Should Batman be portrayed as a Protagonist or Antagonist in this film?

[MrsKent26]

Originally Posted by bluerayer

What if Superman is the Protagonist and Antagonist? Lex Luthor could be doing his smear-campaign against Superman and Batman/Bruce Wayne could believe him at first.

That could go either way. From batman's perspective, superman is an antagonist in that scenario. He's a threat that needs to be stopped. It depends on which character's perspective is used.

[bluerayer]

Originally Posted by MrsKent26

That could go either way. From batman's perspective, superman is an antagonist in that scenario. He's a threat that needs to be stopped. It depends on which character's perspective is used.

I meant that it would be told from Supermans perspective. Kinda like in Minority Report, with Superman as Tom Cruise's role and Batman as Colin Farrel's role. Hmm, guess that would make Batman a minor antagonist though. Anyway, i meant that maybe there's a twist like that to it. If you haven't seen Minority Report i dont want to spoil it for you.

[Masone]

Originally Posted by bluerayer

I meant that it would be told from Supermans perspective. Kinda like in Minority Report, with Superman as Tom Cruise's role and Batman as Colin Farrel's role. Hmm, guess that would make Batman a minor antagonist though. Anyway, i meant that maybe there's a twist like that to it. If you haven't seen Minority Report i dont want to spoil it for you.

Batman should be too smart to fall for that, even for a single second.

[bluerayer]

Originally Posted by Masone

Batman should be too smart to fall for that, even for a single second.

Maybe he believes Luthor's Bs?

[MrsKent26]

Originally Posted by bluerayer

I meant that it would be told from Supermans perspective. Kinda like in Minority Report, with Superman as Tom Cruise's role and Batman as Colin Farrel's role. Hmm, guess that would make Batman a minor antagonist though. Anyway, i meant that maybe there's a twist like that to it. If you haven't seen Minority Report i dont want to spoil it for you.

I have seen it and that would make batman an antagonist if they used superman's perspective. A twist or change of heart on batman's part could provide some character development for him. They could write him as a "set in his ways" sort of individual at first who learns to be more open-minded in the end.

[Masone]

Originally Posted by bluerayer

Maybe he believes Luthor's Bs?

Batman should come to Superman's aid instead. Batman is too smart to be tricked like that. If the evidence is overwhelmingly against Superman and everyone is against him, that should be the time Batman comes to his aid, to show how he wouldn't fall for someone's BS tricks.

[MrsKent26]

Originally Posted by Masone

Batman should come to Superman's aid instead. Batman is too smart to be tricked like that. If the evidence is overwhelmingly against Superman and everyone is against him, that should be the time Batman comes to his aid, to show how he wouldn't fall for someone's BS tricks.

Given this movie's tentative title, I'm assuming batman will be against superman for at least part of the movie. So, there's going to have to be some reason for that. It's reasonable to think Lex might have something to do with it.

[bluerayer]

Originally Posted by Masone

Batman should come to Superman's aid instead. Batman is too smart to be tricked like that. If the evidence is overwhelmingly against Superman and everyone is against him, that should be the time Batman comes to his aid, to show how he wouldn't fall for someone's BS tricks.

I like that but Luthor gotta be scheming, maybe trying to win Bruce Wayne, not Batman, over to his side or something. Maybe Lex gives Superman crap about being a dangerous alien that destroyed half his city and everyone goes along. Then Bruce goes undercover as Batman and discovers something sinister about Luthor. Also here's a chance for Lois Lane to shine as she is defending Supermans reputation in the paper and through investigations of her own.

Also, i too believe that Batman is too smart to be tricked. I never said he would fall for the Bs, just that he would be subjected to it.

[manofsteel4life]

What if they approach Batman and Superman, like Al Pacino and Robert Dinero in heat?

[bluerayer]

Originally Posted by manofsteel4life

What if they approach Batman and Superman, like Al Pacino and Robert Dinero in heat?

I love that movie, yeah that's a good theory!

