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

[Nicky]

I wouldn't be worried about Superman being portrayed like he was in The Dark Knight Returns.

This is perhaps my biggest fear. I hated the Dark Knight Returns because I just couldn't get past Superman's (out of) characterisation

 

[MrsKent26]

I understand Cyborg and Aquaman have nothing but cameos but they already have a ton of plates spinning in the air already with Batman Superman and Wonder Woman, why add two more cameos?
This is starting to sound like an ASM 2 situation whether you like it or not.

In addition to my Miller fears, I kind of have this one as well. I worry this will seem like a JL advert. I don't see what they had to go beyond a superman/batman movie. There is lots of material there. Cameos don't add much to a story except to say "hey, this character exists! Cool, eh?" I'd rather they just introduced them in JL.

Sorry, this thread is turning me into a Negative Nelly.

 

[Sharkboy]

I don't think it's great at all. I have no interest in seeing those versions of either of the characters on screen, superman especially. That's not who he is. And there's no need for another lecture. I know Miller intended the characters to be different. I don't like what he did with them. I doubt there would be many superman fans who would enjoy seeing him like that.


And Snyder did say he wasn't adapting it, so here's hoping people who want such a thing are disappointed.

It's not actually the characterisation I'm on about, it's the story, it's so well written and emotionally potent, it's smart and conscious of the world around it rather than being overly self indulgent and faux intellectual. (Such as Snyder's watchmen, which felt like a high schoolers adaptation of Moores classic) Even without the brave characterisation, I think we would be lucky if we had a Batman/Superman film that was as finely crafted as DKR.

 

[Sharkboy]

I wouldn't worry too much about cameos, they are exactly just that...cameos. Regarding ASM2 i understand the critique leveled at Osborn and Electro, because they are in fact the main villains of the piece, but Rhino? He's a cameo, nothing more and nothing less, and he book marked the film, he's not meant to be a fully realised character.

As long as Snyder does it that way and incorporates these characters in small roles that add to the overal story, rather than just being wink at the audience cameos or misdirected attempts to add more characters into an overflowing film then I think he'll be fine, but there will always be people who see a cameo...and call it an underdeveloped character.

This isn't Wonder Woman's movie, nor is it Aquaman's or Cyborgs. It's Batman's and Superman's. I hope Snyder realises that and acts appropriately, because he's definitely the kind of director I'd imagine who thinks putting all your eggs in one basket is much cooler than having a lighter more empty one.

 

[STARMAN]

I know the Dark Knight Returns fear is out there because they used the quote but I'm honestly not worried about it. As for it being cluttered. That's always a risk. But I'm looking at it this way: We won't be spending 20 minutes on Krypton.

 

[hafizbat]

Things I like so far:
-Ben Affleck as Batman
-Henry Cavill as Superman
-Terrio as writer
-The Batsuit
-Jeremy Irons as Alfred
-Jason Momoa as Aquaman

Things I'm not sure about:
-Zack Snyder. Love his visuals, but he's yet to wow me as a director.
-The Batmobile. (Based on what we've seen so far, both the Tumbler and the AA and AK Batmobiles look better to me)
-Tired and weary Batman

Things I don't like (initial impression):
-Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. Seems to me like she was cast for her looks, not acting
-Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. Sorry, the evil Mark Zuckerberg thing they're going for just annoys me.
-David Goyer.
-The title. World's Finest or even just Batman v Superman was better.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I agree with ^ except I love the Batmobile.

Excited for the film while being worried.

 

[Sharkboy]

Yeah I hope that theres more to the batmobile that we haven't yet seen, because while i have my reservations at Snyder, if theres one thing he's great at, it's getting excellent designs out of his people, and with a Batman that's fully experienced in a world with aliens and such, I kinda expect Batman's tech to be some real incredible stuff, instead it looks like something out of a stripped down year one fan film.

 

[hafizbat]

This is what it looks like from what we've seen so far.

That's how it looks like to me, from the pics we were shown. The base structure looks like this. Perhaps a new pic will be shown that looks totally different, but the AK/Tumbler just seem way more powerful.

