Christopher Nolan talks Batman and Superman

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The alien visitations and other sf elements in 1950s "Batman" were an attempt to appeal to what the publishers thought of as the dominant comic marketing categories of the time. Superman's Kryptonian background and his adventures in space greatly expanded and were elaborated upon in the 1950s. Most superheroes other than Bats and Supes and Wonder Woman faded away during that decade, in favor of science fiction and horror comics. In fact, the "Marvel Universe" of the early 1960s emerged out of a series of horror and sf anthology comics.

 

[Checkmate]

So don't expect Batman and Superman to be sharing the screen any time soon >: (

His logic is flawless. Superman would take away from Batman and just create plotholes.

Eh?

Batman does things completely differently than Superman does, and he is willing to do things Superman would never be able to bring himself to do. They've basically become polar opposites of each other. Right down to their abilities; Supes very often fails to realize the various things he can do with his powers, relying instead on brute force and speed because that's all he usually ever actually needs to get the job done. Whereas Batman doesn't have that luxury. He always has to use every trick in the book to get the job done, often thinking outside the box and improvising against the vastly superior foes he faces on a regular basis.

Which is pretty much why Batman stands a chance even when he does have to go up against Superman. Supes is basically a big soft-hearted dummy, whereas Batman is a cynical genius, manipulator and tactician. He knows Superman won't just zap him with his heat vision or vaporize him with a single lightspeed punch... and he uses that against him. And this is coming from someone who actually likes Superman more than Batman.

That's where the potential is for both of those characters lie. It's just a shame that the people responsible for writing Superman's stories come up with the dumbest ideas ever due in large part to a lack of understanding these facts (and instead whine about how 'hard' it is to write stories for him), whereas Batman's stories tend to be a lot cooler because everyone with half a brain can deduce how and why he's good at his job.

 

[Brikar99]

He does good deeds because he can, not because some neurosis tells him he must.

I said something extremely similar to a friend of mine once, and the reply I got was, "And that's why I hate Superman."

I wanted to slap him. In the nuts.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I wish he'd be a bit more specific about what exactly their take on Superman is or how it's different/similar compared to other versions.

Thinking about it recently, I think I've figured out what it is about Superman that makes him Superman to me. I.e. the one thing you absolutely cannot fuck with, lest you turn the character into something he's not. It is: At no point does Superman ever truly consider not being Superman.

There's this emo nature to most superheroes, like Batman & Spider-Man, where they occasionally seriously flirt with the idea of permanently quitting. They're haunted by a compulsion, nearly a psychosis, usually stemming from grief or guilt. They'd like to stop doing it but they won't allow themselves to. Superman, due to his solid, mid-western upbringing, never seriously considers not being the hero, not doing everything possible to help people & promote justice.

There are moments of conflict when he is simply unable to do everything that he wants to do. In Superman II, he gave up his powers to be with Lois Lane. He did this because being with Lois was the thing he wanted most in the world. But even without his powers, you still see the confident superhero swagger in the diner scene. And the instant he realizes the dire consequences of his powerlessness, he hightails it back to the Fortress of Solitude to try to get them back. In Superman Returns, he abandons Earth for 5 years to go on a quest to find Krypton. He's certainly human enough that he needs "me time" like all of us. But being the hero, being a man always endeavoring to do good, is an inherent, irrevocable part of his psyche. He can be emotionally wounded. He can lament that the people don't truly appreciate the sacrifices he makes. But in the end, that inherent nobility must shine through. He does good deeds because he can, not because some neurosis tells him he must.

Superman does good deeds because Johnathan raised Clark to be a good, wholesome person. JorEl taught him the rest.

 

[crouteru]

It's good to see Nolan approaching his rebooted Batman films as a trilogy with a beginning, middle and end, rather than leaving the story open for endless sequels. We might finally have a superhero third film that's actually good!

 

[Icemizer]

Lets keep Nolan away from the Superman franchise. After the horrific Joker character(nothing against Mr. Ledgers performance it was the construction of the character that was bad) he created in TDK I really dont want to see what he does to the Superman universe.
Nolans deep need to make things real just wont play in a universe with a super powered characters unless you change him so much he becomes unrecognizable.
The studio should also realize that putting their two iconic characters in the same film will be a huge draw for the comic and non comic fans. From a monetary stand point its just not good thinking.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Not really. The Dark Knight is one of the most successful movies of all time. How would putting Superman into it have made it any bigger a hit?

WB have decided that they can make more money with two separate franchises, making twice as much money as they can with putting all their superheroic baskets in one movie basket. You may or may not agree with it artistically or creatively, but (the underwhelming box office of Superman Returns notwithstanding) it's a sensible enough decision financially.

 

[JacksonArcher]

^ Not really. The Dark Knight is one of the most successful movies of all time. How would putting Superman into it have made it any bigger a hit?

WB have decided that they can make more money with two separate franchises, making twice as much money as they can with putting all their superheroic baskets in one movie basket. You may or may not agree with it artistically or creatively, but (the underwhelming box office of Superman Returns notwithstanding) it's a sensible enough decision financially.

Exactly. The reason why WB's planned Batman vs. Superman movie never panned out is that they had feared (and justifiably so) that if the movie bombed, you would ruin two characters in the same movie since they had planned to do spin-off movies after BvS had it been financially and critically (but mostly financially) successful.

Then of course J.J. Abrams impressed studio execs with his Superman solo script and the rest is history. I think for now keeping both characters separate is a good idea. I think a Superman film can be very successful, it just has to be done right, and I think Nolan is a smart enough filmmaker to get Superman right.

