- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: It's gonna be called Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Yeah....
Posted on 5/21/14 at 9:16 pm to JombieZombie
Posted on 5/21/14 at 9:16 pm to JombieZombie
Dude, the guy wrote the line: "I'm not wearing hockey pads!" He's obviously a genius that contributed to how awesome the movie was.
1
Posted on 5/21/14 at 9:22 pm to OMLandshark
Is he responsible for the incomprehensible mess Rises became?
Posted on 5/21/14 at 9:45 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
I loved all the pieces of the movie, didn't like the plot and the overwrought action, that's all.
You know I had to bust your chops on this one. I just tend to be a stickler when people make what sound like absolute statements when discussing a subjective thought. Just like people saying Captain America:
The First Avenger or Amazing Spider-Man 2 are terrible films instead saying "I think the film was terrible." Because for those two examples, they were films that I totally enjoyed and don't get the hate.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:08 pm to PattyRay38
The real problem here, other than the involvement of Snyder (who I dislike) and Goyer (who I loathe), is they haven't really laid the foundation for this film. Again, look how Marvel set up the Avengers. They gave each major hero his own film (and involved the minor ones in the films as well) and created a fictional Marvel movie universe. In a way, the Avengers was the ultimate crossover comic book film.
DC is simply placing Batman in the Superman universe, but we don't know this Batman. Is it Nolan's Batman? Well, he retired so it can't be. And there's no continuity to Josh Gordon-Leavitt, they are bringing in Affleck to reboot the franchise. So we're in the Man of Steel universe, which is just the one movie.
And I won't beat around the bush -- it's a terrible Superman they created. OK, I like that they tried to do more of an origin movie and he doesn't become "Superman" until the final moments of the film. The goals are good and I like the idea behind it -- but the execution was f'n terrible. I mean, just God awful.
Let's just skip over Mr. Kent's bizarre sacrifice for no reason whatsoever that is undercut by the film just 10 minutes later, and shown to be utterly pointless. The movie rightfully points out that Superman is a God. He has no limits other than those he places on himself. And Gods are not narratively interesting because, well, they can do anything.
Having Superman violate his no kill rule means that this Superman has no strict moral code and is therefore NOT Superman. If Superman is not bound by a moral code, hes a God who can do anything. He ceases to be interesting because he has no limits. Man of Steel removes these limits, so Superman in this universe can quite literally do anything. And that destroys any narrative tension.
Look, Batman is awesome, but he can't beat God. If it's Superman v Batman in the universe they have created, we already knows who wins because Superman has no limits. And there's no need for a Justice League unless Superman wants a cheering section just for giggles. I have no real desire to see this movie in the universe they have created. It's building on a terrible foundation, and I don't trust the carpenter anyway.
DC is simply placing Batman in the Superman universe, but we don't know this Batman. Is it Nolan's Batman? Well, he retired so it can't be. And there's no continuity to Josh Gordon-Leavitt, they are bringing in Affleck to reboot the franchise. So we're in the Man of Steel universe, which is just the one movie.
And I won't beat around the bush -- it's a terrible Superman they created. OK, I like that they tried to do more of an origin movie and he doesn't become "Superman" until the final moments of the film. The goals are good and I like the idea behind it -- but the execution was f'n terrible. I mean, just God awful.
Let's just skip over Mr. Kent's bizarre sacrifice for no reason whatsoever that is undercut by the film just 10 minutes later, and shown to be utterly pointless. The movie rightfully points out that Superman is a God. He has no limits other than those he places on himself. And Gods are not narratively interesting because, well, they can do anything.
Having Superman violate his no kill rule means that this Superman has no strict moral code and is therefore NOT Superman. If Superman is not bound by a moral code, hes a God who can do anything. He ceases to be interesting because he has no limits. Man of Steel removes these limits, so Superman in this universe can quite literally do anything. And that destroys any narrative tension.
