Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Oafley Jones

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or in this case, the idiot who rescues a cat up a tree while Zod kills a million people.

I like how you think that those people were doomed like it was an actual event. If only there was some kind of say, writer, that could come up with a scenario where he saves both. But you're right that's just too outlandish. And who needs character beats when you've **** to blow up.

Adamantium

norrie rugger wrote: »

so what you all want is a superman film where they don't use the super powers and have a thriller OR where they do use the powers but fight where superman wants the fight to happen? Ignoring the amount of times that Metropolis gets smashed in comics/animated

I think people intend to forget that these are comic book movies, and in recent years to ground them in their threats and charcater personailties has only gone and made something like it more prepostorous ironically.

The filmakers try to bring these threats and characters into the real world and we're almost horrified by what we see, because we were never meant to take it seriously, but we asked for it, and now we don't like it

Superman faces a world-level crushing power and only a section of one city gets destroyed, I think he did really good in the 1st week and managed save 7 billion people too. If anything their should have been far more damage caused

We want our heroes and problems to be real, but not too real, or else they'll remind us of ourselves and god forbid the blockbuster mainstream audience at large remind us that our heroes be removed from their squeaky clean pedestal, and have the camera lense straight back at us.



It's why genre fare like The Wire, BSG, has made characters more murky, conflicted and real (and in my opinion more sincere and heroic), and it has been influencing cinema for much of the last decade.


This the problem of all storytelling forever do you make your stories mythical, (King Arthur, Reeves Superman, the original Star Wars) fantastical or ground them in life lessons and introspection to appeal to the hearts of the respective audience of the particular era. It's cyclical.

It's all matter of perspective

I loved Iron Man 3, simply because it was a day in the life of Iron Man/Tony Stark and thought it one of the most enjoyable trips to the cinema in many years, with a wonderful awareness of itself and yet I came on the internet and the everybody was frothing at the mouth and they had adapted it for screen and that it wasn't at all like the comics. It felt like it's own film , a standalone, but also a continuation. It never jumped it's own shark, it was a tidy story

Everybody I know "normals", loved it and I did too, simply because it was the kind of film that let loose and remembered it wasn't a part of a conveyor belt (despite being just that) of superhero films and remembered it was just a film.

People have to realise that the internet culture to 95% people simply doesn't exist and their summations of a film after seeing are "brilliant, funny, I really liked so and so, I hope they don't keep making sequels to ruin to that ending". It speaks to them and that's that, and clearly it's working these films are now the biggest in the world

It's wonderful to see that joy/naviety by people who couldn't a toss about nitpicking because they can actually see more clearly if a story is "real and true/human" as opposed drowning in a ocean of details.

If anything we're weird, very weird, they'd probably tell us "go make your own movies if you feel you can do better"

Mark Hamill

pixelburp wrote: »

I’m not personally sure what could have been done to make the finale less of an obnoxious piece of CGI excess, but there were ways of scaling things back, or adding useful context that could have saved the sequence while keeping the spirit of Superman alive.

Why should they scale back the action in an action film?

rockbeast

I fail to see why anyone would doubt Zack Snyder can make a go of this or JL when he's already done Watchmen...? Limited by, but honest to, the source material, okay...

With an original script I'll definitely give him the benefit of the doubt until I watch the film(s) but to complain now?

Corholio

rockbeast wrote: »

I fail to see why anyone would doubt Zack Snyder can make a go of this or JL when he's already done Watchmen...? Limited by, but honest to, the source material, okay...

With an original script I'll definitely give him the benefit of the doubt until I watch the film(s) but to complain now?

That sentence doesn't compute :pac:

But seriously, I fail to see in his previous work why this would be a fantastic film. I liked Watchmen a bit, it was a hard task to do anyway, but it wasn't great by any means.

rockbeast

Corholio wrote: »

That sentence doesn't compute :pac:

But seriously, I fail to see in his previous work why this would be a fantastic film. I liked Watchmen a bit, it was a hard task to do anyway, but it wasn't great by any means.

:cool:

I qualified it with him being honest/loyal to source material (Watchmen ending excepted!).

Only film I've watched where "super heroes" looked realistic in (a version of;)) the real world...

There should be no issue (yet!) whether ZS can bring realism to SVB or JL; and he can only work with what he's given RE script

rockbeast

Fell free to call BS here...

