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

[lurok]

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.

Excellent post

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.

+1. I love these threads when you come across something new and interesting, but the constant rehashing of old arguments is just tedious.

 

[Christopher]

Honestly, I don't mean to keep ranting about MoS's problems. I usually don't get emotionally invested enough in movies to take them personally. But this one just got to me. For one thing, I'm very sensitive to intense sensations, so the sheer undending torrent of noise and visual chaos and Hans Zimmer's repetitive, blaring score made me feel assaulted and nearly drove me out of the theater when it started to seem like it would never end. It was deeply, physically unpleasant to sit through, and the sheer needlessness of it just compounded it. (Hans Zimmer is frustratingly chameleonic as a composer. He transforms his style so much to fit directors' wishes, so there are some scores of his that are brilliant and fascinating, like Sherlock Holmes and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Interstellar, but his scores for the Batman and Superman films are just tedious, monotonous noise to my ear.)

For another, there was so much I genuinely did admire about the movie that it really hurt that these other things about it were so profoundly wrong. I never wanted to be That Guy who just endlessly regurgitates the same complaints about a movie over and over, but this one was like a slap in the face and it's hard to get over it. But I've said my piece and I'll try to let it go now. Thank you for your indulgence.

 

[theenglish]

The conversation about MoS started with my response below:

The problem with Superman is that he's just too powerful so you basically invent kryptonite to remove the power (boring and misses the whole point of Superman) or you introduce villains with equal powers (boring explosions and noise).

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?

This argument is old and tired. Superman stories, the good ones, are not about his power. There are many possibilities.

You can write a story about inner conflict of Superman trying to save the day while not sacrificing his values. This movie, for example, seems to have a great idea about finding ones place in the world.

Many times in Superman stories the real threat is not the obvious one--while Superman is taking down a physical threat something else is happening that is even more dangerous. It is not often that his powers win the day, but rather he wins through intellect and reasoning and wit.

One of the few things I really liked about Superman Returns was that Superman never threw a punch. The conflict in the story wasn't a directly physical one. There were great displays of him using his power, but not to fight or hurt others.

The rest of the discussion was in defense of the argument that Superman is more interesting when he outwits his villains rather than defeating them by sheer physical force--as I stressed in that page from Action Comics #14. MoS just happened to be an example of how this is done wrong.

I think that it is lazy writers who feel that they need to have a super-villain of Superman's strength or depower him in order to make a story interesting. And that the reason so many consumers believe this is because the only thing they know are products that have been made by lazy writers.

 

[Christopher]

The rest of the discussion was in defense of the argument that Superman is more interesting when he outwits his villains rather than defeating them by sheer physical force--as I stressed in that page from Action Comics #14. MoS just happened to be an example of how this is done wrong.

I think that it is lazy writers who feel that they need to have a super-villain of Superman's strength or depower him in order to make a story interesting. And that the reason so many consumers believe this is because the only thing they know are products that have been made by lazy writers.

I wouldn't go that far. You can acknowledge the worth of one way of portraying Superman without putting down all the others. This is a character who's been reinvented many times over the past 77 years. There are good stories about a Superman with limited powers (e.g. the Fleischer cartoons, which benefit from Superman's vulnerability and the suspense about whether he'll succeed), and there are good stories about a Superman with nigh-godlike powers (e.g. Maggin's novels). Yes, it can be lazy to assume that something has to be done to make Superman interesting, but that doesn't mean it can never work. It just depends on the nature of the story.

Frank Miller relied on weakening Superman to make a fight with Batman remotely credible, but even then, it was a given that Batman would lose, and Batman knew it and planned for it. John Byrne in Man of Steel relied on Batman outwitting Superman, using a clever ploy to prevent Superman from laying hands on him so that he could stay free long enough to convince Superman they were on the same side. Alan Burnett and Paul Dini in "World's Finest" relied on a mix of Batman using Kryptonite to hold Superman at bay and then out-detecting him, discovering his secret identity and using it as leverage. All three stories worked in their own ways.

 

[Ometiklan]

All the recent discussions and news about Batman V Superman got me interested in rewatching "Man of Steel" which I hadn't felt a real urge to do before. This was my third time, and the first since the theater, and I was surprised at how much I liked it.

I had liked it enough that i was one of the few (maybe 2?) movies I saw more than once in the theater that year, but after it had been out a while and having read commentary and discussions about it, I was so aware of the problems with the movie (mine were mostly the inconsistancies/issues with the attitudes of Superman's two dads) that I thought I wouldn't like it much this time around. But I was wrong.