Look, Batman is awesome, but he can't beat God. If it's Superman v Batman in the universe they have created, we already knows who wins because Superman has no limits. And there's no need for a Justice League unless Superman wants a cheering section just for giggles. I have no real desire to see this movie in the universe they have created. It's building on a terrible foundation, and I don't trust the carpenter anyway.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:19 pm to Baloo
quote:
DC is simply placing Batman in the Superman universe, but we don't know this Batman. Is it Nolan's Batman? Well, he retired so it can't be. And there's no continuity to Josh Gordon-Leavitt, they are bringing in Affleck to reboot the franchise. So we're in the Man of Steel universe, which is just the one movie.
And I won't beat around the bush -- it's a terrible Superman they created. OK, I like that they tried to do more of an origin movie and he doesn't become "Superman" until the final moments of the film. The goals are good and I like the idea behind it -- but the execution was f'n terrible. I mean, just God awful.
Let's just skip over Mr. Kent's bizarre sacrifice for no reason whatsoever that is undercut by the film just 10 minutes later, and shown to be utterly pointless. The movie rightfully points out that Superman is a God. He has no limits other than those he places on himself. And Gods are not narratively interesting because, well, they can do anything.
Having Superman violate his no kill rule means that this Superman has no strict moral code and is therefore NOT Superman. If Superman is not bound by a moral code, hes a God who can do anything. He ceases to be interesting because he has no limits. Man of Steel removes these limits, so Superman in this universe can quite literally do anything. And that destroys any narrative tension.
Look, Batman is awesome, but he can't beat God. If it's Superman v Batman in the universe they have created, we already knows who wins because Superman has no limits. And there's no need for a Justice League unless Superman wants a cheering section just for giggles. I have no real desire to see this movie in the universe they have created. It's building on a terrible foundation, and I don't trust the carpenter anyway.
That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection. Can't disagree with any of it, but it still sounds overly harsh.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:29 pm to DanglingFury
It is overly harsh, but that's because Goyer is an arrogant prick who has gone out of his way to tell comic fans what losers they are. So frick him. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.
He calls the "don't kill" rule a crutch. It's not a crutch. It's the only limitation on Superman's actions: his strict moral code and general fundamental decency because of the Kents' influence. They ignored the first and gutted the second. Why would Superman, in this universe, rely on the influence of his father, who is shown to be completely and utterly wrong in his sacrifice? He's a fool, and that undercuts his influence.
DC didn't come up with these rules for Superman to be cute. They are vital to the character. And if Goyer wasn't such an arrogant prick and had spent some time with the source material, he'd see that.
He calls the "don't kill" rule a crutch. It's not a crutch. It's the only limitation on Superman's actions: his strict moral code and general fundamental decency because of the Kents' influence. They ignored the first and gutted the second. Why would Superman, in this universe, rely on the influence of his father, who is shown to be completely and utterly wrong in his sacrifice? He's a fool, and that undercuts his influence.
DC didn't come up with these rules for Superman to be cute. They are vital to the character. And if Goyer wasn't such an arrogant prick and had spent some time with the source material, he'd see that.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:34 pm to Baloo
Like I said, can't disagree.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:35 pm to Baloo
quote:
The real problem here, other than the involvement of Snyder (who I dislike)
Sad because I kind of like Snyder, outside of Watchmen (which I enjoy for what it is, but what it is is a complete mishandling of the source) and Man of Steel, he makes movies with some sort of personality.
quote:
Goyer (who I loathe)
Probably Problem #1 with this universe for me. He has no foresight. Which is again, sad, because Blade 1 was alright.
quote:
DC is simply placing Batman in the Superman universe, but we don't know this Batman. Is it Nolan's Batman? Well, he retired so it can't be. And there's no continuity to Josh Gordon-Leavitt, they are bringing in Affleck to reboot the franchise. So we're in the Man of Steel universe, which is just the one movie.
And I won't beat around the bush -- it's a terrible Superman they created. OK, I like that they tried to do more of an origin movie and he doesn't become "Superman" until the final moments of the film. The goals are good and I like the idea behind it -- but the execution was f'n terrible. I mean, just God awful.
