Watch 45 seconds of tomorrow's new 'Wonder Woman' trailer

Shortly after Gal Gadot teased a big Wonder Woman surprise for tomorrow, Saturday, March 11th... the official social media accounts posted a 15 second preview of what's to come!

In the trailer preview video above, we see Wonder Woman training for battle before unleashing her true power.

Update: Another new trailer preview was posted to Facebook. Check it out below!

Update #2: And now another 15 second preview trailer has come online!

Be sure to come back to Batman News tomorrow, I'll have the new Wonder Woman trailer for you as soon as it's available!

311 comments

Jcool

March 10, 2017

Do you seriously care?

Jcool
March 10, 2017
Why don't you just make your own site then you can do things exactly how you want.
1. Jcool
  March 10, 2017
  https://media.tenor.co/imag...
  1. DJ Homeless Mike
    March 10, 2017
    Jcool for the win... and better animated gif

greenarrowfan1

March 10, 2017

I see they doing the teaser before trailer thing.....they should just show it today. Why promote at Kid choice award since majority of viewer is not going to tuned in anyway.

BatmanNewsChris
March 10, 2017
What's weird is that they *aren't* promoting it as part of the KCA. Maybe it'll come sooner?
1. Jcool
  March 10, 2017
  I thought the KCA was getting a clip not a trailer?
  1. BatmanNewsChris
    March 10, 2017
    KCA are teasing an "exclusive look", which I figured would be the trailer. Maybe we'll get the trailer during the day and then a clip at the awards.
    1. Jcool
      March 10, 2017
      If they are doing something during the show its going to be shorter then the trailer would be.
2. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
  March 10, 2017
  Chris...please post if it does, can't wait for this one.
Kylo Yisus
March 10, 2017
And the movie will be a trailer of 2 hours.

Kylo Yisus

March 10, 2017

I can't wait for the extended version!!!

El Maybe

March 10, 2017

Wonderful!!!

Kylo Yisus

March 10, 2017

At least the photography it's nice.

AquaCthulhu
March 10, 2017
You mean in the photos in Entertainment Weekly?

Black Adam

March 10, 2017

It's awesome how Amazons don't have an American accent.

iAbeLincoln
March 10, 2017
When Gal was first cast as Wonder Woman that was all I thought about. Sure she is beautiful, could use some growth as an actress, and the awful argument of her being too scrawny. But the main thing that I loved about the casting is that this Wonder Woman would have an exotic accent!
1. dugzino
  March 10, 2017
  And yet, people still complain about that accent thing. I didn't mind her having an accent at all. It somehow makes sense. Would've been funny af for them to have british accents.
  1. iAbeLincoln
    March 10, 2017
    That complaint definitely hasn't been the loudest of all the few that people have had with Gal as WW. But I have certainly read that complaint not only here but obviously on the other DC hating websites like comicbookmovie.com and IGN.com. More specifically the commenters bringing DC hatred. Not the websites themselves
    1. Ravager
      March 10, 2017
      comicbookmovie.com the site who should not be named...
Nahuel Benvenuto
March 10, 2017
by american you mean the accent from the people who live in the united states? because America is the continent, not the country, there are lots of accents and your comment confuses me
1. Rautasusi
  March 11, 2017
  "American" here refers to the people who live in United States, not the country. American accent means American English since it's the most common spoken language in the US. Accents are usually named so that you can tell from where it originates from, like Latin accent or Finnish accent for example. Hope this clears things up :)
2. OGmacrazy
  March 11, 2017
  Talk about making yourself look dumb just to create an argument where none exists.
3. gaytrekkie
  March 11, 2017
  There's no continent called "America". There's a North America and South America, and together they are sometimes referred to as the "Americas". However, it is very widely understood by pretty much everyone (except you apparently) that "America" refers to the United States and an "American accent" refers to the typical accent spoken by the people of the United States.

IamTheOneWhoKnocks

March 10, 2017

Whoa!!!...

Red Devils

March 10, 2017

Form someone who thought Man of Steel was a masterpiece, loved BVS, I'm over the moon right now.
There is NO problem with DCEU.

