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

[davejames]

Hmm, interesting new interview with Chris Terrio. Sounds like they're essentially treating BvS as the darker middle chapter of a trilogy, with Justice League intended to finish off the opening "saga" with a someone lighter tone.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2016...ision-for-batman-superman-and-justice-league/

 

[davejames]

Its freaking Superman. He's an alien who flies around and can lift semi trucks. "Realistic" shouldn't be something associated with the character, at least not in the way you mean. But, even if you must do "realistic", how many people are going to tell their kid that he should have let children die? The Kent's are usually portrayed as protective, but supportive of Clark saving people even at a young age. They want him to be careful, but know it would be wrong to tell him to not save people, even at the cost of his secret identity or life. I'd say this attitude covers the Smallville Kent's, the Superman: TAS Kent's, and the comics version from when John Byrne had them be alive into Clark's adulthood until at least the New 52 reboot.

Snyder's Kent's are just plain horrible. Being a nutjob who tells your kid to let children, and later yourself, die doesn't make Snyder's Jonathan Kent realistic. It makes him a asshole, and it makes the MoS writers poor writers (although the writing on MoS is bad for a bunch of other reasons, too). Contrary to popular belief, realistic people can be nice and supportive. Making someone selfish or just a dick doesn't really make them "realistic", although both Snyder and Nolan before him thought it did.

I think you're seriously misreading the scene and the subtle way in which it was delivered by Costner. His "maybe" was clearly not definitive or something he was comfortable with, and he immediately seemed to regret even suggesting the idea. His main point in that scene was only that Clark needed to be more careful about using his powers and drawing too much attention to himself.

And just because you don't like the more realistic approach they've taken doesn't automatically make it bad writing. There are a lot of people like me who are really intrigued by the idea of a more real world Superman and the reaction the world might have to such a thing (in fact it's amazing to me that more fans somehow aren't, and only want to see the safe, comic booky version again and again).

 

[kirk55555]

Hmm, interesting new interview with Chris Terrio. Sounds like they're essentially treating BvS as the darker middle chapter of a trilogy, with Justice League intended to finish off the opening "saga" with a someone lighter tone.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2016...ision-for-batman-superman-and-justice-league/

Well, unless they're planning to replace Zach Snyder, I call BS on that. Snyder can no more make a "lighter" film then Michael bay can make a film without explosions. Sure, the script might have a lighter tone, but Snyder will darken it up if that happens. And add more slow mo. And remove as much color as possible. And possibly use some horrible filter to make everything look weird.

I think you're seriously misreading the scene and the subtle way in which it was delivered by Costner. His "maybe" was clearly not definitive or something he was comfortable with, and he immediately seemed to regret even suggesting the idea. His main point in that scene was only that Clark needed to be more careful about using his powers and drawing too much attention to himself.

And just because you don't like the more realistic approach they've taken doesn't automatically make it bad writing. There are a lot of people like me who are really intrigued by the idea of a more real world Superman and the reaction the world might have to such a thing (in fact it's amazing to me that more fans somehow aren't, and only want to see the safe, comic booky version again and again).

How is the comic book version "safe"? That's extremely dismissive, and unfortunately a common attitude of Nolan and Snyder fans. If by "risky" you mean that the most heroic, in the light superhero ever should be broody and act like MoS Superman, then screw "risky". I want the real Superman. He doesn't kill (regardless of what John Byrne didin one comic decades ago that I'm pretty sure was ignored fairly soon afterward), he has personality, he's a nice guy, he actually smiles, and he is a HERO. You can have that, and a well developed character. Bruce Timm and company did it in the 90s. Numerous writers have done it over 75+ years of comics. It could be done easily with a good writer, but Nolan ruined everything with his mediocre Grimdark Batman.

 

[urbandefault]

Its freaking Superman. He's an alien who flies around and can lift semi trucks. "Realistic" shouldn't be something associated with the character, at least not in the way you mean. But, even if you must do "realistic", how many people are going to tell their kid that he should have let children die? The Kent's are usually portrayed as protective, but supportive of Clark saving people even at a young age. They want him to be careful, but know it would be wrong to tell him to not save people, even at the cost of his secret identity or life. I'd say this attitude covers the Smallville Kent's, the Superman: TAS Kent's, and the comics version from when John Byrne had them be alive into Clark's adulthood until at least the New 52 reboot.

Snyder's Kent's are just plain horrible. Being a nutjob who tells your kid to let children, and later yourself, die doesn't make Snyder's Jonathan Kent realistic. It makes him a asshole, and it makes the MoS writers poor writers (although the writing on MoS is bad for a bunch of other reasons, too). Contrary to popular belief, realistic people can be nice and supportive. Making someone selfish or just a dick doesn't really make them "realistic", although both Snyder and Nolan before him thought it did.

Jonathan said, "Maybe."

That tells me that he's a real human being struggling with something he's not sure he understands.

He gave his life to keep his son's secret. That's setting a pretty damn positive example, even if it was extreme.

It's obvious to me, and I don't get why people don't see it.

