BvS Is anyone else not excited about Superman and Batman? I feel nothing but dread. - Part 1

[Tra-El]

Wrong. I'm assuming that pairing a completely new character with one barely developed in the last movie, in a conflict that depends on their polar-opposite personalities, will either result in no character development and bland characters, or too much CD and no action. What part of that is unreasonable?

I agree with the Supes/Bats polar opposite dynamic, but I disagree that the dynamic would be underdeveloped. If anything, IMHO, that very dynamic will develop the two characters even more than anything.

Think about it, them two being established on screen and if givin' the right dialogue and conversation/conflict between them, there's a sense there that the character development between the two will stick out to the audiences by just the conflict itself.

I don't think character development between Superman/Batman is going to be a problem as it would be a clear indication of what the two actually portray or believe in. Sure, they go about things in a different approach and mind-set, but the buildup will always end in the two playing on the same team for the common good.

 

[Loki882]

Plus, the notion that Clark wasn't developed in MOS is open to debate.

 

[EssayM]

Marvel's solo films had characters the audiences have NEVER been accustomed to on screen. Iron Man? Who the hell ever heard of Iron Man before Robert Downey Jr played himself in it? Thor? What did the GA know ANYTHING about Thor? Captain America? All these characters were never flushed out..ever.

Batman on the other hand? Do you REALLY need to have an entire backstory to tell the story of....Batman? I mean, we are only coming off of a franchise doing just that with the Nolanverse since 2005-2012....that's 7 years worth of Batman to wrap your head around. True, this would be a new Batman, but...

....do we REALLY need to see more of his parents dying, Alfred taking Bruce in and him molding a Bat-a-rang for people to walk out and say "WOW! That must have been BATMAN!"

No, you don't need to establish Batman as you would say...Iron Man, Thor or Captain America. Just introduce him as such...as you would the rogue that is Lex Luthor. People will get it. Hell, a simple flashback or two would do the trick for Batman, ala MOS..

1. "Character development" and "backstory" are not the same thing. B89 had a strong central character long before we ever knew what happened to his parents.

2. If this is indeed a "reboot" of the character, the very name suggests a completely new character with no ties to the Nolanverse. Thus, like all new characters, you need to show us what kind of person he is and (in this case) how he is different from this universe's Superman. Otherwise, any conflict between the two will be tension-free.

Of course, but in ALL this doom and gloom, lets go on the other side where the grass is always greener. What if WB/Snyder/Goyer pull it off and manage to knock it out of the park? Talk about mind-blowing? It's all in the fun that will lead us off the next 2 years. We shall see. Regardless, this sheit is happening!

I agree. I believe in a previous post I even acknowledged that I could be wrong and this could turn out to be a great movie. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend there's no way it can fail, especially when there are a number of big reasons this might not work.

 

[Tra-El]

Plus, the notion that Clark wasn't developed in MOS is open to debate.

Exactly, especially the sheer fact of seeing a Clark Kent play out on screen more-so than we've ever seen before on film.

The complaints are there. Maybe the movie moved too fast for some. Maybe the pacing was off. So be it, but I don't think that translates into Clark being undeveloped because as I said, we've seen more of Clark Kent in MOS than any other interpretation..

 

[Loki882]

Batman in 89 was a supporting character in his own movie. He got no kind of character arc and no real characterization, except being a mass murderer. Burton was much more interested in the villains. Everyone know Batman's basic origin story, you could simply explain it through dialogue rather than spend a lot of time showing it.

 

[EssayM]

I agree with the Supes/Bats polar opposite dynamic, but I disagree that the dynamic would be underdeveloped. If anything, IMHO, that very dynamic will develop the two characters even more than anything.

Think about it, them two being established on screen and if givin' the right dialogue and conversation/conflict between them, there's a sense there that the character development between the two will stick out to the audiences by just the conflict itself.

