BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - Part 37

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's easy to solve; you don't hire a man not fitting for the direction you intend to do. That's the way of all productions.

In the same vein, had someone of Burton's sensibilities tried to make a Batman movie in 2003, WB probably intentionally snubbed him (even if he was the greatest director in the world with the best story ever) because they were looking at the likes of a Fincher, Aronofsky, and a Nolan.

Happens all the time behind-the-scenes.

Resulting in no nolan batfilms. Ignoring all the implications that would have on today's cinema(given our insight), particularly his first sequel, I think your easy remedy would result in a 'loss'

And for what gain exactly?
30 pieces lol.
 
But surely every project comes with it a set of boundaries? Even the decisions you make towards a creative direction will limit your options the deeper you go. The difference is knowing what your options are from the get-go, so you could pave your way towards the end with little trouble.

The bigger hurdle here is who is at the top of the heap of this DCU. Because while I think it's feasible to create solo properties which are as well written by themselves, as they are co-existing with others, there needs to be serious pre-planning at work. Should they handle this on a film by film basis, I do think they've set themselves up for failure in the long run.
Yes, every project does come with it's own boundaries, and the deeper nolan/goyer got into the story the more rules they had to work within(see dent act). The point being nolan's best work came under these boundaries alone, he obviously seeks to and fought for his ideal story telling conditions and to impose rules that completely restructure his stories would be quite a thing to do the the artist, no doubt resulting in very different films. Perhaps better, perhaps worse. Just saying it's a draw back that TDKR wouldn't exist as it does, and if it did, it would be under the criticism of heavy plot holes(ergo it would no doubt need to be a very different story).

Superman Red Son is a great example of this working. However it's a crossover story from the outset. The same way BvS is and why I have high hopes for the movie. Going forward into the Batfleck solo's....I have my concerns about the scope and what would be needed to achieve it.
There are just too many batman stories I love that would be ruined if I ask myself why Manhunter isn't being paged. Fine for the books, but in a live action film..I just don't know.

I think that's a bit different however, as many of those mandates came in the middle of writing those stories. That's unacceptable and I would agree is a disservice to the artists.
On both occasions the writers had to accommodate to the goings on of things outside of their story. Hard to say if they knew beforehand but it definitely hurt. Scott Snyder is a fun guy but I was told jms left marvel after that awesome Thor run.
 
Understand that this problem with connected continuitys isn't unique to marvel studios films, or comic book movies in general; it's a problem with the medium as a whole, it goes right back to the source material.
You could look at literally any major event/fight in the comics and say, "well why didn't _____ show up?". The genre itself is flawed from the start, if you want to get right down to it.
Doesn't mean these films shouldn't try and offer some sort of explanation, I just think that if they ever don't have a great reason it shouldn't be counted against them. I just think at a certain point we're nitpicking and trying to find reasons to not enjoy a movie.
Understand it's that characters solo film, and judge the movie based by what you see on the screen.
I don't need to know why the green lantern corp didn't come and help out the earth during Zod terraforming our planet. I don't need to know where SHIELD was when the president was being held hostage. An explanation would be icing on the cake and would show a lot of forward thinking by the studios, but it won't ruin my overall enjoyment of the movies if none is offered.
 
Last edited:
Benefits of a shared movie universe (be they financial or creative) outweigh any potential flaws imo.

Tying a potential film franchise to a cw show is a different issue.
 
My feelings exactly.
That's why I won't hold it against the future DCU movies that no one other than Superman showed up when the earth was being destroyed. I enjoyed the Superman movie knowing I was seeing a Superman movie.
If I can accept a nearly invulnerable alien from a distant planet or a dude in a billion dollar high tech suit of armor fighting other ridiculously powered beings, I can accept that maybe all the other people with powers were busy for a couple of hours and couldn't get to the fight.
 
Resulting in no nolan batfilms. Ignoring all the implications that would have on today's cinema(given our insight), particularly his first sequel, I think your easy remedy would result in a 'loss'
It would be easy to designate it as a "loss" after the fact. The point is had Nolan never been hired, we would've had no idea what he would've brought. There is no perception of loss on a non-existent product.

