 16,630,097

                 or to make it simpler,

                 436,630,097 - 420,000,000 = 16,630,097 profit for WB for BvS.

                 When people are clearly twisting things you can't take it seriously. Your problem here is demonstrating that they were 'twisting things'. This has never been 'clear'. If you assume that 'they' are 'twisting things' absent of compelling evidence, it is you who are 'twisting things'.

                 I get that you want to declare profits on WB's behalf at 450 million. This would be fine if you could show the source for the extra 434 million that isn't on the books in terms of revenue. Where did it come from?

                 All studios, to my knowledge have to split the revenue with the theatres. Accordingly all my figures use the same math. All my figures also take into account the delta in CPI of the dollar across the years/decades.

                 You can invent whatever number you want for Marvel's marketing budget. I could find no source for it. If you have one show it. If you have three, you might even been to be credible. Absent of any documentation of marketing budget I used the same proxy number for each film listed. This is almost certainly not accurate, but given that the proxy is the same percentage of the production budget in each case, you can't claim special treatment for BvS. If anything, BvS benefits from the proxy as it is far lower than what you are waving around.

                 1 billion profit take away "50%" of ticket sales equals 500 million profit. This is your bull shit assumption

                 I agree that if I were using your definition of profit in the way you describe, I would be incorrect. As noted several times, you have a magic definition for the word, that is different than the dictionary's, which is what I am and have been using.

                 I would argue that BvS did far better than was expected due to the massive marketing push WB did after they saw the preview. In this way they were able to maximize opening weekend and pre-sales before anyone could react after having seen it or heard from someone who had. If they hadn't made this move, no one in the head office, or ZS or JL would even still be around.

             14. 

                 AnotherGreenDay

                 January 7, 2017

                 They do not add what the cinemas make into wb profits because your bullshit assumption means avengers only made 448 million when you minus 50% ticket sales.
                 Captain America civil war only made 244 million.............
                 BvS was the only movie in your list you took 50% ticket sales from.
                 WHY???

             15. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 7, 2017

                 Again. you are using a magic definition of 'profit', which is fine, but you cannot ascribe it to me, nor will I be using it. I will stick with the dictionary.

                 The same calculation was made for all the films I listed.

             16. 

                 AnotherGreenDay

                 January 7, 2017

                 Ok dude, you can bow out with your holier than thou smug attitude, that's fine! But i've already told you They have put out 415 million overall for BvS, what's there to not understand. They've got back 873 million. 450 million profit back to WBs.

                 Avengers 550 millin put out for the movie. 1.5 billion back.
                 1 billion back to Marvel/disney

                 Deadpool 115 million put out for the movie, 760 million back.
                 645million back to fox.

                 Now the way you worked it out for DC was they get back 220 million which means The theatres took 50% percent of that profit. I asked you a simple Why? (in the very fist comment after you gave me them numbers) Why did DC only get 50%.
                 I've already explained that marketing and distribution was rumoured at 160 million.

             17. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 7, 2017

                 I am not bowing out -- you don't get off that easy. Nice try!

                 It isn't my 'attitude' you are losing to, it is the dictionary, and well, basic math. I remain waiting on the other side of those hurdles if you can clear them. I wish you luck!

                 Avengers actually cost 5 dollars to make and made 14 trillion in profit. <<--See? Anyone can just make up numbers. Cite your source.

             18. 

                 AnotherGreenDay

                 January 7, 2017

                 I totally get what your saying really i do............
                 But....... You have not done the same numbers for the other movies you have not done Budget, production and marketing and the theatres 50% because that's the way your working BvS numbers. Were are the numbers (right Numbers) for production and marketing for the other movies. I have giving you BvS numbers.

             19. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 7, 2017

                 You don't get it at all. At least, if you do, you haven't demonstrated it anywhere in this thread.

                 I used exactly the same formula for all the films. Sorry if reality hurts.

                 It is you who made up marketing budget numbers, not I.

             20. 

                 AnotherGreenDay

                 January 7, 2017

                 So in other words you don't know, your assuming that's that, and this is this and what ever............. I've told you rumour was BvS spent 165 million for marketing and production. you have not taking this into consideration with the other movies.
                 Like for instance disney for avengers, spent money for Marketing and distribution but then were sponsored money for marketing and distribution. so there costs for marketing would of been higher only they were sponsored. So it was rumoured WB costs for BvS was 165 million, thats what they spent, it wasn't 250 million or 300 million because they had lots of big sponsors. what was all those other movies marketing costs.

                 Like for marketing and production were they 400 million or 200 million what ??

             21. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 7, 2017

                 Incorrect.

                 Neither of us 'know' what the marketing budget is. They remain unpublished. What is published are the production budgets, and the box office for each.