I enjoyed the whole thing and the issues with Johnathan and Jor-El didn't really bother me at all this time. Before rewatching it this time, I had put it at about the same level as "The Dark Knight Rises" with a lot of excellent elements (characters, set pieces, cinematography, etc.) that just didn't come together to a great film. But now I think this is a overall good movie with some great bits and some weak bits. Maybe the best elements aren't as good as the best elements in "The Dark Knight Rises" but overall I think "Man of Steel" is a more "complete" movie. I am looking forward to B V S more now.

So the nitpicks that bugged me this time most:
- Superman destroyed that guy's log truck and no one heard anything from the parking lot?
- The whole "atmospherics" stuff is still annoying and makes less sense that the straightforward yellow sun/red sun approach; hopefully they recon it to just stick with the sunlight in future movies.
- What is with virtual Jor-El being able to talk to Superman in Zod's ship after Superman punched a hole in the side? Either vJor-El is using telepathy or the ship has shields like in Star Trek to seal a hull breach, neither of which is indicated at all in the movie.
- Could have used a little more time between Clark and Martha once he returned home; just a discussion on what he now felt was his place in the universe/on Earth.
- Would have preferred the Kryptonians taking longer to get used to the yellow sun environment; should have had their exo/battle suits "protect" them from the effects of the sun/atmosphere totally. The only reason they should have survived their first fight with Superman would be because of the advanced tech; and then ironically as superman starts winning the fights and destroying their armor, they get exposed and learn the benefits of the yellow sun.
- Even though they were all superpowered, I would have shown them still taking damage from each other. Tear the cape and uniform, break some armor, bloody lips and bruises all around. Have them heal fast if you want, but there should some impact of a Superman powered fist on an equally powered Kryptonian.

Awesome stuff:
- I liked Lois quickly tracking down Clark.
- The fights between Superman and the other Kryptonians in Smallville, I loved how they were (mostly) fighting at full speed the whole time. That is how superpowered people should fight. There should be no downtime (except for injuries) and no time between intent and impact.

 

[Christopher]

- The whole "atmospherics" stuff is still annoying and makes less sense that the straightforward yellow sun/red sun approach; hopefully they recon it to just stick with the sunlight in future movies.

I don't see why it makes less sense. We're constantly immersed in the atmosphere, making it a more direct and significant influence on us than sunlight, particularly indoors or at night. A different atmosphere could theoretically induce a chemical change in a Kryptonian's metabolism, along with other environmental factors.

It's also a callback to the early days of the comics and radio versions of Superman, before they invented the "yellow sun" explanation in the Silver Age. Originally, the idea was that Kryptonians were stronger because their planet had much more intense gravity, air pressure, and the like, so that they were as superhuman on Earth as, say, John Carter became on Mars with its lighter gravity. And there were one or two radio stories where Superman went to other planets and lost his powers because of the different atmospheres and other conditions there. (In one, being exposed to the direct rays of the Sun actually made him weaker rather than stronger. I may have mentioned that already.)

- What is with virtual Jor-El being able to talk to Superman in Zod's ship after Superman punched a hole in the side? Either vJor-El is using telepathy or the ship has shields like in Star Trek to seal a hull breach, neither of which is indicated at all in the movie.

Super-ventriloquism?

- Could have used a little more time between Clark and Martha once he returned home; just a discussion on what he now felt was his place in the universe/on Earth.

Gotta say -- I loved Martha in this. I've never liked Kevin Costner in anything, and Jonathan Kent was terrible here, but Diane Lane is always terrific, and this was no exception.

 

[theenglish]

The rest of the discussion was in defense of the argument that Superman is more interesting when he outwits his villains rather than defeating them by sheer physical force--as I stressed in that page from Action Comics #14. MoS just happened to be an example of how this is done wrong.

I think that it is lazy writers who feel that they need to have a super-villain of Superman's strength or depower him in order to make a story interesting. And that the reason so many consumers believe this is because the only thing they know are products that have been made by lazy writers.

I wouldn't go that far. You can acknowledge the worth of one way of portraying Superman without putting down all the others. This is a character who's been reinvented many times over the past 77 years. There are good stories about a Superman with limited powers (e.g. the Fleischer cartoons, which benefit from Superman's vulnerability and the suspense about whether he'll succeed), and there are good stories about a Superman with nigh-godlike powers (e.g. Maggin's novels). Yes, it can be lazy to assume that something has to be done to make Superman interesting, but that doesn't mean it can never work. It just depends on the nature of the story.

