BvS Skepticism Regarding the Film - Part 8

[Fincher]

From Bruce's point of view, Superman's version of helping people has already made him dangerous. It stands to reason that after the events of MOS, there would be a percentage of people who would no longer want superpowered aliens settling their grudges on earth. Despite his good intentions, they would want Superman to leave rather than risk cataclysmic rumbles in the future.

And from Stryker's point of view, all of those mutants with all of their varied powers represented too much of a threat and had to die. He was still a villain and a bigot, and I wasn't concerned at all about his fate in X2. If Apocalypse showed up at the end of the film and Stryker realized he had to work with the mutants to stop him and learned an important lesson, I wouldn't suddenly be all, "Go Stryker! Stryker and Wolverine BFFs forever!" **** that guy.

Batman became a vigilante in a horrible city filled with mob members and crooked cops and innocent people who couldn't protect themselves, and he did what he had to do. The world is not Gotham city. There's billions of people who would presumably be involved in an ongoing debate as to how to proceed with the knowledge of Superman, leaders of countries considering the ramifications and best possible way forward. If Batman looks at all that and says, "Never mind what you guys think, I'm killing him"...well, that sounds an awful lot like Lex Luthor.

First of all, it's not his place to decide at all. Second, even if it was, trying to kill Superman is not smart. If he's on our side, and you try to kill him and fail...maybe he's not on our side anymore. Maybe he decides to wipe out the Eastern seaboard just to make a point. If there's even a 1% chance that could be the outcome, then Batman should take it as an absolute certainty and leave it the **** alone. Third...it's wrong. And not even knee jerk reaction wrong, like responding to a giant sentient cockroach knocking on your front door and asking for a cup of sugar by grabbing your shotgun. Superman's been around, he's been interviewed, he's done benevolent acts, and after plenty of time to think it through, Batman makes a calculated decision to kill him based on a hypothetical outcome? I don't care what his fears are, that's first degree murder.

 

[jmc]

It could be but we don't have the specifics at all. I get your point but I wanna see first.

True. The way it comes across to me at present is that either Batman hasn't actually done his homework on who Clark is as a person, or he has and simply doesn't care and wants revenge. Both of those I have a problem with.

 

[Jumpman]

And from Stryker's point of view, all of those mutants with all of their varied powers represented too much of a threat and had to die. He was still a villain and a bigot, and I wasn't concerned at all about his fate in X2. If Apocalypse showed up at the end of the film and Stryker realized he had to work with the mutants to stop him and learned an important lesson, I wouldn't suddenly be all, "Go Stryker! Stryker and Wolverine BFFs forever!" **** that guy.

Batman became a vigilante in a horrible city filled with mob members and crooked cops and innocent people who couldn't protect themselves, and he did what he had to do. The world is not Gotham city. There's billions of people who would presumably be involved in an ongoing debate as to how to proceed with the knowledge of Superman, leaders of countries considering the ramifications and best possible way forward. If Batman looks at all that and says, "Never mind what you guys think, I'm killing him"...well, that sounds an awful lot like Lex Luthor.

First of all, it's not his place to decide at all. Second, even if it was, trying to kill Superman is not smart. If he's on our side, and you try to kill him and fail...maybe he's not on our side anymore. Maybe he decides to wipe out the Eastern seaboard just to make a point. If there's even a 1% chance that could be the outcome, then Batman should take it as an absolute certainty and leave it the **** alone. Third...it's wrong. And not even knee jerk reaction wrong, like responding to a giant sentient cockroach knocking on your front door and asking for a cup of sugar by grabbing your shotgun. Superman's been around, he's been interviewed, he's done benevolent acts, and after plenty of time to think it through, Batman makes a calculated decision to kill him based on a hypothetical outcome? I don't care what his fears are, that's first degree murder.

Here's the thing, what if Bruce Wayne, over the course of twenty years on the job, has become so jaded that he can't see the best in humanity any longer? It's been shown the trailers already that Alfred is pleading with Bruce with whatever information that they've found that this guy (Superman) isn't the enemy. And Bruce still isn't listening to Alfred.

What if the spine of Bruce's story in this film is him coming back from the brink of self destruction? To me, that seems obvious at this point.

