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

[Greg Cox]

This actually means we can't trust him on anything, as he'll be trying to shill his services for every movie?

Honestly, Affleck was nowhere on my radar, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially remembering all the skepticism that greeted Keaton back in the day.

But, yeah, I have a soft spot for DAREDEVIL since it was the first movie I ever novelized . . . ah, youth!

 

[DalekJim]

I wasn't dissing you, I have a respect for the medium of the novelisation. Some of the Doctor Who ones are better than the actual TV serials.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In declaring the fanboys "consistently and always wrong", they cite Heath Ledger, Daniel Craig, and the Star Trek reboot.

Ledger was good. Craig is too ugly and unrefined for Bond, though he nails the physicality. And the Star Trek reboot was crap.
If financial success denotes high quality, Brittainy Spears is the pinnacle of musical achievement.

All it indicates is financial success. Which what the folks footing the bill are looking at. The folks plopping down the bucks are looking to be entertained. "Quality" is in the eye of the beholder. For this beholder, Craig nails Bond on every level and Star Trek is as close to TOS as it gets. The real TOS from the 60s, not the nostalgic fantasy TOS from some fans' memories.

Britney Spears? Is it 2001 again? Isn't Justin Bieber the current go to for angry old man rants? When I was a kid it was the Beatles.

 

[Agent Richard07]

The music is loud and bombastic, the colors bright and vivid these LOOK like heroes and they're about to reveal all of their splendor to the world in all of their awesome. Superman vastly lacked that.

Good. That's about the last thing I want to see.

Why watch a damn Superman film then?!?!

Not every superhero film needs to fit with what was described in Trekker's post. I liked the approach we got with Man of Steel and I think there's room for stuff like that along with the lighter fare.

 

[davejames]

Linkara did a "review" of it which mostly him ranting but he points something out that I think makes the point clearly, there's a shot in Avengers where the camera pans around our heroes readying for the next round of their battle. The music is loud and bombastic, the colors bright and vivid these LOOK like heroes and they're about to reveal all of their splendor to the world in all of their awesome. Superman vastly lacked that.

Well yeah, but Avengers told more of a standard kind of superhero story, with the usual big "superhero moments" and room for the characters to strike cool and dramatic poses.

MOS was presented more as an intense, documentary-style alien invasion movie where the camera was simply recording events on the ground as they happened. Here, Superman was too busy surviving and battling the kryptonians to stop and look cool for the camera.

And even so, there was still a general sense of awe and wonder that followed the character throughout, I thought. Which was all I really needed.

 

[Greg Cox]

I wasn't dissing you, I have a respect for the medium of the novelisation. Some of the Doctor Who ones are better than the actual TV serials.

No offense taken.

Back when I was collecting vampire novels, I made sure to track down a copy of the novelization of State of Decay, which, I confess, is the only Doctor Who novelization I've ever read!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Linkara did a "review" of it which mostly him ranting but he points something out that I think makes the point clearly, there's a shot in Avengers where the camera pans around our heroes readying for the next round of their battle. The music is loud and bombastic, the colors bright and vivid these LOOK like heroes and they're about to reveal all of their splendor to the world in all of their awesome. Superman vastly lacked that.

Well yeah, but Avengers told more of a standard kind of superhero story, with the usual big "superhero moments" and room for the characters to strike cool and dramatic poses.

MOS was presented more as an intense, documentary-style alien invasion movie where the camera was simply recording events on the ground as they happened. Here, Superman was too busy surviving and battling the kryptonians to stop and look cool for the camera.

And even so, there was still a general sense of awe and wonder that followed the character throughout, I thought. Which was all I really needed.

Given the reputations of DC and Marvel (though no longer accurate) you'd think it should be the reverse. DC is the one that should have "standard kind of superhero story" and characters to strike cool and dramatic poses. While Marvel should be more grounded and real.

 

[Trekker4747]

Good. That's about the last thing I want to see.

Why watch a damn Superman film then?!?!

Not every superhero film needs to fit with what was described in Trekker's post. I liked the approach we got with Man of Steel and I think there's room for stuff like that along with the lighter fare.

