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

[Captaindemotion]

I've always thought that putting Batman in the MOS sequel was a reaction to that movie not performing as well at the box office as WB expected (while still being a hit, it didn't give them the Dark Knight/Harry Potter sort of money they hoped to get after those franchises came to an end).

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, it's an understandable decision. Batman is DC/Warner Bros.' one consistently successful movie superhero, so when Superman's relaunch underperformed, they shored him up with Batman.

But to be fair, it's not as if the fans haven't been clamoring for a Superman/Batman movie for ages.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I think Bad Bishop's point is that nobody anticipated a Batman/Superman movie so soon after Man of Steel.

Yes, that's true, but rushing a Batman vs. Superman film isn't a sign of brilliance. It's a sign of panic. WB is scrambling to catch up with Marvel and make the money that they could have made years ago.

I don't think WB are rushing anything. If the delay meant anything, it shows that WB is clearly taking their time with this one. They even said in the press release the delay was so that they can have proper time to make the movie.

 

[DWF]

Since Man Of Steel made over $600 million worldwide it's hard to say it under performed and since the sequel was in the works prior to MOS coming it was a planned move. And the Superman/Batman was pushed back a year so it's hardly being rushed out for that matter.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

$668 million is a successful return on a $225 million production budget. The inclusion of Batman in the next movie is the most surefire way to boost the box office from a successful return to an uber-successful one. Plus it allows them to bridge to a Justice League film.

WB is scrambling to catch up with Marvel and make the money that they could have made years ago.

Warners has a varied slate of films and for the last dozen years or so they've been sitting pretty making huge amounts of money from The Lord of Rings/The Hobbit, Harry Potter, and Batman. If they added another successful franchise all well and good, but they didn't have a pressing need to do so. They're seeking to utilize their DC properties to a greater extent now because they have more of a need for them.

 

[davejames]

I've always thought that putting Batman in the MOS sequel was a reaction to that movie not performing as well at the box office as WB expected (while still being a hit, it didn't give them the Dark Knight/Harry Potter sort of money they hoped to get after those franchises came to an end).

Maybe they were secretly hoping for a massive, TDK-level hit, but we're still talking about a Superman reboot here, which was released seven years after the box office disappointment that was SR.

Given that, I'm sure they still had to be pretty damn pleased and relieved with the box office results they did get.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Since Man Of Steel made over $600 million worldwide it's hard to say it under performed and since the sequel was in the works prior to MOS coming it was a planned move. And the Superman/Batman was pushed back a year so it's hardly being rushed out for that matter.

It depends how you define 'underperform.' Jeff Robinov, then head of WB, was predicting that it would be WB's biggest ever movie:

http://www.newsarama.com/18039-man-...nd-high-stakes-for-their-dc-movie-future.html

That would've meant it would have to make about $1.2bn, putting it ahead of the likes of Harry Potter/Deathly Hollows and The Dark Knight. So $600m, while a lot of money, is only half of that. Maybe Robinov was on a solo run there (he did leave WB soon after MOS came out) but if his thinking reflected that of WB in general, then MOS' box-office take does have to be seen as a disappointment. Less disappointing than Superman Returns but not reaching their expectations (which, weren't that secret, dave).

As Christopher said, Batman has been WB's most consistently successful superhero franchise since 1989 (both TDK and TDKR made more money than either Superman Returns or Man of Steel) and it made financial sense to use his clout to help achieve Batman-style box office returns.

I don't think this movie has been rush and I agree that WB have been trying to get Superman and Batman in one film for years. I think that this must've seemed like the opportune moment to do it and it also had the advantage of being different again from how Marvel have done their crossovers (Batman as a prominent guest-star in a Superman film; Marvel have yet to do something like that with their top-tier heroes). But my very strong feeling is that had MOS pulled in $1.2bn at the box office, we would be seeing a sequel that did not feature Batman.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Robinov's prediction was overly enthusiastic exuberance. Almost all of the films that have grossed over a billion dollars are sequels.

 

[davejames]

It's not that uncommon for studios to talk up their movies beforehand to build up buzz, so I don't really put much stock in their statement.

And while I agree they probably moved ahead faster with the Batman/Superman thing than they might have otherwise, I don't really see that as a huge knock against MOS. It would have been a smart and inspired move to include Batman in the sequel regardless of how well MOS did. It's hard to think of an idea for a sequel that could be any bigger or more exciting than that, so the WB probably figured why wait?