[InJustice]

Originally Posted by Masone

I don't like this idea. I don't like when something is portrayed one way when the audience knows it's the other way. Like a person being framed and every other character thinking that person did it, but the audience knows that person didn't do it because they already showed us the real killer. The story becomes frustrating and the characters come off as stupid.

In that scenario, Superman is portrayed as the antagonist and the other heroes and the world are against him, but we the audience know Superman ain't a damn antagonist. The story becomes predictable and frustrating and the other characters come off a stupid for not knowing something the audience knows.

I think you can only pull that off when there is a degree of ignorance shared between both the audience and the characters. Is he the real killer? Is he really the villain? Is he really behind everything? Both the audience and the characters need to be having those types of questions swirl in their minds to pull that off.

That's a poor analogy. I'm not saying that Superman being an antagonist means that he has to be a ****** plot twist "I'm a bad guy/oh, I'm a good guy now!"character. That's not what I'm saying at all. Setting up Superman as an antagonist means that Superman is met with resistance from other heroes, the public, and the world. Which you've already mentioned, but you somehow assume that it means the characters have to be stupid in order for that plot to work, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

You mention the audience, let's not forget we're coming off of Man of Steel where the audience has mixed perceptions of Superman. This creates an interesting dynamic in that the audience automatically associates with the other heroes (Batman and Wonder Woman) and the rest of the world, while at the same time, questioning Superman after the events of Man of Steel. Then you have characters like Lex Luthor, who feels threatened by his presence, so much so that you can have him be in investigation mode, to find out that Superman killed Zod (aka his fellow citizen), which leads to the whole "if Superman can kill his people, what stops him from killing us" campaign against Superman. It doesn't have to be like my idea, but the whole is to show how antagonism isn't as narrow as you view it.

In other words: antagonism does not mean that Superman has to be forced to fit a rather narrow villain trope, as you've outlined. You can create a villain that has justifiable motives...or even better, you can create an antagonist who has the ability change people's perception of him, which is what this movie should try to aim for now that he's dealing with Metropolis, Smallville's destruction...and the world's reaction to him. No superhero movie to my knowledge has done any of that, so it'd be a fresh story too.

[bluerayer]

Originally Posted by InJustice

That's a poor analogy. I'm not saying that Superman being an antagonist means that he has to be a ****** plot twist "I'm a bad guy/oh, I'm a good guy now!"character. That's not what I'm saying at all. Setting up Superman as an antagonist means that Superman is met with resistance from other heroes, the public, and the world. Which you've already mentioned, but you somehow assume that it means the characters have to be stupid in order for that plot to work, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

You mention the audience, let's not forget we're coming off of Man of Steel where the audience has mixed perceptions of Superman. This creates an interesting dynamic in that the audience automatically associates with the other heroes (Batman and Wonder Woman) and the rest of the world, while at the same time, questioning Superman after the events of Man of Steel. Then you have characters like Lex Luthor, who feels threatened by his presence, so much so that you can have him be in investigation mode, to find out that Superman killed Zod (aka his fellow citizen), which leads to the whole "if Superman can kill his people, what stops him from killing us" campaign against Superman. It doesn't have to be like my idea, but the whole is to show how antagonism isn't as narrow as you view it.

In other words: antagonism does not mean that Superman has to be forced to fit a rather narrow villain trope, as you've outlined. You can create a villain that has justifiable motives...or even better, you can create an antagonist who has the ability change people's perception of him, which is what this movie should try to aim for now that he's dealing with Metropolis, Smallville's destruction...and the world's reaction to him. No superhero movie to my knowledge has done any of that, so it'd be a fresh story too.

That's pretty much what i was thinking too.