I don't think character development between Superman/Batman is going to be a problem as it would be a clear indication of what the two actually portray or believe in. Sure, they go about things in a different approach and mind-set, but the buildup will always end in the two playing on the same team for the common good.

But that's my whole point: they haven't got any of that yet, and they desperately need it to make this work. A few lines of dialogue isn't the same as two already defined characters meeting and bouncing off each other. This is the same thing that sunk SM3 and Last Stand: too many characters and only so much screentime to develop them.

Plus, the notion that Clark wasn't developed in MOS is open to debate.

True, but even defenders of the film say he's supposed to be just starting out, that he hasn't become the Superman we know and love yet.

 

[Tobias]

Just curious - does anyone know if Singer or Goyer or any of the team have been asked to comment on the reviews? Address the common complaints in those reviews?

Singer was asked to comment on the BO at the time, SR's reviews were fairly good, and he basically blamed WB for not promoting the film. That was the summer of the release and it was obvious there was tension between him and the studio.

 

[Tra-El]

But that's my whole point: they haven't got any of that yet, and they desperately need it to make this work. A few lines of dialogue isn't the same as two already defined characters meeting and bouncing off each other.

Well, they haven't got any of that yet because Superman and Batman never appeared on screen together....ever.... so the execution in this whole ordeal is what is highly interesting between the two characters, which makes this movie THEE game-changer of 2015 and the sole reason why it's caused such a reaction with people labeling WB's announcement as "The win of SDCC." We'll see if they can pull it off but I don't think it's going to be as complicated as you're making it sound when it comes to developing this dynamic between the two characters.

If anything, it's already there. There's just going to have to be a strong beginning, middle and end for everything to come together. Not saying it isn't a challenge, because it is.. for obvious reasons at that.

 

[EssayM]

Batman in 89 was a supporting character in his own movie. He got no kind of character arc and no real characterization, except being a mass murderer. Burton was much more interested in the villains. Everyone know Batman's basic origin story, you could simply explain it through dialogue rather than spend a lot of time showing it.

Maybe no arc, but he definitely had a distinctive presence and a personality, and his Bruce Wayne had a humanity to him that Kilmer and Clooney completely forgot. If anything, he was the TAS Batman in live action.

Still, I agree about using dialogue rather than flashbacks.

 

[BH/HHH]

Exactly, especially the sheer fact of seeing a Clark Kent play out on screen more-so than we've ever seen before on film.

The complaints are there. Maybe the movie moved too fast for some. Maybe the pacing was off. So be it, but I don't think that translates into Clark being undeveloped because as I said, we've seen more of Clark Kent in MOS than any other interpretation..

Well except Smallville

 

[Marvin]

Wow, that is some hardcore reductio ad absurdum there, dude.

If you read my post again, you'll kindly note that the phrases "all character development", "always sucks", and "automatically makes a film into Ang Lee's Hulk" do not appear.

In fact, character development comes in two main flavors: well-placed and boring-as-hell. Well-placed character development is related through their responses to the action around them and makes the audience want to see them through to the end. Boring character development (the kind I talked about in my post, you'll recall) completely stops the movie in its tracks so we can hear characters who aren't doing anything important talk about their personalities, a technique which is neither plausible nor interesting. The former technique can be found in movies like Iron Man, BB, B89, the new Star Trek movies. Boring character development can be found in films like Spider-Man 1-3 and, yes, Ang Lee's Hulk.

I hope this is clearer to you.

I understood you fine. Reading this amendment however, it appears you are fully aware of other types character development that don't simply boil down to a poor film like Ang Lee's hulk, or a film about a fight scene followed by unknown characters doing things.

I would ask if you could explain why there is only two possible types of "bad" character development that will result of a worlds finest film at this time. Clearly you are aware of films(group films even) that have resulted in "good" character development.

I fear in your haste to paint a rotten picture if this announcement, you may have accidentally skipped over that scenario.

