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

[kirk55555]

Come on guys, tone it down. No need to rehash the issues people had with MOS.

There were scenes of him not smiling and being serious and there were scenes of him smiling and being happy.

Now let's all get along, shall we? At least until March 25th. 14 days away!

I said smiling to mean a general positive attitude, not that he actually never smiled. Even Nolan's Batman had Bruce Wayne smile, once and a while.

I thought the movie was coming out on the 18th, for some reason. Maybe I got it confused with Daredevil Season 2. I'm waiting for reviews of this movie to come out. I'm guessing maybe late next week for some of the big critics, maybe? I really want to hear about some things, like if Eisenberg is as huge a train wreck as he seems. I'm planning to read every spoiler from this movie online as soon as possible. I'm interested in it, but don't intend to go in blind.

 

[Turtletrekker]

HA! Somehow I knew that was going to be brought up. Hehe, good on you, mate.
Yes that happened. Around the same time though, Spider-Man (during Roger Stern's run) went head to head with Juggernaut and found a way to incapacitate/stop the unstoppable Juggernaut. It's not the same as beating him, but anyone stopping Juggs is whack.

I didn't mind that. Luring Juggs into a 30 foot pit of wet cement was a pretty clever way of dealing with him. However, when Spider-Man single-handedly beat Firelord, that was whack.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I said smiling to mean a general positive attitude, not that he actually never smiled. Even Nolan's Batman had Bruce Wayne smile, once and a while.

I thought the movie was coming out on the 18th, for some reason. Maybe I got it confused with Daredevil Season 2. I'm waiting for reviews of this movie to come out. I'm guessing maybe late next week for some of the big critics, maybe? I really want to hear about some things, like if Eisenberg is as huge a train wreck as he seems. I'm planning to read every spoiler from this movie online as soon as possible. I'm interested in it, but don't intend to go in blind.

Yes, Daredevil is on the 18th. We can spend the whole weekend marathoning the show! *High Five*

No problem, mate. It's your prerogative. Initial reviews have been positive though. With a number saying it does make up for people's complaints with MOS. You're the consumer, you have rights!

I didn't mind that. Luring Juggs into a 30 foot pit of wet cement was a pretty clever way of dealing with him. However, when Spider-Man single-handedly beat Firelord, that was whack.

Ahahaha. People are still miffed about that.

 

[theenglish]

I think they're referring to the line in the trailer where Superman says "Stay down. If I wanted it, you'd be dead already".

See with these David vs Goliath struggles, we as an audience are conditioned to root for the underdog (David). However, when it's hero vs hero like this, things can get complicated. If Superman can lose to Batman, then how does Superman ever win any of his battles which are way beyond the scope of Batman? Or how can Batman defeat Superman, but not beat a guy in a clown get-up?

You'll notice that most of these battles always take place in books with the underdog's name on the title. When it's their book, they aren't going to lose. However, they always have to find some way to nerf the god-tier character so he/she can save face to audience. You very rarely see a David vs Goliath struggle in the stronger character's book. Why? Because no one wants to see Goliath step on David.

Big Brawls

Spoiler

Batman with prep vs Superman

Batman no prep vs Superman
Superman was under mind control during this story. I he though Batman was either Brainiac or Doomsday. I forget which atm.

Thor not holding back vs Iron Man

NIce. But it's BATMAN--Batman's entire raison d'etre is that he can defeat any foe through his intellect, physical training, and/or wit. Otherwise there would be no reason to even have him in the Justice League.

 

[davejames]

Superman doesn't struggle with killing, he just doesn't do it (outside of stupid Golden age stuff, misinterpreted movie scenes [he didn't kill Zod in SM II] or one horrible John Byrne comic from almost 30 years ago). It is Punisher style, killing instead of capturing. I know Punisher is known for guns, but I've definitely seen him snap necks.

Well he doesn't do it only because previous writers have always found ways for him to conveniently avoid making such a tough call (no matter how preposterous those ways may be).

All Snyder and Goyer did was put him in a position where he really had no choice but to kill. And it was only to prevent further killing from Zod, and he immediately expressed real anguish over the act afterwards (certainly more than we see with most superheroes after they destroy their enemies, which to me just proves how much better Superman really is). It hardly makes him a monster in my book, or tarnishes his legacy or some ridiculous thing.

