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

[JacksonArcher]

It's a bit much to say that he's not as entitled to watch and criticize something as the rest of us if he didn't write it himself.

Yeah, that's completely unfair. I'm a filmmaker and I've written and directed a couple short films. Does that mean I should just write the movie myself, find a way to get $200 million and convince WB to let me direct a Superman movie in order for my opinion to be validated? This train of thought doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[DWF]

In Superman Returns we learn that Superman fathered a child out of wedlock and the movie ended he failed to live up to his responsibilites as a father. I think the Superman we saw in Superman Returns was far worse than anything we saw in MOS.

Umm... what?

I get Superman Returns isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it always bothers me when people criticize this aspect of the movie. For one, Superman had no idea he was the father of a child when he left Earth to search for the remains of Krypton. Lois Lane didn't tell him until the very end of the movie.

And what happens when he finds out? He leaves the hospital, visits his son, imparts a meaningful message of hope and tells Lois he's going to be around for a very long time. The movie is called Superman Returns, suggesting he was back to embracing his savior role as Superman and was gonna stick around. If the movie ended with Lois telling Superman that he was a father and then he decided to skip town, then I would be in complete agreement. But that didn't happen.

So, no, he didn't fail to live up to his responsibilities as a father because the movie didn't get a chance to actually explore his responsibilities as a father. He had just found out he was a father at the very end. We can presume Singer and co. did this so that the sequel could deal with this dangling plot thread.

I would say Superman Returns handled Superman a lot more poetically and earnestly than Man of Steel did, for the reasons Christopher has described and then some. At least in Superman Returns, he is seen actually, y'know, saving people. Metropolis isn't a war zone at the end and he doesn't snap Lex Luthor's neck or succumb to his ideology. People can dislike Superman Returns all they want. I totally understand why people don't like that movie - it's far too uneven, even though I enjoy it for its characterization, story and heartfelt attempt to bring back the Silver Age/Christopher Reeve Superman. Man of Steel at least tried to do something new with the character, but they sort of fell flat on their face in doing so.

As Christopher said, I don't wanna see a Superman movie where he conforms to the ideology of the villain and ends up destroying more than half of Metropolis - but to each their own. To play devil's advocate, it does seem like Batman v Superman will be dealing with the consequences of these ideas, so hopefully that film might make me retroactively like Man of Steel a little bit more - however if that decision was wholly intentional and the plan all along or just a response to the criticism of Man of Steel remains to be seen. Given Zack Snyder's comments that Batman was never intended for the Superman sequel from the start, I'm guessing the latter.

So if the sequel were made as planned it's OK for Superman to have killed Jason. Adn Lois lied to Richard anyway about being Jason's father and if it was done ot keep Jason from being targeted, Lex found out anyway so even that didn't work. Superman was led away from earth by Lex to Kryton, not long after telling the president that he'd never leave again.

 

[JacksonArcher]

So if the sequel were made as planned it's OK for Superman to have killed Jason.

What? I had no problem with Jason. I actually liked the idea of Superman having a kid. I was excited to see where Singer and company were going to take this plot thread, which I thought had a ton of potential. Alas.

Adn Lois lied to Richard anyway about being Jason's father and if it was done ot keep Jason from being targeted, Lex found out anyway so even that didn't work.

We have no idea if Lois lied because we have no idea what Richard actually knew as that was never directly addressed or discussed. I'm not sure what this has to do with Superman being a deadbeat dad, but okay.

Superman was led away from earth by Lex to Kryton, not long after telling the president that he'd never leave again.

Yes, this is true. Lex had fabricated information suggesting Kryptonians might be alive. Superman was the sole survivor of Krypton - or so he thought. So it totally makes sense that he would leave Earth to see if some of his people were still alive. As an orphan, it makes a lot of thematic sense for Superman to do that.

We also had no idea how much time Returns was intended to take place after Superman II, so it could've been years, etc. Also, this seems like a trivial complaint to me - it's okay for Superman to allow hundreds of thousands of people to die and to kill the villain, but god forbid he doesn't keep a promise to the President. Whole movie is ruined.

 

[Taylirious]

In MoS he was Superman for like a day! Less than that really. These discussions just go in circles with people who accept the movie and people who didn't with no let's agree to disagree and we are well beyond the reaction stage with MoS & SR which I liked both. Ugh.

