Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Zubeneschamali

Brendão wrote: »

That's from the Dark Knight Returns, where he's talking to the ex Mutants?

But earlier in the story, he uses a rifle as a tool (not to kill anyone) and his Batmobile is an actual tank, with heavy weapons:

Mitch Connor

Not a fan of the batmobile design in general. Regarding the guns.... It depends what the ammo is. Could be non lethal rubber bullets, like in dark knight returns.

Jumboman

pixelburp wrote: »

A better look at the Batmobile surfaced via Zack Synder's Twitter account; I'll be honest, while it's trendy to dump on this production, I really don't like that design. Too busy, too aggressive, and guns? Surely the whole point of Batman is that he doesn't use ballistics?


https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/509889431210192896

It looks too much like nolans Batmobile for my liking.

CatInABox

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Brendão wrote: »

I thought Batman doesn't use guns too. Obviously during different eras of comics different writers will deviate from that, but I was always under the impression that it was generally an 'unwritten' rule. I say that having read Batman comics for longer than I care to remember.



http://listverse.com/2011/08/22/10-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-batman/

That's from the Dark Knight Returns, where he's talking to the ex Mutants?

But earlier in the story, he uses a rifle as a tool (not to kill anyone) and his Batmobile is an actual tank, with heavy weapons:

<IMAGE SNIP>

I never thought that batman didn't use guns, I just thought that he wouldn't use a gun to harm or injure a person. In the The Dark Knight Returns, when I read that particular frame above, I thought that he was only saying that because the Sons of Batman were mad into their guns.

Chris_Heilong

CatInABox wrote: »

I never thought that batman didn't use guns, I just thought that he wouldn't use a gun to harm or injure a person. In the The Dark Knight Returns, when I read that particular frame above, I thought that he was only saying that because the Sons of Batman were mad into their guns.

No, its well know batman lore that he refuses to use guns because a gun killed his parents.

Nervous Wreck

Batman has used guns plenty over the years.

Loughc

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Batman has used guns plenty over the years.

Yeah And why doesn’t Batman dance anymore? Remember the Batusi?

JP Liz V1

Ezra Miller's Barry Allen/The Flash also to feature in a cameo role

ricero

Aquaman standalone movie confirmed for 2018

humanji

Movies.ie posted the above earlier with the release timeframe for DC and some other Warner films. Sorry it's a bit blurry, but that's the original, so blame them!!!

JP Liz V1

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/batman-v-superman-is-jena-malone-playing-female-robin-1201332852/


Female Robin

Agent Coulson

Jena Malone rumoured to be playing Robin.

Sad Professor

lol

Professey Chin

Must be Carrie then

Bacchus

I guess DC are trying to tackle the gender diversity issue in their comic book movies.

techdiver

It makes sense in a way if this Batman incarnation follows along with the Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns whereby Dick Grayson has come and gone and Carrie Kelley saves Batman after stalking him.

I'm assuming they'll go with Carrie, although Carrie was supposed to be 13 or 14 I think.

Soft Falling Rain

I wouldn't be convinced she's Carrie but it wouldn't bother me anyway. Outside wager on her being Harley Quinn?

sky88

I just think there trying to fit in too much stuff in this film seems like its going to overload it

FortuneChip

sky88 wrote: »

I just think there trying to fit in too much stuff in this film seems like its going to overload it

You would have been right if you said this for ANY of the additions after Wonder Woman.

I kinda liked the idea of the core trio in this movie; it wouldn't be necessary to spend much time introducing Superman (obviously), and Batman (maybe just help the audience come to terms with him as an aging superhero), so only Wonder Women needed a bit more time to be developed.

thomas anderson.

FortuneChip wrote: »

You would have been right if you said this for ANY of the additions after Wonder Woman.

I kinda liked the idea of the core trio in this movie; it wouldn't be necessary to spend much time introducing Superman (obviously), and Batman (maybe just help the audience come to terms with him as an aging superhero), so only Wonder Women needed a bit more time to be developed.

And Cyborg

And Aquaman

Agent Coulson

To be honest I wouldn't be suprised if they tried to shoehorn in loads of villans like they are doing on Gotham.

Little cameos or name drops it will be a total over load.

JP Liz V1

Jai Courtney in talks to play Deadshot and Margot Robbie for Harley Quinn now

Soft Falling Rain

From Will Smith to Jai Courtney. Fail.

Bacchus

Agent Coulson wrote: »

To be honest I wouldn't be suprised if they tried to shoehorn in loads of villans like they are doing on Gotham.

