BvS Batman Vs. Superman... can this be a fair physical fight?

[Andreth]

It doesn't need to be fair and of course it's not. That's the beauty of it. Batman has no chance to deal with Superman in a fistfight and he knows it; and Superman would never have a fistfight with a guy like Batman cause of his moral code. Batman will try to contain him strategically .

Of course.

But when this has happened, Superman always ends up looking like an idiot.

Which is exactly what we're fearing.

For storytelling purposes, Batman is the underdog, and people instinctively root for the underdog... so it plays to audience expectations to give Batman the victory.

Honestly I'd prefer them not to fight at all though.

Lol yeah, that's the only way to avoid the issue. You can't win with this.

 

[ThePhantasm]

But he won't be portrayed as an underdog if he's an antagonist. For me Batman winning right now would be heavily predictable and could seriously damage Superman's character on film. I don't think it's a good idea for Batman to win at all.

Batman won't be an antagonist.

 

[BH/HHH]

Batman won't be an antagonist.

You know this how? There's alot of people who thinks he will be including those on the BOF podcast.

 

[ThePhantasm]

You know this how? There's alot of people who thinks he will be including those on the BOF podcast.

It would be an awful mistake. Batman, one of the most popular superheroes, is turned into the adversary of a Superman movie? When they are trying to set up Justice League? C'mon. They'll fight, but this movie will certainly see them team up against another threat. Batman can't function as an adversary in a 2-hour film anyways... if he and Supes can't reconcile over the course of a full plot then both characters will just look stupid.

And I don't really care what they think on the BOF podcast.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

But he won't be portrayed as an underdog if he's an antagonist. For me Batman winning right now would be heavily predictable and could seriously damage Superman's character on film. I don't think it's a good idea for Batman to win at all.

I think he should start with the upper hand until Superman burns away his armor and pulls him out.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I think he should start with the upper hand until Superman burns away his armor and pulls him out.

That's going to be a short fight, unless Superman is portrayed as too stupid to try heat vision until after five minutes of brawling.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I WANT a short fight. I want it to be three minutes tops, and rub in the fact that Batman was over his head, and Superman was holding back majorly.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Batman won't be an antagonist.

Antagonistic in the sense of the exact definition of a person preventing the hero from achieving his goal. Sure, I can see it. Antagonist doesn't necessarily mean bad guy or an evil person. They're going to have conflict, we all know this, and in its nature can be seen as antagonistic.

In a way, I can see both men thinking the other is the bad guy. Which will make them think they can take the other down.

 

[BH/HHH]

Antagonistic in the sense of the exact definition of a person preventing the hero from achieving his goal. Sure, I can see it. Antagonist doesn't necessarily mean bad guy or an evil person. They're going to have conflict, we all know this, and in its nature can be seen as antagonistic.

In a way, I can see both men thinking the other is the bad guy. Which will make them think they can take the other down.

Thanks, you just said pretty much what I was going to reply with. You probably said it better than I would have t:

 

[BatLobster]

It would be an awful mistake. Batman, one of the most popular superheroes, is turned into the adversary of a Superman movie? When they are trying to set up Justice League? C'mon. They'll fight, but this movie will certainly see them team up against another threat. Batman can't function as an adversary in a 2-hour film anyways... if he and Supes can't reconcile over the course of a full plot then both characters will just look stupid.

And I don't really care what they think on the BOF podcast.

The thing is, Batman is such a malleable character. He always walks that razor's edge between light and dark too, and he's darker in some interpretations than others, so I could honestly see him being portrayed as somewhat of an antagonist that you sort of root for because you see where he's coming from. A grey character perhaps.

Because he's not a hero...he's whatever the story needs him to be...

 

[ThePhantasm]

But that's totally the wrong way to play this. The right way is to give both of the heroes motivations that we can sympathize with, so that both are protagonists but lock horns at the beginning because of (x) reason. If you make one the antagonist and one the protagonist, that immediately casts one (possibly both) of the characters in a negative light and I think diminishes them.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Antagonistic in the sense of the exact definition of a person preventing the hero from achieving his goal. Sure, I can see it. Antagonist doesn't necessarily mean bad guy or an evil person. They're going to have conflict, we all know this, and in its nature can be seen as antagonistic.

