Discussion in 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' started by Thread Manager, Nov 6, 2013.
It makes me sad that Spacey was wasted on Superman Returns.
I don't think he would do a better job, regardless the script. He is an actor who looks back on actors he admires for inspiration and guidance. He's a bit "stuck" if you get what i mean. He doesn't get a different Luthor beacause i don't think he is a guy who is going to sit down and read 40 years of luthor to portray the character.
I wonder if we'll get a real comic-booky villain in this or not. I kinda think it will just be Lex Luthor and the Government who are responding and taking measures against Batman and Superman who are operating outside of the law. And they will mobilize heavy high-tech fire-power to take them down.
As a skeleton script idea it could go something like:
Start as a sequel to MOS, by showing Superman now established and helping in some crisis. Then the military intervenes and tries to take him down but fails. (as based on the end of MOS, Washington doesn't trust Superman, and based on what happened to Metropolis, that's pretty fair).
Then establish Batman, who is just as distrustful and fearful of what Superman is and represents and decides that the army is useless and he will take it on himself to take Superman down with his privatized equipment.
Middle of the film crux is Batman vs Superman, and Snyder gets to do his 'the one person who beat you' Bat-wank, as Batman uses every weaponized trick in the book to take down Supes. Basically the end of TDKR and from the fight in Hush: Firepower from his Batmobile/tank, hitting him with the entire cities electrical grid, hypersonics, probably Kryptonite if they introduce it.
Then the American military tries to take out both of them. And Bats starts to realize that Superman is not the enemy and the government is corrupt with Luthor (as some weapons benefactor) is pulling strings.
The finale is Batman and Superman working together to take on Luthor's trillion-dollar high-tech robotic mechanized infantry designed as their anti-alien defense after the Kryptonian invasion.
Another way they could go if they really follow TDKReturns/Strikes Again is having the government ask Superman to take down Batman, in order to gain their trust. Thus leading to their confrontation, and ultimately their partnership and turning against the government and Lexcorp.
Cavill's Superman would never do that.
That's the thing though. We really don't know Cavill's Superman.
Cavill's Superman was wandering Alaska in his 30's with no drive to make a difference on Earth, only helping situations that arose around him. Compare this to the young Clark in Birthright, who's traveling the Earth as a journalist and pro-actively learning as much as he can so he can help. Or the young cocky social activist in the New 52 Action Comics, where Clark is an idealist and is fighting against 'the man' in his Bruce Springsteen t-shirt and jeans.
Jor-El in MOS tells Clark 'You can save all of them' and 'you can be all these things to them, yadda yadda'. Then there's the heart-breaking panel in All-Star where Pa Kent has died and he's flying as fast as he can to even his hair has caught fire and screaming 'NO I CAN SAVE EVERYONE!'. Not to mention Cavill's Clark just watching his adoptive father die in MOS, because he would have to out himself if he saved him. But that's a 'mistake' that Clark would make to save anyone, at least based on the character we know from the comics.
Cavill's Superman has no drive or ambition. His ghost dad basically tells him what to be. It's all just circumstance. And then to top it all off he kills Zod.
Do we really know this character?
When Jor-El says "You can save all of them" and Jonathan says "You have to make a choice" Clark is given a choice from the get-go to be their hero or not , he wasn't forced into it by his ghost dad. After seeing the kindness of people and sacrifices people would do for him because of what he can bring to the world, thus culminating in that choice. Only then, he really gets the drive to "save all of them".
Er, we do know Cavill's Superman. He said "You can't control me, and you never will", and also "I'm here to help, but on my own terms".
Does that sound like a man who's going to become a government lackey because he desperately wants to make nice with the military?
No. So if he ends up doing anything for the military (which seems doubtful), it would most likely be in the form of some major coercion, or perhaps even a ploy on his part to gather information.
