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

[M.A.C.O.]

So, what would be the non-boring way of creating conflict for a person who has god-like powers and can do pretty much anything, if either depowering him or matching him against equally powerd adversaries are out of the equation?

I'm not sure. That's part of the problem with movie portrayals of Superman. I think he's the superhero that's definitely the hardest to get right on the big screen but one thing which I do not think works, is making him "dark" which is where Snyder seems to be going

As others have said, Superman works best when he's about hope and self-exploration and where he doesn't just punch everyone

I'm sure the film will be passable but if any franchise needed support before unleashing it's two big hitters (and others), it's this one. They needed a slow build in my opinion but it looks like, they're just gonna make it "dark" and hope fans are so excited by the premise that any lack of plot or character development won't matter (this is essentially a Batman reboot as well so it needs to hit the ground running on that score too)

I think they may be pushing their luck

@Bold

How does Superman work solely on hope and exploration? The best Superman stories have been about the character having grand adventures or challenges (physical, mental/detective, supernatural, scifi) that he must overcome somehow.

Supes works best when he's a go get'em action hero. Writers who try to push the hope angle always neglect to make Superman's contributions mean something in the long term. They normally have him ponder making a difference but it's never something substantial or is simply forgotten about when a new writer takes over the book.

 

[hux]

How does Superman work solely on hope and exploration? The best Superman stories have been about the character having grand adventures or challenges (physical, mental/detective, supernatural, scifi) that he must overcome somehow.

Supes works best when he's a go get'em action hero. Writers who try to push the hope angle always neglect to make Superman's contributions mean something in the long term. They normally have him ponder making a difference but it's never something substantial or is simply forgotten about when a new writer takes over the book.

I'm talking exclusively about movie portrayals. Too powerful (distracting and noisy), not powerful enough (wastes the character) hence the difficulty of getting him right for the big screen

 

[Servo]

I'm not sure. That's part of the problem with movie portrayals of Superman. I think he's the superhero that's definitely the hardest to get right on the big screen but one thing which I do not think works, is making him "dark" which is where Snyder seems to be going

I don't think they're making Superman dark, so much as they're making the world around him dark, which actually makes sense. This film is supposed to lead to the formation of the Justice League, so it's understandable that the world is going to need to be in a pretty shitty place in order to need the JL.

Also, I think the big mistake is to classify this film as a Superman film. In my eyes it isn't. True, it's a sequel to MoS, but the inclusion of other heroes, and the prominence of Batman prevents it from being a Superman film alone.

As others have said, Superman works best when he's about hope and self-exploration and where he doesn't just punch everyone

It's all about balance. No point in having a super-powered hero that doesn't hit anything, but that also can't be all he's about.

I'm sure the film will be passable but if any franchise needed support before unleashing it's two big hitters (and others), it's this one. They needed a slow build in my opinion but it looks like, they're just gonna make it "dark" and hope fans are so excited by the premise that any lack of plot or character development won't matter (this is essentially a Batman reboot as well so it needs to hit the ground running on that score too)

I think they may be pushing their luck

I do sort of agree with this. I think the success of the MCU has made WB feel like their hand has been forced, and as a result they've gone straight into a production plan that they might not be ready for.

Still, I don't think they had much of a choice. I think a new Batman film between MoS and this may have been a good idea, but then so soon after the Nolan Batman films, you're in danger of pissing off the hardcore fans of those films.

Bottom line is, they're never going to please everyone, so they may as well just do what they want and see where the cards fall. There's enough buzz about this film that most people, whether they're happy with the way the film is shaping up or not, will go and see it at least once to confirm or dispel their preconceptions.

 

[Timby]

It's all about balance. No point in having a super-powered hero that doesn't hit anything, but that also can't be all he's about.

I agree with you completely, but it does amuse me to no end that the fan reaction to Superman Returns was largely "God damn it, I wanted a movie of Superman punching people!" and the reaction to Man of Steel was largely "God damn it, why was Superman so punchy?!"

 

[Servo]

It's all about balance. No point in having a super-powered hero that doesn't hit anything, but that also can't be all he's about.

I agree with you completely, but it does amuse me to no end that the fan reaction to Superman Returns was largely "God damn it, I wanted a movie of Superman punching people!" and the reaction to Man of Steel was largely "God damn it, why was Superman so punchy?!"

