All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 93

[Herolee10]

No follow-up on the absolute mess Metropolis was left in was most definitely a very poor decision on Snyder/Goyer's part. But they dug their own hole there. They should have had a grief-stricken Superman shown working tirelessly to pull people out of rubble. But that's not something we ever really want to see in a Superman film either, but it is the only option (just like snapping Zod's neck) that was there, and they chose to not do that and just sweep everything under the rug.

It's such a simple piece of writing that could have served to address multiple problems with the film really. Picture this. We have Superman just exhaustingly helping everyone that's trapped and injured as much as he can, and the face's of these people show fear and distrust of him (y'know addressing the whole 'how will the world react' that was a touchstone all throughout the first half of the film) and there's even a silent moment where he offers someone his hand to pull them out and they refuse. Just like in that Max Landis story idea those victims can just be like 'f*** Superman'. Which is a totally naturally way to the story. And then they could even show the army working tirelessly around Superman helping people too, and it's here he can have the exchange about 'I'm just gonna have to trust you General'. I'd do this whole scene in the early morning (thus establishing Superman has been at it for hours) where there's this early Sun rising giving a symbolic feel of dawn. (Similar to the end of Final Crisis where Metropolis is even more torn up but you see the rebuilding happening with the sun just starting to rise and shine through everything). That's exactly what I would do, and it would make MOS 10X better as a whole.

And yeah 'the sequel is going to address this', but that's just not good enough really. It's not a sequels job to acknowledge glaring admissions in the previous film. The first film should work by itself as well.

Well, I don’t think we’ll really be able to call the next film a real sequel. And given that Batman’s in it, I doubt that it’ll leave much time to get into the specifics of the after effects regarding the people’s thoughts about the situation. If anything, they’ll just say that the inclusion of Batman is mean to represent that.

 

[PacificBoy]

Well, I don’t think we’ll really be able to call the next film a real sequel. And given that Batman’s in it, I doubt that it’ll leave much time to get into the specifics of the after effects regarding the people’s thoughts about the situation. If anything, they’ll just say that the inclusion of Batman is mean to represent that.

I still think it's possible to weave Batman into the "do we trust the alien" narrative -- I'm irrationally optimistic that way -- but it'll require storytelling of the finest order.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I still think it's possible to weave Batman into the "do we trust the alien" narrative -- I'm irrationally optimistic that way -- but it'll require storytelling of the finest order.

From the director of Sucker Punch, and the writer of The Unborn, comes a movie in which Batman WON'T upstage Superman. We can dream, right?

 

[Herolee10]

Well I’m not saying it’s entirely impossible but considering who we’re working with, it’s not going to be an easy road for them.

As much as I enjoyed MOS, even I can say that they still need to fine tune their own writing abilities and really take the constructive criticism that MOS got in order to make a better sequel involving superman. It’s like as though they were infants that just learned on how to stand on their own for the first time. However, rather than going from standing up to learning how to walk like they should have, ala going from MOS to MOS 2, they’re instead going from learning how to stand up to learning how to run right away and skipping the much needed step is never a pretty sight.

 

[PacificBoy]

From the director of Sucker Punch, and the writer of The Unborn, comes a movie in which Batman WON'T upstage Superman. We can dream, right?

Oh, Goyer wrote The Unborn? Now I'm dreaming.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Well I’m not saying it’s entirely impossible but considering who we’re working with, it’s not going to be an easy road for them.

As much as I enjoyed MOS, even I can say that they still need to fine tune their own writing abilities and really take the constructive criticism that MOS got in order to make a better sequel involving superman. It’s like as though they were infants that just learned on how to stand on their own for the first time. However, rather than going from standing up to learning how to walk like they should have, ala going from MOS to MOS 2, they’re instead going from learning how to stand up to learning how to run right away and skipping the much needed step is never a pretty sight.

That's some strong language. But I agree with you on the criticisms. Many of the criticisms were universal, so they at least KNOW what things to avoid next time around.

 

[Herolee10]

So here’s a more detailed list, I think, regarding the Pros and Cons of the next “Superman” film, based on what I know or heard of so far:

PROS:

• Superman and Batman will meet each other for the first time on the big screen in live action format.

• The film will further accelerate and expand the new DC Universe that Warner Bros. are trying to create, thus taking us one step closer to the inevitable Justice League film.