 

[dnno1]

...Did you stop and think before you posted this?

Of course, I did LOL. Are you kidding me?

...Completely different scenario. The Avengers all had individual movies beforehand which fleshed out each of the main characters, which was part of the reason it was so successful.
WB is looking to do the exact opposite, and if you aren't nervous about the results then you either aren't paying attention or have more faith than I do.
As I said in my original post: I want this movie to be successful. In no way shape or form am I looking at this with any negativity or bias, but I can't help but feel nervous about the missteps they've already made and the ones it appears they are going to keep making...

This is not completely different at all. Batman v Superman will feature two main characters that have had a plethora of films that have fleshed the characters out. Although Wonder Woman hasn't had her own feature film, we can say the same for Black Widow and Maria Hill, although the Amazon Princess has one-upped them since she was in a television series that ran for 3 seasons. Using the success of films like "Ocean's 11", "The Expendables", "The Lord of The Rings", "The Hobbit", "Star Wars", "Star Trek", and the "X-Men", I have no reason to believe that you couldn't make a film with an ensemble cast where there is no back story to fleshed out in a individual film for each of the characters beforehand and not have it be successful because it has been done before time and time again, and I do not see why you should feel nervous about this film for that reason. In fact, the execs from the parent company of Warner Brothers, (Time-Warner) are very excited about this film as a result of Man of Steel, which happens to be the third highest grossing film the WB produced last year (behind "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug", and "Gravity") and they are taking the biggest risk on this. I know this as a fact, because it is mentioned in their annual report. I believe that you are the one that is not really thinking about this and your nervousness is actually an over reaction to the negative hype, which is why I think this thread should be closed.

 

[Hurm...]

You are stating the obvious. Of course WB is taking a big risk with this film, since it is a highly anticipated big budget film. But how many big budget films are panned critically or have fallen victim to many of the criticisms we've outlined in our posts? Many. Just because they have a lot riding on this movie does not mean it will be a quality film.

You have just mentioned ensemble films made by Bryan Singer, JJ Abrams, Peter Jackson and Steven Soderbergh. I'm sorry but I do not think Snyder belongs to be among the ranks of those directors when it comes to fleshed out characters and narrative. That is primarily where most of these questions and criticisms are coming from - a lack of faith in Snyder and the crew.

 

[Flint Marko]

This is not completely different at all. Batman v Superman will feature two main characters that have had a plethora of films that have fleshed the characters out.

Completely different incarnations. Are you really implying that Tim Burton's Batman or Nolan's take will carry over in any form or fashion into this film? These are obviously different characters that have yet to be fleshed out. Look at how different Snyder's Superman was from anything Christopher Reeves was in.
So yes, as I said completely different. You cannot compare the Avengers to this in any way.
I personally feel that just because the audience comes in knowing Batman's general backstory and origin does not give the film makers free reign to do whatever they want with this character because they assume the audience already knows who he is. That's lazy story telling and won't do anything to endear this particular incarnation of Batman to audiences; he'll just be riding on the coat tails of what came before him. Yes I understand he will eventually get his own movie, but for his introduction they need to give him the time he deserves since he is a main player.
But Batman is honestly the one I'm the least worried about, as he is guaranteed to be the one the movie focuses on primarily. It's WW fans who should be worried, in my view.

Although Wonder Woman hasn't had her own feature film, we can say the same for Black Widow and Maria Hill, although the Amazon Princess has one-upped them since she was in a television series that ran for 3 seasons.

You're really comparing two supporting characters to arguably the biggest female superhero of all time?
Maria Hill was a tiny supporting character whose backstory doesn't really matter, and Black Widow had an introduction in IM2. This really is a terrible comparison.
And as I said earlier, I don't at all understand how you are counting previous incarnations of the character especially TV shows that are over 30 years old. Most of the general public is not really familiar with her origin or her powers, so they will need to devote time to where she came from and why she's doing what she's doing. She can't just pop in out of nowhere unexplained and help out, they're going to have to delve into the whole mythological side of things for a bit which will be a tough line to tow.

