Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

[Young Nug]

Idk man. It's just that considering him a god in general with all the chaos and destruction he caused in MoS just kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe that's what they were leaning towards with the court case in the beginning and having both Luthor and Batman against him. And while I feel that they did a better job establishing Lex Luthor in this trailer far more, I still can't help but feel they can make him feel more special. But I do have far more hope for that now with what I saw.

thats kinda the basis for the entire "false god" thing in general lol

 

it looks like clark has spent some time since MoS helping people out and doing stuff for the planet, and there are people who love and even worship him as a God for being a helpful superpowered being

 

then there's the camp that thinks he's a menace to society because he's a superpowered being that destroyed a city and is dangerous regardless of what he's done that the boy Lex either manipulates or jumpstarts. These people claim false god/prophet. that's what i was saying when I said they were taking a meta approach to it. MoS's climax fight was nothing but senseless and ridiculous destruction and the fallout from that is basically what separates the public into two camps and that's why the whole thing intrigues me and has a reason to exist beyond being a viral marketing campaign, which is definitely not what I think was intended from the start. 

[Clappy]

thats kinda the basis for the entire "false god" thing in general lol

it looks like clark has spent some time since MoS helping people out and doing stuff for the planet, and there are people who love and even worship him as a God for being a helpful superpowered being

then there's the camp that thinks he's a menace to society because he's a superpowered being that destroyed a city and is dangerous regardless of what he's done that the boy Lex either manipulates or jumpstarts. These people claim false god/prophet. that's what i was saying when I said they were taking a meta approach to it. MoS's climax fight was nothing but senseless and ridiculous destruction and the fallout from that is basically what separates the public into two camps and that's why the whole thing intrigues me and has a reason to exist beyond being a viral marketing campaign, which is definitely not what I think was intended from the start.

Ok you got a point about helping people out and I'm definitely seeing your meta perspective. I have been this whole time despite it bugging me because I don't feel it's been established that well, but it's just me I guess lol.

Also I think that it's blatantly obvious though it was started as viral marketing because that's what the teaser intended it to be before we saw this trailer. It did it's job to have people start questioning what the deal was with that graffiti of the message. Christopher Nolan has done viral marketing with EVERY superhero movie he has done from the start so I expected it to be viral marketing first because that's what he does. It's his strategy that has always been effective and I didn't expect it to change for this too.

[terminoob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fis-9Zqu2Ro

I surprisingly really enjoyed this trailer. I'm loving Eisenberg's take on Lex Luthor, and I think Ben Affleck ended up being fantastic casting. He's got great delivery. I went from not wanting to see this at all to probably gonna see it a week after it comes out.

[WhoBibbles]

The new trailer kind of give away too much but still I liked it. The movie is definetly on my top 10 most anticipated movies of 2016.

[Clappy]

I don't know.  I'm not trying to hate but I still get vibes of this either defying my expectations or being even worse than I'm initially fearing.  That trailer did nothing to help either case.  But I'm still seeing it irregardless just on the premise alone.

[terminoob]

1 hour ago, WhoBob said:

The new trailer kind of give away too much but still I liked it. The movie is definetly on my top 10 most anticipated movies of 2016.

I'm seeing this all over the place and I just don't get how it gave away too much. It "gave away" everything we already knew was gonna happen plus one extra thing that was probably pretty obvious from the get-go and that would've been obvious in a few months when the action figures hit the shelves. We still have at least two character reveals that weren't in the trailer, as well as the development of Lex as a character, the relationship that forms between Bruce and Clark, the relationship that forms between Bruce, Clark, and Diana, how Diana even figures into all of this, and how the final fight is going to play out.

[SpongeOddFan]

I think I'm really going to like this movie afer i saw this new trailer.

[TJ]

The trailer wasn't bad, but I enjoyed Cap 3's trailer leagues more. There's something about the MCU that the DCEU just can't touch yet. 

[JCM]

I'm not a fan of Eisenberg's take on Lex Luthor. He acts too much like a cartoonish supervillian, and the best depictions of Luthor have made him more subtle and calculating than the giggly mess you see in the trailer. I did enjoy everything else about the trailer, though, and I'm genuinely looking forward to this movie.

