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

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by JoeZhang, Jul 20, 2013.

  1. theenglish

    theenglish Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Location:
    Suriname
    I think we have a pretty good chance that this will be the title. They're not going to have to worry that people won't know what the movie is about, and the last few years have proven you don't actually need the heroes names in the title of the movie.
     
  2. theenglish

    theenglish Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Location:
    Suriname
    I think the tone of the movie had a lot of problems with it, but I agree with you. I think if the GL movie just had Abin Sur and maybe Sinestro, and spent its time on Earth, it would have made for a much better cinematic introduction to the hero.

    Oa, the guardians and the corps could easily have been fleshed out in a sequel.
     
  3. JacksonArcher

    JacksonArcher Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    I hope.

    The Dark Knight as a title was a big departure, and that was WB giving Nolan a lot of faith (which eventually paid off). Of course, after that, according to speculation WB demanded that Dark Knight be included in the title for the third film - which was apparently a trade-off since WB wanted The Riddler as the villain and wanted the film to be shot/released in 3D. Nolan objectified to the 3D and wanted to use Bane instead, so then WB requested some variation of Dark Knight be used, and voila.

    I don't remember who said it, but someone commented that The Dark Knight and Man of Steel have been associated with their respective characters for a long time, so it makes sense to use those titles. I'm sure WB was okay with Man of Steel as a title because it worked for Batman (which seems to be their reasoning a lot these days). World's Finest, on the other hand, doesn't scream Batman/Superman as strongly as Dark Knight does for Batman or Man of Steel does for Superman, but I also think audiences are smart enough to realize the kind of movie they are watching (especially when they see posters, trailers, etc).

    Even with all of that said, I still think WB is going to end up calling this something overly direct and simple like Batman vs. Superman or Superman vs. Batman. Especially since Snyder/Goyer have been talking about these characters squaring off ever since the initial announcement. That's probably going to be the biggest appeal of this thing, besides seeing them on-screen together. Nothing says that like a title with "vs" in it (as corny as a title it would be).
     
  4. Aldo

    Aldo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Location:
    Somewhere Out there beneath the pale moonlight.
    All this talk of WB insisting Nolan use "Dark Knight" as part of the title for his third film, I'm curious. What did he want to name it?
     
  5. Agent Richard07

    Agent Richard07 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    ^ "The Batman", I think.
     
  6. JacksonArcher

    JacksonArcher Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    No one knows. Nolan does talk about convincing WB not to use 3D for Dark Knight Rises, and he started talking about it ever since the title was first announced.

    I can't remember where I read that stipulated WB insisted on Dark Knight being in the title, but I know Goyer talked about WB wanting Leonardo DiCaprio as The Riddler when he spoke to Empire Magazine shortly before the release of The Dark Knight Rises. I remember reading that article, and Goyer said WB wanted 3D and DiCaprio as Riddler. Nolan made it known early on he wasn't going for 3D or Riddler, and I believe that's when WB offered the compromise regarding the title.
     
  7. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    Nolan shouldn't have had to make any concessions at all. He should have been like, "I just made you guys a billion dollars. Shut up."
     
  8. JacksonArcher

    JacksonArcher Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    You would think, but WB is still a conglomerate looking to make money. They've given Nolan a lot of creative freedom - to the point where he's made several films with them - but they still want to make money.
     
  9. Agent Richard07

    Agent Richard07 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    And part of Nolan's success is that he is willing to compromise.
     
  10. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    ERRONEOUS! All the Earth stuff was the reason GL was so tiresome. All the daddy issues and melodrama sucked the life out of it.

    It should have done what it looks like Guardians of the Galaxy is doing and gone more cosmic and weird.
     
  11. JacksonArcher

    JacksonArcher Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Green Lantern was a weird movie for several reasons. I don't think the director, Martin Campbell, understood the tone that was needed for that kind of movie. I think he understands James Bond, but Green Lantern is another matter.