Jack Thorne
March 10, 2017
You might think MOS was a masterpiece and loved BvS, but that doesn’t therefore translate into there being no problem with DCEU. How can anyone say that after the year we’ve had?
DCEU has had a mountain of problems. BvS and SS were partly responsible, but it’s not helpful pretending that the DCEU isn’t in a precarious position just because you loved a trailer.
It's 0 for 3, we're still waiting for a critically acclaimed DCEU film, and if WW and JL do poorly (I HOPE they don't), then we are staring down the abyss of a reboot.
1. Jack Thorne
  March 10, 2017
  I shouldn't need to, it's obvious to anyone whose been watching the DCEU soap opera this past 12 months.
  14 films have been announced for the next few years, yet nearly all of them have had no development for months, including seminal films like MOS 2 and CYBORG.
  Critical films like THE FLASH have repeatedly lost their filmmakers and scripts, and are back to square one, with no end in sight.
  We’ve had repeated push backs, u-turns and contradictory announcements from WB about other projects, such as THE BATMAN. There are grounds to be hopeful post-Reeves announcement, and yet we still have issues with the script, creative differences, whether Manganiello is still cast, and amid rumors that Affleck still wants out.
  JUSTICE LEAGUE has been called a “mess”. And before, you turn on BOF, they’re an outstanding website that's called it right on a number of issues, like the problems of THE FLASH, Affleck dropping out as director, and that he’s looking to leave. They are extremely reliable because they have insiders.
  That's nothing to say about BvS and SS and the fallout from two awful films.
  These aren’t teething problems. They are not confined to one film, they touch on every one with the exception of AQUAMAN. This is a pattern, and the only connection is WB/DCEU.
  I want DCEU to work, I want it to kick ass. But frankly, a cool trailer doth not maketh a successful film universe. If it did, BvS would have been universally celebrated.
  1. AquaCthulhu
    March 10, 2017
    You mean the same Joe Manganiello who said he'd start shooting in a few months? People are wondering if he's still in the movie?
    I guess all rumors are reliable because of them, reasons.
    1. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      Dude, are you serious? He and Ben Affleck are OBVIOUSLY not even going to be in this movie anymore. Come on now.
      Everyone knows it's true. WB are just stringing us along as some sort of weird, self-destructive PR move that makes no sense. :P
    2. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      Yes, that very same Joe Manganiello, in the very same interview...that was given BEFORE it was announced Ben Affleck was leaving the director's chair.
      Yeah, that one.
    3. AquaCthulhu
      March 10, 2017
      http://batman-news.com/2017...
      Did you miss this article? This was after Reeves.
      Perhaps you read the beginning of first paragraph and thought the interview is from last fall? Whichever 'insider' you heard it from doesn't seem to be too good at making up stuff.
    4. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      Errrr.. so why is the author, Matthew Tuthill, confirming that the interview took place BEFORE Affleck had announced he was leaving as director?
      http://www.batman-on-film.c...
      Sorry, you said something about "making up stuff"?
    5. AquaCthulhu
      March 10, 2017
      You could clearly see the article stating it's after Reeves at first. I missed the update is all—I don't need to make up anything since I don't run clickbait blogs.
      So do you truly believe there won't be Deathstroke in the Batman?
    6. Jack Thorne
      March 11, 2017
      I guess that's your way of accepting that my point about the uncertainty of Manganiello is still valid. Good.
      Well you're the one that started complaining about "making up stuff", and that's been refuted now.
      PS. BOF is a highly respectable Batman site. Anyone that had common sense and had been on there would know this.
    7. AquaCthulhu
      March 11, 2017
      No, what that was is a question, and not a rhetorical one. Do you actually believe it's possible Joe won't be in the next Batman film? I'd like to bet that Deathstroke will play a part in the Batman whenever it comes out and there's no amount of uncertainty about that. If you think otherwise, you may say so.
      The person who took the interview even mentioned there's no reason to think Joe would think any differently now.
      You didn't refute the made-up stuff about Ben leaving the DC Films or any of the other tin-foil rumors you've sprinkled on your OP.
      (I wasn't even referring to the site you shared the update from!)
    8. Jack Thorne
      March 11, 2017
      It's difficult to fully understand what you're saying because your syntax is off a bit. My response was to your strange comments about me making stuff up, like Manganiello role still up in the air. Since you accept that the interview was pre-Affleck leaving, I've been vindicated that there is still uncertainty around his role.
      What the author *believes* Manganiello thinks post-Affleck leaving is neither here nor there, since that's got nothing to do with my argument.
      Everything I said about the problems with the DCEU that I mentioned in my original post I stand by. I don't need to "refute" that. You need to tell me why you think these are not issues.
    9. AquaCthulhu
      March 11, 2017
      Some others here have no problem understanding me though.
      I did not accuse you of making stuff up! I clearly mentioned I meant the ones running clickbait blogs—now I have no idea if you have a blog or a website. I don't know you. I'm just pissed at those drooling out unsubstantiated rumors.
      Also, what proof do you have that Ben intends to leave the DC Films? (You can choose to stand by it but you can't ask others of it, especially with no proof other than a guy who heard a guy hear another guy hear something)
      When you present something and you're challenged about it the burden of proof falls upon you (the way you proved Manganiello's interview was before Reeves) and not me. I'm not the one oiling the rumor mill.
    10. Jack Thorne
      March 11, 2017
      Yeah, I’m only responding to you because you brought up strange points about hearing it from an “insider making stuff up” and nonsense about “clickbait blogs”. None of that is accurate to me, or where I go to for my news, so I have no idea why you brought it up in the first place if you didn't know it was relevant to me. Incidentally, I go to BOF, the most reliable Batman news site around.
      Besides what John Campea said, BOF said as early as January that Affleck is looking for a way out. They said earlier that he will leave the director’s chair (which he did), and they also said that he would try and leave the role, but only after JL. I’ve followed the site for 10 years – they know their stuff, they have reliable sources. I believe him. If you don’t then fine, I’m not shoving it down your throat. All I’m saying is there’s a reasonable chance that he could leave.
      I’m well aware of the burden of proof, more so than most. It’s a little odd though to ask someone to prove something like this; the evidence is not going to be forthcoming, just like the evidence of Affleck leaving as director was not forthcoming…until he ended up leaving.
      I’m not "oiling up" anything. I’m believing widely respected sources that have connections within WB, and have a history of getting it right. That’s more than enough for me, and I couldn’t care less what others think.
    11. AquaCthulhu
      March 11, 2017
      Fair enough.
      Well, saying Ben might leave after JL doesn't mean much since he's already shot for it (?)
      What're the biggest rumors reported by this site that came to fruition? I'm just curious honestly.
    12. Jack Thorne
      March 12, 2017
      Just focusing on the last 12 months, Jett said THE FLASH would run into several problems and find it difficult to get off the ground. Since then, THE FLASH has lost two filmmakers and is on a page one rewrite. Jett also said it that Affleck would probably be offered the role of directing TB after BvS. He's known for a while now that Affleck was going to leave as director (he got a ton of sh*t in January for suggesting it, and funnily enough had his site called clickbait by a lot of people). He went on to say that this is because Affleck wants to leave the whole thing altogether, and since then we've heard Campea say the same thing, from three sources. Does that mean it will absolutely happen? No, but at some point, it becomes clear there is a pattern of truth forming.
      Saying Affleck might leave after JL says a huge amount, because it means no THE BATMAN.
    13. AquaCthulhu
      March 12, 2017
      Wait, so you seriously believe there might not be a Ben Affleck-led solo Batman movie?
      The page one rewrite will actually make it much smoother for the next director so I consider that a positive, the delay doesn't matter to me.
      (I've never heard of this website and I only meant Campea when I said clickbait)
    14. Jack Thorne
      March 12, 2017
      Batman-On-Film is a fantastic website, and I cannot recommended enough. It's also a heck more civilized. It's been running for nearly 20 years, and Jett is a top class guy with his ear to the ground. He's got a lot of things right, and he has reliable sources that give him the intel. He could, but he doesn't always reveal what's going on (that's why they trust him). He doesn't do click-bait; it's a serious, high quality Batman site, and the best place to know what's happening and what it all means. That's why I'm never surprised by what happens with the vicissitudes of the DCEU - I get a feel where things are going with Jett, and I believe him that there is a good chance Affleck will leave after JL (it would be a PR disaster for JL if he announces before). Do I think there's a chance Reeves can persuade him otherwise? Sure, but there's still a lack of certainty.
      As for Campea being clickbait, that's harsh and unfair. The guy doesn't need to clickbait, he's good at his job and people love Collider. He warned people not to repeat what he heard since he couldn't offer proof (obviously not) but he 100% believe his THREE SOURCES. Plus, he got a call from a WB insider afterwards who not only said it was true, but that WB want Affleck to leave too. Again, this chimes in with what I've been hearing from BOF.
2. Red Devils
  March 10, 2017
  I don't care about problem off the movie. I judge the movie when it comes out and see it and give my honest opinions. I don't care if critics like it or not. Sure you may not agree with me hence you're clearly as excited as I'm. As faar as I'm concern MOS, BVS are amazing. I din't like SS.
  1. Jack Thorne
    March 10, 2017
    I'm absolutely fine if you loved, liked or hated these movies. It's your opinion. The problem comes when you say "there is NO problem with DCEU".
    Nevermind being ostensibly false, it's just not helpful. The fact of the matter is that DCEU will crash and burn if WW and JL get reviews AND box office receipts similar to BvS and JL. You can take that to the bank.
3. Nahuel Benvenuto
  March 10, 2017
  the critics bash this movies because they compare them to the mcu, which is shit btw (i am a both Marvel/DC fan btw) so teht just say bad things about them because is not liek the other movies
  1. OGmacrazy
    March 11, 2017
    So where is all that hate for Logan, a movie that's darker, more realistic and a lot more grittier than anything the DCEU has launched so far? That whole theory is complete and utter bullshit. Also, you're a fan of Marvel? You constantly bring them up by yourself, just so you can shit on them. Every single time.
4. Новица Чворовић
  March 11, 2017
  so you are a that guy? you don't think with your own head, you need critics to tell what is good and what is bad?
5. Spenddollarz
  March 11, 2017
  0-3 speak for yourself
dugzino
March 10, 2017
Of course DCEU has no problems. I don't see where it actually could be...
Oh yeah, the "professional" critics. They are the problem the DCEU has.
Steph & Ayesha r havin a baby!
March 10, 2017
and let's not forget the Academy Award-winning Suicide Squad
1. Red Devils
  March 10, 2017
  Actually among all DCEU movies so far SS is my least favorite.
  1. Новица Чворовић
    March 11, 2017
    SS is also my least favorite but in the end we got great Squad but they just need better movie to be part of.
Dumb Cunt
March 10, 2017
aside from BvS under performing, not being liked by critics or cared for by the general audience, sure.
edit: and loosing several directors, including Ben.
Though Wonder Woman is looking great so far, if there's one thing the DCEU can do well, it's trailers.
1. Schuyler Finley
  March 10, 2017
  I think you mean "divisive amognst the general audience".
  1. Jack Thorne
    March 10, 2017
    It wasn't divisive amongst the general audience, it was divisive amongst the fanbase. General audiences resoundingly voted with their feet after the first week. If it was liked by them, then BvS wouldn't have fallen off a cliff in the second week and had bad legs. Poor reviews and poor word of mouth also affected the general audience.
    It was largely kept afloat by fans, who were nothing if not loyal to it.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      But money was still made. You still had audiences who went to see it the despite the negative reception. There are no numbers to validate it because that drop doesn't differentiate casual audiences from fans.
    2. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      We aren't talking about money, we are talking about whether people liked the films or not. Sure there's no way to ascertain precisely about general audiences, but look at the evidence:
      BvS had a huge opening, primarily because of an excellent marketing campaign and huge anticipation before most of the reviews hit.
      However, BvS had one of the sharpest drops of a record breaking opening weekend film. Why? Because the film had 'bad legs' (poor rewatch), negative reviews touched down, and word of mouth turned sour. Since many fans loved it and still went to watch it over the month, what could possibly account for this sharp fall? The answer is the only thing that would have responded to bad reviews and poor word of mouth and refusal to rewatch it - general audiences. Afterall, Batman fans are hardly not going watch a Batman film, even if its bad, right?
      It's not rocket science.
    3. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      I understand the decline, but I'm arguing that you can't simply say that the general audience didn't care for it due to it nearly reaching a billion despite the negative reception. Money always tells you if audiences care about a film or not.
    4. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      Firstly, when you say "nearly reaching a billion", you mean USD873m That's not "nearly a billion". Not even close.
      Second of all, this film had an enormous budget, stellar cast, Spring break opening, and by far and away two of the biggest, oldest, most iconic superheroes of all time.
      And you are telling me it couldn't clear USD900m? 10 years ago nobody would have heard of Captain America and Iron Man. In May, they banked well over a billion. My point is don't look at the numbers in isolation. BvS underperformed and WB weren't happy.
