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

And part of the reason there's a hero for every archetype on both sides is because they've been actively copying each other for decades. The causality goes both ways.

I just tend to take it for granted that any conversation on a public BBS thread with multiple participants and many non-participating readers is going to be in response to the group as a whole rather than any single poster. So you can assume that's the case unless I say otherwise.

Well, sure, it's different from what we're used to, but to me, that's a reason to try it, not a reason to avoid it. We've seen plenty of stories about Superman and Batman as peers, now let's try doing one where they aren't, where one is a veteran and the other a novice. The whole reason for doing a story multiple times is so you can try new ways of doing it.

And like I said, it works very well for this particular interpretation of Superman, who's really been a lousy superhero so far and doesn't seem capable of doing a damn thing without a male authority figure to give him instructions. Of course, maybe that means he'd be better off without an older Batman telling him how to super, because the training wheels have to come off someday, but if any mentor could slap some sense into this guy and teach him to be self-sufficient, it's Batman. Think Batman Beyond and the Bruce-Terry dynamic.

Of course, that's probably wishful thinking on my part. I doubt Goyer and Snyder's script for the next film will be that honest about their failings of characterization in MoS.

I really doubt that Christian Bale did many of his own stunts. Heck, Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney could probably barely move inside those rubber monstrosities they wore. Adam West probably wore the Bat-suit with the most freedom of movement (maybe about on a par with the '40s serial actors), yet he was obviously stunt-doubled as a matter of course. So whether Affleck is up to the physical demands of being Batman is unlikely to be a major consideration, not unless they intend to show him fighting as Bruce Wayne -- which seems unlikely if his primary adversary is from Krypton.

Besides, people in their 40s are certainly capable of doing effective stunt work with the right training. Downey did a lot of action out of the suit in IM3. Jim Caviezel is 44 and he does fight scenes every week in Person of Interest. Jackie Chan was doing intensive martial-arts work in movies well into his early 50s, and that was after enduring multiple injuries in the course of his career. With the right training and care, Affleck's probably got a good 10-12 years left in him as an action star.

I've explained how that's not a particularly important consideration in a movie, but even in in-story terms, there's far less difference between the two today than there was in the '60s or '70s. The modern Batman isn't wearing spandex, he's in a high-tech armor suit with a bunch of elaborate equipment built into it. It's not as heavily robotic as Stark's armor, but it's a lot closer in principle than it would've been a few decades ago.

I don't see any reason why it couldn't. Like I said, you could easily get a good decade's worth of films out of Affleck, and I see no reason why Batman already being a veteran would preclude a series of films. I'm sure there have been multiple film series whose characters were already established veterans at the start of the series. Heck, Keaton's Batman was already established in his first film, though not for quite so long.

And that's part of what I was saying about not wanting another origin story. We've seen plenty of film series about heroes in the early years of their careers; now let's try something different.

 

^ Fair points. However, I should stress again, that my gripe is NOT with Affleck or his age; of course he could do action movies for years to come. My point is that if within this universe we first meet a weary and tired Bruce Wayne, then could the character within the film keep going for a decade? Being Batman doesn't involve stuntmen and SFX and is a lot more punishing than playing him. My problem is inter-movie, not behind the scenes. But I suppose willing suspension of disbelief can overcome that.

One of my main gripes about the use of a 'weary, tired' Batman is that they seem to be using The Dark Knight Returns as a point of reference for this film (eg the dialogue at Comic-con which Harry Lennix read). And I just think that the Superman/Batman dynamic there worked a lot better when you had two former friends who had been around the block and fallen out as they grew older and jaded. I'm less sure that it will work when you have one newbie and one vet, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

Whyever not? Just because the character starts that way, that doesn't mean it'll be his state throughout the entire series. After all, movies are about character arcs. The place where a character is at the start of a film is almost never the place they end up at the end of the film, let alone sequels. Jim Kirk was weary and jaded at the start of The Wrath of Khan, but by the end of it he had a new lease on life and kept going through five more films. Bruce Banner was weary and beaten down at the start of The Incredible Hulk, but by the end of it he'd gained a new self-mastery which carried over into Ruffalo's Banner in The Avengers. The Incredibles starts out with Bob hopeless and beaten down by life, but by the end of the movie he's begun a new career -- and while we haven't had a sequel yet, there certainly could've been a whole series of adventures to follow.