                 In each case, a proxy was used to plug the hole left by the missing marketing budget. In each case, this proxy is a percentage of the production budget. In each case the same percentage was used. The impact of this proxy is discussed up the thread. Go back and read it if you are confused.

                 The only case where this changed after the initial calculation, was to accommodate your unsupported claim of what the marketing budget amount was for BvS. Ironically this made your case worse, not better, as the proxy amount was a smaller number.

                 It is true that I have not applied the 165 million number as a constant across all other calculation. I have also not applied the production budget and the box office amount from BvS across all other films. To do so, would be to render the analysis meaningless.

                 If it makes you feel better, take the marketing budget out of the calcs for all films. The profit for all will go up, not just BvS. BvS still loses. There is no way that one can rig the numbers in favor BvS. No rational way, that is.

             22. 

                 AnotherGreenDay

                 January 7, 2017

                 Exactly dude this is my point, You read things like Disney handed out 400 million for age of ulron and WB 165 million for BvS, you do not know. WB seem happy enough with what they've pulled in they are clearly not knocked back by it. Zack Snyder is still on board, DCeu is still on track. You are just calculating internet numbers. You just showed in that comment your rigging numbers "every ones goes back up except BvS, you clearly are just using half knowlegde.

             23. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 7, 2017

                 None of what I wrote has ever been your point. If it is your point now, you have done a back flip that can only be described as Olympic in nature.

                 I do not 'read things' as you describe. You are incorrect.

                 WB is not happy with a 16 mil profit. This is why they have assigned a handler to ZS to try to salvage JL, which they are tied to him for.

                 This was true even before SS tanked.

                 If you feel this is 'in track for DC, you are free to. I don't know that they agree.

             24. 

                 AnotherGreenDay

                 January 7, 2017

                 Mate i've been asking you how your taking 50 percent ticket sales for BvS, and not for other movies, since your numbers, 20 comments ago. Your numbers are internet numbers, your talking bull. I've said to you warner bros. made 453 million you took half of this for ticket sales, that's the number half, you have not taking half the money from the other movies, then i told you it was rumoured Marketing and distribution costs 160 million, not 250 million like the price of production. You continued with your smug attitude to ignore it, and add it on extra when really you should of been subtracting 90 million away from your numbers, so yeah whatever.............. you were not working the numbers the same way. You were making BvS worse than it was.

                 If it's half this and half that how do you come up with the numbers for other movies??
                 By your assumption avengers 1.5 billion subtract half for ticket sales is 750 million. Thats before all the other costs you made up for BvS. This is what your saying, talking numbers you have no clue about.

             25. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 7, 2017

                 My numbers are not 'internet numbers', they are derived by the aforementioned uniformly applied calculation based on the budget/revenue reported by boxofficemojo.com. This is a website that gives a front end to a reporting database owned by IMDB. You can dispute their numbers as you will, but to do so absent of some compelling evidence that their numbers are wrong, is not convincing.

                 You have said WB made 453 million. I have said their portion of the box office was 436 million, which is what my calculation is based on as described in detail up the thread. Asked and answered.

                 You indeed have made a baseless claim on the marketing budget repeatedly. I have noted up the thread I did not use this fictitious budget, but the proxy, and noted that had I used the fake budget number, your case for BvS is undermined not supported.

                 Your argument as to my attitude wouldn't change the math even if you had a way of demonstrating what my attitude was/is.

                 Your fake marketing budget number is higher than the proxy i used. Ergo, it is you who made BvS's case worse by its introduction.

                 The same calculation was used for all of the other figures. Asked and answered.

             26. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 7, 2017

                 I don't read things as you suggest.

                 The production budgets and the box office I used are reported on boxofficemojo.com. I did not invent them.

                 ZS is contractually bound to JL. He has been assigned a handler by WB to blunt his impact on JL.

                 DCeu is on track for sure. Up or down, no one knows.

                 When you use quotes, it generally indicates you are reporting what someone said. In this case you have used only an opening quotation--I suppose you mean by this that you are only being half-honest in reporting what i said, which was:

                 "The profit for all will go up, not just BvS. "

             27. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 7, 2017

                 As you have been told up the thread, marketing budgets are not generally disclosed. Do you actually read the responses?

    4. 

       OGmacrazy

       January 3, 2017

       While I disagree with some MCU fanboys that claim the MCU heroes are more complex than they actually are, they definitely are not all light and fluffy. I have no idea where you got that from with Captain America, Iron Man, Black Panther, or Hulk, for example...
       They've been fucking up Thor in a major way, though, which i simply do not understand why they would.

    5. 

       CeeEye

       January 4, 2017

       Incredibly reductive and cliched 'analysis'. Did you copy and paste or have you memorized by rote?