      Look at the weekly drops, they're catastrophic. How else would you account for them? Fans? No. General audiences. Yes.
      http://www.boxofficemojo.co...
    5. El Maybe
      March 10, 2017
      It's pretty damn obvious! But he just won't see it, no matter how you much you rub it in his face.
    6. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      I've had debates like this with him before, and no matter how many times you try to explain something he refuses to listen. It's the perfect example of cognitive dissonance.
    7. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      Or maybe you guys are too stuck up in thinking that you're always right.
    8. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      And CW did well because it's part of an established franchise. I keep telling you that I agree that general audiences did play of this.
      And BvS was than a quarter away of from making a billion dollars. That's close, dude.
    9. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      CW is not DCEU, and DCEU is not CW. Otherwise someone should let Gustin Grant know.
      Let me put this another way. If you got 87% in a test, you wouldn't say 'I nearly got 100%'. At most, you would say 'I nearly got 90%'.
      Not interested in furthering this as it's WAY off topic, and frankly, you have a predilection not to comprehend things. I mean, you are the worst, while your partner in crime just deceives.
    10. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      I was talking about Civil War.
      Look, I know what you're talking about. Being less than 200 million away from a billion is close in my book.
    11. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      I've heard this before that CA:CW only did well because it was part of an established franchise. It's nonsense, plenty of films do really well that are not part of a franchise, plenty of films do badly that are part of an established franchise. In other words, being part of an established franchise is neither a sufficient or necessary condition to a successful film.
      Superman and Batman are more loved, iconic and bigger than Spiderman, Iron Man and Captain America combined. They even outstripped them in films. This 'handwave' of CA:CW doing well because it's established is special pleading.
    12. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      Actually being part of a successful franchise can greatly help a film. Yes, it's not a necessary condition, but it's definitely a good benefit.
    13. AquaCthulhu
      March 10, 2017
      Besides Avatar how many films can you name that made over a billion but aren't a part of an established franchise?
      And let's not pretend that civil war is a cap movie just because the title says so. It's an out-and-out avengers movie with almost every avenger being in all three acts. They basically sneaked in avengers 2.5 and that's the only reason it crossed the big B.
      If it was all just cap then Winter soldier would've made over a billion too, and that's with shiny tomato-peeled reviews.
    14. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      As I said, being part of an established franchise is not a sufficient or necessary condition to a successful film, whether financially or critically.
      I'm not buying this nonsense that CA:CW wasn't a CA film. Did it have an ensemble, of course, but few of these characters had a story arc, were well defined, or had a as much screen time as Captain America.
      I have to say there's nothing more sadder than watching fans beat up on MCU just to make themselves feel better about BvS.
    15. AquaCthulhu
      March 10, 2017
      So you couldn't name any films? I wonder why.
      Tony actually had more of a character arc in that movie than cap. Are you also going to deny that civil war had 2 of the most familiarized superheroes in recent CBM history? Because that would be rich AF.
    16. Jack Thorne
      March 11, 2017
      I didn't name any because as I said it's irrelevant to a successful film.
      Besides, Batman and Superman are the most iconic, oldest and most well known superheroes. It doesn't matter what Marvel character is flavor of the month.
      CA:CW did well because it was a universally loved film; from critics, fans and general audiences. BvS never had all three.
    17. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      You're the one who mentioned the MCU. And a lot of people agree that CW is basically an Avengers film. it's just that Cap and Tony have the most character development.
    18. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      That argument is completely destroyed by the fact that Iron Man 3 (with zero avengers besides himself, mind you), made more than Civil War did even. It made almost 400M more than BvS. If that's not the punchline of a joke, then I don't know what is.
    19. Schuyler Finley
      March 11, 2017
      But Iron Man is part of a franchise.
    20. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      He said that CW made over a billion because it had avengers and was basically avengers 2.5. And without it it wouldn't have made close to it. I refuted that with the example of Iron Man 3, a solo movie that made over a billion. Being part of a franchise isn't the make or break of a movie's box office.
      Also, Batman has been a very relevant and prominent franchise since the 80's and Superman since the 70's, so saying that BvS was the beginning of a franchise is untrue and completely fabricated for the convenience of your argument. They've been cinematic franchises for much longer than the MCU has, and that really fucking counts.
    21. Schuyler Finley
      March 11, 2017
      Like I had told someone else above, being part of a franchise can greatly help a film. Iron Man 3 had no Avengers in it, but it was still part of an established franchise.
      The DCEU is a new franchise, just like how the different Batman films are in their own respective franchises.
    22. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      That is such a weak excuse dude. For real, now. The DC characters are very well known by the masses, and being a part of an established cinematic franchise means jackshit for the general audiences, the same general audience that doesn't even know the difference between DC and Marvel. For fuck's sake, you are fabricating this argument where it's validity is null from the get go. There are movies that come out every year that make money without the need of a franchise, which completely destroys your argument. Zootopia made almost 200M more than BvS did, and where's that franchise argument then?
      Seriously, you are actually a very reasonable dude at times, you don't insult or anything, at least I've never seen you do it, but your arguments are usually grade A bullshit. This argument does not stand, and what franchise means for general audiences is the front and center characters or logos. Batman and Superman have been around for decades, so that franchise arguments applies for BvS, and it is actually a detriment for what the movie ended up making, then.You honestly think general audiences are up to par about the DCEU, MCU, X-Men universe, etc.? Of course they aren't, they just see a movie about super heroes or whatever, and go see it if it's good, if they think they'll like it, if they're fans of the characters, etc..
    23. Schuyler Finley
      March 11, 2017
      Zootopia doesn't have it's own franchise like Toy Story and How to Train Your Dragon.
      And if you would scroll up, I said earlier that isn't necessary for a film to be part of a franchise in order to succeed, but it is a good benefit to have.
    24. AquaCthulhu
      March 11, 2017
      Thanks for propping up my original argument that you need an established franchise (like iron man 3 here did) to break a billion as things are right now.
    25. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      I've already responded to this. Iron Man 3 was used against your argument that Captain America: Civil War only made 1 billion because it was an avengers movie. Again, making up shit as you go along isn't a good idea when the people you're arguing against pay attention. Unless you're not paying attention, which would explain a lot, actually.
    26. AquaCthulhu
      March 11, 2017
      So it's OK even though your 'argument' contradicts with the first half of my comment? You thought making two different replies would hide that fact?
      You do understand you can't substantiate the success of a solo iron man movie to that of a solo cap movie, right? People speak of it as if cap 3 would've made just as much money without all the avengers (especially iron man). The way you cherry-pick your arguments makes me wonder if you practice it every day in a little garden, lol!
      You said you were paying attention?
    27. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      I'm sorry, what? You said Cap 3 wouldn't have made a billion if it hadn't Avengers in it. I proved you wrong with an example of a movie set in the same universe that made more than a billion with just the title avenger in it. THe other replies were about your claims that only franchise titles make over a billion, which is factually wrong. As is calling BvS a non-franchise movie. I shut down pretty much all of your comments, as they all have a very biased basis where reality is distorted in order to fit your narrative better, than a measly 873M dollars, a fucking 7th place in the top 10 movies for a given year (in this case 2016) is good enough for the first live action appearance of Batman and Superman, where they fight? Am I getting this right?
    28. AquaCthulhu
      March 11, 2017
      “I proved you wrong with an example of a movie set in the same universe that made more…”
      I'm sorry but how thick are you to think just because iron man made a billion on his third movie all by himself means cap could've made it too? It's like saying Thor Ragnarok will break a billion because it's set in the same universe which, even with Hulk on board, is wishful thinking at best. You must have a concussion if you think that was a rebuttal of any kind.
      “THe other replies were about your claims that only franchise titles make over a billion…”
      I already told you I'm well aware there are exceptions but how many? Besides Zootopia (in the age of big tentpole franchise films) there's not many independent Billion-Babies, are there?
      Go ahead and keep dreaming that you've refuted them. I know you will.
    29. OGmacrazy
      March 12, 2017
      It's basic math and common sense. Iron Man 1 and 2 basically made the same ammount of money. Iron Man 3, with it's Avengers boost broke a billion, since he was a fan favourite. Cap became a fan favourite after Winter Soldier, and Winter Soldier more than doubled the first Cap's receipts. With Age of Ultron boosting it, the third Cap movie had everything to reach a billion by itself. It's as simple as that. And yes, Thor Ragnarok has a very good chance of breaking a billion. All it needs is great reviews and it's very possible. I have because I've given you examples of non-franchise titles, and then you just shrug it off as rare occurences (which billion dollar movies always are, btw). You inability to see where your argument fails is your own problem. Your bias is bliding you so much it ain't even funny. And the way you act, all high and mighty, as if you have any case?
      Sorry, but you only started this argument to defend BvS, because it didn't make 1 billion dollars. You know what SECOND film in a franchise made 1 billion dollars? Without shared universes and all that bullshit? The Dark Knight, featuring only 1 of the 2 pop culture icons in this movie. Seriously, it's like you love being shut down repeatedly.
    30. AquaCthulhu
      March 12, 2017
      Just as I predicted you continue to fool yourself into believing you've won the argument.
      "I have because I've given you examples of non-franchise titles, and then you just shrug it off as rare occurences (which billion dollar movies always are, btw)"
      So you don't think established franchises have boosted the number of films crossing a billion?
      The examples of non-franchise films you provided range from 1939 to 2016 and you've listed 6 films—in 77 Years!
      The established franchise films I'm going to mention range from 1999 to 2016 and there are 19* films—in 17 Years!
      Billion-Dollar-Babies used to be rare but not anymore, thanks to established-franchises—Suicide Squad's impressive box-office run is proof of that. Batfleck pulled a considerable amount of those crowds in. You also seem to be confusing established-properties with established-franchises. That's fine, I don't judge people with learning disabilities.
      (*19 films: The Phantom Menace, the avengers, Jurassic World, Furious 7, Deathly Hallows 2, iron man 3, age of ultron, Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Age of Extinction, Return of the King, Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises, Toy Story 3, the Hobbit, PotC 3 and 4, civil war, Force Awakens, Rogue One) This is how you properly use an asterisk, by the way.
      Looks like it does require the ability to count and a pinch of common sense to see that due to established-franchises we have a shit ton of films crossing the billion-dollar mark recently. If only you had either.
      Perhaps it's your stupidity that makes you think I act all mighty? Ever consider that?
      Go ahead and accuse me of all the things you're literally going to be doing in your reply!
    31. OGmacrazy
      March 13, 2017
      I could go to box office mojo and just copy paste the dozens of non franchise titles that adjusted for inflation made as much or more than any of those, and here I provide the link: http://www.boxofficemojo.co...
      See how in the top 10 none of them are franchise titles? And 8 of them made over a billion in the US alone? Sorry, but that shit don't fly. Franchises help, obviously, but they have to usually earn it either way. BvS was one of the most hyped movies of all time, and it's opening (400M+) is a testament to that. It's the 4th biggest worldwide opening of all time. Yet, it made a lot less than almost every other movie in the top 10 worldwide openings. Why? because word of mouth got to it. People saw the reviews, talked to each other, and spread the word on social media, which in turn made it make a lot less than it's potential would suggest. Meaning it would have made a lot fucking more had it not been poor word of mouth, which in turn happened because the movie simply failed to please audiences and critics alike. It's not rocket science, but you really need to take those rose-tainted glasses off. Also, I've proven you wrong, and this reply really fucking disproves anything you said (if that bullshit theory about franchises is so correct, then how come BvS made what it made, and what explains the drop again? Oh right, it wasn't a "franchise" title)... Sorry, but you either read what I write and have an open mind about it, or this is futile. You are not using logic. You are using a theory that is in part correct (that an established big franchise helps it's movies going forward, which it does) with a very absolute, and of course wrong, statement (only big franchise titles do that kind of money). You've even admitted to the counter examples I gave (which I expanded on here), so that theory goes out the water. As a mathematician myself, I'd know this.
