That would be like mentioning the Green Hornet during the War of the Worlds!
Okay, now you have to write that crossover.
Well, I have written the Green Hornet in the past . . . .
‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Well, I have written the Green Hornet in the past . . . .
It wasn't bacteria that stopped the Martians, it was Bruce Lee!
MAN OF STEEL was basically a sci-fi movie about First Contact and an alien invasion. Not sure why anyone would bring up a notorious masked vigilante when dealing with buried spaceships and superhuman invaders. That would be like mentioning the Green Hornet during the War of the Worlds!
Batman, The Green Hornet, Superman, The Flash and Hawkman could make up the modern League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
Is it just me, or are the DC superheroes except for Superman and Batman extremely lame? Aquaman, Flash, Green Hornet, Green Lantern? Please.
I can't see how I could taken any of these seriously in live action films like the current movie Marvel Avengers.
I can't see how I could taken any of these seriously in live action films like the current movie Marvel Avengers.
I must admit, that while I have no problem with the casting of Affleck, I don't really care for the idea of pairing off a Superman at or near the start of his career with a weary and tired Batman, who's been at his job for a long time.
We had a weary and tired Batman in The Dark Knight Rises and while I appreciate that this movie will doubtless handle him very differently, I would have preferred Batman and Superman to be at similar sorts of stages in this movie. Batman may have been doing it a little longer than Superman but I would have preferred to see him at, say, around the stage of his career that he was in The Dark Knight.
It makes me wonder how long they plan to keep this incarnation of Batman around for. Affleck is 41 but looks younger while Cavill is in his late 20s, playing his early 30s. Shouldn't they be played by contemporaries or at least shouldn't they be near-contemporaries in the movie (if Cavill can be 33, I would find Affleck believable as 35 or so).
I would've thought that the plan would be to use this movie to reboot and relaunch a series of solo Batman movies, without the need for an introduction or origin movie, but if Batman is meant to be tired and weary already, I wonder how much scope for solo movies there could be? Perhaps the end of this movie will see him reinvigorated and animated in his mission; I don't know.
We had a weary and tired Batman in The Dark Knight Rises and while I appreciate that this movie will doubtless handle him very differently, I would have preferred Batman and Superman to be at similar sorts of stages in this movie. Batman may have been doing it a little longer than Superman but I would have preferred to see him at, say, around the stage of his career that he was in The Dark Knight.
It makes me wonder how long they plan to keep this incarnation of Batman around for. Affleck is 41 but looks younger while Cavill is in his late 20s, playing his early 30s. Shouldn't they be played by contemporaries or at least shouldn't they be near-contemporaries in the movie (if Cavill can be 33, I would find Affleck believable as 35 or so).
I would've thought that the plan would be to use this movie to reboot and relaunch a series of solo Batman movies, without the need for an introduction or origin movie, but if Batman is meant to be tired and weary already, I wonder how much scope for solo movies there could be? Perhaps the end of this movie will see him reinvigorated and animated in his mission; I don't know.
Green Hornet isn't a DC hero.
And no they aren't any "lamer" than Marvel's heroes. Flash is a guy who runs fast, just like Quicksilver who will be appearing in the next Avengers and X-Men films. Aquaman is a guy who can breath underwater, just like the Sub-Mariner, who's been optioned for films at Universal. Green Lantern no lamer than Marvel's Silver Surfer, Quasar, Captain Marvel or any of their cosmic heroes
Actually I kind of like the idea of contrasting them like that. And really, MoS Superman in particular has so far fallen very short in terms of being a hero; he's achieved a few useful things, but only by following others' instructions, and there's a lot he could've done that he failed to do (like saving more bystanders or finding a better way to deal with Zod than just obediently doing what the villain told him to do). So this Kal-El needs some serious instruction in how to be a superhero. Given that, it makes sense to pair him up with a veteran who knows the game and is able to slap some sense into this guy and get him to start living up to his potential for a change.
Cavill is actually 30 now.
For comparison, Robert Downey, Jr. was 43 when he first played Iron Man, and will be 50 when The Avengers: Age of Ultron is released (though will be 48-49 during filming). Chris Hemsworth is currently 30 and Chris Evans is currently 32. Mark Ruffalo is now 45 and Scarlett Johansson is 28.
So no, I don't think it's essential for the co-stars in a superhero movie to be of equivalent age. I think WB wants Affleck to be the DC film universe's equivalent to Downey (in front of the camera, and Whedon behind, perhaps). And he's younger now than Downey was when he first played Tony Stark, so honestly these "He's too old" objections are rather bizarre to me.
Personally I'm glad we don't get another origin story. It's time superhero movies started to move beyond that trope.
Correct; he was originally a radio character who then appeared in film serials and a television series, as well as a recent film from Sony/Columbia. He has had various comic-book series over the decades from various publishers including Harvey, Dell, Gold Key (very briefly, based on the TV series), NOW, and Dynamite Entertainment, but never DC. I suppose people make that mistake because the '60s TV series was from the same production company that did Batman. But that was the only crossover between the Green Hornet and DC characters, as far as I know.
I don't know, I thought JLU proved that these characters could be pretty damn cool when written the right way, and given some good stories. Hell, I used to think Green Arrow was one of the lamest superheroes ever made, but he ended up being one of the most interesting characters on that show!
And to be fair, before the Marvel movies made them work, the general public probably found most of those characters to be pretty lame and cheesy as well.
I don't think there's anything inherently more interesting about those Marvel characters; I think it just depends on how well they're written and realized on screen.
Last edited:
I really don't see where one is any more rediculous than the others. If you go back to the comics both sets are characters are pretty equally fanciful, it's just in the movies that they are being approached from such drastically different directions.
I mean is Wonder Woman really any more ridiculous than Thor or Captain Marvel?
What about the Green Lantern Corps and the Nova Corps (who will be appearing in The Guardians of the Galaxy)?
Honestly, as I've started getting in to the comics more, I've been amazed how similar the two companies' characters are.
I didn't say he was 'too old' (perhaps you're pointing to the general objections, rather than anything I've said, but if so, I wish you'd clarify that). I specifically said I had no problem with his casting and that he could pass for mid 30s.
I'm just not keen on the idea of a Batman and Superman who are a decade apart (and I'm talking about within the movie, I don't mean the actors' ages). No, I don't think it's 'essential' that they be the same age - I've just always imagined Bruce and Clark being separated by maybe a year or two. Affleck and Cavill could pass for being only a few years apart, I just don't like the idea of Batman (apparently) being past his best when he first meets Superman.
I don't really see the Avengers comparison as being similar; for one thing, the latter are a group and the age differences are less obvious than where there are only two people. Anyway, it's perhaps notable that the younger ones in Avengers - the 2 Chrisses and ScarJo - are the ones doing all the physical and tight spandex/muscle top stuff, while RDJ and Mark Ruffalo are either doing mo-cap or wearing a CGI suit. Ruffalo looked a little porky in Avengers - can't do that in a Batman suit, can you?!
In terms of the age thing, I don't think the RDJ/Tony Stark comparison holds up though, as Stark's suit and tech-know-how basically do all the work for him. Batman has no special powers and needs to be in physically great condition, which gets more difficult the older you get. Anyone who has seen Affleck in The Town will know that he can be in fantastic shape but whether or not an actor in his 50s could do so is open to question. Certainly, Hugh Jackman reckons it gets harder and harder to get into Wolverine-type condition every time.
Again, I didn't say I wanted another origin movie. I just said that I thought that this film would be a way of launching a new set of Batman films, without an origin story. My query was about whether introducing an older Batman would lead to more movies for him, not the absence of an origin story.