There is an emotional element to Bruce's story that we haven't seen yet. But the Alfred pleading moment in the trailers is a very clear indication that this Bruce Wayne is really off his rocker in some ways.

If you want to continue to doing films in this genre with the same characters, you gotta come up with something that isn't like the last iteration. Otherwise, why do the films to do the same thing over and over again? Just pick up your favorite comic and reread the damn thing if you want the same thing.

 

[Jumpman]

True. The way it comes across to me at present is that either Batman hasn't actually done his homework on who Clark is as a person, or he has and simply doesn't care and wants revenge. Both of those I have a problem with.

I don't think he wants revenge. I truly believe that this Bruce Wayne, twenty years on the job, is so jaded that he's on the brink of self destruction. In his warped mind, he's doing just work. He can't see.

There's is no way Snyder ends this movie with the Trinity being formed with Bruce Wayne not being fully changed by the end of this thing. A renewed sense of purpose and perspective and life.

No way that doesn't happen at the end of this.

 

[jmc]

I don't think he wants revenge. I truly believe that this Bruce Wayne, twenty years on the job, is so jaded that he's on the brink of self destruction. In his warped mind, he's doing just work. He can't see.

There's is no way Snyder ends this movie with the Trinity being formed with Bruce Wayne not being fully changed by the end of this thing. A renewed sense of purpose and perspective and life.

No way that doesn't happen at the end of this.

The question I have to that is how much time is going to be spent on Batman changing to who he once was. he can't simply just suddenly say to Clark at the end of the film 'Hey you're not so bad after all' and have a renewed purpose, there's got to be a journey here along the way. Is there going to be the time for said journey to be properly developed whilst trying to juggle Superman's side of the story? I don't know.

 

[Jumpman]

The question I have is how much time is going to be spent on Batman changing to who he once was? he can't simply just suddenly say to Clark at the end of the film 'Hey you're not so bad after all' and have a renewed purpose, there's got to be a journey here along the way. Is there going to be the time for said journey to be properly developed whilst trying to juggle Superman's side of the story? I don't know.

On this, we agree.

From what I've been told from a source of mine who has contacts in the industry, the Batman side of the story is the one with the most meat. I was told that the Superman side is slightly undercooked, which I'm not surprised by considering MAN OF STEEL gave us all that already.

For me, it's very simple. This is THE DARK KNIGHT all over again. All the criticism of that film from people who really didn't watch it was that Batman wasn't the main character. Which is total BS because the entire film is the reaction, the escalation from the arrival and existence of the Batman with the Joker being the living embodiment of said reaction. That film is all about Batman.

Same thing is gonna happen here, I bet. This is a Superman story through and through but it won't be seen as one because everyone is going to be reacting to him. He may have less stuff to do or be shown in the film but EVERYTHING in the film is about him.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

And from Stryker's point of view, all of those mutants with all of their varied powers represented too much of a threat and had to die. He was still a villain and a bigot, and I wasn't concerned at all about his fate in X2. If Apocalypse showed up at the end of the film and Stryker realized he had to work with the mutants to stop him and learned an important lesson, I wouldn't suddenly be all, "Go Stryker! Stryker and Wolverine BFFs forever!" **** that guy.

Batman became a vigilante in a horrible city filled with mob members and crooked cops and innocent people who couldn't protect themselves, and he did what he had to do. The world is not Gotham city. There's billions of people who would presumably be involved in an ongoing debate as to how to proceed with the knowledge of Superman, leaders of countries considering the ramifications and best possible way forward. If Batman looks at all that and says, "Never mind what you guys think, I'm killing him"...well, that sounds an awful lot like Lex Luthor.

First of all, it's not his place to decide at all. Second, even if it was, trying to kill Superman is not smart. If he's on our side, and you try to kill him and fail...maybe he's not on our side anymore. Maybe he decides to wipe out the Eastern seaboard just to make a point. If there's even a 1% chance that could be the outcome, then Batman should take it as an absolute certainty and leave it the **** alone. Third...it's wrong. And not even knee jerk reaction wrong, like responding to a giant sentient cockroach knocking on your front door and asking for a cup of sugar by grabbing your shotgun. Superman's been around, he's been interviewed, he's done benevolent acts, and after plenty of time to think it through, Batman makes a calculated decision to kill him based on a hypothetical outcome? I don't care what his fears are, that's first degree murder.

