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

I can't wait

 

Watching the trailer, looks more to me that Batman is the one who strays off the path. Superman only accidentally creates an army of crazy worshippers, but he never actually has a problem with knowing right from wrong.

I do wonder why they would build him a statue after the events of MoS, though.

 

^It's a trailer. I'm sure a lot of things are being shown and said out of context to create a narrative that probably isn't the focus of the movie at all.

Have to say I like the distortion on Batman's voice. It makes sense that in a modern world of voice print matching, facial recognition and DNA testing he'd have to take extra-ordinary steps to conceal his identity.

I also like the idea that there's a crazy Superman worshipping militant cult. I know in the comics that crazy followers and copycats are more Batman's thing (hell, that's how he recruits half his team mates) but I don't think I've ever seen it done with Superman before. It's an interesting concept that he has essentially lost control of his public image and people will start acting in his name. Pretty appropriate follow through for all the messianic subtext of the previous film. Feels like there's shades of 'Red Son' in there too, at least in terms of imagery.

 

There's Steel (John Henry Irons), obviously. He wasn't a "crazy Superman worshiping militant," but he was definitely inspired by Superman.

The "worshipers" idea has occasionally been used in the Legion. We've seen a couple of 30th-/31st-century Superman-inspired cults over the years. I recall Kon-El encountering one when he was pulled into the post-Zero Hour Legion future.

 

Oh there's definitely been Superman worshipping cults before. I know there was one in "Funeral For a Friend". I believe there was one in Buseik's run? And in 52 there was a cult worshipping dead Superboy.

 

Well, I have no faith whatsoever in Snyder not to screw it up, but I'm definitely interested in a DC movie universe in principle -- even if I'm not enamored of their desire to keep it more "grounded" and "serious" as a contrast to Marvel's alleged lightness. The idea of finally seeing all these characters interacting onscreen is intriguing. And I do like some of the choices they've made -- like getting a solo female-lead movie on the slate before Marvel did, or going for diverse casting with choices like Jason Momoa as Aquaman. I also heard an unconfirmed report yesterday that the Green Lantern of the DCCU will be John Stewart -- which is said to be partly an attempt to distance it from the Ryan Reynolds GL movie, but is also a good idea in its own right, both for the sake of inclusion and because there's a whole generation that knows Stewart as GL thanks to the Justice League cartoon.

Now, I doubt I could enjoy the DCCU as much as I'm enjoying the CW-verse (Berlantiverse? DCCWU? DCTVU? Flasharrowatomverse?), and there are aspects of it that I have serious concerns about, but it's an experiment that I hope will succeed and transcend its growing pains.

Which could potentially make for an interesting movie, but I'm not sure it's what I want to see in a Superman movie, or in the DCCU in general. As someone said above, things like Watchmen and TDKR were meant to be revisionist or deconstructionist commentaries on comics, rather than the benchmark for how every superhero story should be told. There's a whole generation of fans that barely knows Superman; maybe they've seen the old movies, but he isn't really seen as the archetypal superhero the way he used to be. So should the movies really be deconstructing him without having ever really constructed him for modern audiences in the first place? Without something to react against, it leaves things rather one-sided.

Then again, as I look at what I just wrote, I realize... Arrow started out as a very dark, Milleresque show about a vigilante antihero, but it gradually built him up into a more heroic, redemptive figure; and though he's continued to be mired in Daredevil-worthy angst and death and despair, he's also inspired other, brighter heroes like the Flash and the Atom. So the CW-verse started out in a place of fashionable darkness and essentially deconstructed that, questioning the cynicism and nihilism of it and asserting that there is a nobler path, that heroism and hope can be real. It would be great if the movie universe took a similar path. If BvS entailed asking those same questions about power and its abuses, and ended up with Superman stepping up and proving that, yes, it is possible to use power without abusing it, that altruism is real and idealism works and that the world can be a brighter place. And maybe he'll even convince Batman to come out of the shadows and be more of a hero, and inspire people like Diana and Arthur Curry to take up heroic mantles, and that's what will lead to the Justice League.