I (believe I ) have read an early draft of SVsB-MOS and if I didn't - they should make that movie!

In it "Man of Steel" is the title of a Lois and Clark article on Bruce Wayne after Wayne Enterprises rebuilds Metropolis.

Supes and Batman never fight BUT Clark and Bruce do - Bruce wins!

I liked it because it was a character piece and Superman didn't really appear til 2nd half (he is in opening 10).

Really interesting approach to the script and I hope some remains for final film...

Bacchus

rockbeast wrote: »

Fell free to call BS here...

I (believe I ) have read an early draft of SVsB-MOS and if I didn't - they should make that movie!

In it "Man of Steel" is the title of a Lois and Clark article on Bruce Wayne after Wayne Enterprises rebuilds Metropolis.

Supes and Batman never fight BUT Clark and Bruce do - Bruce wins!

I liked it because it was a character piece and Superman didn't really appear til 2nd half (he is in opening 10).

Really interesting approach to the script and I hope some remains for final film...

I call BS :P Zack Snyder... character piece!?

Bacchus

norrie rugger wrote: »

But you are ignoring that Superman has killed in the comics, levelled cities in the comics, and has even killed Zod in a film prior to Snyder's.

I assume that was directed at me. I'm ignoring all the other media portrayals of Superman for the purposes of my question, does this movie version of Superman change the dynamic of the Batman vs Superman conflict? Obviously Batman is going to have to have some kryptonite but Man of Steel showed Superman to be quite reckless. I thought one of the things Batman always counted on was Superman's goodie-two-shoes code.

I think this will go down the route of Superman being appalled at the events of Man of Steel. Superman is something of an outcast for levelling a city. Bruce/Batman is rebuilding Metropolis (probably with Lex) but installing measures to level the playing field a bit (e.g. in one of the comics didn't he coat the sewers lines with lead so Superman couldn't see him). There'll probably be a bit of a fight until some other big bad causes them to join forces. No idea how all the other JL characters that are in this fit in though.

Zubeneschamali

Bacchus wrote: »

No idea how all the other JL characters that are in this fit in though.

Since DC are copying Marvels success with Avengers, I imagine that in this movie the other JL characters will each get an unimportant cameo, like Hawkeye in Thor, Black Widow in Iron Man, with maybe some set-ups, like Bucky in Captain America, or several bad guys in Winter Soldier.

googled eyes

Bacchus wrote: »

I assume that was directed at me. I'm ignoring all the other media portrayals of Superman for the purposes of my question, does this movie version of Superman change the dynamic of the Batman vs Superman conflict? Obviously Batman is going to have to have some kryptonite but Man of Steel showed Superman to be quite reckless. I thought one of the things Batman always counted on was Superman's goodie-two-shoes code.

I think this will go down the route of Superman being appalled at the events of Man of Steel. Superman is something of an outcast for levelling a city. Bruce/Batman is rebuilding Metropolis (probably with Lex) but installing measures to level the playing field a bit (e.g. in one of the comics didn't he coat the sewers lines with lead so Superman couldn't see him). There'll probably be a bit of a fight until some other big bad causes them to join forces. No idea how all the other JL characters that are in this fit in though.

So you're ignoring other media portrayals of Superman to suit your argument about him being reckless in MOS But you'll then reference a comic where BATMAN lined sewers with lead to show how smart Batman is ?

Bacchus

googled eyes wrote: »

So you're ignoring other media portrayals of Superman to suit your argument about him being reckless in MOS But you'll then reference a comic where BATMAN lined sewers with lead to show how smart Batman is ?

I'm not arguing. I'm asking. But people keep going on about how Man of Steel wasn't the first to show Superman kill or be reckless. I don't care about that. I'm asking how this type of Superman affects the Batman vs Superman conflict. I always thought Superman doing no harm was a part of what gave Batman the edge. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to argue. As I said, I'm asking.

googled eyes

Bacchus wrote: »

I'm not arguing. I'm asking. But people keep going on about how Man of Steel wasn't the first to show Superman kill or be reckless. I don't care about that. I'm asking how this type of Superman affects the Batman vs Superman conflict. I always thought Superman doing no harm was a part of what gave Batman the edge. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to argue. As I said, I'm asking.

Ah I didn't mean you were really arguing.

