'Wonder Woman' passes 'Man of Steel' domestically; 'Batman v Superman' and 'Suicide Squad' are next

June 25, 2017

It was another huge weekend for Wonder Woman at the box office! The movie has now grossed $318 million domestically, which puts it past Man of Steel's $291 million. Now, it's on track to pass Suicide Squad's $325 million and Batman v Superman's $330 million.

When you add in all of the international box office numbers, Wonder Woman has now made $652.8 million. It'll beat Man of Steel's $668 million worldwide gross soon, but probably won't beat Suicide Squad ($745 million) or Batman v Superman ($873 million). But that's okay, because it was never expected to!

Wonder Woman's box office performance has been nothing short of amazing. This weekend's box office numbers have made Patty Jenkins the biggest female director of all time, which should definitely help her at the negotiating table for the sequel. Talks are currently underway, but nothing has been officially announced yet. Perhaps we'll hear something next month at a Comic-Con.

SOURCE: Box Office Mojo

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

188 comments

CmputrBlu
June 25, 2017
It might beat the world wide grosses of BvS & SS if there are any places in the world it has still to open.
1. John Johnson
  June 25, 2017
  According to Wikipedia, the last major market release will be Japan in August.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
2. Matches Malone
  June 25, 2017
  The studios get a way higher return on domestic box office anyways so Wonder Woman will be as, if not more, profitable for WB as those films regardless of it catching the World Wide totals. (Assuming the domestic number stays a decent margin ahead of the take the others managed.
  1. Rex the Wonder Dog
    June 26, 2017
    The numbers I have seen floating about is the studio gets 50% of the domestic box office, but only 30% of the foreign box office and only 25% from China. So if a film makes $100 million in China, the studio only gets back $25 million, instead of the $50 million it gets back from theaters in the USA. Or another way of looking at it is $100 million box office in the USA is as valuable as $200 million in China.
    1. ArkhamFreak
      June 26, 2017
      That's Racist!
      Just kidding!
    2. Jordan Smith
      June 26, 2017
      How does that work? I hear people say all kinds of stuff like this online with no evidence. It's always 50% of this, 30% of that. Usually business is never so simple. Do you have any sources? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely interested.
      1. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        It's more like an industry standard/tradition thing. Not sure if figures are exactly public but you can search and find enough reports to see a trend.
      2. Rex the Wonder Dog
        June 26, 2017
        Nah, just repeating what I have read. I think Forbes might have said something about it, but I read so many things it is hard to remember where I have read it.
I'm Batman Man 39
June 25, 2017
I'm so proud for this film's success! In other great news, American audiences are finally starting to realize that the Transformers movies are pieces of crap, as The Last Knight only opened up to 45 million. https://media.tenor.com/ima...
1. Swaggersaurus
  June 26, 2017
  The previous transformers was so bad that it ruined everyone's hype for this one. It's still popular with the kiddos.
  1. Rex the Wonder Dog
    June 26, 2017
    Is that even true anymore. Does anyone know how well the toys sell now compared to past years?
Junior Taylor
June 25, 2017
I think it passes or at least gets close to SS. The legs on this movie is amazing
1. SBHM
  June 25, 2017
  I am definitely with you there. The movie just isn't slowing down the way most films do. Even with box office hits like Cars 3 and Transformers (bleh) WW has still kept going incredibly well.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    June 25, 2017
    I just saw Transformers and honestly, I enjoyed it. Me, my dad, and my little brother had a good time. My only complaints are the edits, the constant screen ratio change, some flat jokes, and that the film was thirty minutes too long.
    1. Pit
      June 26, 2017
      Well, that + the seizure inducing "action" are reason enough not to watch that POS.
2. OmegaCorleone
  June 26, 2017
  Gadot has got killer legs, godkiller legs
Kouglof
June 25, 2017
GG... but I still prefer MOS and BvS ^^
1. Rust
  June 25, 2017
  Agreed. Best wishes to WW though, of course. We've got 3 really strong films here.
  1. Jack Thorne
    June 26, 2017
    "We've got 3 really strong films here"
    https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
  2. Mohammad
    June 26, 2017
    BvS and SS were sucked ass, brah. What you talking about?
  3. One of those guys
    June 26, 2017
    Agreed, my whole family enjoyed all three.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      June 26, 2017
      I bet you guys will also enjoy the latest Transformers movie and Baywatch also.
      1. One of those guys
        July 2, 2017
        Cute, but wrong. But then, I suppose you're probably used to that.
  4. NinjaGamer13
    June 26, 2017
    WW is the first halfway decent film. Be objective, friend.
2. Kouglof
  June 26, 2017
  Mine is:
  1. MOS
  2. BvS UE
  3. WW
  4. SS
  MOS has two wonderful villains and so much epic scenes : "You can save her Kal, you can save all of them", "You think you can threaten my mother ?!" ...
Jack Thorne
June 25, 2017
Man, all credit to Patty Jenkins and those who worked on this movie, but it's been so lucky with the competition. I can't remember the last time so many films in May and June were meh.
If DCEU hasn't had the roll of the dice so far, it certainly can't complain now. 'Lady Luck' alright...
1. Josh Morgan
  June 26, 2017
  so I guess you gave up on me?
  1. Jack Thorne
    June 26, 2017
    Classy. Real classy. Way to go for trolling on this comments section about a debate from another thread a week ago, one where you used words like "motherfucker" (Chris, will please do something about this?).
    Stop being a useless troll and reply to me on there, not here.
    1. Josh Morgan
      June 26, 2017
      I...I did...you never responded. I forgot about it and then just happened to see you here. So I responded again just make sure we were done. Jeez. Get over yourself.
Jack Thorne
June 25, 2017
If there's any justice, WW should overtake BvS and SS - it's far superior to both of them.
It depends how long theaters are willing to keep it on. BvS for example was pulled by the 12th week. In contrast, CA:CW was removed after 20 weeks (obviously legs, reviews and competition play a huge role).
Note: Recall WB being at CinemaCon early this year? That was the big pitch WB were making to theater owners - give the DCEU movies a chance, keep them in theaters for longer than 12 weeks.
1. Smart Ass
  June 26, 2017
  Suicide Squad enjoyed the time it did because it came out at the end of summer.
2. Rex the Wonder Dog
  June 26, 2017
  BvS 84 days
  SS 98 days
  CA:CW 140 days
  The Dark Knight 231 days
  1. Jack Thorne
    June 26, 2017
    The figures I used are for the American domestic market too, since it offers a straight up like-for-like comparison. Including international figures means including some places where one was shown, but not the other.
    Box Office Mojo:
    BvS: http://www.boxofficemojo.co...
    SS: http://www.boxofficemojo.co...
    CA:CW: http://www.boxofficemojo.co...
    TDK: http://www.boxofficemojo.co...