    32. AquaCthulhu
      March 13, 2017
      In the link you provided, notice that in the top 10 not even one film is from the 21st century? Here's context to the top movie in that list: https://www.google.co.in/am...
      But what was my argument in the first place? That established-franchises would make (implying they're more likely than non-established-franchises to make) a billion dollars at the box office, domestically or otherwise. Now take a look at any of the latest films on that list: Force Awakens, Avatar (I started with"besides Avatar"), Jurassic World, Avengers
      "…with a very absolute, and of course wrong, statement (only big franchise titles do that kind of money).”
      Of course that was never my statement. I've been specific from the start: they're 'more likely' to make that kind of money, not the only ones.
      Besides Avatar how many films can you name that made over a billion but aren't a part of an established franchise?
      The fact that I mentioned Avatar and not GwtW is proof that I'm talking about the current century.
      The fact that I say how many films is proof that my argument is well-established-franchises vs non-franchise films money-wise.
      So bringing up films from the last century doesn't, in any way, actually add to the counter-argument. You must see that now?
      P. S. And if BvS had great reviews it would've cracked a billion like a charm. There's no denying that. At one point you said it doesn't matter if it's the 2nd or 11th movie—this is clearly false. If it had been a much later film even with the same bad reviews, it'd have been more likely to make a billion for the simple reason that people would've been more accustomed to watching DC Films the same way they're accustomed to watching mcu films/disney films now.
    33. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      Also, last year you have Zootopia who made over a billion with no franchise back up. Also: Frozen, The Lion King, Jurassic Park, and all this without counting the countless unadjusted for inflation movies that would also apply (Gone with the Wind, The Exorcist, etc.).
    34. Schuyler Finley
      March 11, 2017
      Lion King didn't make a billion. It was real close though.
    35. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      Yeah, should have included it in the adjusted for inflation part. My bad, but still stands.
    36. AquaCthulhu
      March 11, 2017
      I'm sure all those disney movies would've made just as much without the big D on top of their titles. An animated feature from disney is a guaranteed crowd-puller! You can ask a kid if it's true.
      I will give you credit for mentioning Jurassic Park, thanks to the genius of Crichton and the appeal Spielberg had.
      Do you know what craze Gone With The Wind, the novel, generated back in the day? MGM knew it was smart to capitalize on it and they came out with the movie in about 3 years.
      In case you're confused I'm listing the reasons (I'm sure there are countless others as well) why these films made as much as they did.
      The point of my assertion was that it's impossible to do that right now without being part of an established franchise (unless it's an animated dick-sneeze).
    37. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      There you go, making arguments up so you can keep afloat amidst these discussions. You have to pick a logic and follow it. Not just add to it every chance you get when you are getting shut down. Batman has been a cinematic franchise since 89 (a movie that also adjusted for inflation would have made near if not a billion, with no "franchise" to speak off at the time), Superman has been since the 70's (guess what, that first film would have made a billion adjusted for inflation as well). You arguments fall apart because even when you make up that logic of yours, with a very biased mindset, you can't even follow it properly. Sorry, but there's not much else to say here.
    38. AquaCthulhu
      March 11, 2017
      Arguments? Do you think you can refute any of those 'arguments' if you tried? I don't think so. Those are facts as recorded in history.
      My argument is that as things are going on right now you need a well-established franchise, the more recent the better, to
      cross a billion.
      You can go further back to when there were no franchises at all and adjust for inflation but that doesn't apply to the claim (I'm supporting) that franchises tend to do better than individual movies—Pirates of the Caribbean, the mcu films, Harry Potter, Fast and the Furious, Lord of the Rings, Transformers…
      (Do I really need to talk about why the first filmic outings of the seminal comic-book characters did better compared to their 5th and 3rd incarnations?)
      We're talking about movies right now, not about a century ago. Notice how I said how many films can you name that made over a billion… and not 'What other films besides Avatar'? That's because I knew there are a few exceptions but the point is there aren't many!
      I'm sorry the world isn't as black and white as you'd wish but that's just how it is.
    39. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      You responded to nothing in this reply. You made zero points. You literally repeated yourself, when most of this has been refuted by facts. The facts are movies without pre-existing franchises or even material they were based on were incredibly successful. Movies with pre-existing material, but not cinematic outings were very successful. And of course, having a franchise is helpful in this regard, but it is absolutely not a necessary condition, which should be the main point. Fact is, second or eleventh movie in a franchise, BvS was the first cinematic outing with both Batman and Superman in it, both already icons of cinema, and of pop culture in general. It made over 400M in it's worldwide opening weekend, a record breaking opening. It would ahve easily matched the original Avengers box office had it had good word of mouth and reception. It didn't. It didn't have to do with havng a pre-established franchise to back it up or not. It had to do with it's quality (go see how many movies made over a billion with BvS' critical reception, you'll be shocked). Sorry, but you can't refute our arguments with a repeated "point" that is answering no one, and making no direct refutes against what we are saying.
    40. AquaCthulhu
      March 11, 2017
      “And of course, having a franchise is helpful in this regard, but it is absolutely not a necessary condition…”
      How could being part of a franchise be helpful but when it comes up BvS it doesn't matter if it was the 2nd or 11th film? Please be logically consistent, if you will.
      "go see how many movies made over a billion with BvS' critical reception, you'll be shocked"
      There are just 3 films with bad reception that broke a billion:Transformers 3, 4 and PotC 4, all parts of recently well-established franchises. What was your point again?
      (I only repeat what you fail to acknowledge and respond to.)
    41. OGmacrazy
      March 12, 2017
      Because these characters are already as well known as they can possibly be. Being a part of a franchise or not means jackshit, because they are recognizable and beloved the world over. That's why the first Superman movie and the first Batman made over a billion dollars when adjusted for inflation. This is what you don't get. You keep making excuses, but the fact of the matter is BvS, the second in a franchise, also a team up movie (by your own fucking logic), made less than the first two SOLO movies of each of the titular characters... Your logic is completely fucked up, yet you refuse to see it and only focus on ad hominem fallacies because even you know your defense of this movie is completely dependent on your bias for it, and little else.
    42. AquaCthulhu
      March 12, 2017
      You, fucking idiot, Superman (1978) and Batman (1989) made that much money because those were the first ever decent superhero feature films! It could've been any other A-list superheroes and they'd have made around just as much. I can't help but pity your tunnel-vision because it takes a special kind of stupid.
      My fucking logic is about established-franchises, not the first sequel to a film. Perhaps you need to look up what established means? Every other film that's remotely successful gets a sequel these days and I guess those are all established-franchises in your dumb little book. You're only amusing so long as you don't drop below a threshold of idiocy; it gets annoying afterwards.
    43. OGmacrazy
      March 13, 2017
      "You, fucking idiot, (...)"
      Never forget this when you start dodging the subjects and claiming I'm the one who starts insulting. Fucking screenshotted as well, for future refference.
      Either way, in this sea of insults and of making yourself look like a pathetic "internet tough guy" I do see your point, but that doesn't change the fact that there are clear as day counter-examples against any and all of these claims, and that the majority of the general audience does not know the fucking difference between DC and Marvel even. If you honestly think a well reviewed and well received Batman v Superman movie/a movie that opened with 400M+ worldwide wouldn't/shouldn't have broken 1 billion easily, then my friend, all those insults are being thrown to the wrong person. The weekend and weekly drops at the box office tell you all you need to know. There goes that whole franchise bullshit you've been spewing out the window. It opened higher than almost any MCU movie, and higher than many movies that outgrossed BvS easily. Yet, it didn't make as much as some of those. Never wondered why? Or is your mind really that closed? Ignoring the facts is one thing, but to insult those who are actually showing you how this works (yes, because box office analysis is a thing that exists).
    44. AquaCthulhu
      March 13, 2017
      I knew starting the comment with that would get you worked up. XD
      I call you an idiot just as many times as you call me a blind fanboy. The only reason the word fucking appears there is because you've dropped the f-bomb in your preceding comment. Screenshot this context as well—never mind, I'll do it. You're exaggerating too much if you think this makes me look like 'an internet though guy'.
      "If you honestly think a well reviewed and well received Batman v Superman movie/a movie that opened with 400M+ worldwide wouldn't/shouldn't have broken 1 billion easily, then my friend…”
      I honestly don't think that.
      What I do honestly think is that if BvS had been released after the DC Films have been better established, both amongst the general audiences and the crits, then it'd have been much more likely to have broken a billion (and I mean exactly the same movie). That's the same reason WW is more likely to be a better hit, with any luck, even better than SS.
      It had that kind of opening because of the great ad campaigning! And the fact that those who did know Batman and Superman (with their preconceptions) were interested in seeing them together. The bad reviews having retroactively shaped people's opinions about the film did all the damage. I never denied that.
      (The Ultimate edition helped people watch the movie from a fresher, unadulterated perspective and funny enough, more people actually liked it.)
      Just because something exists doesn't mean it's substantiated. Incest is a thing that exists yet that doesn't make it OK.
      What facts was I ignoring? I don't think I understand that part.
      P. S. I thought you'd just say nope to why The first Batman and Superman films did so well. I appreciate you didn't.
    45. OGmacrazy
      March 14, 2017
      Sorry, but if you just ignore the fact that it made over 400M opening weekend worldwide, and that only 3 other movies topped that, then that's your own fault, but that right there destroys your whole logic. It obviously could and should have broken a billion, if it had the legs to do so. It didn't. Why? Because, word of mouth set in. Because people were obviously on the fence about spending money to see such a critical disaster of a movie (before you pick your pitchfork, I mean in the way critics reviewed it). If it had been well reviewed, you honestly think a movie that made almost half a billion in it's first three days of release, wouldn't have had the legs to do better than a measly 2x multiplier at the box office? Are you for real right now? This is the argument you are completely ignoring and the one I've said multiple times now is the most important one, since you keep changing the logic and dodging the "franchises" debate, which I've said it is valid, but not a necessary nor sufficient condition.
    46. AquaCthulhu
      March 14, 2017
      At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself:
      "I honestly don't think that.
      What I do honestly think is that if BvS had been released after the DC Films have been better established, both amongst the general audiences and the crits, then it'd have been much more likely to have broken a billion (and I mean exactly the same movie)."
      "It had that kind of opening because of the great ad campaigning! And the fact that those who did know Batman and Superman (with their preconceptions) were interested in seeing them together. The bad reviews having retroactively shaped people's opinions about the film did all the damage. I never denied that."
      How could you have possibly read those two paragraphs and thought…
      "Sorry, but if you just ignore the fact that it made over 400M opening weekend worldwide, and that only 3 other movies topped that, then that's your own fault, but that right there destroys your whole logic."
      … this?
      Don't you understand I didn't deny any of that?
      I've only disagreed with the part where you said it won't matter if it was the 2nd or 11th film of the franchise. You know, 2nd film makes it a non-established-franchise and 11th makes it an established-franchise. In other words it probably would've had the same opening in both the cases but would've had more legs, so to speak, if audiences were more familiar with the actors and the universe. Do you deny that?
      (TDK was the best reviewed CBM with an Oscar-worthy actor's final performance and a film that made Robert downey lose his shit and spew vitriol.)
      P. S. Please don't make me repeat myself again. Everything else you've said in your previous comment? I'm not even against that. When you say it didn't matter if it's 2nd or 11th, you're basically kicking probability out the window. And you said you're some sort of a mathematician.
    47. OGmacrazy
      March 15, 2017
      You do deny because you keep repeating the same exact argument that the movie didn't break the billion mark because it wasn't part of an established franchise. It's opening weekend completely disproves that theory. In this case, in the case of a Batman vs Superman movie (where everyone already knows who these two characters are) it doesn't matter. It's reviews and word of mouth were the movie's detriment. Or are you implying that a talking animal animated movie (The Secret Life of Pets) making more money than BvS was all because of it's pre-established franchise? These are arguments that you really can't deny, because they're facts. BvS could have easily destroyed The Avengers at the box office, but it didn't, because hiring such a divisive and controversial director like Zack Snyder, who prefers violence and sex to well written and beloved heroes (his words) is the worst possible choice to direct a movie like this. It'd be like hiring David Lynch to do a fucking Cars movie. It's the wrong fit.