Thing is that it's Superman it SHOULD be bright and colorful like Avengers (or, hell, any of the Marvel-U movies) was. Not the kind of movie where the only splash of color you see is the blue on the Sears building or the blues and yellows in the IHOP. The color tone and vibrancy was just too low in MoS, the movie might of well have been in black-n-white.

 

[Agent Richard07]

Thing is that it's Superman it SHOULD be bright and colorful like Avengers (or, hell, any of the Marvel-U movies) was. Not the kind of movie where the only splash of color you see is the blue on the Sears building or the blues and yellows in the IHOP. The color tone and vibrancy was just too low in MoS, the movie might of well have been in black-n-white.

I'll agree that the actual color scheme could have been more vibrant. I was responding more to the overall tone of Man of Steel which was less comic booky than The Avengers. I liked the tone of Man of Steel and don't subscribe to this often rigid idea that superhero movies should emphasize a certain kind of fun and levity.

 

[Trekker4747]

Thing is that it's Superman it SHOULD be bright and colorful like Avengers (or, hell, any of the Marvel-U movies) was. Not the kind of movie where the only splash of color you see is the blue on the Sears building or the blues and yellows in the IHOP. The color tone and vibrancy was just too low in MoS, the movie might of well have been in black-n-white.

I'll agree that the actual color scheme could have been more vibrant. I was responding more to the overall tone of Man of Steel which was less comic booky than The Avengers. I liked the tone of Man of Steel and don't subscribe to this often rigid idea that superhero movies should emphasize a certain kind of fun and levity.

The color scheme and the music. In both case MoS was dull. Levity, stuff like that can go either way. But Superman shouldn't be so... dull and bland.

 

[davejames]

Thing is that it's Superman it SHOULD be bright and colorful like Avengers (or, hell, any of the Marvel-U movies) was. Not the kind of movie where the only splash of color you see is the blue on the Sears building or the blues and yellows in the IHOP. The color tone and vibrancy was just too low in MoS, the movie might of well have been in black-n-white.

Well we already got that with the Donner movies. Those were about as bright and comic booky as you can get.

As much as I loved that back then, I find the idea of a more grounded and realistic Superman much more intriguing now.

 

[The Old Mixer]

a more grounded and realistic Superman

Oxymoron alert!

 

[DalekJim]

These tales should become more grounded and realistic if you alter your perception to fit their universe, rather than twisting their world to resemble ours. You lose the magic then.

 

[Chuck Finley]

Ok, I have no idea how acurate a site cosmicbooknews.com is, but I figured I'd post this article anyway.

http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/co...erman-matt-damon-aquaman-mark-strong-sinestro

Even if this isn't true, and thats very possible, its an interesting idea that I'd never considered. I've never seen Breaking Bad (I only really know Cranston from malcom in the Middle and various cameos on shows like Seinfeld), but I think bald Bryan cranston could look like Luthor (if you got rid of the goatee and glasses from the pics I've seen of him bald in breaking bad) plus he's always seemed like a decent actor.

If this is true, I think Cranston would be exellent as Luthor, but I'm not really sure I want the same older Luthor. Every Luthor in the movies has been older and while I think Cranston would be absolutely perfect, especially after Breaking Bad, but I don't know what I want in Luthor this time. I certainly don't want a Luthor that comes up with real estate schemes. I do want to see Luthor in the power suit though. I know this would never happen, but I'd love to see Rosenboum as Luthor again. But, yeah, Cranston would negate my feelings against Afleck for sure.

 

[theenglish]

Linkara did a "review" of it which mostly him ranting but he points something out that I think makes the point clearly, there's a shot in Avengers where the camera pans around our heroes readying for the next round of their battle. The music is loud and bombastic, the colors bright and vivid these LOOK like heroes and they're about to reveal all of their splendor to the world in all of their awesome. Superman vastly lacked that.

Good. That's about the last thing I want to see.