 

[Showdown]

I always assume the "not saving people" speech was to give Clark the reason to have a duo identity.
'Clark' can't perform save people using superpowers, but 'Superman' can.
I agree Jonathon's "maybe" was him saying the situation is more complicated and he doesn't have all the answers.

 

[kirk55555]

Jonathan said, "Maybe."

That tells me that he's a real human being struggling with something he's not sure he understands.

He gave his life to keep his son's secret. That's setting a pretty damn positive example, even if it was extreme.

It's obvious to me, and I don't get why people don't see it.

I'm pretty sure most people don't condone letting children die no matter what they'd personally have to give up (unless its the children of the corn or something). Its a bus load of children, and almost no chance Clark was going to get taken away because of it. It was a horrible line from horrible writers spoken by a horrible character. That's forgetting how horrible Jonathan Kent's death was, too (no one with half a brain would go back to save their dog, or hide under an overpass, etc).

Superman would give up his secret identity, if he had no other choice, to save just one life. Sure, the situation doesn't really come up because it would be a pain in the ass for the writers, but its who the character is. At least, that's generally who Superman is. The Kent's would want their son to think this way in basically any version of Superman that isn't Snyder's movie. I doubt that MoS Superman would be willing to do that, or die, to save someone. He'd kill the heck out of anyone, though, and I guess that's "realistic".

 

[Kor]

I thought Jahnothehnn (if we're going to keep spelling his name wrong, let's really spell it wrong!) was an interesting character as portrayed in MoS. If he had lived longer, perhaps he could have guided Clark to start cautiously and conservatively using his abilities to help people, but being careful to stay out of the limelight.

Kor

 

[kirk55555]

The only think I'd want to have seen from J.Kent in MoS would be to see Jor-El's hologram somehow gain physical form and beat the stuffing out of him. Russel Crowe vs Kevin Costner would have been ridiculousin the movie, but probably awesome.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

EDIT: Where does Superman talk about killing Batman?

I think they're referring to the line in the trailer where Superman says "Stay down. If I wanted it, you'd be dead already".

See with these David vs Goliath struggles, we as an audience are conditioned to root for the underdog (David). However, when it's hero vs hero like this, things can get complicated. If Superman can lose to Batman, then how does Superman ever win any of his battles which are way beyond the scope of Batman? Or how can Batman defeat Superman, but not beat a guy in a clown get-up?

You'll notice that most of these battles always take place in books with the underdog's name on the title. When it's their book, they aren't going to lose. However, they always have to find some way to nerf the god-tier character so he/she can save face to audience. You very rarely see a David vs Goliath struggle in the stronger character's book. Why? Because no one wants to see Goliath step on David.

Big Brawls

Spoiler

Batman with prep vs Superman

Batman no prep vs Superman
Superman was under mind control during this story. I he though Batman was either Brainiac or Doomsday. I forget which atm.

Thor not holding back vs Iron Man

 

[STEPhon IT]

Well, unless they're planning to replace Zach Snyder, I call BS on that. Snyder can no more make a "lighter" film then Michael bay can make a film without explosions. Sure, the script might have a lighter tone, but Snyder will darken it up if that happens. And add more slow mo. And remove as much color as possible. And possibly use some horrible filter to make everything look weird.



How is the comic book version "safe"? That's extremely dismissive, and unfortunately a common attitude of Nolan and Snyder fans. If by "risky" you mean that the most heroic, in the light superhero ever should be broody and act like MoS Superman, then screw "risky". I want the real Superman. He doesn't kill (regardless of what John Byrne didin one comic decades ago that I'm pretty sure was ignored fairly soon afterward), he has personality, he's a nice guy, he actually smiles, and he is a HERO. You can have that, and a well developed character. Bruce Timm and company did it in the 90s. Numerous writers have done it over 75+ years of comics. It could be done easily with a good writer, but Nolan ruined everything with his mediocre Grimdark Batman.

It seemed Nolan's Batman shifted goals as soon as he returned to Gotham. It wasn't about him fighting the bad guys, but it was him having a lonely heart and wanted a successor to continue what he started so he could find love.
He quits for 8 years, comes back, finds a successor who will have to deal with Atomic radiation all through the city. While he drinks champagne overseas with a sociopath.

Yeah, I agree, Superman shouldn't kill, it's not in his character. If Snyder was taking cues from a comic guys named John Byrne then it figures why he got Superman so wrong. I hope in the new film Snyder won't shy away from calling Superman his title than calling him Clark. As for Batman, there's more to the character than just pummeling bad guys; he actually solves crime, I doubt Snyder has the narrative skills to deliver that side of the character. But we will see.

 

[dahj]

I want the real Superman. He doesn't kill (regardless of what John Byrne didin one comic decades ago that I'm pretty sure was ignored fairly soon afterward), he has personality, he's a nice guy, he actually smiles, and he is a HERO.

Cavill's Superman is all that. I'm sorry you can't see it.

 

[kirk55555]

Cavill's Superman is all that. I'm sorry you can't see it.

