I don't think it can do worse than the Super Mario movie.
If it's at least as decent and "non-laughable" as the trailer seems to be, it definitely can do well. If we're purely talking about movies based on video games, I don't think any that has been made even approaches the depth of story that WC has. Super Mario Bros is kind of a silly comparison honestly, since it really barely bears resemblance to the game, which isn't really surprising, since when thinking about the Mario Bros franchise and making a movie of it, what could expectations of such a thing be, really? Especially it it's live action.
The point I was trying to make is that, when it comes to game to movie adaptations, history has a certain pattern. Maybe Warcraft will buck the trend but I'm not really expecting it too. I know that Warcraft has a lot of lore but so do a lot of games and it didn't help them.
As long as the movie does not start with a narrator it might have a chance, however slim... Aren't most of those films, barring a couple, relatively successful though? While most are critically panned to put it mildly, most seem to have made money at least.
Nah, history is definitely on the side of it being a failure as far as being good cinema at least. That's why I said the trailer looks better than it has any business being. I'm only saying that the source material for this franchise has way, WAY more promise than any of the movies you listed if the first movie is deemed a success.
That a list of the most successful and only about a fourth broke even or made some money. Beneath those are nothing but a pile of shattered dreams.
True, but none of those listed were considered successful in both ways. I think this movie could be, potentially. That's more than I could say for those movies.
Nope. I did not like Affleck's Batman. Though in all honestly, that might be more due to the script and the direction rather than Afflecks actual acting chops. One of the reasons why I didn't like this Batman, was that for me his motivations were far from clear. I never understood during the whole film, why he was so hell-bent on killing Superman. Sure, he thought that Superman was irresponsible hypochrite (which he was in the film) and that Superman caused too much collateral damage. But that does not still explain how murderous this Batman was towards Superman. Maybe he didn't consider Superman a human because of his race as kryptonian? That would mean that the protagonist of this film was a racist. My Batman has always been strict about his no-kill policy and certain honor code. This Batman did not shy about killing or using excessive and humiliating violence. This Batman also nullified the justification his own 30-year crime-fighting career by himself in one sentence, that was very un-Batmannish thing to say. This Batman felt like he has stick in his ass all the time. Even when playing playboy Bruce Wayne.
The way I saw it, Batman didn't trust that Superman would always be good and felt that he had to basically kill him before he had a chance turn on humanity. Shallow as hell, but clearer than Superman's motivation and Wonder Woman's motivation. Lex's motivations were probably the second most clear, though I still don't know why he actually wanted Batman gone. Acting wise, compared to everyone else, Affleck actually felt appropriate most of the time.