I'm just going to give my opinion on what is going on in Bruce's head here and why I just don't find this criticism of something we haven't yet seen in full as valid, granting I too am basing it off of limited info and speculation.


Bruce is not acting from a totally rational place. And that's fine. If as fans always say they believe Batman is the superior character because of his mortal shortcomings, both physical and otherwise, then what's wrong with a story that highlights that? He can't ever be wrong? He can't ever be blinded by emotion? Because that's the gist of the critique I am reading.

Batman is the result of a tragedy that befell Bruce as a child. A young boy get's forcefully initiated into the adult world by terrible luck. A loving family gets shattered by the sudden appearance of violence and disorder. That's what scarred Bruce and motivated him and a big part of that is anger and obsession. So here we have a version of that character that's been doing this for twenty years or so give or take. He's carved out a little bit of order in a world of chaos. Then one day, just as what happened with his family out of nowhere the most destruction and loss of life he's ever witness first hand happens. He experiences it first hand, powerless again to do anything about it just as when he was a child. How does a person like him deal with that? Being again put in the same emotional space as when one lost their whole world again is going to affect a person after going through it one time already.

After the Black Zero event Bruce has nothing to blame or punish... Except for Superman. And lets be clear it's not even something personal I bet. Superman is a living avatar of that uncontrollable chaos that brings violence and destroys to Bruce I am guessing. Though blameless for the destruction (and he really is, since most of the damage in the city happens before Superman even shows up and it's Zod not Superman that destroys Wayne Tower) Superman has become his white whale. In fact Ahab from Moby Dick is the great comparison here I think. In a lot of interpretations of the Melville tale Ahab isn't after the whale simply for revenge. No. The whale is a living embodiment of cruel fate/God/the uncaring universe. Ahab is out for some measure of cosmic justice for himself and all men everywhere. Is that nuts? Yeah. Doesn't change that is how some people approach a lot of things in life.

Bruce is not coming at this from a place of sober reflection. He's being sloppy concentrating on Superman while missing the real threat in Lex. And that's fine. Not only is Lex one of the few people that should be able to pull the wool over Batman's eyes, if Batman is emotionally compromised then that gives Lex even more of an advantage to set the chess board as he sees fit with Batman be none the wiser. I don't think it's a disservice to the character to do a story like that, as it just shows his true humanity. That's far more well rounded a character and more conducive to a plot where two great but flawed men can meet and clash than a Batman that is perfect and can't make mistakes in the eyes of his fans. Where is the drama in that? Where is the tension? Superman is, or at least, should, also having his own blind spot or flaw that over the course of the story he has to confront or come to terms with. If you want them both to be perfect and yet they still end up fighting then you are right, that is poor writing, but it was poor writing an making them bland uninteresting characters with no flaws that fight for the sake of having them fight. It's something else if the conflict is between great extraordinary people who none the less have blind spots and limitations.

 

[jmc]

On this, we agree.

From what I've been told from a source of mine who has contacts in the industry, the Batman side of the story is the one with the most meat. I was told that the Superman side is slightly undercooked, which I'm not surprised by considering MAN OF STEEL gave us all that already.

For me, it's very simple. This is THE DARK KNIGHT all over again. All the criticism of that film from people who really didn't watch it was that Batman wasn't the main character. Which is total BS because the entire film is the reaction, the escalation from the arrival and existence of the Batman with the Joker being the living embodiment of said reaction. That film is all about Batman.

Same thing is gonna happen here, I bet. This is a Superman story through and through but it won't be seen as one because everyone is going to be reacting to him. He may have less stuff to do or be shown in the film but EVERYTHING in the film is about him.

This wouldn't surprise me, but it would disappoint me. Something that is essentially a Batman film masquerading itself as something else whilst undercutting Superman. It makes me wonder, if that is indeed the case, if Superman is ever going to be given another opportunity on his own. Maybe Man of Steel was the straw that broke the camels back, and maybe he's going to end up being like Hulk where he's in every other persons movies except his own. I don't know. We know another Batman film is coming, but we've heard sweet f-all about MoS2. I'm a Batman guy but I still have a fondness for Superman and the rest of the DC roster and I don't want to see Batman overshadow them all, otherwise what's the point of having a connected universe if it's so Batman centric? He risks becoming an easy crutch.

