Llama_Shepherd
Superhero
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,713
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
It was a nod to Batman: Year One. Chris himself said he wasn't sure about using Joker in The Dark Knight unil the plot called for it.
It was a nod to Batman: Year One. Chris himself said he wasn't sure about using Joker in The Dark Knight unil the plot called for it.
Haha, trying to argue that the Joker mention at the end of BB wasn't a tease to TDK. hehe, classic.
You've set up a false dichotomy. The scene definitely adds to Batman Begins, that doesn't mean that Batman Begins would have sucked without it.
I mean, really?
The point of Batman Begins is in the title, "Batman Begins". That includes the world of Batman. That scene would have been an excellent scene even if no sequel had ever been made. It says that Batman will have to keep on fighting for a long time at a minimum and meet all sorts of exotic rogues.
As evidence, I submit that it is the kind of ending that a lot of fans wanted for... The Dark Knight Rises. They wanted to know that Batman would keep on fighting.
How come when Batman, Wonder Woman and The Flash show up as cameos/guest stars in Superman's monthly title, it's still a Superman comic, but when it's in a film, suddenly it's not a Superman movie anymore?
I'll never understand the Superman being with Wonder Woman hate, other than it keeps Clark and Lois apart, which was the norm for over 50 years in comics. There is plenty of character and story potential there, just like there is with Wonder Woman and Batman.
Also, how come when Batman, Wonder Woman and The Flash show up as cameos/guest stars in Superman's monthly title, it's still a Superman comic, but when it's in a film, suddenly it's not a Superman movie anymore?
[/B]
This is a question that's easily answered. And you should already know why.
When you have a handful of comics for Superman that are released every month with other characters in it there's no worries bc you know next month you get more Supes.
But when you have to wait years for a legit Superman movie (let alone a franchise) the second movie has rumors of not 1 but 4 other heroes in it
Plus baddies, plus secondary characters of Superman plus rumors of other secondary characters for the 4 other heroes
A Superman fan starts to feel some kinda way about that. And may start saying things like, "This isn't a Superman movie anymore".
I can empathize with that.
If they announced a Cap/Ironman/Hulk film tmr, I'm curious if there would be anything but cheers from the fans. In fact most of what I see when people talk marvel is cross over excitement: "can't wait till the guardians crossover into avengers, if only wolverine could show up in avengers if only marvel had spiderman then he could mean tony...etc"
WB get's into the crossover game, and it's met with massive negativity. Will BatmanvsSuperman have enough character development with two characters? People keep asking. It certainly has a better shot of it than Age of Ultron with it's half dozen. But then again, people pick and choose when they want to care about things.
That's because Marvel's crossovers were earned and DC's upcoming crossover feels more or less imposed. There's a difference. The central characters in Age Of Ultron are already developed, which allows them to focus more on story.
The MOS sequel is gonna have to overcome a lot of legwork, and that includes juggling a small handful of characters who've yet to be introduced and/or fully developed... including even it's main character, Superman.
There's plenty of cause for concern, as if the first MOS movie wasn't enough.
So speculative nonsense based feelings.
Superman is set up(much to the chagrin of detractors), and Batman, of all characters in comicdom with the exception of maybe spiderman, batman doesn't need that much introductory work at this point. This idea that things need to be done a certain way is a byproduct of the new hot thing. Before we decide that marvel's approach is the only way to go about it, how's about an open mind.
I suppose this is where I point to the successful X films.
The X-Men are a team, not a superteam. It isn't a crossover, it's its own thing. The X-Men are a team. The Avengers are a superteam.
Simple question. Assume they had made Avengers right after the first Iron Man movie in place of Iron Man 2. No solo franchises, no crossover. Just a flat out Iron Man sequel featuring Cap, Thor and Hulk. Would it have been just as good? Do you think it would have been equally as successful?
As for Superman... one of the biggest criticisms of MOS was that it's main character felt underdeveloped and underutilized. I'm sorry but that's a legitimate concern for a lot of people. We barely even got to know Clark. And now before he can even stretch his legs, he's sharing the screen with Batman and god knows who else. Again, it just feels imposed.
Xmen(first class for arguments sake) is a film. One in which a bunch of characters from different places in the world and origin stories come together to face a similar conflict. Among which 4(in the case of that film) were heavily featured two more so, and one in particular. We can throw titles like team and super team around but what I'm interested in is the truth of the matter. No one complains about lack of development in that film, in spite of it's sheer amount of screen time sharing.The X-Men are a team, not a superteam. It isn't a crossover, it's its own thing. The X-Men are a team. The Avengers are a superteam.
Would it have been as successful? No, but I'm sure coming out of it Cap and the rest of them would have had more successful solos(The ironman sequel in particular). But that's neither here nor there.Simple question. Assume they had made Avengers right after the first Iron Man movie in place of Iron Man 2. No solo franchises, no crossover. Just a flat out Iron Man sequel featuring Cap, Thor and Hulk. Would it have been just as good? Do you think it would have been equally as successful?
I don't see how adding another character ruins the prospect of development. If someone said this was going to be Superman vs Luthor(and heavy), it would be the same situation. People are confusing the issue based on it being another costumed hero with a name. Whereas if it was another costumed villain with a name there would be almost no argument.As for Superman... one of the biggest criticisms of MOS was that it's main character felt underdeveloped and underutilized. I'm sorry but that's a legitimate concern for a lot of people. We barely even got to know Clark. And now before he can even stretch his legs, he's sharing the screen with Batman and god knows who else. Again, it just feels imposed.
I'll never understand the Superman being with Wonder Woman hate, other than it keeps Clark and Lois apart, which was the norm for over 50 years in comics. There is plenty of character and story potential there, just like there is with Wonder Woman and Batman.
Also, how come when Batman, Wonder Woman and The Flash show up as cameos/guest stars in Superman's monthly title, it's still a Superman comic, but when it's in a film, suddenly it's not a Superman movie anymore?
All they have to do is treat batman like they did Joker in tdk. A figure the audience knows enough about. They could even treat him as a dent if they want...That's the situation wb is in with batman that marvel wasn't in with cap/thor.
^That would imply that Luthor is in for one hell of an arc.
(which is new).
I hope Synder thinks outside the box when it comes to Luthor. I want to really see him with a bit of a different take then what is traditional.
If I remember correctly Snyder said that the MOS universe's he'll have a lot of money but it won't be a Gene Hackman type Lex that a lot of general movie goers are used to.
This is what Goyer said in the lead up to Man of Steel.
"There is musing about Lex Luther, conversations that Zack and I have had on set, but it all depends on what happens over the next month. There are obviously those Lexcorp easter eggs in the film and clearly you can see from that, to the extent to which we can intuit things about Lex, its not the Gene Hackman version. This is a Bill Gates-like Lex that is probably worth 50, 60, 70 billion dollars. Its a very different Lex."
http://http://www.bleedingcool.com/...sequel/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
[/B]
When you have a handful of comics for Superman that are released every month with other characters in it there's no worries bc you know next month you get more Supes.
But when you have to wait years for a legit Superman movie (let alone a franchise) the second movie has rumors of not 1 but 4 other heroes in it
Plus baddies, plus secondary characters of Superman plus rumors of other secondary characters for the 4 other heroes
A Superman fan starts to feel some kinda way about that. And may start saying things like, "This isn't a Superman movie anymore".
I can empathize with that.