ETA: I could be wrong but didn't he save people in MoS? I am sure he did.

 

[Mr Light]

It's canon. *

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/40/3114466-superman22.png

*Until 2011.

 

[The Old Mixer]

That he was Superman for only a day might excuse Superman's choices, but it doesn't excuse the writer's or director's choices.

 

[Taylirious]

I am not sure what we can do about that?

 

[DWF]

So if the sequel were made as planned it's OK for Superman to have killed Jason.

What? I had no problem with Jason. I actually liked the idea of Superman having a kid. I was excited to see where Singer and company were going to take this plot thread, which I thought had a ton of potential. Alas.

Adn Lois lied to Richard anyway about being Jason's father and if it was done ot keep Jason from being targeted, Lex found out anyway so even that didn't work.

We have no idea if Lois lied because we have no idea what Richard actually knew as that was never directly addressed or discussed. I'm not sure what this has to do with Superman being a deadbeat dad, but okay.

Superman was led away from earth by Lex to Kryton, not long after telling the president that he'd never leave again.

Yes, this is true. Lex had fabricated information suggesting Kryptonians might be alive. Superman was the sole survivor of Krypton - or so he thought. So it totally makes sense that he would leave Earth to see if some of his people were still alive. As an orphan, it makes a lot of thematic sense for Superman to do that.

We also had no idea how much time Returns was intended to take place after Superman II, so it could've been years, etc. Also, this seems like a trivial complaint to me - it's okay for Superman to allow hundreds of thousands of people to die and to kill the villain, but god forbid he doesn't keep a promise to the President. Whole movie is ruined.

How did Superman allow the attempt to terraform earth by Zod? Had it not been for holo Jor-El, Superman would've been powerless to do anything. But it's not like he allowed it to happen.

Although by leaving earth Superman's absence led to Lex getting out of prison and making his way back to the fortress of solitude, in the end causing an earthquake in Metropolis. You still didn't my question. If the plans for the sequel hadn't changed, Superman would've killed Jason.

ETA: And it's pretty clear that Superman left not long after Superman II, Jason hadn't been born yet.

 

[Christopher]

I would say Superman Returns handled Superman a lot more poetically and earnestly than Man of Steel did, for the reasons Christopher has described and then some. At least in Superman Returns, he is seen actually, y'know, saving people.

Yep. My favorite part of the movie is the sequence where Superman is rescuing Metropolitans from the consequences of the earthquake/disaster. Superman is at his best when he's saving people. This is something the first Reeve movie understood. After his first big scene saving Lois, he doesn't just go away and change back into Clark -- there's this whole big montage of Superman helping people and stopping crimes all over the city. None of it has a connection to the larger plot, but it's essential to establishing character -- what Superman is about, what he sees as his purpose, and how he does it.

Metropolis isn't Ground Zero at the end...

Heck, I wouldn't have minded if Metropolis had been a target there, because at least Luthor would've had a reason for targeting Metropolis. It had already been established as Superman's base of operations, as well as Lex's, and Lex would've had an incentive for trying to take out the institutions that had sought his arrest, as well as trying to hurt Superman. If anything, that might actually have made more sense than Luthor's real-estate obsession in the movie. But there was no reason whatsoever, in-story, for Metropolis to be targeted in MoS. Zod planned to remake the whole planet, so there was no reason to choose that particular landing site for his machine, except for reasons that were external to the story.

People can dislike Superman Returns all they want. I totally understand why people don't like that movie - it's far too uneven, even though I enjoy it for its characterization, story and heartfelt attempt to bring back the Silver Age/Christopher Reeve Superman. Man of Steel at least tried to do something new with the character, but they sort of fell flat on their face in doing so.

Sure. Both movies were flawed in different ways. SR was well-made, but too hampered by its loyalty to the Donner version of the character, while simultaneously too solemn and subdued to capture the spirit of that version. MoS was a fantastically made movie that did a fine job reimagining Krypton and the backstory and context of Superman, but that had no respect for Superman as a character or the things he represented and tried to subordinate him to a mode of storytelling better suited to a different character.

