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

[kirk55555]

Good sign for Hollywood when someone could harshly criticized their product but buys it anyway. Wouldn't it be a better approach to NOT have anything to do with the product in order for Hollywood to change the brand? Or it's director? It's a silly mindset to watch a filmmakers' work, which hasn't been good, to pay a lot of money on a movie ticket just to see how bad it is?

To be fair, I personally almost certainly won't be giving WB any ticket money, especially if the review scores aren't spectacular. I agree that its weird to go blindly support a movie if you have problems with the director/writer/studio/etc. I didn't even consider seeing Star Trek: Into Darkness in the theaters, even as a huge Trek fan, because of how much I hated ST09 (ironically, I actually think Into Darkness is a decent movie in retrospect, and probably would have been cool to see in theaters). On the other hand, if a movie comes out and then it seems interesting, there is nothing wrong with changing your mind, and this goes for movies, directors, etc.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I simply wait until it comes to TV, because the transitions are so fast now it's not worth going to see it. Especially if its a particular director doesn't jibe with what I consider a good filmmaker, there's no chance in hell I'll give him that money. Yes, I get the urge to see it even buy it, and change your mind as you say, but if the product is bad to begin with and you buy it; Hollywood will see the numbers and make more of them. It's supply and demand.
I have guy friends who bend over backwards to see the new Michael Bay Transformers movie and complain about how bad it was. And they can't understand why Viacom continues to hire him to produce more??? I don't like JJ Abrams' movies so I won't bother paying hard earn money to watch them, that includes Home video, because he's a proven plagiarizer. There's no point to watching something I've seen before and done better.
Also, if you be patient, pirates post the entire movie on youtube around sleeping hours of the night until they lock it. Happens all the time. LOL.

 

[kirk55555]

Eh, like I said, if the movies bad I almost never give the companies money. Getting a movie from the library doesn't give a company money, and neither does buying a movie used. The 2015 Fantastic Four is the only exception, but that movie bombed so bad that me buying it new for $10 isn't going to be showing much support to it. As for Batman v superman, good or bad it will be worth watching. I can guarentee I won't be seeing it blind, whatever happens. Good reviews might convince be to give it money, but if they don't I won't be paying the studio to see a bad movie, I'll just wait.

 

[eyeresist]

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...

Very cute - but what we want to see now is baby's reaction to the neck-snap scene.

I wish there had been a scene where Pa Kent gave his son the speech about how the world needs a good man with Super abilities (even though he needs to protect his identity). A scene like that would have made a nice transition between the conflicted father at the beginning and the sacrifice he makes toward the end.

Hopefully in the new movie we will see flashbacks of Pa or conversations with Ma addressing this.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

NIce. But it's BATMAN--Batman's entire raison d'etre is that he can defeat any foe through his intellect, physical training, and/or wit. Otherwise there would be no reason to even have him in the Justice League.

Yeah, there is that. It really started with Morrison's JLA in the 90s. I think that is when the creation of "Bat God" occurred. This trend has continued in the comics since and bled over in to other media, like JL/JLU, The Batman and Batman The Brave and the Bold and even Batman's son Damian. Damian who is also hyper competent at everything and better than other young heroes and adult villains. This despite being him being 10 years old and not having lost all his baby teeth yet. I think the issue is most writers (not Morrison) can't craft a story where Batman's intellect is his primary attribute, and instead write stories of "ZOMG BATMAN IS THE BEST". Even in Morrison's stories, Batman did come off too much like Reed Richards with his in-depth analysis, quick strategies and all around know-how of science, alien tech etc.

You see a lot of this with Tony Stark now too. With Iron Man essentially being the new flagship character at Marvel, Tony is now the de facto one of the smartest people in the Marvel Universe. He's pretty much replaced Reed in all things technical, scientific and strategic. They recently had Tony tech-tech a way to destroy the Phoenix Force (the essence that possesses Jean Grey) when it came back to Earth. Tony, like Bruce, also has a list of contingency plans and tech to combat other heroes.