Well as a reporter he'd probably be reading in to this 'masked vigilante' in Gotham. And if Swanwick is under pressure to try and sway Washington, and says it would help gain their trust if he helped them bring the Batman in... It doesn't take much imagination to come up with this stuff.
So that's why he didn't save him? Some selfish intrinsic reason, nothing to do with the greater good as he understood it or anything of that sort. Just his secret id like some sort of peter parker observing a missile fall into a baseball stadium he's in type of scene...
It's so clear when you compare it to something of entirely different context such as AllStar. The better example would have been to put the all star characterization in the mos scenario....
Cause if we take 2 seconds to put young cavill in the all star scenario, what do you think would happen?
Ultimately it boils down to this, "clark just watching"
Take that same scene and remove jon kent's wishes, once that's done, look at how much clark the kid, really cared about keeping his secret.
I was about to post exactly that.
Also the TDKReturns plot is outdated. Not that government conspiracies do not exist (especially with the recent surveillance system) but it would be of bad taste if you do it right away.
I am in for TDKReturns adaptation in a Batman Trilogy with Ben Affleck in his 50s. Solo films with Superman having a role similar (but not as boyscouty) as his role in TDKReturns. Include cyberpunk/dystopian elements, the economical crisis, sons of batman. It's going to be biblical, but its too soon for that.
What are you talking about?
That's another thing. Other than the scenes with his Ma and Pa, and with Lois, the movie clearly tries to paint an ugly picture of Clark's interactions with humanity before becoming Superman. The flashbacks showing him being attacked for being a 'freak'. The trucker picking a fight for him, after which Clark spitefully impales his truck. Clark is shown saving these people, but there's definitely a detached coldness there too. Mark Waid commented on this too by quoting a Charles Schulz line: I love mankind
its people I cant stand.
He was abiding Pa Kents wishes to not out himself as a godlike alien, thus causing massive ramifications on society. The Clark I know really wouldn't care less about that when a human life is in danger; he would make the 'mistake'.
I wasn't comparing those two scenes. I was comparing Jor-El telling a 33-year old Clark that he can 'save everyone' and be all this to them, to the All-Star scene of a much younger Clark already thinking he can 'save everyone'.
So not sure what you mean putting Cavill in the All-Star scenario. They're clearly two different characters.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. He cried out in pain? But still let it happen...
Maybe Superman would go and look into Batman if the military asked him to. But what would he get out of it? He's already stated that he didn't want to be holding hands with the military, and I doubt he'd just trust them if they promised to lay off him for a while.
And why would the military/US government need or want to use Superman to take out Batman? They would have to do some major plot gymnastics to sell me this story.
It's been used in comics from the past decade or so that Superman and the military have an uneasy relationship. I don't think that Snyder and Goyer are going to do an about-face and make Superman a needy guy who just really wants to be loved by the government.
I think Clark's feeling towards the human race are reflected in the scene with the priest. Clark's instinct is to turn himself over in order to protect the human race. But his distrust of the human race makes him question his decision rather than instantly respond.
Clark's experiences are not exactly the same as his comic book counterpart and his reactions reflect that.
Yeah I agree. It depends how much Snyder holds TDKReturns sacred. I much rather think it would be Batman chasing down Superman than the other way around. I'm just spit-balling different possible story ideas. We've got 2 years til this movie comes out. Least it's something to pass the time.
No it didn't. The flashbacks showed us how difficult things were for Clark, but we also saw him dealing throughout the film with people who were good and brave, like the fishing trawler, the Coast Guard, the military, the priest, Lois, and Chrissie, and even Lana and Pete had moments where they were kind. There are plenty of examples of the goodness and yes, the complexities of the human race.
Clark saved mankind not because they were always perfect, but because he saw that there were people worth saving.
The Clark you "know" isn't in this film, which explains all your problems. You came in with preconceived notions on how Superman should be, which tainted your viewing of the film.
