In an article titled Why People Keep Buying Bad Comics, the publisher for New World Comics writes that most of what drives the sale of bad mainstream comics is loss aversion.

Loss aversion is the idea that the fear of missing out drives behavior more than the possibility of experiencing a great new thing. In other words:

When presented with an option of getting something great or not losing something, people would prefer not to lose rather than get something great.

How does this apply to movies?

People are more likely to see another bad remake, then a well reviewed indie – even though we all know an award winning indie is more likely to be a good film.

When was the last time you saw a great sequel or remake?

Logically, you know that most remakes and sequels aren’t that great, and are almost never better than the original. However, loss aversion dictates that you don’t want to be the one to miss out on a cultural event.

So when choosing between a remake with a slim chance of being good, and an award-winning indie, with a high chance of being amazing – audiences will actually chose the remake. Crazy right?

Box office receipts back this up. And between losing remake money, and risking their investment on a potentially great original idea, what do you think the studios will chose – based on loss aversion? Which choice are they making?

What does this mean for you as an audience member?

If you want to know why studios keep pumping out sequels and remakes – it’s because you keep watching them.

The obvious solution – go see indies instead of remakes.

You actually have better odds of seeing to a good film by walking into an indie you know nothing about then a studio film you’ve been seeing ads for six months, because competition for distribution for indies is so difficult that in order to get a theatrical release that indie likely had to be really good.

Studio properties are often greenlit based on name recognition of the underlying IP. It doesn’t matter if the remake is only mediocre, what matters to the studio is that you’ve heard of it, and that people will go just to see if it’s good.

If you see a film playing and you think “I’ve never heard of that” – GOOD – go see it.

Taking the risk of ‘trying something new’ is actually the safest bet.

And yes – this principle also applies to why people keep going to the same bad restaurants, stay in the same bad relationships, or keep living the same life they aren’t happy with. Loss aversion drives more then industry.

What does this means for filmmakers?

As the publisher of New World Comics noted – his first comic got great reviews, and those reviews didn’t do anything for sales. Lots of indie films get tons of awards, and never get distribution.

Why? Even though indies may be great, people don’t feel like they’ll be missing out if they don’t see them.

What this means is rather then saying “this movie is great,” filmmakers who want their film seen need to communicate, “if you don’t see this – you’ll be missing out.”

It’s a slight change in message, but a big one.

Good is not enough. It has to be an event. An exclusive. You can’t risk not seeing it.

“Don’t miss out.”

P.S. Sign up for the email list for my upcoming documentary on American Circumcision. It’s going to be a cultural event that will share exclusive stories and life-changing information you won’t hear anywhere else. Don’t miss out. Sign-up now.

Read more: How We Could See Films If There Were No Theaters

Inspired by a lot of discussion I’ve seen online about the decline of movie theaters (and a few Max Landis tweets) I decided to tackle the question – how would we watch movies, if there were no movie theaters? – and in the process wrote a long essay about data-driven filmmaking and how we could completely disrupt the film industry

Now to be clear – I don’t think the shared experience of movies will go away. Sitting together and watching performed drama goes all the way back to ancient Greece. One of our most primal experience is sitting around the campfire and hearing stories. However, the way we fulfill that need may change. This is one way it could work.

The App Based Movie Theater

So humans have a primal need to experience story in groups, but there are no more movie theaters. How would you find people who want to watch the same stuff as you?

With an app of course.

Imagine you open up an app on your phone, and enter your movie tastes. You mark what upcoming releases you want to see and when you’d be free to see them. Then the app pings you when there is a large enough interest in your area and someone can host a screening.

Those with a nice home theater system mark that they can host. Maybe those hosts can even buy the film with a license to screen it through the app. At the designated time, people show up and have a house party and home screening. People bring their own food, have a potluck, and talk about the movie after. You could even match with other theater-goers based on certain preferences – talking or no-talking during the movie, children allowed or no children, or costume theme party screenings.

And like that – you’ve got the Airbnb of movie theaters, connecting those big home entertainment systems people buy and turning them into local film communities.

This app would really shine with independent films and documentaries.

Imagine if you could set up a screening of an issue documentary at someone’s house, invite people who would be likely to support or be interested in the issue the film is about (based on their info and preferences), and then partner with a local non-profit working on the issue to get them involved through an event afterward.