       The notion that you feel that the DCEU is about to be on top with films is really emblematic of what is wrong with Western civilization. Hint: you aren't exceptional, and you will never win the lottery.

13. 

    the dark knightvman of steel24

    January 3, 2017

    This man is wise.

14. 

    IamTheOneWhoKnocks

    January 3, 2017

    Schumacher doubled down with Batman and Robin. Also, does anybody know why they ended up changing Tim Burton? I would have loved to see two more Batman movies from him.

    1. 

       Joakim

       January 3, 2017

       Wasn't he replaced because the studio thought his movies were too dark? They just barely brought him back for Returns, if I remember the story correct.

       1. 

          IamTheOneWhoKnocks

          January 3, 2017

          Studios need to stay out, smh. They're still at it with the DCEU properties.

       2. 

          Mark

          January 3, 2017

          I don't know if there were questions around bringing him back for "Returns," especially since he got such a free hand with that one (some reviews called BR "the first big-budget art film"). But there was definite backlash, in particular because Danny DeVito's Penguin was so grotesque (spitting up weird black bile, etc.) that parents didn't want their kids to see the movie, which in turn ruined the Happy Meal merchandising, etc. Even in those days the tie-ins were key to the overall P&L on the film, and WB listened to the talking dead presidents and pulled Burton off the follow-up. That spiraled down to the nadir of Batman and Robin, which was such a toy commercial that they changed the Batmobile just so they could sell new ones to the kids.

    2. 

       Canucks Fan

       January 3, 2017

       I've read some stuff about how a bunch of parents groups were upset with his versions of Catwoman and Penguin how they weren't kid friendly so the executives decided to make the future Batman movies more kid friendly so that meant a new director

       Adding to that those parents groups that would blame a piece of media than parent their own kids shouldn't have kids imo

       1. 

          IamTheOneWhoKnocks

          January 3, 2017

          Goodness.....we could have gotten a wonder trilogy or a tetralogy.

          1. 

             Canucks Fan

             January 3, 2017

             Yup and i kinda have a little sympathy for Schumacher he really had no choice in the direction of these movies and after Batman and Robin he tried very hard to get a 3rd movie i think it would be a standalone film i heard he wanted to adapt Batman Year One

             1. 

                IamTheOneWhoKnocks

                January 3, 2017

                Glad he was not able to.

       2. 

          OssamNin

          January 3, 2017

          I saw Batman and Batman Returns when I was about 4 or 5 years old, my dad shared the movies with me and he and my mom never saw an issue with the characters, some people are just too delicate.

          1. 

             Halberdier17

             January 3, 2017

             I was 3 when Batman was in theaters and 6 when Returns was in theaters.

             My parents let me see both movies when I was younger I never saw them in theaters so I was probably 4 and 7 when I saw the two films respectively for the first time.

             Though my parents let me and my siblings watch movies that weren't really appropriate for people under 13 all the time.

             1. 

                CeeEye

                January 4, 2017

                So says the program to infantilize a generation...ticking onward...

          2. 

             Dennis Lookman

             January 3, 2017

             Same here. And I love my dad for it. My mom, though, she did NOT approve. Lol!

             1. 

                OssamNin

                January 3, 2017

                My mom was just like, "why is it so dark?" xD

             2. 

                Dennis Lookman

                January 5, 2017

                My mom was like: he's going to be an immoral asshole when he grows up to an adult watching this stuf.

                And my dad was like: he will most certainly, not! Do you wanna know how I learned my morals? Huh? By reading Batman comics! So, just let him watch, hear me?! xDDD

       3. 

          Batsy

          January 3, 2017

          History is repeating itself with all the complaints of DCEU being too dark and gritty.

          1. 

             Canucks Fan

             January 3, 2017

             Yet they have zero issues lining up with their kids at EB Games to buy the latest M Rated title for their 8 year old kid

             1. 

                CeeEye

                January 4, 2017

                Fiction.

       4. 

          Rust

          January 3, 2017

          "Adding to that those parents groups that would blame a piece of media than parent their own kids shouldn't have kids imo "

          https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

          1. 

             CeeEye

             January 4, 2017

             They blamed the marketing at their kids, not the movie. The marketing campaign misrepresented the film.

       5. 

          residentgrigo

          January 3, 2017

          The film had a Happy Meal tie in... Where do i start?
          Listen to the Fatman on Batman film commentary for Returns. It´s quite something.
          http://www.cinemablend.com/...

       6. 

          CeeEye

          January 4, 2017

          The movie was marketed at the kids. This was the issue.

    3. 

       Queef Police

       January 3, 2017

       he was asked to do a different project because of $$$$. Returns was too dark for kids and they didn't want to risk selling action figures or more happy meals

    4. 