You probably are aware of how powerful Superman, but here are some recent feat of Thor.
Escaping an event horizon of a black hole, while rescuing the Red Hulk.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11/112591/3655923-0957987182-16390.jpg

Jane Thor knocking Odin around the Solar System
http://staticdreads.tumblr.com/post/140776749818/thor-vs-odin

When you think of how powerful the Man of Steel and the God of Thunder are, and that there are humans who can beat them, there can be more than a few bruised feelings about that. Once again the David vs Goliath struggle. I'm not saying I dislike that, or Bat God or Stark replacing Reed, it just comes down to interpretation and whose the title character of the story when these heroes come to blows.

 

[Samurai8472]

MAJOR SPOILER from early screenings

Spoiler: Spoiler

https://twitter.com/krlozriivaz/status/709496585101574144

http://i.imgur.com/S0FA6Vv.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/eoXeAKD.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2KcNWOO.jpg

 

[JD]

Interesting.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Less than 10 days away!
Also Daredevil season 2 this Friday!

 

[Commander Richard]

^ Topped off with a Supergirl/Flash crossover.

It's going to be a big week.

 

[Kor]

Superman kills on occasion.

In Superman II, Supes tricked Zod into losing his superpowers, and then he broke Zod's hand and tossed him down a pit to his doom.

And there were a number of times in the comics when he killed the villain as a last resort.

Kor

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

MAJOR SPOILER from early screenings

Can't say I'm shocked. WB is all about the kitchen sink with this one.

 

[kirk55555]

Superman kills on occasion.

In Superman II, Supes tricked Zod into losing his superpowers, and then he broke Zod's hand and tossed him down a pit to his doom.

And there were a number of times in the comics when he killed the villain as a last resort.

Kor

They weren't killed. No one is dead after something like that until you see the body.

Also, there were a number of times in bad comics where Superman kills. Anything after august 2011 doesn't really count, since that Superman isn't remotely like any other version, and is written strictly for angsty 13 year old boys. Before that, it was basically only John byrne being a moron that had Superman kill. In general, Superman does not kill. There being a few examples of him doing that doesn't mean he's a killer, it means some writers are horrible. Batman used to shot people in the very early days, but his biggest thing is that he doesn't kill or use guns. Any examples of Superman killing are bad examples that go against the character.

 

[Commander Richard]

There's a deleted scene where Zod, Non and Ursa are being taken out of the fortress by authorities.

 

[Skywalker]

Emphasis on 'deleted.'

 

[davejames]

Yeah, to be fair I don't think Superman II is really a good example to use considering the overtly comic booky tone and the fact it's not entirely clear what happened to Zod, Ursa and Non after they slipped into that abyss (in fact as a kid it never felt like they were being killed, but more just sent to some strange form of Kryptonian limbo that existed beneath the Fortress).

 

[Enterprise is Great]

Zack Snyder and the cast to appear on Conan O'Brien March 31st - http://deadline.com/2016/03/conan-n...e-cast-director-march-31-sit-down-1201720852/

 

[RAMA]

http://fantasynscifi.com/batman-v-superman-presale-numbers-beat-deadpool-avengers/

Warner Bros.’ Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is making a lot of money with presale tickets for opening-weekend.

Deadline has stated that sources from both inside and outside of the studio say that the film has already earned nearly 25 million. If true these numbers will have broken the record of several films such as The Avengers, Deadpool, and Furious 7.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Emphasis on 'deleted.'

But the fact that it was filmed at all speaks to the original intent of the storytellers. And let's face it, the assumption that Superman killed them all by dropping them down the hole is just as canonical as a deleted scene.

 

[Skywalker]

But the fact that it was filmed at all speaks to the original intent of the storytellers. And let's face it, the assumption that Superman killed them all by dropping them down the hole is just as canonical as a deleted scene.

The only intent that really matters is the one portrayed in the final cut. The filmmakers cut that scene for a reason, whatever it might have been, choosing instead to leave the Kryptonians' fate ambiguous when they could have left it crystal clear. The only logical assumption we can make based on what actually appeared in the final cut is that those three probably died from such a fall, given that it was never followed up on and we never see any official evidence to the contrary.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I never made that assumption, nor even heard of such an assumption until I saw someone post it in this thread.