To play devil's advocate, it does seem like Batman v Superman will be dealing with the consequences of these ideas, so hopefully that film might make me retroactively like Man of Steel a little bit more - however if that decision was wholly intentional and the plan all along or just a response to the criticism of Man of Steel remains to be seen.

That's what I'm hoping. In fact, I said as much in my review of MoS three years ago:

Now, I might be able to forgive Superman’s killing of Zod and his failure to save lives in general… if he never lets it happen again. I’d like to see a scene very early in the sequel (if there is one) which establishes that he’s deeply unsatisfied with his failures and that they’ve motivated him to become much more careful and dedicated about saving lives and finding nonlethal ways of dealing with his enemies. Then I can chalk up the grotesque shortcomings of this movie to Superman’s learning curve. I can forgive a mistake more easily if the culpable party admits the mistake and strives to do better as a result. The same goes for the filmmakers, of course — this would also show that they’d recognized their own monumental mistakes here and resolved to correct them.

At the time, I was skeptical that the filmmakers would actually make that choice, and so far the evidence is encouraging that I was wrong. Although in retrospect, I think I'm less likely today to forgive MoS even if BvS does deal with its aftermath well. I'll still consider it a profound misfire that the filmmakers were able to correct for in the sequel.

It's a bit much to say that he's not as entitled to watch and criticize something as the rest of us if he didn't write it himself.

Yeah, that's completely unfair. I'm a filmmaker and I've written and directed a couple short films. Does that mean I should just write the movie myself, find a way to get $200 million and convince WB to let me direct a Superman movie in order for my opinion to be validated? This train of thought doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Right. There are a ton of creators out there, but only a few ever get to make a story about a specific character. So of all the different visions of a character, only a small number will actually get made. That's just the luck of the draw. It doesn't mean everyone else has to fall silent. And it doesn't mean their criticisms are just sour grapes. As I said, creativity would get nowhere without criticism to feed back to it. Listening to other ideas is what feeds creativity in the first place. Creativity comes from watching and listening, from taking in what comes to you from outside and building on it.

We also had no idea how much time Returns was intended to take place after Superman II, so it could've been years, etc.

I thought they said outright that it had been five years.

That he was Superman for only a day might excuse Superman's choices, but it doesn't excuse the writer's or director's choices.

I am not sure what we can do about that?

Exactly what we have been doing -- talk about it. Discuss it. Respond to it. Think about it and share our thoughts with others. Creative works aren't put out there to be mutely stared at, they're put out there to get people to think and react and respond and discuss and, yes, to argue. If nobody has any strong opinions about what you've created, then you've failed as a creator.

 

[urbandefault]

It's a bit much to say that he's not as entitled to watch and criticize something as the rest of us if he didn't write it himself.

I'll assume that you're addressing my comments ...

No one can go back in time and fix what they don't like, but a professional writer has more of a shot at moving things forward, and shaping what comes next. That's all I'm saying.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm the only one making the point.

 

[The Old Mixer]

^Because it's a silly standard to hold anyone to?

Maybe examining where he feels other creators have failed does inform his writing. But that doesn't magically give him the opportunity to write the next Superman film.

A more valid hypothetical criticism would be to point out something in Christopher's own writing that doesn't live up to the standards that he's setting for others.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

It's canon. *

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/40/3114466-superman22.png

*Until 2011.

Yes, that's come up before in discussions like this. I even had this exact story pop into my mind when I saw the ending of MoS in the theatre.

There's still a difference, though. In the comic book, his actions had profound impact on Superman. He fell into a crisis of identity, resulting in Superman exiling himself into space until he found "himself" again. The movie, though, had him crying for a bit, and then changed for the "happy ending" scenes with the satellite and Clark's introduction at the Daily Planet.

Granted, a movie can't deal with the consequences as deeply and extensively, as the comic books did, especially with the killing of Zod as the narrative climax of the movie (do too much stuff afterwards, and it becomes anti-climactic). But Snyder and Goyer knew that they couldn't do an in-depth exploration of the consequences in that movie, and they still chose to have Superman kill Zod.