This idea that Superman and Batman must never ever ever kill under any circumstances just makes no sense to me, and feels like an incredibly simplistic way to approach these characters.

 

[Garak]

kirk55555 is absolutely right.

Pretty much everyone who has ever said that has lived to regret it.

 

[Garak]

In your opinion, which is no more legitimate then mine

No, it is.

 

[JD]

I could never see a normal version of Batman making a statement like "Even if there is only a 1% chance he's dangerous, we must treat it as a certainty". He's an intense guy, but he's not stupid and he's not reactionary unless he needs to be. Outside of Frank Miller's "Goddamn" Batman, its much more likely that Batman would wait and watch to see how Superman acts outside of being in a battle for both his own life and the entire planet. Batman likes planning and taking his time when he can, he's not going to launch a preemptive strike on Superman unless Superman makes himself an obvious threat. That would require something more than unintentional property damage (even if I think that Superman is more responsible for the damage then many MoS fans try to claim, he still didn't try to do it and Zod played a big part in the destruction and death).

Also, a normal Superman wouldn't casually talk about killing someone like that, I don't care about the situation. But, I suppose a Superman who actually needs to "learn" that killing is wrong (god, Snyder couldn't understand the idea of Superman less if he actively tried to misunderstand) might consider death threats fine.

I'm interested in Batman v Superman, and I've grown to like MoS, but I can't deny how bad Snyder & Co have been with the characters, especially the dialog.

First of all, this is not a normal Batman. He's supposed to be starting off the movie in a really bad place after the death of Robin, so add on to that the fact that he witnessed the destruction Superman and Zod's fight caused in Metropolis, and I think his attitude is pretty understand able.
And Superman isn't actually talking about killing Batman, he's just saying that he is powerful enough that if he wanted to kill he would already be dead.

 

[kirk55555]

Well he doesn't do it only because previous writers have always found ways for him to conveniently avoid making such a tough call (no matter how preposterous those ways may be).

You mean preposterous like how Superman totally couldn't have flown upward, or put his hand over Zod's eyes? That kind of ridiculousness?

All Snyder and Goyer did was put him in a position where he really had no choice but to kill. And it was only to prevent further killing from Zod, and he immediately expressed real anguish over the act afterwards (certainly more than we see with most superheroes after they destroy their enemies, which to me just proves how much better Superman really is). It hardly makes him a monster in my book, or tarnishes his legacy or some ridiculous thing.

This idea that Superman and Batman must never ever ever kill under any circumstances just makes no sense to me, and feels like an incredibly simplistic way to approach these characters.

Its superheroes. The whole point is that many of them are idealized heroes, especially with someone like superman. Superman never kills because that's who he is. Its not realistic, but screw realism. The whole point is that he is superhuman in more than just his powers. He fights to show the potential of good, regardless of how dark the world gets. He wants to show that there is always another way. It would be really easy to let Superman kill his villains. The difficult part is having him find ways not to kill. Any jackass with superstrength can snap a neck, and any hack writer can have that happen. The struggle is to find another way.

A good story about why Superman doesn't/shouldn't kill (or get extremely violent) is Action Comics #775: What's So Funny about Truth, Justice and the American Way. It was written to dispute the extremist "heroes" that were popular, and is the greatest explanation as to why Superman doesn't kill or use his powers to enforce world peace and stuff like that. There is also the animated movie Superman vs The Elite, which adapts the comic into an animated film. Its more then just killing, it talks about why Superman doesn't just permenantlyend all the threats he faces. The comic is great, one of the best Superman comics. The movie is also very good (outside of a few weird art style choices).

First of all, this is not a normal Batman. He's supposed to be starting off the movie in a really bad place after the death of Robin, so add on to that the fact that he witnessed the destruction Superman and Zod's fight caused in Metropolis, and I think his attitude is pretty understand able.
And Superman isn't actually talking about killing Batman, he's just saying that he is powerful enough that if he wanted to kill he would already be dead.