Imagine if you could host a screening of a foreign film too strange or obscure for theatrical distribution in the United States, and see it the day it comes out overseas in a local home theater with other people as fanatical as you are. You could even select for others who speak the language the film is in.

When I lived in a small town it was difficult to find some of the films I was into. They came to New York and Los Angeles, and I had to wait for them on DVD several months later. There may have been other people interested in those films, but how could I find them? This app would solve that problem and allow films that might not get global distribution to be seen by people all over the world.

Payment & Data

You could do a subscription model (like Netflix). You could do paid screenings. You could do a hybrid – allowing people to find certain screenings for free, pay for others, and cover certain screenings with a flat subscription fee.

You could even use phone location data to see which film screening people actually show up to, and count the number of people there when a movie starts. You could see when people pause the movie, when they move or shift during it… There would be a treasure trove of data.

Here is where it really gets interesting:

Right now the film industry is really bad at tracking data. When The Dark Knight came out, Warner Brothers collected thousands of email addresses and phone numbers in their viral marketing campaign. When The Dark Knight Rises came out, did they save any of that data? If you liked The Dark Knight enough to participate in a viral campaign, isn’t it safe to say you’d probably be interested in The Dark Knight Rises?

Part of the dominance of Netflix is their data. Netflix knows when people pause or stop watching a movie. From their data, they realized people who like David Fincher movies also really like Kevin Spacey. From that came House of Cards. They also knew most people binge watch TV shows, and don’t hook until after the sixth episode. From that came the “release all the episodes at once” model they have now.

Once they released the show, they found half the viewers quit watching after the opening scene where Kevin Spacey’s character smothers a dog. (But they still elected to keep it in, because that scene filters out viewers who wouldn’t like the rest of the shows dark tone. Data doesn’t have to take out creativity – it can actually enhance it. But that’s another post.)

What other filmmaking lessons could we get from this kind of data?

The Rise of Local Film

But this kind of data doesn’t just benefit the big guys.

Imagine if you could see what kind of films were popular in your town. You could create a local short film, referencing locations and events only people from your town would get. You could post your trailer directly to the app and distribute through local screenings. You could even connect your film with a local charity or group you want to help, by featuring them in the film.

Imagine if your local SPCA could hire a filmmaker to tell a story featuring the animals they want adopted. Your local candidate could create a documentary short on a problem they want to tackle. You could connect local filmmakers with each other, by helping short film creators hold a shared screening. You could do crazy experiments and events, where local filmmakers each get a page of a script to shoot one scene, and then put those scenes together into a finished film.

That’s as local as it gets. But you could take this data and apply it to making films at any level.

This app would allow for a whole new market of highly targeted niche films.

Right now, filmmakers are shooting in the dark. We know there is an audience for certain genres – horror, action, superhero movies, etc. – but we don’t really much solid data beyond that. Film execs will make broad sweeping generalizations about what kind of films could never sell, until some bold film proves them wrong. But beyond the box office, we don’t really have great data.

Now imagine if you could see all of the films someone had seen – what their profile preferences are and what their revealed preferences are. You could also see connections that you might not see otherwise. Say you discover people who like horror films also really like coming of age films? Would you greenlight a coming of age horror film?

Now imagine you could see EXACTLY how many people had that preference. You could budget based on those preferences – if you know 500,000 people want to see the kind of film you’re making, and and each viewer is worth 4$, and maybe only 10% will actually show up and convert to sales, then you know you can budget $200,000 and expect to break even.

You could see what actors they liked, what styles, what directors. You could even see how long they prefer their movies, or where they pause. Maybe kung fu fans like short movies and romance fans like long ones. And you could see how much money each audience spends each year. Maybe horror fans are a smaller group, but see more films, but dramas are a big audience that only shows up for a few big films. Maybe those niches are backwards. But with this data – we’ll know.

What genres and preferences might you discover?

With this kind of data there would be surprises. Maybe you discover that a large number of the people who like documentaries on Buddhism also really like old monster movies. Could you make an old monster movie with Buddhist themes? That’s the kind of film no one would greenlight now. But you could make it if you had the data to show you had the audience.

This data could actually create new genres. I’d bet money on the fact that there is at least one HUGE crossover genre no one has discovered. Did people know there was an audience for stoner films with tons of action before Pineapple Express? What other genres could we create? (Don’t even get me started on what could happen if you combined movie movie data with peoples porn preferences.)