Yeah, I get a chuckle out of that too.

The delicious irony being that in the most beloved Superman film of them all, he doesn't hit anything, but instead performs a series of superhuman feats. And, in that same film, Superman is portrayed as being so overconfident in his own abilities, that he is easily tricked by Luthor into opening a box of Kryptonite. Had Tessmacher not been a soft touch, he'd have been fucked along with the entire West Coast.

 

[Christopher]

I agree with you completely, but it does amuse me to no end that the fan reaction to Superman Returns was largely "God damn it, I wanted a movie of Superman punching people!" and the reaction to Man of Steel was largely "God damn it, why was Superman so punchy?!"

The problem wasn't that he fought the bad guys, the problem was that the director went way overboard on the disaster porn, and as a result, totally ignored the human cost of the destruction and portrayed Superman as ignoring it too. Snyder cared more about spending millions of dollars on making computer-generated buildings fall down than he cared about portraying Superman as someone who cared about protecting human life. The Avengers had plenty of urban destruction in its climax, but it also showed the heroes diligently working to save innocents, so that there was actually something at stake beyond the computer animators' salaries.

For me, the best parts of superhero movies are the rescues, not the fights. My favorite part of Superman Returns is probably the part where Superman was rescuing Metropolis citizens from the destruction. The bridge rescue sequence in the 2005 Fantastic Four is the only part I really like, even though the FF caused the whole problem themselves. Superman's rescue of the factory workers in the first act of Superman III is still one of the best superhero action sequences ever put on film, whatever you may think of the movie as a whole (and I think it's very underrated). And for me, the most heroic part of the climax of Iron Man II is not Iron Man and War Machine fighting the army of robots (although there is some really cool Genndy Tartakovsky storyboarding in that sequence), but Pepper taking charge and coordinating the evacuation of the innocents.

And the movies that drop the ball, for me, are the ones where the so-called heroes are more caught up in their personal rivalries than in the well-being of the public. Fantastic Four '05 totally screws up the ending because the FF are willing to risk destroying the whole planet merely to protect themselves from Doctor Doom. Green Lantern is underwhelming because there are sequences where tons of people are endangered or killed and then Hal belatedly shows up and saves exactly one person. (Man of Steel has the same problem, with Superman being literally on the opposite side of the planet from the first half of the destruction, then showing up when it's all over and saving only Lois Lane. Extra points off if the one person the hero bothers to save is the one who might be willing to sleep with him.) MoS gets off on the right foot by showing Clark going around randomly helping people, and saving the school bus despite the "Let them die" advice from The Worst Pa Kent Ever, but it totally blows it in the third act because it treats the destruction of Metropolis as an incidental backdrop to the fight between Superman and Zod, rather than as a threat to people who need to be rescued.

 

[theenglish]

I agree with you completely, but it does amuse me to no end that the fan reaction to Superman Returns was largely "God damn it, I wanted a movie of Superman punching people!" and the reaction to Man of Steel was largely "God damn it, why was Superman so punchy?!"

The problem wasn't that he fought the bad guys, the problem was that the director went way overboard on the disaster porn, and as a result, totally ignored the human cost of the destruction and portrayed Superman as ignoring it too. Snyder cared more about spending millions of dollars on making computer-generated buildings fall down than he cared about portraying Superman as someone who cared about protecting human life.

(Man of Steel has the same problem, with Superman being literally on the opposite side of the planet from the first half of the destruction, then showing up when it's all over and saving only Lois Lane. Extra points off if the one person the hero bothers to save is the one who might be willing to sleep with him.) MoS gets off on the right foot by showing Clark going around randomly helping people, and saving the school bus despite the "Let them die" advice from The Worst Pa Kent Ever, but it totally blows it in the third act because it treats the destruction of Metropolis as an incidental backdrop to the fight between Superman and Zod, rather than as a threat to people who need to be rescued.

I agree completely. One of the best scenes in Superman II, the fight over Metropolis, distinguished Superman from Zod by having Superman worry about the citizens. In MoS, having something similar, even in the face of all the destruction would have greatly improved the film and gone a long way to justifying the end. In fact, having him return from the other side of the Earth to rescue a group of people by holding up some sort of structure long enough for them to escape would have been a great call back to the earlier moment of the film.