       Rust

       January 3, 2017

       When I was a kid, I remember hearing that other kids were crying and their parents were rushing them out of the theater. A lot of those parents (along with the usual yell-first-think-later types who never watched it in the first place, just like we have today) were freaking out and pissed that such a 'scary, intense, sexual, violent' movie was being mass-marketed to kids.

       Seems tame now-days, but back then it was controversial.

       Of course, I loved it. My parents took me when I was 5 or 6 and I was completely obsessed. :)

       1. 

          IamTheOneWhoKnocks

          January 3, 2017

          Yeah, they definitely changed it to appeal to kids so that they can sell more.

    5. 

       residentgrigo

       January 3, 2017

       Returns "underperformed", got a Synder-esque reception (with the Snyder-typical decade later reassessment) and it had a Happy Meals toy line despite being quite fucked up. Mr. McDonald wasn´t pleased. No sir... And thus the studio let him go and set him loose on Superman.
       B&R is also what it is as he was given notes to make it more "toyetic".
       http://photos.imageevent.co...
       He certainly did but some of the B&R toys were quite good. I still have my comic accurate Bane.

       1. 

          Alan Conn

          January 3, 2017

          Hahaha!!! What in gods name is that bat toy?!?!?! When did batman ever have a giant bat in which he flew around on while riding insude of the poor things body?!?!?! Hahaha!

          1. 

             residentgrigo

             January 4, 2017

             Fan-fic it to be Barbatos. Who was nearly in Forever, deleted scenes are on YT.

15. 

    Joakim

    January 3, 2017

    Forever was the first Batman movie is saw on the silver screen, so I have great memories of that. But today it is barely watchable. A eccentric Carrey AND a over-the-top Tommy Lee Jones is just... too much.

    Batman & Robin....? It's... is there another word for horrible? Not sure if I'm able to watch it again. MAYBE just so I can watch a live action Batman movie with my son in a few years. Maybe...

16. 

    Josh D.

    January 3, 2017

    I enjoyed these movies when I was in elementary school, but I find them very, very terrible now.

    1. 

       Canucks Fan

       January 3, 2017

       I can watch Batman Forever if i'm in the right mood but Batman and Robin i can't get past the opening with him skating and playing hockey with a diamond

17. 

    Jezza

    January 3, 2017

    I could deal with Forever, if only because of the OST and some fun action scenes, but B&R was absolutely awful.

18. 

    Queef Police

    January 3, 2017

    gotta love him calling Spiderman a pussy: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

    1. 

       Alan Conn

       January 3, 2017

       This is too freakin great!!!

19. 

    Mario

    January 3, 2017

    And they complain about Batfleck being dark, this still gives me nightmares :p...
    https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
    I liked it in my 12, now its very silly, but still an OK 90's movie, this is what i rescue from those times
    https://vimeo.com/41133252

    1. 

       RC

       January 3, 2017

       I was going to point out the fucking Bat-Smile, too. Thanks.

       Kilmer was terrible... Carrey was uninspired. It was just so so flat. The whole scene where Nigma goes batshit should have been intense - but was just dull.

       Burton botched the parents' death, but we didn't need to see it again here. Same franchise, so we get it.

       Nolan NAILED the parents' death... So why did Snydermacher try to do it again in BvS? Oh, why did Zachary try ANYTHING in BvS?

       Oh this whole thread makes me sad.

       1. 

          jrvc

          January 3, 2017

          well in fairness BvS sequence was quite good and full of comic details, even though Nolan's one is better, and it should be noted both scenes served their respective movies in different ways

          1. 

             CeeEye

             January 4, 2017

             Incorrect. It added time to an already bloated BvS, allows ZS to give puzzling fan service to TWD crowd, and left him vulnerable to studio editors, which for some reason allowed the most repetitive unnecessary scene stay, and cut with a cleaver those few shreds of connective tissue the 'writers' had thrown in between the set pieces. The film was not 'served' by its inclusion.

             1. 

                jrvc

                January 4, 2017

                The scene was just a couple of minutes long, don't se how that can bloat anything.

                That "puzzling" (was it that difficult to you?) fan service was directed to the DC crowd instead of the TWD crowd, don't you think?

                Any director can be vulnerable to studios' editors.

                You say the scene is repetitive, but only the topic at hand, because any time we have been shown this, the scene has been totally different, from comics to Batman 89 to the Arkhamverse.

                Those connective tissues were well placed, they showed the parallelisms between the fall of the Waynes and the fall of Bruce, and then the "birth" of Batman.

                What served the film even more because it showed how ingrained this scene is in Batman's psyche, the force that pushes him, and showed us how unhinged Bruce is in reality.

             2. 

                CeeEye

                January 4, 2017

                The scene was 4 min 50 seconds long. It matters little if you don't think the film was bloated. Those in charge did and forced cuts that made a bad thing worse.