    48. AquaCthulhu
      March 15, 2017
      "What I do honestly think is that if BvS had been released after the DC Films have been better established, both amongst the general audiences and the crits, then it'd have been much more likely to have broken a billion (and I mean exactly the same movie)."
      This is the third time I had to reply with the same paragraph.
      What do you think that bold part in the quote means?
      You are quite clearly grasping at straws, trying to rub on me what you thought was my argument while I've made it as obvious as it can get. The only way you can still continue to misunderstand it is if you're so blinded by your preconception of this argument that you just can't see it or you're intentionally dragging this out just for the sake of it. You never even had an argument.
    49. OGmacrazy
      March 16, 2017
      Your whole argument to this point was "BvS simply didn't make a billion because it wasn't part of an established franchise". And it's wrong. It's opening weekend completely disproves that. Besides the many, many movies that didn't have any kind of franchise to back them up, and broke it either way.
    50. Ravager
      March 10, 2017
      Spider-man way out-sells batman and superman combined so...I wouldn't be too sure.
    51. Новица Чворовић
      March 11, 2017
      don't make stuff up
    52. Ravager
      March 11, 2017
      Check it out, I swear it's true
    53. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      What he won't tell you is that these steep drops happened with a number of well-received movies too - even Harry Potter. Doesn't necessarily mean what he wants it to mean.
      It's a misleading talking point. The people who employ it are either oblivious to box office happenings in the past, or are deliberately cherry-picking to form a biased narrative.
    54. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      I told myself that I shouldn't argue with these guys, but they freaking love to say that they're stating facts when some of the "facts" are either opinions or just BS.
    55. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      A lot of it is hypotheticals and assumptive numbers that don't really have any grounding that isn't contrived.
      The box office argument is impossible to make one way or the other. At the end of the day, BvS simply made what it did - and whether you or I, or anyone else, thinks that meets whatever imaginary goal dollar number that fans decide is necessary, it's still a butt-ton of money.
      Saying $873m isn't nearly a billion is very much a 'glass half empty' mentality. We clearly have the 'glass half full' mentality, and there's no bridging that psychological gap between the two crowds.
    56. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      Exactly.
    57. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      You’re good for hyperbole, not much else though. You make some ludicrous claim about assumptive numbers, and yet ignore the reality of BvS’ numbers at the box office. At the end of the day, WB were expecting the two greatest fictional superheroes of all time, with an all-star cast and huge budget to rake in more than a billion. It didn’t and WB were left disappointed by it.
      Oh, and if you think it’s a “butt-ton of money”, you should add the caveat that ‘BvS made a butt-ton of money, but only made USD20million more than unknown, unestablished, zero expectation GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY.’
      "Butt-ton of money" indeed...LOL
    58. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      Zero expectations? And again, GotG was part of an established franchise.
    59. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      "You’re good for hyperbole, not much else though." <- Hyperbole. :P
      There are more factors than 'well known characters' and 'unknown characters' that determine the amount of money a movie makes. This is more complex than we can make an honest call about is all I'm saying.
      BvS did really well on home video despite the mass perception that everyone hated it, which I find interesting.
    60. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      You make a song and dance about there are more factors than well known characters and unknown character, and yet do not go onto to expand on this. Pray tell, why do you think BvS only made 20 million more than GotG?
      The home video example is poor. BvS sells were based largely on its 'Ultimate Edition'. In other words, WB successfully rebranded a different BvS for home video release. That's quite different from, say, SW:7 or CA:CW, where the sell was based on the same film. Besides, there's still no indication that the home videos sales show a break through with the larger general audience, only with fans.
    61. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      "Pray tell, why do you think BvS only made 20 million more than GotG?"
      If you're asking me that, then you're clearly not reading what I'm saying.
      My point (for the third time) is that there are too many complexities here to be making such broad, assumptive conclusions by just plucking out a vague-but-convenient thing like, "Oh, it only got 87% of a billion dollars, which is the number I have been convinced WB wanted it to make".
      If I were to answer that question, I would be making a muddy educated guess at best - which is what everyone else is doing by pretending they understand all this box office stuff and weaponizing it as a flimsy Gospel.
      GotG had a near-perfect storm of a lot of things falling into place beautifully for it, and I'm happy for the film and the crew. Funnily enough, a lot of die-hard GotG comic fans I know hate the characterizations of the heroes (much as detractors of MoS and BvS feel), but it maintained popular appeal despite that, and BvS is still being crucified for it a year later.
      There are a handful of likely contributors to that contrasting result, and I'll leave all that to your imagination much as it is left to mine. I don't pretend to have concrete answers.
      I just said the home video thing was interesting. Not conclusive. It was more of a remark than an argument; but I'm not surprised you took it so aggressively.
    62. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      Aggressive? No, not really. I just find it amusing that when one removes all of your over the top rhetorical ploys, you don’t really end up saying much at all.
      “If you're asking me that, then you're clearly not reading what I'm saying.”
      So in other words, your much vaunted heralding of BvS making a a “butt-ton of money” is looking decidedly silly now. If you continue to just handwave and talk about “complexities” without elucidating or expanding on them, then you and your argument shouldn’t be taken seriously.
      Referring to some mythical “perfect storm” of reasons why GotG did well is nothing other than what you happen to do an awful lot of the time – special plead.
      If the home video wasn’t an argument for anything, and has no bearing in this debate, then there’s no reason for you to offer it other than to create a red herring.
    63. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      Do I really have to spend a year listing every complexity that may or may not effect a movie's box office performance to you? Not only are you grown up enough to imagine those things for yourself (as you've clearly dedicated yourself to a handful of those complexities already), but it's also further missing the point: We don't know entirely what happened. We can only make rough educated guesses.
      Are you saying GotG didn't have a lot of good things going for it? You've already established that you think BvS had a lot of bad things going for it, so I don't see that as much of a stretch toward 'special plead'.
      The reason for me to mention the home video earnings was simply a topic of conversation; a curiosity. Not everything has to be life-and-death here, you know. Calm down.
    64. Jack Thorne
      March 11, 2017
      "Aggressive" "Calm down". LOL. I find it absolutely adorable when you try to provoke and patronize me like that, no doubt to distract from the poverty of your own argument. Cute, but it's not working. :)
      I’m simply asking you to substantiate your unsupported claims. It’s not hard if you think you are right. You are the one that brought up extenuating circumstances that affect a film at the box office -this was an attempt to exculpate BvS. If you’re now going to make some excuse about “it’s all complicated and I can’t show you all the complexity!”, then at least just admit that you don’t have an argument as opposed to making up elaborate excuses that no-one buys.
      It’s not upto me to prove that GotG didn’t have good things going for it, it’s upto you to show it did because that was your argument, not mine.
    65. Foomankru
      March 11, 2017
      I'm just waiting for the "Justice League should have made $2 billion dollars" argument lol. Why why WHY it's been over a year since BvS came out do some people feel the compulsive need to still bitch about it. MOVE ON!
    66. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      Nobody's going to say that, but you do have a tendency of speaking for others and creating your own demons so as to make your side of the table look more rational than it is.
    67. Rust
      March 11, 2017
      Yeah, I've already got my Anti-Snyder Bingo Card ready for the Great Witch Burning of November. lol (Maybe I should actually make one in Paint and pass it around here.)
      Honestly though... I'm starting to see that it's a waste of time. All the conspiracy theories, bullying, and tangled up mental gymnastics to justify whatever angsty, concocted narrative are so exhaustively long-winded and egomaniacally fought over tooth-and-nail for hours on end - sometimes days, and for what?
      It's not like we're political sides debating on the right way to solve the problems of the world or anything major like that. It's literally people who like some movies versus other people who are overly cranky about them. Going to these kinds of extremes over that is stupid.
      I'm starting to see they're in such deep denial about their own mean-spirited, hysterical behavior that there's nothing anyone can say that will get them to look in the mirror and realize.
      "Oh, we're just preserving the truth! That's noble!" -- Because choosing an educated guess mixed with personal opinion that can't really be proven as your truth and then verbally mob-stabbing anyone who says something you don't like is totally noble. If you're passionate enough to go on a crusade against people who misrepresent what you think is the 'truth' about how good or bad a series of *movies* is, and it takes that much time out of your day, maybe something's wrong.
      And hey, maybe my behavior is just as nuts, but my stance has always been more about defense from crazy peeps who try to turn a parade into a massacre, with the hopes of protecting others' joy and excitement. It's hard to watch people get kicked around, you know?
      Sadly, that doesn't seem to be making any headway, so maybe it's time to stop fighting fire with fire. Bullies will always be around, just like conspiracy theories, so it's best to let things unfold as they will and the conspiracy will either come to pass or (more likely) not, meanwhile letting the bullying slide off my back. Our arguments won't change reality anyway.
      I'm probably being counter-productive by launching a counter-crusade and getting dragged down into that sticky hate web. Time for a strategy change. Think I'll just go back to having fun with you guys. We have better things to be doing.
      Glad you're out there. :)
      Sort-of predicting this to trigger someone in denial. Would love to be wrong about that.
    68. Foomankru
      March 11, 2017
      Stated so well! And the Snyder BINGO card..lol that would be hilarious 😂
    69. Jack Thorne
      March 11, 2017
      I think you've just proved my point better than I ever could with that.
      Person taunts, predicting a trigger, complains about uncontrollable behavior and ”a concocted narrative that is exhaustively long-winded”, yet his goading is preceded with over EIGHT PARAGRAPHS of a bewildering rationale, with comments such as ”crazy peeps who turn a parade into a massacre”, ”angsty”,”egomaniacally fought over”, “overtly cranky”, ”stupid”, ”mob-stabbing”, ”deep denial about their own mean-spirited hysterical behaviour”, “conspiracy theories” and “tangled up mental gymnastics”.
      I 100% agree, someone has definitely been triggered alright.
      You complain about criticism and so-called negativity from those worried about the DCEU. No-one has been more negative and complaining than you. Everytime I see your comments you’re moaning about people’s right to express an opinion on the DCEU – one that you don’t like. You’re upset because I’ve started to challenge you, so you create false narratives, straw mans, and sham reasoning. You’ve even been challenged by others for the way you manipulate arguments to suit your own ends.
      We will continue to challenge your lies and deceptions.
    70. Joey Perotti
      March 15, 2017
      The same question can be asked why do people still feel the compulsive need to defend it?
    71. Foomankru
      March 15, 2017
      Because this is a fan site. And I am a fan.
    72. Joey Perotti
      March 15, 2017
      So if you like Batman but dislike the movie you're not a fan?
    73. Foomankru
      March 15, 2017
      How do you gather that from what I typed?
    74. Joey Perotti
      March 16, 2017
      You said why "do some people feel the compulsive need to still bitch about it. MOVE ON!"
      I then asked "why do people still feel the compulsive need to defend it?"
      You said "Because this is a fan site. And I am a fan." (to which I now ask - is it exclusively a BvS fan site?)
      I said "So if you like Batman but dislike the movie you're not a fan?"
      You said "How do you gather that from what I typed?"
      Not sure where the confusion happened. So according to you, only people that liked BvS are allowed to have an opinion? BvS is only allowed a defense a year later, but not criticism? Is that how I understand it? Because that's what you're saying.
    75. Joey Perotti
      March 17, 2017
      Seriously, I'd love to hear your rebuttal here.
    76. Foomankru
      March 17, 2017
      I'm a fan of Batman and the DCEU and a year after BvS, I still come to Batman News to post positivity about the DCEU and enjoy interacting with other fans to help pass the time during the day.
      You're a fan of Batman and apparently don't like BvS. Does that make you not a fan of Batman? Of course not.
      I see nothing wrong with still defending the movie on a fan site devoted to Batman and the DCEU as long as some still feel the need to come here to complain.
      Good enough "rebuttal"? Im sure it won't be. Waiting for a subjective and opinionated response that does little to advance the conversation or solve anything...⏲