[Masone]

Originally Posted by InJustice

That's a poor analogy. I'm not saying that Superman being an antagonist means that he has to be a ****** plot twist "I'm a bad guy/oh, I'm a good guy now!"character. That's not what I'm saying at all. Setting up Superman as an antagonist means that Superman is met with resistance from other heroes, the public, and the world. Which you've already mentioned, but you somehow assume that it means the characters have to be stupid in order for that plot to work, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

You mention the audience, let's not forget we're coming off of Man of Steel where the audience has mixed perceptions of Superman. This creates an interesting dynamic in that the audience automatically associates with the other heroes (Batman and Wonder Woman) and the rest of the world, while at the same time, questioning Superman after the events of Man of Steel. Then you have characters like Lex Luthor, who feels threatened by his presence, so much so that you can have him be in investigation mode, to find out that Superman killed Zod (aka his fellow citizen), which leads to the whole "if Superman can kill his people, what stops him from killing us" campaign against Superman. It doesn't have to be like my idea, but the whole is to show how antagonism isn't as narrow as you view it.

In other words: antagonism does not mean that Superman has to be forced to fit a rather narrow villain trope, as you've outlined. You can create a villain that has justifiable motives...or even better, you can create an antagonist who has the ability change people's perception of him, which is what this movie should try to aim for now that he's dealing with Metropolis, Smallville's destruction...and the world's reaction to him. No superhero movie to my knowledge has done any of that, so it'd be a fresh story too.

Didn't TDKR do that?

One thing about TDKR is they didn't try to push the issue of Batman murdering Dent. Gotham was against him, but the story wasn't framed around something we knew wasn't true, and all the important characters were on his side. There was even a character that was able to read through that BS story and come to Batman's aid. Honestly I'd rather Batman and Wonder Woman be the Blake of the story, the character that doesn't believe the narrative that's being pushed and comes to the hero's aid.

If you're talking about doing something like that, then I don't mind. I just don't want them to push the issue too much. I don't want to think for even a second that "man these characters are dumb if they believe that", especially if we're talking about Batman and Wonder Woman. If it's just a perception thing where the world views Superman as reckless and a dangerous threat, that's fine, but I don't want Batman and Wonder Woman believing someone's narrative, even if it's the cunning Lex Luthor.

Basically I view the world and other heroes/main characters as two different entities. The world can have their perceptions shaped by someone like Lex, I don't mind that, that's a big part of his character, to be able to do that. The world is stupid, they'd let fear drive their actions. But WW and Batman? I don't like that at all. I don't like the thought of Superman being alone or Superman vs the world. If you're going to go down that path, I believe it's important to have any and all heroes be on Superman's side from the very beginning. Not only just the heroes, but the characters that were close to the events that happened in MOS, Lois obviously, but also Perry White, Jenny, Lombard, Swanwick, etc...If someone wants to shape the world's perception of Superman, that's fine, but all those characters need to be on his side, else the thought of "man these characters are stupid" will creep in.

Remember how Hardy and his soldiers were firing on Superman initially? They viewed him as a threat. That is how the perceptions of the people of the MOS world should be. Initially they are like what Hardy was like at first, distrusting, willing to extinguish the "threat", but after the events of the movie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReQFQSGVbS4

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by manofsteel4life

What if they approach Batman and Superman, like Al Pacino and Robert Dinero in heat?

They pretty much did that between Batman and Joker in TDK.

[Masone]

BTW the mix reactions were between the critics and the "regular folk". There's not really a huge divide between the regular folk.

[manofsteel4life]

Originally Posted by shauner111

They pretty much did that between Batman and Joker in TDK.

True....but they could do it again...hehe

[InJustice]

Originally Posted by Masone

Didn't TDKR do that?

One thing about TDKR is they didn't try to push the issue of Batman murdering Dent. Gotham was against him, but the story wasn't framed around something we knew wasn't true, and all the important characters were on his side. There was even a character that was able to read through that BS story and come to Batman's aid. Honestly I'd rather Batman and Wonder Woman be the Blake of the story, the character that doesn't believe the narrative that's being pushed and comes to the hero's aid.

If you're talking about doing something like that, then I don't mind. I just don't want them to push the issue too much. I don't want to think for even a second that "man these characters are dumb if they believe that", especially if we're talking about Batman and Wonder Woman. If it's just a perception thing where the world views Superman as reckless and a dangerous threat, that's fine, but I don't want Batman and Wonder Woman believing someone's narrative, even if it's the cunning Lex Luthor.