Let's just skip over Mr. Kent's bizarre sacrifice for no reason whatsoever that is undercut by the film just 10 minutes later, and shown to be utterly pointless. The movie rightfully points out that Superman is a God. He has no limits other than those he places on himself. And Gods are not narratively interesting because, well, they can do anything.
Having Superman violate his no kill rule means that this Superman has no strict moral code and is therefore NOT Superman. If Superman is not bound by a moral code, hes a God who can do anything. He ceases to be interesting because he has no limits. Man of Steel removes these limits, so Superman in this universe can quite literally do anything. And that destroys any narrative tension.
Look, Batman is awesome, but he can't beat God. If it's Superman v Batman in the universe they have created, we already knows who wins because Superman has no limits. And there's no need for a Justice League unless Superman wants a cheering section just for giggles. I have no real desire to see this movie in the universe they have created. It's building on a terrible foundation, and I don't trust the carpenter anyway.
Ouch. That one stings for DC. Well said.
This post was edited on 5/21/14 at 10:37 pm
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:37 pm to PattyRay38
quote:
You know I had to bust your chops on this one.
Of course. I would fault you for not.
quote:
I just tend to be a stickler when people make what sound like absolute statements when discussing a subjective thought. Just like people saying Captain America:
The First Avenger or Amazing Spider-Man 2 are terrible films instead saying "I think the film was terrible." Because for those two examples, they were films that I totally enjoyed and don't get the hate.
Completely understand.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:43 pm to Baloo
quote:
The real problem here, other than the involvement of Snyder (who I dislike) and Goyer (who I loathe), is they haven't really laid the foundation for this film. Again, look how Marvel set up the Avengers. They gave each major hero his own film (and involved the minor ones in the films as well) and created a fictional Marvel movie universe. In a way, the Avengers was the ultimate crossover comic book film.
This is my biggest gripe about the direction DC is taking their movie universe. At first I thought that they were just being too proud to follow Marvel's proven blueprint on how to create an interlocking movie universe. But that is probably giving them too much credit because they are probably just being greedy and making a money grab.
Not only do they need a movie to setup their new Batman, but they need another MoS movie to allow Superman to develop his moral code. And then they need individual movies for Wonder Woman and whoever else they want to include in their Justice League movie. But they are evidently not patient enough to lay that kind of ground work, and are intent on getting to their JL movie as soon as they can.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:55 pm to Baloo
quote:
DC is simply placing Batman in the Superman universe, but we don't know this Batman. Is it Nolan's Batman? Well, he retired so it can't be. And there's no continuity to Josh Gordon-Leavitt, they are bringing in Affleck to reboot the franchise. So we're in the Man of Steel universe, which is just the one movie.
Not to mention Goyer and Snyder in press conferences have repeatably emphasized "The Dark Knight Returns" and have given Affleck's Batman TDKR costume. It really makes me think they don't get why that comic worked and why it's simply blasphemous to bring it up as an inspiration in the first film that Batman appears in a certain series.
"The Dark Knight Rises" taking inspiration from that comic is one thing, since much of the tone and finality of it is justified, but it isn't remotely justified in this film.
quote:
And I won't beat around the bush -- it's a terrible Superman they created. OK, I like that they tried to do more of an origin movie and he doesn't become "Superman" until the final moments of the film. The goals are good and I like the idea behind it -- but the execution was f'n terrible. I mean, just God awful.
Agreed. Really, why does the climax take place in Metropolis for starters? He has no connection to that place. I was disappointed that Luthor wasn't a major part of the film, but when I found out that Metropolis had no part in the film aside from getting nuked to hell, then why bother with Luthor or establishing Superman's relationship to the city?
quote:
Having Superman violate his no kill rule means that this Superman has no strict moral code and is therefore NOT Superman. If Superman is not bound by a moral code, hes a God who can do anything. He ceases to be interesting because he has no limits. Man of Steel removes these limits, so Superman in this universe can quite literally do anything. And that destroys any narrative tension.