In fact – filmmakers could see this data and create their films based on their target audience. Picking projects can be a daunting task, but imagine if you could see the exact potential audience for each type of film. You could even see through the app how many other projects are in development or in production that would compete for that space, and what budget they’re working at.

Using this app, you could seek out niches that aren’t being served – and might not even exist yet. Instead of asking “what film can I get made?” you’d ask “could we do a fantasy film starring Kurt Russell that has a darker tone for a potential audience of three million?”

The Data-Driven Studio

This may sound like a cold calculating way to make movies, and that it should “just be about the director’s vision, man” but I hate to tell you – studios are already making movies this way – they’re just doing it really badly.

How many original ideas get green-lit anymore? Instead of asking what the audience is for a sci-fi military film, the studio buys the rights to the board-game Battleship – because you’ve heard of that – and then throws tent-pole money at it in the hopes the name recognition of the board game will mean massive success.

How much more creative could filmmakers be if instead of being limited to adapting pre-existing IP – some of which isn’t really movie-worthy – they were able to see exactly what audiences there were for genres. Would Battleship have been a better movie if they’d had the data to see how many people liked military action films, sci-fi, Michael Bay style filmmaking, each of the actors in the film, and what the crossover between those groups was? Battleship cast Rhianna. Did they have the data on what her fans like, or how many would turn out for a sci-fi action film?

Okay – maybe changing those elements wouldn’t have been enough. Maybe it wouldn’t have even been green-lit at all. Maybe they would have seen those audiences don’t crossover with each other and that the people who love the board game Battleship aren’t hardcore military film fans, sci-fi action fans, or Rhianna fans. Maybe instead they would have found military sci-fi fans also really like Nick Cave, and have had him write and score a sci-fi western based on another IP that audience also likes.

Do you see how this could actually create MORE creative films?

A prompt like that would actually increase filmmakers creativity. Limitations induce creativity.

When I was a film student, I participated in something called the Adrenaline film Project. We got a genre, a prop, and line of dialogue, and had to come back with a finished film in 72-hours. If you’d told us “go make a movie,” we’d have been paralyzed by choice. Knowing it had to happen that weekend, and that we only had certain actors and locations, it had to be a certain genre, and include certain elements actually made us more creative.

This data-driven style of filmmaking would just gives filmmakers a prompt, a springboard for their creativity. I’ll bet you’ve already imagined what at least one of the random ideas I’ve thrown out in this post would look like as a real movie. Your version would undoubtedly look different then mine, with your own unique take. Don’t you think given a billion points of data like that a good filmmaker could do the same?

People like to complain about the studio system, and how they’ll only green-light adaptations and remakes. I think filmmakers would prefer a world where we can create crazy Buddhist monsters movies, or Nick Cave scored sci-fi westerns. I understand why the studios make the decisions do. They want to turn a profit, and they aren’t sure those original ideas will find an audience. App-based data would allow us to make those crazy films AND show the studios there will be an audience.

It would make original ideas the smart business decision.

If the studios don’t use this data, I’m certain independent filmmakers will. Remember – you could distribute through the app. Studios won’t greenlight your hard-R furry romance, but the data says the audience is there? Crowdfund it, make it, and get it to an audience that is being under-served.

Oh yeah – crowdfunding. I forgot. Imagine you could target people with your crowdfunding campaign based on their movie tastes. Now, every filmmaker would have better data then the all biggest studios have now. They could go from data, to idea, to crowdfunding, to distribution – all totally independently. You might not even need a studio.

This could save movies, bring local communities together, and create totally new audiences and genres.

Of course, it’s just an idea.

Back to the Present

Right now, we still have movie theaters. I’m not even sure they’re in as much trouble as everyone says they are. Here in Austin, every screening I try to go to at the Alamo Drafthouse seems to be sold out. Maybe it’s just regular mainstream theaters that are hurting, but if they are, it’s in part because they offer a weaker experience.

When I talk to people about the problems of movie theaters, many seem okay with losing them. The mainstream theater experience has become a hassle. Prices are high, people talk and don’t respect the movie, cell phone screens glow from the audience, the food sucks and isn’t healthy. Staying home where you can pause the movie and bring your own food seems like a better experience.

People feel about movie theaters the way they did about taxis before Uber. Yeah, they suck, but what can you do?

The industry is ripe for disruption.

