‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Which is exactly what they're apparently doing. JL is not the start of a new series, it's the direct continuation of Superman vs. Batman.
After all, the goal here is not just to do JL1, 2, 3, etc. It's to do a multi-hero franchise like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with a mix of solo and team films sharing a common continuity. The start of the series was Man of Steel.
I have to admit it does seem a bit surprising WB is sticking with Snyder through all this, after the negative reviews MOS got. Especially when we see studios having no problem kicking other directors to the curb after the first movie of a franchise disappointed in some way (Hunger Games, Divergent, Twilight, etc).
I'm sure they must have requested a few changes in the tone or style and were satisfied that Snyder would be able to make them. Either that or they just couldn't find anybody else who wanted to do it. Lol
I'm sure they must have requested a few changes in the tone or style and were satisfied that Snyder would be able to make them. Either that or they just couldn't find anybody else who wanted to do it. Lol
Feedback from the general public was more positive than from critics and online geekdom and, while they clearly want to ramp the box office up substantially with the next one, the film performed well enough to kickstart the series, so I'm not surprised they stuck with Snyder. I would have been surprised if they hadn't.
Here's io9's thoughts on the question of why they're sticking with Snyder:
http://io9.com/why-is-zack-snyder-the-only-director-of-the-dc-cinemati-1569808501
Basically that WB is a much older studio than Marvel and has more experience with failure, and thus is less willing to take risks on new directors.
http://io9.com/why-is-zack-snyder-the-only-director-of-the-dc-cinemati-1569808501
Basically that WB is a much older studio than Marvel and has more experience with failure, and thus is less willing to take risks on new directors.
They're wrong about Warners being willing to let Tim Burton carry on with the Batman movies. Burton went in to talk about ideas for a third Batman movie, but says he quickly got the message that they wanted to go with another director.
Regarding Marvel, their choice of directors is also in line with their movies being closely controlled by Kevin Feige, so they hire mostly journeymen, newcomers, and directors who have talent but whose careers have taken a downturn, who are willing to basically execute Feige's vision. Their own input will be in the mix of course, but ultimately it's Feige's show. Some of them stay on if they work well with Feige, while others are shoved out. They also like to avoid big pay days. They're willing to pay out big to RDJ, because they have to, and they've decided it's worth it to pay out big to Whedon, but for the most part they don't want to give the kind of deals big name directors demand.
And Warners does sometimes take risks in hiring directors for tentpole movies. All studios do. Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan had shown promise with smaller films, but it was a risk to hand them big budget Batman movies. They weren't anymore experienced at the time than most of the Marvel directors.
Regarding Marvel, their choice of directors is also in line with their movies being closely controlled by Kevin Feige, so they hire mostly journeymen, newcomers, and directors who have talent but whose careers have taken a downturn, who are willing to basically execute Feige's vision. Their own input will be in the mix of course, but ultimately it's Feige's show. Some of them stay on if they work well with Feige, while others are shoved out. They also like to avoid big pay days. They're willing to pay out big to RDJ, because they have to, and they've decided it's worth it to pay out big to Whedon, but for the most part they don't want to give the kind of deals big name directors demand.
And Warners does sometimes take risks in hiring directors for tentpole movies. All studios do. Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan had shown promise with smaller films, but it was a risk to hand them big budget Batman movies. They weren't anymore experienced at the time than most of the Marvel directors.
Last edited:
I actually thought Affleck would do JL.
I have my problems with Snyder as a director but in Dawn of the Dead, 300 and Watchmen he juggled an ensemble cast pretty well.
I have my problems with Snyder as a director but in Dawn of the Dead, 300 and Watchmen he juggled an ensemble cast pretty well.
I thought there was a chance Affleck would direct Justice League if there was a delay between the films, but if they're filming back to back it makes more sense to have Snyder do both. Affleck might end up directing a Batman spin-off.
Yeah there might be some truth to that. Bad reviews or no, MOS still made a helluva lot more money than GL or any of their other non-Batman movies, so they probably thought it smart to just stick with him.
And even if the reviews for the next movies aren't great, Snyder's still proven that he knows how to get people excited for his movies and into theaters anyway (if the trailers for MOS were impressive, I can only imagine how amazing and badass the trailers for BvS and JL will likely be).
Early costume tests.
Proof that Geoff Johns did not invent the Blue Lanterns.
No matter which costumes, the Justice League always seemed kinda cheesy. Green Lantern with a... lantern? Thor wields lightning and smashes his enemies with a mighty hammer. Wonder Woman has an invisible plane? Iron Man has an awesome suit.
The only cool guys in Justice League are Superman and Batman. They are basically Thor and Iron Man. With the exception that neither Thor or Iron Man are all emo about their existence.
The only cool guys in Justice League are Superman and Batman. They are basically Thor and Iron Man. With the exception that neither Thor or Iron Man are all emo about their existence.
Oh please, Stan Lee invented the emo superhero. Thor and Iron Man included.
Yes.
I don't know, as a kid the Marvel characters always struck me as being pretty silly too (back when the artwork was much more simplistic than it is now). A superhero... who looks like a Norse god and carries around a hammer? A guy dressed as the American flag? A guy who simply turns big and green and smashes stuff? And then there were all the characters with giant pointed masks for some reason.
The only ones with decent costumes were Spider-Man and Iron Man, and even they didn't look nearly as cool back then as they do now.
The lantern is just the power battery for his ring. The ring can manifest anything the wielder can imagine. The original Golden Age Green Lantern was basically a riff on Aladdin and his lamp -- recall that the legend also included a genie of the ring. It was basically about a hero who could wish anything into existence. The Silver Age reboot made it more science-fictional with the galactic Green Lantern Corps, but it's still about a guy who can make magic happen. Thor's limited to a hammer, but a GL can wield any weapon in the universe just by thinking about it.
Iron Man is just a mere mortal without his suit. Wonder Woman can fly without her plane, and only needs a pair of bracelets as body armor.
Well, except that Superman and Batman were created 24 years earlier. Superman is the template for all superheroes -- he's the reason they're called superheroes.
And it's only in the past few decades that Batman's become a "high-tech armor" hero like Iron Man. For most of his career, he was perfectly effective fighting crime in tights.
Actually, no, not really. And Christopher explains it well enough that I'll just go with "What he said.".
So we agree on what's the case right now? I wasn't talking about the past.
Apart from power level, maybe, Superman and Thor are hardly similar. Thor is a god who considers himself a god. Superman is a god who considers himself human.
Besides, Superman doesn't need a hammer to fly.
Besides, Superman doesn't need a hammer to fly.
