BvS "...a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent": Does this not worry anyone else?

Bingo. Like any good story the characters should develop and evolve over the course of the film.

 

Batman will show Superman how to be a real superhero. 'Cuz Batman's more awesome. t:

 

Superman and Batman should be portrayed as equals but sadly that's not gonna happen seeing as Batman is apparently older, wiser, more experienced, and played by a big name movie star.

This is kinda like Keaton/Nicholson all over again. Cavill is gonna look so small on screen compared to Affleck unless the filmmakers really make an effort to make Superman the heart of the story.

 

I really think this worry about Batman being older and more experienced meaning he's gonna make Superman look like a dupe is unwarranted and rather paranoic on the part of some of you Superman fans. I don't foresee Goyer and Snyder doing it that way.

 

I don't think it'd matter what age he is. Batman's gonna come out on top somehow.

 

Here's the thing with me. I believe Batman should be a bit older than Superman but not by much. Superman is 33 in Man of Steel. He should be between 33-35ish in S/B. Affleck looks like he could be between 30-40. If Batman is between 1-4 years older, I'm ok with that.

 

^and it is not like they look very different in age

 

One looks like he's in his 40s and the other in his 30s to me.

 

Affleck could pull it off. Besides no one minded the Batman in BTAS & Arkham Games was around 35-40ish.

Superman should look younger because he's an alien and maybe how he ages is different.

 

That's the problem. It's a lose/lose situation. If you really play up the "older and wiser" angle, you will make Superman look more like a Robin. If they become equals at the end, you will make Batman look bad. Why does Batman need an entire decade of experience to be equal to a young rookie Superman that just started out? That's really insulting to Batman IMO (I know it technically can't be since Batman is not a real person but you get my point). Superman and Batman were equals from around the very beginning of their careers, which they started at around the same time, and then they grew together up to their weary/tired/seasoned years and they were still equals even then.

If Batman needs to have 10 years of being older and of more experience, what does that say about Superman in 10 years from MOS? The current Batman would be useless to him. By the logic of an "older/weary/tired" Batman being an equal to a young rookie Superman, the only reason why he is on par with him is due to the age gap. And I find that really disrespectful to the character of Batman.

You don't have to give Batman anything to set him apart from the rest; he already has it. The genius intellect and detective skills are not a product of him doing this for so many years but of his motivations and mental training he received prior to becoming Batman. Since the Modern Age of superheroes started in the DC universe, Batman has always been the smartest man in the room despite being the same age as Superman and the rest.

Again, it goes back to the idea that the only reason Batman can survive on the JL is due to the age gap.

No offense, but you've brought a horrible analogy.

Batman: TAS is a show that gave it its all while The Batman was an intentionally dumbed down & poorly written Batman show that made Batman look like an idiot half the time. There are so many problems that show has that it's ridiculous, and a younger Batman is not one of those problems. If you want to argue that a young Batman simply can't work in the JL, you should source a Batman product that at least put half an effort into itself, which The Batman didn't do.

Plus, Batman is not that old in Batman: TAS. In fact, he is only a couple of years older than Batman was in The Batman (who was around 27/28). TAS' Batman is somewhere in his late 20's to early 30's; he just started his career as Batman a few years earlier than Comic Book Batman did and that gives off the impression that he is older than he really is. Plus, TAS Batman was still around the same age as TAS Superman. If there was an age gap between them, it would be very small thus the twin-brotherly relationship was still there. Not the same thing as Batfleck who is older than Superman by 10 years and has more experience than him by 10 years.

To let you know, I have zero problems with an older more seasoned Batman. In fact, it is the type of Batman I prefer. I grew up mainly with that Batman my whole life. What I do have a problem with is making Superman or Batman older than the other one by around a two-digit number. I wouldn't mind the idea of an older Batman if this universe's Superman was older too. But since this universe's Superman is young, Batman should also be younger even if he's been doing this for a few years already.

 

Again, people are taking this argument out of context. There is no problem with a 35-40ish Batman as long as Superman is closer to his age, which wasn't a problem in BTAS and the Arkham games. The issue lies in the two-digit age gap between the two, not in the idea of Batman being 35-40ish by itself. If Superman was also 40ish, it wouldn't be a problem.