[terminoob]

15 minutes ago, JCM said:

I'm not a fan of Eisenberg's take on Lex Luthor. He acts too much like a cartoonish supervillian, and the best depictions of Luthor have made him more subtle and calculating than the giggly mess you see in the trailer. I did enjoy everything else about the trailer, though, and I'm genuinely looking forward to this movie.

I'm sure that's an act he's putting on for public appearances.

[Young Nug]

Eugh 

why the hell is Doomsday in this didn't they have enough to work with 

the addition of Wonder Woman was one thing but like why him why now 

I still like a lot about this and it looks good but the more I hear they keep adding to this the more I fear it's gonna turn into an Iron Man 2 or an Age of Ultron and like UGH

[Old Man Jenkins]

Yeah, Doomsday's inclusion feels pretty out there to me as well. I'd figure they'd save the thing that killed Superman for another movie all it's own, let alone save em for a movie that's already being headlined by Batman v Superman. The way his role is looking to play also seems more like Bizarro's thing: genetically engineered kryptonian abomination and evil version of Superman. The fact that Kal-El is the last known natural kryptonian birth in quite some time would make it seem like that much better for Bizarro to be his antithesis.

That aside, this is looking to be pretty cherry. I'm definitely warming up to Eisenberg and Affleck in their respective roles.

[terminoob]

7 hours ago, Old Man Jenkins said:

Yeah, Doomsday's inclusion feels pretty out there to me as well. I'd figure they'd save the thing that killed Superman for another movie all it's own, let alone save em for a movie that's already being headlined by Batman v Superman. The way his role is looking to play also seems more like Bizarro's thing: genetically engineered kryptonian abomination and evil version of Superman. The fact that Kal-El is the last known natural kryptonian birth in quite some time would make it seem like that much better for Bizarro to be his antithesis.

That aside, this is looking to be pretty cherry. I'm definitely warming up to Eisenberg and Affleck in their respective roles.

People on reddit are going off the assumption that they just decided to combine Doomsday and Bizzaro into one thing. Have it look like Doomsday (somewhat) but give it Bizzaro's backstory, which makes sense to me. They also definitely needed to add something to drive the conflict and bring the Trinity together, and Doomsday is an easy route to go because they're almost saving Darkseid for the Justice League and I don't think we're ready to see Lex suit up in his supersuit just yet.

Also, given that Doomsday continues to evolve, I'd say this is just his introduction and that we can bet on him coming back in a future movie to kill Superman.

[kev]

As much as I liked the trailer, it really ruins or spoils the "Batman v Superman" part.

[illiniguy34]

I've seen the trailer, but there are some things that just bug the absolute crap out of me.  While I'm excited that we'll be seeing Superman, Batman, Lex Luthor, Wonder Woman, AND Doomsday, I'm also incredibly worried. I mean at first, I thought this was gonna basically be like "The Dark Knight Returns". But after seeing that Doomsday is included, I suppose we'll also be fusing that with "The Death of Superman". Look DC, I know you're trying to catch up with Marvel and please the fans at the same time, but this is kind of ridiculous. I mean if you wanna put in another DC villain in this, that's fine. But if you do, go for someone that's on a smaller scale first like Brainiac, Bizarro, Metallo, etc. instead of having someone on a massive scale like Doomsday. Save Doomsday for later on in the DCCU's run. That said, I hope it turns out to be good considering how much I love DC. And before anyone gets the wrong idea, no, I'm not upset that they're being inaccurate to the comics. I'll always understand that comic book adaptations (hell, adaptations in general) always makes some changes to the source material to fit it into movie format, especially when it's in such an expansive universe like the DCCU. My problem is DC throwing in too much at once with this, where I'm worried things will get disjointed and make the movie fall on its face in the process.

Edited December 5, 2015 by illiniguy34

[terminoob]

2 hours ago, kevin_ng2010 said:

As much as I liked the trailer, it really ruins or spoils the "Batman v Superman" part.

What did you expect? Did you really think they were gonna kill each other or end the movie with them not on at least respectable terms?

