BvS The Case For a Pure Versus Movie

[TheBat812]

But what you wrote is predictable. The biggest thing about them fighting in the first two acts is that there's no build up towards it.

yes, there is, there's two acts worth, lol. That's about 1 1/2 hours to 2 depending on the length of the film. And I fail to see how a pure vs story is somehow less predictable. Like I said, both can probably work, I just haven't seen a compelling case for pure vs. It always just sounds like 2 acts of a movie. There's never a vs film with only 2 characters - there's always a third party. The main reason most don't work is that third party is just bland and not really a threat to the story (ie, freddy vs jason vs people. aliens vs predators vs people). That's where you can actually make this interesting - use your basic vs idea for the first two acts and the third act involves resolving the third party.

I would personally like to see Batman hunting down Superman to find his weakness through the first half of the movie, with the confrontation taking place towards the end of the second act. Meanwhile he's been involved with Lex as Bruce (probably as partners at first that quickly derails) to help contain the 'threat of Superman.' whereas Bruce would come to realize that Superman is an asset, Lex comes to determine him as a liability - both to the human race and to his own self-worth/ego. This basic premise allows for alot of interesting storyline possibilities, and while it's a fairly conventional storyline, it's the characters themselves that can make this feel unique. i just don't think there's anything that a pure vs film can offer that a more intricate story can't use, while still offering a more satisfying conclusion/story.

 

[jmc]

yes, there is, there's two acts worth, lol. That's about 1 1/2 hours to 2 depending on the length of the film.

That's not a build up. The fighting should mean something, it shouldn't just happen. If there's no substance to the reason they're battling one and other all you get is an extended version of what they did in Avengers.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

That's why, if they are going to to team up, the fight should be near the end of the second half. And then in the third act, they pair up to stop the villains. 1st act "sequels" MOS, and develops Clark Kent, the beginning of the second act introduces Bruce, the middle of the second act, the plot thickens/Bruce paranoia escalates, and the end of the second act is the fight, then the final third of the film is them cooperating to save the day-with a tag on the end towards a "true sequel" or Wonder Woman

Or both.

 

[TheBat812]

That's not a build up. The fighting should mean something, it shouldn't just happen. If there's no substance to the reason they're battling one and other all you get is an extended version of what they did in Avengers.

Why are you assuming that it "just happens". It obviously will be motivated. But the true fight shouldn't be Superman vs Batman. It should be Superman + Batman vs somebody.

A Superman vs Batman fight at the end of the film is very unsatisfying - even if one 'wins', all we get is a mutual founding of respect? That's not a conclusion. that's character development. It simply is not a good end to a film.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ The fight between Superman and Batman should be a skirmish, while the REAL fight should be against a super-villain.

 

[jmc]

A team up and a verses movie should be two entirely different things. Focus on one or the other, not both because at the end all you're doing is disservice to the audience by watering down both.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

It's funny, but I think MOS2 can be a better movie/sequel as a VS movie (because the time in between the build-up to the fight can serve as a character developing feature), but W/F, I think, would be a lot more fun and satisfying. So do you think the VS movie should have a team-up sequel? And should that team-up sequel be a JL film? I personally think no, and that there should be one team-up movie before a JL film. Maybe a Trinity movie after Wonder Woman, thus "sequeling" Superman/Batman/WW before diving into the League.

 

[TheBat812]

jmc, agree to disagree. the most complete film will use both in my personal opinion. once again, the story you guys have been describing sounds incomplete, like 2 acts of a film. When you're exploring themes, rather than just telling random superhero stories (like comics and the animated films tend to do), you can't just have a team up movie here, a versus movie here. This needs to be succinct, and cover more ground. We shoudl see the tides turning and receive the payoff in ONE film, not over the course of two. Thematically, MOS was exploring what it meant to be a hero and what heroes meant to us, and told that to us through the lens of a God. This film will probably continue that trend but have two (3 even, if they can pull Lex off correctly and make him truly believe he's doing the world a favor by ridding the world of Superman), this time showing to us through two separate lenses and how they actually need to work together in order to fight those who are truly threats to their mission as heroes.