 

[Fincher]

If you want to continue to doing films in this genre with the same characters, you gotta come up with something that isn't like the last iteration. Otherwise, why do the films to do the same thing over and over again? Just pick up your favorite comic and reread the damn thing if you want the same thing.

Batman & Robin was different, so I guess it must be good since it avoided being Batman Returns or Batman Forever.

Maybe I just don't like the idea of what they're doing here? I don't know what'll sell tickets, but I know this was a change I personally did not need. Just like I don't need or like the new Batsuit, just like I don't need or like the decision to put Batman in a shared universe. I'm not going to praise changes that don't appeal to me out of some notion that there's no way to continue doing things I like, when I know perfectly well that's not true.

 

[Jumpman]

This wouldn't surprise me, but it would disappoint me. Something that is essentially a Batman film masquerading itself as something else whilst undercutting Superman. It makes me wonder, if that is indeed the case, if Superman is ever going to be given another opportunity on his own. Maybe Man of Steel was the straw that broke the camels back, and maybe he's going to end up being like Hulk where he's in every other persons movies except his own. I don't know. We know another Batman film is coming, but we've heard sweet f-all about MoS2. I'm a Batman guy but I still have a fondness for Superman and the rest of the DC roster and I don't want to see Batman overshadow them all, otherwise what's the point of having a connected universe if it's so Batman centric? He risks becoming an easy crutch.

MAN OF STEEL made me realize how much I liked the character but I also think the film is the one that may have shelved Superman having his own solo film for a while.

You are indeed correct. Superman will be the Hulk of the DCEU. It sucks but I just don't see them doing a MAN OF STEEL sequel any time soon. WB has been criticized for years about not using the other characters so come hell or high water, we're gonna get AQUAMAN, SHAZAAM, FLASH, GREEN LANTERN CORPS, SUICIDE SQUAD, WONDER WOMAN, and THE BATMAN before we get another Superman story.

But this much is true; JUSTICE LEAGUE ain't gonna work with Superman. At the end of the day, Superman's always going to be the spine of the universe because of his power and what he's suppose to represent for everyone. Personally, I ain't bent that we won't be getting another one starring Henry Cavill.

Batman being a crutch has always been a problem because, make no mistake, he's kind of Marvel character in comparison to the others in this universe. He just is. If WB can make the other characters work, then maybe he won't be but I just don't see it. That character always sells. Considering Batman is my favorite fictional character, I'm fine with more, always as you change it up. Try something different with the guy.

Him being the antagonist in this is changing it up. This is why I'm not bent out of shape of having the Batman on the screen again, just four years after THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

 

[jmc]

I'm perfectly fine with him being back on screen too. I'm not one of these people who thinks it's too soon. My concern is with him being an antagonist and coming across as unlikable. I get the idea of a withered Batman being completely disillusioned with life, there are some elements to that which were present in TDKR, but there's a risk involved with that interpretation whereby he can go from walking that vigilante line to full on crossing over to it. I struggle to see how appealing that version of Batman could be if it were to happen.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

We actually have heard that there is going to be a Superman and Batman solo as part of the slate of WB DC films. There is movement on the Bat film for a number of reasons and nothing concrete on the Supes film probably because Cavs has been on a roller coaster ride since about 2012 (earlier really) and could use a break after the filming of JL 1 and 2. But... This is KNOWN info that seems to be forgotten whenever the discussion of how there isn't going to be a Supes solo comes up since I guess it doesn't fit certain people's narratives about these films and the handling of the character. As it stands we know Ben is part of the creative team for his solo Batman film and wrote the script with Geoff Johns... And that is actually it. All the talk of him directing? Not confirmed. No release date and no production time start. So... Other than the script being worked on (it was supposed to be finished over the summer but there's been some word they are still working on it) the Bat solo is at this point in the same position as the Supes solo, with as I said, no announced director, no production start and no release date.

 

[BH/HHH]

Actually the only things we've heard about either the next solo Superman or solo Batman are rumours. We've had rumoured plots for both, rumoured directors for both etc. The only thing we have heard that is sort of official is the report that announced what films would be in the slate of DC projects that said something like along with solo Superman and Batman films we are getting the below which were Wonder Woman, Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg, Green Lantern and Shazam. I honestly think once BvS is a success they'll announce the solo Superman sequel and Batman films. Maybe they'll even save them for comic con or another DCEU special. There's no need for them to load everything on us now. Especially when they've already confirmed so much.

