All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 92

[SpideyFan866]

No they didn't. Not once.
In fact, it was quoted that they said they did not know what they were calling it yet!

Who said "it WILL focus largely, and primarily on Superman"????
Please provide a link to anyone involved with the new movie saying words to that effect.

Calling this MOS2 is like calling the Avengers the sequel to the Incredible Hulk.

When I say its Man of Steel 2, I didn't mean that's the title (if you read the rest of my post, you'd know that).

What I meant, was that this movie is a direct sequel to MOS.

Every plot thread, character arc, and etc will be carried over and continued in this film. Goyer himself confirmed that Zod will be addressed.

Yes, Batman is featured. HOWEVER, that does not mean this is a spinoff or any less of a sequel to Man of Steel JUST because Batman, or any other hero, is featured.

This is a Man of Steel sequel. Snyder has said this, and so have others.

 

[STARMAN]

Doing WF is easier than doing a Superman sequel with Batman appearing.

With WF you can concentrate on the Superman/Batman dynamic. Their alter egos can take a back seat. You can have them confront villains from both rogue galleries.

A Superman sequel with Batman appearing is trickier. You have to spend time developing the Lois and Clark relationship, the dynamics between Superman and Lex, as well as Supes continue evolution as a character while addressing all the storylines introduced in the first one. Plus having Batman. It's not easy.

 

[SpideyFan866]

Video of Zack Snyder stating, before its revealed to feature Batman, that the new movie is "another Superman movie".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F205NTr04-k


[YT]F205NTr04-k[/YT]

 

[Willi Berg]

I like the idea that another hero will be featured.

As they said before, they want us to believe that the world is filling up with heroes after Superman appears.

And again, just because Batman is going to be featured, that doesn't mean the film has to focus PRIMARILY, on the Superman/Batman relationship.

I think it will be better to show that, rather than them just telling us that, via easter eggs or some other means in the movie.

When I first heard the news, I thought, oh, maybe some people won't like this idea. Then I was surprised reading around at how much there were actually a lot of fans who were not happy with this news. Or who were hesitant about being excited about it. With a WF movie announcement you would think it would be great news for both Superman and Batman fans. I think it's just the timing. A lot of people before were thinking about a kind of build up with the DC movies. They wanted a WF movie, but thought it would be separate from the MOS movies. But now it is all being incorporated. And it hasn't been done before. It is going to take a major adjustment, that might improve as time goes on.

 

[Lencho01]

Of course the opposite would a Spidey 3 scenario in which you dump too much story/plot into one film as opposed to focus on nailing one theme etc down.

MoS about the first chapter, arrival and purpose.
The second logical chapter would be about fallout.

I mean we didn't see the effects of batman on the populace till the second(amazing) film did we not? From the villains his presence to created to the "heroes" he inspired.

Some perspective.
It's easier when you look at things positively.

I'm fine with having some general idea of where things will go.

With BB, I felt you could've just ended the story right there. Felt the same way after TDK and TDKR. They felt complete to me. With MOS, they talked of all these ideas leading up to the film, barely explored them in the film, and said we'll see that stuff in the next one. This film and Hollywood in general sorta acts like a sequel is some guarantee.

 

[SpideyFan866]

Doing WF is easier than doing a Superman sequel with Batman appearing.

With WF you can concentrate on the Superman/Batman dynamic. Their alter egos can take a back seat. You can have them confront villains from both rogue galleries.

A Superman sequel with Batman appearing is trickier. You have to spend time developing the Lois and Clark relationship, the dynamics between Superman and Lex, as well as Supes continue evolution as a character while addressing all the storylines introduced in the first one. Plus having Batman. It's not easy.

Actually its easier.

Because if it were focusing on both characters equally, you'd have to split time for Superman, and all of his side characters, with Batman and ALL of his side characters.

Much harder than when you can focus on one side more than the other.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

You know what would've been nice? If they had done a complete story instead of going the "Oh, we'll deal with it in the next one" route. Hollywood needs to stop doing that in general.

Well, I'm just going off what they kept selling about this whole "first contact" stuff and nothing really came from in terms of the world's reaction to Superman. But, that's all saved for the sequel, which wasn't a guarantee.

Yup. Ironically, they kept saying that they had approached this film as a stand alone without thinking of a sequel.