I have honestly been writing Superman scripts on my own time, and with the second film I thought of a villain so powerful, I struggled to think of a way for Superman to dispose of him without killing him. I was thinking about launching him into space on the shuttle Superman came in, but with Superman killing Zod after he tries to kill 4 nameless people, why bother? It's kind of like the character is now ruined for the big screen. He'll let millions die in a ridiculous over-the-top battle that he himself helps incite, but 4 random people he kills him over? Superman could have easily lured Zod out of the city, but instead he decides to fight him there and lead to the deaths of another 100,000 just to show off? He's just a dick here.
quote:
Look, Batman is awesome, but he can't beat God. If it's Superman v Batman in the universe they have created, we already knows who wins because Superman has no limits. And there's no need for a Justice League unless Superman wants a cheering section just for giggles. I have no real desire to see this movie in the universe they have created. It's building on a terrible foundation, and I don't trust the carpenter anyway.
Martian Manhunter and the Flash may have a part, but that's really it. Well said.
This post was edited on 5/21/14 at 11:01 pm
Posted on 5/21/14 at 10:58 pm to Bamatab
I don't really mind the name, as someone else mentioned it's not that important in the grand scheme of things.
I remain optimistic about the film. I may be in the minority here, but I really liked MOS so i'm excited to see where they go with this one. Hopefully they focus on just Bats and superman and keep the screen time of the others to a minimum.
I remain optimistic about the film. I may be in the minority here, but I really liked MOS so i'm excited to see where they go with this one. Hopefully they focus on just Bats and superman and keep the screen time of the others to a minimum.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 11:16 pm to Baloo
Going off this, i'd pay to see a movie with Superman with no limits at all. Similar to say the Injustice storyline for that game.
Posted on 5/21/14 at 11:53 pm to Baloo
quote:
Baloo
I didn't realize that David Goyer didn't have much respect on this board until now. His style of writing works in the universe that Nolan sought out to create and that's probably what he didn't get much flack until Warner started life post Nolan and went into more comic style projects.
Honestly, I thought when you started your diatribes in this thread, you were just a big DC hater but re reading it over tells me that you and I both have the same vision of Superman and his source material and what makes him so great. He's a god yes, but earthly background and self imposed limitations is what makes him into a hero. But then I remember this awesome post from reddit about what MOS realy meant and I have to rethink both opinions and weight them equally. I'll post it and please tell me what you think...
quote:
MOS is the story of Clark Kent learning he is Kal El, son of Jor El at the same time Militant Kryptonian War Criminals find Earth. It just so happens that Jor El, not Kal El, not Jonathan Kent, not Martha Kent or Clark Kent, wanted Kal to become something analogous to what we know as Superman. From the moment Jor El was in on the secret that was Earth and the power granting effects of its yellow sun, he foresaw his son being the start of something new. All around him he saw that his peoples time was coming to end. Genetically, philosophically and biologically. Kal El was going to have mixed within him the diversity of an entire species worth of DNA.
Kal El is Moses and Noah if you prefer biblical embellishments.
So, Kal is sent, along with a holo copy of his Father’s personae. Jonathan and Martha have no way of getting to that info nor does Clark for most of his life. He just grows up knowing his different and on Earth different is maligned and feared. Our entire history has been centered around “Those people are different than us, therefore less than us, kill them, subjugate them, take what they have” Jonathan reinforces that lesson again and again on an impressionable Clark Kent. Jonathan’s belief in this fact is so complete that he sacrifices his life with peaceful contentment knowing his death preserves the family secret for at least one more day.
So Clark travels the world using his gifts to help people only they aren’t really gifts to him, they are natural as running and breathing our to us. If you woke up on a planet of beings who could only walk, and to fit in were told you could never run or let people see you run…well you could get by …but the first time you saw that running could have saved someone you’d be racked with guilt or indecision ..you were told they might turn on you if they saw you move that way…
Anyways….