Admittedly, an idea like this would change drastically through execution. I realize an idea is only the beginning. Maybe my idea would work, or maybe another version of it would. I don’t have the reach to implement and idea like this yet and find out. Maybe someone who does will read this post and run with it, or maybe someday when I’ve got the right connections, a larger audience, or the film industry is in greater trouble, someone will dig this post up and reach out to me to see if we can implement. But I think it – or something like – it is the future of cinema.

One last word of warning – the taxi industry had no innovation for decades before Uber came along. They could have created their own app-based system to hail a cab years before Uber destroyed their business. If film execs are smart, they’d start collecting data and creating app-based film audiences now – rather then waiting till some smart developer scoops their industry. The taxi industry made a “hail-a-cab” app after Uber came out, by then it was too late.

Don’t wait till it’s too late. Innovate now.

Read more: In Memory of Jonathon Conte

I recently finished Primalbranding: Create Zealots for Your Brand, Your Company, and Your Future by Patrick Hanlon, a book about marketing and tribe building. What makes apple users a fanatical tribe, and Dell users just customers? How does one create tribe?

Hanlon is looking at tribe building through the lens of marketing and business, but the language he draws from comes from social movements, belief systems, and actual tribal living.

To have a tribe, there are seven requirements:

• The Creation Story
• The Creed
• The Icons
• The Rituals
• The Pagans (Nonbelievers)
• The Sacred Words
• The Leader

Since I’m currently working on a film that features a social movement, I went through the current edit to see if they fit these seven traits. Sure enough, they did. However, some groups were stronger on some traits more than others. Using the seven aspects of tribe, I could see how they could improve.

Can you see how you’d strengthen your brand or tribe?

The story behind the making of my film fits all seven of these aspects. I’d been reluctant to talk about why I made this film publicly because it’s almost too wild to be believed. Now I see it as an aspect tribe – the Creation Story. When I’m ready, closer to release, I may tell the full tale.

I recommend Hanoln’s book, but not for selling sugar water. There are more important communities to build. If I have one criticism of the book, it’s that he didn’t take his ideas far enough, out of the marketing world into the real tribes whose language he is borrowing.

I know some tribes. Not brands. Real tribes. One thing I notice about all of them:

The stronger the story, and the stronger these seven traits – the stronger the tribe.

If you’re interested in hearing the story of one of the most fascinating social movements of the past century, sign up for my film list here. 

Read more: Persuasion Lessons from Veritasium

 

Unpopular opinion: Jessie Eisenberg was going the right direction with his Lex Luthor performance in Batman v Superman.

Think about how you’d respond if you were directing a tentpole film based on a Disney ride, and your lead actor said, “I’m gonna do a flamboyant Keith Richards impersonation for my role.”

Before the release of Pirates of the Caribbean, Disney executives thought Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow character would bomb. They wanted him out of the movie. He ended up becoming the center of the franchise.

Eisenberg’s autistic neuroatypical Silicon Valley Lex Luthor could have become as iconic with a few adjustments – the kind he likely did not get during chaos of making of Batman v Superman.

A different director might have guided Eisenberg’s performance more, till his verbal ticks became part of the who he was, rather then an affectation. What we saw felt like mid-process version of the character – one that needed one or two more drafts – but then again, so did most of the movie.

(Personally, I found the performance really interesting – much moreso then any previous version I’ve seen of the character – though I acknowledge it needed more work.)

Like most of the choices in Batman v Superman, there was a “safe” way to play the character, and instead, Eisenberg made a bold choice that didn’t quite work. As an filmmaker, I can see what adjustments I might make, but I admire the film and the actor for making a bold choice (as I said in my earlier commentary).

The negative reviews have been very gleeful in their attempts to tear this film down (If you’re interested on more on that, check out this video here). Those same reviewers then turn around and ask why Hollywood always seems to do the same boring thing again and again. They don’t realize – not every bold swing will connect. You don’t get the Jack Sparrows without a few Lex Luthors.

Read More: The Bold Swing of Batman v Superman

Veritasium is a science education channel with over three million YouTube subscribers.

The interesting thing about Veritasium is that even though what they are teaching is agreed-upon science, they still have to use storytelling and persuasion techniques.