I think the destruction of Metropolis and having to kill Zod will have an effect on him and maybe install boundries on what he's willing to do.


Although I really hope we don't have to sit through a mopey Clark during the next movie.

Bacchus

googled eyes wrote: »

I think the destruction of Metropolis and having to kill Zod will have an effect on him and maybe install boundries on what he's willing to do.

Although I really hope we don't have to sit through a mopey Clark during the next movie.

I hope so, cause if Superman is still cool about what happened in MoS, I think the conflict is all skewed. While I wouldn't like to a mopey Clark either, I'd like to see him struggling a bit with his first outing and its consequences. Batman would be able to be a mirror for that, torturing Superman with the devastation he caused while fighting him. Could make for a great fight.

However (and this is why I keep asking) if Superman is "ok" with how things panned out in MoS, Superman becomes too much the God like villain. That kind of Superman, IMO, would have no problem dealing with a human, even one like Batman. Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe Batman is more than capable of taking on Superman regardless of where he "draws the line".

Zubeneschamali

Bacchus wrote: »

I always thought Superman doing no harm was a part of what gave Batman the edge.

Why did you think that? Because of some particular Batman vs. Superman story you read or saw. Maybe "The Dark Knight Returns" by Miller?

But there are lots of other stories, and this upcoming movie does not have to match the particular story you are thinking of.

techdiver

Bacchus wrote: »

I hope so, cause if Superman is still cool about what happened in MoS, I think the conflict is all skewed. While I wouldn't like to a mopey Clark either, I'd like to see him struggling a bit with his first outing and its consequences. Batman would be able to be a mirror for that, torturing Superman with the devastation he caused while fighting him. Could make for a great fight.

However (and this is why I keep asking) if Superman is "ok" with how things panned out in MoS, Superman becomes too much the God like villain. That kind of Superman, IMO, would have no problem dealing with a human, even one like Batman. Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe Batman is more than capable of taking on Superman regardless of where he "draws the line".

I think the difference is, that he killed Zod in order to save mankind from annihilation. Batman would be a different foe. Superman will recognise that batman is inherently good and this is where the line would be drawn. That and a combination of guilt from actually killing Zod.

Also, I think the whole Batman v Superman side of the story might not be as central to the plot of the movie that many think. After all, it's just a working title. I'm sure it will be an initial "cold war" type conflict, before Batman realises that Superman is good and they join forces to stop a greater threat. I think batman will be suspicious of Superman and hopefully we will see the detective side of Bruce come out in that respect as opposed to a physical conflict.

Bacchus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why did you think that? Because of some particular Batman vs. Superman story you read or saw. Maybe "The Dark Knight Returns" by Miller?

But there are lots of other stories, and this upcoming movie does not have to match the particular story you are thinking of.

Quite possibly, I'm not hugely familiar with the history of Batman & Superman. Must have been something I read before because it does stick in my mind that Superman's moral code was a factor in their fights.

Yeti Beast

rockbeast wrote: »

:cool:

I qualified it with him being honest/loyal to source material (Watchmen ending excepted!).

Only film I've watched where "super heroes" looked realistic in (a version of;)) the real world...

There should be no issue (yet!) whether ZS can bring realism to SVB or JL; and he can only work with what he's given RE script

I'd argue that that was down to Moore's writing rather than Snyder's direction.

Don't get me wrong, I thought Watchmen was okay given the size of the task at hand. But it's faults (and it had a few) can all be put down to Snyder - terrible miscasting of a couple of main characters, generally awful use of soundtrack, more sloooowwwwwww-mmmoooooooo....

Snyder has proved time and time again that he's not a great director. People are right to question his ability to pull this off.

rockbeast

Dair. wrote: »

I'd argue that that was down to Moore's writing rather than Snyder's direction.

Don't get me wrong, I thought Watchmen was okay given the size of the task at hand. But it's faults (and it had a few) can all be put down to Snyder - terrible miscasting of a couple of main characters, generally awful use of soundtrack, more sloooowwwwwww-mmmoooooooo....

Snyder has proved time and time again that he's not a great director. People are right to question his ability to pull this off.

Not to be pedantic but Gibbons and Higgins surely helped the Production Designers out more with "world-building"?

As I said above I read "a draft(?)" of SVsB and it was awesome.