 

[Tra-El]

Well except Smallville

Originally Posted by Tra-El
Exactly, especially the sheer fact of seeing a Clark Kent play out on screen more-so than we've ever seen before on film

..but I get what you're saying, HHH Though, I haven't watched one episode of Smallville. Maybe I'll give it a try one day...maybe.

 

[Tobias]

Well except Smallville[/QUOTE]




..but I get what you're saying, HHH Though, I haven't watched one episode of Smallville. Maybe I'll give it a try one day...maybe.

Superboy also. 100 eps with Clark and Lana growing close and Clark starting out nerdy but dropping that as the series progressed.

 

[BH/HHH]

..but I get what you're saying, HHH Though, I haven't watched one episode of Smallville. Maybe I'll give it a try one day...maybe.

I certainly would, personally I loved it and aslong as you think of it as an elseworlds take you can even get over some of the annoying things that don't really make sense.

 

[Tobias]

In terms of characterization, as important as Bruce/Clark is Superman/Lex and Bruce/Lex. I assume they will focus on those relationships to the detriment of the Lois/Clark relationship which was starting to develop at the end of MOS.

In the fic I wrote for WF the film starts out with a meeting between Lex and Bruce atop LexCorp in the still smoldering Metropolis. The two align to bring down the "alien" who they suspect is in hiding with Lois maybe knowing wherehe is.

So, depending on how they do WF, there could/should be great Bruce/Lex interaction and characterizations.

 

[Tra-El]

I certainly would, personally I loved it and aslong as you think of it as an elseworlds take you can even get over some of the annoying things that don't really make sense.

That's a good way in approaching it. Just by judging how I'd sometimes give an episode a chance and always walking away because of the certain vibe and the things I'd read up on it, I was never pulled in so-to-speak. That, and the fact of Welling refusing to wear the suit after ALL those years (even for the fans that were faithful towards the show) like he was embarrassed just rubbed me the wrong way. We'll see later down the road if I'll ever turn to it

 

[BH/HHH]

That's a good way in approaching it. Just by judging how I'd sometimes give an episode a chance and always walking away because of the certain vibe and the things I'd read up on it, I was never pulled in so-to-speak. That, and the fact of Welling refusing to wear the suit after ALL those years like he was embarrassed just rubbed me the wrong way. We'll see later down the road if I'll ever turn to it

Well I'm with you on Welling, I don't really understand his logic especially now as he's not really one anything other than Smallville. He seemed to have the fear of been typecast but he should have realised its an honour and a privilege to play the part. Also isn't it better to be remembered as Superman than nothing? It really does baffle me as to why he got he part if he was so reluctant as I'm sure there were more willing candidates.

 

[EssayM]

Well, they haven't got any of that yet because Superman and Batman never appeared on screen together....ever.... so the execution in this whole ordeal is what is highly interesting between the two characters, which makes this movie THEE game-changer of 2015 and the sole reason why it's caused such a reaction with people labeling WB's announcement as "The win of SDCC." We'll see if they can pull it off but I don't think it's going to be as complicated as you're making it sound when it comes to developing this dynamic between the two characters.

If anything, it's already there. There's just going to have to be a strong beginning, middle and end for everything to come together. Not saying it isn't a challenge, because it is.. for obvious reasons at that.

But again, if you're going for the Marvel method, the whole point is that you come in with your characters already set up, so you can focus on how they interact. Here, they will have to use up screen time for the following:

1) How Superman's been doing since the last movie. Is he still saving people? Is he working at the Daily Planet? How's that job working out? Any emotional scars from the insanity of the last movie? What about Metropolis, how's the rebuilding going?

2) This new Batman. Who is he? How is he different from previous incarnations? Why should we care about him just as much as Superman.

3) Why Superman went to Gotham (or Batman to Metropolis) and why they're fighting.

4) The fight itself and its resolution.

5) The overarching threat that forces them to work toward a common goal (presumably a new villian, who also has to be set up and characterized).