Clark saves people in secret (Well, not so secret)because tales of a mysterious stranger/angel who disappears as suddenly as he appeared start to pile up until they can’t be ignored. Why this urban folklore stands out to Lois Lane is never fully explained in the movie but …it’d be nice if they revisited this later.
At this point Clark is just doing what comes natural as he searches for answers. Its not fulfilling because through it all he is afraid. So he doesn’t lay down any roots. He is a faceless drifter.
When he finds the buried scout ship it is Jor El who lays it all out for him.
It was no accident that you were sent here. I did this because you represent a new kind of hope for a dying race. You will have power beyond comprehension and it is my hope that these words give you a sense of purpose. Lead these people, protect them, defend them, and inspire them. Give them hope.
It reads like something you’d imagine a benevolent dying king saying to his son.
When he is given the family crest and exits the ship he now has a mission. A purpose, something to point to for direction.
But he is still not Superman.
When all hell breaks loose in Smallville he is merely Clark Kent, with some answers.
The punching, throwing, and flying that’s happening there –that’s Clark Kent shedding 30 years of Inhibitions and fear.
Its messy, destructive and reactive. He is not planning out the battle. He isn’t directing the fight away from anything or anyone but his mother.
It ends in a stalemate.
When he flies to the Pacific to destroy the terraformer, knowing that being near it could result in his death, that is the fire in which the man we know as Superman starts to be forged.
When he destroys the scout ship, activates the phantom zone wormhole, saves Lois –He is almost the person we know as Superman…he has chosen to defend, protect and save us.
When he faces off against Zod, its an emotional battle for both men. Zod is threatening to destroy the Earth and kill its entire population. Clark still doesn’t fight with a plan, he just knows he has to stop Zod. Is he thinking death is the only way? No. He isn’t thinking more than one step at a time.
Zod controls the entire flow of the battle. This is when it becomes apparent that Zod isn’t planning on making good with his threats. He simply wants a warriors death. He is going to make Clark, as his parting punishment to this betrayer of Krypton (Like his father), kill him, the last of his people.
Clark Kent, son of Jonathan Kent, son of Jor El, kills Zod. He crumbles to his knees. The weight of his action has shaken him to his core. He was manipulated and the shame of that action will be a weight he carries with him the rest of his life.
He is still not Superman.
Superman won’t show up until the next movie. He will be older, wiser, more restrained, and know during every waking moment of his existence what the full extent of his power can do. If any of you have ever given into your destructive rage, be it out of fear, loss, anger or some other darkness …once you’ve experienced it you know it’s a place you never want to go again.
That’s the lesson Clark Kent has learned and as Superman he will now have to think 20 steps ahead, consider the consequences, choose the less reflexive option.
We saw Clark Kent, we saw the Cape and familiar insignia …..all the pieces were there but he hasn't adopted the personae of the Superhero known as Superman.
So when you read, hear people complain that MOS wasn't a Superman movie or the Superman they thought they knew
In a way they were right,
We haven’t yet seen the new Superman in action.
EDIT: I thought I would also add in the unfavorable comparisons to Christoper Reeve's Superman.
That Superman was the inheritor of knowledge and wisdom of his planets version of Einstein, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Issac Newton all rolled into one. He spent ten years with him learning about us, himself and the entire collected knowledge of the known universe. When that Superman took his first flight out of the Fortress he knew the full extent of his power, the rules on what he could and could not do with them. Its like comparing two good men who want to change the world with one entering the workforce after graduating high school and the other entering the workforce 12 years later as a Neurosurgeon. Their still both good men, and there is a chance the high school graduate could become a self made man with philanthropic intent but the Neurosurgeon is going to have more focus, less trial and error and an easier life on his path.
This post was edited on 5/21/14 at 11:58 pm
Posted on 5/22/14 at 9:04 am to Sentrius
I actually agree with a lot of that post. I think that's what they were trying to do and I agree, that is a great concept for re-imagining Superman. It's like that part in Dogma when Chris Rock point out the Bible is missing 20 years of Jesus' life because that's some heavy stuff to lay on a little kid. Same thing.