    1. Rex the Wonder Dog
      June 26, 2017
      I used the daily tab to get the final day for each.
  2. Jerry Nice
    June 26, 2017
    TDK should still be in theaters if you ask me! The leggiest of the legs.
3. Rex the Wonder Dog
  June 26, 2017
  CA;CW was in theaters for 42 days/6 weeks longer though.
  In the 14th week SS made $324 thousand
  In the 14th week CA:CW made $339 thousand
  And in the 6 weeks after that CA:CW picked up another $695 thousand, over half a million more.
4. NinjaGamer13
  June 26, 2017
  If they don't keep screwing things up, sure. They have a lot of trust to earn back, WW is a good start though.
John Johnson
June 25, 2017
There has been a whole lot of heavy stuff going on in the UK lately, so it wouldn't surprise me if the numbers were underwhelming there. I'm not saying there's a direct correlation, but there might be some influence.
1. Rex the Wonder Dog
  June 26, 2017
  Yeah, if I lived in the UK I might be afraid to leave the house and sit in a confined space with a lot of other people in it. It's been years in the USA since the Dark Knight Rises incident.
Jack Thorne
June 25, 2017
The reason why it's not done as well in Britain is because of the legacy of the First World War, and in particular the horrors of trench warfare. That was a fairly traumatic period for the British, especially in light of recent revisionist history that points the finger at the British role for the War. The feeling is that the movie trivialized parts of the real horrors for superhero spectacle (eg. the No Man's Land scene).
1. Jordan Smith
  June 26, 2017
  That is nonsense. I know many military people in my family - most won't know it's about WW1 until seeing the film.
  1. Jack Thorne
    June 26, 2017
    And guess what? A few of my non comic book friends were upset about that scene. The next day they were complaining about it to me (I had seen it by then) and others who hadn't. Some of them never went.
    Maybe you're right about your experience, but you're wrong to generalise it out for everyone.
2. NinjaGamer13
  June 26, 2017
  I don't think so, most people have no real attachment to WW1 who would be seeing the movie. It's not doing well in the UK because the UK is on average is made of of people who mirror Trump supporters.
  1. Jack Thorne
    June 26, 2017
    Since when was it necessary to feel "attachment" to WW1 in order to be put off by it?
    Some people in the UK, the more savvy and aware of history, would have avoided a film that did trivialize one of the most catastrophic British experiences that's barely 100 years old. Take for example the Guardian's review. One of the most widely read papers online review would not have gone amiss, much less so its stinging criticism about the way it represented a terrible moment in British history.
    https://www.theguardian.com...
    1. NinjaGamer13
      June 26, 2017
      Some reporters need to be a little bit contrarian to distinguish themselves from all the OMG A WOMAN DIRECTOR AND STAR IN A FILM reviews.
      I grew up in the UK, I'm savvy and aware of history, and I just think it's kind of a nonsense theory. It's a movie set in a fictionalized universe showing an alternate version of events for something that happened over 100 years ago.
      I highly fucking doubt(although admit it is plausible) the films portrayal of WW1 has anything to do with it's success in the UK, but I guess we can't prove it either way, so I agree to disagree.
      1. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        I have no idea what your point is about the article other than a thinly veiled ad hominem. My point is the criticism it made in the way the film portrayed the horrors of trench warfare is not a solitary voice. It's indicative of how a lot of people felt, and one of the most popular newspapers making this point would have clearly had an impact.
        I grew up, and still live in the UK. Even I shifted uncomfortably at the first part of the No Man's Land scene. I thought it was incredibly ill-judged thing to do. And I'm not alone in thinking that. Again, you cannot ignore this and say 'oh well it's a rubbish theory' if you cannot provide a compelling alternative. Of course it's a movie, and of course it's fictionalized to a certain extent. The war was real, the politics was real, and trench warfare was real. Britain's role in WWI scars the national psyche. Anyone that's been taught this, or was part of the centenary commemorations three years ago would know this.
      2. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        Where is the thinly veiled ad hominem? Not insulting you, just your argument.
        Actually when it IS a rubbish theory, I don't have to provide an alternative. Dismissing a rubbish theory and showing it to be a rubbish theory is perfectly accurate.
        I don't know what to tell you except that you are in the extreme minority. Most people absolutely had no issue with seeing a fantasy alternative version of a war that was over 100 years ago.
        And no, the national psych is not scarred, if it was the country would not be so gungho anti-immigrant and pro war with 'dem terrorist countries', which it most certainly is.
      3. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        You seemed to go off and made some, frankly, daft and pointless comment about the Guardian/critic, without even bothering to explain it and its relevance to the main point I was making. I thought I was pretty clear.
        Secondly, fair point about not needing to provide an alternative, but the notion that you somehow did critique it successfully is quite baffling. You've done nothing of the sort. Not. Even. Close.
        Third, the national psyche concerning Britain's role in the First World War is scarred. Britons are facing upto the fact that their country was just as complicit in starting the war than Germany. Furthermore, the horrors of trench warfare, where hundreds of thousands Britons and their those in their Dominions needlessly lost their life owing to the incompetency of generals is something that can't be dismissed as neither here nor there argument. Anyone who say through the centenary commemorations like me saw that and understood it.
        As for the bizarre false syllogism in your last line, the less said about that the better.
      4. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        Sigh.
        My comment was not daft just because you disagreed with it, and in no way was it an ad hominem. Maybe you should learn what each fallacy means before you just throw it around, because the one you are guilty of here is a strawman argument. Look it up. And my point regarding the paper was valid. Critics often do take a contrarian view. It get's clicks. Just like that Forbes idiot who defended the theatrical cut of BvS.
        As for Britain role in WW1? You seem like a sensitive fucking sally who think's he speaks for his entire country, when you DON'T. It's a forgotten war, and you are insisting it is somehow still affecting Britain's national psyche cause like most idiots on this site you can't admit you are wrong.
        I mean, almost no one else is trying to make the point you are. Continually talking about the horrors of war doesn't add credibility to your point. Most people alive in the UK today were not in any position to even be affected by WW1, not even alive. It's a ridiculous argument and the onus is on you to support it, and I'm sorry but I'm going to need more than your insistence and the review of a film critic needing to find something to actually criticize in a film that is hard to criticize without backlash.
      5. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        What a magnificent splurge of nothingness. You want to tell me you’re sighing? Really? Ok then…hahahaha.
        You made a direct attack on the character of the journalist, implicitly suggesting that the article ought to be undermined as evidence because the writer went out of his way to write a deliberately contrarian viewpoint. You say the writer did this to separate himself from the others and you provide absolutely FUCK ALL evidence for this. So, not only did you commit the ad hominem by attacking his motivations, his character, rather than the argument, you couldn’t even be bothered to substantiate your daft claim. Utter comedy gold!