Using the success of films like "Ocean's 11", "The Expendables", "The Lord of The Rings", "The Hobbit", "Star Wars", "Star Trek", and the "X-Men", I have no reason to believe that you couldn't make a film with an ensemble cast where there is no back story to fleshed out in a individual film for each of the characters beforehand and not have it be successful because it has been done before time and time again, and I do not see why you should feel nervous about this film for that reason. In fact, the execs from the parent company of Warner Brothers, (Time-Warner) are very excited about this film as a result of Man of Steel, which happens to be the third highest grossing film the WB produced last year (behind "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug", and "Gravity") and they are taking the biggest risk on this. I know this as a fact, because it is mentioned in their annual report. I believe that you are the one that is not really thinking about this and your nervousness is actually an over reaction to the negative hype, which is why I think this thread should be closed.

Wait, the expendables is a successful ensemble movie? If the bar is set for you that low then sure, I guess you have no reason to be nervous.
Also it's tough to really compare the others (except for X-men) since each of the characters are nowhere near as complicated, or beloved by the masses, as these comic book characters. Oceans 11, LOTR, both of these are fantastic films but I don't really buy the comparison that is constantly made between those characters and the ones featured in BvS.
X-men is also a little different considering each character has roughly the same origin (born different, ostracized from society) so they have that inherent common thread that unites all of them.
Also, and this is my biggest point here; Snyder is not Peter Jackson, Bryan Singer, Steven Soderbergh, etc. He has proven to be a pretty iffy film maker.
If you enjoyed MoS that's great, but that film has a host of problems that does not inspire confidence in a lot of us that this next film will be any better.
Trust me, I've thought enough about this to know that I can't be anything but nervous. It appears that some people feel the same way. I get that you are nothing but optimistic about this movie and that's great, but can you give me any good reason why this thread should be closed?
I personally feel this is more than worth discussing.

 

[dnno1]

You are stating the obvious. Of course WB is taking a big risk with this film, since it is a highly anticipated big budget film. But how many big budget films are panned critically or have fallen victim to many of the criticisms we've outlined in our posts? Many. Just because they have a lot riding on this movie does not mean it will be a quality film.

I don't think the criticism is relevant to the risk takers, and you do not understand what I rote. Warner Brothers Pictures (and Time-Warner) were pleased with the results of "Man of Steel" and are "excited" about its sequel, "Batman v Superman" (Time-Warner CEO, Jeff Bewkes, referred to it as the "forthcoming follow-up to "Man of Steel" featuring Superman and Batman"). The truth of the matter is that of the 18 films that the WB produced, Man of Steel was the third highest grossing film. Just to give you an idea of how significant that is, I already stated that the WB produced 18 pictures last year for a total of over $4 billion in revenue. Just "Man of Steel", "Gravity", and "The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug" made up almost half of that revenue. Who cares about what critics say? The numbers don't really lie here. Based on an average ticket price of $8.13, over 82 million viewers watched "Man of Steel" in theaters last year. That's a lot of people, and it is silly to say that it was a flop just because a hand full of people didn't like it or were confused because it wasn't like the Donner films.

You have just mentioned ensemble films made by Bryan Singer, JJ Abrams, Peter Jackson and Steven Soderbergh. I'm sorry but I do not think Snyder belongs to be among the ranks of those directors when it comes to fleshed out characters and narrative. That is primarily where most of these questions and criticisms are coming from - a lack of faith in Snyder and the crew.

Irrespective of who directed them, you can make ensemble films without prior solo films for back-story. They have been doing this for years, and it is ridiculous to think that the only way do do pictures is the way Marvel did it because they so happened to make an mint on their Avengers picture after establishing Iron Man, Thor, Captain America as viable franchises beforehand. It worked for them that time, but it was quite expensive and risky. The opposite was done with X-Men, which wound up spinning off Wolverine as a solo franchise, and were successful at that, but no one mentions that fact.

 

[The Endless]

This is perhaps my biggest fear. I hated the Dark Knight Returns because I just couldn't get past Superman's (out of) characterisation

Why write an "elseworlds" story and write the characters exactly the same?