Young Clark Kent is told when he's a little kid that he is, for all intents and purposes, God. The movie doesn't dance around this point, to its credit. They talk about how his existence undercuts centuries of religion. So Clark, being a self-identifying good Midwestern kid, runs from this destiny and keeps his identity secret for the good of all the world. He even denies it to himself.
The movie is Clark Kent's lost years as he tries to finally become "Superman". I absolutely agree with the redditor on that point and I also agree that this is a great outline for plot. I liked this conception and found it interesting. I'm not criticizing them for taking this tact, I'm criticizing them for taking this tact and screwing it up.
Superman isn't God because of the guidance of his good, decent adoptive parents. They teach him the ol' Truth, Justice, and the American Way. It is their fundamental decency that turns this alien into not just a human being, but an American. (If you can't see the parallels to Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen, that would make you Zack Snyder -- though Dr. Manhattan makes this progression in reverse, eventually becoming an alien then God).
But the movie undercuts the Kents teachings here because his dad is such a fool. He's wrong pretty much every time he opens his mouth, and teaches Clark to hide who he is not for the good of others, but out of fear. Eventually, Clark outgrows his childish fears, so why do we think he will cling to the Kents' other beliefs.
There is no reason to believe he will then adopt the moral code of Superman. If you need to kill someone to learn you shouldn't kill people then you're a borderline sociopath. (This is not to say you can't justify killing Zod -- I think you can -- just not in that situation)
Young Clark Kent is told when he's a little kid that he is, for all intents and purposes, God. The movie doesn't dance around this point, to its credit. They talk about how his existence undercuts centuries of religion. So Clark, being a self-identifying good Midwestern kid, runs from this destiny and keeps his identity secret for the good of all the world. He even denies it to himself.
The movie is Clark Kent's lost years as he tries to finally become "Superman". I absolutely agree with the redditor on that point and I also agree that this is a great outline for plot. I liked this conception and found it interesting. I'm not criticizing them for taking this tact, I'm criticizing them for taking this tact and screwing it up.
Superman isn't God because of the guidance of his good, decent adoptive parents. They teach him the ol' Truth, Justice, and the American Way. It is their fundamental decency that turns this alien into not just a human being, but an American. (If you can't see the parallels to Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen, that would make you Zack Snyder -- though Dr. Manhattan makes this progression in reverse, eventually becoming an alien then God).
But the movie undercuts the Kents teachings here because his dad is such a fool. He's wrong pretty much every time he opens his mouth, and teaches Clark to hide who he is not for the good of others, but out of fear. Eventually, Clark outgrows his childish fears, so why do we think he will cling to the Kents' other beliefs.
There is no reason to believe he will then adopt the moral code of Superman. If you need to kill someone to learn you shouldn't kill people then you're a borderline sociopath. (This is not to say you can't justify killing Zod -- I think you can -- just not in that situation)
Posted on 5/22/14 at 9:42 am to Baloo
I feel like Man of Steel had the right idea and the right parts, they just weren't put together well. Then all of the mass destruction at the end kind of overshadowed everything else. I would've made the "hero in the shadows" storyline a bigger deal and have Superman make a grander entrance to the public.
Personally, I wanted to have a full trilogy about Superman similar to the Nolan-Batman series. People say that its impossible to make Superman "real" and the he has been stripped-mined of ideas but I still maintain that the untapped story that could be told is how our world would react to a super being coming in and solving all of our problems. You could have a trilogy of Superman revealing himself and the world responding to him by either not trusting him or trusting him too much. That said, it would've been hard to have all of that done in conjunction with a Justice League movie. Hopefully Batman vs. Superman: DOJ will be more of a World's Finest type of movie instead of The Dark Knight Returns. We see the world respond to Superman. Luthor leads the torch & pitchfork crowd and Bruce Wayne goes from skeptic to ally. The formula isn't going to be a smooth as the Avengers lead-ins were but IF done right, it can work. As for the other heores, my hope is that it will be the small coming out party for them and they'll then make their big appearance in Justice League or their own movies.