 

[STARMAN]

But with a WF movie you pretty much know how to split the screen time. I think it's easier to establish the parameters.

I still think a Superman sequel with Batman appearing is trickier because you have to figure out just how much Bruce Wayne/Batman will appear. You can't tease the audience for two years about a Superman/Batman movie and not give sufficient screen time to Batman.

It can be done. I just think it's trickier.

 

[Marvin]

I'm fine with having some general idea of where things will go.

With BB, I felt you could've just ended the story right there. Felt the same way after TDK and TDKR. They felt complete to me. With MOS, they talked of all these ideas leading up to the film, barely explored them in the film, and said we'll see that stuff in the next one. This film and Hollywood in general sorta acts like a sequel is some guarantee.

That's all perspective. For example there are at least 10 people that would not be satisfied with the TDK ending.

I see what you are saying however I would argue that superman is alot bigger than batman in that sense. How does the world react to batman? Who in the world even knows about him...
How does the world react to the fallout of his battle? There wasn't that much fallout...
How does the world and more to the point the gov't react to the idea that there is a creature with batmans powers running around...not much to react too imo.
It's different with superman in premise alone.

I would agree that a few things are handled more in that tv pilot sort of way and I'm sure that's just what the studio wanted. From the romance to the introduction of the disguise in the last 1 minute...With spiderman and batman it's just a different format and I can see how this is affecting people. I for one see these things as decisions mostly decisive. Designed to get more people to come for the exposition and adventures of...

Given how familiar the audience is with superman I think this approach is great. Seeing clark in the DP would have been soooooo amazing and needed..if we all had not seen it about 20 times aleady...etc.

 

[Broseph44]

Sabaoth Snyder said himself. New SUPERMAN movie. I swear some of you people.

 

[Lencho01]

Yup. Ironically, they kept saying that they had approached this film as a stand alone without thinking of a sequel.

That's what they always say.

That's all perspective. For example there are at least 10 people that would not be satisfied with the TDK ending.

I see what you are saying however I would argue that superman is alot bigger than batman in that sense. How does the world react to batman? Who in the world even knows about him...
How does the world react to the fallout of his battle? There wasn't that much fallout...
How does the world and more to the point the gov't react to the idea that there is a creature with batmans powers running around...not much to react too imo.
It's different with superman in premise alone.

I would agree that a few things are handled more in that tv pilot sort of way and I'm sure that's just what the studio wanted. From the romance to the introduction of the disguise in the last 1 minute...With spiderman and batman it's just a different format and I can see how this is affecting people. I for one see these things as decisions mostly decisive. Designed to get more people to come for the exposition and adventures of...

Given how familiar the audience is with superman I think this approach is great. Seeing clark in the DP would have been soooooo amazing and needed..if we all had not seen it about 20 times aleady...etc.

Yeah, I understand people not liking the ending to TDK. I didn't care much for the film, but felt it worked as a whole and for what Nolan and co. were going for. That montage at the end didn't hurt too.

I think it all stems from this film not really being about Superman. It felt more about Kal-El. It would've worked better if they allowed him to be Superman and show the world's reaction before Zod came into play and then he went to the government (after avoiding them) since the whole world was at stake.

I would've loved to have seen DP Clark and to see that the guy at least has some friends/acquaintances in his life.

 

[bluearth]

Not true. The end news montage showed candlelight vigils and people grieving, acknowledging the deaths that happened. You might say the montage is paying lip service to all the devastation that transpired, but at least some acknowledgement is given. Yes, MOS 2 or World's Finest will probably explore the ramifications and repercussions of the wrecking of Metropolis. But we see ZERO acknowledgement of it in MOS. In fact you could say the death and devastation caused by the world engine is more cartoony because it isn't acknowledged in any way, form or shape.

Acknowledging deaths we never saw? Thats my point. You never felt civilians in the Avengers were in any real danger. When we do see civilians they're shown being protected. When an entire skyscraper collapses in the Avengers the camera barely shows it in the corner of the screen and cuts to something else quickly. When it happens in Man of Steel the camera never turns away.

Obviously thousands if not tens of thousands died in New York that day, but its OK for the Avengers to celebrate not too long afterwards because theres brief clips shown of a memorial? Why arent they shown helping in the cleanup like some are demanding of Superman?