        I find it hysterical that you make a vaunted claim about knowing what an ad hominem is, then proceed to shoot yourself in the face with it. A “Sally”, because I have the capacity to explain a specific historical event of the nation in the context of today? Christ dude, now you’re just looking like an insecure triggered person that’s in the midst of an epic meltdown but is clearly struggling to cope.
        After barely stringing any sort of meaningful, substantiated, well thought out argument, you then hystercially proceed to decry that most "idiots" can’t admit they’re wrong. I mean, it’s like you’re so low on irony to humiliate yourself that you need to purposefully ignore every single preceding contradictory sentence in your argument.
        Which makes your splurge of verbal diarrhea at the end all the more thrilling to read. Beyond, rambling, incoherent, drivel reasoning, you not only again commit the ad hominem fallacy, you go on to commit the fallacy of popular belief too.
        “Maybe you should learn what each fallacy means before you just throw it around”?
        “Sigh”... Hahahaha fucking hell…
3. James Scholes
  June 28, 2017
  Seriously, you've just pulled that out of your ass.
  I'm born and raised in the UK and there's been no such thing what you said.
  No media or bad press about how WW trivialises WW1 or anything of the sort.
  Oh, and I love how you state it as a fact too lol.
  1. Jack Thorne
    June 28, 2017
    Notice how you generalize without even knowing it. You say you haven't seen anything like this, according to your own experiences. That means you cannot make a generalization for the whole country. All I've said is it's a factor, and if you had bothered to read the rest of the thread you would see I substantiated it.
    Next time read properly before you talk nonsense.
Randall Emerson Appleby
June 25, 2017
Goes to show ya that choosing substance (even just a tad) over style with just a little bit of attention to character development pays off. I know that art is subjective, but trying to defend one of the hugest missed oppertunities in the history of moving pictures in BvS feels like
(to me at least) the equivalent of trying to make the case that two girls one cup is avant-garde cinema! I cannot believe the hyperbole that is mindlessly slung around this website's comment section regarding the undeniably underwhelming hot-mess...*shakes head* just shameless fanboyism.
Btw, I think Snyder is a tremendous visual artist, & he has a great eye for talent when it comes to casting: HenryCavil, BenAffleck & GalGadot are all so GREAT!!!
1. Matches Malone
  June 25, 2017
  The issue with modern fan film criticism, magnified tenfold with BvS, is that no film is entirely perfect or completely terrible however fans "need" to classify them as such.
  1. CmputrBlu
    June 25, 2017
    BvS is certainly not terrible; but it could have been so much better had different choices had been made. Snyder has his fans for sure, and he's certainly good at certain aspects of film making; but I'm not sure if he's the person you want to helm a movie (and start a franchise) that you're hoping has large appeal among movie goers and critics alike.
    Regardless, they made pretty much the right choices with Wonder Woman and I'm glad it's a success.
    1. Matches Malone
      June 26, 2017
      I agree. Small changes to BvS and MoS would have made dramatic difference in how those films were received while still maintaining the overall vision of the creatives
      1. CmputrBlu
        June 26, 2017
        If only someone hadn't thought that for the first time Batman and Superman appear in a major motion picture; having one trying to kill the other was a good idea.
        Also brooding Batman is fine, "Get the hell off my lawn or I'll shoot you" Batman is not :)
      2. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        Funny how fans had no issue with Keaton even after years of the "No kill" rule being established.
        https://youtu.be/8ULSvR6hhyI
      3. CmputrBlu
        June 26, 2017
        If you find Keaton as Batman trying to kill Superman and not nameless thugs; you let me know. :)
      4. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        I'm pretty sure Keaton would do that if he was in Batfleck's shoes. Hell, he would probably take pleasure in it since he smiled after strapping a bomb on the fat dude.
        And I guess if Batfleck had only killed nameless thugs, you wouldn't had a problem with it.
      5. CmputrBlu
        June 26, 2017
        I don't get why more people don't have a problem with Batman in BvS..especially comic geeks. Plus I notice that whenever someone criticizes BvS Batman they always bring up scenes from other movies where he's killed; like the issue is him having to kill.
        Batman comes off as an angry old guy who's been Batman way too long.
        Everything he's failed to do over the past 20 years he will make up for
        by killing the one person he knows nothing about. 20 years he's let
        Joker live but now he's gonna kill the alien. He never even tries to have a dialog with the guy who's just saved the earth (and may may be the only one who can in the future). Sorry, makes Batman dumb for a bad homage to one scene from Frank Miller's TDKR. Which incidentally Batman wasn't trying to actually kill Superman ( if I remember correctly)
      6. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        Because:
        1. Superman is a walking death machine. If Superman goes rogue, the world is fucked.
        2. Alfred tries to convince Bruce that his plan is madness and that Superman isn't the bad guy. Bruce counters this by asking Alfred how many good guys stayed good during his 20 years of crimefighting.
        3. Bruce doesn't care about getting to know Superman personally. Experience has taught him that people WILL go bad, so he wants to stop Superman before that happens. He doesn't even acknowledge himself as the good guy in this. He's convinced himself that he's right and that this is a necessary evil in order for humanity to see another day.
        4.Joker is nowhere as dangerous as a pissed off Superman.
      7. CmputrBlu
        June 26, 2017
        OK. None of those plot points are improbable, one could write the character that way. But then there's also nothing stopping someone from putting hot sauce in a cake either. So great frosting, but why the damn hot sauce? :) I still wonder why they choose those elements for the movie when there are 1000s of other ways they could have. More palatable ways.
        To get back on track, I think Wonder Woman is successful because they right choices were made. I hope with future DCEU movies that is the case.
      8. chunky panda
        June 26, 2017
        wat the hell are u talking...its batman decision to kill or not....its zack version of batman...everybody has ryt to express his version of batman
      9. Rex the Wonder Dog
        June 26, 2017
        And people have the right to not like that version. If Punisher handed out tulips and daisies to villains the whole movie, that would be the director's right to do Punisher that way, But it doesn't mean people have to like it just because the director had the right to make Punisher that way.
      10. chunky panda
        June 26, 2017
        if you dont like then why you people always bitching around this is not my batman....who gona decide whose version of batman is perfect?
      11. Rex the Wonder Dog
        June 26, 2017
        We bitch because we don't like killy Batman. Especially because in the comic books it almost comes off as a boast that Batman doesn't kill. And because he refuses to kill homicidal maniacs like Joker but has no problem with killing henchmen in the movies. Guys that are just trying to make a living to feed their families.
      12. chunky panda
        June 26, 2017
        we want our version of batman...brutal....if you want yours then u can watch lego movies...or animated series...they want money and u comicbook nerds are limited in numbers...if they want huge share of market then they have to make movies which apeals to casual movie goers...u people cannot even return their invested amount...