    77. Joey Perotti
      March 17, 2017
      That's a fine rebuttal. I just took your earlier statements as "if you don't like BvS you're not a fan." As a Batman fan, and as a person who loves movies to the point that I went and got a degree in filmmaking, I want to see a QUALITY Batman film. We come here for the same reasons - because we're passionate about these characters. It's fine that we disagree about the quality of the movies, but just because someone says it's bad doesn't mean they shouldn't post. That's all I'm saying.
    78. Foomankru
      March 17, 2017
      Fair enough, I can dig that. Was expecting something else entirely...thanks for pleasantly surprising me today. Happy St. Patty's Day 🍀
    79. Joey Perotti
      March 17, 2017
      Don't judge a book by its roguishly handsome cover. Just kidding.
      Happy St. Paddy's Day to you as well.
    80. Joey Perotti
      March 17, 2017
      Was that opinionated enough for you?
    81. Dumb Cunt
      March 11, 2017
      What lies? I wish we could have an argument without starting with name calling. you're just as bad, if not worse than us. 800 million being just shy of 1 Billion is just not true. it's 20% lower.
      but that's besides the original point, you managed to skew this whole argument about there being "No problem with the DCEU" into why the film underperformed, then skewed that into "well it's basically 1B", then into arguing about GoTG being part of an established franchise. yet 2 of the biggest cultural icons barely managed to make more than a new group of nobodies.
      so to get pack on track, does the DCEU have problems. yes. read my original comment and reply accordingly.
    82. Schuyler Finley
      March 11, 2017
      Name came calling? What did I call you? El Maybe is the one who brought up the box office first. I didn't say that over 800 million is basically 1B. And you're changing my words. 100 million is a lot of money, but to a blockbuster film, it's table scraps.
      And I was replying accordingly to your comment. El Maybe and Jack Thorne are the ones who brought up the box office performance. Read better next time, buddy.
    83. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      This is where your comparison falls apart.
      All the Harry Potter films did remarkably well, receiving positive reviews and universal acclaim. All of them. Because of that fact, and despite receiving a drop off after their respective open weeks, Harry Potter stayed in theatres.
      In other words the HP first week drop offs were nothing like the drops offs with BvS, because it had good reviews, good word of mouth, and good legs . BvS had none of these. Most of them went on to make in excess of USD900m, with some around or over USD1bn.
      Nice try.
    84. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      I was literally saying that HP did well despite the steep drop-off, so I'm not following your swashbuckling debunking of my entire character here.
      My point was exactly that: Drop-offs are not indicative of what you want them to be here necessarily. It's not strong evidence of doom and gloom. You basically just agreed with me unknowingly.
    85. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      I don't think you read carefully what I initially wrote. You clearly read what you wanted to and replied too hastily.
      Where did I say that second week drops necessarily show a poor film? Show me? My point was that second week onwards drop offs are indicative of BvS not doing well, but this was because it was a poor film, received negative reviews, had poor word of mouth and bad legs. The opposite is true of HP.
      If you had bothered to read instead of replying so rashly you would see I wrote this.
    86. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      You're implying a level of importance and definiteness of (what's actually just assumed) nuance in the drop-off that suggests it is supplemental evidence of BvS being a poor film. Sugarcoat that all you like.
      The impact of those things on the box office drop is indeterminable. You can only guess. As it has never been a rule in steep drops, it's simply not a 'nail in the coffin' argument. I am done repeating that.
      Word of mouth was negative, sure, but that only means so much in this world. Unpopular opinion is typically just quiet opinion. People don't like being bullied, so most of them choose not to say anything to avoid drama like the kind of vitriol we are currently engaged in.
    87. Jack Thorne
      March 10, 2017
      Nope, you are the one implying, not me. I stated very clearly on numerous occasions that the drop off was because of poor reviews, poor word of mouth and bad legs. Go back and re-read carefully.
      You can repeat whatever you want, but unless you can substantiate your arguments instead of just blowing out “oh, perfect storm of events!”, and “it’s so indeterminable!” then you are not only ignoring hard factual evidence for BvS’ demise, you also don’t have an argument.
      Your point about word of mouth “only meaning so much in this world” is just esoteric vagueness. It means nothing; it’s anecdotal at best, special pleading at worst.
    88. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      "Nope, you are the one implying, not me. I stated very clearly on numerous occasions that the drop off was because of poor reviews, poor word of mouth and bad legs."
      Explaining to me what you specified as examples of why you think the drop-off happened is bafflingly off-the-tracks to what I was accusing you of implying. No idea how you consider that a rebuttal to what I said.
      I was referring, unambiguously, to the *level of importance* you were implying on the drop-off in the perceived quality of the movie. You're using it as a leg to prop up on and say, 'See? The movie sucks and here's evidence.', and I'm telling you, 'Well, Harry Potter says differently.'
      What is confusing about that?
      In an attempt to re-rail: I told you that my argument is that we don't know everything; that it's up to our imaginations after we consider things that we think are impactful.
      Truthfully, there is no decisive rule. I've made that clear. The burden of substance then falls upon *you* to explain to everyone how the box office drop somehow *is* decisively due to the things you are crediting it with versus that of other films that had normal-to-positive public reaction but dropped all the same.
      We agree on potential contributing factors existing for BvS, but the *severity* of their influence is a lot heavier in your mind, and I don't see any convincing reason to agree - in fact, I don't think it's possible to confirm the degree of influence anyway.
      If you are not willing to make a display as to why you think these factors are so severely impactful on the drop versus that of other fast-dropping films that did not suffer from the same factors, then there is no argument to be had here.
    89. Jack Thorne
      March 11, 2017
      You need to stop deliberately twisting my argument to suit your narrative.
      "...you were implying on the drop-off in the perceived quality of the movie. You're using it as a leg to prop up on and say, 'See? The movie sucks and here's evidence.'"
      Again, I never “implied” that the drop off is evidence itself of the failure of the film. I said, unambiguously, that the drop off is an illustration of the poor reviews, bad word of mouth and bad legs that are the reasons why this film failed. Can a drop off be illustrative of a good/successful film, like CA:CW or HP? Sure, but in this case all three, bad reviews, poor word of mouth and ‘bad legs’, support the precipitous collapse of BvS at the box office.
      “The burden of substance then falls upon *you* to explain to everyone how the box office drop somehow *is* decisively due to the things you are crediting it with versus that of other films that had normal-to-positive public reaction but dropped all the same.”
      I’ll repeat myself for you again since you haven’t paid attention the last few times. I never said the box office drop was ”decisive”. With that in mind, I’ll ask *you* again: where did I say that second week drops necessarily show a poor film? Show me?
      You know, most sensible people who weren’t constrained by a cognitive straight-jacket would understand how a negatively reviewed film, with ‘bad legs’ and poor word of mouth can have a detrimental effect at the box office. Once BvS got over the hype and anticipation of its first week, its drop was more precipitous than other record breaking opening films. Not only that, the calamitous drop continued until it lost nearly 70% in the 7th week from the previous week, causing it to be taken off half of all US theaters. It limped on in a couple hundred venues until it was unceremoniously dumped after the 12th week. CA:CW and the HP films on the other hand did not have such a precipitous drop, and more often than not managed to staunch a collapse. Additionally, the HP and CA:CW had a longer run in the theaters, roughly twice as long as BvS.
      A profound collapse, disappearing from theaters, removed after 12 weeks – what could have possibly caused all of this?
      If you accept, like most common sense persons, that reviews, word of mouth and whether a film has staying power all affect a film’s run at the box office, then it’s pretty clear what the reasons were for BvS failure. In the absence of these factors, what oter factors would have had a more profound impact? Note, I'm not asking you for a vague esoteric response, but an actual argument. Do try and keep up.
    90. Jack Thorne
      March 12, 2017
      Oh, and I've been meaning to say I find it absolutely ADORABLE that you have an obsessive fixation to upvote every single person I have contrary debate with just for the sake of it, no matter what they are saying, or if they insult me. It's cute, and it makes me smile I got under your skin so much that you're needing to vent.
      Please, by all means continue this, because everytime you do it reminds me that even when I've pretty much forgotten you, I'm still living rent free inside your head.
      :P
    91. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      I don't see how the concept of bullying and how people respond to that is 'esoteric', as it's a pretty common phenomenon that many people relate to, but okay. I'll consider this yet another ad hominem dismissal by you and move on.
    92. Jack Thorne
      March 11, 2017
      Firstly, you might want to check what 'ad hominem' means.
      Secondly, my point is that your claim is anecdotal nonsense. You are asking me to accept something with no supporting argument. I don't know how you normally argue, but we have this thing called evidence. Don't have evidence? Then you don't have an argument that can be taken seriously. Not my problem, friend. It's yours.
    93. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      - "We aren't talking about money."
      - Conversation is spawned from a comment invoking the movie's assumed underperformance, and continues to snowball into that topic extensively from here on by the same user who said the above.
      lol :P
    94. Jack Thorne
      March 11, 2017
      It's a real shame that you're belittling yourself like this to score upvotes. I thought better of you. I was wrong.
      My argument was about drops off, and how this was reflective of a shockingly bad film. Your upvote buddy proceeded to bring up the "nearly billion" (lol) argument, which I had to refute.
      Still, why let something like truth get in the way of your cognitive bias?
      lol :P
  2. El Maybe
    March 10, 2017
    Divisive among fans, yes, among the general audience? No. The film had very bad word of mouth and had crazy record breaking drops every weekend, so I would not consider it to be divisive against the general audience. That doesn't prove the movie is bad though, Suicide Squad was far less divisive among the general audience but still far worse.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      And yet it still made damn near a billion at the box office. Not all of that money came from fanboys.
    2. Dumb Cunt
      March 10, 2017
      but it didn't make 1 billion, which it would've easily made if most people liked the film.
      come on, it has both Batman and Superman in the movie, 2 of the 3 biggest, most iconic comicbook characters.
    3. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      Yes, but I'm saying that despite the drop off and reception, the film still made damn near 1 billion dollars. The film was less than 200 million dollars short from achieving that milestone. If it did, would you still say that audiences didn't care for it?
    4. Dumb Cunt
      March 10, 2017
      but it didn't.
      it's not like 200 million isn't a lot of money.
    5. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      So because it didn't , that automatically means that audiences didn't care for it?
    6. Dumb Cunt
      March 10, 2017
      seeing how audiences is what the movies makes money from, AND the bad word of mouth?
      yeah
    7. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      Well you would be right if it only made half a billion or less.
    8. Dumb Cunt
      March 10, 2017
      It's Batman and Superman, it would make 500 million on the name alone
    9. JoshDen
      March 10, 2017
      It actually almost did, look at the first week
    10. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      One thing that's very important that you and a lot of fanboys using that argument fail to understand: it made more than 400M dollars on it's worldwide opening weekend. This means that the movie barely (if it did even) had a 2x multiplier at the worldwide box office. It broke records with it's opening, but that's before word of mouth came in. Then the record breaking, huge-ass, drops started coming in. Once people saw it, and critics scores were online, people decided it simply wasn't really worth their time, nor worth second-time viewings. A movie that made more than 400M, especially with Supes and Bats in it, should have easily matched The Avengers at the box office. It didn't. The only reason it made almost 900M in the first place is because of it's first weekend, internationally, and domestically. It had huge hype, like almost no other film in history. Don't you see why this should be immensely worrying? Don't you see how the first live action movie starring these awesome and beloved characters was completely wasted?
    11. Schuyler Finley
      March 11, 2017
      But that's subjective. I don't see the film as a waste. Yeah it sucks that it didn't make a billion, but it still did a damn good job for being the second film of a new franchise.
    12. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      It did? How so? The way I see it, it did a poor job of anything really. It was worse than the first, it corrected none of the issues with the first, which could have been done pretty well, if they actually took their time writing and focused on a coherent story, instead of just trying to cram the most they could and leave 4 hours of countless unresolved subplots, worthless easter eggs for the fanboys to cum to, and cameos out the ass so as to tease future movies, for the editor to try and make sense of it all... But hey, that's just me.