Basically I view the world and other heroes/main characters as two different entities. The world can have their perceptions shaped by someone like Lex, I don't mind that, that's a big part of his character, to be able to do that. The world is stupid, they'd let fear drive their actions. But WW and Batman? I don't like that at all. I don't like the thought of Superman being alone or Superman vs the world. If you're going to go down that path, I believe it's important to have any and all heroes be on Superman's side from the very beginning. Not only just the heroes, but the characters that were close to the events that happened in MOS, Lois obviously, but also Perry White, Jenny, Lombard, Swanwick, etc...If someone wants to shape the world's perception of Superman, that's fine, but all those characters need to be on his side, else the thought of "man these characters are stupid" will creep in.

Remember how Hardy and his soldiers were firing on Superman initially? They viewed him as a threat. That is how the perceptions of the people of the MOS world should be. Initially they are like what Hardy was like at first, distrusting, willing to extinguish the "threat", but after the events of the movie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReQFQSGVbS4

The Dark Knight Rises didn’t even do anything close to what I had thought of. Only because Batman intentionally set himself up to be hated by Gotham and its Police Force, which is not what I want Superman to do. I want it to be more of a burden of proof kind of plot, which Batman in TDKR had the luxury of not having to prove himself. However, I do think The Dark Knight Rises is somewhat of a poor example considering that its script is flawed in that Blake somehow reaches the conclusion that Batman didn’t kill Harvey Dent based on convenient reasoning. I wouldn’t want the heroes to be written like that because if going against Superman makes them lazy, then writing them your way makes them come across as conveniences.

Having said that, it begs the question, why would the heroes be on Superman’s side? It’s a bit too convenient to write the heroes on Superman’s side. Batman is known to be paranoid, so it makes no sense that he would suddenly side with Superman without being suspicious of his actions. Wonder Woman might be someone who legitimately sides with him considering that they both have something in common: being alien to Earth. However, she could also antagonize Superman if she finds problems with how he handled Smallville and Metropolis. You also have the people in MOS like you said, but they’d likely represent a small minority. Someone will come up and say “Look at what Zod and Superman’s battle did to our city. Why should we trust him?”

Hardy died, so Superman doesn’t really have the military presence to back him up when it comes to governmental affairs. Hell, even Swanwick was still skeptical of him when he said, “how do we know you won’t act against America’s interests?” I don’t think Swanwick is entirely convinced that he can trust Superman, to be honest. Furthermore, it’s implying that there will be people uncomfortable with Superman’s arrival. That idea in itself is definitely going to be expanded upon, especially in the context of world politics, and the question what does America possessing a superhuman mean for the rest of the world?

As for the general audience, I still stand by the assertion that it is mixed. Heck, even people here had problems with Superman’s characterization.

[Bathead]

Originally Posted by bluerayer

Maybe he believes Luthor's Bs?

Nope. That's supposed to be one of Batman's major strengths, that he's an excellent judge of character, as well as not being very trusting of anyone who hasn't first earned it. So no, I would find it hard to believe he would fall for anything like that.

[Superchan]

I would love it for them to apply the characterization of the dark knight to this film where Clark, Bruce and Lex would be analogues to Harvey, Bruce and Joker.
Lex is the bad guy who acts as the catalysts for all the movie's major events (just like Ledger's joker); Affleck's Batman is essentially Bale Batman; and superman would the film's version of Harvey (with his role being the MAIN one rather than a supporting one). Now when I compare Clark to Harvey I'm talking about the Harvey that we had in the beginning of the movie, the brave, honest Harvey who inspired Bruce and almost convinced him to give up the cowl and cape since for a little while it appeared that Batman will soon become obsolete in the presence of someone like Dent but sadly Joker ruined everything and drove Harvey mad.
In order to bring out the best in a character like superman you have to emphasize his ability to inspire and give hope thus making good on the promise that they made in MOS.