And just as Nolan brought back Batman, that title could've been held by someone just as capable. You don't think in an industry whose productions and titles are in constant flux, we missed out on literally thousands of potentially great films and performances because of a bad decision? We never notice them because they mostly go under the radar.

I don't regret Nolan's films, but I'm not holding onto them like a precious artifact either. There are dozens of equally great talents just waiting to be plucked out at any given time.
 
You could look at literally any major event/fight in the comics and say, "well why didn't _____ show

Those who make that type of argument are ridiculous; it isn't even worth making. Maybe they had other stuff going on? Who knows. But it's a movie and it shouldn't even need to feel the need to explain it.
 
It would be easy to designate it as a "loss" after the fact. The point is had Nolan never been hired, we would've had no idea what he would've brought. There is no perception of loss on a non-existent product.

This just happens to be one of those rare occasions where a discussion like this actually benefits for' and hindsight.
 
My feelings exactly.
That's why I won't hold it against the future DCU movies that no one other than Superman showed up when the earth was being destroyed. I enjoyed the Superman movie knowing I was seeing a Superman movie.
If I can accept a nearly invulnerable alien from a distant planet or a dude in a billion dollar high tech suit of armor fighting other ridiculously powered beings, I can accept that maybe all the other people with powers were busy for a couple of hours and couldn't get to the fight.

Whom will you hold it against if they ask that of you 4 or 5 more times, I wonder. The specific point of this discussion.
 
I don't give a crap that Supes handled Captain Boardwalk and the Leatherette Squad alone, and I am guessing small minority of viewers MAY question it once the DCCU is introduced to the audience proper, but my gut tells me that most of them won't care either.
 
Whom will you hold it against if they ask that of you 4 or 5 more times, I wonder. The specific point of this discussion.

Why didn't Captain America or SHIELD intervene in the galactus trilogy when the fantastic four was trying to stop galactus from eating the earth? Or in the latest Mighty Avengers series when Ultron sent out a message to every electronic device that said he was going to destroy the world; why didn't Spider-man pop by for a second to help stop it? Surely he knew what was going on?
There are hundreds upon hundreds of examples like this in the comics, and no one ever bats an eye.
If you can suspend your disbelief enough to buy into the idea of a guy turning giant and green when he's angry, or of a nearly invincible alien from another planet who's weakness is a green rock, or a rich insane guy who dresses up like a bat, then why can't you buy that a handful of powerful people are busy and can't intervene during a world crisis?
 
But my point was that I really didn't think about that. It was Superman's movie, so I can overlook the fact that they didn't explain why Batman or Green Lantern didn't pop up.

1. It's possible that Green Lantern, depending which version (Hal, Kyle, or Jon) you're referring to, wasn't appointed as such for Earth during the events of MOS. And even if there was a Human Green Lantern for Earth, it's possible that they were on the other side of the galaxy when this all happened.

2. Even if Batman showed up, what could he have done to have made a difference? Plus, Batman is not one to go into a battle without knowing what he's dealing with and only day had passed when Zod had announced his presence to the world and started to cause havoc.
 
Why didn't Captain America or SHIELD intervene in the galactus trilogy when the fantastic four was trying to stop galactus from eating the earth? Or in the latest Mighty Avengers series when Ultron sent out a message to every electronic device that said he was going to destroy the world; why didn't Spider-man pop by for a second to help stop it?
Just because fans except it doesn't actually put it above criticism..
Why didn't cap and shield intervene? Depends on the excuse, if they didn't provide one I'd call it a plot hole. They happen.

Surely he knew what was going on?
There are hundreds upon hundreds of examples like this in the comics, and no one ever bats an eye.
If you can suspend your disbelief enough to buy into the idea of a guy turning giant and green when he's angry, or of a nearly invincible alien from another planet who's weakness is a green rock, or a rich insane guy who dresses up like a bat, then why can't you buy that a handful of powerful people are busy and can't intervene during a world crisis?

Depends how many times they ask me to buy it.