To clarify my opinion about Superman stories, the way Superman works best is to have him start by using brute force but ultimately realizing he needs to use his wits to find a clever solution at the end--not just using the same brute force that might work in more traditional action films. Yes, in MoS, Kal-El is still learning but what was needed was an ATTEMPT to look beyond just Zod.

I agree that everything we are seeing about this movie, including Cavill's recent comments suggests that this movie is basically a streamlined version of The Dark Knight Returns. I bet Snyder's wanted to do TDKR forever.

How Superman should be when solving a problem:

 

[Christopher]

I agree completely. One of the best scenes in Superman II, the fight over Metropolis, distinguished Superman from Zod by having Superman worry about the citizens. In MoS, having something similar, even in the face of all the destruction would have greatly improved the film and gone a long way to justifying the end.

Yes, exactly. One thing that both Donner's and Lester's Superman movies have in common is that they tend to show the big super-action happening from the perspective of ordinary people watching it or being affected by it. Even though Lester put in too many comedy beats of Metropolitans being affected by the Kryptonians' fight in silly ways, he was still reminding us that these events were having an effect on people. We saw who Superman was fighting for, and that made it matter more. In MoS, we got a few token scenes of Perry and his staff running from the collapse and getting caught in the rubble, but it was disconnected from anything Superman did. The movie's Metropolis was mainly just a computer-generated arena for the fight rather than a populated place needing a defender.

In fact, having him return from the other side of the Earth to rescue a group of people by holding up some sort of structure long enough for them to escape would have been a great call back to the earlier moment of the film.

When I saw the film, I had to ask myself: What could have gone through the filmmakers' heads to make them think it was a good idea to structure the story in a way that put the hero on literally the opposite side of the planet, as far as he could possibly be from the place where he was most needed? Why would they contrive to keep him out of the action for so long? And the only answer I could think of was that they wanted to ensure their disaster porn could unfold uninterrupted. They didn't set up the destruction as a crisis for the hero to solve; they saw the hero as an impediment to their desired destruction, and so they kept him out of the way while they had their fun making skyscrapers fall down for a seemingly interminable length of time.

To clarify my opinion about Superman stories, the way Superman works best is to have him start by using brute force but ultimately realizing he needs to use his wits to find a clever solution at the end--not just using the same brute force that might work in more traditional action films. Yes, in MoS, Kal-El is still learning but what was needed was an ATTEMPT to look beyond just Zod.

Yes. At the end of the movie, Clark still wasn't Superman yet. He hadn't learned to think for himself. Or rather, he'd forgotten how. As a kid, he was able to defy Jonathan's advice on occasion. But outside of the school bus rescue, all he did through the whole film was do what various male authority figures told him he should do. And that extends to accepting Zod's assertion about the only way to stop him. Superman would've refused to let the villain define the rules of engagement for him. He would've sought another way. But this Clark Kent isn't Superman yet. He hasn't earned that. I'm hoping this movie will show him actually earning the name.

I agree that everything we are seeing about this movie, including Cavill's recent comments suggests that this movie is basically a streamlined version of The Dark Knight Returns. I bet Snyder's wanted to do TDKR forever.

And I still say that's a terrible choice to use as your model for how to portray Batman in an extended cinematic universe. It wasn't meant to be an archetypal Batman story, it was meant to be a satirical deconstruction of Batman and superheroes in general, exaggerating them to a grotesque extreme as a commentary, or at least an experimental variation, on superhero tropes.

 

[urbandefault]

No.

Superman was outnumbered and inexperienced. How was he supposed to stop fighting and rescue a cat, much less millions of people in one city? It was all he could do to fight Zod, who was as powerful and more experienced.

MOS had some problems, but the fight wasn't one of them.

If some of you didn't like the movie, write your own script and pitch it to the proverbial Powers That Be. Get it on film, collect your money, then sit back and let the fans unleash on you. They will, you know.

You can't please everyone. In genre films, you cain't please nobody.

 

[theenglish]

I agree that everything we are seeing about this movie, including Cavill's recent comments suggests that this movie is basically a streamlined version of The Dark Knight Returns. I bet Snyder's wanted to do TDKR forever.