      I mean, did you watch Logan, for example? Now that movie is the better reviewed Super Hero movie since the Nolan movies. Wasn't the story simple? Yet, it didn't hold the audience's hand, it was actually bold and shocking at parts, it was dark, gritty and all that. And it was a perfectly fine movie. Simple, yet amazing in all it's subtlety. The pacing is also something that Zack Snyder could learn from, but I do admit, in these big ass movies that always going to be a problem. BvS was incredibly amateurish in this regard, but every Avengers movie including Civil War did have pacing issues. Especially Age of Ultron.
      If you mean money-wise, then that's not really true. The studio won't make a 250M dollar movie, with probably 150-200M more on the marketing budget, so they can make close to 900M. That's barely turning a profit.
    13. Schuyler Finley
      March 11, 2017
      I did watch Logan, and while I agree that it is a good film, it did none of the you're talking about IMO. It told audiences everything they wanted to know, even without directly telling us. There was noting really bold about it. All it was just seeing Wolverine cutting fools. It was a good sendoff for Wolverine, but I feel that it's heading to being overrated.
    14. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      Really? I mean,what do you think, then, about having the wayne enterprises logo right next to fucking Bruce Wayne holding a little girl he just saved, looking up to Superman vs Zod with a pissed off face is? I'm actually curious here. And that's exactly it. It told the audience what was happening, through great performances, subtle moments, dialogue and a well told story, without directly telling us. None of this is found in BvS, and everything is told to the audience directly through monologues (Lex Luthor was nothing if not an exposition vessel for the writer), characters constantly saying how they feel, instead of acting on it (Superman, for example, constantly has the same facial expression, which would obviously become a joke, and it has).
      Also, there was nothing bold about the Wolverine? The way certain characters were killed (especially the one who was killed off at the farm, the way he was killed), the fact that the climax is not about a big fight but about learning and growing. Compare that with Superman's death. What did he learn? In MoS he literally said "Krypton had it's chance" against Zod, making the audience think he'd completely accepted Earth as his planet. And yes, some people were against him and whatnot in this movie, but that literally always happens with people of power. I mean, if that were the case for the presidency of any given country, there'd be no fucking presidents anywhere. Superman learned nothing by the end, and we got nothing out of his death. It was rushed and the audience didn't feel any emotion besides those who fool themselves into thinking they had. Or because the music was very manipulative, maybe that was it. But as a big superman fan, I was mostly shocked at the terrible decision of killing Superman off in his second movie.
      That's what was bold about it. It had a ton of decisions that could have been pretty fucking terrible in the wrong hands, but it was all pulled off very well, and the movie actually had emotion, stakes, consequence, and a message. How many times do you see that in super hero movies? Nowadays? Barely ever. Shared universes completely destroy any and all of those things.
    15. Schuyler Finley
      March 11, 2017
      If everything was told through exposition, then why people still ask what Lex's motivations are even he DID tell us throughout the film. And characters talking about their feelings? That would make act like.........actual people.
      But we've already seen that character die in X3. DOFP was more bold in that department because of how brutal the heroes were getting killed off. Some complaints for Logan was that the third act was not good and two villains were completely unnecessary which I agree with. Logan either learned what peace felt like or what it meant to be a father. Superman learned that he can handle anything the world throws at him as long as Lois is with him. He thought he was all alone in bearing the burden, but he now sees that Lois will always be there to soothe the pain.
      And so did BvS, It has everything that you're saying that Logan has.
    16. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      Because, even though he laid them all as if he were making a list, they were still very convoluted and muddled and especially in the way Jesse delivered those lines, filled with ramblings, self-interruptions, and tons of "hmms" and "ahs" and whatever the fuck type of sound Jesse could produce with his mouth. Logan learned what living was all about. He learned you are what you want yourself to be, not what others made you into, like weapon X and now weapon X23, and what it meant to 'kinda' have a family and a normal life.
      Also, that whole fucking "Lois is the anchor that holds Superman's humanity" bullshit is what is completely destroying current Superman's personality. Superman has always been the most human of the DC heroes. Batman himself has admitted this. He is the most uncorruptable hero, (Red Son explored this to it's core even, and the story where Superman and Batman trade powers, and Batman starts getting corrupted by the power he suddenly has is the nail in the coffin), but modern portrayals are making Lois his only reason to be human. That's a terrible characterization of Superman, and for fuck's sake, Superman has already decided to take the "leap of faith" for humanity in MoS, which I though was a pretty good thing. It made Superman care for his adopted planet even though he didn't have Lois at the time. It was a good characterization in my opinion. But making this whole plot point with Lois being his world, his everything, is just making this seem more and more like Injustice, an elseworlds story where Superman went batshit crazy, and if that's the direction they are headed, then it's definitely going down as the worst possible live action rendition of Superman. And yes, a movie always needs to stand on it's own, comic accuracy be damned, but they are basing this Superman on the worst parts of the Superman mythology, instead of the good ones.
    17. Schuyler Finley
      March 11, 2017
      Logan already learned that stuff from previous films. He even said that shit always hits the fan in the end and that's his loved ones always die.
      He took that leap of faith, but he's now realizing that being an entire planet's champion is HARD. I told you this before that no matter what Superman did in BvS, he always seemed to blow up in his face and result in people dead. The film did an excellent job in showing how human he really is, because anyone else would've committed suicide or went insane if they were in his shoes. The love interest becoming the hero's central focus is pretty common in superhero fiction.
    18. Spenddollarz
      March 11, 2017
      Let's not forget it was only the second movie in the franchise lol
    19. Spenddollarz
      March 11, 2017
      For the second movie in a franchise how is that bad ???? I'll wait
    20. OGmacrazy
      March 11, 2017
      You really just copying his argument that has been shut down multiple times in this thread? You're waiting for what, exactly? Just read the comments instead of glancing at them, is my advice.
    21. El Maybe
      March 10, 2017
      Are you trying to imply that was satisfying? For a movie with Batman AND Superman in the title in the CBM era that we're living it was supposed to make A LOT more! Just look at SS, almost the same amount and no China exhibitions like BvS. The word of mouth was bad and the general audience frequently slept during the movie, hence its quickly earned nickname: Yawn of Justice. But do note that I'm not using this as any kind of proof for why the movie is bad, just stating the facts.
    22. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      Let's see:
      Second film in a new franchise
      Used new iterations of characters that will take audiences a while to get used to
      Said franchise is trying to differentiate itself from a popular franchise that's established itself in the world.
      And the film already had negative buzz during it's development.
      Yeah, the film did good.
    23. El Maybe
      March 10, 2017
      Let's see:
      It doesn't matter, it could be the first film of a new franchise, it still had Batman AND Superman in the title, with a "v" in between. Quit lying to yourself.
      Well, if they keep "developing" their main characters like they did and giving them less lines than a freaking fan service from an Avengers 2.0 movie with 10+ characters, I say it will take the audience forever to get used to them. What failed to engage the general audience wasn't the new iteration - it's the general audience dude, they don't even know what the past or official iterations are - but the lack of development it had.
      True, still, if it did a good job while differentiating itself, there would be no problems. Stupid excuse. Wonder how Ironman didn't get shat on back in the day as well...
      Hahahaha, what?! The film had such a hype that it completely SWALLOWED Civil War before its release. The negative buzz was minimal and most of the buzz was actually positive, with most people believing BvS would "fix" MoS issues and tie everything together. But even if it had negative buzz, so did Rogue One, worst than BvS's but it was still a huge success. Plus, negative buzz in production impact on the opening weekend almost exclusively, the rest of it's run rely on the quality of the movie itself, or you think that a film that is making a huge success will be affected because of some negative buzz months earlier during production?
      Quit making excuses, the film under performed severely, period.
    24. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      You have a lot to learn about starting a new franchise.
      Audiences did complain about the new iterations. I remember the complaints about "It's not MY Superman and Batman". I find it funny that people keep changing their complaints when stuff like this and tone complaints are mentioned.
      Iron Man was the start of a new franchise. The only "competition" was the X-Men films. There was really no reason for it to differentiate itself from other franchises. It played like a typical superhero film.
      I remember the Batfleck outrage, the Snyder outrage, and even folks saying that they should've did MoS 2 instead of introducing Batman.
    25. El Maybe
      March 10, 2017
      My bad, you're right. BvS definitely did good performance-wise. In fact so good that Zack Snyder and the cast were radiant with the results, WB was very happy and so proud of its achievements that no one had to be fired or taken their voice away from them. So good that the film stood as a highlight of the year, didn't generate anything but positive news and the future movies from the universe all advanced in their respective productions. So good that no course correction or such a thing like an event for reporters around the world to show the reformulations they would be making were needed. So good that Zack Snyder is now making Justice League with no pressure at all on his shoulders because WB is sure there's another masterpiece coming! Yeah man, my bad you're totally right, BvS did... Good!
    26. Schuyler Finley
      March 10, 2017
      Sigh. Why do I even bother with you people?
    27. Rust
      March 10, 2017
      https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
    28. El Maybe
      March 10, 2017
      Have I told any lies? Why do I even bother with you?
    29. Foomankru
      March 11, 2017
      ...or single viewings.
Nahuel Benvenuto
March 10, 2017
SS is a big problem for the dcu unless they release the original complete cut, MoS and BvS are great tough, no problem at all with them
Shunsui
March 10, 2017
And here we have a fanboy that can't tell the difference between the DC universe and the Snyderverse. The DCEU has a lot of problems you're just incapable of acknowledging them.
Ravager
March 10, 2017
Couldn't agree more!
Rust
March 10, 2017
Cool teaser for trailer hits. Fan enjoys DCEU so far. Cue lengthy hysterical counter-rants trying to shut fan down for having even a glimmer of a smile.
I'm excited with you, Red.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
1. Dumb Cunt
  March 11, 2017
  we're not trying to take hope away from him, or not letting him enjoy the trailer.
  we're simply stating that his last statement is incorrect.
  1. Jack Thorne
    March 11, 2017
    I fear he won't listen because he has a compulsion to deliberately skew our opinions to suit his own biased narrative.
  2. Rust
    March 11, 2017
    His last statement was a harmless personal opinion, not a court case.
    Just saying, when someone comes in and says 'I feel optimistic about this' and a bunch of people feel the need to excessively jump down their throat for declaring as much, it comes off like bullying. At best, it's an overreaction.
    I haven't seen your comments specifically, so I'm just speaking in general. There are a number of users here that go to extreme lengths to smother things this small.
    1. Dumb Cunt
      March 11, 2017
      it's a factually wrong opinion which encourages ignorance.
      nobody in this comment section has done what you're talking about
    2. Jack Thorne
      March 11, 2017
      That is once again a deliberate attempt to distort our argument to make us look intolerant and aggressive. This is a straw man fallacy. You use this repeatedly.
      Look at the replies to Red Devils. I even said to him that I’m absolutely fine if he loved, liked or hated these movies. The source of contention was a difference in opinion on DCEU. How is that prosecutorial? This is another example of your hyperbolism that seeks to obfuscate from the real argument.
2. Jack Thorne
  March 11, 2017
  "Cue lengthy hysterical counter-rants trying to shut fan down" <-- hysterical counter rant :p
  I can completely understand how someone like you feels insecure by some who contest the spurious and unsubstantiated assertion that "there is NO problem with DCEU".
  My advice to you is to put on your big boy pants and deal with people expressing a contrary opinion, instead of deliberately misconstruing our opinions to suit your own agenda.
OGmacrazy
March 11, 2017
Ignoring the problem doesn't make it not exist. You can love this stuff and be critical of it. That's how it usually works...
Foomankru
March 11, 2017
The negativity has almost become a cliche. It's just a matter of time when we'll see a lot of people jump on the bandwagon. It'll be hard to welcome them to be honest, but I'd like to see a unified fanbase. The DCEU is AMAZING!
1. Jack Thorne
  March 11, 2017
  That's really not fair, my friend. This started with a simple objection to a highly controversial and divisive statement: that there's "NO" problem with the DCEU.
  Objecting to such a claim is not only right, it's within our right, just like it's within your right to say "the DCEU is AMAZING". Expressing contrasting opinions should be allowed.
  I would LOVE to see a unified fanbase too, but the onus is upon fans who think everything is glorious with the DCEU. You may like BvS or SS (and I'm happy if you do), but that doesn't mean the DCEU is in rude health.