Batman lost a Robin in the comics. They explored the effects on him pretty well (from what I've read of the era). He was effected, but never became a nutjob like Batfleck. This is a guy who won't kill Joker, even after all he's done. He would never just launch an attack on Superman because he assumes there is a slight chance Superman might do something bad, at least no real Batman would do that.

Also, Superman is a certified killer. Bringing up the fact that he is ready and willing to kill (and has experience doing so) is a threat.

No, it is.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Well, this might get a mixed reaction here, but I consider it to be good news-- Justice League to have a lighter tone than MoS or BvS.

 

[dahj]

So, being a baby with no idea what is going on, and would probably enjoy horrific scenes if you put a funny sound over them, is the audience for Man of Steel?

If you're gonna be that cynical over a video of a baby that enjoys seeing Superman fly for the first time I don't see why you would even want a "brighter" Superman

Anyway, the movie is less than two weeks away, so I see no point in rehashing 3 year old arguments over another film.
Can't we talk about the important stuff? Like how my local IMAX has no 2D showings in the first week.
Now there's something to get outraged about!

 

[davejames]

You mean preposterous like how Superman totally couldn't have flown upward, or put his hand over Zod's eyes? That kind of ridiculousness?

And then what? Zod would have just freed himself and found himself anther family to kill, or toppled another building full of people in order to force Superman's hand. And there was no handy kryptonite around or prisons that could have held him or Phantom Zone portals for Superman to throw him into. And even assuming Superman was able to fly him all the way to the moon, Zod would have eventually just made his way back again.

Zod felt he had no more purpose and so was determined to have Superman end his life one way or another. And nothing was going to change that. And personally I thought it was incredibly powerful and compelling to see Superman put in that position for the first time, and to see just how painful it was for him.

 

[kirk55555]

Its just bad writing in my opinion. Anyone can put Superman in a situation where it seems like he has to kill. They could also put him in the position where he has to snap Supergirl's neck, or sell Batman's kidney's on the black market, or other equally stupid out of character things. They could do that, and justify it as the only way to save the world. When smart writers make situations like Zod in MoS, they find clever (not "lazy") ways for Superman to solve the problem. He's supposed to be the hero who never would, regardless of circumstances. Just because you can technically put him into a situation and then mechanically write away any other solution other then killing doesn't make the story compelling, and it goes completely against Superman.

He's like Captain Kirk, he doesn't believe in the "no win scenario", or, for Superman, the "the only choice is to kill" scenario. Like Kirk, he finds ways to change the rules, to win even when it looks like he can't. The fact that he always finds a way is what makes him Superman, and not just some random superhero.

 

[JD]

Batman lost a Robin in the comics. They explored the effects on him pretty well (from what I've read of the era). He was effected, but never became a nutjob like Batfleck. This is a guy who won't kill Joker, even after all he's done. He would never just launch an attack on Superman because he assumes there is a slight chance Superman might do something bad, at least no real Batman would do that.

Also, Superman is a certified killer. Bringing up the fact that he is ready and willing to kill (and has experience doing so) is a threat.

Well, we still haven't seen the movie so we still don't have all of the facts when it comes to who is doing what to who and for what reasons. Some of the stuff I've read has talked about Lex Luthor manipulating them into fighting each other, so I don't think it's as simple as Batman just outright attacking Superman just because he doesn't like him.
All we are going by is the trailers and some very vague interviews, so we don't have all of the facts here. I don't really think it's worth making final judgements on the characters and how they are portrayed in the whole movie based off maybe 5-10 minutes total of random footage from all throughout the movie.

 

[kirk55555]

Well, we still haven't seen the movie so we still don't have all of the facts when it comes to who is doing what to who and for what reasons. Some of the stuff I've read has talked about Lex Luthor manipulating them into fighting each other, so I don't think it's as simple as Batman just outright attacking Superman just because he doesn't like him.
All we are going by is the trailers and some very vague interviews, so we don't have all of the facts here. I don't really think it's worth making final judgements on the characters and how they are portrayed in the whole movie based off maybe 5-10 minutes total of random footage from all throughout the movie.