Called it

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Jai Courtney in talks to play Deadshot and Margot Robbie for Harley Quinn now

splashthecash

I always thought zooey deschanel would make a great Harley Quinn - something about eyes/smile

Duggy747

If only Brittany Murphy was still around, she would've made a great Harley Quinn.

CatInABox

So the latest rumour is that this will be split into two parts. Personally, I'd prefer that if it gives more time to introduce the characters, otherwise it's going to be ridiculous.

Aintitcool has it here.

happysunnydays

CatInABox wrote: »

So the latest rumour is that this will be split into two parts. Personally, I'd prefer that if it gives more time to introduce the characters, otherwise it's going to be ridiculous.

So now we're getting two films with long drawn out scenes and filler material, snooze alert!

Corholio

Justice League and now this as two parts? Not every film needs 'time' to tell the story . It's just an excuse to get double the box office. One film of Snyderville is a lot better than two.

DoYouEvenLift

At least they'd be released within 6 months of each other if that's true. If it was the usual full year between the instalments it'd be pretty sh!t.

Corholio wrote: »

Justice League and now this as two parts? Not every film needs 'time' to tell the story . It's just an excuse to get double the box office. One film of Snyderville is a lot better than two.

They have a lot of catching up to do if they want to be able to compete with the level of detail and crossover marvel have accomplished, this would all be part of it I'd say.

IncognitoMan

How sure are we that this is anywhere close to being true?

If it is I seriously hope they have enough for 2 films. I'll feel slightly cheated if it's 2 90 min films with filler in both

FunLover18

To be honest, it makes sense. With all the casting that has been announced for this movie. I'm guessing part one will feature the main Batman versus Superman stuff whereas part 2 will them joining forces and foundations of the Justice League.

IncognitoMan

If it was split I'd say part 1 will be the introduction of batman a bit of back story about what he's done upto this point (seeing as it's and older batman) introduction of other characters but that actual batman vs superman stuff will be part 2. Part 1 ending just before we get to that to build suspense

FunLover18

IncognitoMan wrote: »

If it was split I'd say part 1 will be the introduction of batman a bit of back story about what he's done upto this point (seeing as it's and older batman) introduction of other characters but that actual batman vs superman stuff will be part 2. Part 1 ending just before we get to that to build suspense

Part 1 needs some sort of action climax though.

IncognitoMan

Yeah I agree there needs to be something I'm just not convinced that we'll get the main event in that film.

FunLover18

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Yeah I agree there needs to be something I'm just not convinced that we'll get the main event in that film.

But you're agreed that there has to be some sort of threat for them to join up against?

pixelburp

A blatantly greedy, financial decision on the face of it, but given the sheer volume of Justice League related characters that were popping up with every casting announcement, perhaps the split into two films will make sense narratively.

FunLover18 wrote: »

Part 1 needs some sort of action climax though.

Going by the obnoxious action scenes of Man of Steel, I'm fully confident Batman v. Superman will try to out-do the first film. If anything, superhero films need to learn to reduce the action, not increase it.

FunLover18

pixelburp wrote: »

A blatantly greedy, financial decision on the face of it, but given the sheer volume of Justice League related characters that were popping up with every casting announcement, perhaps the split into two films will make sense narratively.



Going by the obnoxious action scenes of Man of Steel, I'm fully confident Batman v. Superman will try to out-do the first film. If anything, superhero films need to learn to reduce the action, not increase it.

I agree that the action needs to be toned down it probably could be. AFAIK (not a comic reader) Batman does have special armour for fighting Supes but even still I don't think we're going to see anywhere near the level of destruction we saw in MoS.

I agree with your first point, I think if this is a narrative decision then I wouldn't be surprised if the titular face off is at the end of part 1 with part focusing on the the JL coming together.

Mickeroo

I just hope the two parts are satisfying films in their own right, since they're not directly adapting a single book there's no excuse for them to feel like half a film like the last Hunger Games movie or some of the Hobbit films.

Soft Falling Rain

pixelburp wrote: »

A blatantly greedy, financial decision on the face of it, but given the sheer volume of Justice League related characters that were popping up with every casting announcement, perhaps the split into two films will make sense narratively.



Going by the obnoxious action scenes of Man of Steel, I'm fully confident Batman v. Superman will try to out-do the first film. If anything, superhero films need to learn to reduce the action, not increase it.

They need to make it mean something above all else. Say what you want about the action in MOS but if the rumours are accurate, the aftermath of it is going to heavily influence the story of BVS (destruction of Metropolis, Clark's guilt over murdering Zod and in turn Bruce's lack of trust in him).