      13. Rex the Wonder Dog
        June 26, 2017
        Then you don't really want Batman. You just want Punisher with ears on his hat.
      14. chunky panda
        June 26, 2017
        batman is wb property....they made batman in the past with no killing rules now they want to make it another way ..past batman apeals to u and new iteration appeals to me....then wat the hell wrong with u...everybody wants his version of batman....
      15. Ned Ryerson
        June 26, 2017
        There's nothing wrong with either of you. It's just that Batman killing rubs some of us the wrong way and we voice our opinion just like you. That's what discussion is for. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with anyone. I personally think Batman can be brutal without intentionally blowing away people with machine guns on the batmobile, and if he had used something more clever like an EMP to disable an enemy car it would have been better, more Batman like and more entertaining. if you disagree, that's cool though. No need to make it a personal thing.
      16. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        But the issue with that is before BvS, we've had only one live-action Batman film where Batman does not kill anyone and that film was Batman &Robin. No one made a fuss about it when Keaton killed or when Bale had killed, but when Batfleck does, fans riot and say that he's the antithesis of the character. They say that Batfleck is an insult to the character.
      17. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        "No one made a fuss about it when Keaton killed or when Bale had killed, but when Batfleck does, fans riot and say that he's the antithesis of the character.
        No-one made a fuss in 1989 because Batman fans were just happy to see a character on the big screen since 1966, and one that had successfully shrugged off the latter's camp. It was the first comicbook movie of the modern age, standards were low, and Batman fans were more forgiving.
        With regards to Christian Bale, a distinction needs to be made between murder and killing. He killed in the Trilogy. I'm fine with Batman killing in movies when it's necessary and justified (was he really going to spend half an hour patiently blowing out the tires of a truck with a ticking nuclear bomb in the back?).
        Batfleck's killing was unjustified, unnecessary, indiscriminate and grotesque. It was murder.
      18. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        I'm talking about even years after the film came out, no one made a fus about Keaton. Even when the Nolan films came out, Keaton was still regarded highly by fans.
        And with Bale, killing is still killing in the eyes of Batman. Even if it was necessary, Batman would do his absolute best to find another solution. And some of the killings done by Bale weren't necessary.
      19. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        "Even when the Nolan films came out, Keaton was still regarded highly by fans."
        Precisely. It didn't get him perfect but it was the first comicbook film in the modern cinema age, and the first Batman since 1966. Standards are low for it as a Batman film because of this, not for a film that's coming off the back of the Trilogy, and with so many people aware about Batman.
        Killing is still killing, but the whole point was Batman wasn't going to protect that rule if it meant people were going to die through his inaction - whether it was a young boy, or a whole city. That wouldn't have fitted into the hyper reality of the Trilogy.
        All the killings by Bale's Batman were necessary and/or justified.
      20. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        But TDK's whole point was that Batman wouldn't kill on purpose, hence why Joker tries to egg him on. If Batman was going to choose life over his rule, he would've killed Joker afterJoker had escaped. But no, Batman wanted to prove that Joker is wrong.
        Leaving Ra's to die was unnecessary. That one act is more of a spit in the face of the character than what Bat fleck had done.
      21. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        No, the whole point of TDK is that Batman would not unlawfully kill, ie murder. The Joker doesn't want him to kill, he wants him to murder. Recall him in BEGINS: "I'm not an executioner".
        "Leaving Ra's to die was unnecessary."
        But that doesn't mean it was killing or murder. It was just leaving him to his fate.
      22. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        But there is also manslaughter and self-defense.
        I can simply ask my dad when he's done with work today, since he's been in law enforcement for over twenty years.
      23. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        I'll save you the trouble of asking him. It's not manslaughter.
        Manslaughter is killing without "malice a forethought". That means it is premeditation with malevolence to kill. It's easy for you (and others) to confuse this term.
        You don't need to be a law enforcement official to know this, just a rational human being.
      24. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        But I'm pretty sure Bruce was thinking with malicious intent when he left Ra's; pre-meditated murder at best.
      25. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        That's not Batman committing manslaughter. Heck, that's not even Batman killing. He just refused to save him. Look up the term 'supererogation', where an act may be considered morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory. Batman committed a supererogatory act, since it was not morally obligatory to save him because he was not responsible in the first place.
        Some of us know more about these things, but are modest enough not to start bragging about occupations for leverage in debates.
      26. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        But what does the law say? It's like in the tv show Dexter where Dexter would most likely go to prison even though he was only killing other murderers. His actions were morally praiseworthy, because he was only killing killers.
        No matter how you try to sugarcoat it, I'm pretty sure that the law would deem that he took the law into his own hands and committed a form of murder. Depraved-heart murder is the form of murder that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous
        and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and
        perils involved, is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of
        punishment, when the harmful result ensues, as is the express intent to
        kill itself.
        And I wasn't bragging. I was informing you that I know someone who's more knowledgeable than me on the subject. And back to your statement about Joker wanting Batman to kill him unlawfully. That's completely wrong, because if Batman just didn't want to kill Joker unlawfully, Batman could've killed Joker when Joker was attacking and shooting at him because of SELF-DEFENSE. Bale's rule was that he doesn't kill in general. It doesn't matter whether or not the law permits him, he DOESN'T kill. He wants to show that killing is not the answer.
      27. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        I'll be frank, there's so much nonsense here I don't know where to begin:
        1) "No matter how you try to sugarcoat it, I'm pretty sure that the law would deem that he took the law into his own hands and committed a form of murder."
        So, basically you skipped the reasoning and explaining and jumped straight to an unsubstantiated assertion. Ok.
        2) "Depraved-heart murder is...."
        And not ONCE have you made any real attempt to show how ANY of the Nolan kills fall under murder, it's legal variants, or manslaughter. You need to show your working, not just make half baked conclusions.
        3) "But what does the law say?"
        The law says he didn't commit murder or manslaughter. With regards to other examples where he did kill in the Trilogy, if it ever went to trial he would at most be convicted of 'lawful killing', since in each of those cases it was clearly justified/necessary/obligatory AND because of sanctioning by James Gordon.
        4) "It's like in the tv show Dexter..."
        No, it's not. Dexter isn't sanctioned by the goddamn police commissioner -the ultimate law giver in a city- as an extension of that law. That's why Bats didn't kill Ra's. It was Gordon, the law-giver, who pulled the trigger (literally).
        5) "His actions were morally praiseworthy, because he was only killing killers."
        That's is highly contentious and not uncontroversial.
      28. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        I just told you, HE LEFT RA'S TO DIE. You keep saying that "Batman didn't actually kill him", but that's complete rubbish since it's already been proven in court that it doesn't matter whether or not you kill someone. If you commit an act that leads to someone's death, the law can determine if you're guilty for murder. Gordon pulled the trigger, but Batman's the one who came up with he plan. He gave Gordan instructions.