First two acts of the script mainly is Lois and Clark investigating Bruce Wayne as journalists counter-balanced with Bruce using his detective skills to deduce who Superman is.

After The Winter Soldier I wouldn't be surprised if Warners try to keep that 70s/journalism/conspiracy angle going...

Lex is really well written too with some great dialogue that would suit Eisenburg...

LUTHOR
This...city. This...Metropolis.
Rebuilt upon the ashes of
Gods. " Give me your tired,
your poor, your huddled
masses yearning to breathe
free", cried Metropolis ---


it keeps going...blahx3

But I like the way Lex quotes from "The New Colossus" Now the script I read could very well be BS or Zak could rewrite the entire thing but there is certainly a great movie in the concept...

S'all...:)

Yeti Beast

rockbeast wrote: »

Not to be pedantic but Gibbons and Higgins surely helped the Production Designers out more with "world-building"?

Well, that is pretty pedantic. You talked about the realistic characters being proof that Snyder is well capable of producing a JL movie. I maintain that the characters on screen owe their realism more to Moore than Snyder. Just because he had nothing to do with the film's production doesn't change the fact that Moore created well developed, multi-layered characters. Snyder then made them run in slow-mo.

rockbeast

Dair. wrote: »

Well, that is pretty pedantic. You talked about the realistic characters being proof that Snyder is well capable of producing a JL movie. I maintain that the characters on screen owe their realism more to Moore than Snyder. Just because he had nothing to do with the film's production doesn't change the fact that Moore created well developed, multi-layered characters. Snyder then made them run in slow-mo.

Ah, yeah, BUT I did say "looked realistic" in my original post...

Yeti Beast

rockbeast wrote: »

Ah, yeah, BUT I did say "looked realistic" in my original post...

Fair enough - I still don't understand why that gives you faith in Snyder's ability at bringing the JL to screen. But it seems we're not arguing the same points, so I'll leave it there.

Agent Coulson

First pic of Diana Prince on set.

B.A._Baracus

So they are filming it now but it doesn't come out for another 2 years. That's a bit unusual, right?

I know the movie will be CGI heavy but aren't big blockbusters like this only filmed the summer/a year before?

techdiver

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

So they are filming it now but it doesn't come out for another 2 years. That's a bit unusual, right?

I nkow the movie will be CGI heavy but aren't big blockbusters like this only filmed the summer/a year before?

It wasn't going to be complete for the summer slot in 2015, so they pushed it until the following summer as they don't want a winter slot. It will be "in the can" long before the release. It the way these things happen sometimes. Man of Steel was the same. It started filming nearly 2 years before it's release.

Agent Coulson

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

So they are filming it now but it doesn't come out for another 2 years. That's a bit unusual, right?

I know the movie will be CGI heavy but aren't big blockbusters like this only filmed the summer/a year before?

Filming started last week.

Jesse Eisenberg Starts Work Next Month.

Yahoo movies

It might take them a year to edit it a few times.

Mr Freeze

Wow, that's Wonder Woman, she looks really skinny! :pac:

/runs!

Agent Coulson

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Wow, that's Wonder Woman, she looks really skinny! :pac:

/runs!

No no that's Diana Prince..

It's going to be a CGI Wonder Woman just like the CGI HULK in the Avengers :pac:

It's the only way she can have muscles

Kirby

1...2...3...say it with me everybody!

Miscast! :P

EoinMcLovin

Batman vs. Superman is Officially Titled Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice!

Soft Falling Rain

Not great, but better than the rumoured ****e I heard.

Adamantium

EoinMcLovin wrote: »

Batman vs. Superman is Officially Titled Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice!

Are they suing each other?

The World's Finest Court Battle!

Judge Judy Narration:
The plaintiff, 40 year old business man Bruce Wayne is suing 34 year old journalist Clark Kent for damages to his satellite grid.....

Agent Coulson

Is LL really going to be that powerfull in this movie that it leads to the formation of the Justice League.

Penn

Why on Earth would a film that has "Batman", "versus" and "Superman" in the title need a sub-title?

It's not the worst title they could have picked, it's just unnecessary.

PirateShampoo

So in the Superman sequel, Superman gets second billing?

Agent Coulson

Will they go with the I am Legend version.