1 hour ago, illiniguy34 said:

I've seen the trailer, but there are some things that just bug the absolute crap out of me.  While I'm excited that we'll be seeing Superman, Batman, Lex Luthor, Wonder Woman, AND Doomsday, I'm also incredibly worried. I mean at first, I thought this was gonna basically be like "The Dark Knight Returns". But after seeing that Doomsday is included, I suppose we'll also be fusing that with "The Death of Superman". Look DC, I know you're trying to catch up with Marvel and please the fans at the same time, but this is kind of ridiculous. I mean if you wanna put in another DC villain in this, that's fine. But if you do, go for someone that's on a smaller scale first like Brainiac, Bizarro, Metallo, etc. instead of having someone on a massive scale like Doomsday. Save Doomsday for later on in the DCCU's run. That said, I hope it turns out to be good considering how much I love DC. And before anyone gets the wrong idea, no, I'm not upset that they're being inaccurate to the comics. I'll always understand that comic book adaptations (hell, adaptations in general) always makes some changes to the source material to fit it into movie format, especially when it's in such an expansive universe like the DCCU. My problem is DC throwing in too much at once with this, where I'm worried things will get disjointed and make the movie fall on its face in the process.

I just don't get how they're throwing too much into this. We knew Wonder Woman was gonna be in it, and Doomsday makes perfect sense as the unifying villain. If this a lead-up to the Justice League, then you can't just have Batman and Superman fight and then end it. You need to present a reason as to why there needs to be a Justice League - they don't really have a Nick Fury analogue that goes around telling them they might be needed someday, they just know they're going to be needed. Throwing in this extra mega-threat of Doomsday, one of the most physically powerful villains in the DCU, definitely justifies the need for a Justice League. They'll probably go their separate ways after the fight's over, but at least when the Justice League movie starts they'll respect each other and they won't have to dedicate a chunk of time in that movie to Batman and Superman so they'll be able to just get straight into it.

Marvel's throwing in pretty much every hero they have in Civil War, but no one's making a fuss about that. If people are excited for Marvel to juggle that many characters (especially after how much people didn't like Age of Ultron), then I don't get why people criticize DC for trying to juggle much less than that.

[WhoBibbles]

37 minutes ago, terminoob said:

What did you expect? Did you really think they were gonna kill each other or end the movie with them not on at least respectable terms?

I just don't get how they're throwing too much into this. We knew Wonder Woman was gonna be in it, and Doomsday makes perfect sense as the unifying villain. If this a lead-up to the Justice League, then you can't just have Batman and Superman fight and then end it. You need to present a reason as to why there needs to be a Justice League - they don't really have a Nick Fury analogue that goes around telling them they might be needed someday, they just know they're going to be needed. Throwing in this extra mega-threat of Doomsday, one of the most physically powerful villains in the DCU, definitely justifies the need for a Justice League. They'll probably go their separate ways after the fight's over, but at least when the Justice League movie starts they'll respect each other and they won't have to dedicate a chunk of time in that movie to Batman and Superman so they'll be able to just get straight into it.

Marvel's throwing in pretty much every hero they have in Civil War, but no one's making a fuss about that. If people are excited for Marvel to juggle that many characters (especially after how much people didn't like Age of Ultron), then I don't get why people criticize DC for trying to juggle much less than that.

I don't really mind them including more characters into this movie but I'm wondering how they are gonna pull Doomsay off because it seems to me they were shoehorning him into movie but still I'm really looking forward to this movie. As for Civil War, Yeah, Marvel added Black Panther and Spider Man into Civil War and I wonder how they are gonna pull them off as well but Civil War did have a lot superheros, so yeah. I've actually seen some people being skeptical about Civil War movie, especially because it doesn't have enough characters, how ironic  

[Young Nug]

3 hours ago, terminoob said:

Marvel's throwing in pretty much every hero they have in Civil War, but no one's making a fuss about that. If people are excited for Marvel to juggle that many characters (especially after how much people didn't like Age of Ultron), then I don't get why people criticize DC for trying to juggle much less than that.

Marvel also has an established track record with their cinematic universe though, which is why I think people are a little more lax with how many people Avengers 2.5 Civil War has lined up. It's still entirely possible CW could crumble under the weight of the MCU itself like IM2 did and Ultron threatened to, but I also think the faith people have in the Russo Brothers as directors and Markus and McFeely as writers (the Winter Soldier team). DC, on the other hand, only has Man of Steel as any real indication as to what this is gonna be like, and I guess the Dark Knight trilogy, but MoS was very divisive and even the last DKR had hiccups people didn't like (even though that's not part of the DCCU but it's got similar things going for it). People are just a lot more worried since we don't know if DC can pull it off, considering the expanded universe they're creating is a fledgling. Even Marvel has only managed to make two really good ensemble movies.

