Do you think Batman will hamper MOS2?

[TheFlamingCoco]

They might fight at the beginning.
I think the opposite. When superman was badly wounded n nearly die after defeating doomsday, batman is the one who save superman. Using the knowledge learned fr the resarch on zod's body.

Later on, after they become friends or teammates.

But Doomsday is TOO SOON. Especially after the devastation near the end Man of Steel.

 

[sf2]

Later on, after they become friends or teammates.

But Doomsday is TOO SOON. Especially after the devastation near the end Man of Steel.

That could be the reason the become friends n in a team.
Too soon? Well, if it was announced by WB, you wouldn't say so.
Just like batman.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

That could be the reason the become friends n in a team.
Too soon? Well, if it was announced by WB, you wouldn't say so.
Just like batman.

Well one of the biggest complaints MOS gets is the amount of destruction, getting Doomsday so soon wouldn't be a good idea (critically) and may bore the audience.

 

[Asgard]

I feel like the movie is going to be a true 50/50 endeavor. 50% Superman, 50% Batman.

Snyder tries to downplay things and intimating itll be a Superman movie with Batman being just one element, but I dont buy it.

MOS2/WF/Superman vs Batman will serve as the introduction film of the new Batman so I feel like hes going to get just as much screen time as Supes.

Whether thats a good thing or not, Im not sure. On one hand I feel like its kind of sad that the Superman character wont get his "own" trilogy of films, but on the other its kind of exciting to see a superhero movie that's a true teamup between two major characters.

 

[sf2]

Well one of the biggest complaints MOS gets is the amount of destruction, getting Doomsday so soon wouldn't be a good idea (critically) and may bore the audience.

The essence of the complaint isn't about the too much destruction... it is... CARE. Superman was like scatch-free after such a massive fight... thus it can't induce care fr the audience on him. And there wasn't enough care showed by him to the people and the surrounding.

Therefore, I think Doomsday is a very wise choose. It will pose a life danger to superman. It will make the GA care for him as long as he was showed care to the people.

I really think the timing is perfect. N WB have been trying to do doomsday for years!!!

Let's bring it on!!!

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

That could be the reason the become friends n in a team.
Too soon? Well, if it was announced by WB, you wouldn't say so.
Just like batman.

YES, a team-up film is TOTALLY too soon. The world around Clark and the titular character needs to be fleshed out more. I'm nervous about Batman stealing the spotlight and delaying a "truer" sequel.

But done right, Batman can add to the story as a sequel. It'd be hard to do it right so that it fulfills its obligations as a sequel-that is to develop the characters and themes from an earlier installment.

But even then, I think it will be an entertaining film, perhaps a good to great one. I just feel like WF should have been AFTER MOS2.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Since this is a shared universe now, once a hero becomes public, there is going to be a reaction from someone else in the hero world. Once Iron Man became public there was an immediate reaction by Fury showing up at the end, then we got a healthy does of Fury and SHIELD in IM2. Fury didn't wait around.

In this case, the immediate reaction is coming from Batman. Batman is not going to sit around and wait until Superman is more "fleshed" out. He is going to want to know right away what Superman is about and can he be trusted going forward. You can't have a shared universe and expect no other hero to surface and question what happened at the end of MOS, that was too big a deal.

 

[STARMAN]

The Lois and Clark relationship is most at risk. I'm not even talking a silly love triangle with Bruce. I'm talking about Lois being there just to assist Superman and Batman on their adventure rather then her relationship with Clark/Superman being fleshed out.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

The Lois and Clark relationship is most at risk. I'm not even talking a silly love triangle with Bruce. I'm talking about Lois being there just to assist Superman and Batman on their adventure rather then her relationship with Clark/Superman being fleshed out.

Yes, and so are scenes about Clark as a person trying to struggle between his newfound superheroics and his relationship between others. Also, Nick Fury in Iron Man 2 was rather distracting.

But I totally didn't mind Coulsen in IM1. If Batman can serve as a really minor role, Clark can have his own movie.

If MOS was like BB (which in my mind, OVERFLESHED, everything out) I'd be fine with a Superman/Batman follow up. But since it's more like Spider-Man 1, it HAS to have a nice, slow-paced sequel to build on everything established.

 

[STARMAN]

Look at some positives in comparison to MOS. Clark didn't appear until the end so we know we'll be getting more Clark at the Daily Planet. The first 20 minutes of MOS was set on Krypton and Superman doesn't really appear to much later. Here, you should see Superman right from the opening scene.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Look at some positives in comparison to MOS. Clark didn't appear until the end so we know we'll be getting more Clark at the Daily Planet. The first 20 minutes of MOS was set on Krypton and Superman doesn't really appear to much later. Here, you should see Superman right from the opening scene.

Plus, they can show a new Batman without people griping that the film itself isn't up to Nolan quality. Critics just want it better than MOS, and many fans have been wanting to see a great DC crossover in over a decade.

I don't have a ton of confidence in Goyer to deliver on the ideas of MOS, but without him, this film wouldn't exist to begin with. And Snyder added a lot of touches which gave the film a sense of personality, though he handled the editing on a subpar manner.

I do want a person better with dialog to write the nuts and bolts of the screenplay, though.

 

[John Lambert]

A joint Superman/Batman movie this early in the Man of Steel franchise is going to be a very difficult thing to pull off well. It's not impossible to do, but I think it takes a lot more talent and intelligence than either Snyder or Goyer have. I've never found either of them to be particularly good at writing or directing.

Yet, in 1986 right when the rebooted Superman in the comics, they put batman in very early on. Why are movies so different?

 

[John Lambert]

I have no idea where this film is going. No idea at all. Everyone here makes really good arguments.