6) Development for characters (like Lois Lane) that weren't fully developed in the first movie, plus any characters from Batman's world that might show up (Alfred and Gordon at the very least).

It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to give adequate attention to all these areas. Unless, of course you had a MOS 2 and a solo Batman reboot to build off of.

 

[Tobias]

But again, if you're going for the Marvel method, the whole point is that you come in with your characters already set up, so you can focus on how they interact. Here, they will have to use up screen time for the following:

1) How Superman's been doing since the last movie. Is he still saving people? Is he working at the Daily Planet? How's that job working out? Any emotional scars from the insanity of the last movie? What about Metropolis, how's the rebuilding going?

2) This new Batman. Who is he? How is he different from previous incarnations? Why should we care about him just as much as Superman.

3) Why Superman went to Gotham (or Batman to Metropolis) and why they're fighting.

4) The fight itself and its resolution.

5) The overarching threat that forces them to work toward a common goal (presumably a new villian, who also has to be set up and characterized).

6) Development for characters (like Lois Lane) that weren't fully developed in the first movie, plus any characters from Batman's world that might show up (Alfred and Gordon at the very least).

It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to give adequate attention to all these areas. Unless, of course you had a MOS 2 and a solo Batman reboot to build off of.

In my second infamous letter to WB I suggested ending WF on cliffhanger(s) as set ups to a stand alone Batman and, yes, a stand alone MOS2. If those films were to follow you would not have to build all the characters up in WF. Doubtful they can do much but tease the Lois and Clark relationship in WF but by doing that they set the stage for more complete development of that relationship in a follow-up MOS2.

 

[TheBat812]

Wrong. I'm assuming that pairing a completely new character with one barely developed in the last movie, in a conflict that depends on their polar-opposite personalities, will either result in no character development and bland characters, or too much CD and no action. What part of that is unreasonable?

It's unreasonable because you've simplified the art of storytelling and character development to only two options, whih is straight up absurd. You forgot one of the many options - that characters can help develop each other - and this is certainly a case where they would very obviously do that. Also as you yourself put it, understanding a characters motivations =/= needing to explore their backstory. There's plenty of time for both characters to be adequately explored especially if they intertwine their development. I also very much disagree that Clark wasn't developed in MOS, but even if that were the case, a full length feature involving both characters can easily do each character justice. Whether they can or will is besides the point, as you simply keep asserting that it just can't be done, therefore they made a bad choice. I wholeheartedly think this story could be a natural extension of the story and themes explored in MOS, and even if it was never their intention, they can still make this union feel deserved and beneficial rather than tacked on as everyone seems to assume will be the case.

Once again, it's not certain either way, but that seems the most likely approach given Goyer and Snyders approach to MOS and their experience with Nolan. They're not going to simply half ass it because it wasn't what they intended, thy seem to have the self motivation to make it matter, to make the story meaningful to its characters. The mandate to include batman has a more potential to enhance the story than it does to ruin it imo. But maybe I'm just a glass half full kinda guy.

 

[STARMAN]

I've said this before. I think the inclusion of Batman can help Superman but hurt Clark Kent.

 

[TheBat812]

I've said this before. I think the inclusion of Batman can help Superman but hurt Clark Kent.

Not if you treat them the way they should be treated - as one and the same person. That goes for both Clark/supes and Bruce/bats. If they do it right, the audience should feel like their goals and experiences are that of one character in the story. So screen time wise, it really shouldn't matter too much if they get you involved enough. That's a tough sell for some fanboys, but it really should be the ultimate goal, as was the case with TDK trilogy.

 

[STARMAN]

Not if they don't spend enough time with Clark at the Daily Planet and Cavill's version of that persona. Not if they fail to show more of the Lois/ Clark dynamic in this version since she knows his secret.

I think the time spent on Batman and his relationship/rivalry with Superman could take from that. Hopefully, I wrong.

 

[Tra-El]

But again, if you're going for the Marvel method..

