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

And, tone aside, I don't see what's so horrible about getting a bite to eat after a battle.

And it's a facetious point anyway, as the destruction and loss of life in Avengers was acknowledged in the news-clip montage where we saw candle-light vigils for the dead, a "rememberance wall" with pictures of the fallen and missing, descriptive words like "devastation" used by reporters, a politician seeking to blame the Avengers, ect. It may have been a quick glossing over, but at least it's acknowlegement, and the movie had to end sometime. A 40 minute epilogue depicting SHIELD clean-up teams and Damage Control digging out bodies while the Avengers testified before Congress would have been pointless.

Some people like to discount that sequence because it has a little humor in it, which I find bewildering. If anything, MOS needed more humor. The few attempts at it fell very flat, IMHO.

 

Honestly, I feel like you aren't reading my posts.

BECAUSE of the TONE of the movie, I expect the CONTENT to be treated in a different way than a movie with a DIFFERENT tone. I expect the CHARACTERS to respond in a certain kind of way, i.e., in a more realistic movie, in a more realistic way. As we move away from realism, say into comedy, in a less realistic way.

Do you think Moonraker and Casino Royale are the same movie? That the characters are going to react the same kind of depth in both of them? The tone for those movies are vastly different. Yet, the content is somewhat similar. One Bond is quippy, the other Bond is weepy.

Another example: Batman: TAS and Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Both have a difference in tone. A pretty significant difference in tone. Both are about Batman fighting crime. Roughly the same content. But do you expect that Batman in TAS to have the same emotional reactions to events as the Batman in Brave and the Bold?

 

I suggest you watch Avengers again. The Avengers kept the battle (or at least attempted to) contained to three square blocks around Stark Tower ("Stark, anything gets more than three blocks out, you turn it back or you turn it to ash"), which is hardly "half of New York". And as I said in my previous post, there was acknowlegement of the deaths and destruction in NYC, they just didn't dwell on it.

 

It's why I asked the question. You keep bringing tone up, so I figured I'd ask if that is what bothered you.

I believe I already addressed the tone disparities between MOS and other comicbook movies. They're aims/goals are different things. Why can't they just be different?




Also another leaked photo.
Everyday is leg day!

 

^Very cool pic.

 

That's exactly my point. Their aims/goals are different. That's why they can be JUDGED differently. So, I don't understand why you say, "well, the Avengers didn't have x, y, and z, why do you want MOS to have it?"

Because they are different movies.

 

It feels like people keep trying to judge this as just another typical superhero movie ("where's the fun and humor? why do the battles go on so long?"), and don't fully appreciate that once Zod enters the picture it essentially shifts into becoming a propulsive, intense Black Hawk Down-style war movie, where Superman is struggling just to stay one step ahead of the enemy and doesn't really have time for a whole lot else.

The typical superhero movie rules do not really apply here, because that's not what this was trying to be.

I can definitely understand how that may not be the ideal kind of Superman movie for many people, but that doesn't automatically mean the movie they made doesn't work.

 

But that type of movie doesn't work for me. So therefore I feel the movie ultimately doesn't work. More power to you if it does for you, but don't tell me that the movie works regardless of how I personally feel about it.

 

Nah, the plot was far too stupid to allow for any tension.

 

For you, yes. For me, it didn't work. It left a sour taste in my mouth. (And to be clear, I don't mind the approach they took on it, with an aim towards a more grounded emotional approach... I don't think they succeeded on it, because they hired a guy more interested in visuals than character.)

 

I guess that's fair. But it does sound like a lot of you are just so dead-set against the approach they took that you can't really see much beyond that. (And I apologize if that sounds a bit condescending, but I'm not really sure how else to phrase it.).

 

^These.

For the record, I didn't totally hate Man of Steel. I thought it looked beautiful. It had some stunning imagery. It had some great actors, who delivered good performances. I liked the music. I even liked some of the storytelling and editing choices.

It just didn't work for me as a whole. Zoom nails why I don't really like it. When Christopher Nolan retooled Batman, his grounded approach worked because it was emotional and Nolan is actually a smart storyteller. Man of Steel didn't work for me because Snyder tried to emulate that grounded, more emotional approach and it failed because he's not a smart storyteller. He's a visualist. He's honestly a better cinematographer than a director if I'm being entirely honest.

The approach to Man of Steel wasn't flawed. I could even see the script working with a better director... but that's what Man of Steel needed in my opinion. If anyone else directed other than Zack Snyder, I have a feeling I would have liked the movie more. Maybe someone with more of an eye toward story and script. Snyder wasn't that person.

If you are going to try and duplicate the Batman Begins approach, then at least hire someone who can properly emulate it. In my opinion, of course. Although, for what it is worth, I am very happy for everyone that enjoyed Man of Steel. I am glad it worked for you guys. It just didn't work for me.

 

It does sound condescending. Sorry to break it to you.

I don't think we are dead-set anything against, much less the approach. Like I said in my previous post, I understand that approach and I actually think it could have worked well under someone other than Snyder. I just don't think they totally nailed the approach.

They tried to go for more of a grounded take but it didn't work. It backfired. They opted for the Nolan-esque approach but Snyder and Goyer lack the proper storytelling gravitas to give that approach the proper heft it needs. I don't want to repeat myself because I basically explained my position above, but I don't think any of us are saying the approach was flawed. We just think the execution was flawed.