• Zack’s visuals and creative mind will be an asset when designing Batman’s costume and fighting style, along with how it’s shot, on the big screen.

• Zack Snyder and David Goyer are behind this.

CONS:

• Superman is robbed, yet again in a way, of having his standalone sequel, as his franchise will now forever be marked by the presence of the Dark Knight.

• Zack Snyder is a big fan of “The Dark Knight Returns” story line and it’s no secret that Goyer loves writing for Batman, more so than he does for Superman.

• Superman doesn’t exactly have the best history of being portrayed properly whenever he’s had to share the same screen with Batman.

• Zack Snyder and David Goyer are behind this.

• We won’t get as much time or emphasis placed on the stuff that needed to be addressed and resolved in this film from MOS.

• Superman needs help from Batman to supposedly take down Lex, a character that Superman should have been allowed to take on his own like how Batman was allowed to with the Joker.

• Potential triangle involving Lois could ruin both her character and the quality of the relationship that was built up so well between her and Clark in MOS.

• Christian Bale’s Batman is still pretty fresh in the minds of the public and it would have only been three years since “The Dark Knight Rises” when this film is released.

Well, that’s not exactly encouraging now, is it?lol

 

[MrMaooz]

So here’s a more detailed list, I think, regarding the Pros and Cons of the next “Superman” film, based on what I know or heard of so far:

PROS:

• Superman and Batman will meet each other for the first time on the big screen in live action format.

• The film will further accelerate and expand the new DC Universe that Warner Bros. are trying to create, thus taking us one step closer to the inevitable Justice League film.

• Zack’s visuals and creative mind will be an asset when designing Batman’s costume and fighting style, along with how it’s shot, on the big screen.

• Zack Snyder and David Goyer are behind this.

CONS:

• Superman is robbed, yet again in a way, of having his standalone sequel, as his franchise will now forever be marked by the presence of the Dark Knight.

• Zack Snyder is a big fan of “The Dark Knight Returns” story line and it’s no secret that Goyer loves writing for Batman, more so than he does for Superman.

• Superman doesn’t exactly have the best history of being portrayed properly whenever he’s had to share the same screen with Batman.

• Zack Snyder and David Goyer are behind this.

• We won’t get as much time or emphasis placed on the stuff that needed to be addressed and resolved in this film from MOS.

• Superman needs help from Batman to supposedly take down Lex, a character that Superman should have been allowed to take on his own like how Batman was allowed to with the Joker.

• Potential triangle involving Lois could ruin both her character and the quality of the relationship that was built up so well between her and Clark in MOS.

• Christian Bale’s Batman is still pretty fresh in the minds of the public and it would have only been three years since “The Dark Knight Rises” when this film is released.

Well, that’s not exactly encouraging now, is it?lol

Lol at Goyer and Snyder being pros and cons.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

(Questionable) Superman needs help from Batman to supposedly take down Lex, a character that

(True) Superman should have been allowed to take on his own like how Batman was allowed to with the Joker.

(True) Potential triangle involving Lois could ruin both her character and the quality of the relationship that was built up so well between her and Clark in MOS.

(True) Christian Bale’s Batman is still pretty fresh in the minds of the public and it would have only been three years since “The Dark Knight Rises” when this film is released.

(Not NECCESARILY true, unless a Justice League movie happens right after MOS2/WF. IronMan 3 was stand alone, with a few references here and there to a greater universe.)Superman is robbed, yet again in a way, of having his standalone sequel, as his franchise will now forever be marked by the presence of the Dark Knight.

Even the pros are questionable, but I trust Goyer/Snyder more than I ever trusted the writers WB likes to hire. This usuallys end up with Jonah Hex/Catwoman atrocities :/

 

[PacificBoy]

re "Superman doesn’t exactly have the best history of being portrayed properly whenever he’s had to share the same screen with Batman."

The worst portrayal possible is when they inevitably team up, Bats becomes the brains of the operation and Supes is reduced to the muscle.

 

[Deserana]

I hate Landis, wouldn't want him anywhere near a Superman film

The main issue I had is that for some reason in his version a Superman comic Metropolis is practically levelled and Superman kills someone.

But when that happens in MoS it is a bad thing even though it makes more sense in MoS cause he has been Superman for about 2 days.