        3. It doesn't matter whether or not it was lawful killing. Bale's rule is "Do not kill",but he broke it constantly in the trilogy. End of story.
      29. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        1) "I just told you, HE LEFT RA'S TO DIE."
        So if you left someone to die you would charged with manslaughter or worse, murder? Nope, nope, nope.
        2) "If you commit an act that leads to someone's death, the law can determine if you're guilty for murder. "
        Yes, "that LEADS to someone's death". Ie, NECESSARILY CAUSE, ie. cannot commit said act without NECESSARILY CAUSING someone's death. Something you have NOT shown.
        3) "Gordon pulled the trigger, but Batman's the one who came up with he plan. He gave Gordan instructions."
        It's like you don't understand the importance of the relationship of Batman and Gordon. Batman received legitimization from Gordon because Gordon is a law giver and protector of citizens. In effect, he deputized him. Even though it was Batman's plan, it received a), legitimization from a law giver, b) received collusion with a law-giver, and c) the actual event that CAUSED Ra's death (the derailment) was CAUSED by Gordon, NOT Batman.
        You're basically wrong on every count.
      30. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        Yes, you can. It all depends on the situation. If a serial killer was dangling precariously for his life, and cop chooses not to save him, said cop would most likely be in some legal trouble. Even if it was a civilian who decided not to save the serial killer, I'm pretty sure that the civilian would most likely end up in some legal trouble. Though again, it all depends on the situation. It even gets more complicated when it relates to someone who's suicidal.
        Oh my freaking God, dude. It was still a part of Batman's plan. Batman still served a role in Ra's death. You can't seem to realize that it doesn't matter if Batman received legitimization from Gordan. The man broke his damn rule numerous times in the trilogy, and you need to stop giving him excuses.
      31. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        "If a serial killer was dangling precariously for his life, and cop chooses not to save him, said cop would most likely be in some legal trouble."
        False analogy. Is Batman a police officer? Did the serial killer place himself on the edge in the first place because he was going to kill millions of people? Is saving him going to risk the police officer's life and the life of others? Look up supererogation. Your Dexter comparison falls short because it's another poor understanding of the term.
        "It was still a part of Batman's plan. Batman still served a role in Ra's death."
        Yes, and that's completely different from what you've said before: committing "an act that LEADS to someone's death". Serving a (legitimized) role, is utterly different to causing a death.
      32. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        I just said that it depends on the situation. And I even said " Even if it was a civilian who decided not to save the serial killer,
        I'm pretty sure that the civilian would most likely end up in some legal
        trouble. Though again, it all depends on the situation." Why are you cherry picking my sentences?
      33. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        "I just said that it depends on the situation."
        You can throw lots of thought experiments, but if none of them represent that actual scenario we're discussing then they're pointless. Of course it depends on the "situation" and in this situation he wouldn't be charged for murder.
        "I'm pretty sure that the civilian would most likely end up in some legal
        trouble."
        "Pretty sure"? That's not good enough. It's a poor analogy. You went hammer and tongs saying it's murder and/or manslaughter, but you have failed to provide any compelling argument.
        I'm not cherry picking. I'm quoting segments so you know what part of your argument I'm referring to. Saying, like you, "Yes, you can" doesn't make it clear what you're referring to.
      34. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        But it's complicated as hell. I am too damn tired to argue this with you. I am not a law student, and when I tried to offer insight from someone who does know more about law, you insinuate that I'm bragging because of "leverage", when I'm just trying to help us both out. And this argument reminded me why it's annoying to argue with people about Bale's Batman.
      35. Jimmy Two Times
        June 26, 2017
        We don't even know if him and Joker crossed paths in the months between MoS & BvS. They likely didn't, or he'd most likely be dead too. People bring up this Joker thing as if this Bats was always a killer in his career -- he wasn't. The events in Metropolis is what ultimately pushed him over the edge.
      36. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        They are all shitty justifications.
      37. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        Oh please. If someone as powerful as Superman was walking amgnst us, you would be terrified of the person.
      38. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        Nope.
        If the murderous evil Superman from Snyder's murderverse was real, yeah I would be.
        If Superman from the comics was real and walking among us, I'd feel safe and inspired.
      39. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        I didn't say Superman. I said "someone as powerful as Superman".
      40. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        That makes even less sense.
        I wouldn't be scared just because someone had power, their personality and character would determine if I was scared of them or not.
        Someone 'like' comic superman would not inspire fear, someone 'like' murderverse Superman would.
      41. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        Again, I said "powerful". And really? You wouldn't be a bit suspicious of someone that powerful may let the power get to their head, abuse said power, or snaps and kills people as we've seen on news channels and websites? Yeah, easier said than done, dude.
      42. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        Again, the point you made was clear, and I responded to it. Getting hung up on semantics is a sign of insecurity.
        Again like I said, their character and history would determine my reaction to them, and no, I wouldn't be afraid simply because they have raw power.
      43. Jerry Nice
        June 26, 2017
        This Batman has lost everything that ever meant anything to him & has zero faith in "heroes" moving forward (think Harvey Dent, the death of his adopted son, etc.).
        He watched thousands of people die at the hands of an alien, in a matter of minutes.
        How much death & destruction can one man take before he eventually snaps? Not any man though, but one with the means to actually do something about it?
        I think this version of Batman is definitely as dark as it gets, but I totally understand his motivations & why he decides to go "all in" against Superman. It also doesn't help that Snyder decided for emo-version, which only seems to validate Batman's negative feelings towards him...If he were the ray of sunshine we know him as in the comics, it would make the idea of killing him that much harder.
        I did love at the end though how Batman realizes that Superman is a good guy at heart - even if it took his life to convince him. This renewed faith in heroism then sparks Bruce to rally the troops & create a unified front. I dig it.
      44. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        If BATMAN RETURNS was released now and not in 1992, where fans were less forgiving and the comicbook movies were non-existent, then you can be sure people would have kicked up a stink about his ruthlessness.
        You can't compare today's fan reaction from a fully aware fandom with that of a movie from 25 years ago.
      45. Jerry Nice
        June 26, 2017
        Damn, you're going in on this subject! Ha.
        I also thought it was a bit over the top (using machine guns!), but I also think that's how far gone this version of Batman was after 20+ years of crime fighting. I think that's the point...Look how low he was, which is the mentality needed to even consider killing Superman in the first place.
        This is the Frank Miller TDKR Batman, who is actively trying to kill the Joker because "enough is enough." This isn't the BTAS Batman where death is still an impossibility & his entire Bat-family is alive & well.
        I don't think this version resonated with hardcore fans or the general public, even thought I think Affleck is the total package for the role - His Bruce & Batman are stellar & the costume, car, cave, Alfred (!) are all top notch. If you take away the killing aspect, I think fans would be happier, but the filmmakers wouldn't get to paint the picture of his level of disparity like they needed to for this particular film.
