BvS Here's the problem with introducing Batman in a Superman film.

[Shikamaru]

^ It's an MoS sequel, therefore making it a Superman film. It's just not SOLELY a Superman film.

Based on what we've been told, it's basically Warner Bros.' version of X-Men: Days of Future Past, which is both a direct sequel to First Class AND a sequel to X-Men, X2, and X-Men: The Last Stand.

It is a MoS sequel in the same way Iron Man 3 is an Avengers sequel. The MoS events have a large influence on it and it takes place after MoS, but it is not a Superman film by any means. It is a Batman/Superman film. This is not a Superman film guest starring Batman in the same way Iron Man 2 was an Iron Man film guest starring Black Widow.

 

[DigificWriter]

I'm not sure how much screentime you actually need to devote to introducing this version of Batman; most general audiences are already so familiar with the character in some capacity that you don't need to do his origin, and, in fact, it would probably be better for the tone of the movie as well as the wider live-action DCU into which he fits if you didn't.

Even if this Batman doesn't get a solo film dedicated to him, you still don't need to do his origin because, as I said, he's an iconic character whose origin story is already very well-known.

 

[BatLobster]

I actually think this issue could be a basis of the whole Superman/Batman rivalry in the movie. Let's say Superman intervenes in one of Gotham's situations, but ends up causing more problems for Batman down the line and/or more collateral damage.

Batman's whole motivation could be to keep Superman out of his business.

I'm not willing to suspend disbelief on this though. Not when there are potentially good story-driven reasons to explain it given a bit of creativity. Not addressing this issue would be lazy imo, and that's why I fully expect them to. They weren't willing to have us simply suspend disbelief on the whole glasses issue, so why would they be here?