Making final judgments based on Snyder's track record, if nothing else, helps confirm the stupid stuff from the trailers. Snyder is all about stuff like that, he's basically the Michael bay of superhero movies, albeit with somewhat different tropes attached to his "style". He's the kind of guy who thinks that you actually need to murder someone to figure out that its wrong. We'll be lucky if Batman doesn't shoot civilians in the face with a shotgun during the movie, because obviously Batman needs to kill people with guns to learn that he shouldn't, based on Snyder's logic.

Also, on a side note, Batman being manipulated by Lex Luthor is ridiculous by itself. Lex (in some incarnations) might have better tech/science knowledge, but he isn't capable of out mind gaming Batman. If it turns out that Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor actually manipulates the fight in the movie, well that's how you instantly make Batfleck lose all credibility. We've gotten about 45 seconds of Luthor footage, and he's the most transparently evil jerk even in the parts that are obviously before he reveals his nature to anyone. You listen to him for a second, and at the very least you're convinced that he has some slave labor shop in China making porcelain busts of his own head. Or at least inventing an evil version of facebook I'll admit to not liking Eisenberg as an actor anyway, but his Lex seems to be basically a corporate Joker. Or the Catwoman film's villainess as a man, and with less of a grip on reality. If he actually succeeds in manipulating anyone who has more than two brain cells, the movie is screwed anyway.

 

[urbandefault]

Making final judgments based on Snyder's track record, if nothing else, helps confirm the stupid stuff from the trailers. Snyder is all about stuff like that, he's basically the Michael bay of superhero movies, albeit with somewhat different tropes attached to his "style". He's the kind of guy who thinks that you actually need to murder someone to figure out that its wrong. We'll be lucky if Batman doesn't shoot civilians in the face with a shotgun during the movie, because obviously Batman needs to kill people with guns to learn that he shouldn't, based on Snyder's logic.

Also, on a side note, Batman being manipulated by Lex Luthor is ridiculous by itself. Lex (in some incarnations) might have better tech/science knowledge, but he isn't capable of out mind gaming Batman. If it turns out that Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor actually manipulates the fight in the movie, well that's how you instantly make Batfleck lose all credibility. We've gotten about 45 seconds of Luthor footage, and he's the most transparently evil jerk even in the parts that are obviously before he reveals his nature to anyone. You listen to him for a second, and at the very least you're convinced that he has some slave labor shop in China making porcelain busts of his own head. Or at least inventing an evil version of facebook I'll admit to not liking Eisenberg as an actor anyway, but his Lex seems to be basically a corporate Joker. Or the Catwoman film's villainess as a man, and with less of a grip on reality. If he actually succeeds in manipulating anyone who has more than two brain cells, the movie is screwed anyway.

So, are you going to see the movie or not?

 

[kirk55555]

So, are you going to see the movie or not?

Probably not until it comes to Blu ray/DVD, but it depends on how much the rest of my family wants to see it honestly. I'm not the cliché of someone who says bad things but then sees the movie 12 times. If it gets decent reviews, and/or other people in my family want to see it, I might see it. Its probably about a 50/50 chance right now, and while I'm interested in it, if I end up having to wait until the home video release I won't be very disappointed. I'll definitely see it eventually, though. Like I've said before, Man of Steel grew on me, and I see most superhero movies anyway regardless of the quality of the movie, because I love superheroes.

 

[Ovation]

So that's a yes then.

 

[kirk55555]

So that's a yes then.

That's a possibly (but probably not) for theaters, but a definitely when I can get it for free at the library. I've watched some of the worst superhero movies ever made, there is no way I'd completely ignore Batman v Superman, it goes against my nature. The question is whether or not I'll give it any money. That said, I bought the 2015 Fantastic Four on Blu Ray even though I knew it was junk, so Batman v Superman will both be seen and eventually be in my collection eventually (probably when its really cheap used on Amazon). But, in that case, WB still wouldn't get any money from me directly.

Of course, if the movie somehow manages to defy all laws of nature (and common sense) and not be terrible, I might see it sooner and/or buy it new on DVD. Bottom line, I'll see it, but when and how are up in the air.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Good sign for Hollywood when someone could harshly criticized their product but buys it anyway. Wouldn't it be a better approach to NOT have anything to do with the product in order for Hollywood to change the brand? Or it's director? It's a silly mindset to watch a filmmakers' work, which hasn't been good, to pay a lot of money on a movie ticket just to see how bad it is?