As for there being no acknowledgement of the damage in Man of Steel, that goes back to my original point that because they 'grounded' Superman, they were going to put themselves in a corners with no way out. Acknowledge the more real feeling death and destruction, and the people who did not like the death and destruction would dwell on it even more, while bashing the film as even more "joyless". It was a conscious decision to not acknowledge it while going straight to the lighter, "I think hes hot" scene.

They handled what happened in the finale the best way possible, which meant not directly acknowledging the death and destruction. They had Superman scream and break down after Zod's death, so we got a big emotional response from Superman. Having him break down twice in the last 10 minutes of the film would have been too emo

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Acknowledging deaths we never saw? Thats my point. You never felt civilians in the Avengers were in any real danger. When we do see civilians they're shown being protected. When an entire skyscraper collapses in the Avengers the camera barely shows it in the corner of the screen and cuts to something else quickly. When it happens in Man of Steel the camera never turns away.

Obviously thousands if not tens of thousands died in New York that day, but its OK for the Avengers to celebrate not too long afterwards because theres brief clips shown of a memorial? Why arent they shown helping in the cleanup like some are demanding of Superman?

As for there being no acknowledgement of the damage in Man of Steel, that goes back to my original point that because they 'grounded' Superman, they were going to put themselves in a corners with no way out. Acknowledge the death and destruction, and the people who did not like the death and destruction would dwell on it even more, while bashing the film as even more "joyless". It was a conscious decision to not acknowledge it while going straight to the lighter, "I think hes hot" scene.

They handled what happened in the finale the best way possible, which meant not directly acknowledging the death and destruction. They had Superman scream and break down after Zod's death, so we got a big emotional response from Superman. Having him break down twice in the last 10 minutes of the film would have been too emo

Because, they're busy eating at a shwarma place!

 

[roach]

you can't compare Avengers and Man Of Steel.
You had one man fighting an alien invasion vs a team of six...so yes we can see the Avengers saving people because they had more members and the aliens weren't trying to kill off humanity only capture them.
MOS had Superman vs an alien invasion bent on killing humanity off....there is bound to be a few deaths

 

[Broseph44]

Lex coming into the sequel now, after metropolis has been destroyed is perfect. Perfect to bring him in to "rebuild" the city and be the true "hero" in the public eye.

 

[Marvin]

you can't compare Avengers and Man Of Steel.
You had one man fighting an alien invasion vs a team of six...so yes we can see the Avengers saving people because they had more members and the aliens weren't trying to kill off humanity only capture them.
MOS had Superman vs an alien invasion bent on killing humanity off....there is bound to be a few deaths

Well put.

People aren't used to seeing that kinda thing in a superman movie.
Ergo, it's a failure to some.
Talk about objectivity.

 

[Marvin]

I wonder if people think the better play would be if WB announced a simple superman sequel and a batman reboot instead.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I'd want a Superman sequel, and a "hint" of a reboot later, and that turn out to be the World's Finest movie.

 

[roach]

I think right now a reboot for Batman would be the wrong thing...people can't get the Nolan films out of their heads and to retread the same story points is a bad idea in my book.
I say treat Batman like the Joker was in TDK. No origin story....just he shows up all dark and mysterious

 

[InJustice]

Having a Batman reboot is like taking a blind man to a field of mines. You have way too many things going against it for it to be a good idea.

What you can reboot...is Green Lantern...please get someone that loves the character.

 

[Lencho01]

What's going against a Batman reboot?

 

[fake]

In case this hasn't been posted here. The audience going crazy is just amazing

 

[Nathan]

Hearing him say those lines actually gave me chills.

 

[Sharkboy]

You are kidding yourselves if you honestly think Batman is being shortchanged in this one, regardless of it being a superman movie or not. I think the best example would be that episode of superman TAS "the world's finest" it was undoubtedly part of Superman TAS, but it was still something that gave equal weight to both characters.

 

[InJustice]

What's going against a Batman reboot?

1) Nolan's series just finished in 2012 - give people more time to forget about an awesome series before moving onto another interpretation of Batman.
2) An extension of 1, if you rush a Batman reboot and are trying to be different from Nolan's work, you run the risk of retreading the same storylines. Especially if they are too lazy that they're gonna want to copy TDKT for the sake of profitability.
3) Joker, give people time to forget Ledger's performance before you have fanboys raging over respect.