Batman wasn't 35 in Batman TAS. Oldest he was in the show is early 30's (not counting The New Batman Adventures). He also started his Batman career at a younger age than Comic Book Batman (early 20's as opposed to mid 20's). By the time Superman is introduced, they're still around the same age. Bruce might be a bit older than Clark by a few years, but the age gap between them isn't too huge. We are talking of an age gap of around 10 years in between Affleck's Batman and Cavill's Superman based on everything we've heard so far.

As for the New 52, you never want to source the New 52's timeline in an argument because the timeline makes no sense at all (that's a topic for another time though). Though even in the New 52, a 5-year head start is still not that big of a difference compared to an entire-decade head start. You're mixing up more years of experience with more years of being alive. Batman might have 5 years of experience on Superman in the New 52 but the age gap between them is even smaller than that. When the Justice League formed, Batman was 30 and Superman was 27 (someone on the book confirmed it; can't remember who). That's a difference of 3 years. Again, small differences like that are no biggie.

 

They do. Cavill looks as if he's in his late 20's while Affleck looks as if he's in his late 30's.

 

No they don't at all. Warner Bros have been talking about this concept for a good period of time, Batman mentoring a young Superman.

 

Superman coming across as Robin might be the most ridiculous concern people have had yet.

He's Superman, who has been saving lives for much of his life. Not a teenage kid with no experience.

I think the "older, wiser Batman" thing is an interesting and appropriate dynamic, as that's kind of always been the tone struck between Batman and Superman in modern comics anyway, even despite their closer ages. They've got something to teach each other, and more in common than they think. Batman has a more methodical, strategic way of doing things, and Superman isn't the cynical fellow Batman is, he operates with more hope for humanity.

 

Tbh, I think it´s good that they aren´t the same age.

 

That's all well and good if you trust in the screenwriter and the director's ability to handle the subject matter well. I don't. I think having Batman be the more experienced hero playing out as Superman being the sub in their relationship is one of many legitimate concerns.

 

Exactly what I've been saying.

 

It's all in the lighting





Cavill's Supes is 33. Make Affleck's Batman 36 or 37, and it's only a 3-4 year age difference.

 

They specifically said they will be going for an "older, weary, tired, and seasonal" Batman who's been doing this for a long time. That doesn't sound like a Batman that's only been doing this for 3-4 years. It sounds like a Batman with an entire decade above Cavill's Superman, in both age and experience.

 

I don't think the experience matters, or the age difference. What matters is how they're going to play it; is Batman going to always be one-upping Superman in a misguided effort (by the writer/director/WB) to make him look cooler, or is he going to be portrayed in a flawed, but still flattering manner?

That's the question that makes me wonder and worry the most.

 

I still maintain that the only reason they're going for an "older" Batman is so that they can maintain a sort of loose continuity with the Nolan films.

 

They are trying to give Batman a way to defeat Superman at least once (or get the best of him), its not going to be by strength, it has to be by guile/smarts.

 

Name them.

I find no reason why Batman could distrust Superman, and Batman is not inherently distrusting of most people. Like most great fictional detectives he has the ability to instantly and accurately judge a person on the first meeting, but he does not go into the meeting assuming the worst of any individual. He makes conclusions based on facts and evidence, but never on an uninformed blanket assumption. It's not an ear-mark of intelligence or wisdom.

 

Experience and age does matter a lot. An age gap and experience of 10 years or over takes away from the idea that they grew up together but on different paths and from their almost twin-brotherly relationship. They're not exactly equals anymore.

I do think that's one of the reasons. But I think there's also other reasons:

1) They want to mimic The Dark Knight Returns.
2) They want to cast a beloved actor with an entire career behind him so that they won't have to deal with any potential backlash of not having Bale back (that's the main reason I think Affleck got cast).

 

Why can't a Batman the same age as Superman have the smarts to take him on? Why does Batman need to be older and have a headstart to be on the same level as him? Batman and Superman have always been equals in the DC universe.

This is what bugs me the most. It makes Batman look really bad to suggest that the only reason he is the smartest man in the JL is because he got a head-start of about a decade. That means this Batman was as weak as Nolan's Batman was in BB/TDK when they were about the same age and started their careers. Maybe not as weak, but it means that we are again getting a watered down Batman - just that it won't be as noticeable this time due to him having more experience.

Personally, I'm tired of watered down versions of Batman on the big screen.