And I still say that's a terrible choice to use as your model for how to portray Batman in an extended cinematic universe. It wasn't meant to be an archetypal Batman story, it was meant to be a satirical deconstruction of Batman and superheroes in general, exaggerating them to a grotesque extreme as a commentary, or at least an experimental variation, on superhero tropes.

LOL--I said this same thing earlier in the thread, but my reference was Watchmen.

No.

Superman was outnumbered and inexperienced. How was he supposed to stop fighting and rescue a cat, much less millions of people in one city? It was all he could do to fight Zod, who was as powerful and more experienced.

MOS had some problems, but the fight wasn't one of them.

If some of you didn't like the movie, write your own script and pitch it to the proverbial Powers That Be. Get it on film, collect your money, then sit back and let the fans unleash on you. They will, you know.

You can't please everyone. In genre films, you cain't please nobody.

Don't know where this comes from? One of the things about these threads are to discuss and debate the details of the films in a thoughtful and friendly manner. I quite like MoS but as a fan of the genre, and movies/novels/comics in general, I like to dissect the stuff. There is room for nuance in reacting to a work. A person can like or dislike parts of a film while having a different reaction to the film as a whole.

We are discussing how the film was written and what we feel are missed opportunities or faults in the writing. You are quite right that Kal's choices are limited in the film as it is written but that is not really the discussion.

 

[DWF]

The complaint that in Man Of Steel Superman was a world away from the action when people needed him the most and the praise for Superman II where Superman ran away leaving Metropolis and the world for that matter in the hands of the villains is the very definition of odd. And saying that MOS had "mistakes" amounts to little more than Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

[theenglish]

The complaint that in Man Of Steel Superman was a world away from the action when people needed him the most and the praise for Superman II where Superman ran away leaving Metropolis and the world for that matter in the hands of the villains is the very definition of odd.

Superman II had its share of problems, generally in its goofiness, but Superman leaving the fight wasn't one of them. In fact, this is precisely what I mentioned WORKS in Superman a few posts up.

He tried the brute force confrontation. We think that he is giving up--but that is his con. He lets the fight go on just long enough, knowing that he can't win against the group of villains, to get their attention. He knows that Lex will lead them back to the Fortress where he will have his trap waiting for them. He lures the villains away from Metropolis and the civilians to an arena of his choosing where he has the upper hand. The final con of course is the de-powering chamber.

The movie plays out so well because we as viewers don't know this until the end.

"When the odds are impossible do the impossible."

 

[Turtletrekker]

^This.

 

[DWF]

The complaint that in Man Of Steel Superman was a world away from the action when people needed him the most and the praise for Superman II where Superman ran away leaving Metropolis and the world for that matter in the hands of the villains is the very definition of odd.

Superman II had its share of problems, generally in its goofiness, but Superman leaving the fight wasn't one of them. In fact, this is precisely what I mentioned WORKS in Superman a few posts up.

He tried the brute force confrontation. We think that he is giving up--but that is his con. He lets the fight go on just long enough, knowing that he can't win against the group of villains, to get their attention. He knows that Lex will lead them back to the Fortress where he will have his trap waiting for them. He lures the villains away from Metropolis and the civilians to an arena of his choosing where he has the upper hand. The final con of course is the de-powering chamber.

The movie plays out so well because we as viewers don't know this until the end.

"When the odds are impossible do the impossible."

Except that there's no way Superman could possibly know that Lex would lead them back to the Fortress. There's nothing in the movie that even hints that Superman kn ew that Lex had visited the Fortress and knew where it was.

 

[theenglish]

The complaint that in Man Of Steel Superman was a world away from the action when people needed him the most and the praise for Superman II where Superman ran away leaving Metropolis and the world for that matter in the hands of the villains is the very definition of odd.

Superman II had its share of problems, generally in its goofiness, but Superman leaving the fight wasn't one of them. In fact, this is precisely what I mentioned WORKS in Superman a few posts up.

He tried the brute force confrontation. We think that he is giving up--but that is his con. He lets the fight go on just long enough, knowing that he can't win against the group of villains, to get their attention. He knows that Lex will lead them back to the Fortress where he will have his trap waiting for them. He lures the villains away from Metropolis and the civilians to an arena of his choosing where he has the upper hand. The final con of course is the de-powering chamber.

The movie plays out so well because we as viewers don't know this until the end.

"When the odds are impossible do the impossible."