Also does this mean Zombie apocalypse is on the way:p

Sad Professor

Having Batman and Superman in the title is marketing gold. Nothing else matters. If ever there was a film in which the studio could put out the biggest piece of sh*t imaginable and still make a fortune, this is it.

tony1kenobi

Pretty close

The Master

tony1kenobi wrote: »

Pretty close

Fatman Vs Superman :P

Josey Wales

That is a terrible teaser poster.

Dman001

I was somewhat under the impression that, while Batman would appear in the next Superman film, it was only speculation that they'd be pitted against each other. Anyway, either way, the poster obviously confirms it, and hard to view this as any other way but an attempt to milk the two franchises. I don't believe Warner Bros and DC have the same commitment Marvel and Disney in creating a long-term, quality series of intertwining films.

Zubeneschamali

Dman001 wrote: »

hard to view this as any other way but an attempt to milk the two franchises.

You are aware that Batman and Superman have had their disagreements in the comics, right?

humanji

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are aware that Batman and Superman have had their disagreements in the comics, right?

This was the first pic I saw in that link, and I don't think I need look at any others.

Mr Freeze

I find it odd that its the Man of Steel sequel but Batman's name is first.

I don't mind I'm not exactly a Superman fan, but I can't shake the feeling that Warner seem to be have no faith in Superman to carry his own film.

Everything about thing we have heard so far about the film is "Batman" this, random "Justice League member" that! I'd nearly except Henry Cavill to be created last in the opening sequence at this stage, just saying "Also Featuring Henry Cavill as Superman"...

pixelburp

Sad Professor wrote: »

Having Batman and Superman in the title is marketing gold. Nothing else matters. If ever there was a film in which the studio could put out the biggest piece of sh*t imaginable and still make a fortune, this is it.

Bingo, the sub-title's utterly superfluous and it could say Purple Monkey Dishwasher for all the focus it'll get. My only worry is that after the first film it may yet be the biggest piece of sh*t imaginable.

Bacchus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are aware that Batman and Superman have had their disagreements in the comics, right?

That doesn't invalidate Dman001's point though. This is blatant cash in (I'll be in the audience mind you ). The excellent Nolan Batman series is over. Green Lantern flopped. DC obviously aren't confident of Wonder Woman having her own movie. Man of Steel did... ok, nowhere near as good as they were hoping I'd say. Pitting Batman against Superman so suddenly is a cash in. They didn't feel confident enough to go the Marvel route of building a universe bit by bit and they are throwing their 2 heavyweights together in a lazy attempt to mimic Marvel's success.

Marvel have phase I, II & III plans laid out for their characters. I'd say they've thought further ahead too. DC don't have a clue and are just jumping from idea to idea to cash in.

Mr Freeze

pixelburp wrote: »

Bingo, the sub-title's utterly superfluous and it could say Purple Monkey Dishwasher for all the focus it'll get. My only worry is that after the first film it may yet be the biggest piece of sh*t imaginable.

The subtitle almost seem's like its just what they would call the movie tie in video game beat em up!!!!

Bacchus

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I don't mind I'm not exactly a Superman fan, but I can't shake the feeling that Warner seem to be have no faith in Superman to carry his own film.

100% agree with that. There wasn't a whisper of Batman in the sequel until the numbers came in for MoS.

pixelburp wrote: »

Bingo, the sub-title's utterly superfluous and it could say Purple Monkey Dishwasher for all the focus it'll get. My only worry is that after the first film it may yet be the biggest piece of sh*t imaginable.

Hmmmmm... Batman vs Superman: Rise of the Purple Monkey Dishwasher

I assume the monkeys are evil... and the purple is some form of kryptonite.

veganrun

Sad Professor wrote: »

Having Batman and Superman in the title is marketing gold. Nothing else matters. If ever there was a film in which the studio could put out the biggest piece of sh*t imaginable and still make a fortune, this is it.

Snap. I've a feeling this could be rubbish but I hope its not.

I think they should have left Batman out of it and did more of a character piece, like Spiderman 2 (Tobey Maguire one). They could have had Superman lose his mojo and be troubled because of what he had to do at the end of Man of Steel. They seemed to gloss over that but I guess they had to as there was only about 5 minutes of the film left.

Soft Falling Rain

Marvel have a film scheduled for release on the same day as this. Unless it's The Avengers 3 they'd be wise to move their date.