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

I'm cautiously optimistic.

What worries me is the double combo of Zack Snyder and David Goyer. To be perfectly honest, the only Snyder movie that I've really liked is Dawn of the Dead and now I'm thinking that might've been as a result of James Gunn's screenplay more than anything else. Everything Snyder is popular for (300, Watchmen) I've liked but not loved. The less said about Sucker Punch... the better.

With Goyer, I originally gave him a lot of credit for Batman Begins but now I'm thinking Christopher Nolan had a lot to do with that movie being good. Goyer's script was strong, but I believe it was Nolan's direction that made it as solid as it was. Christopher mentioned how the third act sort of crumbles with Batman Begins, and I attribute that to Goyer more than Nolan (who actually did some revising of the third act). Left to his own devices, Goyer is sort of a mediocre writer/director. Blade: Trinity, The Invisible, The Unborn and Man of Steel are examples of that. If Goyer was teaming up with another writer for this Superman/Batman film, I would be a lot more confident. I'm secretly hoping Ben Affleck is assisting with the story/screenplay.

I am trying to remain positive and hopeful, though. Man of Steel wasn't terrible, but it had a lot to improve upon (and Christopher mentioned a good deal of what was wrong with the film). Sequels can be stronger than their predecessors, so I'm hopeful Snyder & Goyer have learned from their mistakes with the first one, but we'll see.

 

The Goyer/Nolan Batman caused plenty of damage in Gotham while he was "saving" the city so he's hardly a good role model.

 

Well, he never levelled skyscrapers. Only pancaked cop cars.

 

Superman didn't level any buidlings either for that matter, but Batman did allow the missiles following him in the bat to hit skyscapers and let Gordon take down the overhead rail causing an unknown numbers of deaths and damage.

 

Which is a fair enough opinion, but the way they showed Metropolis' destruction is a very different complaint than "Superman was a failure as a hero." My real point was that Clark wasn't a failure as a hero, he was just (understandably) overwhelmed by the circumstances he was in. And that's what I took issue with.

But as to the "why Metropolis" side of things, Zod choosing Metropolis is easily enough explained - Lois was from there after all and she had a connection with Kal, and as a planet-rewriting megalomaniac he may have wanted to cow the "inferior" humans before wiping them out utterly. (Also, I really don't recall many buildings if any actually collapsing during the final Clark/Zod throwndown anyway, pretty sure it was almost entirely the gravity... drive... engine... terraformy-thing.)

 

I saw a TON of buildings fall. And Supes was pretty much a part of that destruction. Metropolis was turned to rubble. And the thousands of people killed. It would've been almost the same if the US had detonated a tactical nuke.

Superman was no Superman in this movie.

 

He didn't have time to prepare.

 

I haven't conducted a tally, but my impression was that most of the area had already been decimated by the World Engine by the time Superman showed up.

Zod got a massive head start on destroying Metropolis while Supes was taking on the other Engine, and had pretty much already turned the city into a war zone by the time they actually fought.

 

I've always believed that the fantastic death toll in Man of Steel was partly a plot consequence of Superman being so outnumbered, but mainly due to Snyder et al. really getting off on building smashing. I'm convinced they really felt it was exciting and entertaining stuff. I expect they are just astonished anyone could have been so bored they started wondering what was happening to the meaningless civilians off screen. Zod's suicide was different, but not the issue here.

Unfortunately, for the sequel, there's not the slightest reason to think that Snyder et al. have developed any taste. The Nolan Batman is going to be a major influence because the studios will insist on following the money. And the Nolan Batman would go ramming through wall after wall in his ludicrous Bat-thingie just to "entertain" us. Superman & Batman will almost certainly start off as Superman vs. Batman. Unless you're interested in the burning question, "Who'd win in a fight between ... & ...?" that's boring.

 

Was re-reading the Cinefex coverage the other day.

They digitally sculpted a region of Metropolis roughly equal to 30 sq. miles. About 90 % or so of Manhattan Island's real estate, I'm told...?

 

Pretty much. This was, essentially, Superman's first day on the job as superhero. And he wasn't eased into the job by any stretch. Outnumbered, out-trained, out-gunned, barely beyond the training wheels stage of some of his major powers--how can anyone have expected the work of a seasoned veteran? (reminds me of complaints about young Kirk/Pine not showing the same aplomb as Kirk/Shatner--his decade older and more experienced version)

 

Agreed. Any discussion about the destruction of Metropolis always discusses it from an in-universe point of view. And sure, from that point of view the destruction makes sense. Zod was attacking Metropolis with his army and Superman, as green and outnumbered as he was, did the best that he could under the circumstances. All well and good.

However, my problem is that the destruction was written into the movie in the first place. The destruction and people flying hundreds of feet into the air just to smash into the ground was written into the film because Goyer and Synder thought it would be cool. It's the same logic that the Transformers films run on.

 

That's fine. No one has to like what was presented in the film. But I've found that many complaints rest on things that ignore the situations set up in the film. To criticize artistic choices made by the filmmakers is perfectly reasonable. To expect the character of Superman to behave as though he'd been at the hero job for years, given the setup in the story, is not. It makes no sense.

 

Yes, exactly. I don't share the heavy criticism of the artistic choice about Metropolis' destruction (though I did find myself thinking it was stretched out too far), but I think it's certainly reasonable.

 

Well to be fair they did have to find a somewhat new and different way to show the destruction, since every other idea has pretty much been done to death by this point after countless alien invasion movies. And the gravity idea did seem pretty different.

Although I won't deny they went a bit overboard with the scale of the destruction. The same point could have been gotten across with Zod only destroying a few blocks, instead of half the city.

 

Another WW contender appears to have auditioned for the role. This report suggests that former Bond girl Olga Kurylenko auditioned:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/64996

Not only this, but it's now being reported that Dick Grayson might also appear - but as Nightwing, rather than Robin. This would tally with the idea of an older Batman but it remains unconfirmed for now.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/65004

I wonder how likely it is that the movie would contain not just the World's Finest but two other costumed heroes? Obviously we don't know how big WW and NW's roles would be, if they even appear, but is this in essence going to be a Justice League movie (even if Dick isn't strictly part of the JL)?

 

As long as they're only making brief appearances, I'm fine with it. But it feels like enough attention is already being taken away from Clark in this movie by having Batman in there, and I wouldn't want to have even more costumed characters thrown in there as well.

Especially when you consider they're also going to have to devote screen time to whoever the villain is, and telling his story.

 

I like Olga Kurylenko, but I don't think she's right for the part.

Before all this news, I figured that if they include Wonder Woman, it would be in as a cliff-hanger surprise or in a post-credit sequence. Having her in there on top of Batman would be too much for what I'm hoping will be a proper Man of Steel sequel.

 

I stand with Ovation on the issue of the Battle of Metropolis as depicted in Man of Steel. First day on the job, all the factors as citied, and three major fights in the space of less than 24 hours, after decades of teaching himself to hold back rather than fight.

I have no complaints about such a depiction.