I'm honestly hoping they come up with a storyline none of us have thought of at all, that is an even better representation of the progression of the themes.

 

[jmc]

Why are you assuming that it ''just happens''. It obviously will be motivated. But the true fight shouldn't be Superman vs Batman. It should be Superman + Batman vs somebody.

Because there's not enough time in the first act of the movie to put in proper motivation and build up for the battle. That's not an assumption, it's basic movie story telling. You don't have the biggest draw card of the film ie, Batman vs Superman happen early on, that's screen writing 101.

A Superman vs Batman fight at the end of the film is very unsatisfying - even if one 'wins', all we get is a mutual founding of respect? That's not a conclusion. that's character development. It simply is not a good end to a film.

How is one of them winning not a conclusion? An unsatisfying ending is the ending in a stalemate. Again I bring it back to the boxing analogy, that's how you need to look at it.

 

[jmc]

jmc, agree to disagree. the most complete film will use both in my personal opinion. once again, the story you guys have been describing sounds incomplete, like 2 acts of a film.

Not at all, I think what the issues is is that some people just want to have their cake and eat it too. I can't stress it enough how you only have to look at boxing and to a lesser extent sports movie to see how something like this can be done.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Have this movie establish why they can trust each other, not just why they can't. Why their paths align, despite their differences, not why they diverge (because they don't. They work in the JLeague together).

Basically the opposite of First Class. (a movie where two individuals believe they can be on the same side, only to realize at the end that they can never be. Status quo established).

(whereas B/S should be a movie that establishes a status quo of why they 'can' be on the same side. And it would be weird to end that movie on a fight, which says nothing about their long-term relationship).

---

Also, since this is the beginning of their relationship, not the end, I hope we don't get the "I want you to remember, Clark" line from Bruce. Maybe just a nod to the line in a different context.

(perhaps Superman has his hand around Batman's throat with his eyes lit up, but lets Bruce live, showing Batman that he doesn't kill when it's unnecessary. Superman is basically saying (without actually saying it) "I want you to remember, Bruce, in all the years to come, I want you to remember my hand around your throat. I want you to remember the one man who can beat you, but won't. I want to remember that I am not a monster").

 

[TheBat812]

Because there's not enough time in the first act of the movie to put in proper motivation and build up for the battle. That's not an assumption, it's basic movie story telling. You don't have the biggest draw card of the film ie, Batman vs Superman happen early on, that's screen writing 101.

How is one of them winning not a conclusion? An unsatisfying ending is the ending in a stalemate. Again I bring it back to the boxing analogy, that's how you need to look at it.

First of all, what I'm proposing would use the first two acts, Ie, the majority of the movie. The first act simply leads you up to the inciting incident. In a film like TDK, the first act doesn't end until like 40 minutes in. The inciting incident in MOS isn't until Zod projects his "You are not alone" message. It's all about the way you structure your particular story. That is screenwriting 101. There is plenty of time to establish these things before the end of the second act.

Well, once again, the 'stalemate' (meaning each would essentially prove their value as a hero despite their differences in specific codes) is not the ending. The boxing analogy works, but it's definitely not my preferred approach to the story. Primarily because this is a movie about heroes, and one 'winning' over the other does nothing to advance the themes that MOS brought to the table, and that I suspect Goyer wants to explore. Rocky is a horrible comparison, because 1) you hate who he's fighting, and 2) it's all about overcoming circumstance and pushign through til the end. (He loses the fight, remember?) Same with sports movies. You don't CARE about the other team. You don't WANT them to win. You only want the protagonist to win. If you want a true versus, Batman has to be a true antagonist, but that makes no sense, because he's not an antagonist. You can start him off there, but at some point in the film, his motivations will become clear, and then you won't want either to win. You want them to find their common place. Once again though, I can see certain scenarios where a pure vs movie works very well. But nobody here has talked about them. Nor are they better, imo, than using that as the springboard for the final act.