Superman retained his key traits in Miller's story. He still loved humanity. He still wanted to protect us, even from ourselves. The only way he felt he could do that without causing more harm than good was by following orders. Didn't you read his inner monologues in the scene with the nuke?

Miller just took the characters key traits and turned them up to 11. He did exactly the same thing with Batman, writing as a borderline fascist psychopath.

I can understand people not liking TDKR, but a lot of the time i see people criticize it and i'm like "Did you even understand that the story was satirical and meant to be exaggerated?" And when i see people moan that Miller disrespected Superman and wrote him terribly, i'm like "you do realise he wrote Batman as a fascist psychopath right?"

 

[The Endless]

Irrespective of who directed them, you can make ensemble films without prior solo films for back-story. They have been doing this for years, and it is ridiculous to think that the only way do do pictures is the way Marvel did it because they so happened to make an mint on their Avengers picture after establishing Iron Man, Thor, Captain America as viable franchises beforehand. It worked for them that time, but it was quite expensive and risky. The opposite was done with X-Men, which wound up spinning off Wolverine as a solo franchise, and were successful at that, but no one mentions that fact.

Of course you can make ensemble films without prior solo films for back story. But some people are not 100% confident that the likes of Snyder and Goyer can do that WELL.

 

[dnno1]

Completely different incarnations. Are you really implying that Tim Burton's Batman or Nolan's take will carry over in any form or fashion into this film?

Yes. We have already seen a glimpse of the bat-mobile that will be used in this film and it looks like it will be a convolution of the Burton and Nolan versions of the vehicle.

These are obviously different characters that have yet to be fleshed out. Look at how different Snyder's Superman was from anything Christopher Reeves was in. So yes, as I said completely different. You cannot compare the Avengers to this in any way.

The only real difference I saw was that Krypton was physically re-imagined and that Superman wore a different costume than his predecessors, the basic story was the same. Furthermore, this is Batman, even though there will be no continuity amongst the previous films, the back-story doesn't change. Both Batman and Superman were orphaned as children (from their biological parents) and eventually became super-heroes as adults.

I personally feel that just because the audience comes in knowing Batman's general backstory and origin does not give the film makers free reign to do whatever they want with this character because they assume the audience already knows who he is. That's lazy story telling and won't do anything to endear this particular incarnation of Batman to audiences; he'll just be riding on the coat tails of what came before him. Yes I understand he will eventually get his own movie, but for his introduction they need to give him the time he deserves since he is a main player.
But Batman is honestly the one I'm the least worried about, as he is guaranteed to be the one the movie focuses on primarily. It's WW fans who should be worried, in my view.

It worked very well for Batman in 1989, so I don't see that your statement is valid.

You're really comparing two supporting characters to arguably the biggest female superhero of all time?
Maria Hill was a tiny supporting character whose backstory doesn't really matter, and Black Widow had an introduction in IM2. This really is a terrible comparison.
And as I said earlier, I don't at all understand how you are counting previous incarnations of the character especially TV shows that are over 30 years old. Most of the general public is not really familiar with her origin or her powers, so they will need to devote time to where she came from and why she's doing what she's doing. She can't just pop in out of nowhere unexplained and help out, they're going to have to delve into the whole mythological side of things for a bit which will be a tough line to tow.

Outside of the TV series and the fact that she has been around in the comics for about 75 years, when has Wonder Woman shown that she is any bigger or more remarkable than say Katniss Everdeen, Alice (from the Resident Evil films), or even Seline (from the Underworld franchise)? If you ask me It is yet to be proven that Wonder Woman is all that let alone being popular. We have already seen what happened to a franchise that was presumed to be iconic and big in Green Lantern.

Wait, the expendables is a successful ensemble movie? If the bar is set for you that low then sure, I guess you have no reason to be nervous.

Yeah, this year they are releasing the third film in the franchise. Not too many films are that fortunate and it should show you that you don't even have to be a popular brand to do films that way.