Frank Miller relied on weakening Superman to make a fight with Batman remotely credible, but even then, it was a given that Batman would lose, and Batman knew it and planned for it. John Byrne in Man of Steel relied on Batman outwitting Superman, using a clever ploy to prevent Superman from laying hands on him so that he could stay free long enough to convince Superman they were on the same side. Alan Burnett and Paul Dini in "World's Finest" relied on a mix of Batman using Kryptonite to hold Superman at bay and then out-detecting him, discovering his secret identity and using it as leverage. All three stories worked in their own ways.

Perhaps wrong is too strong a word--maybe poorly.

The point is that Superman stories tend to work best when he has to rely on more than just his powers to save the day, and thinking that Superman needs to be depowered in order to be interesting is a wrong (that wrong I stand behind).

The examples that you mention, Christopher, are not Superman stories--they are Batman stories or Superman/Batman stories. Like in this movie, Superman is not the protagonist, or not the only protagonist. In this case, the dynamics work differently in how the story needs to be structured because something has to happen in the plot to give Batman a chance (either by design or accident) in a fight against Superman.

 

[Enterpriserules]

I personally cannot wait for BvS. I really loved Man of Steel. It has been my favorite Superman film to date. We actually did a whole show on it at The 602 Club. I think a lot of people misunderstood Zack's intent and that it was to be a movie where Clark becomes the icon, not that he is that from the beginning. This is the journey to becoming Superman, that is why the film is called Man of Steel and not Superman. That growth will continue into the next film and to me that is exciting because it is not a rehash of what has been done before, but something new.

 

[Christopher]

The point is that Superman stories tend to work best when he has to rely on more than just his powers to save the day, and thinking that Superman needs to be depowered in order to be interesting is a wrong (that wrong I stand behind).

I agree with that. His powers are a plot device. It's up to the writer to find an interesting and effective way to handle them. Sure, they can make it too easy for Superman and hard to create challenges for him, but that just means writers need to try harder to come up with good challenges.

It's kind of like Star Trek: TNG and its restriction on the usual petty sources of conflict like dysfunctional relationships or dishonesty or jealousy or stupidity. Some writers chafed against those limits, but others came to recognize that it challenged them to come up with more creative ways to put characters into conflict rather than just falling back on the usual crutches.

The examples that you mention, Christopher, are not Superman stories--they are Batman stories or Superman/Batman stories.

That's only true of the examples in my second paragraph, in which I focused on those because it's the topic of the thread. The examples I gave in the first paragraph, the Fleischer cartoons and the Maggin novels, were pure Superman stories.

In this case, the dynamics work differently in how the story needs to be structured because something has to happen in the plot to give Batman a chance (either by design or accident) in a fight against Superman.

Yes, and that was the point in my second paragraph. Of those three Superman-Batman confrontations, only one required depowering Superman, and only two involved kryptonite to any degree. I'm trying to support your argument by pointing out that writers have found ways to give Batman a chance against Superman without weakening Superman's powers in any way. And by the same token, it's possible to give other adversaries a chance against Superman by methods other than weaking his powers. I'm agreeing with you, offering examples of how it's been done.

I think a lot of people misunderstood Zack's intent and that it was to be a movie where Clark becomes the icon, not that he is that from the beginning. This is the journey to becoming Superman, that is why the film is called Man of Steel and not Superman. That growth will continue into the next film and to me that is exciting because it is not a rehash of what has been done before, but something new.

I agree that's probably the case, but I'm not sure it's the best storytelling approach to make a movie that's deliberately incomplete. Even if it's part of a larger story, there should be some degree of resolution in the first installment. After all, when they made MoS, they weren't even sure they'd get to make a sequel.

Generally, the movie you want to leave with a dangling, unresolved ending is the middle one of a trilogy. Look at Star Wars vs. The Empire Strikes Back. The former ends with a clear-cut triumph and a celebration for the heroes (even though Chewie didn't get his medal). The latter ends on an ambiguous, unresolved note. Similarly with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

And I'm not sure the choice of title means what you say. After all, the previous two Batman movies didn't have "Batman" in the title, but it would hardly be true that he wasn't Batman yet. It wasn't about character growth, it was just about Warner Bros' general embarrassment toward the idea of superhero code names.

 

[Captaindemotion]

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.

It might have been somewhat confusing for the general audience if the first film to feature Batman since The Dark Knight Rises was one called The Dark Knight Returns. Nonetheless, it does occur to me that we seem to be getting two successive films featuring an older, jaded Bruce Wayne being spurred out of retirement. Having said that, I do expect these two he two very different films and two fairly differing takes on Batman.