And that's even beside Superman destroying all those Kryptonian eggs, judging the Kryptonian species as a whole to not be worthy of resurrection. He might have looked for another way to resurrect the Kryptonian species elsewhere, trying to find an alternative new home world (it's not like they were gonna spoil, they've been on Earth for thousands of years, after all). Hell, this could have even been the movies' version of the Bottle City of Kandor, with Superman looking for a new Kryptonian home world paralleling the comics' quest of Superman to bring Kandor back into its original size.

But instead, Goyer and Snyder chose Superman to destroy those eggs, killing off any hope for a survival of the Kryptonian species beyond himself (ultimately, with Zod killed by Superman and all those other Kryptonian warriors killed by the explosion and subsequent passing into the Phantom Zone). Basically, this Superman chose to be the Last Son of Krypton.

 

[JD]

In the real world, sometimes you have to kill the bad guy. The alternative you ask for, where the hero wears a white hat and always lucks into a no-kill solution to the problem of a homicidal maniac, is far from realistic, and has no relevance to an adult audience.

That's Bulls**t. We're talking about a story where writers are in charge of the situation. We're not debating reality. How the story is written is entirely dependent on how it is written.

For example:
Easily in Man of Steel, the story could have set up that Kal placed a Phantom Zone projector in Metropolis upon returning from the other side of the world. The ending could have been Superman tossing Zod back into the Phantom Zone rather than snapping his neck.

Superman has always been about outsmarting his foes, not beating them by sheer strength. That was what was shocking about the Death of Superman storyline--Doomsday was a foe he could not outwit.

You're asking for a fairy tale in which moral dilemmas are solved by magic.

P.S. Thanks for the gratuitous abusive language.

While I don't mind Kal killing Zod, I can understand the complaints about it.
These are superhero stories, and to me the whole thing that makes superheroes like Superman special is that they able to do things that we don't see in the real world. Not just in terms of powers, but in terms of being better than the average person on a moral level. Sure, it is realistic for a hero to sometimes have to kill a bad guy, but these are stories about idealized heroes, not realistic ones. If I want a dark gritty hero, I'll read a Vertigo or Image comic.
Sometimes you can push a hero like that to a point where they do have to do something that goes against that morality, but ideally that would be a part of a bigger story that takes a deeper look at that morality, not just as a throwaway bit of a story that never even looks at that morality.
I still thought that killing Zod in MOS was done in a way that worked, but it is not my ideal ending for a Superman story.

 

[Taylirious]

Not a fire & brimstone Superman fan?

 

[DWF]

It's canon. *

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/40/3114466-superman22.png

*Until 2011.

Yes, that's come up before in discussions like this. I even had this exact story pop into my mind when I saw the ending of MoS in the theatre.

There's still a difference, though. In the comic book, his actions had profound impact on Superman. He fell into a crisis of identity, resulting in Superman exiling himself into space until he found "himself" again. The movie, though, had him crying for a bit, and then changed for the "happy ending" scenes with the satellite and Clark's introduction at the Daily Planet.

Granted, a movie can't deal with the consequences as deeply and extensively, as the comic books did, especially with the killing of Zod as the narrative climax of the movie (do too much stuff afterwards, and it becomes anti-climactic). But Snyder and Goyer knew that they couldn't do an in-depth exploration of the consequences in that movie, and they still chose to have Superman kill Zod.

And that's even beside Superman destroying all those Kryptonian eggs, judging the Kryptonian species as a whole to not be worthy of resurrection. He might have looked for another way to resurrect the Kryptonian species elsewhere, trying to find an alternative new home world (it's not like they were gonna spoil, they've been on Earth for thousands of years, after all). Hell, this could have even been the movies' version of the Bottle City of Kandor, with Superman looking for a new Kryptonian home world paralleling the comics' quest of Superman to bring Kandor back into its original size.

But instead, Goyer and Snyder chose Superman to destroy those eggs, killing off any hope for a survival of the Kryptonian species beyond himself (ultimately, with Zod killed by Superman and all those other Kryptonian warriors killed by the explosion and subsequent passing into the Phantom Zone). Basically, this Superman chose to be the Last Son of Krypton.

You forget that Superman has the codex in his cells, without which the eggs are pretty useless, which is one reason why Zod wanted it so much. And really we don't know about Supergirl and Argo city not to mention Kandor.