 

[Greg Cox]

...the point of item #4 was this part: "...that they can't seem to nail down the scope, focus, or timing of in relation to setting up the Justice League film."

But the operative word there is "seem." It would be a huge mistake to assume that the lack of clarity in what's been made public to date represents a lack of clarity in the actual planning. What we see is just the tip of the iceberg. Heck, it's just the barest glimpse of the iceberg peering over the horizon. For all we know, they may have a very clear, detailed plan for their films; but we're just learning about it in dribs and drabs, through secondhand sources and rumors and leaks and speculations. So what we're aware of is bound to be a whole lot vaguer and more confused than what's actually being done behind the scenes.

Bingo. An endless flurry of confused and occasionally contradictory rumors doesn't at all indicate any sort of confusion behind the scenes. It just means that people on the outside are having trouble figuring out what Warner is up to and what it means with regard to the JLA. And that's a good thing, secrecy-wise.

And given that movie doesn't come out until 2016, why on Earth would anyone expect that we would know everything there is to know about movie by now?

"Ohmigod, Warner Bros. hasn't revealed the entire cast and plot of a movie coming out two years from now! How are we supposed to render judgment on it already? This is chaos!"

Just because some fan website posts one rumor and another posts a completely different rumor doesn't mean that Warner changed their mind. It just means that one or both rumors were bullshit.

 

[Aragorn]

Just because some fan website posts one rumor and another posts a completely different rumor doesn't mean that Warner changed their mind. It just means that one or both rumors were bullshit.

Anyone remember the reports about how George Lucas was going to temper the accusations of racism in The Phantom Menace by adding a spiritual Native American character and a martial arts Asian character in the sequel? So many websites fell for it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Honestly, I don't know how many times I've had to bite my tongue while watching fandom go into conniptions over "reports" and "rumors" and "news" that I knew for a fact were total bullshit.

So, yes, I tend to roll my eyes whenever people start building elaborate edifices of theory and speculation based on whatever spurious bit of "news" has been going around . . . and taken as gospel by spoiler-hungry fans.

 

[Sindatur]

Honestly, I don't know how many times I've had to bite my tongue while watching fandom go into conniptions over "reports" and "rumors" and "news" that I knew for a fact were total bullshit.

Oh man, that's gotta be painful, especially when it's an arrogant sot textually smacking around anyone who has the audacity to question their "news", that sent them on the tare.

 

[Gaith]

And while I agree they probably moved ahead faster with the Batman/Superman thing than they might have otherwise, I don't really see that as a huge knock against MOS. It would have been a smart and inspired move to include Batman in the sequel regardless of how well MOS did. It's hard to think of an idea for a sequel that could be any bigger or more exciting than that, so the WB probably figured why wait?

It would probably also have been a smart move, in retrospect, to casually mention Batman at some point in MOS if the next movie will indeed establish that he's been doing his thing for quite some time - and no, I'm not counting two or three blink-and-you'll-miss-them Wayne/Luthorcorp logos. Heck, Superman Returns arguably had a more prominent Batman tease in its spoken mention of Gotham than MOS did!

 

[davejames]

I still don't see a conflict with that. We're not talking about someone with godlike, attention-grabbing superpowers like Superman here. It's just a guy in a bat costume with some cool gadgets, who operates well below the radar and is more than likely regarded as nothing more than an urban myth.

With all the crazy, intense, end-of-the-world events going down in MOS, I can easily see why no one bothered to mention him.

 

[Ovation]

I still don't see a conflict with that. We're not talking about someone with godlike, attention-grabbing superpowers like Superman here. It's just a guy in a bat costume with some cool gadgets, who operates well below the radar and is more than likely regarded as nothing more than an urban myth.

With all the crazy, intense, end-of-the-world events going down in MOS, I can easily see why no one bothered to mention him.

Pretty much. If it looks like the world is about to end, I'm asking "where's Superman?", not "where's Batman?" If I'm about to get mugged in Gotham, then "where's Batman?" becomes a more pertinent question.

 

[Lawrence B]

Just announced: Jesse Eisenberg is Lex Luthor and Jeremy Irons is Alfred in Superman/Batman:

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/j...batman-jeremy-irons-set-as-alfred-1201079902/

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Luthor will probably be a Zuckerberg-ish tech billionaire.

 

[sojourner]

Let's hope Jesse shaves his head. He's one of those actors who always seems to have the same hair no matter what character he plays.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

My guess is that he won't be bald.