BvS Superman vs Batman movie to feature Wonder Woman?

[ThePowerCosmic]

lmao, I know! That is just horrid. Look how her head shakes. Like, wtf was that?

 

[C. Lee]

OK....here we go again....listen up everyone....


Do not make sexist misogynistic remarks.....please do not try and act like a SNL sketch about what comic book fanboys act like....please act semi intelligent, civil, grownup, and aware that this is a public forum.

Otherwise you will be infracted and or put on probation for your rude behavior.

 

[Nemeres]

I don't like the idea. I'd like to see the story of WW actually leaving her island, loaded with big ideals, to fight in a man's world, a 'fish out of water' story - the best way to juice the concept of WW, in my opinion - and if she's already established in BVS, then they skipped the interesting part. Meh.

 

[Casval]

Why my message got deleted? Saying that a woman is a terrible actress isn't sexist nor misogynistic, even if I agree it can be a bit rude (although it is still my opinion).

I'm confused.

 

[jmc]

Agreed; it is lazy.

What's lazy is people saying it's lazy but then not backing it up with anything. Man of Steel set up the world, other characters have to fit that mold.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

What's lazy is people saying it's lazy but then not backing it up with anything. Man of Steel set up the world, other characters have to fit that mold.

Why do other characters have to fit that mold? Basically, you're saying that everything needs to tie into the Kryptonians. That's lazy.

 

[jmc]

Why do other characters have to fit that mold? Basically, you're saying that everything needs to tie into the Kryptonians. That's lazy.

No, what I'm saying is that the other characters have to play by the rules set down by Man of Steel. It's a Sci-fi world not a superhero world, and thus characters are going to have to be reworked in order to fit that world. You can't have Gods and Mythical creatures in the Man of Steel world, it doesn't fit, it would be like having wizards in a Terminator movie. Krypton is the easiest pathway to uniformity. So no it's not lazy, it's logical and frankly brilliant because it's eliminates the need for convoluted justification as to why a character is doing something that contradicts the world set up in the previous movie. If you don't like the idea that's fine, but just because something is easier option doesn't make it lazy, if anything it makes the possibility of a better film being produced.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Rocket Racoon doesn't fit Iron Man 1

 

[jmc]

Iron Man 1 is a deliberate neutral movie setting. It never tries to set itself as being set in the real world, or a science fiction film, it's a film that sits happily in a superhero world where anything can happen. Man of Steel is a sci-fi movie that tries to set itself in our world plain and simple. It was never intended to be a wider superhero universe, thus any additional characters now have to fit that universe.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Gods and mythical creatures could totally fit.

I thought they did a good job of it in Lost. It started real-world, then showed sci-fi and later presented things in a more fantasy light.

A real world setting can make the fantasy elements feel real as well, especially when characters give the appropriate responses.

I'm not concerned at all about WW being able to fit.

 

[Lord]

No, what I'm saying is that the other characters have to play by the rules set down by Man of Steel. It's a Sci-fi world not a superhero world, and thus characters are going to have to be reworked in order to fit that world. You can't have Gods and Mythical creatures in the Man of Steel world, it doesn't fit, it would be like having wizards in a Terminator movie. Krypton is the easiest pathway to uniformity. So no it's not lazy, it's logical and frankly brilliant because it's eliminates the need for convoluted justification as to why a character is doing something that contradicts the world set up in the previous movie. If you don't like the idea that's fine, but just because something is easier option doesn't make it lazy, if anything it makes the possibility of a better film being produced.

In the real world there is great beauty and happyness, on the other hand there is also big poverty and sadness, why? Because it's freaking complex, you can't have multiple elements in a world, that's called an expansive universe. You're not making a better movie, you're limiting one franchise (Wonder Woman) in favor of another (Superman). The man of steel was one of the most exagerated and less realistic superhero movie i've seen, gods there won't make a difference, and it's not like they're appearing in Superman's movies, they're appearing in the crossovers, which are different franchises where all these elements can work together

 

[jmc]

You are all looking at it through the eyes of fans and not through the eyes of film makers. I'm not going to bother arguing any further.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

No, what I'm saying is that the other characters have to play by the rules set down by Man of Steel. It's a Sci-fi world not a superhero world, and thus characters are going to have to be reworked in order to fit that world. You can't have Gods and Mythical creatures in the Man of Steel world, it doesn't fit, it would be like having wizards in a Terminator movie. Krypton is the easiest pathway to uniformity. So no it's not lazy, it's logical and frankly brilliant because it's eliminates the need for convoluted justification as to why a character is doing something that contradicts the world set up in the previous movie. If you don't like the idea that's fine, but just because something is easier option doesn't make it lazy, if anything it makes the possibility of a better film being produced.