So, I misunderstood what it means to snap Zod's neck, and Superman didn't actually kill him? I also missed all the scenes where he had even the slightest a mount of personality that wasn't "brooding"? Oh, wait, he might have kind of, sort of, flirted with Lois a little bit. I guess that's kind of personality? I've seen the movie three times, its weird that I would miss stuff like that Plus, Superman was never a "hero" in MoS. He stopped Zod (Punisher style) and destroyed his machines, but that doesn't make him a hero. Or, at least, not the type of hero that Superman is supposed to be. He has a higher standard, with more protection of civilians and knowing that murder is never the answer (without having to try it out once to find out). Even Superman Returns got this right, and that movie is actually, overall, not as good as MoS. So did Superman III and IV, come to think of it, and they are terrible.

 

[Garak]

So, I misunderstood what it means to snap Zod's neck, and Superman didn't actually kill him? I also missed all the scenes where he had even the slightest a mount of personality that wasn't "brooding"? Oh, wait, he might have kind of, sort of, flirted with Lois a little bit. I guess that's kind of personality? I've seen the movie three times, its weird that I would miss stuff like that Plus, Superman was never a "hero" in MoS. He stopped Zod (Punisher style) and destroyed his machines, but that doesn't make him a hero. Or, at least, not the type of hero that Superman is supposed to be. He has a higher standard, with more protection of civilians and knowing that murder is never the answer (without having to try it out once to find out). Even Superman Returns got this right, and that movie is actually, overall, not as good as MoS. So did Superman III and IV, come to think of it, and they are terrible.

You're completely wrong.

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

He stopped Zod (Punisher style)

I know this is only the umpteenth time this debate has gone on in this thread alone, but if you think he killed him "punisher style" you either don't know what that means, or you completely misread the struggle of Superman's decision. Probably a little of both.

 

[dahj]

I've seen the movie three times, its weird that I would miss stuff like that

I really have no interest in debating this again.
My impression of that movie was different than yours, let's just leave it at that.

I will however leave this video:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

and a bit of advice: if you ever watch it again, be the baby, don't go in with a pre-existing grimdark/necksnap mindset and you might notice there's some really good stuff in there...

 

[The Old Mixer]

In the commercials, when Superman says "STAY...DOWN", I usually fill in "YOU RODENT-EARED LITTLE BITCH!!!"

You'll notice that most of these battles always take place in books with the underdog's name on the title. When it's their book, they aren't going to lose.

During Miller's original run on Daredevil, the Hulk put DD in the hospital.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

In the commercials, when Superman says "STAY...DOWN", I usually fill in "YOU RODENT-EARED LITTLE BITCH!!!"


During Miller's original run on Daredevil, the Hulk put DD in the hospital.

HA! Somehow I knew that was going to be brought up. Hehe, good on you, mate.
Yes that happened. Around the same time though, Spider-Man (during Roger Stern's run) went head to head with Juggernaut and found a way to incapacitate/stop the unstoppable Juggernaut. It's not the same as beating him, but anyone stopping Juggs is whack.

 

[STEPhon IT]

You're completely wrong.

An answer like that could only come from someone who doesn't know anything about Superman.

kirk55555 is absolutely right.

 

[kirk55555]

I know this is only the umpteenth time this debate has gone on in this thread alone, but if you think he killed him "punisher style" you either don't know what that means, or you completely misread the struggle of Superman's decision. Probably a little of both.

Superman doesn't struggle with killing, he just doesn't do it (outside of stupid Golden age stuff, misinterpreted movie scenes [he didn't kill Zod in SM II] or one horrible John Byrne comic from almost 30 years ago). It is Punisher style, killing instead of capturing. I know Punisher is known for guns, but I've definitely seen him snap necks.

You're completely wrong.

In your opinion, which is no more legitimate then mine

I really have no interest in debating this again.
My impression of that movie was different than yours, let's just leave it at that.

I will however leave this video:

and a bit of advice: if you ever watch it again, be the baby, don't go in with a pre-existing grimdark/necksnap mindset and you might notice there's some really good stuff in there...

So, being a baby with no idea what is going on, and would probably enjoy horrific scenes if you put a funny sound over them, is the audience for Man of Steel? Makes sense. That's the maturity level of Zach Snyder, at least. You could show that baby Batman & Robin, and it might actually enjoy it even more. That doesn't mean B&R isn't crap.

To be clear, I actually like Man of Steel. Its not great by any stretch, but its an ok movie. I just don't pretend that it's anything more than kind of a "What If...A Doofus made a Superman Film in the style of Christopher Nolan?" story. In that particular category, even with a wooden Superman who isn't Superman, a horrible Jonathan Kent, a poorly written story and a Lois Lane who is more two dimensional then the Lois Lane from the late 1940s Kirk Alyn Superman serials, Man of Steel is decent. Then again, I also like Ben Afflecks Daredevil, Nic Cage's Ghost Rider, bought the Josh Trank Fant4stic on Blu Ray (even though its garbage) and watched, of my own free will, movies like Superman 4 and Catwoman. What I'm saying is that I have a weakness for superhero movies, so I can both think Man of Steel is ok, while still calling it out on its huge problems.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Come on guys, tone it down. No need to rehash the issues people had with MOS.

There were scenes of him not smiling and being serious and there were scenes of him smiling and being happy.

Spoiler

Now let's all get along, shall we? At least until March 25th. 14 days away!