[InJustice]

Except if you're dealing with an extremely cynical and older Bruce Wayne, then why would he suddenly be inspired by Clark? Given that Bruce will also see the mess that transpired in Metropolis and Smallville, it would make him even more suspicious than hopeful.

At least TDK's Bruce had reason to be hopeful because Dent did everything that Batman could do, except more efficiently, not to mention that Dent represented a the potential for Bruce to have a normal life. Also, it depends on how Batman is treated. Nolan's Batman was a temporary solution to Gotham's problem, whereas the comic book Batman is meant to be a long term solution (mainly because comic issues and money).

[Superchan]

IMO it is the extremely cynical people who are usually in most need of inspiration.
Bruce may regard superman as a malicious threat initially (and rightfully so) but seeing someone who uses his gifts to selflessly help others may just remind the old jaded Bruce why he started doing this whole thing in the first place.
At the end of the day if this is truly superman's sequel (odds are it isn't) then the team should focus on superman's true strength and that is to inspire.

[afan]

Originally Posted by Bathead

Nope. That's supposed to be one of Batman's major strengths, that he's an excellent judge of character, as well as not being very trusting of anyone who hasn't first earned it. So no, I would find it hard to believe he would fall for anything like that.

Exactly!
I find the concept of Batman vs Superman problematic. Why would either confront the other? Assuming that Superman is going about his post MOS career fighting crime, helping and saving people as he should be doing....exactly why would Batman try to take him down, and conversely why would Superman try to take Batman down. If either is manipulated by Luthor or (fill in the blank) than that only weakens the fiber of Superman or Batman, as was Superman in Miller's TDK.

Conflict certainly... as their methodology for acheiving basically the same goal, helping those in need and fighting evil/crime, is at opposite poles, but actually trying to destroy the other........no!

For my money WB's 1997 World's Finest, is perfect in it's portrayal of the Batman/Superman relationship.

[TheFlamingCoco]

If WB is smart, they'll have Superman's true sequel after the JL movie. It'll give it that big boost, though I'd want someone who can make a "calmer" type movie (Watchmen might count, but that was heavily based on a book). Maybe Brad Bird.

[bluerayer]

Originally Posted by Masone

Batman should come to Superman's aid instead. Batman is too smart to be tricked like that. If the evidence is overwhelmingly against Superman and everyone is against him, that should be the time Batman comes to his aid, to show how he wouldn't fall for someone's BS tricks.

That was kinda what i meant, Batman would make his own investigation into the situation and come to the conclusion that Luthor is full of it. He would side with Superman then. Also, i sorta meant that Lex would be pretty good at presenting a case against Superman. Not good enough to fool Batman though. Not just simple Bs'ing. Like i said, maybe Bruce Wayne and Luthor is working together, somehow, in the beginning? Maybe it's rebuilding Metropolis, maybe it's inventing some way to stop Superman, whom Luthor has convinced(almost)everyone that hes' a menace.

Also, the vikipedia on STAR Labs says that there is a chapter in Gotham! Check out my theory on who Holly Hunter plays and what she discovers.
It's in the "Holly Hunter, Callan Mulvey & Tao Okamoto Join Superman/Batman Movie"thread.

That theory could be connected to why Bruce Wayne is working with Luthor? I dunno, just ideas.

[Loki882]

Batman is paranoid and distrusful by nature. It's one of the big contrasts between him and Superman. Batman tends to be instantly suspicious, cynical, and distrustful of people until they prove themselves to be trustworthy. Superman, on the other hand, tends to be optimistic, open, and want to believe the best about people. From Batman's perspective, Superman is a god-like alien who's been hiding on Earth for decades and as soon as his activities start to be known, another group of god-like aliens show up, members of his own race no less, and begin wreaking havoc. Heck, Batman would probably think that Superman being so powerful on it's own makes him a threat (should he ever lose control and try to take over) no one could stop him. And there's established precedent for that happening with Zod. Batman doesn't need Lex to manipulate him into distrusting Superman, he already will.