      46. Jack Thorne
        June 26, 2017
        No, you can't. A lot more has changed than just the internet. These films arise in different contexts. RETURNS was one of the first comicbook films in the modern cinema age, therefore it was finding its feet in a new genre of film and given a lot of leeway. Secondly, the fans -and I recall this- were much more forgiving. Third, the understanding of Batman was marginal. Most didn't really have a grip on his no kill policy (as evidenced by '89 and RETURNS).
        BvS on the otherhand is a comicbook film in an already saturated comicbook film industry. Therefore, the expectancy of getting the characterization correct is a lot higher than in 1992. Secondly, because of the current cinema age, fans have been a lot less forgiving about the characters. This is obvious, and has to do with their wider popularity. Third, undoubtedly, Batman is better understood now than ever before. Therefore, there is a higher threshold of expectancy from the character and from a wider range of the public.
        The context surrounding attitudes towards Batman and superhero films differ vastly between 1992 and 2016, and therefore influence perceptions on him murdering.
      47. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        I did. All the movie Batmen suck, none of them are detectives and they all have no issue with killing.
      48. OGmacrazy
        June 26, 2017
        Were you asleep during the time the Nolan Batman movies came out?
      49. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        No, I saw them all, wide awake. And then lamented all the killing and lack of detective work.
      50. OGmacrazy
        June 26, 2017
        You should check them out for real this time, though. Seems you missed some vital points.
      51. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        No, I didn't. Seen them all multiple times, and sure as hell no more about the character than you. Baleman killed at least once in each film, and the closest he came to detective work was having his bat computer analyze evidence in TDK. If anyone needs to rewatch them, it's you.
      52. OGmacrazy
        June 26, 2017
        Did he ever kill anyone by shooting a weapon at them or DIRECTLY killing? He always had the rule, even though sometimes he just couldn't help it given the situation (unless you think him killing Harvey was murder, and not him just doing the only possible thing he could to save the kid ).
        Point is you wrote: "they all have no issue with killing." and that is FACTUALLY wrong because in all three films Batman mentions his no kill rule in one way or other.
      53. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        He could ALWAYS help it, he just chose the easy way out.
        He setup the situation leading to Ra's death, and then didn't save him when he could have. Legally and morally, that is murder.
        Somehow I think you won't acknowledge that, so I see point in explaining to you why he is just as guilty in his subsequent films.
      54. OGmacrazy
        June 26, 2017
        Oh sure, I never quite liked that part, but he still had that rule in that film, and it was actually a huge part of the film (remember the league of shadows bit?).
        Either way, you literally wrote he had no problems with it, and that's factually wrong. You can't just talk in absolutes and expect not to be refuted. Because in most cases, you'll be wrong. Just saying.
      55. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        Jesus christ. Stop taking everything so fucking literally. Really, that's how fucking desperate you are to make some kind of point?
        Yes, he showed slight hesitation, but over-fucking-all HE HAD NO FUCKING PROBLEM WITH IT. Killing was his first instinct, and he personally dished out death as a punishment. It doesn't matter that he showed slight hesitation when being trained(which was not by any means a huge part of the film), by the time he was Batman he clearly was fine with it.
        Asshole. And yes, you are an asshole, because first you fucking tell me to rewatch the films "because I must have missed something", except I didn't, and you only didn't acknowledge my point because you added your own assumptions and justifications on top. If I say he has no problem with killing, when he does that consistently and repeatedly, it doesn't mean I fucking missed anything, just because you disagree. Seriously. You're just an asshole.
      56. OGmacrazy
        June 26, 2017
        https://media.giphy.com/med...
        Dude, you wrote it. I disagreed. Why shouldn't I reply?
        Seriously, do you need a fucking Xanax for every single person that dares respond to a claim of yours?
      57. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        The vision was the problem.
      58. Orlando Furioso
        June 26, 2017
        The problem I heard with the MoS is that the switches between the present and the past taxed viewers' patience.
2. Randall Emerson Appleby
  June 27, 2017
  Says the guy who wouldn't know the difference between a Basquiat, & a 5 year olds' finger painting.
  Listen, of course art is subjective, but one would have to be a fool to disregard the fact that there are basic rules or principles rather, that govern the best path toward achieving a quality result in ANY medium of art. Now, obviously there are rule breakers out there who have attained both a high level of status amongst the general movie-going public as well the more exclusive, & snooty "film" community at large such as StanleyKubrick, MikeLeigh or ChristopherNolan, but here's the question I'm burning to ask you:
  Do u really believe that BvS, & MoS are just ahead of their time, & that Snyder is simply a misunderstood visionary
  Ps
  Watch the last 5 min or so of Pixar's "Ratatouille" for a more elegant break down of what it is I'm trying to say here
Thomas Jenkins
June 25, 2017
it doesn't really help that the UK isn't doing so well financially and there is a lot uncertainty at the moment. some people are probably just sitting on what they have for now.
1. Jordan Smith
  June 26, 2017
  Technically our economy is doing just as well as it did last year. Uncertainty is an odd thing.
  1. Thomas Jenkins
    June 26, 2017
    the pound isn't doing so well, though.
Diego!
June 25, 2017
Oh boy... Wonder Woman is already getting Oscar buzz.... and I think that will project the movie even higher at the box office 😀🙅💥💫
http://www.indiewire.com/20...
1. Schuyler Finley
  June 25, 2017
  Only nomination I can think of is Best Director.
  1. Diego!
    June 25, 2017
    It also may get best edition, best VFX, best music, best cinematography, best costume design and best production design. Chris Pine deserves an Oscar nomination. He is perfect.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      June 25, 2017
      Imma have to say "Eh" to those, especially to music since I don't remember any of the soundtrack except for To Be Human. Pine did a damn good job though.
    2. FastestKnight
      June 25, 2017
      I can see costume design or production design. They did the same with Fantastic Beasts.
  2. Schuyler Finley
    June 25, 2017
    Though I wonder if any people will be a bit peeved since Nolan didn't even get nominated for creating "the best comic book film of all time".
2. Rex the Wonder Dog
  June 26, 2017
  Keep in mind that out of all the MCU and DCEU movies made so far, only Suicide Squad has won an Oscar.
  1. Diego!
    June 26, 2017
    I know! Wonder Woman will be next! 😀🙅💥💫
Supermansteve
June 25, 2017
Zack Snyder must be absolutely over the moon.
1. Rex the Wonder Dog
  June 26, 2017
  He did send his congrats to Patty.
Supermansteve
June 25, 2017
Go go partty Jenkins. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
FastestKnight
June 25, 2017
The idea of a Wonder Woman stand-alone movie outgrossing the first Batman and Superman movie, which cost 100 million more and had a 60 million opening diference proves 2 things:
-Men are still good.