No, it's illogical that you think those other characters can't fit and have to adhere to MoS' sci-fi beginnings. This is NOT the MoS world. This is the DCCU. Separate movies about other heroes don't have to adhere to anything except for their own mythologies. They don't have to play by any rules! The universe of Terminator firmly established itself as sci-fi with no place for magic. How can you start making declarations like that when the DCCU is in its infancy? We haven't really seen s**t yet to start making up rules!

I'm sure people said the same things about Thor or aliens appearing when Iron Man came out. It's like you people need to be shown these movies to actually believe it can work. Crazy.

Iron Man 1 is a deliberate neutral movie setting. It never tries to set itself as being set in the real world, or a science fiction film, it's a film that sits happily in a superhero world where anything can happen. Man of Steel is a sci-fi movie that tries to set itself in our worldplain and simple. It was never intended to be a wider superhero universe, thus any additional characters now have to fit that universe.

lol, Iron Man is pure sci-fi and down-to-earth. There's nothing "neutral" about it. That's only easy for you to say now because you know it's part of a whole MCU. I can't comprehend your logic. You're saying MoS was never intended to be a part of a DCU(how do you know this?), and yet, now it is. That's all that matters. They are fully welcome to introduce magic and other things without it being "against the rules", because as far as we know, there are no rules in the DCCU yet.

 

[Lord]

Iron Man 1 is a deliberate neutral movie setting. It never tries to set itself as being set in the real world, or a science fiction film, it's a film that sits happily in a superhero world where anything can happen. Man of Steel is a sci-fi movie that tries to set itself in our world plain and simple. It was never intended to be a wider superhero universe, thus any additional characters now have to fit that universe.

Yes it was, i'dd buy that as more easily set in our world than The Man of Steel, just because it didn't have blue tint doesn't mean it was more realistic, Iron Man actually focused on problems from today like terrorism, the armor felt heavy, and besides Tony's brain and the technology he had created the film was heavily set in the real world.

Now with Man of Steel we have a hero being loved, yet also having been involved in a cataclysm more than 10 times bigger than 9/11, crashing whatever he can find with the action sequences going over the top and people only realising there was a tornado when it's right now going to hit them, a guy sacrificing himself for his dog and not letting Clark help when he could have fixed the problem more easily.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

You are all looking at it through the eyes of fans and not through the eyes of film makers. I'm not going to bother arguing any further.

Yeah, try to justify it any way you want.

 

[Lord]

You are all looking at it through the eyes of fans and not through the eyes of film makers. I'm not going to bother arguing any further.

I look at this as a film maker first and foremost, and that's why i know it can work, this is cinema, not reality, it's allways about how you present the story, and looking at it like this too it just feels like doing that to Wonder Woman is losing a lot of potencial and limiting her more and more, the way of thinking with WW you're trying to advocate only makes sence in the eyes of somebody who wants to see MoS v.2 over and over again.

These type of discussion have been done since forever, from The Avengers or Justice League not working due to all the different elements to Thor not being able to be set in the same universe as Iron Man, it has been proven over and over again that it's not the case, the potencial is endless, you can go as far as where you think you can go.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

The Olympians could totally work. They just have to treat it the right way.

A being whose presence influences the tide of war -- a group of immortal aliens that can harness the universe's will power into rings -- what's the difference? They're both supernatural.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Atlanteaaaaans.


I don't get how we can see a creature like H'Raka in MoS, then turn around and say Mythical beasts are just out of the question.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

If Wonder Woman and Aquaman are going to be tied to any other heroes, it should be to each other. There was a war in Heaven, and Olympus was fractured. Ares created the Olympians and Temyscira as a perfect warrior race. Poseidon created the Atlanteans in his realm of the sea. The Olympians would be beings similar to "Those Who Came Before" (actually nearly identical).

Then a film exploring this split in Olympus can be seen in a Wonder Woman vs Aquaman film.

 

[jmc]

I look at this as a film maker first and foremost, and that's why i know it can work, this is cinema, not reality, it's allways about how you present the story, and looking at it like this too it just feels like doing that to Wonder Woman is losing a lot of potencial and limiting her more and more, the way of thinking with WW you're trying to advocate only makes sence in the eyes of somebody who wants to see MoS v.2 over and over again.

These type of discussion have been done since forever, from The Avengers or Justice League not working due to all the different elements to Thor not being able to be set in the same universe as Iron Man, it has been proven over and over again that it's not the case, the potencial is endless, you can go as far as where you think you can go.