Really, a ton of movies have their heroes start out weary and defeated and end up revitalized and ready for more heroics. It's one of the more pervasive cinematic tropes. So I'm really puzzled that you'd see this as an issue at all.

Now, that I do have a huge problem with, as I've said before. If they just copy TDKR's Batman, then I doubt that will work at all. I'm just saying that it wouldn't intrinsically be unviable, not in a more general sense.

Then again, even TDKR is a story about a weary, broken-down hero regaining a new lease on life and being revitalized by the end of the story -- although it entails said hero giving up his established heroic persona for a more behind-the-scenes role.

True, but, again, hopefully they're not just copying that, but rather simply using it as one source of inspiration for whatever new story they're constructing. There's no reason a story with the parameters they're using couldn't theoretically work. I have very little faith in Goyer and Snyder to make it work, but my concern is with the people executing the idea, not the nature of the idea itself. The success or failure of a story is never about the nature of the plot or premise, but about how well or poorly it's executed. Any idea can be handled well or handled badly.

 

Their ages vary but I always thought they were about 5 years apart with Bruce being older.

 

^ @ Christopheras regards the 'weary and tired' point, I did say in my original post that perhaps the end of the movie would see him reinvigorated, so we've sort of come full circle. But it's not just a mental thing - what if he's physically worn out and past his best? Being Batman is more demanding than being Jim Kirk! Still, I suppose its unlikely they'll end it with him hobbling off on a Zimmer frame.

Otherwise, I'm willing to keep an open mind; I hope all of these things are done well, but the execution of MOS does cause me some cynicism about how they handle this movie.

 

I still don't see the problem. The filmmakers are in control of whatever happens in the film. They want a Batman who can carry a franchise, so of course they won't have him physically past his prime.

Although, heck, Nolan had Bruce physically past his prime at the start of TDKR, even had his back broken midway through, and then just handwaved him back into shape in time for the climax. Filmmakers can do whatever they want with their characters, even when it makes no sense.

 

^ True. Time to bring back the magic rope!

Edit - again, come to think of it, in my first post I made the point that we'd just seen a jaded and weary Batman well into his career. More full circle.

 

^I'm inclined to agree with you on the latter point - I've a suspicion that Affleck signed up because he didn't have to top line any solo Batman films (this is based on nothing, before anyone asks, just a hunch) and WB have probably offered him more directing and producing jobs to sweeten the deal. But if his Batman proves popular, I think it's hard to see them not giving him his own movie.

 

Well the blurb says "weary and tired" not old and worn out, I think it's meant as a contrast to the young and green Superman. In the process of them becoming friends Bruce regains some of his vigor and Clark gains some experience.

 

Yeah, I don't get the impression this is a Batman at the end of his career or anything. They just mean that he's been at it awhile, and has probably come to be pretty bitter and cynical about the whole thing.

But he can still kick everyone's ass as well as ever, I'm sure.

 

Yeah, you're probably both right (@ DWF, davejames), I'm probably over-reading into it.

 

Yeah, we shouldn't assume that Batman has one foot in the grave. Think the tough, hard-boiled older cop with the green young rookie . . . .

 

^Just so long as he isn't two weeks from Bat-retirement...

 

^ I'm too old for this sh1t?

 

If he starts quoting Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon...

 

Hmm. I'm imagining a superhero version of THE UNTOUCHABLES, with Sean Connery as Batman and a young Kevin Costner as Superman:

"You want to know how we'll beat Luthor? We'll strike terror into the hearts of criminals, who are a cowardly and superstitious lot. That's the Gotham way . . . . "

 

and

It writes itself!