Stop right there. Can't go any further because there simply isn't a Marvel method in place. DC is the alternative. If there was a Marvel method, then the people sitting at the end credits to Man of Steel would of got their fill of some kind of cameo, ala Marvel films. I think it's right for DC to go off and execute their OWN thing, which is what they seem to be doing with Superman/Batman.

1) How Superman's been doing since the last movie. Is he still saving people?

That's all inevitable and appropriate towards the continued story. It shouldn't be hard whatsoever for this film to address what's being asked above, especially in a 2 and a half hour movie, or whatever the running time may be.

Is he working at the Daily Planet?

The end of MOS clarifies this, as well as Amy Adams returning as Lois Lane, which should indicate some scenes with Clark/Lois inside the offices with its natural progressions and story building.

Any emotional scars from the insanity of the last movie

This could be dealt in how he handles the presence and threat of the Batman..

What about Metropolis, how's the rebuilding going?

The importance of Lex Luthor hinges on this question. Again, storytelling moving forward with Lex's involvement in how he views an alien walking amongst us in his city..

2) This new Batman. Who is he? How is he different from previous incarnations? Why should we care about him just as much as Superman.

Do we really need to know who he is? I mean, Bats is a dark character, one who lurks in the shadows and most of the time, can't be seen. His intentions or incarnations shouldn't be as clear as Superman's development....

3) Why Superman went to Gotham (or Batman to Metropolis) and why they're fighting.

All depending on the focus and nucleus of the plot and conflict surrounding the characters. If anything, I'd prefer the conflict to take place in Metropolis since this is set in Supes's world.

5) The overarching threat that forces them to work toward a common goal (presumably a new villian, who also has to be set up and characterized).

Did you see all those LexCorp placements in MOS? Yeah, those weren't by accident. Neither was the "Wayne Enterprise" logo....

6) Development for characters (like Lois Lane) that weren't fully developed in the first movie, plus any characters from Batman's world that might show up (Alfred and Gordon at the very least).

For Lois, see above. I'm sure she'll be an intricate part of the story since she DOES know that Superman is Clark Kent. This dynamic alone could be spectacular in itself. I'd prefer casts such as Commissioner Gordon or Alfred, if they go that route, shouldn't be a focal point, maybe quick cameo's or acknowledgement at best.

Remember, this is to introduce the new Batman, not necc his entire family or rogue's gallery. It's still Superman's world we're working off of and how the two could interact.

It will be very difficult, if not impossible

In Hollywood, nothing is impossible, dude. What you're going to have to do, is trust in this and have some faith. The payoff could be huge, and should be huge.

 

[EssayM]

I understood you fine. Reading this amendment however, it appears you are fully aware of other types character development that don't simply boil down to a poor film like Ang Lee's hulk, or a film about a fight scene followed by unknown characters doing things.

The point I was trying to make with the Ang Lee comparison is how the Hulk movie's character development was a bunch of talky scenes and flashbacks that kept the action from starting until halfway through the movie. That's why that movie failed. I wasn't tossing it out as an epithet or anything, I was using it as an example of what too much CD can result in.

I would ask if you could explain why there is only two possible types of "bad" character development that will result of a worlds finest film at this time. Clearly you are aware of films(group films even) that have resulted in "good" character development.

Yes, and most of them are either Avengers, which already had its characters established in other movies, or something like an Army unit or a police squad or something else that's already a group, so all you have to do is say, "This guy's a jerk. That guy's strict. You're stuck together. Go at it."

Note: I'm probably forgetting a couple movies that aren't either, but that seems to be the general formula for the ones that work.

I fear in your haste to paint a rotten picture if this announcement, you may have accidentally skipped over that scenario.

I have no interest in "painting a rotten picture" of anything. I'm an eternal optimist, and I'm holding out hope that this could be something worthwhile (or at least that it will get a good reboot if this one doesn't do well). All I'm doing is pointing out some obstacles that will inevitably be encountered if they jump into it this soon. Should I just pretend they don't exist?