Superman has made mistakes in comics. One of the most difficult examples is "The Fall of Camelot", where he is dealing with the "monster" that the scientists created. The monster tells Superman that he has to choose between the victim and the abusers (the abusers in this case were all humans). Clark beats the crap out of the 'monster' to save the humans. It was an impossible choice for Superman to face. I liken that moment very much to what happened in MOS, only it's worse for Superman, because it's more personal, and he's a child, with absolutely zero experience to rely on.
Clark hesitates one moment too long while he wrestles the instinct to obey his father's wishes, or the instinct to save his dad. He didn't just "let" his father die. He wasn't standing there just watching. He was indecisive, kept moving as he tried to figure out what to do. He was a scared child, with the weight of a difficult decision riding on his shoulders. There was no right decision in that moment, only a difficult one. It's why the scene is so painful.
Quick edit for disclaimer: I can't remember for sure if that comic is "Fall of Camelot", or if I have the entire situation correct. It's been ages since I read it.
@Tempest I don't think the third act was long.. IMO it was just the scenario where two powerful beigns fight and obviously for me it was not long not short it was just the right time
Also the acknowledgement (for me the cementery scene was a little thing in memory of the casualties) could be used as a key in the MOS2 intro making the impact double and not resting the impact of the DP and the CK child, just as I said in previous post ala TDK-BB leaving in the air (the panic, the criminals, and destruction and casualties closed in that scene)
Fishing trawler: 'Where the hell'd they find you, Freeborn?'
Military showed extreme prejudice until the end of the Smallville fight.
The priest was clearly scared of Clark.
Pete Ross: 'Dick wad'.
I'm not sure it was really shown how and why Clark really loved everyone. The movie painted a pretty bleak picture there. Mark Waid explains it better than me.
Good points. That's the real debate though. How far can you push something from it's source before it becomes something else. Snyder definitely pushed. Superman who before had a happy healthy upbringing with the love of his adopted parents, who taught him to reciprocate that love towards everyone else and make the world a better place. To MOS where he has a closeted upbringing, lived in fear of exposing himself as well as the bottled up angst of letting his father die for this reason, and is generally treated poorly by everyone around him, is given his 'purpose' from Jor-El, and is now a murderer. That is the new Superman.
Respect that but I think calling him a little souless is rude and not to mention nosense IMO, for me has the right amount of emotion, a middle term and the scenes were written great with its issues I can't denny that but specially the emotional scenes were well done and pretty much feeling those moments along the movie taking place.
You know it was an origin movie and the character that needed to be developed was great developed as the main character Superman, the other character were good developed and not too much cause they didn't need it IMO and with potential to be developed in future sequels and not doing the movie too tedious in too much development resting importance to the origin and the main character.
As BB did, the intro of the movie can be from Superman saving casualties from the W.E. attack.
IMO that could take out the effect of joy and hope the kid clark and DP scene had for me, not to mention the double impact that could have as TDK scarecrow thing that BB left into the air (all the panic, the bad guys free and destruction left to the city closed in that scene)
In the movies no.. but in the comics was an epic villain
In that aspect we know (scene between the military) that he's not a puppet of the goverment. that's for sure
this is the previous one:
Also a "murderer" only less interesting to the GA it seems.
Curious what you mean by given purpose from JorEl. Surely you don't mean started saving lives after leaving the fortress...
My question being, what purpose outside of the traditional meeting jor el purpose are you referring.
Did you have an issue with these same points in the Christopher Reeve movies? Seemed to me that character was closeted too. Seemed like he wanted to play football and his father wouldn't let him. He even got a talking to for showing off. He is teased pretty much for most of his childhood we see. He never saves anyone and doesn't become a force for good until his 'father' gives him the suit and a purpose
.and he murdered three people.
Oh SR got the character wrong too.
I'm referring to Jor-El telling Clark 'You will guide them Kal', 'You will give them an ideal to strive toward', 'You can save all of them' and giving him his suit and cape. Whereas before that Clark was unhappily wandering the States.