 

[Mr Light]

<<There's still a difference, though. In the comic book, his actions had profound impact on Superman. He fell into a crisis of identity, resulting in Superman exiling himself into space until he found "himself" again. The movie, though, had him crying for a bit, and then changed for the "happy ending" scenes with the satellite and Clark's introduction at the Daily Planet.>>

The entire sequel is about the consequences of him killing Zod.

 

[Christopher]

And that's even beside Superman destroying all those Kryptonian eggs, judging the Kryptonian species as a whole to not be worthy of resurrection. He might have looked for another way to resurrect the Kryptonian species elsewhere, trying to find an alternative new home world (it's not like they were gonna spoil, they've been on Earth for thousands of years, after all). Hell, this could have even been the movies' version of the Bottle City of Kandor, with Superman looking for a new Kryptonian home world paralleling the comics' quest of Superman to bring Kandor back into its original size.

But instead, Goyer and Snyder chose Superman to destroy those eggs, killing off any hope for a survival of the Kryptonian species beyond himself (ultimately, with Zod killed by Superman and all those other Kryptonian warriors killed by the explosion and subsequent passing into the Phantom Zone). Basically, this Superman chose to be the Last Son of Krypton.

Wow, really? I'd forgotten all about that part. Yeah, that's crazy. Deciding to condemn his whole species to eventual extinction just because he didn't like what one individual did? That's obscene. Killing someone in the heat of battle, while not very Superman-like, at least has some justification. But deciding to play judge, jury, and executioner for an entire endangered species? That's profoundly evil. That's an even worse character assassination than everything else Snyder and Goyer did.

The entire sequel is about the consequences of him killing Zod.

And as I've said, that's an encouraging sign. If so, that means it's trying to fix the mistakes of MoS. But that doesn't mean that mistakes weren't made.

 

[DWF]

And that's even beside Superman destroying all those Kryptonian eggs, judging the Kryptonian species as a whole to not be worthy of resurrection. He might have looked for another way to resurrect the Kryptonian species elsewhere, trying to find an alternative new home world (it's not like they were gonna spoil, they've been on Earth for thousands of years, after all). Hell, this could have even been the movies' version of the Bottle City of Kandor, with Superman looking for a new Kryptonian home world paralleling the comics' quest of Superman to bring Kandor back into its original size.

But instead, Goyer and Snyder chose Superman to destroy those eggs, killing off any hope for a survival of the Kryptonian species beyond himself (ultimately, with Zod killed by Superman and all those other Kryptonian warriors killed by the explosion and subsequent passing into the Phantom Zone). Basically, this Superman chose to be the Last Son of Krypton.

Wow, really? I'd forgotten all about that part. Yeah, that's crazy. Deciding to condemn his whole species to eventual extinction just because he didn't like what one individual did? That's obscene. Killing someone in the heat of battle, while not very Superman-like, at least has some justification. But deciding to play judge, jury, and executioner for an entire endangered species? That's profoundly evil. That's an even worse character assassination than everything else Snyder and Goyer did.

The entire sequel is about the consequences of him killing Zod.

And as I've said, that's an encouraging sign. If so, that means it's trying to fix the mistakes of MoS. But that doesn't mean that mistakes weren't made.

The eggs are useless without the codex and that's in Superman's cells. And no that's no proof of mistakes, it's not really waht we've learned the movie is about. It's a jumpstart to the rest of their version of the DC universe in the theaters.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

You forget that Superman has the codex in his cells, without which the eggs are pretty useless, which is one reason why Zod wanted it so much.

I didn't forget. I just don't see the relevance.

And really we don't know about Supergirl and Argo city not to mention Kandor.

And Superman didn't know anything about these, either, even if those turn out to exist in that universe.

The eggs are useless without the codex and that's in Superman's cells.

I don't see what you're getting at.

 

[DWF]

You forget that Superman has the codex in his cells, without which the eggs are pretty useless, which is one reason why Zod wanted it so much.

I didn't forget. I just don't see the relevance.

And really we don't know about Supergirl and Argo city not to mention Kandor.

And Superman didn't know anything about these, either, even if those turn out to exist in that universe.

Zod needed the codex even more than he needed the eggs, it wasonly after learning that the codex is in Superman's cells that he went after the ship and the eggs. And we don't if there're more Krytonians out there so it's alittle early to say he's the last son of Kryton.