You have to follow the rules set up in previous movies, lets be honest, Man of Steel was never intended to be a wider universe - that is fact, no one can deny this. Iron Man was always the starting point for a much larger universe. It's not comparable because it's not intentionally trying to be anything other than a superhero movie. We have a specific world set up in MoS, it's a Sci-fi world, we've got rules set up from that film, you can't just ignore them. That is what you have to think about first and foremost with any follow movie, you have to then build any new stories and characters around that world previously created. If people don't like the idea that's fine, but if I'm a screen writer I know the best place to start is by adapting a character to fit the MoS world not the other way around, because ultimately you get cohesiveness and a much better launching pad for a better story. The usual fan response is 'if it's done handled correctly' - I'm sorry but even the best screen writers can't always handle something correctly because sometimes it's just too cumbersome to adapt. I take note that no-ones bothered to bring up any faults with the idea I posted, other than it's lazy, which it frankly isn't.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

No, we've brought up the reasons about why it's unnecessary. You just aren't reading. And you still haven't even provided proof that MOS was never supposed to be part of a wider universe.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

You have to follow the rules set up in previous movies, lets be honest, Man of Steel was never intended to be a wider universe - that is fact, no one can deny this. Iron Man was always the starting point for a much larger universe. It's not comparable because it's not intentionally trying to be anything other than a superhero movie. We have a specific world set up in MoS, it's a Sci-fi world, we've got rules set up from that film, you can't just ignore them. That is what you have to think about first and foremost with any follow movie, you have to then build any new stories and characters around that world previously created. If people don't like the idea that's fine, but if I'm a screen writer I know the best place to start is by adapting a character to fit the MoS world not the other way around, because ultimately you get cohesiveness and a much better launching pad for a better story. The usual fan response is 'if it's done handled correctly' - I'm sorry but even the best screen writers can't always handle something correctly because sometimes it's just too cumbersome to adapt. I take note that no-ones bothered to bring up any faults with the idea I posted, other than it's lazy, which it frankly isn't.

What's wrong with a tonal shift?

Where's the rule that says that sci-fi can't become more fantasy?

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

If Wonder Woman and Aquaman are going to be tied to any other heroes, it should be to each other. There was a war in Heaven, and Olympus was fractured. Ares created the Olympians and Temyscira as a perfect warrior race. Poseidon created the Atlanteans in his realm of the sea. The Olympians would be beings similar to "Those Who Came Before" (actually nearly identical).

Then a film exploring this split in Olympus can be seen in a Wonder Woman vs Aquaman film.

Now I would actually be fully okay with this idea. Except for Ares creating the Amazons and Themyscira. I think it should either be Athena or Zeus. Preferably, Athena. But other than that, I actually really like it.

Edit: Actually, I think Hera would be an even better fit than Athena for creating the Amazons and Themyscira.

 

[NosfeRomas]

What's wrong with a tonal shift?

Where's the rule that says that sci-fi can't become more fantasy?

Thor 2.

 

[Lord]

You have to follow the rules set up in previous movies, lets be honest, Man of Steel was never intended to be a wider universe - that is fact, no one can deny this. Iron Man was always the starting point for a much larger universe. It's not comparable because it's not intentionally trying to be anything other than a superhero movie. We have a specific world set up in MoS, it's a Sci-fi world, we've got rules set up from that film, you can't just ignore them. That is what you have to think about first and foremost with any follow movie, you have to then build any new stories and characters around that world previously created. If people don't like the idea that's fine, but if I'm a screen writer I know the best place to start is by adapting a character to fit the MoS world not the other way around, because ultimately you get cohesiveness and a much better launching pad for a better story. The usual fan response is 'if it's done handled correctly' - I'm sorry but even the best screen writers can't always handle something correctly because sometimes it's just too cumbersome to adapt. I take note that no-ones bothered to bring up any faults with the idea I posted, other than it's lazy, which it frankly isn't.

-You can't make a mainstream Superhero film with a big budget, it's impossible, they're only silly comic book: Boom, Superman: The Movie happens
-You can't make a dark superhero film, that won't bring in kids and superhero movies are no longer profitable: Batman 89 happens
-You can't make a team of heroes with such flashy powers: X-Men happens
-It's the 21st century, you can't make a superhero film with their colourful costumes now, it's just silly: Spider-Man happens
-Batman is done: Batman Begins
-Begins didn't do much money, and the Joker can't be done by any new actor, and Ledger? The gay cowboy? He can't pull off the role, he's just a pretty boy: The Dark Knight
-You can't have a god in the same universe as Iron Man, that film was realistic, and that kind of crossover movie? Will never happen: Thor and The Avengers
-It's impossible to have a crossover universe, they will f*** it somehow, and magic and science can't coexist: The Marvel Cinematic Universe

Not everything that works in comics can work in films, that's true, but the interesting thing is that as time goes by, comic book adaptations have been proving that more things from comics can work in movies than we expected.

And about Iron Man, Favreau wanted the film to be the most realistic it could be, he even was inspired by Batman Begins, then he added a few nods to comic book fans and it ended up growing a whole universe, if they made gods and a rocket racoon work in Iron Man there's no excuse for DC not to be able to do the same, just by adding a vigilante dressed as a Bat you're making this universe more than just science fiction, it's all about expanding, keeping it in a bottle.