Also if they don't think Superman is a draw on his own then they're been stupid as MOS was one of the biggest earners for a comic book origin/reboot. But as I've said before they can always use characters like Lobo, Supergirl or maybe even Martian Manhunter with him who would then have their own movies. After all I don't think any of those characaters would feel forced in a Superman sequel.

 

[Fincher]

stuff

What Batman is (or seems to be, I can only go by the trailers at this point) doing here goes too far for me. It's not just a matter of him being wrong or imperfect. Also, I think this whole argument about Bruce's twenty years as Batman would be more compelling if we'd had twenty years worth of movies to go with it. We're jumping to the part where he goes off the deep end here. I imagine we'll get flashbacks, but still, I don't have the connection that I have with, say, Oliver on Arrow. Or Helena on Arrow, for that matter. First impressions matter, and this is the first impression.

And then on top of that, a large part of cheering for someone isn't in what they do but rather in style and personality. They've already pretty well messed up the style for me. I thought maybe the gray suit would be dark enough that I wouldn't mind it, but having gotten a good look at it, I don't like the color or the cowl or the bat symbol. As for personality...again, I can't speak to the movie as a whole, but in each of the trailers so far, I haven't found him likable. He seems to rub me the wrong way.

The Team Cap or Team Iron Man thing is a big topic when it comes to Civil War. In this case, I'm Team Guy in Bathtub With Amy Adams. Well, or Team Wonder Woman, she seems pretty cool.

 

[jmc]

What Batman is (or seems to be, I can only go by the trailers at this point) doing here goes too far for me. It's not just a matter of him being wrong or imperfect. Also, I think this whole argument about Bruce's twenty years as Batman would be more compelling if we'd had twenty years worth of movies to go with it. We're jumping to the part where he goes off the deep end here. I imagine we'll get flashbacks, but still, I don't have the connection that I have with, say, Oliver on Arrow. Or Helena on Arrow, for that matter. First impressions matter, and this is the first impression.

And then on top of that, a large part of cheering for someone isn't in what they do but rather in style and personality. They've already pretty well messed up the style for me. I thought maybe the gray suit would be dark enough that I wouldn't mind it, but having gotten a good look at it, I don't like the color or the cowl or the bat symbol. As for personality...again, I can't speak to the movie as a whole, but in each of the trailers so far, I haven't found him likable. He seems to rub me the wrong way.

The Team Cap or Team Iron Man thing is a big topic when it comes to Civil War. In this case, I'm Team Guy in Bathtub With Amy Adams. Well, or Team Wonder Woman, she seems pretty cool.

This brings up an interesting question I don't think the marketing of this film has asked. Who or what exactly are we suppose to be cheering for?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

What Batman is (or seems to be, I can only go by the trailers at this point) doing here goes too far for me. It's not just a matter of him being wrong or imperfect. Also, I think this whole argument about Bruce's twenty years as Batman would be more compelling if we'd had twenty years worth of movies to go with it. We're jumping to the part where he goes off the deep end here. I imagine we'll get flashbacks, but still, I don't have the connection that I have with, say, Oliver on Arrow. Or Helena on Arrow, for that matter. First impressions matter, and this is the first impression.

And then on top of that, a large part of cheering for someone isn't in what they do but rather in style and personality. They've already pretty well messed up the style for me. I thought maybe the gray suit would be dark enough that I wouldn't mind it, but having gotten a good look at it, I don't like the color or the cowl or the bat symbol. As for personality...again, I can't speak to the movie as a whole, but in each of the trailers so far, I haven't found him likable. He seems to rub me the wrong way.

The Team Cap or Team Iron Man thing is a big topic when it comes to Civil War. In this case, I'm Team Guy in Bathtub With Amy Adams. Well, or Team Wonder Woman, she seems pretty cool.