3 hours ago, terminoob said:

I just don't get how they're throwing too much into this. We knew Wonder Woman was gonna be in it, and Doomsday makes perfect sense as the unifying villain. If this a lead-up to the Justice League, then you can't just have Batman and Superman fight and then end it. You need to present a reason as to why there needs to be a Justice League - they don't really have a Nick Fury analogue that goes around telling them they might be needed someday, they just know they're going to be needed. Throwing in this extra mega-threat of Doomsday, one of the most physically powerful villains in the DCU, definitely justifies the need for a Justice League. They'll probably go their separate ways after the fight's over, but at least when the Justice League movie starts they'll respect each other and they won't have to dedicate a chunk of time in that movie to Batman and Superman so they'll be able to just get straight into it.

It justifies them, but its just kind of a lot. This movie's going to be juggling establishing a brand-new Batman and Gotham (at least I think Gotham), catching up with Clark and what's gone on since MOS, establishing wherever the hell Wonder Woman came from, Luthor and his ambitions, the conflict between Young Bat and Supe$$, and now Doomsday. It all makes sense, definitely - but, it just seems like a lot. I get what you're saying though. I think a big part of it has to do with how the movie's been marketed too.

The very title is Batman versus Superman and that kind of implies the film's cornerstone will be that eponymous battle. The biggest points I can compare this to are the first Avengers and Civil War, so I'll use those. OG Avengers is more of an ensemble film than this, and it's promoted as such, and it succeeds because while there is fighting amongst the group, equal time is spent with Loki, who is just as important to the movie as the Avengers assembling by the end (bless Coulson's heart). Half of the movie is the Avengers working out their differences, the other half is them against Loki, because it's that kind of movie. It worked.

Civil War however, is different from Avengers, more akin to Dawn of Justice. It's main cornerstone is advertised as the battle between Tony and Cap. There's a bigger evil (the Sokovia Accords) that has caused that, but it's nothing but a driving force - the sole, main conflict (as far as we know) is Tony and the people that agree with him, versus Steve and the ones that agree with him. The movie, while it has a large cast, still has a focus, can still be boiled down to something simple.

Dawn of Justice should follow the same thing - it was advertised as a fight between Bruce and Clark, just as Civil War was between Stark and Rogers. Wonder Woman got added to the mix, and so did Lex, but that's okay - they represent different sides, and even possible subplots that aren't necessarily bad. Potential. These could be the helpers for the opposing sides. Doomsday is where I start to doubt, though. It's like having Avengers be all about the Avengers fighting each other and throwing Loki in in the last half hour instead of the halfway-into-the-movie unite method Whedon employed. Or having Thanos come in in the last half hour of Civil War and have Tony and Cap say "hey we're dumb lets' not fight bro". 

Doomsday hasn't been advertised as a big part of the movie. From the trailers, although we don't know, it looks like the main focus will be on everything BUT Doomsday - Lex, Gotham, establishing Batman, WW, the jump from MoS to now, Batman fighting Superman, setup for future DC movies- and that Doomsday comes in after the majority of that's done and over with. Which would be fine and dandy if say, this was Mr. Freeze, but since Doomsday is such an important villain, he just feels tacked on and unimportant, which doesn't seem smart for such an important villain. 

If they needed something to unite the two, they should've given Doomsday more focus in the trailers (or hell, as it may turn out, in the film), or gone with a less important villain and just hinted at Doomsday for later. I just think it would've worked better and that's why people feel like it's just a little too much.

[terminoob]

3 minutes ago, Aquatic Nuggets said:

Marvel also has an established track record with their cinematic universe though, which is why I think people are a little more lax with how many people Avengers 2.5 Civil War has lined up. It's still entirely possible CW could crumble under the weight of the MCU itself like IM2 did and Ultron threatened to, but I also think the faith people have in the Russo Brothers as directors and Markus and McFeely as writers (the Winter Soldier team). DC, on the other hand, only has Man of Steel as any real indication as to what this is gonna be like, and I guess the Dark Knight trilogy, but MoS was very divisive and even the last DKR had hiccups people didn't like (even though that's not part of the DCCU but it's got similar things going for it). People are just a lot more worried since we don't know if DC can pull it off, considering the expanded universe they're creating is a fledgling. Even Marvel has only managed to make two really good ensemble movies.