Of course, that would require Superman to do something he didn't quite pull off in the previous film, which is actually to become Superman. Not just be a passive, reactive figure doing whatever the nearest male authority figure instructs him to do (up to and including snapping Zod's neck), but assert his own will and make choices guided by his own morality, so that he can lead others. If this movie is about Superman (and, by implication, Snyder) admitting the huge mistakes he made in MoS and striving to make sure they don't happen again, then it may even make me more forgiving of MoS.

 

Who told Superman to kill Zod? And for that matter who told him to take out the world engine?

The DC universe has always looked upon their heroes as gods, it took Stan Lee to make his heroes human beings with faults and bills to pay.

 

What bullshit - of course Clark "became Superman" in MOS. He saved the fucking world.

Superman is an intrinsically fraught, dark notion to any adult mind, and that can be seen in the earliest stories introducing him. That he came to be viewed in such a sunny fashion is commentary on the culturally-enforced "innocence" of middle class American childhood in the post-WWII era.

DC never treated their characters as gods per se but as ideally responsible parental authority figures - their non-powered counterparts can be seen in American TV westerns and family sitcoms of the post-war era. Marvel crossed the streams of their 1950s sci-fi and True Romance comics to produce emotionally adolescent heroes (and, as a result, for the first time held on to their audience through puberty).

 

Lets hope they explore that theme better than Superman IV.

If this trailer had come out at any other time of the month I would have been hyped about it. But after Star Wars i'm underwhelmed and slightly disturbed at the thought of a mentally imbalanced Superman movie. Hope Batman kicks the shit out of him.

 

I don't know what gave you the impression that this is "a mentally imbalanced Superman movie." Just because pundits are questioning Superman's morals or intentions, that doesn't mean they're actually right.

 

I'm thinking that the voice modulation of Batman only happens in the battle suit. That in his "regular" Batman suit he uses a normal gruff voice.

 

I hope so. It'd be odd to have voice-changing tech deemed a necessity because otherwise it'd strain credulity when the whole concept of Batman strains credulity.

 

Apparently, though, Bale's Batman voice was partly done with electronic modulation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/christian-bales-batman-wa_n_116679.html

 

I might be mistaken but the voice we hear in the trailer shouting "NO" is Superman from MOS before he kills Zod.
The impression I get from the trailer is that having crossed a line in killing Zod he might be a man who isn't all too sure of himself. Add to that the fact he seems to be worshiped and hated by people. It could all get a bit much even for Supes. Enter Batman to slap some sense into him.

Edit: Scratch that.Watched it again. He doesn't say no, it's a crowd shouting "go home".

 

This looks awesome and I'm definitely going to see it, but if they were to really go at it, the fight would be over faster than that trailer.

Batman: Do you bleed?

Superman: Ever been to the sun?

 

Yeah that's kind of my concern as well. I really loved the look and style of MOS (which, contrary to popular opinion here, was not a dark and bleak movie all the way through), and was hoping to see that same basic style continue here.

But it does definitely look a lot more stylized and 300ish at the moment...

 

Why would it strain credulity? To me it makes sense as an aid to keeping anyone from identifying him.

 

Again, though, something like Kingdom Come works because it's a reaction to, and a deconstruction of, the established conventions of the superhero universe and characters. I'm not sure it works as well if it becomes the default/primary portrayal of the characters.

I guess you could argue, though, that the baseline hero portrayal that the DCCU would be reacting to and deconstructing is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Which would be kind of a reversal of the way it happened in the Silver Age comics, as someone mentioned above. Except that I think the MCU is already starting to deconstruct its own approach to heroism, with The Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron, and Civil War (as well as Agents of SHIELD and Daredevil). Which means that if that were what DC/WB were trying to do with its movies, it could end up feeling kind of redundant. And in Marvel's case, a deconstruction works because you had the initial construction for it to react to. TWS wouldn't have been as potent if we hadn't had the first Captain America movie to establish the baseline.

 

Has anyone tried to work out all the voices in the trailer?

I thought I heard Niel Degrasse Tyson, Patrick Stewart, possibly Amy Madigan?