                The fan service was for the TWD crowd. I don't know that there are a bunch of Martha Wayne fanbois out there, but I will count you as one if you like.

                Any director unable to edit is certainly vulnerable, agreed.

                You say the scene is repetitive, but only the topic at hand, because any time we have been shown this, the scene has been totally different, from comics to Batman 89 to the Arkhamverse.

                Outrageous claims require extensive proof. Proceed or withdraw. You are held to account.

                Those connective tissues were well placed, they showed the parallelisms between the fall of the Waynes and the fall of Bruce, and then the "birth" of Batman.

                If that were what the movie was about, you might have a point. As it is, you do not. Also, as you know, not the connective tissue I referred to. Afraid of responding to what I post?

                What served the film even more because it showed how ingrained this scene is in Batman's psyche, the force that pushes him, and showed us how unhinged Bruce is in reality.

                You meant to write 'It' instead of 'What'.

                If this scene is a discovery for you, you need to read more. There is nothing new added with this scene. It eats time, at the cost of other scenes that do change the story being excised, and it adds nothing whatever.

                The best argument one could make is that it opens the movie and they had nothing else to serve that purpose. The reshoot budget was blown by SS.

             3. 

                jrvc

                January 4, 2017

                Sigh... are you going to stalk me from now on and turn any post in a sort of war?

                The cuts were due to the studio panicking a mere two months before the release because they thought a shorter movie would be more profitable, even though the suits gave the thumbs up to the movie when they saw it. (http://batman-news.com/2016...

                Are you telling me that just because one actress that appears on the movie also appreas on a TV series is just to appeal these fans? That's just reaching and could be said of almost any actor/actress. There were more things appealing to DC fans than anything else on that scene.

                "Any director unable to edit is certainly vulnerable, agreed."

                Don't you know that editors are the ones responsible to do that? And independently of that, any studio can trump any director and edit the movie as they please (just look for Blade Runner's different cuts).

                Wait a minute, you are commenting in a site that is called BATMAN-News and you haven't seen Burton's movies or played the Arkham videogames?? Hahahaha! GTFO of here troll!

                But oh well, because I know you will use that as an excuse to prolong your trolling, here you have actual proof of all the times we have seen it https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

                The fck are you saying now that the movie wasn't about that? The introducion of Batman in this universe was one of the main things going on in the movie, including his origin. If that wasn't what you were referring, just llok at what you wrote and try to spellcheck it.

                No, I meant what because I was using it as a relative pronoun to refer to and link the former paragraph with the latter.

                It wasn't a discovery for me, I have seen it more times, unlike you that requires evidences of that happening at all.

                yes, it opened the movie and just put everything in place to let the audience know what to expect from this Batman (exemplified with the "beautiful lie" monologue)

             4. 

                CeeEye

                January 4, 2017

                Your link goes nowhere. As such it supports your rhetorical style. Maybe that is what you were going for.

                Lauren Cohan and Jeffery Dean Morgan are lifted directly from the current cast of TWD and inserted into BVS in the same throwaway scene. Fan service. They didn't even bother crediting Morgan.

                The suits saw the director's cut in Feb and panicked because they felt the film would polarise audiences and drive box office down. They ordered the cuts anticipating a steep drop off once pre-review sales died. They were correct. BvS set a world record in the drop off. If the marketing head didn't get a bonus and promotion for delivering the pre-sales the film got, it is a crime. She made a catastrophic crash a bit of a softer landing and probable saved the Justice League film.

                Don't you know that editors are the ones responsible to do that?

                Correct. David Brenner has made millions following Snyder around and cleaning up his messes. On your confusion as to the relationship between the director and the editor, your argument seems to be with the DGA, not with me.

                http://www.dga.org/Craft/DG...

                I am sure you are correct, and WB was thrilled to throw away the director/editor work after paying them for it, and then doing it again. Makes sense. Good insight.

                Wait a minute, you are commenting in a site that is called BATMAN-News and you haven't seen Burton's movies or played the Arkham videogames?? Hahahaha! GTFO of here troll!

                Random rant rejected. Do you even know what you are responding to here?

                I like the random link you posted. Untethered to any part of my or your position, it is hardly useful. Try harder. We are rooting for you!

                Those connective tissues were well placed, they showed the parallelisms between the fall of the Waynes and the fall of Bruce, and then the "birth" of Batman.

                Given that the fall of the Waynes took ~ 5 min, and the film contained nothing of the birth of the Batman, this claim seems ridiculous on its face.

                No, I meant what because I was using it as a relative pronoun to refer to and link the former paragraph with the latter.

                If true, you failed and instead delivered a non-sentence.