Except that there's no way Superman could possibly know that Lex would lead them back to the Fortress. There's nothing in the movie that even hints that Superman kn ew that Lex had visited the Fortress and knew where it was.

It's implied that he did.

 

[urbandefault]

No.

Superman was outnumbered and inexperienced. How was he supposed to stop fighting and rescue a cat, much less millions of people in one city? It was all he could do to fight Zod, who was as powerful and more experienced.

MOS had some problems, but the fight wasn't one of them.

If some of you didn't like the movie, write your own script and pitch it to the proverbial Powers That Be. Get it on film, collect your money, then sit back and let the fans unleash on you. They will, you know.

You can't please everyone. In genre films, you cain't please nobody.

Don't know where this comes from? One of the things about these threads are to discuss and debate the details of the films in a thoughtful and friendly manner. I quite like MoS but as a fan of the genre, and movies/novels/comics in general, I like to dissect the stuff. There is room for nuance in reacting to a work. A person can like or dislike parts of a film while having a different reaction to the film as a whole.

We are discussing how the film was written and what we feel are missed opportunities or faults in the writing. You are quite right that Kal's choices are limited in the film as it is written but that is not really the discussion.

Yeah, I understand that. What I don't get is the constant rehash of the same criticism, over and over and over, ad nauseam.

Some people just regurgitate the same complaints over and over. It's exhausting to read.

And before you say, "well don't read it" I'll say that I look in on these threads looking for new information about the new movies, or to find something I might have missed.

So forgive me if I get exasperated by the constant derailment rehashing the same complaints across the board.

I like movies, and I'm not a critic. If I like something, I'll say so. If I don't, I'll say so.

Some people latch onto things and can't let it go, and after reading the same things a few hundred times it tends to irritate me.

If I go into more detail I'll surely offend some folks, and probably be sanctioned.

So that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Mudd]

Some people just regurgitate the same complaints over and over. It's exhausting to read.

And before you say, "well don't read it" I'll say that I look in on these threads looking for new information about the new movies, or to find something I might have missed.

So forgive me if I get exasperated by the constant derailment rehashing the same complaints across the board.

I like movies, and I'm not a critic. If I like something, I'll say so. If I don't, I'll say so.

Some people latch onto things and can't let it go, and after reading the same things a few hundred times it tends to irritate me.

Well said. It's hard to imagine the state of mind that motivates people to dredge up and repeat this kind of thing year after year after year.

BTW, there was noticeable lens flare in the Abrams Trek movies.

 

[theenglish]

When the new movie comes out, we'll have something else to dwell on.

 

[urbandefault]

Some people just regurgitate the same complaints over and over. It's exhausting to read.

And before you say, "well don't read it" I'll say that I look in on these threads looking for new information about the new movies, or to find something I might have missed.

So forgive me if I get exasperated by the constant derailment rehashing the same complaints across the board.

I like movies, and I'm not a critic. If I like something, I'll say so. If I don't, I'll say so.

Some people latch onto things and can't let it go, and after reading the same things a few hundred times it tends to irritate me.

Well said. It's hard to imagine the state of mind that motivates people to dredge up and repeat this kind of thing year after year after year.

BTW, there was noticeable lens flare in the Abrams Trek movies.

Lens flare? Really?

Musta missed it.

 

[Christopher]

There is room for nuance in reacting to a work. A person can like or dislike parts of a film while having a different reaction to the film as a whole.

Quite right. There are parts of Man of Steel that I think were brilliant and wonderful, and that's why the parts that were awful and wrong are so frustrating to me. The fight was absolutely the problem for me. It ruined what would otherwise have been an admirable film, and that is deeply saddening.

You are quite right that Kal's choices are limited in the film as it is written but that is not really the discussion.

Yes. I'll never understand arguments that say "The characters had to do X because of the circumstances," because it seems to be forgetting that the writers created those circumstances, and thus could've created different ones. These discussions aren't about the characters' choices, because the characters don't exist. They're about the storytellers' choices. You can't blame a character for being forced into a problematical or illogical situation by a writer.

I actually like the Superman of Man of Steel. I think Henry Cavill is the best screen Superman we've had since Christopher Reeve. My problem is that the writer and director didn't let him be Superman. He was a good character trapped by a tragically flawed script.