I'm sorry but it sounds like no matter what the motivations are you would be against this film. Especially in bringing up the costume, which I have no idea what that has to do with character. And if you noticed, I am also one that ain't crazy about an unlikeable Batman, but for a first meeting in a film about the two clashing, it makes sense to me the way they are presenting and Bruce that is angry and cynical and blinded by emotion. I really think it's over the top to say we need twenty years of Batman films to get this story right. That's like saying we needed twenty years of films about Tony Stark before we got the first IRON MAN film to me.

 

[DA_Champion]

This brings up an interesting question I don't think the marketing of this film has asked. Who or what exactly are we suppose to be cheering for?

I really think that's deliberate on the part of the marketing ...

 

[Lantern Venom]

There's billions of people who would presumably be involved in an ongoing debate as to how to proceed with the knowledge of Superman, leaders of countries considering the ramifications and best possible way forward. If Batman looks at all that and says, "Never mind what you guys think, I'm killing him"...well, that sounds an awful lot like Lex Luthor.

First of all, it's not his place to decide at all. Second, even if it was, trying to kill Superman is not smart. If he's on our side, and you try to kill him and fail...maybe he's not on our side anymore. Maybe he decides to wipe out the Eastern seaboard just to make a point. If there's even a 1% chance that could be the outcome, then Batman should take it as an absolute certainty and leave it the **** alone. Third...it's wrong. And not even knee jerk reaction wrong, like responding to a giant sentient cockroach knocking on your front door and asking for a cup of sugar by grabbing your shotgun. Superman's been around, he's been interviewed, he's done benevolent acts, and after plenty of time to think it through, Batman makes a calculated decision to kill him based on a hypothetical outcome? I don't care what his fears are, that's first degree murder.

From his first incarnation in the comics, Batman has been taking the law into his own hands with little regard to the opinion of politicians and the public. He wages his personal war because he's convinced that he's the only one capable of conquering certain threats. The police, particularly in Gotham, seem to like the extra help, but there have been plenty of instances in the comics where even Jim Gordon has questioned Batman's methods. He's always operated outside the law, even when his ends are in agreement with the law.

Moreover, a regular theme of Batman stories (Action Comics #654, Justice League: Doom, etc) that he's wary of Superman's power level. IIRC, he already collected several different types of Kryptonite samples after the Nu52 reboot. In some continuities, Superman approves of Batman's concerns, but at other times, Batman has shown that he doesn't need Superman or other JLA members' approval to have a contingency plan for dealing with Supes. While it's true that this theme is morally questionable, it's also been part of Batman's personality and his interaction with Superman for a long time. This will just be the first time that it's the focus of a live-action movie.

 

[Fincher]

I'm sorry but it sounds like no matter what the motivations are you would be against this film. Especially in bringing up the costume, which I have no idea what that has to do with character. And if you noticed, I am also one that ain't crazy about an unlikeable Batman, but for a first meeting in a film about the two clashing, it makes sense to me the way they are presenting and Bruce that is angry and cynical and blinded by emotion. I really think it's over the top to say we need twenty years of Batman films to get this story right. That's like saying we needed twenty years of films about Tony Stark before we got the first IRON MAN film to me.

There doesn't need to literally be twenty years; my point is that there's a difference between on the one hand getting to know a character and then finding it tragic when trauma drives them over the edge, and then on the other hand being introduced to a character who's already over the edge and being told that it's tragic because they weren't always like this. In X2 (pre-DoFP, I mean) maybe Stryker wasn't always such a genocidal bigot, and I know something horrible happened to him, but I don't care. And I'm not supposed to in his case, and that's fine.

The suit doesn't change Batman's character, but it affects how inclined I am to cheer for him, because a large part of my being a Batman fan in the first place is that he's cool. If he ends up unlikable and uncool, what does he have? I assume we are ultimately supposed to cheer for this guy. He's not just an antagonist there that Superman teaches the power of love, right? He's getting his own solo films, he's in Justice League...I mean, I'd feel differently if this was Lex Luthor's characterization we were talking about.

And the suit is a problem by itself (I hope they change it eventually), and the vibe I got from Affleck in the first trailer made me concerned, but I hoped that the trailers that followed would put him in a better light. That I don't like his motivation isn't irrelevant; if anything, it puts my dislike of how he acts in perspective. Is it bad that I didn't rush to conclusions about the movie based on the first trailer? I try to be open-minded, and I keep making a point of saying things like "it seems" or "if" because, to be fair, I am basing this off of only the small part of the film they've shown us, but the more I keep not liking what they show of Bruce/Batman, the more likely it is that it's because their approach to the character is something I won't like.