The fight here is the clashing of ideologies - and the conclusion to their fight is that they agree with each other in the most important sense. But ending the film there is just incredibly anti-climactic. All you've done is waste a movie to figure out that they are both good guys. And that's literally it. Maybe you've set up another villain to come into play in the next film? Also bad storytelling. What if that's film's never made? Now you've dumbed down the thematic implications of heroism and left people hanging. You do also realize that final acts can be pretty damn short, right? Don't have to be more than 10 minutes. They offer a resolution to the story - in this case, that the two heroes have found something more important than their differences and have put them into action. But there has to be setup to build this united threat throughout the film. Making it NOT a pure vs film. It's the film I've been talking about. In the same sense taht you think I want to have my cake and eat it too, I don't think you really see how interwoven a story can be. It doesn't have to be as black and white as just a versus film, it can use those same principles to motivate its resolution in a way more worthwhile and appropriate way.

 

[Tempest]

That's not what I said.

I was pretty sure you talked about Superman needing to learn a lesson. Was I mistaken? I guess I took a leap when I made suggestions on the specifics of the why he needs to learn the lesson.

In order for the concept of Superman having to learn a lesson, there has to be an actual purpose. The movie has to show us how Superman is absolutely wrong in one way, and then give us a payout on how he learns the lesson.

Since Superman is a main protagonist, as is Batman, they'd have to be very careful about how they play the guys. Superman would really have to do something shady or immoral to make the lesson worth learning.

I don't recall if it was your or someone else who mentioned that Superman could learn not to underestimate his enemies, but I'm not sure that he would. He had his butt handed to him numerous times in the first film. He might believe humans would be easier to control, but he's always had a little bit of fear of them to begin with, even if they couldn't physically hurt him.

He knows the military was scrambling to find ways to subdue him. I'm sure he doesn't assume that they just gave up their plans.

Again you're taking things to extremes to prove a point. Who says there has to be animosity at the end? Who says it has to be crippling? You're only assuming it can be done a certain way. Don't just look at it from one perspective, there are a bunch of directions you could take and still end up with a situation where both characters aren't disrespected. I get it, people don't want one character to triumph over the other, but what's the point in a Verses movie if they're just going to end up working together? What, they fight in the first act, put aside their difference and join forces to fight off the big bad guy at the end? It's the movie we can already play out in our mind. If you're going to do a Verses movie then that has to be the climax of the film, and someone has to win.

If the film ends with one of the guys winning over the other, then what's the payout? How would there NOT be animosity between them? The concept you've presented is too vague, and riddled with plot problems for me to imagine any other ending than the two to be at odds with each other.

Ok, so Batman wins. Superman sees that he can be beaten by a human. So what then? Batman says, "This was just to show you how badly humans can do harm to you, if they wanted to", and then they share a hearty laugh over the whole thing?

I don't require Superman to come out on top (I'm a whump!fangirl, so the more battering Superman gets, the happier I'll be). But I don't want it to be easy for Batman either, and I want the fight to have a compelling, interesting reason to happen.

Ideological issues aren't enough for me. Batman being paranoid might be a good reason, but I'd prefer a Lex Luthor, or some other Bad Guy to help push things along.

But besides all that, I need the end of the film to make some sort of sense, and to give me a payoff for their massive conflict. I also need to be able to like the guy who beats the other one, so the storyline has to wrap with some sort of satisfying character development for both Supes and Bats, otherwise it'll feel like a waste of time.

NOW, if they come up with a set-in-stone schedule, with a line-up of X-amount of films, and so forth, then I might be more amenable to the idea of a more conflict-ridden MOS2.

The best example for what I'd like to see is in Superman/Batman Annual #2. They are quite clearly polar opposites in the book, they really just don't get along very well, and even when Clark goes to Bruce to train, they aren't getting along the greatest. At the end of the comic, they both end up learning something about each other, and about themselves, and it ends with them almost getting along.

That's the kind of set-up I want to see. I don't mind if they have an all-out brawl, but I want them to be at least allies, with admiration on both sides.