-The DCEU is here to stay.
Fréaláf Hildeson
June 25, 2017
It also beat Iron Man, and will beat Guardians of the Galaxy next weekend - which means it will beat every single MCU debut.
It will even top Thor and Captain America combined!
1. Kerk Lastnameless
  June 26, 2017
  It's all about who's team is winning, am I right?
2. Rex the Wonder Dog
  June 26, 2017
  And also beat every X-Men movie ever made, unless Deadpool is considered a true X-Men movie.
  Might even beat that one.
  1. Fréaláf Hildeson
    June 26, 2017
    It will beat Deadpool, that is almost certain. For origin stories, Wonder Woman will be the second highest ever - after only the first Spider-Man.
    1. BugsMeany
      June 26, 2017
      Huge WW fan but I have to point out that Deadpool was R-rated, a major handicap for the CBM genre. Its box office performance was truly astounding.
Alejandro Polina
June 26, 2017
I still think WW can beat SS, but not BvS.
1. Rex the Wonder Dog
  June 26, 2017
  Not world wide, but will domestic sometime next week.
Talia
June 26, 2017
When done properly, the DCEU has the potential to go so much further than the MCU. Kevin Feige has done a phenomenal job with the MCU, but when it comes down to just the raw material, DC has had much better comic titles over the years, more recognizable/memorable heroes and villains, broken ground into much more types of media, and the topper... WB has rights to ALL its characters, not just a few. BvS and SS may have been critical "flops", but the money either earned regardless shows that the market for DC films is much more persistent.
1. Rex the Wonder Dog
  June 26, 2017
  It is sort of amazing what the MCU can do with B and C list characters though.
  It is sort of the equivalent of a Booster Gold vs Blue Beetle movie making $1 billion
  1. OGmacrazy
    June 26, 2017
    Not really. While definitely b and c level characters before, now they're more than A listers. And even before, Captain America and Thor and Iron Man were MUCH more recognizable than Booster Gold or Blue Beetle.
    Your first sentence, though, totally true.
Supermansteve
June 26, 2017
In other news Eminem grew a beard. Bit of trivia for you. Eminem is a massive comic book fan. True story. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
1. Schuyler Finley
  June 26, 2017
  So Eminem confirmed for SS 2 soundtrack?
  1. Supermansteve
    June 26, 2017
    Oh man that would be epic. He is back working on something with Dr Dre so you never know.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      June 26, 2017
      Maybe Dre is finally gonna do Detox for SS 2.
      1. Supermansteve
        June 26, 2017
        That would be smart.
      2. Schuyler Finley
        June 26, 2017
        Dre's unfinished album that he's been hyping up for 15 years, but then decided to say "Fuck it" and tell fans that Detox is canceled.
      3. Supermansteve
        June 26, 2017
        Wow, that is so sad. An to see how physically massive he got. Such a shame.
Ezee23
June 26, 2017
This is good news for everybody. The MCU and DCEU will stand to gain from this:
1.Marvel will look at this as a template for their Captain Marvel movie. I feel that it'll embolden them to take more risks with their character. It's now my most anticipated MCU movie.
2. Justice League will most certainly alter their marketing a bit and put a bit more emphasis on Wonder Woman as well. We're not only anticipating the return of Superman but the return of Diana too.
3. If Wonder Woman is a certainty then Man of Steel 2 is also a certainty, regardless of where the WW sequel is set.
4. The DCEU's push for female-led superhero movies will earn it a lot of credibility. Gotham City Sirens and Batgirl will be some of the most anticipated movies of the next two years
1. Rex the Wonder Dog
  June 26, 2017
  Maybe she could use Supergirl instead. Supergirl and Wonder Woman also have a bit of a history in the comic books.
  1. TØM
    June 26, 2017
    Please, no Supergirl in the DCEU.
    1. Rex the Wonder Dog
      June 26, 2017
      Why not? Supergirl is a more interesting character with the exact same powers and is just as strong as Superman. An it would give Wonder Woman another woman to play off against instead of the sausage fest we usually get. In Justice League the only woman on the team is Wonder Woman. I think it would be great if Wonder Woman met another woman who is just as powerful as she is. What does Superman have going for him that Supergirl doesn't?
      1. TØM
        June 26, 2017
        I just find the idea of having SuperMAN and SuperGIRL with the same powers cheesy and reductive.
      2. Rex the Wonder Dog
        June 27, 2017
        But they have different personalities and different life experiences, He grew up on a farm in Kansas. She grew up on Krypton and got to Earth as a teenager. So even though they have the same powers they aren't the same person. Never mind they aren't even the same gender and have different outlooks on life and are responded to differently. That even in real life some real people are opposed to a female Kryptonian is part of what makes her interesting. Because in the story it could be played up that people think she is inferior because she is a woman, and she proves that she is just as capable, if not more so, than Superman, or any of the other Justice League members. That is what makes her more interesting than Superman. She has grown into her own character, just like Batgirl isn't Batman with boobs.
        And all cheesy means is you don't like the tone. So that is really just a nonsensical reason. Superman in Man of Steel and BvS is even more cheesy if we want to talk cheese.
  2. Rex the Wonder Dog
    June 27, 2017
    Wait, weren't they claiming that only a female director could direct a female character properly? People were disappointed that David Ayer is directing Gotham City Sirens and said it should have been a female director because Ayer doesn't understand women characters.So why wouldn't a male director be better suited to direct a male character?
Scribe
June 26, 2017
I'm so glad its not a discombobulated mess :)
1. FUN
  June 26, 2017
  Discombobobulo...what?!
  1. Scribe
    June 26, 2017
    Some insider claimed in January the movie as a mess.
SΛŁIM
June 26, 2017
I remember when they said Wonder Woman would have the worst DCEU box office...
http://i.imgur.com/rdxqNoY.gif
And I still think she has a chance to overcome Suicide Squad.
StolenUpVotes
June 26, 2017
Make good films and they will come
jrvc
June 26, 2017
At long last I could see the movie this wek-end. It was great! I must say that after almost a month of hypeness there were some things that didn't land with me, for example I expected more from Ares (and what happened to look we got from the action figures?)
However Gadot was PERFECT in the role, lik the rest of the cast, and the action pieces and sets were superb.
Congratulations!
StolenUpVotes
June 26, 2017
Deserving of every penny.
Danny Neiba
June 26, 2017
I want it to reach a billion. Oh well.....Guess I'm going to see it again multiple times just like the first time.
1. Mohammad
  June 26, 2017
  It won't reach a billion.
BugsMeany
June 26, 2017
I don't want to play the sexism card but wtf is wrong with overseas audiences? WW probably won't make as much as SS internationally, despite being an objectively better film.
