‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’

In a less overstimulated, less media-saturated time bright colors, upbeat music and so on evoked positive associations. Now, really, they scream that someone is trying real hard to break through the noise of other people selling you something - in order to try to sell you something.

 

But this is the image they choose to present as representative of this film and its protagonist. And that says something about their mindset.

http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-marvel-golden-age-silver-age-comics-history/

 

Curiously enough, the first BvS news I saw today was that 3 villains had been added to the movie (this doesn't appear to have been an official announcement but was on a few sites). Obviously the pic of Superman has overshadowed it. Conspiracy theorists elsewhere have suggested that the release of the pic was to distract from the story but I tend to doubt it. Anyway, here's that story:

http://geektyrant.com/news/3-villains-added-to-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice

 

Well...did anyone really think they wouldn't set up Cavill on a Gotham rooftop at some point in the PR process?

 

As to the idea of trying again with a certain government official with a very checkered history?

Sooner or later, someone is going to get that character right.

 

I doubt it's intended to be representative of the entire film. It's likely just the first of many many promo shots for the movie that will be released over the next year, and one used to tease the idea of Superman visiting the darker world of Gotham.

That said, I do hope Snyder doesn't make all the Gotham scenes that dark and overly moody. I've never really care for that exaggerated depiction of the city either in the comics or Batman Begins, where it's just this dank and completely crime-ridden cesspool that you can't imagine ever actually existing in the US.

 

Next, I want an official photo of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. Maybe Snyder will be so kind as to release one by the time Comic-Con starts.

 

Except we already have a full movie's worth of evidence that these filmmakers do not want Superman to be fun, bright, optimistic, or inspiring in any way. And plenty of other evidence that DC as a company believes it has to be as dark and grim as possible in virtually everything it does.

 

Even the new photo highlights that Superman really isn't the focus.

He's standing in Gotham City and not a bright Metropolis

A character specific poster would have been nice

 

Really digging the new photo. Supes looks awesome. Although we have seen this style of promo before....

Lol Gotham is shitty city.

 

I was hoping that due to the negative reviews and (relatively speaking) middling box office return for Man of Steel that Synder would reign in his dark and gritty tendencies, but this photo isn't encouraging.

 

"Middling box office return"? MOS was one of the top 5 grossing films in 2013. MOS also sold more copies on home video than IM3. The film was a success. Why do people keep trying to spin MOS as some sort of financial failure?

 

Often the same reason some people do this with new Trek--they didn't like it, so it must be a failure in every way (even in those ways where it really isn't--to do otherwise would diminish their certainty that they're right to not like the film).

I loved MOS (I like it better each time I watch it), so I'm very much looking forward to the next movie.

 

Read the text in the parenthesis in my post. I never said that the film failed, but it made far less money than it should have.

 

Perhaps, but given that it was a reboot, and given the lack of interest shown by the public in the previous Superman movie (and arguably the character as a whole in the last 20 years), I'd say $668 million worldwide is pretty damn impressive for MOS. Especially compared to SR's $391 worldwide.

And regardless of their original expectations, I have to imagine WB realized the same thing.

 

How much was it supposed to make? $668 million is a lot of money. Could it have done more? Sure. However this was the first movie to reboot the character since 1978. Look at the movies in the superhero genre; Batman Begins, Capt America TFA, Thor, both Hulks, FF, X-Men (2000). All off them had low box office grosses with their opening movies than what they would make in their later films. The notion that everyone would pay to see a Superman movie over and over because it's a Superman movie; is the misstep that Superman Returns made. Content of your film matters. Snyder, Goyer and Nolan crafted a film that got butts in seats and inspired WB to make several more films off the success of MOS. To make a comparision: MOS is the Iron Man (2008) of the DC Cinematic Universe. The point where other films will be launched from.

 

According to this, if the screenplay that's currently floating around is legit, the tone does seem to be a little lighter: http://badassdigest.com/2014/07/03/is-batman-v-superman-stuffed-with-villains-as-well-as-heroes/

 

To be honest I'm getting tired of people going on about "how dark the film will be and it will be bad, Superman should be optimistic bla bla bla". Bollocks. It's interesting to see a darker superman, it's something new. If you want the bright happy Superman that warned kids about getting into strangers cars or so on, watch the Reeves Superman films. Can we just give the darker Superman a chance? It's interesting and sheds the silly campy image of Christopher Reeves.

 

I'd say he was more edgy and serious than actually "dark".

 

That's okay with me. I just don't want it to be actually dark. Literally. All the time. Have the sun come out every once and a while. And do all the colors have to be muted? Washed out? Seriously? I know Zac Snyder is always called a "visual director" but this is just nuts. Now he's filming a story in Gotham, which is apparently the darkest place in the universe.

I like Man Of Steel. I saw it twice in the theater. I own it. I wanted to see what else Snyder had done so I watched a little of 300, a little of Suckerpunch, and all of Watchmen. And, by God, he loves a particular kind of filming style. Muted, washed out colors with dull backgrounds. It looks cool ... for about twenty minutes and then it doesn't any more. I get it, he wants to accentuate the characters in a particular artsy style. He's a fine director! It's just this one thing that he does that irritates me.

Now he's got a Gotham setting. Holy scenery, Batman.