Also it's tough to really compare the others (except for X-men) since each of the characters are nowhere near as complicated, or beloved by the masses, as these comic book characters. Oceans 11, LOTR, both of these are fantastic films but I don't really buy the comparison that is constantly made between those characters and the ones featured in BvS.
X-men is also a little different considering each character has roughly the same origin (born different, ostracized from society) so they have that inherent common thread that unites all of them.
Also, and this is my biggest point here; Snyder is not Peter Jackson, Bryan Singer, Steven Soderbergh, etc. He has proven to be a pretty iffy film maker.
If you enjoyed MoS that's great, but that film has a host of problems that does not inspire confidence in a lot of us that this next film will be any better.

I just did compare them in my previous post. Certainly these are different characters/franchises, but they are all fictional storytelling on film, and the ones that I mentioned featured ensemble casts with no prior back-story in an individual solo film. Finding a difference between the properties doesn't change that fact nor does it change the point that they all worked and that the Marvel Phase Two paradigm is not the be all and end all formula for successful film-making.

Trust me, I've thought enough about this to know that I can't be anything but nervous. It appears that some people feel the same way. I get that you are nothing but optimistic about this movie and that's great, but can you give me any good reason why this thread should be closed?
I personally feel this is more than worth discussing.

Trust me, if you have thought about, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[dnno1]

Of course you can make ensemble films without prior solo films for back story. But some people are not 100% confident that the likes of Snyder and Goyer can do that WELL.

So, we are talking about David Goyer, who has 3 Batman films that made more than a couple of billion dollars under his belt, and Zack Snyder, who has directed Watchmen, 300, and Man of Steel, right?

 

[The Endless]

David Goyer doesn't have 3 Batman films under his belt. We all know Nolan was responsible for them, for better or worse.

And yes, we are talking about the same Zack Snyder. It's not like Watchmen, 300 and Man of Steel are widely regarded masterpieces. All of those films have mixed reactions at best. And the only time he did something truly original from his mind was an utter disaster in Sucker Punch.

I'm not a hater of either before the apologists and fanboys start opening their gobs, I enjoyed those three films. But let's not pretend Snyder is the ultimate film maker who deserves 100% unquestionable confidence and backing from every person on the planet.

Hell, even Marvel got a lot of criticism when Joss Whedon was hired to helm The Avengers and he'd shown in previous work that he was perfect for juggling large casts of disparate characters who eventually form a misfit family.

 

[dnno1]

David Goyer doesn't have 3 Batman films under his belt. We all know Nolan was responsible for them, for better or worse.

And yes, we are talking about the same Zack Snyder. It's not like Watchmen, 300 and Man of Steel are widely regarded masterpieces. All of those films have mixed reactions at best. And the only time he did something truly original from his mind was an utter disaster in Sucker Punch.

I'm not a hater of either before the apologists and fanboys start opening their gobs, I enjoyed those three films. But let's not pretend Snyder is the ultimate film maker who deserves 100% unquestionable confidence and backing from every person on the planet.

Hell, even Marvel got a lot of criticism when Joss Whedon was hired to helm The Avengers and he'd shown in previous work that he was perfect for juggling large casts of disparate characters who eventually form a misfit family.

Yes, he does. He gets credit for the story on two and the screenplay on one. Like I said before, the criticism of films like 300, "Watchmen", and Man of Steel are irrelevant since the box office numbers are the absolute measure of their success and popularity (the second film I mentioned was a disappointment based on that although the tomato-meter said it was fresh).

 

[Flint Marko]

Yes. We have already seen a glimpse of the bat-mobile that will be used in this film and it looks like it will be a convolution of the Burton and Nolan versions of the vehicle.



The only real difference I saw was that Krypton was physically re-imagined and that Superman wore a different costume than his predecessors, the basic story was the same. Furthermore, this is Batman, even though there will be no continuity amongst the previous films, the back-story doesn't change. Both Batman and Superman were orphaned as children (from their biological parents) and eventually became super-heroes as adults.




It worked very well for Batman in 1989, so I don't see that your statement is valid.

[/COLOR]



Outside of the TV series and the fact that she has been around in the comics for about 75 years, when has Wonder Woman shown that she is any bigger or more remarkable than say Katniss Everdeen, Alice (from the Resident Evil films), or even Seline (from the Underworld franchise)? If you ask me It is yet to be proven that Wonder Woman is all that let alone being popular. We have already seen what happened to a franchise that was presumed to be iconic and big in Green Lantern.