 

[Herolee10]

At the end of the day< i think the biggest factor that'll determine on how Superman and Batman are portrayed alongside and against each other is which hero does Warner Bros. want to represent the Justice League as its leader.

 

[Frodo]

At the end of the day< i think the biggest factor that'll determine on how Superman and Batman are portrayed alongside and against each other is which hero does Warner Bros. want to represent the Justice League as its leader.

I think that's why you have to sort of start at the end and work backwards from there. They basically have to decide where they want the characters to be and where they want the universe to be at the end of the film and then plot a course that gets them to that destination.

 

[Tempest]

At the end of the day< i think the biggest factor that'll determine on how Superman and Batman are portrayed alongside and against each other is which hero does Warner Bros. want to represent the Justice League as its leader.

Isn't it usually Batman as the unofficial leader, with Superman acting as the figurehead? It's a good strategy, since Superman is physically more able to take on the bad guys, keeping their attention focused on him, when the "death blow" so to speak comes from the shadows.

I still think it won't matter who is the leader of the JL, because the guys will still need to work together. Even at their grouchiest, there is always a level of respect, and even a grudging fondness Superman and Batman have for each other.

Whatever happens in this film, I hope that they end it with, at the very least, the guys pondering the potential for a team-up together in the future.

 

[Herolee10]

I think that's why you have to sort of start at the end and work backwards from there. They basically have to decide where they want the characters to be and where they want the universe to be at the end of the film and then plot a course that gets them to that destination.

Isn't it usually Batman as the unofficial leader, with Superman acting as the figurehead? It's a good strategy, since Superman is physically more able to take on the bad guys, keeping their attention focused on him, when the "death blow" so to speak comes from the shadows.

I still think it won't matter who is the leader of the JL, because the guys will still need to work together. Even at their grouchiest, there is always a level of respect, and even a grudging fondness Superman and Batman have for each other.

Whatever happens in this film, I hope that they end it with, at the very least, the guys pondering the potential for a team-up together in the future.

I think it actually matters on who is eventually selected/chosen to be the leader of the Justice League and honestly, I don't think Batman is suitable for that role given his secrecy and naturally tendency to mistrust others.

Superman is supposed to be the heart of the group; the one that makes sure that the heroes stay on the correct and moral path.

And I really have no desire to see Superman constantly taking orders from Batman.

With the way that things were worded by Jor-el in MOS, you'd get the impression that it will be Superman that will lead any version of the Justice League group that emerges from the DCU, and even Snyder mentioned that he thought Superman should be the leader, hence why Superman needs to be in more films before the group film comes out.

 

[Bathead]

Without going into any overlong rant, I'm just going to say, any kind of true versus story is, IMO, a bad idea. At most it should be maybe conflicting views on how to handle a particular situation and maybe at most having a verbal dust-up.

 

[Mightyally]

Why not just introduce Lex and let us know his need for getting rid of Superman first. Lex makes sure Batman and Superman collide in their quest. Each quest is carefully planned by Lex and really pushes on their weak spots. He plays them out. His goal is to motivate the one person who can beat Superman, to do it. Batman!

To have Batman follow a trail left by Lex would be awesome because we could get an introduction of Batman and a semi-villain like The Riddler working with Lex. So there would be a Batman vs semi-villain fight. The same goes for MoS but his "trail" should be different but still push his weakspot.

So it becomes a pure VS movie but in the end after all their fights, Batman gives after. During the movie he has shown Supes many things that he does wrong because Batman keeps to prevail. But some of Batmans victories were at the expense of effectiveness and he might have done stuff he shouldn´t but Lex manipulated him. Anyways, so in the end Batman is the one learning the lesson for when he is about the use his synthesized kryptonite and beat the MoS, he realizes that it´s not right. So in a way they help eachother to become the worlds finest and Lex wouldn´t be directly involved eventhough we would get scenes with him explaining his motives and trails for the two.

When Bruce denies the world a way to hurt the MoS Lex looses. It might also be good to have Batman figure out in the very end of the movie that it was Lex who played them.