Veritasium creator Derek Muller found when he did his PhD thesis on teaching science through filmmaking that simply stating the facts was not enough. Instead he had to…

Always Start With The Misconceptions

In his experiments with students, Derek Muller found that just presenting the facts made students more confident in their misconceptions. As a consequence, Derek concluded:

“A clear expository summary is worse then no instruction at all.” – Derek Muller

When he presented the misconceptions first, and then let one character lead the other to the correct answer through social dialogue, students said they felt confused – yet their test scores improved.

In a way, this makes sense. Humans are social creatures. We learn though dialogue.

There are a couple lessons here:

• If you’re going to make a documentary, interview both sides. A balanced documentary is actually more persuasive then if you just share one point of view.
• It’s okay if people say they feel confused by a complex issue. When people feel something is complex, they apply greater mental focus, and are more likely to arrive at an educated answer.

This is good news for documentary filmmakers. It means we can include complexity, controversy, and multiple points of view — and become more persuasive by doing so.

People Learn Through Stories, Not Data

Another finding Veritasium shared is that anecdote is more convincing then data. People are better at generalizing from an individual story then a statistical result.

Again, this makes sense from a scientific perspective. Humans did not evolve doing large scale studies. They evolved to learn through personal experience.

For documentary filmmakers this means:

• When talking about a large group, pick one representative and tell their story.
• If you’re going to include studies, find a personal story in them.

Documentary filmmakers have known for a long time that telling people’s stories is much more effect then barraging your audience with statistics.

As a scientist, you may believe data is more reliable then anecdote, but if you’re trying to educate, the science says you should lead with anecdote. Ain’t that ironic?

Storytelling Required

What Veritasium is teaching isn’t controversial. No one has a deeply held belief system that conflicts with Newton’s third law. Yet, they still require storytelling and persuasion to educate their audience. On more controversial issues, the need for storytelling increases.

If you’re interested in storytelling that deals with a complex issue with numerous misconceptions, you’ll be interested in a documentary I’m making called American Circumcision. You can learn more about it and subscribe for updates here.

Read more: American Circumcision

Batman v Superman is the highest budget fan-film ever made, with all the awesomeness and problems that come with that. In compressing information, it creates an new style of storytelling. Although it doesn’t totally work, it’s a bold interesting film.

I won’t spoil anything big, but I recommend you read this article after you’ve seen the film. In fact, don’t read anything about Batman v Superman until you’ve seen it. The reviews have not been kind, even spawning internet memes of Ben Affleck’s sad reaction to them. However…

The Reviews Are Wrong

…but not in the way you think.

First, reviews, like all media, are driven by economics. A long insightful critique, like the one one I’m about to share with you, doesn’t drive clicks the way a really savage quote does. People want to see a fight. They’d prefer blood and gods, but they’ll settle for words. The same force that makes us want to see Batman vs. Superman makes us want to see a wimpy critic take the piss out of a multi-million dollar film.

Based on the reviews, I expected Batman v Superman to be a mess. Instead what I found was a very bold swing that doesn’t quite connect – but could have. An experiment. The kind other filmmakers can learn from if they’re willing to take the lessons.

Batman v Superman Invents a New Style of Editing

In a typical film, you see full scenes, beat by beat. Superman sees a child about to die in a fire on the news. He turns from the TV, finds a telephone booth (or whatever the modern equivalent is) and changes. Then you see him fly through the sky. He enters the burning building. The child is scared. He tells her it’ll be okay. The building collapses around them, but he gets her out. He hands her to her mom, and the grateful people thank him.

But this isn’t a typical film. Batman v Superman has a lot of plot points to juggle, and a lot of characters to introduce. It doesn’t have time of a full scene like that – and frankly, we’ve all seen that scene before. The moment we see that kid in a burning building on TV, we know what’s going to happen – so Batman v Superman just cuts to that moment.

Seriously – in Batman v Superman, Clark Kent sees a child in a burning building on TV all the way in Mexico, and the next time we see him he is floating down from the building as Superman holding her safe. All that middle stuff is cut out. Instead of getting a full scene, we get an impression and fill in the blanks.

Except, Batman v Superman doesn’t just give us impressions of scenes. It gives impressions of scenes crosscut. So that Superman-saves-a-child scene is crosscut with Bruce Wayne stealing data from Lexcorp, Lex Luthor giving an awkward speech, and Diana aka Wonder Woman making a mysterious appearance to steal the data Bruce is stealing. Plus, each of those scenes are never shown in full either – we just get impressions of those too.