 

[Deserana]

For me pros and cons are -

Pros -

- The universe is wonderfully set up

- Two awesome characters on screen

- So much potential

- More Snyder visuals

Cons -

- Goyer is writing

- Superman being weakened for Batman possibly

 

[PacificBoy]

The main issue I had is that for some reason in his version a Superman comic Metropolis is practically levelled and Superman kills someone.

But when that happens in MoS it is a bad thing even though it makes more sense in MoS cause he has been Superman for about 2 days.

Well, he kills Doomsday, a thing of biblical stomping proportions, but a thing regardless, rather than a someone. But that's a technicality really.

I feel Landis' premise is set up differently because after stabbing Doomsday in the face with Wonder Woman's sword!, Superman dies, is no more. His no-killing code, his moral core, his sense of self expires. And he sees the city in smoldering ruins and he blames himself, and he dies a little bit more. He tears away the S, crawls away, body broken, and returns to being Clark, a somewhat empty shell of a Clark, in Kansas. That's how I saw it at least.

I think in both instances, MoS and Landis' story, Superman's taking of life and levelling of Metropolis is justified. It's the how and why behind the act that separate the two stories.

 

[Lencho01]

So here’s a more detailed list, I think, regarding the Pros and Cons of the next “Superman” film, based on what I know or heard of so far:

*snip*

Well, that’s not exactly encouraging now, is it?lol

I guess a con you can add is that even if you do a Superman vs. Batman story, it generally works better when there's a history between the two characters.

 

[roach]

I guess a con you can add is that even if you do a Superman vs. Batman story, it generally works better when there's a history between the two characters.

.....wait what?

This is the first meeting between the two on film and a con is they don't have a history?

 

[Lencho01]

.....wait what?

This is the first meeting between the two on film and a con is they don't have a history?

Well, if they're just fighting from the start it's pretty much your general fanboy debate of who would win in a fight amongst any two superheroes. So, it may not be as compelling or interesting story-wise like the quote from Miller's TDKR would imply where you're dealing with characters who've known each other for years. Even the previous film that was being developed had them know each other for years. Thus, Superman vs. Batman or Batman vs. Superman isn't that great of an idea at this point or at least not that great of a title.

It's kinda like what was done in Avengers. They pretty much dropped the idea of these characters willingly going at each other physically as soon as it started because it isn't very compelling and just makes them look dumb.

 

[roach]

Well, if they're just fighting from the start it's pretty much your general fanboy debate of who would win in a fight amongst any two superheroes. So, it may not be as compelling or interesting story-wise like the quote from Miller's TDKR would imply where you're dealing with characters who've known each other for years. Even the previous film that was being developed had them know each other for years. Thus, Superman vs. Batman or Batman vs. Superman isn't that great of an idea at this point or at least not that great of a title.

It's kinda like what was done in Avengers. They pretty much dropped the idea of these characters willingly going at each other physically as soon as it started because it isn't very compelling and just makes them look dumb.

So you'd want a Superman who just appeared...to already have a friendship/working knowledge of Batman...and you thought people complained about not seeing deaths acknowledged.

and Avengers didnt really drop the idea of the heroes fighting each other since we did get the big fight in the forest, Hawkeye switched teams and fought Black Widow and Thor and Hulk fought...so it was there up until Act 3.

The fact does remain that we have two heroes that have drastically different methods of hero-ing. Hope and Fear. So even if they didn't physically fight there is lots for them to be argue about.

 

[Lencho01]

So you'd want a Superman who just appeared...to already have a friendship/working knowledge of Batman...and you thought people complained about not seeing deaths acknowledged.

and Avengers didnt really drop the idea of the heroes fighting each other since we did get the big fight in the forest, Hawkeye switched teams and fought Black Widow and Thor and Hulk fought...so it was there up until Act 3.

The fact does remain that we have two heroes that have drastically different methods of hero-ing. Hope and Fear. So even if they didn't physically fight there is lots for them to be argue about.

That's not what I said.

I said they dropped the idea of them willingly going at each other physically pretty much as soon as it started. The other physical fights involved mind control/influence or were straight up arguments.

I would be shocked if they didn't have them physically fight.