    Tonally, the movie was all over the place. Plus, you had Ryan Reynolds, who despite his best intentions was miscast. The movie tried to be at times a serious comic-book movie, a space opera, with some light-hearted humor, and it just didn't work. Campbell and his writers needed to find a tone and stick with it. It didn't help that it tried to be serious, but then had really dumb scenes where Hal Jordan tries to activate the suit and show off to his friend.

    The writing could have been a lot better, too. It had some good moments (the Hal Jordan/Carol Ferris dynamic was good, and Reynolds does try with the dramatic stuff) but the handling of the villains was really cliche and over-the-top. It doesn't help that Peter Sarsgaard delivers a completely over-the-top performance, and I think that's hugely as a result of the tone that's completely all over the place. When the film opens, and we have bad CGI, voice-over narration and weird aliens, I thought the movie was going to embrace the nuttiness of the premise, but then it tried to blend in half-baked drama, and it just didn't work.

    With comic-book movies, you have to fully commit to your world (tone and all). That's why Christopher Nolan went with a realistic approach to his Batman movies. Regardless of anything, they are tonally consistent. The person above me mentioned Guardians of the Galaxy, and that's a good example of staying true to the premise, tone and reality of the world you are existing in. It seems like James Gunn is going all out, which you have to do if you're going to do a kind of movie like that. Batman is of course much easier to adapt than Green Lantern or Guardians of the Galaxy, but that's why understanding the tone is that much more paramount.
     
  12. Agent Richard07

    Agent Richard07 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    They were trying to emulate the success of Iron Man but it didn't work.

    Iron Man 3 was all over the place tonally but it was held together by Robert Downey Jr's charm. He was the consistent factor.
     
  13. Captaindemotion

    Captaindemotion Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Location:
    Ireland
    ^Hmmm, I thought IM3 was tonally pretty consistent. I thought it was IM2 that didn't know what tone to adapt. Not even RDJ could save it for me.
     
  14. JacksonArcher

    JacksonArcher Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Iron Man 3 just had erratic pacing. I felt it was tonally consistent, but it worked more as a comedy than a superhero film.
     
  15. DWF

    DWF Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    The Green Lantern movie was written by a comic book writer and it showed, Martin Campbell is a fine director had the movie been a success there'd be no end to the praise for the movie. Personally I didn't find the Nolan Batman trilogy to be all that great, The Dark Knight felt like two different stories put together. But the movies made money so Nolan was given Man Of Steel and in the end it was a Nolan movie.
     
  16. Agent Richard07

    Agent Richard07 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    Iron Man 3 mixed it up quite a bit with drama, comedy, super heroics, buddy cop stuff, propaganda films complete with grainy footage, Christmas-y stuff with the kid, etc, and it did so quite well thanks to Downey Jr. tying it all together.
     
  17. JacksonArcher

    JacksonArcher Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Yeah, I agree it tried to mix all that together, but I don't think it mixed it as well as you say. To each their own, of course. Downey Jr. was great, though.
     
  18. JoeZhang

    JoeZhang Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    I'm bemused that GOTG is being held up as something to emulate since all we have seen are a few clips - it could be an absolute stinker.
     
  19. JacksonArcher

    JacksonArcher Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Possibly. Then again, everything I've seen from the production so far has been promising, but I get what you're saying. I have more faith in James Gunn than anything.
     
  20. davejames

    davejames Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Location:
    Sac, Ca
    I thought the movie melded those different tones perfectly well myself. The goofing around by Reynolds early on might have been a bit too silly, but I didn't think it detracted that much from the movie (at least not any more than RDJ's antics in the Iron Man movies).

    For me the main problem was just the lack of epic scope and the ham-handed way they dealt with Hal's character. Overall though, I still found it a fairly fun and engaging superhero movie (at least on a par with the fun but uneven first X-Men), and was kinda looking forward to a sequel.

    (Although I realize I'm in the distinct minority here on that one. Lol)