What Batman v Superman amounts to is a full-on fanboy montage, that assumes you already know these characters and know what is going to happen. And you know what – they’re right.

The Montage Theory of Batman v Superman

The film opens with Batman’s parents being killed. I saw this film at the Alamo Drafthouse, where they were showing Batman and Superman clips before the film. One of the clips they played was a montage from Vulture, showing every version of Batman’s parent’s death. (Watch it yourself here.) We all know that story. Why tell it again?

Well, the film doesn’t. It just gives us an impression of that death, crosscut with a young Bruce Wayne falling down a well. Since the two shots cut together form a new idea, the film creates the impression that this death sends Bruce tumbling into the world of the bat – which is the core of the Batman story.

Where this montage theory fails is when the story becomes complex. Typical films show every beat of a scene for the sake of clarity. If you’re not familiar with the Superman mythos, then cutting from a child in a burning building to Superman carrying the girl out, will raise a lot of questions. How did he get her out of there? Why didn’t they burn up? How did he get all the way to that building in time?

These kind of questions abound in later parts of the film. With each of them, a couple extra moments could have added a world of clarity. As a fan, I can fill some of them in, but others feel like they were just done because it would be cool. Which leads to the real problem…

Fan-service by Fanboys for Fanboys

Many of these montage moment feel like they were done for fan service, not story. The most obvious is Batman’s second dream sequence where Batman imagines a post-apocalyptic future ruled by Superman, and his army of humans and flying insect people (really – I’m told they’re a comic reference).

While the sequence is cool – the kind of thing that would be completely at home in a comic or fan film – you could take this sequence out of Batman v Superman and not lose any story. It’s only there for it’s coolness.

Synder does many of fan service elements throughout the film, and many of them don’t hold up under scrutiny. When you ask “why did the character do that?” the real answer is probably “because it’d be cool.”

If you sent me fan film where Batman leads the rebellion in a world where Superman has gone bad and rules a post-apocalyptic wasteland, I’d open the link, but seeing it in the theater I just thought “this should have been a really cool deleted scene.”

Likewise, the changes made from the comic – like having Batman brand his enemies – feel like a fanboy saying “this would be badass!” without really thinking through what each change means for the character.

As a fan, I sympathize. There is a certain joy just seeing these characters appear onscreen. The woman next to me audibly gasped with joy when Wonder Woman appeared onscreen. And I have to admit – even some elements screenwriter in me didn’t think worked, the fan in me still appreciated.

Yet canon is held to a different standard then fan-fiction. Many of the choices in Batman v Superman felt like they were on the right track – they just needed an extra draft or two.

Fixing Through the Unexpected

The good of this montage style is that you compress a lot of story and action into each montage. The bad is that you lose clarity, and create moments that don’t make sense.

I believe Batman v Superman compresses scenes because it assumes the audience already knows what will happen. They’re right, but it raises the question – why include these scenes at all?

A good screenwriter will anticipate how the audience expects a scene will play out, and then delivers in an unexpected way. For example, what if Superman doesn’t save the girl? Then what?

Of course as fans, we’d be mad if that happened. So writers do a triple fake-out. First, you think he’ll save the girl. Then the building collapses! Superman emerges from the rubble. He makes grim eye contact. It doesn’t look good. You think she’s dead. Then a third reveal – he pulls the girl from the rubble. She’s okay!

Three fake-outs – first, you think they’ll make it, then they won’t, then they do. No matter what you expected, there is a moment where you’re shocked and it doesn’t go as expected. If you want an example of this triple fake-out, watch any Joss Whedon show. (The first episode of Agents of Shield does one beat for beat with a potential character death.)

Batman v Superman could have leveraged audience expectations to whip their emotions around and take them on a ride. Instead, it uses those expectations to compress time, while delivering on them exactly as expected.

There is value in this style. It’s almost experimental, like a Guy Maddin film, where all but the best parts of a sequence are edited out, and those “best parts” are delivered on over and over again in money shots. Maybe this rapid montage style is necessary to introduce as many characters as Batman v Superman has.

However, I think if you were to combine this montage style with more traditional scenes, written to surprise audience expectations, you could get something really magical. Where Batman v Superman‘s fails, it fails from daring to greatly. It’s the kind of bold swing, I can respect.

Read More: The Real Problem With The Ghostbusters Reboot Trailer