Yeah, this year they are releasing the third film in the franchise. Not too many films are that fortunate and it should show you that you don't even have to be a popular brand to do films that way.



I just did compare them in my previous post. Certainly these are different characters/franchises, but they are all fictional storytelling on film, and the ones that I mentioned featured ensemble casts with no prior back-story in an individual solo film. Finding a difference between the properties doesn't change that fact nor does it change the point that they all worked and that the Marvel Phase Two paradigm is not the be all and end all formula for successful film-making.



Trust me, if you have thought about, we would not be having this discussion.

I don't really have time to get into all this with you, I've made my point several times over.
But I will say this; you have yet to demonstrate why we shouldn't feel nervous at all about this. You haven't given a single compelling piece of evidence as to why we should all blindly be hopeful about every aspect of a film we know nothing about, and the fact that several other people are disagreeing with you says a lot.

 

[The Endless]

Yes, he does. He gets credit for the story on two and the screenplay on one. Like I said before, the criticism of films like 300, "Watchmen", and Man of Steel are irrelevant since the box office numbers are the absolute measure of their success and popularity (the second film I mentioned was a disappointment based on that although the tomato-meter said it was fresh).

They are Nolan's films.

And who gives a **** about box office success? Why are you moving the goal posts?

We are talking about Goyer and Snyder's ability to handle this beast of a film like this in terms of the actual quality, not box office numbers.

It's ok to have doubts. I'm not a doomsayer, i'm still incredibly excited. But i ain't gonna sit here and pretend i'm not concerned that these guys have the keys to the DC cinematic universe.

People doubted Joss Whedon doing Avengers even though he had a PROVEN track record of being great with multiple characters and dysfunctional team dynamics.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Fanboy "ermmm this title is bad!" wait I got an idea lissenz to me wb execs!

The sequel should be MOS:MOS starring Metallo as the villain yo!!!!

 

[dnno1]

They are Nolan's films.

And who gives a **** about box office success? Why are you moving the goal posts?

Umm... the studio and their stakeholders? If a film wasn't successful at the box office we wouldn't get a sequel. Didn't you think about that? That is not always the case with a quality film. It is folks like you who are changing the rules by saying quality (a subjective property) > quantity (an objective property), when the latter is actually the bottom line and a direct measure of a film's popularity. Sure, the film, "Her" won Academy awards this year, but for a $47 million worldwide gross on a $23 million investment, I seriously doubt we will be seeing a sequel released as a summer blockbuster. Furthermore, sure, Nolan directed these film, but David S. Goyer still gets credit for his part as a writer.

We are talking about Goyer and Snyder's ability to handle this beast of a film like this in terms of the actual quality, not box office numbers.

It's ok to have doubts. I'm not a doomsayer, i'm still incredibly excited. But i ain't gonna sit here and pretend i'm not concerned that these guys have the keys to the DC cinematic universe.

You are trying to dictate the conversation by saying the film has to be quality, when the real goal here is to make a film that will be the most popular thing to see come summer of 2016. Quality and Quantity doesn't always equate here, but quality is very important.

 

[The Endless]

Are you or me stakeholders in Warner Brothers? Are we going to make any money from this films success?

No?

Then when should we care about how popular or how much money it makes? I want a top quality film. I want a film worthy of these characters, that does them... justice!

Sure we want it to make money so it opens the doors to the rest of the DC cinematic universe. But if it's a steaming pile of garbage or even mediocre that makes 2 billion dollars i won't be excited to see what else comes from these film makers anyway.

 

[hafizbat]

Are you or me stakeholders in Warner Brothers? Are we going to make any money from this films success?

No?

Then when should we care about how popular or how much money it makes? I want a top quality film. I want a film worthy of these characters, that does them... justice!

Sure we want it to make money so it opens the doors to the rest of the DC cinematic universe. But if it's a steaming pile of garbage or even mediocre that makes 2 billion dollars i won't be excited to see what else comes from these film makers anyway.

This.