It is amazing how many reviewers use straw men to attack the Man of Steel. It wasn't the movie THEY WANTED to see so they make up reasons not to like it. I really enjoyed both movies on their own terms, and overlooked the flaws in each as I did so. There was nothing about the Man of Steel that needed the shot discussed here; it wasn't the tone of the film.

 

[theenglish]

In declaring the fanboys "consistently and always wrong", they cite Heath Ledger, Daniel Craig, and the Star Trek reboot.

Ledger was good. Craig is too ugly and unrefined for Bond, though he nails the physicality. And the Star Trek reboot was crap.
If financial success denotes high quality, Brittainy Spears is the pinnacle of musical achievement.

Craig's performance as Bond is based on the literary character not the previously established movie roles. Craig knows how Bond was written and plays that rather than trying to rip of Roger Moore as Brosnan did. Dalton took the same approach in the eighties, and License to Kill was a good film--but it wasn't the Bond people wanted.

Ledger was good, but his performance was not worth dying over...and the movie itself was a let down.

And I agree with you that people need to stop equating financial success with quality. I was never a Michael Jackson fan, but I get angry when people equate somebody like Spears with him. Jackson was an artistic and financial genius, even if he completely messed up his personal life.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Star Trek is as close to TOS as it gets. The real TOS from the 60s, not the nostalgic fantasy TOS from some fans' memories.

NuTrek is unlike TOS at all, other than "in name only."

Even the TOS "tribute"/flashback episodes of DS9 & Enterprise captured TOS more than anything in NuTrek--and it was more than TOS trappings.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek is as close to TOS as it gets. The real TOS from the 60s, not the nostalgic fantasy TOS from some fans' memories.

NuTrek is unlike TOS at all, other than "in name only."

Even the TOS "tribute"/flashback episodes of DS9 & Enterprise captured TOS more than anything in NuTrek--and it was more than TOS trappings.

Been watching the shows and films and reading the books since the 60s. In this beholders eyes it is. While I enjoyed the flashbacks in DS9 and ENT they didn't quite capture the feel I got from TOS in the 60s and 70s.

 

[Dr.H]

Man of Steel wasn't realistic, it was more 'grounded' and 'serious' then the previous films, but not 'realistic.' This means within the more grounded and serious universe of Man of Steel which has a world that at least on some level resembles our own it eschews the more hokier, lighthearted elements of some of the comics and the previous flicks. It was a more modernized version of the character that placed importance on humanizing the him and giving the viewer a window into his psyche in order to make the character resonate with the viewer. Steel does this by giving you a glimpse of the introspective crisis of alienation so this way you can put yourself into the character's shoes and feel for him. To paraphrase what Nolan said in regards to the tone of his Bat-flicks it's ''relatable'' but not realistic---Man of Steel is no different.

If you folks want something that is close to a ''realistic'' Superman go check out Superman Secret Identity.

 

[theenglish]

Ok, I have no idea how acurate a site cosmicbooknews.com is, but I figured I'd post this article anyway.

http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/co...erman-matt-damon-aquaman-mark-strong-sinestro

Even if this isn't true, and thats very possible, its an interesting idea that I'd never considered. I've never seen Breaking Bad (I only really know Cranston from malcom in the Middle and various cameos on shows like Seinfeld), but I think bald Bryan cranston could look like Luthor (if you got rid of the goatee and glasses from the pics I've seen of him bald in breaking bad) plus he's always seemed like a decent actor.

If this is true, I think Cranston would be exellent as Luthor, but I'm not really sure I want the same older Luthor. Every Luthor in the movies has been older and while I think Cranston would be absolutely perfect, especially after Breaking Bad, but I don't know what I want in Luthor this time. I certainly don't want a Luthor that comes up with real estate schemes. I do want to see Luthor in the power suit though. I know this would never happen, but I'd love to see Rosenboum as Luthor again. But, yeah, Cranston would negate my feelings against Afleck for sure.

I want a Luthor who is not the main villain, who may be a foil of some sort who is set up for the following movie, but we have had way too much Luthor in the movies already. Time for something new: Brainiac, Darkseid, a few Rogues...