                We get it. You are a Snyder fanboi. Don't let it ruin your day that there aren't that many out there. Maintain your principled stand.

             5. 

                jrvc

                January 5, 2017

                hahaha how I knew you would go around anything I told you. Well you are, how did you say?, am yeah, INCORRECT.

                How convenient of you to ignore the other link because I knew you would use my rant against me huh?

                Oh, and just for you to see that I use sources to express an opinion, here:https://www.google.es/searc...

                Enter through the first link you will see in google. I do and can see the page perfectly.

                Oh yeah, like you are going to see anything that burst your bubble. You don't even pay attention to movie you try to criticise

                "and the film contained nothing of the birth of the Batman"
                Yeeaaah sure...

             6. 

                CeeEye

                January 5, 2017

                Your link is broken. Not ignored. I pointed that out.

                The new link goes nowhere as well. Yes that is the google home page. Well done. Relevance?

                Are you asserting that your position is... nothing?

                If you were ever to watch the film, you might be less confused about it. You couldn't maintain most, if not all of your positions, so be careful.

             7. 

                jrvc

                January 5, 2017

                How curious I can see the page that says I'm right but you can't huh?

                Well don't worry, I'll just put it here so that you can see I'm not bluffing. Don't worry I know you won't read anything though.

                https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

                https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

                https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

             8. 

                CeeEye

                January 5, 2017

                It isn't really curious. Perhaps to you. I can't say I spent much time on the issue. I guess one of the reasons it doesn't come up a lot is most folks articulate their positions vs. posting screenshots of whatever it is that you are posting screenshots of.

                Here is a link for you:

                http://www.essaywritinghelp...

                Contemplate the difference between naming a source and citing a source.

                You are responsible for originating thought, but if that is too high a hurdle, you can learn how to properly regurgitate the work of others.

                None of that solves whatever convenient 'issue' you are having with Disqus.

             9. 

                jrvc

                January 5, 2017

                and again you just post crap from your high horse trying to sound smartass without saying anything about the topic at hand (se cree mierda pero no llega a peo).

                But I know I know, it's my fault for feeding a troll like you

                PS: I'm a fcking teacher, you think I don't know how to cite a source? Since when was it so important to maintain such a protocol in a comments section? Oh yeah, it isn't

             10. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 5, 2017

                 I'm a fcking teacher

                 Not surprising. If there is one word that leaps to mind when reading your posts, it is 'professorial'. It is pretty common knowledge that on the internet, we are all experts at everything. This is true regardless of our inability to summon that expertise on the internet.

                 I don't know that you don't know how to cite a source but I do know you aren't. In such cases, there can be a couple of different reasons, such as incompetence or an ethical lapse. Noted that you have ruled out incompetence.

                 It isn't about protocol, it is about reason and rationality, both with a capital 'R'.

                 This being said, as a teacher, you already know that.

             11. 

                 jrvc

                 January 5, 2017

                 Wow, you really like to tease even though you aren't addressing the matter at hand at all.

                 I salute you, troll-on-a-high-horse

             12. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 5, 2017

                 I assure you it isn't a tease. I am deadly serious, and you are held to account.

             13. 

                 jrvc

                 January 5, 2017

                 yes I have a disqus account

             14. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 5, 2017

                 3 or 4 by my count.

             15. 

                 jrvc

                 January 5, 2017

                 then you don't know how to count, troll-on-a-high-horse

             16. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 5, 2017

                 I concede that you may not have exposed all of your sock puppets yet...thanks for the tip. Will keep my eyes open.

             17. 

                 jrvc

                 January 6, 2017

                 good thing to do

             18. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 5, 2017

                 https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

                 https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

             19. 

                 Mario

                 January 4, 2017

                 It's the death of 'Martha', it's there to jump back as PTSD for Bruce when Supes asks him to save Martha, a plot point, well acomplished, when Martha Wayne dies, Batman is born, when Bruce saves Martha Kent, and Supes dies heroically, Batman is reborn, climb back from darkness, after going dark, killing thugs and such, like in his dream, climb back from the cave, faith restored.
                 Bravo.

             20. 

                 CeeEye

                 January 4, 2017

                 Unneeded. Covered ad nauseum in all the other films, books, etc. The scene added nothing new. Could have cut out the 'ptsd' scene you mention and nothing in the story would change. No one needs this established at this point. Underlines the mishandling of the franchise.

             21. 

                 OGmacrazy

                 January 4, 2017

                 It was beating the audience over the head. Many DC fanboys claim the DCEU is hated because it is misunderstood, because of how complex it is, but moments like that tell you that these scripts are nothing special, just a mess of subplots put together in order to appear more complex than it actually is. It can be done correctly, just not with a director that has zero understanding of storytelling, pacing, and character development.