 

[Enterpriserules]

I think MoS is complete in that by the end we think of Clark as Superman and the beginning of what we have seen before is coming next. I think there is a complete arc in the movie, yet it does leave you also wanting to see the next part in his journey as any good comic does.

I do think the name of the film is quite telling with the story that it is the journey to Superman, the birth of Superman and that he is not Superman till the very end.

 

[Christopher]

I think MoS is complete in that by the end we think of Clark as Superman and the beginning of what we have seen before is coming next.

That was the intent, yes, but for me and many others, it failed. This guy may be called Superman and dressed as Superman, but he's still just a guy who follows others' instructions and doesn't accomplish much of his own, who makes essentially zero effort to protect innocents, and who allows the villain to tell him how to deal with his enemies. Calling him Superman doesn't make us think of him as Superman.

 

[Enterpriserules]

Again you have completely missed the point of the film. This is how he becomes Superman, not that he was already when the film started. This is the first time in film we have seen the journey of Clark becoming the hero, the why he becomes what he does. Seeing the path is quite interesting character wise. It's about the birth of the icon, not about him being the icon the whole time. Again this is why the movie is called Man of Steel and not Superman. It is about Clark learning about who he is, what his power is, how to use it and why. It's the process, the journey and that is fascinating to finally see the reasons why Superman becomes who he is and not just have it prepackaged and delivered. It is truly an origin story.

 

[theenglish]

Again you have completely missed the point of the film. This is how he becomes Superman, not that he was already when the film started. This is the first time in film we have seen the journey of Clark becoming the hero, the why he becomes what he does. Seeing the path is quite interesting character wise. It's about the birth of the icon, not about him being the icon the whole time. Again this is why the movie is called Man of Steel and not Superman. It is about Clark learning about who he is, what his power is, how to use it and why. It's the process, the journey and that is fascinating to finally see the reasons why Superman becomes who he is and not just have it prepackaged and delivered. It is truly an origin story.

I think perhaps the intention of the next film might be the birth of Superman but I certainly didn't see it happen in MoS. The most heroic thing he did in the movie was at the beginning not at the end. At the end he fought and killed Zod because that is what Zod wanted him to do--Superman tried to fight against killing Zod but ultimately lost. Tell me how that leads to him becoming Superman.

 

[Enterpriserules]

Well I think this is the basis for him not killing again, explaining that rule that he has. Learning from mistakes as we all do. I think people just expected him to be Superman they wanted from the beginning and this is more challenging as to why is it that Superman is the Superman we know, what made him like that, what experiences shaped that being.

 

[Servo]

I think MoS is complete in that by the end we think of Clark as Superman and the beginning of what we have seen before is coming next.

That was the intent, yes, but for me and many others, it failed. This guy may be called Superman and dressed as Superman, but he's still just a guy who follows others' instructions and doesn't accomplish much of his own, who makes essentially zero effort to protect innocents, and who allows the villain to tell him how to deal with his enemies. Calling him Superman doesn't make us think of him as Superman.

This reminds me of your argument about Joe in the Flash thread. It's like you expect characters to make the right decision first time, every time. This was Clark's first day on the job. He was overwhelmed by a bunch of people who not only had his powers, but also military combat training. He did his best to get the Zod battle away from Metropolis, and Zod did his best to take it right back there.

This isn't the Reeve Superman, who spent 10-15 years locked in the Fortress training with Jor-El, with all the knowledge of the 28 known galaxies. This was a man who lived the life of a nomad, helping people where he could, but with little to no information about who he was, what his place in the world was, and why he could do the things he could do. All of a sudden, in the space of a day, he's thrust into being the protector of the world, after willingly giving himself up to Zod to stop people getting hurt in the first place.

Give the guy a break.

 

[theenglish]

Well I think this is the basis for him not killing again, explaining that rule that he has. Learning from mistakes as we all do. I think people just expected him to be Superman they wanted from the beginning and this is more challenging as to why is it that Superman is the Superman we know, what made him like that, what experiences shaped that being.

Don't get me wrong. I really like MoS--more than any Superman movie since the Donner/Lewis era. I love the first four fifths of the movie and even the level of destruction doesn't bother me. It is just the ending battle and resolution for me that leaves a slightly bitter taste.

I agree with you that the film is about his journey, but I disagree that that journey is completed by the end of the film--because he haven't seen those things you mention. We don't know he won't kill again. We don't know that he has learned he needs to save innocents. We just know what he tells the military officer--he's from Kansas and we shouldn't be afraid of him.