 

[Jetfire]

^
Doing Superman right is not messing with the basics and just telling an exciting but compelling story...hopefully that is what Nolan & Co. will do...I think he(Nolan) understands that.

 

[scnj]

I have fundamental problems with Superman. Namely, I think that someone like that would view us the way we view ants, sort of like Dr Manhattan.

To be fair though, I did love Red Son, and I will check out this reboot.

 

[Aragorn]

^
Doing Superman right is not messing with the basics and just telling an exciting but compelling story...hopefully that is what Nolan & Co. will do...I think he(Nolan) understands that.

So... just do the opposite of Smallville?

 

[Jetfire]

^
Pretty much.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Miller is given too much credit for bringing Batman back to his dark roots. Other writers starting in the 70s were bringing Bats back to darker and "more serious" story lines. Miller wrote one popular, out of continuity story (DKR) that was really dark and everyone credits him with re-making Bats. That really wasn't so much the case. Even if you look at Batman: Year One, it's really not that dark, at least no more than the typical Batman stories being told around that era.

Correct - since at least the early 70s the Batman we now know came into formation. Denny O'Neil, the quintessential Batman writer, should take most of the credit, at least in my book. That's not to take away from Miller's extraordinary work in the 80s.

Yup.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

So don't expect Batman and Superman to be sharing the screen any time soon >: (

His logic is flawless. Superman would take away from Batman and just create plotholes.

Eh?

Batman does things completely differently than Superman does, and he is willing to do things Superman would never be able to bring himself to do. They've basically become polar opposites of each other. Right down to their abilities; Supes very often fails to realize the various things he can do with his powers, relying instead on brute force and speed because that's all he usually ever actually needs to get the job done. Whereas Batman doesn't have that luxury. He always has to use every trick in the book to get the job done, often thinking outside the box and improvising against the vastly superior foes he faces on a regular basis.

Which is pretty much why Batman stands a chance even when he does have to go up against Superman. Supes is basically a big soft-hearted dummy, whereas Batman is a cynical genius, manipulator and tactician. He knows Superman won't just zap him with his heat vision or vaporize him with a single lightspeed punch... and he uses that against him. And this is coming from someone who actually likes Superman more than Batman.

That's where the potential is for both of those characters lie. It's just a shame that the people responsible for writing Superman's stories come up with the dumbest ideas ever due in large part to a lack of understanding these facts (and instead whine about how 'hard' it is to write stories for him), whereas Batman's stories tend to be a lot cooler because everyone with half a brain can deduce how and why he's good at his job.

My point is, together, I don't think they complement each other. Superman's abilities allow him to physically leave in Batman in the dust. Sure you could emphasize Batman's intelligence as a way to separate himself, but Batman's completeness has always been key (and there's no point of him doing any action when someone who's invincible is around, it doesn't make sense). In a story where they team up, I don't see them on equal footing and I think that would be the elephant in the room in any crossover movie.

 

[Admiral_Young]

My friend who's not a comic book fan but enjoys some of the films and loves Nolan's Batman movies specifically for their realism (he's an electrical engineer if that makes any difference) and totally rejects the very concept of Superman. So suffice it to say that he won't be joining me to see Nolan/Goyer and whoever's "Superman".

I've already given my take on what a Nolan Superman film might be like in a couple other threads so I won't repeat myself. I'm excited for both films and the fact that they'll be coming out in the same year six months apart is mind blowing to me. 2012 is just going to be an epic year for film, especially big anticipated blockbusters.

 

[Broccoli]

I have fundamental problems with Superman. Namely, I think that someone like that would view us the way we view ants, sort of like Dr Manhattan.

To be fair though, I did love Red Son, and I will check out this reboot.

The thing is that Superman had a wholesome, mid-western upbringing with strong positive values instilled upon him by the Kents. Also, he is able to keep his humanity "in check" by being Clark Kent.

With Dr. Manhattan, he completely disconnected from humanity, unlike Supes who keeps his connection.

 

[Mike Farley]

It's funny, that of DC's "Big Three"--Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman--that the alien Superman is in many ways the most human of the bunch.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Yes because he was raised by humans with strong family values and morals who imparted their wisdom to their adopted son. I firmly believe that one of the reasons why Superman is the type of man he is portrayed as is because of the way Jonathon and Martha raised and treated him. Bruce is an orphan who buried himself in his grief and promise to avenge his parents death. There's no way that he can relate to Clark or his upbringing. Diana is a human born of magic and wonder and raised in a conditioned society with high superiority values. Yet despite all three of these differences the trinity ARE friends and get along with each other.

 

[Brikar99]

I have fundamental problems with Superman. Namely, I think that someone like that would view us the way we view ants, sort of like Dr Manhattan.

To be fair though, I did love Red Son, and I will check out this reboot.

The thing is that Superman had a wholesome, mid-western upbringing with strong positive values instilled upon him by the Kents. Also, he is able to keep his humanity "in check" by being Clark Kent.

With Dr. Manhattan, he completely disconnected from humanity, unlike Supes who keeps his connection.

For me, fact that he DOESN'T view us as ants is a huge part of what makes him so interesting; for all his superiority, he believes absolutely that we are all important and worth saving. He could squash Lex Luthor with his pinky finger, but there's such an intense moral sense about the value of life in him, that he wouldn't.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ Again chalk that up to the Kents for instilling those values in him.