There's a consistent narrative there, as opposed to the typical let's cause destruction and forget about it mantra of other films within the genre.

googled eyes

So initially people were giving out that they were trying to fit too much into one film and now there is moaning because two films could have filler and be a "snoozealert"

Can't win....

This film is laying the foundations for DC's shared universe. If they do split it in two it could work much better than craming too much into one .

FortuneChip

googled eyes wrote: »

So initially people were giving out that they were trying to fit too much into one film and now there is moaning because two films could have filler and be a "snoozealert"

Can't win....

This film is laying the foundations for DC's shared universe. If they do split it in two it could work much better than craming too much into one .

Of course it was too much for one movie, I just don't get the naming convention.
So we're to have
Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice
Batman v Superman: Rise of Justice (making that up)
Justice League

It's not like the Marvel solo movies, that are very-much solo, so why not just kick in the Justice League title straight after the first B v S?

FunLover18

FortuneChip wrote: »

Of course it was too much for one movie, I just don't get the naming convention.
So we're to have
Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice
Batman v Superman: Rise of Justice (making that up)
Justice League

It's not like the Marvel solo movies, that are very-much solo, so why not just kick in the Justice League title straight after the first B v S?

If the rumours are true it's
BVS: Enter The Knight
BVS: Dawn Of Justice

Which is why I think the second part will focus on the foundation of the JL

FortuneChip

FunLover18 wrote: »

If the rumours are true it's
BVS: Enter The Knight
BVS: Dawn Of Justice

Which is why I think the second part will focus on the foundation of the JL

That makes a bit of sense alright.
It does still feel like they're making it up as they go along. (or at the very least started announcing stuff way before they'd planned it out properly)

FunLover18

FortuneChip wrote: »

That makes a bit of sense alright.
It does still feel like they're making it up as they go along. (or at the very least started announcing stuff way before they'd planned it out properly)

I agree. For me one of the main reasons it seems like they're making it up as they is because they don't seem to have (or if so they haven't revealed it) a figurehead like Kevin Feige. Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention but WB just seem to throw the announcements out there (I know this hasn't been announced yet) without actually talking about them whereas Marvel seem much more organised and send out Kevin Feige to talk about their announcements (and you can tell he's really passionate about it), he doesn't say much a lot of the time but what he does say makes it quite clear that there is a plan in place.

Soft Falling Rain

Let's not forget either that it was Wb who started the 2 parter trend either. :pac:

DoYouEvenLift

pixelburp wrote: »

A blatantly greedy, financial decision on the face of it, but given the sheer volume of Justice League related characters that were popping up with every casting announcement, perhaps the split into two films will make sense narratively.



Going by the obnoxious action scenes of Man of Steel, I'm fully confident Batman v. Superman will try to out-do the first film. If anything, superhero films need to learn to reduce the action, not increase it.

Lmao, you're complaining about there being too much action in an action movie?

pixelburp

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lmao, you're complaining about there being too much action in an action movie?

No, I'm complaining about the orgies of destruction in Man of Steel that were so OTT and without any sense of directorial restraint that ultimately they were just boring. The oil rig sequence was fun, but the setpieces in Smallville and Metropolis became ... deadening. I'd like the sequel to hold back from the FX showreels / moneyshots

DoYouEvenLift

pixelburp wrote: »

No, I'm complaining about the orgies of destruction in Man of Steel that were so OTT and without any sense of directorial restraint that ultimately they were just boring. The oil rig sequence was fun, but the setpieces in Smallville and Metropolis became ... deadening. I'd like the sequel to hold back from the FX showreels / moneyshots

They wanted to show the ridiculous power that superman and zod had, they're both basically indestructible Gods so of course when they fight on Earth they're going to cause destruction crazier than anything any human could or what we're used to. Having OTT action and destruction is the best way to show that. If superman punched a human being they would explode, the guy is basically overpowered. I can imagine Marvel will do similar with Thanos, but on an even bigger scale, to show the power the superheroes are dealing with.

Mickeroo

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

They wanted to show the ridiculous power that superman and zod had, they're both basically indestructible Gods so of course when they fight on Earth they're going to cause destruction crazier than anything any human could or what we're used to. Having OTT action and destruction is the best way to show that. If superman punched a human being they would explode, the guy is basically overpowered. I can imagine Marvel will do similar with Thanos, but on an even bigger scale, to show the power the superheroes are dealing with.

I think the issue is it was done really badly rather than what they were trying to do. It was a poor film overall anyway though regardless of the dull action scenes.