1. Orlando Furioso
  June 26, 2017
  I was wondering that, too.
NinjaGamer13
June 26, 2017
BREAKING NEWS: 'Good' movie makes more money than grim, boring, uninspired, universally panned movies!
1. Cocaine Cowboy
  June 26, 2017
  Please teach me how to make 900 mil with a universally panned movie. I might just get into directing!
  1. NinjaGamer13
    June 26, 2017
    Easy!
    Get the rights to characters loved for over 75 years, put them together in a film that has high expectations because of how hard it would be to fuck up a movie starring them.
    Release whatever poorly thought out dreck you like, as long as it has those characters in it.
    PROFIT!
    Yup, that was BvS.
    1. Cocaine Cowboy
      June 26, 2017
      Now please explain phase two where they convinced 75 million people in the U.S. alone that they needed to own this terrible movie on home video.
      1. BugsMeany
        June 26, 2017
        That's 25% of the population. Typo?
      2. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        Lol wut? i guarente-fucking-tee 75 million peopel are not stupid enough to buy that crap on home media. Do you have a source?
        the-numbers.com says home media sales equated to $75 million. I would imagine that would include a lot of places like redbox, a lot of people who bought it on digital platforms to watch it(and hence own it) because they didn't think it was worth paying for in cinema after all the bad reviews.
        man of steel did almost twice as well for home media sales...how do you explain a sequel with batman as well doing that badly...
      3. Cocaine Cowboy
        June 26, 2017
        Nope. Their numbers are based on total DVD and Blu-ray sales, BvS is still in the top 100 hundred on the BR charts (58) here in the US.
      4. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        OK, but so what? Looking at the list http://www.the-numbers.com/... it doesn't exactly mean much, does it?
        It's being beaten by an animated DC cartoon (which was also a better movie), I mean jesus, even the Independence day sequel is ahead of it. Are you going to justify that as a good movie also? Because that is what you may as well be arguing.
        What else is on that list..Inferno...also a super shitty movie and ahead of the ID4 sequel....and the shitty Jack Reacher sequel is #4....lol
        People buy blu-rays because they cost like $5 these days and curiosity. It is in no way an indication of movie quality or customer satisfaction.
      5. Cocaine Cowboy
        June 26, 2017
        http://www.blu-ray.com/movi...
        http://www.the-numbers.com/...
      6. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        Edited before you replied sorry, please see my edited reply.
      7. Cocaine Cowboy
        June 26, 2017
        I never said it was a great movie or that it made as much as it could have lol, people like you are always on the defensive. You can't just have an opinion you have to desperately try to prove that you are part of a majority. Why do you feel the need to dig up all of these excuses...maybe people like Independance Day and BvS, you know what? That's okay. Shit, Suicide Squad is in the top 100 too.
      8. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        Sigh. No, you idiot. I'm not on the defensive, you are. Hint, you are defending a movie that has a pretty strong consensus that it is a peice of shit and waste oppurtunity.
        You, being sarcastic asked how to make so much money making a shitty movie. I pointed out you just need well known characters, hype and for the audience to have high expectations.
        Then you point out blueray sales as some kind of metric or defense, except upon further inspection it seems even SHITTIER movies are selling more blurays than BvS, so you didn't help your argument at all.
        And now, having no argument, you resort to essentially a personal attack, calling me a fanboy, asking why I have to be so darn mean...lol
        Kid, YOU are the fanboy in this discussion. The movie fucking sucked, and was a huge disappointment. You can enjoy it, you can enjoy SS, you can enjoy the shitty sequel to independence day, you can enjoy the shitty transformers sequels....hell, you can think Baywatch is a master example of filmmaking...
        Doesn't make you right though. All of those movies sucked, and BvS is no different. The only difference is BvS could have so easily NOT sucked, and it's a damn shame WB didn't learn from their mistakes.
        You seem like the type of fellow who needs to have the last word, so I'll let you have it. Enjoy.
      9. Cocaine Cowboy
        June 26, 2017
        You're trying to prove the film as universally hated when the numbers tell a different story entirely. Bringing up the quality of the film...when I never did. You're a desperate moron. That's my last word.
      10. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        Well hey you finally made a point! I never said it was universally hated, I said it was universally panned, and aside from a few exceptions it was. Again, look at that second week drop-off. It ONLY did well initially because of excitement and recognizable characters. That's IT. There are morons like you that defend the film, but generally it got panned and roasted as it deserves. Enjoy your shitty movie collection.
      11. Cocaine Cowboy
        June 26, 2017
        Your first post was bait, you came here for an argument ...
        "BREAKING NEWS: 'Good' movie makes more money than grim, boring, uninspired, universally panned movies!"
        I most certainly will enjoy my "shitty movie" collection though, hope you enjoy your never ending tamper tantrum over a comic book movie
      12. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        Yup, as I said, universally panned, not universally hated. Comprehension much?
        Oh, and no tantrum, just an ability to make cogent arguments and point out bullshit arguments like you seem to make. It's still funny see how your home media argument backfired lol.
        Just to be clear, you felt the need to respond to my lighthearted comment above that most people would agree with, my fanboy friend. You started this because it hurts your feelings whenever someone points out what a shitty movie it is.
        So much for having the last word, you can't help yourself can you? I can't wait to see what petty idiocy you post next.
      13. Cocaine Cowboy
        June 26, 2017
        I proved my point way up there moron, I don't even know what you're babbling on about at this point. You're comment was bait sweetheart, I provided you with your daily entertainment...now time for milk, cookies and a nap. Goodbye.
      14. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        You haven't proved a single thing you said. You said sarcastically how could bad movies make money, and I refuted your point. You made an embarrassing point trying to use home media to defend the film, and it backfired. You haven't made any other points, just name calling and having a tantrum.
        All you have done is embarrass yourself, and you do so each subsequent time you post. Keep it up though, I'm enjoying it :)
        Somehow, I don't think you will be able to help yourself from replying.
      15. NinjaGamer13
        June 26, 2017
        You are one of the slow ones aren't you?
        As I've pointed out a few times now, you didn't prove anything. You made 2 points, both were easily refuted, then you resorted to namecalling.
        This is like the 3rd time you've promised to say goodbye and not post again, somehow I'm betting it won't be the last. Kids like you can't help themselves.
      16. BugsMeany
        June 26, 2017
        None of that means 25% of the U.S. population owns a copy.
2. Schuyler Finley
  June 26, 2017
  Breaking news: You don't know what universal means and your math skills are horrible.
  1. NinjaGamer13
    June 26, 2017
    LOL. BvS was almost universally panned then, my pedantic insecure friend. And my math skills are fine. BvS was a failure, and only made money because of expectation. There is a reason for the sudden dropoff.
SB
June 26, 2017
Dc has been the favourite brand of the America since late until the Avengers movie. It's good to see the order is returning back