             22. 

                 Mario

                 January 4, 2017

                 Sorry but no one i have talked to felt beating in the head, even my Marvel fan wife, and she loved this film (obviously her opinion matters to me more than yours), plus you know i like it as well, and i know you hate it, and every time me or someone writes a positive comment regarding Snyder, you jump in action to take the fun out of people and invest in arguing with you, and never reaching understanding, because you are not interested in agreeing (at least when Snyder is in discussion), and im tired of that shit.
                 Sorry man, we talk next time on another subject.

             23. 

                 OGmacrazy

                 January 4, 2017

                 Sorry, but what do you call showing the complete death of Bruce's parents again (which by itself is unnecessary), and then showing his father call out Martha, in the infamous Martha scene? Is that not beating the audience over the head? No one could ever not have understood what was going on because it was shown exactly what he was feeling, in a literal form. You can like it all you want, but this is fucking factual.

          2. 

             RC

             January 4, 2017

             Genuine curiosity: What comic details?

             That entire movie was a dirge.

             1. 

                jrvc

                January 5, 2017

                There were some nice touchs to comics in the scene. Those I remember right now are: The Mark of the Zorro poster at the cinema (the original film the watched before being killed); the pearls around the gun like in TDKR; Thomas Wayne trying to defend themselves from the mugger, just like it happened in the first comic that showed this... I'm sure there was smoething else, don't remember right now

             2. 

                RC

                January 5, 2017

                Oh details inspired from comic books.... When you said "comic details" i thought you meant "comic" as an adjective.... ("light, funny, adding humor"....

             3. 

                jrvc

                January 5, 2017

                nope, just details from comicbooks, sorry if I worded that in a wrong way. Obviously, even though I know you are addressing that "lack of humour" a lot of people say, that scene would have been a little bit weird with comedic bits, don't you think?

             4. 

                RC

                January 5, 2017

                Oh, I don't know. Joe Chill could have abducted Thos and Martha ("Marthaaaa!") and put them in the back of a 73 Nova, and when Jack Napier hits a pothole, his gun goes off and blues them both to bits? That might have worked.

                I don't bemoan a lack of comedy. BvS could have been a movie that wasn't "funny" but that was still entertaining, or compelling.

             5. 

                jrvc

                January 6, 2017

                for me it was, but different strokes I guess ;)

             6. 

                AnotherGreenDay

                January 7, 2017

                THAT BATMAN IS A BADASS....................

                https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

       2. 

          Alan Conn

          January 3, 2017

          Snydermacher? Ok u lost all credibility...

          1. 

             RC

             January 4, 2017

             Wait? Which part is the insult?

       3. 

          Mario

          January 4, 2017

          Well, if the parents death scene was unnecessary for Schumacher already, and therefore Snyder, why its ok for Nolan?, if it applies to Snyder it should to Nolan, both scenes work for the plot, in Batman Begins the father is the one that matters, with his 'why do we fall Bruce' speech and strong presence, his mom was nothing, in Bruce's mind its all about dad, there is no Martha, re-watch you’ll see im not exaggerating.
          In BvS, Martha is the one that serves the plot, in such a specific moment, that got overlooked.

          1. 

             RC

             January 4, 2017

             It would be easier (at least faster) for you to re-read what I said than for me to re-watch BvS. And please, for the love of all that is good and holy, DO NOT get me started on the "Martha safe-word" nonsense.

             I implied the parents' death scene was unnecessary in BF because it was Part 3 of a series that already showed it in Part 1. So it was already established in the history of that franchise's world.

             I said specifically that Nolan "nailed" it - you know what's coming, and yet it is still (for many I know) gut-wrenching on every viewing. And it's fast and random and brutal in its lack of brutality - just Pop! And they're down. No dramatic music, no beer commercial cinematography - just Pop! And they're down. And a little boy's life has changed.

             It was unnecessary in BvS because, at this point, we get it. We don't need to say in every Bond movie, "You know James, you have this number that means you can kill people, which we Brits don't like to do very much. You're Number Double-O seven, that means you have a license to kill," because the presumption is that audiences know that going in. Every Star Wars film (God help us) doesn't require the setup, "Now, there's this black dude that's really evil. His name is Dar-" "Wait, how will I know him?" "Oh, you'll know." Because, as dumb as Lucasfilm thinks we are, they know we know who Darth Vader is.

             So at this point in modern culture, it is safe to presume that every man, woman, and child going to a Batman movie has some passing knowledge of the mythos. (Well I say that, and the *director* of BvS doesn't have a passing knowledge of the Batman mythos, so maybe I undercut my own argument).