 

[The Question]

Yeah, that is an enormous problem with World's Finest being the sequel. Superman's first encounter with Lex Luthor, his greatest enemy, with whom he has a personal and deeply meaningful antagonistic relationship, is going to be in a team up story with Batman. Similarly, his first encounter with Batman, with whom he has a deep and complicated partnership and friendship, is going to come in the middle of the story where he fights Lex for the first time. It's doubtful that both relationships are going to get enough development and focus, and in fact it's very likely that Batman will get in the way of the very personal war between Lex and Superman and make it less special.

Maybe it could be done well by some kind of mad genius like Grant Morrison or Spike Jonez, but as it stands a World's Finest team up, to me, feels like something that should come after a particular incarnation of Superman's mythology is better established, not be the establishing story. And this isn't in the hands of a mad genius, it's in the hands of the people who brought us Sucker Punch and Blade Trinity.

 

[roach]

Yeah, that is an enormous problem with World's Finest being the sequel. Superman's first encounter with Lex Luthor, his greatest enemy, with whom he has a personal and deeply meaningful antagonistic relationship, is going to be in a team up story with Batman. Similarly, his first encounter with Batman, with whom he has a deep and complicated partnership and friendship, is going to come in the middle of the story where he fights Lex for the first time. It's doubtful that both relationships are going to get enough development and focus, and in fact it's very likely that Batman will get in the way of the very personal war between Lex and Superman and make it less special.

Maybe it could be done well by some kind of mad genius like Grant Morrison or Spike Jonez, but as it stands a World's Finest team up, to me, feels like something that should come after a particular incarnation of Superman's mythology is better established, not be the establishing story. And this isn't in the hands of a mad genius, it's in the hands of the people who brought us Sucker Punch and Blade Trinity.

Isnt this a lot of speculation....we don't know who the villains are and we don't know how much Batman is going to play a part.

 

[The Question]

Also, the love triangle aspect is a huge problem too. There's no guarantee they'll do it, sure, but it is a possibility, and I think that speaks to a huge thing that people fail to get about Superman. Superman isn't about Superman. Superman is about Lois and Superman. Superman is, in a lot of ways, a love story. In Action Comics #1, Superman is not the main character. Lois Lane is. The entire story is told from her POV. We meet Clark when she does and we meet Superman as she does. From the very start, the whole Superman mythology was the story of Superman as told by Lois Lane. The worst periods of Superman's history are when they forgot this, when they turned Lois into a buffoonish character who was the butt of a near endless stream of sexist jokes, instead of Clark's clever, cynical, sassy partner and an intellectual equal to the Man of Steel. The Post-Crisis Superman comics were kind of a mixed bag for a lot of people, but I think it's inarguable that an enormous improvement was when Lois became aware of his secret identity and then the two got married, and the two of them finally became full partners in all respects (which, BTW, was the original intention of Seigel and Schuster, they wanted to do a story where Lois uncovered the secret in 1941 or 42, they even wrote and drew it, but DC editorial shot it down). Their relationship is a vital defining aspect of the Superman mythos. I always say that if you're not writing a Superman story that Lois is in at least a little bit like a 1940s screwball romantic comedy, then you're writing it wrong.

As it stands in this franchise, their relationship barely exists, it's barely been explored. And if they go the love triangle rout with Batman instead of actually developing their relationship in a meaningful way then that is utter testicles.

 

[The Question]

Isnt this a lot of speculation....we don't know who the villains are and we don't know how much Batman is going to play a part.

1: Wasn't Luthor confirmed at one point? I remember reading that but I admit I might be misremembering.

2: The logo of the film is a fused Batman/Superman logo. I think it's safe to say that his role will be fairly large.

3: Even if his role is small, there's still a huge chance that having another superhero running around during Superman's first confrontation with Luthor will **** everything up.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^You are such a ray of sunshine.

I have my concerns as well. I certainly preferred a straight up MOS2 but I am going to wait and see how this plays out.

 

[The Question]

^You are such a ray of sunshine.

I have my concerns as well. I certainly preferred a straight up MOS2 but I am going to wait and see how this plays out.

I've seen nothing good from how it's played out so far, so forgive me for doubting.

 

[Herolee10]

Well I got to admit; it is somewhat hard/difficult at times to see anything really positive to think about regarding this film. I’m not even going to bother labeling it as MOS 2 or even so much as a sequel other than the fact that it takes place after the events of MOS because it’s more of a standalone spin off than anything else at the moment for me. It’s the Tokyo Drift of the franchise.