I think the only thing that is obvious is that while WB MOS did better than they expected, they also felt it could have done more. They are very happy because MOS is the most successful Superman film since SM2.

They want to protect this Superman franchise in order to do that they need to inject a little bat blood.

Goyer did mention that Superman will deal with the issues left behind in MOS. And that Superman will be realized. That stuff sounds like direct sequel to me. But with going saying Supes vs. Bats, I'm not sure where things are.

I'm sure an executive suggested Batman for business reasons. I'm sure Snyder and Goyer didn't have that in mind but I think they think of it as a cool way to further the story.

But again no idea. But if it's a true MOS sequel they won't use that logo.

So who knows.

MOS is the top grossing Superman film ever. Also, it made a higher profit compared to its production cost. Superman II just made double its production cost, MOS is closing in on making triple its production cost.

 

[sf2]

MOS is the top grossing Superman film ever. Also, it made a higher profit compared to its production cost. Superman II just made double its production cost, MOS is closing in on making triple its production cost.

I guess perception matters the most.

 

[JOE]

MOS 2 with Batman is going to make money. There's no doubt. Whether it will cross that 1B line is still yet to be scene. Very premature to predict. However, I can already see the arguments in the future if it does. "It only made 1B cause Batman was in it." It is inevitable.

 

[manofsteel4life]

MOS 2 with Batman is going to make money. There's no doubt. Whether it will cross that 1B line is still yet to be scene. Very premature to predict. However, I can already see the arguments in the future if it does. "It only made 1B cause Batman was in it." It is inevitable.

I know right

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Yet, in 1986 right when the rebooted Superman in the comics, they put batman in very early on. Why are movies so different?

Movies and comics? They're quite different.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Movies and comics? They're quite different.

In a perfect world though

 

[John Lambert]

It's no surprise they turned to WF so soon.Where the heck could they go after a world invasion that leveled an entire city and having Supes be forced to kill?There was no way to raise the stakes any higher,since they squeezed events that should've taken place over an entire trilogy into one film.

Actually, I am more glad that they resolved the main issues of the film within the film. This is a gripe about STM, the opening sets up villains who we never again see in the film. Films should be complete works unto themselves. I know people accept a different approach with LOTR, Harry Potter and the Hobbit, but with the open endedness of comic book films it works better if each film is a complete work.

Also, there were other ways to move forward. I think the big problem though is that you don't just need to move forward, you need to tell the GA you are doing so, so they want to come back. That is where bringing in Batman becomes critical.

 

[John Lambert]

MOS 2 is what SHOULD have happened after MOS 1, not WF's imho given where Superman was left at the end of MOS.

IF Superman was fully formed in his role by the end of MOS, I"d say, go for a WF. But he was not. Steve Rogers was already fully formed in his captain America gig before he arrived in the Avengers. And Thor was fully formed as the Asgardian Prince/Warrior before the Avengers as well.

And honestly, it's not a given that they'll be able to get Amy and Henry back for every time they go about making a film involving the characters within the foreseeable future.

As I've said before, the only people that I can see caring about this announcement are Batman fans, not superman only fans.

Sort of like Thor 2 should have happened after Thor 1?

 

[John Lambert]

I think this is a good thing, though. I felt like MOS was development of Clark Kent with an explosive introduction of Superman at the end. If anything, who he is as Superman is what I feel like needs to be developed more. He needs to truly become the savior of Metropolis.

We did not see "Clark Kent" until the last scene of MOS. "Clark Kent" is reporter for the Daily Planet, who wears glasses to hide his identity. He is not just any Clark Kent, but "Clark Kent", and we like him, although we like true Clark too, which is always slightly different than his public persona. We do not know yet to what extent he will put on an act to distract people from thinking he is Superman. We shall see. We see "Clark Kent" born in MOS, but we do not see the full realization.

 

[John Lambert]

I think they may save the Bat in full fledged costume and not waste that shot until the end of the movie and into Justice League. I feel we'll see more of Clarks interaction and building relations with Lois Lane and Bruce Wayne than Superman/Batman. The Bat reveal will be more towards the end with the buildup to the Supes/Bats confrontation. They won't reveal that early.

If they really want to mess with us, they will take a page from MOS. When Lois first meets Clark he is going by Joe. So what if in MOS2, Bruce Wayne decides that he needs to investigate what is up with this super-powered being Kal-el who some call Superman. Well, let's suppose he realizes that Batman is too secretive to actually investigate and Bruce Wayne is just too famous. So he shows up under some assumed name, say James Olsen. So we just meet James Olsen, and it is not until near the end of the film we learn he is in fact Batman/Bruce Wayne. OK, can they get away with turning James Olsen into an alter ego for Bruce Wayne/Batman. It might work better if he is Frank Carlton, but I still like my James Olsen idea. Plus then he can fall in love with Jenny Jurwich, they can get married, and then all the confusion that she is Jenny Olsen is really just some people jumping the gun.

 

[John Lambert]

It’s kind of hard to view Batman as the underdog considering how much success the character has received in general. An successful multi-billionaire trilogy, with its first two films being considered as groundbreaking for the Comic Book Movie Genre, especially the latter one.

And any fan that’s seen the animated series would know how many times Batman has gotten the upper hand on Superman, most notably in the recent “Injustice” game.

Not to mention, you already have superman fans pissed off already or at least present with mixed emotions already going into this film due to the fact that they were basically robbed of their solo sequel.

But hasn't Superman gotten more live television treatment, and the only one to appear on live television in the last 30 years, or am I just ignorant of Batman on live television?

 

[John Lambert]

For what it is worth Superman was created as a character before Batman, and Batman was created in part because of the success of Superman. Of course we are talking about events in the 1930s.

 

[sf2]

Getting worry a bit with all the latest rumours.