I remember that Nolan/Goyer came up with the idea for a Superman storyline during their writing of The Dark Knight Rises and took it to WB. Surely their brilliant idea wasn't just the Man of Steel movie by itself. That would be extremely lame. They probably had the idea of how it could tie into a new take on Batman & lead into other movies like we are seeing. That's the only way to explain how they were so quick to reveal the Batman v Superman concept last summer.
Personally, I wanted to have a full trilogy about Superman similar to the Nolan-Batman series. People say that its impossible to make Superman "real" and the he has been stripped-mined of ideas but I still maintain that the untapped story that could be told is how our world would react to a super being coming in and solving all of our problems. You could have a trilogy of Superman revealing himself and the world responding to him by either not trusting him or trusting him too much. That said, it would've been hard to have all of that done in conjunction with a Justice League movie. Hopefully Batman vs. Superman: DOJ will be more of a World's Finest type of movie instead of The Dark Knight Returns. We see the world respond to Superman. Luthor leads the torch & pitchfork crowd and Bruce Wayne goes from skeptic to ally. The formula isn't going to be a smooth as the Avengers lead-ins were but IF done right, it can work. As for the other heores, my hope is that it will be the small coming out party for them and they'll then make their big appearance in Justice League or their own movies.
I remember that Nolan/Goyer came up with the idea for a Superman storyline during their writing of The Dark Knight Rises and took it to WB. Surely their brilliant idea wasn't just the Man of Steel movie by itself. That would be extremely lame. They probably had the idea of how it could tie into a new take on Batman & lead into other movies like we are seeing. That's the only way to explain how they were so quick to reveal the Batman v Superman concept last summer.
This post was edited on 5/22/14 at 9:55 am
Posted on 5/22/14 at 11:06 am to FairhopeTider
I'm looking forward to a Batman that DOESN'T waste time with an origin story. I hope that they don't even bother to show his parents being killed for the 100th time.
99% of the audience knows his origin and motivation.
Just get on with the story.
99% of the audience knows his origin and motivation.
Just get on with the story.
Posted on 5/22/14 at 11:24 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
I'm looking forward to a Batman that DOESN'T waste time with an origin story.
I agree, but at the same time we want to see some sort of depth to him. If the story is Batman coming out of retirement, then we'll probably have some scenes giving us a background of events from his parent's death (like in Batman 1989 or Batman Forever) to his retirement. Chances are they won't just drop Batman in without telling us what kind of Batman he has been....if that makes any sense.
Batman Begins is pretty much the only movie that devotes more than a scene or two to Bruce's parents murder and the origins of Batman...so I don't think any Batman movie has really wasted time on that.
This post was edited on 5/22/14 at 11:25 am
Posted on 5/22/14 at 11:31 am to FairhopeTider
Just drop him in. He's Batman. We'll find out what kind of Batman his is by how he acts during the story.
We had decades of James Bond movies without going into "what makes him tick" and "why did he become a spy".
We had decades of James Bond movies without going into "what makes him tick" and "why did he become a spy".
Posted on 5/22/14 at 1:48 pm to FairhopeTider
quote:
We see the world respond to Superman. Luthor leads the torch & pitchfork crowd and Bruce Wayne goes from skeptic to ally.
I like it. My first thought was along similar lines. After the events of Man of Steel, the world has to come to grips with the notion that we are no longer alone in the universe. There's also a ton of Kryptonian tech laying around. Lex Luthor, portrayed as more of a Silicon Valley-style billionaire (I know that's lazy but forgive me), leads a charge to reverse-engineer the Kryptonian tech seemingly in the name of advancing humanity. Bruce Wayne, more of a old-school eastern seaboard industrialist, views the Kryptonian tech as "Pandora's box" and is highly suspicious of Superman. As the story unfolds, we learn that Luthor wants the technology for nefarious ends, and Superman & Batman unite.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News