Moreover, a regular theme of Batman stories (Action Comics #654, Justice League: Doom, etc) that he's wary of Superman's power level. IIRC, he already collected several different types of Kryptonite samples after the Nu52 reboot. In some continuities, Superman approves of Batman's concerns, but at other times, Batman has shown that he doesn't need Superman or other JLA members' approval to have a contingency plan for dealing with Supes. While it's true that this theme is morally questionable, it's also been part of Batman's personality and his interaction with Superman for a long time. This will just be the first time that it's the focus of a live-action movie.

A contingency plan wouldn't bother me at all.

 

[Bren]

I genuinely believe that Batman's general popularity, plus his oh-so-cool fight scenes will have many people making excuses for his irrational and unreasonable behaviour.

Wonder what those Batfans will do and say when he ends up correcting himself by the end.

 

[morningmimosa]

What's wrong with the suit in your opinion?

 

[Tobias]

This wouldn't surprise me, but it would disappoint me. Something that is essentially a Batman film masquerading itself as something else whilst undercutting Superman. It makes me wonder, if that is indeed the case, if Superman is ever going to be given another opportunity on his own. Maybe Man of Steel was the straw that broke the camels back, and maybe he's going to end up being like Hulk where he's in every other persons movies except his own. I don't know. We know another Batman film is coming, but we've heard sweet f-all about MoS2. I'm a Batman guy but I still have a fondness for Superman and the rest of the DC roster and I don't want to see Batman overshadow them all, otherwise what's the point of having a connected universe if it's so Batman centric? He risks becoming an easy crutch.

I think MOS maybe was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Add in Superman going public in a decade and there isno incentive for WB to invest in standalone Superman films. Hulk status is possible

Deadpool opened to 135 million in February. MOS to 116 in June.

The comic book world has changed and Superman has not been able to adapt. Why is a topic for another thread.

MOS was the chance to re-popularize Superman but it did not connect the GA.

 

[BH/HHH]

Yet as myself and Krypton INC both pointed out above there's as much rumour/confirmation for the Superman solo as there is the Superman solo, yet as usual certain people ignore this. It seems to many are making assumptions based on how they think WBs feels about Superman. Despite MOS not hitting near a billion it was still a very profitable film for WBs not to mention that Superman in terms of merchandise etc is still a huge money earner for DC. As far as establishing a reboot MOS was succesful, they will know via Batman Begins to the Dark Knight that that region of money is a good starting off point.

If BvS bombs then it may derail both a solo Batman and a solo Superman for the time been. If it makes over a billion though I reckon they'll announce those two solos not long after.

 

[Fincher]

What's wrong with the suit in your opinion?

I'm a fan of the black batsuits; in particular, the Batman '89 suit is my favorite superhero costume ever. Even if Batman were a completely original character and this was the very first design, though, I wouldn't be very impressed. I don't like the gray and black combination or the big, blocky bat on his chest.

 

[Tobias]

Yet as myself and Krypton INC both pointed out above there's as much rumour/confirmation for the Superman solo as there is the Superman solo, yet as usual certain people ignore this. It seems to many are making assumptions based on how they think WBs feels about Superman. Despite MOS not hitting near a billion it was still a very profitable film for WBs not to mention that Superman in terms of merchandise etc is still a huge money earner for DC. As far as establishing a reboot MOS was succesful, they will know via Batman Begins to the Dark Knight that that region of money is a good starting off point.

If BvS bombs then it may derail both a solo Batman and a solo Superman for the time been. If it makes over a billion though I reckon they'll announce those two solos not long after.

BS won't bomb. It may underperform expectations but that is about all.

Collider talked about McSweeny rumor.

Collider guys put a fair amount of confidence in the dude.

Their take, if true, is that Batman becomes the core of the DCU should BvS disappoint. They agree a Bats solo would be rolled out immediately and JL pushed back.

I agtree. If there are problems WB goes back to its ace in the hole. Batman.

And Affleck eased into directing JL.

BTW, there has been huge rumors about Batman solo and virtually none about a Superman solo. Do a google search.