 

Exactly. The entire movie is about Superman saving people. Even the mass destruction scenes don't really give him a chance to rescue people or even reduce the level of destruction.

I mentioned my only ending suggestion earlier in the thread.

 

Personally, I'm not dead set against the approach, i.e., the grittiness, the tone, etc. I think the execution of the approach was poor. I felt like the story was cut off before it was finished--ie, Superman becoming a HERO, an inspiration, coming to the aide of people, or, at the very least, helping with the clean up, digging people out of the rubble. Like that poor woman from the Dailey Planet who kept having to run, etc, etc.

If, ultimately, as Jor El says, he is supposed to inspire, by the end of the movie, I wasn't inspired by Superman. If anything, I'm on Lex's side. Get this alien off this planet before something like this happens again.

 

@Bold
Well that's the dilemma isn't it? You look at the previous Superman film (Returns) and director (Bryan Singer) and you look at how his film and style compare to MOS and Snyder; since they were released 7 years apart. Singer is a more character director and cast ensemble director. You look at his films;X-Men, X2, X-Men DOFP, Usual Suspects and he was the executive producer for X-Menn First Class. Singer is superior to Snyder in characterization and arcs but his Superman film didn't inspire a sequel nor did it inspire people to see his film over and over. Superman Returns spent 19 weeks in theaters and only grossed $391 million worldwide. In a summer where X3, The Da Vinci Code and POTC Deadman's Chest all took the BO for $450 million to a billion. The aforementioned films spending far less money on their budgets than Superman Returns. The planned Superman Returns sequel and Batman Superman film with Nolan's Batman film being canned in 2008. After Iron Man and TDK hit at the box office. WB looked at their product and decided they needed a new position for the character. If Returns had been a true reboot for the character and an hour shorter (Returns' run time clocking in at 2 hours and 30 minutes) the film would probably be regarded better. Instead it's a gratuitous trip down nostalgia lane, that only instills in the minds of the audience how great the original Superman movies (I and II) were before the franchise went off a cliff with Superman III.


Snyder with his films (300, Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead, Suckerpunch) all put style over substance. One of the reasons I think MOS works well is because it gave a new look to Superman for GA's and gave the franchise the shot in the arm it needed to move past the Donner/Lester/Reeve era. You can see this in both the films and comics; with the way Zod and Faora are being portrayed more like they were in MOS. The pre-New 52 Zod and Ursa were inspired by the Donner Zod (Geoff Johns collaborating with Donner to reintroduce the character in Superman Last Son). So WB went with Snyder since his previous adaptations worked out well and they all have a unique style to them.


When you look at the Superman film franchise as a whole
Superman TM
Superman II
Superman III
Superman IV
Superman Returns
Man of Steel

You can see that talented people involved can make bad decisions with regard to the material.

Superman TM, II and III were all produced by the same two people, Alexander and Ilya Salkinds. The same producers who decided to fire Donner after Superman TM was released and Superman II was 80% completed. The same producers who brought Lester in to takeover the rest of Superman II and to shoot Superman III their way. Superman III where the franchise suffered the most damage with the inclusion of slapstick comedy, Richard Pryor being unfunny despite his talent for comedy, and Superman III introducing a poor man's Lex Luthor with a lame scheme to control coffee and oil via computers.



Bryan Singer is a talented director. Superman Returns was written and produced by Singer and the same writing/production team he had on X2. They tried there hardest to recapture the magic and emotion of the first 2 Superman films and only succeeded superficially. Singer could've been great for Superman but let his own fanboy adoration to the previous films get in the way of making a film that connects with the audience and preserve the revived franchises longevity.

Snyder is great at adapting works but without focus, he can go way overboard and miss the mark he was aiming for; eg Suckerpunch. MOS revived the franchise and is getting a sequel in 2016. Snyder is also attached to direct Justice League as well. If reports of BvS and JL being shot back to back are to be believed. MOS stepped on a number of people's toes, but one can argue that was neccessary to bring Superman back in to the public conscience. Since the previous attempt (Returns) tried and failed to reignite the franchise.

 

Which is all fine. I was just responding to the repeated complaints the the movie was too dark or didn't have enough humor or that it was too focused on Superman fighting Zod. Which to me sounds like people not really understanding or caring what the approach of the movie was even trying to be.

 

Yeah? So? Untalented people can stumble into making a good movie. What's your point?

Are you trying to argue somehow that I should like MOS? Because...?

We agree. And I would add MOS to that list.

Actually, I would argue it's NOT getting a sequel. It didn't do as well as they hoped, so instead of getting an MOS sequel, they are cramming in all of these other heroes to shore it up.

Monetarily, it did ok. But, MOS did less at the box office than Captain America: The Winter Soldier, than Crystal Skull. Superman. Did less than those movies.

He's not getting a sequel. He's getting a team up movie.

I'm not sure what your point is. I still think he's not a very good director, no matter how much work he gets. Same with Michael Bay.

The reason they get work isn't because of the quality of the films, but because of the cash they bring in. Period.

There's another possibility. They didn't LIKE the approach to the movie. What's wrong with that?

 

Actually MOS is getting a sequel, it jsut won't come out for a while but it is on the list of Warner's upcoming comic book based movies along with a solo Batman movie.

 

There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't think it really makes sense to criticize a movie for something it wasn't even trying to do in the first place.