It justifies them, but its just kind of a lot. This movie's going to be juggling establishing a brand-new Batman and Gotham (at least I think Gotham), catching up with Clark and what's gone on since MOS, establishing wherever the hell Wonder Woman came from, Luthor and his ambitions, the conflict between Young Bat and Supe$$, and now Doomsday. It all makes sense, definitely - but, it just seems like a lot. I get what you're saying though. I think a big part of it has to do with how the movie's been marketed too.

The very title is Batman versus Superman and that kind of implies the film's cornerstone will be that eponymous battle. The biggest points I can compare this to are the first Avengers and Civil War, so I'll use those. OG Avengers is more of an ensemble film than this, and it's promoted as such, and it succeeds because while there is fighting amongst the group, equal time is spent with Loki, who is just as important to the movie as the Avengers assembling by the end (bless Coulson's heart). Half of the movie is the Avengers working out their differences, the other half is them against Loki, because it's that kind of movie. It worked.

Civil War however, is different from Avengers, more akin to Dawn of Justice. It's main cornerstone is advertised as the battle between Tony and Cap. There's a bigger evil (the Sokovia Accords) that has caused that, but it's nothing but a driving force - the sole, main conflict (as far as we know) is Tony and the people that agree with him, versus Steve and the ones that agree with him. The movie, while it has a large cast, still has a focus, can still be boiled down to something simple.

Dawn of Justice should follow the same thing - it was advertised as a fight between Bruce and Clark, just as Civil War was between Stark and Rogers. Wonder Woman got added to the mix, and so did Lex, but that's okay - they represent different sides, and even possible subplots that aren't necessarily bad. Potential. These could be the helpers for the opposing sides. Doomsday is where I start to doubt, though. It's like having Avengers be all about the Avengers fighting each other and throwing Loki in in the last half hour instead of the halfway-into-the-movie unite method Whedon employed. Or having Thanos come in in the last half hour of Civil War and have Tony and Cap say "hey we're dumb lets' not fight bro". 

Doomsday hasn't been advertised as a big part of the movie. From the trailers, although we don't know, it looks like the main focus will be on everything BUT Doomsday - Lex, Gotham, establishing Batman, WW, the jump from MoS to now, Batman fighting Superman, setup for future DC movies- and that Doomsday comes in after the majority of that's done and over with. Which would be fine and dandy if say, this was Mr. Freeze, but since Doomsday is such an important villain, he just feels tacked on and unimportant, which doesn't seem smart for such an important villain. 

If they needed something to unite the two, they should've given Doomsday more focus in the trailers (or hell, as it may turn out, in the film), or gone with a less important villain and just hinted at Doomsday for later. I just think it would've worked better and that's why people feel like it's just a little too much.

Okay, fair point with Marvel having a track record. They've proven they can handle it, sort of, but I still think people are too quick to forgive Iron Man 2 and Age of Ultron for all their failings just because they think the directors and writers can handle it, even though we also thought that of Jon Favreau and Joss Whedon.

As for what they're juggling, it still doesn't seem like too much to me. Civil War has the conflict of Tony and Cap, the interpersonal relationshiips between both sides (Falcon, Black Widow, Ant-Man, Vision, Scarlet Witch, War Machine... whoever else I'm forgetting) and giving everyone a reason why they're on the side they're on and enough focus to anyone that might decide to switch sides, Bucky, the introduction to Black Panther, the introduction to Spiderman, and whatever else. Maybe I'm giving DC too much credit, even though I hated Man of Steel. We don't need to know about Themyscira in this movie because that'll almost certainly be introduced in Wonder Woman's movie so right now all we need is for her to pop up either in Metropolis or Gotham and just be Diana. Allude to the fact that she's from Themyscira, maybe have an establishing shot there so we get an idea of what it looks like, but don't get into it because it's not important to this movie. We don't need to know everything about Gotham because we're getting a Suicide Squad movie, where I'm sure we'll learn everything we need to know, and also a new solo Batman film. Obviously we'll see Gotham and some shots of it, but I don't think we need to get everything out of it right now. The big things are paying a lot of attention to Bruce and Lex and developing them as characters and how the world is reacting to Superman, and that seems to be doable because that's all going to tie together to create the central conflict of the movie.