Gamma bombs going off and giving someone powers instead of killing them, I think the entire audience is game. A random or non random stumbling out there every week or so and the same thing occurring again and again, not so much. Difference between suspending belief for an sci fi incident and that of character motivation. Sometimes Galactus shows up appears above the planet in plain view of everyone and everyone does or says something about it. The movie audience is alot more focused and condensed vs 80 years of comic books plots. Usually we get 3 movies.

I just don't buy that same GL story happening in 4 straight dccu films without superman's lack of involvement having to be explained to the audience. IM3 was smart in that it wasn't a world ender with a cloud hovering above the planet. Just how long does it take superman to get up there again?
 
Those who make that type of argument are ridiculous; it isn't even worth making. Maybe they had other stuff going on? Who knows. But it's a movie and it shouldn't even need to feel the need to explain it.
No, that's the way movies nomally work, these new films connecting these gods are playing by different rules.

Depending on the stakes, scale and duration...

If superman is all about saving the world, and has super hearing, it stands to reason that he probably won't help batman out of all his petty and routine jams. It doesn't stand to reason that he won't help save the very planet he and his many loved ones live on over the course of say, a week. Not the guy who cares about life as much as fans suggest he does and not with super hearing.

Not saying that will be the case, but I'm not understanding this carte blanche perspective either.

I'm still surprised batman let robin be taken as long as he did in Return of the Joker, without even thinking of asking for help. Alot easier to swallow before the Adventures of Superman and Batman. Love that movie though.

Sometimes the guardians of the galaxy have stuff going on in the galaxy somewhere. Half these folks face world ending antagonism whilst residing in the same city. I find it fun but I'm not blind to it and it will no doubt elicit criticism eventually. Luckily the mcu hasn't quite dealt with heroes living in the city the way they would if they owned all their properties. See oscorp towel two blocks over from stark tower to blocks over from baxter to blocks over from xaviers...etc.
 
Last edited:
I use my own fanboy logic for this situation. lol

I'd like to think each hero can handle their own city....And will only use the help of the others in case of a major earth catastrophic event. This probably doesn't make any sense, but it helps me enjoy these movies.
 
The audience as a whole is just not as hung up on this issue. IRON MAN 3's is a bit of a testament to that, I'd say.
 
1. It's possible that Green Lantern, depending which version (Hal, Kyle, or Jon) you're referring to, wasn't appointed as such for Earth during the events of MOS. And even if there was a Human Green Lantern for Earth, it's possible that they were on the other side of the galaxy when this all happened.

2. Even if Batman showed up, what could he have done to have made a difference? Plus, Batman is not one to go into a battle without knowing what he's dealing with and only day had passed when Zod had announced his presence to the world and started to cause havoc.

Sorry man. I wasn't actually asking you to justify it. I honestly wasn't even thinking about it and that was my point--to me, it didn't matter. They can always come up with a story behind the others not being there.
 
I use my own fanboy logic for this situation. lol

I'd like to think each hero can handle their own city....And will only use the help of the others in case of a major earth catastrophic event. This probably doesn't make any sense, but it helps me enjoy these movies.
Makes perfect sense. Conveniently each hero even resides in their own separate city/state (sometimes even worlds), so there is reasonable leeway for them to be attending their own matters at any given moment.
 
Sorry man. I wasn't actually asking you to justify it. I honestly wasn't even thinking about it and that was my point--to me, it didn't matter. They can always come up with a story behind the others not being there.

Where was IM during Thor?
 
Given how IM 2 ended, probably having some "fun time" with Pepper Potts.
 
The audience as a whole is just not as hung up on this issue. IRON MAN 3's is a bit of a testament to that, I'd say.
Thor TDW is another testament to that. And I'm sure that most people aren't going to be sitting in the theatre during TWS wondering where the Hulk is and why he isn't helping out.
 
Thor TDW is another testament to that. And I'm sure that most people aren't going to be sitting in the theatre during TWS wondering where the Hulk is and why he isn't helping out.

Overall people don't care about plot holes in the mcu films.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"