In a way, I can see both men thinking the other is the bad guy. Which will make them think they can take the other down.

Why is Supes the "hero" attempting to achieve his goal while Batman is the "antagonist" in your equation? Why not vis versa, if the principle is that there is only a misunderstanding between them? Or does it go both ways?

Do you see what I'm saying? It diminishes Batman to make him simply the "threat" to Superman's "hero of the story," regardless of whether Batman is portrayed as "evil" or not. They are both heroes, but locked in combat. We want both of them to win, i.e. for both of them to emerge from this in an alliance.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah but on the other hand, Batman is SO popular and iconic that I that he can overcome that. We just instinctively like him and tend to root for him, especially because he's the more badass antihero type.

And I think having them fight in a low stakes battle at the beginning of the story diminishes the potential to do something meaningful there. If they're going to fight, it should be a monumental moment that the film builds towards. It's a waste of potential suspense building if they release that tension too early.

That said, I don't think Batman will be THE antagonist of the story, but I do think he will act someone antagonistically towards Superman for a large portion of the story. I think Lex Luthor will be the true antagonist.

Perhaps Batman and Superman will be sort of like dual protagonists with a conflict of interests. Sort of like Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon in TDK.

 

[ThePhantasm]

The issue isn't about what the character can overcome. Its about whether the film is respecting the character and his iconic status.

The character overcame the Schumacher films. That doesn't mean those films were a good idea.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm going to make a weird analogy here...

But in the 2007 TMNT film, Leo and Raph were portrayed as completely at odds with one another the whole time, culminating in a big fight at the end of Act 2 (which Raph won I might add). They then were able to pull it together for Act 3 and work as a team. Neither character was diminished when all was said and done. Say what you will about that movie, but I thought their relationship was handled really well. Funnily enough, Raph was also portrayed as a costumed vigilante who was spending his nights cleaning up the streets in that movie too. And Leo saw the "The Nightwatcher" as a bad guy.

My point is, it can be done in a way that's respectful to both characters and doesn't diminish who they are at the core. It's impossible for Bruce to be the true antagonist of this story, because ultimately his goals aren't going to align with whatever the "big" threat is in the film (most likely stemming from whatever Lex's plans are). But he can act in an antagonistic way for a portion of the story.

Having Batman and Superman act chummy for most of the film would be a huge disservice to the inherent potential of that relationship, IMO.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

But that's totally the wrong way to play this. The right way is to give both of the heroes motivations that we can sympathize with, so that both are protagonists but lock horns at the beginning because of (x) reason. If you make one the antagonist and one the protagonist, that immediately casts one (possibly both) of the characters in a negative light and I think diminishes them.

Not necessarily. Batman can be antagonistic, but the character can be an extension of the fears people have of Superman. And I am sure the audience will understand why folks would be afraid of someone with near unstoppable power.

When he becomes "redeemed" through his understanding of Superman, we can then experience a softer side of Bruce, including his heroic ideals and loyalty.

 

[BatLobster]

Not necessarily. Batman can be antagonistic, but the character can be an extension of the fears people have of Superman. And I am sure the audience will understand why folks would be afraid of someone with near unstoppable power.

When he becomes "redeemed" through his understanding of Superman, we can then experience a softer side of Bruce, including his heroic ideals and loyalty.

Precisely.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Having Batman and Superman act chummy for most of the film would be a huge disservice to the inherent potential of that relationship, IMO.

I think you are misunderstanding my point... I'm not saying they should be chummy for most of the film, or that the fight has to be done with in the first act. I'm questioning the characterization of Supes as the "hero" and Bats as the "antagonist" and saying that doesn't reflect the kind of dynamic conflict I want to see... or that I think would be wise to portray.

I don't see how your analogy contradicts what I'm saying, but then I haven't seen the 2007 TMNT film.

 

[hafizbat]

IF they do fight, I think it would be visually striking to see Superman with his eyes lit red contrasted with Batman's white lenses. It would show how they're in combat mode, and later when they've buddied up they can show the real eye colors. Thoughts?