It's true that it'd be weird for them to do any of this if it were a Marvel movie, but it's not a Marvel movie. Throwing in Thanos (or anyone, I guess, but I'll just say Thanos because you used him as the example [though Thanos is more the analogue to Darkseid, and I would've hated Darkseid being in this]) make sense in Civil War because the Avengers are already a team so we can see them fight with each other - we don't need anything else other than the characters because we already know them and care about them and there doesn't need to be any other big bad in that movie. But Civil War also wouldn't work if it came before the Avengers. It only works as an Avengers story. Marvel doesn't really have a movie quite like this because they went a different route when they were setting up their universe. The Justice League isn't together yet. Neither Bruce or Clark know of any real threat to the world (well, Bruce knows Superman, but by the end of this he'll come to realize that Superman's alright and that there are bigger fish to fry). Bruce knows Gotham, and as far as Clark's concerned he just killed his biggest threat. Dealing with small fries like.... anyone from Batman's rogues gallery wouldn't really work because Batman can deal with them on his own, and for the most part Superman can deal with his rogues gallery on his own too. We needed someone strong enough to warrant three heroes teaming up, and an incarnation of Doomsday fits that bill because in the Death of Superman comic it starts with the Justice League fighting Doomsday, it's just that only Superman can actually do anything about it. It won't be the version of Doomsday we see in Death of Superman, obviously, just an incarnation. If they included, like, Brainiac, then they'd need to deal with Brainiac as a character and give him a backstory and motivation and all of that and then they'd be juggling Lex and Brainiac and that'd be a mess. Doomsday is an easy "here's this bad guy that's bad because of no reason in particular". And because Doomsday by nature constantly evolves, he can totally believably be beaten by three heroes right now since he's still in his infancy and then believably come back later when he's strong enough to kill Superman - should they choose to go down that route.

Having Bruce and Clark end on having mutual respect is a satisfying conclusion to the arc they seem to be introducing in the movie, and I feel like having them team up to fight something bigger than them (literally) is a good way to get them to accomplish that because otherwise it'd just be them talking and I care more about seeing heroes fight than I do about them talking, and I think Doomsday works. If they don't use Doomsday again, then oh well. I'd like them to use him again just so they can have a movie dealing with the death of Superman, but I also personally wouldn't want to sit through a movie dealing with the return of Superman.

But, I mean, for all I know this movie's gonna be total garbage. I'm not the biggest fan of Zack Snyder, and, like I said, I hated Man of Steel. However, it seems to me that they're hitting the correct beats they need to hit in order to set up the Justice League and the rest of the DCCU. We get the Trinity, we get Lex, we get glimpses of Gotham, we get the idea of bigger threats in the world, we'll get the rumored cameos of Aquaman and Vic Stone. On paper and in the trailer it all works for me.

[Clappy]

Not going to join the quote pyramid brigade, but Nugs paranoia is pretty much what I've been feeling since before the trailers with all these announcements.  It feels like Warner Brothers and DC is trying to stuff way too much into this one movie since they have The Justice League coming out next year.  I have no idea if Suicide Squad is going to help build it up at all.

Spoiler

Although I do know about Batffleck's cameo.

I know that Wonder Woman's movie is due in 2017 before Justice League.  But I hope that's more about giving Wonder Woman a proper build than having more Justice League subplots, which I expect will be the case.  

They just have so much going on in this one movie and have so much to establish and I don't know if I can give full trust into DCU being able to pull all this off yet.  It has nothing to do with me thinking Man of Steel kinda sucks in retrospect.  I may not be the biggest fan of new Superman but my thoughts on that alone won't let me judge an entire movie. It has nothing to do with Zack Snyder.  He's only had two bad movies in the past ten years.  He gets hated on way too much.  If anything, the casting has made me eaten my words with how the trailers have presented themselves.  That more than anything is making me think this could be better than I'm expecting.

If anything, I am seeing this whether it's good or whether it's total horseshit.  I want to give DCU a fair chance to prove that all of these key points that need to be established in just one movie to warrant the Justice League next year, get proper build.  Marvel was able to do this in five movies before their giant ensemble piece.  DCU is trying to do this with three movies with the second being the vital project.  I am worried about how this will do but we'll see how it goes.