IamTheOneWhoKnocks

March 10, 2017

Okay, this can not suck....I don't see it how.

El Maybe
March 10, 2017
I don't see it either, but I rather keep my expectations at average after BvS and SS, if there's one thing the DCEU does perfectly, it's trailers! But... There's something different about this clip, even though it's only 30 seconds, I feel like we get to know I little bit about the characters, from the scene itself, the narration and the acting! If you check Guardians of the Galaxy 2 most recent trailer, you can already spot great character development moments during the trailer, I've seen the same from WW and it makes me very happy!
ginger gypo
March 10, 2017
Because she's acting under a different, hopefully better filmmaker and the character she's playing is a retooled version of the Warrior Woman Snyder shoehorned into his movie
1. ginger gypo
  March 10, 2017
  Hmm she's not supposed to be cynical and world-weary, she's not supposed to be a stand-in for Selena, she's not really supposed to wield a sword either. She is supposed to be more mature and battle-hardened but lets not pretend this was all planned from the get-go.
  After Batman v Superman, Geoff Jonhs and Patty Jenkins sat down and retooled the character into something that resembles Wonder Woman a bit more
  1. Schuyler Finley
    March 10, 2017
    WW is an Amazon warrior. WARRIOR.
    1. ginger gypo
      March 10, 2017
      She is a warrior but not all warriors wield a sword
    2. Rust
      March 11, 2017
      Wonder Woman does, though.
  2. Caped Baldy
    March 11, 2017
    "After Batman v Superman, Geoff Jonhs and Patty Jenkins sat down and
    retooled the character into something that resembles Wonder Woman a bit
    more"
    Were u in the said meeting by any chance? Or u got sources?Im just curious.Oh,Snyder co-wrote the story, or John's and Patty sat down and 'retooled" that as well?lol
    1. ginger gypo
      March 11, 2017
      I used logical deduction, something that you're probably not very familiar with
    2. Caped Baldy
      March 11, 2017
      Okay
  3. Rust
    March 11, 2017
    Characters are seldom statically one thing. They grow and change. Things affect them.
    I'm sure Wonder Woman's hopeful passion will be re-lit, and I think we see stirrings of that toward the end of BvS and in the JL teaser. Just like Bruce.
    Sometimes people fall into a rut and have to climb back out. (Why do we fall, Bruce?) That in itself requires strength, and I consider it to be an example of heroism on a deeper level than just beating up the bad guy. :)
    1. ginger gypo
      March 11, 2017
      Yeah the problem I'm having is not so much that Wonder Woman took some time out, it's that she took a sabbatical of ONE HUNDRED years...and what inspires her to come back is...Superman?
    2. Rust
      March 11, 2017
      Well, it's likely more complex than just Superman. 'Men are still good' and all. We'll have to see.

IamTheOneWhoKnocks

March 10, 2017

I am loving the colors....is bright folks, is bright......also, love the fact that Amazonians have an accent.

dugzino
March 10, 2017
Here we go...
1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
  March 10, 2017
  Don't feed the trolls dude.
  1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
    March 10, 2017
    Lol...fair enough.
El Maybe
March 10, 2017
Same thoughts! Can't wait for the extended look tomorrow.

Black Adam

March 10, 2017

Ohh, Robin Wright would be such an awesome Big Barda...

Diego!

March 10, 2017

OMG!!!! 1.5 billion mark, here we go!!! 🙅💥💫

dugzino
March 10, 2017
I wish!
1. ginger gypo
  March 10, 2017
  700M would be good enough for me
Not
March 11, 2017
gonna happen unless this film caters to the MCU crowd by cracking a joke every few seconds.
1. OGmacrazy
  March 11, 2017
  Remember when The Dark Knight and Rises didn't crack jokes every few seconds, and they still broke a billion at the box office? What a shitty comment of yours, dude.
OGmacrazy
March 11, 2017
Damn, talk about setting yourself up for massive disappointment. If it makes half, then it's already great. Especially if the rumoured budget is indeed true.

Kerk Lastnameless

March 10, 2017

Pretty nice.

dugzino

March 10, 2017

Mmmmmyeah didn't like the way she activated her bracer power.
You don't hit your arms when you mount your guard, right? Didn't make any sense, but whatever...
Can't wait for Bruce's part in this movie.

Blockhead Jr.
March 10, 2017
Bruce not in this execpt in written form
1. dugzino
  March 10, 2017
  I expect Bruce to be in it for at least a minute because of the second trailer. Where she holds that picture that Bruce sent her. I think he's the one gifting her the one printed on glass.
  1. Blockhead Jr.
    March 12, 2017
    He's not though. Not physically.

Orlando Furioso

March 10, 2017

Nice - I can't wait for the trailer. I love the color palette and seeing Diana train to be the ultimate warrior.

dugzino
March 10, 2017
Yeah which is funny because I've read on my Google Now Feed that DCEU will focus lots on flashback scenes but I imagine they're pointing this at JL where it was totally obvious with suddenly having 3 new characters in it. Can't wait for the trailer as well :D

Joey Eddy

March 10, 2017

GOD DAMN!! SHOW ME MORE!!! I WANT MORE!!

TGI Fridays

March 10, 2017

Can't wait

ken

March 10, 2017

Oh My God the chills the chills the fucking chills. Antiope 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌 Diana discovering that she's different Hypoleta emotional voice
Wonder Woman is real y'all

Jesse Hernandez

March 10, 2017

So are we getting footage and a trailer ?

Diego!
March 10, 2017
I think both! We'll have to check it out tomorrow at KCA ;)
IamTheOneWhoKnocks
March 10, 2017
Good question, honestly things are getting confusing in general. They're teasers, trailers, teasers to the trailers, tv spots, footage, etc.......I don't even know what to call them anymore, lol
1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
  March 10, 2017
  I see....can't wait.
Jesse Hernandez
March 10, 2017
Don't think so. Footage is literally a scene being played out and a trailer is literally highlighting scenes and getting us pumped

IamTheOneWhoKnocks

March 10, 2017

Who else sort of got a Batman Begins vibe during Diana's training....

IamTheOneWhoKnocks
March 10, 2017
True!.....
MegasXLR
March 10, 2017
It looks similar to when batman was blocking knifes in the warehouse fight scene
dugzino
March 10, 2017
Yeah, kinda + her discovering her powers made me think of MOS.
Rust
March 11, 2017
"Death does not wait for you to be ready!"
The sort of brutal way she's being overwhelmed as a novice in the fight and has to stop a definitive blow from taking her out does totally remind me of Bruce catching that kick from Ducard. :)
1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
  March 11, 2017
  Exactly!....it was a nice touch from them.

BatmanNewsChris

March 10, 2017

Refresh! Just added another new trailer preview from Facebook.

dugzino
March 10, 2017
This teaser looks even better! Can't wait for the trailer release.
MegasXLR
March 10, 2017
So far they have been pretty secretive man, the any lying 30 TV spot has allow chance of happening
1. Mark
  March 10, 2017
  The cartoony Hulkbuster armor didn't help.
  1. Rust
    March 11, 2017
    I liked the cartoony Hulkbuster armor. :P
dugzino
March 10, 2017
You may update the title to "30 seconds" XD
1. BatmanNewsChris
  March 10, 2017
  lol true

DJ Homeless Mike

March 10, 2017

The script may be terrible, but I have to admit she looks good as Wonder Woman.

dugzino
March 10, 2017
Yup, she looks the part. Hope she acts the part as well and I'll be one happy duck! But for this to happen, I'll have to wait for the movie and the wait is getting way too long T_T
Diego!
March 11, 2017
Why do you assume the script may be terrible??
1. Caped Baldy
  March 11, 2017
  It's the internet,most people have time machines

Wazzapova

March 10, 2017

This scene looks amazing and nice to finally hear Robin Wright for the first time in this film!

IamTheOneWhoKnocks

March 10, 2017

LOL!!!....Brits might not like this....damn this movie looks perfect!

TØM
March 11, 2017
Nah, we're over it. Haven't you seen Sweeney Todd?
"There's a hole in the world like a great black pit
and it's filled with people who are filled with shit,
And the vermin of the world inhabit it
And it goes by the name of London 🎶"
😂
1. dugzino
  March 11, 2017
  "people who are filled with shit" XD
2. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
  March 11, 2017
  Lol....I have not seen that movie, funny though.

That Guy

March 10, 2017

I don't care about DC's marketing tactics anymore. Just want to know if they know what they're doing at WB and can deliver a great film. Hopefully it will be great. Also still waiting for an official Ares pic.
https://s9.postimg.org/qqd0...

Spenddollarz
March 10, 2017
It's funny because WB is know for making great movies , I loved the DC movies btw but just saying they should be able to make good movies with their eyes closed I just feel like the people that run WB didn't really plan out and have the patience do build up this world but honestly I like that they didn't do it the way marvel did it and I like the difference between the two I prefer the DC tone I just felt like Suice Squad was a missed opportunity and I hated that they took out most of the jokers scenes and switched the tone of the movie from how the original trailer set it up but it was still a good movie

StarTheory

March 10, 2017

It would have been weird if Gadot was the only one with an accent so I'm glad that they try to make everyone else sound like her as well.

Kerk Lastnameless

March 10, 2017

I'm not as invested in WW as I am in Bats and Sups, but I will hurt if this movie does not do well just because these people clearly put a lot of love and care into it.

Swaggersaurus

March 10, 2017

15 sec, 30 sec, 45 sec

sj conker

March 10, 2017

I don't understand this whole trailer for a trailer thing. Does it actually get people more excited to see movies than just showing the actual trailer?

thefallen83
March 10, 2017
Yes.
Swaggersaurus
March 10, 2017
I hate it too. The worst is that little trailer that plays before a trailer. WTF can we stop with that shit?
1. Spenddollarz
  March 10, 2017
  Agreed it's annoying
2. TØM
  March 11, 2017
  Could that be for when they're using it as advertising? They have so many seconds before the advert is allowed to be skipped so they do a teaser of the trailer?
Kerk Lastnameless
March 10, 2017
Apparently, it does. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing it.

thefallen83

March 10, 2017

The accent!! #inlove

Batman News Archive

Watch 45 seconds of tomorrow's new 'Wonder Woman' trailer

311 comments

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author