 

[Servo]

Well I think this is the basis for him not killing again, explaining that rule that he has. Learning from mistakes as we all do. I think people just expected him to be Superman they wanted from the beginning and this is more challenging as to why is it that Superman is the Superman we know, what made him like that, what experiences shaped that being.

Very well said.

 

[shapeshifter]

I personally cannot wait for BvS. I really loved Man of Steel. It has been my favorite Superman film to date. We actually did a whole show on it at The 602 Club. I think a lot of people misunderstood Zack's intent and that it was to be a movie where Clark becomes the icon, not that he is that from the beginning. This is the journey to becoming Superman, that is why the film is called Man of Steel and not Superman. That growth will continue into the next film and to me that is exciting because it is not a rehash of what has been done before, but something new.

I think MoS is complete in that by the end we think of Clark as Superman and the beginning of what we have seen before is coming next. I think there is a complete arc in the movie, yet it does leave you also wanting to see the next part in his journey as any good comic does.

I do think the name of the film is quite telling with the story that it is the journey to Superman, the birth of Superman and that he is not Superman till the very end.

Again you have completely missed the point of the film. This is how he becomes Superman, not that he was already when the film started. This is the first time in film we have seen the journey of Clark becoming the hero, the why he becomes what he does. Seeing the path is quite interesting character wise. It's about the birth of the icon, not about him being the icon the whole time. Again this is why the movie is called Man of Steel and not Superman. It is about Clark learning about who he is, what his power is, how to use it and why. It's the process, the journey and that is fascinating to finally see the reasons why Superman becomes who he is and not just have it prepackaged and delivered. It is truly an origin story.

Well I think this is the basis for him not killing again, explaining that rule that he has. Learning from mistakes as we all do. I think people just expected him to be Superman they wanted from the beginning and this is more challenging as to why is it that Superman is the Superman we know, what made him like that, what experiences shaped that being.

EM Thank you. That's what I was trying to say before. There's a reason MOS wasn't titled "Superman", he hadn't reached that stage yet.

 

[Enterpriserules]

I think MoS is complete in that by the end we think of Clark as Superman and the beginning of what we have seen before is coming next.

That was the intent, yes, but for me and many others, it failed. This guy may be called Superman and dressed as Superman, but he's still just a guy who follows others' instructions and doesn't accomplish much of his own, who makes essentially zero effort to protect innocents, and who allows the villain to tell him how to deal with his enemies. Calling him Superman doesn't make us think of him as Superman.

This reminds me of your argument about Joe in the Flash thread. It's like you expect characters to make the right decision first time, every time. This was Clark's first day on the job. He was overwhelmed by a bunch of people who not only had his powers, but also military combat training. He did his best to get the Zod battle away from Metropolis, and Zod did his best to take it right back there.

This isn't the Reeve Superman, who spent 10-15 years locked in the Fortress training with Jor-El, with all the knowledge of the 28 known galaxies. This was a man who lived the life of a nomad, helping people where he could, but with little to no information about who he was, what his place in the world was, and why he could do the things he could do. All of a sudden, in the space of a day, he's thrust into being the protector of the world, after willingly giving himself up to Zod to stop people getting hurt in the first place.

Give the guy a break.

I completely agree here!

Well I think this is the basis for him not killing again, explaining that rule that he has. Learning from mistakes as we all do. I think people just expected him to be Superman they wanted from the beginning and this is more challenging as to why is it that Superman is the Superman we know, what made him like that, what experiences shaped that being.

Don't get me wrong. I really like MoS--more than any Superman movie since the Donner/Lewis era. I love the first four fifths of the movie and even the level of destruction doesn't bother me. It is just the ending battle and resolution for me that leaves a slightly bitter taste.

I agree with you that the film is about his journey, but I disagree that that journey is completed by the end of the film--because he haven't seen those things you mention. We don't know he won't kill again. We don't know that he has learned he needs to save innocents. We just know what he tells the military officer--he's from Kansas and we shouldn't be afraid of him.

I think that is what sets up the interest for us for the next film. We do want to see how he processes this experience and what it teaches him. It has that comic book form where there is an end to one part but we know the next part will further the growth of the character.

Well I think this is the basis for him not killing again, explaining that rule that he has. Learning from mistakes as we all do. I think people just expected him to be Superman they wanted from the beginning and this is more challenging as to why is it that Superman is the Superman we know, what made him like that, what experiences shaped that being.

Very well said.

Thank you! I do really love this film. It's a passion of mine to defend it.