 

[ThePhantasm]

Not necessarily. Batman can be antagonistic, but the character can be an extension of the fears people have of Superman. And I am sure the audience will understand why folks would be afraid of someone with near unstoppable power.

When he becomes "redeemed" through his understanding of Superman, we can then experience a softer side of Bruce, including his heroic ideals and loyalty.

Batman is the only one who needs to have his perspective changed? Superman doesn't get an arc in this film?

Or does Superman have some philosophical differences with Bats that he needs to deal with as well?

See, making Batman the antagonist and Supes the pure "hero" diminishes Supes. Or it diminishes Bats. Or it diminishes both. They are getting shortchanged in that equation.

Superman is a protagonist. Batman is a protagonist. They don't see eye to eye. They fight. Both have character arcs affected by their encounter with the other. There's a balance - neither character is just there to be the other's adversary or whatever. See what I'm saying? I'm arguing for character balance here.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Superman DOES get in arc, if this is a TRUE sequel. His character focus should be how he handles himself as a person, lover, peacekeeper, and superhero.

Batman can afford a thin character arc, because he'll inevitably get his own movie afterward.

 

[BatLobster]

I think you are misunderstanding my point... I'm not saying they should be chummy for most of the film, or that the fight has to be done with in the first act. I'm questioning the characterization of Supes as the "hero" and Bats as the "antagonist" and saying that doesn't reflect the kind of dynamic conflict I want to see... or that I think would be wise to portray.

I don't see how your analogy contradicts what I'm saying, but then I haven't seen the 2007 TMNT film.

Okay, maybe we're slightly misunderstanding each other then. But again, I'm not saying Batman should be THE antagonist. Just that he may act antagonistically to Superman at certain points of the film and view him with a fair degree of distrust, especially given the fallout of the Metropolis destruction.

In other words...if they're going to fight, I see Batman starting or inviting that fight more than I see Superman doing it. Which makes sense too, because Batman shouldn't get into a fight with Superman unless he's prepared for it and Superman shouldn't start a fight with Batman when he knows he can kill him with a flick of his finger.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Okay, maybe we're slightly misunderstanding each other then. But again, I'm not saying Batman should be THE antagonist. Just that he may act antagonistically to Superman at certain points of the film and view him with some mistrust.

In other words...if they're going to fight, I see Batman starting or inviting that fight more than Superman.

This, this, this! THE antagonist should be someone bigger (Lex), hopefully with a henchmen that he can use to frame Supes, then blame when the plot is exposed.

Batman should try to sneak attack Superman. That's what he does.

He should stand in the way of Superman saving the day to complicate the plot. Kind of like when Mr. Potato punches Woody out of the moving van (thinking he tried to get Buzz kidnapped)

So many Toy Story metaphors. The filmmakers should rewatch it

 

[ThePhantasm]

Okay, maybe we're slightly misunderstanding each other then. But again, I'm not saying Batman should be THE antagonist. Just that he may act antagonistically to Superman at certain points of the film and view him with a fair degree of distrust, especially given the fallout of the Metropolis destruction.

In other words...if they're going to fight, I see Batman starting or inviting that fight more than I see Superman doing it. Which makes sense too, because Batman shouldn't get into a fight with Superman unless he's prepared for it and Superman shouldn't start a fight with Batman when he knows he can kill him with a flick of his finger.

Yes, I'm fine with that.

My concern is that this will simply be a MOS movie "with Batman in it" rather than a legitimate Batman / Superman movie where both characters get their due. I don't want this to be just "Batman is the threat but he comes around in the end and then they fight the bad guy."

 

[BatLobster]

Yes, I'm fine with that.

My concern is that this will simply be a MOS movie "with Batman in it" rather than a legitimate Batman / Superman movie where both characters get their due. I don't want this to be just "Batman is the threat but he comes around in the end and then they fight the bad guy."

I hear you there. But this is where the conflict between what Batman fans want and what Superman fans want will come into play I suppose.

Gonna be interesting!