             I infer that your point is that the "Martha" death is so important in BvS that it needed to be included. But a) why not show some other piece of fun domesticity with Martha and young Bruce - show us the joy that he lost that day? There were no stakes other than "My mommy got shot". ("Oh, what's her name?" "Martha" "Oh, that's my mum's name, too! Boy, we sure have more in common than we have differences!" "Say, you're right. Sorry I tried to kill you with this space rock I stole from imaginary mosquito-men in a dream I had!" "Sorry I was so mean to you in my newspaper." "Wait, that was you?!? Ha ha ha!" "Ha ha ha! Wait - can you save my mommy!" "Yes! I shall do this because I was not able to save mine. Perhaps I can redeem myself through serving you." "That sounds great. And while you're at it, I know you don't use guns or anything, but you should shoot a guy dead. It's really cathartic." "Hey, thanks for the tip, spaceman.")

             So maybe instead show Young Bruce and Martha having a day ion the jungle gym, sharing a lolly, playing peek-a-boo, in a hansom cab through Central Park, something that shows they had a relationship other than dead-chaperone.

             And b) if Martha was so important, why did Snydermacher cast a hotty nobody to play Martha but a distractingly well-known Morgan as Thomas?

             Look BvS was bad for so many reasons, but let's not let that divide us. We're here to unite over how bad BF was. The Crime Alley scene is like 18th or 19th on that list.

       4. 

          AnotherGreenDay

          January 7, 2017

          What did you mean why did he try do it again???
          It was a totally different take. Comic books change origins and stories and drawings all the time, but you don't want something different in movies?

    2. 

       Alan Conn

       January 3, 2017

       Hahaha!!! I always thought it was super unsettling as well!

20. 

    MithunOnThe.Net

    January 3, 2017

    Sorry, but Batman Forever and 'Batman & Robin' sucked so bad that they're among the worst superhero moviesmovies of all time.

21. 

    Isaia Maccali

    January 3, 2017

    It had the PERFECT Riddler. And the PERFECT Dick Grayson. (Tommy Lee Jones is a great actor, but a total miscast as Dent). It also had one of the most beautiful Nicole Kidman ever. But Kilmer was unwatchable and the movie sucked bad, especially in comparison with Returns. Batman & Robin was worse.

    1. 

       Thomas Guy

       January 3, 2017

       Dick was too old. I never understood the "I have to adopt a 30 year old" No Dick, get a fucking job.

    2. 

       Isaia Maccali

       January 3, 2017

       Hahahahahah. I'd like to. One for me, thx.

    3. 

       Alan Conn

       January 3, 2017

       Whaaa?!?!?!

    4. 

       CeeEye

       January 4, 2017

       By my count there are at least 3.

22. 

    RandomShinigami7

    January 3, 2017

    I actually didn't mind Batman Forever. Don't get me wrong, it's a noticeable step down from Batman '89 and Batman Returns, but it's still watchable. Batman & Robin though... *shudders*

    1. 

       Schuyler Finley

       January 3, 2017

       I think Schumaucher was going for an Adam West Batman film when he did Batman & Robin.

       1. 

          CeeEye

          January 4, 2017

          Bingo. The real villain in the story is that the success of the '60s show defined Batman for way too many studio heads. They have always been at war with those who pretty much started and ended their fandom with Frank Miller.

23. 

    CrackerJackie

    January 3, 2017

    Keaton is right.

24. 

    Foomankru

    January 3, 2017

    There's a Batman for everyone. While these are at the very bottom of my list of Batfilms, I still own them.

    1. 

       residentgrigo

       January 3, 2017

       Do you also own the 40s serials? These are the cinematic bottom.

       1. 

          Foomankru

          January 3, 2017

          lol yeah I've heard. I actually do not own those but wouldn't turn them away if I got them for free 👍🏻

       2. 

          Bat-Mite

          January 4, 2017

          I have them. I think they're hilarious.

          1. 

             residentgrigo

             January 4, 2017

             How about dat institutionalized racism?

             1. 

                Bat-Mite

                January 4, 2017

                I lost count of how many times it said "those dirty japs!"

             2. 

                residentgrigo

                January 4, 2017

                http://s3.crackedcdn.com/ph...

25. 

    OssamNin

    January 3, 2017

    Chicks dig the car...

26. 

    Joshua Smith

    January 3, 2017

    They don't call him Joel "I ruined Batman" Schumacher for no reason!

27. 

    Shikhar

    January 3, 2017

    Same bro same...

28. 

    Swaggersaurus

    January 3, 2017

    They will be asking Ben Afleck the same thing in 15 years

    1. 

       CeeEye

       January 4, 2017

       Maybe not, as it turns out...

29. 

    Al Lopez

    January 3, 2017

    Both movies sucked! They went the Marvel way

30. 

    Mike P.

    January 3, 2017

    Timm&Dini > Nolan > the rest