BvS The Death of Superman!

[John-An]

Right now? No. Future sequels.... Maybe

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

Right now? No. Future sequels.... Maybe

Exactly my thoughts as well.

 

[The Batman]

Two years of experience means jackcrap to the viewing audience, if we haven't actually seen those years portrayed onscreen.

...Great argument as usual, lc23.

 

[smallville fan]

It was in that fake script, so chances are its not happening in the movie. which would be a relief.

I hope so. It's too soon for Doomsday. Plus I felt satisfied after MOS in that we already had a Doomsday level battle with Zod vs. Superman.

Personally I think it would be better to go the other way and have Batman sacrifice himself to show the world that Superman is truly the light in the darkness.

That would actually be cool, it would definitely cement Batman as worthy enough to be among gods. Zack Snyder did decide to do something bold and new by making Superman kill, so why not kill off Batman? Then afterwards, Clark inherits Wayne Manor and all of his assets. I like it.t:

 

[John-An]

Exactly my thoughts as well.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

t:

 

[sf2]

depends on how it plays out. and i totally against the idea that in the beginning of BvS, superman has already been embraced and welcomed by the people / citizen of metropolis.

 

[Bathead]

NO. Just ...no.
A terrible idea all around.

 

[Jekecy]

Cavill's Superman will have two years of experience in B vs S, so he hasn't "only begun"

Bale's Batman only had a year and half of crimefighting time, with an eight year break, and Nolan still had Bane break his back.

The impact is lessened when the hero doesn't as many accomplishments or established reign as a protector. It's what make these falls so engrossing. It's rare and isn't "supposed" to happen.

 

[The Batman]

The impact is lessened when the hero doesn't as many accomplishments or established reign as a protector. It's what make these falls so engrossing. It's rare and isn't "supposed" to happen.

In theory, you're right....but I doubt that the Batbreaking scene in TDKR loses its power just because BaleBats was only Batman for less than even three years.

 

[lc23]

That would actually be cool, it would definitely cement Batman as worthy enough to be among gods. Zack Snyder did decide to do something bold and new by making Superman kill, so why not kill off Batman? Then afterwards, Clark inherits Wayne Manor and all of his assets. I like it.t:

Yeah. Why not have the "older and weary" guy with many more years of experience sacrifice himself? That make much more sense.

 

[The Batman]

Yes...lets kill off the company's most popular character so that Superman fans can feel good about their favorite superhero.

 

[Jekecy]

In theory, you're right....but I doubt that the Batbreaking scene in TDKR loses its power just because BaleBats was only Batman for less than even three years.

I would wager contextual lapses in time don't hold as much weight as real-time. Three films are standard, and is usually enough time for people to get acquainted with the main character.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

To Hell with Doomsday. BRAINIAC

 

[Herolee10]

It would make more of a emotional impact if Superman were to die AFTER having been both a part of the Justice League and accepted by a majority of Earth's population.

To kill him when people are still divided on him within the MCU would lessen the impact, imho, of his death.

Plus, this film has so much going on inside it as it is, with superman first encountering the likes of Batman, Lex, and Wonder Woman....not to mention, covering the aftermath of MOS.

Do we really need to force in the DOS story line in it as well?

Personally, it seems like the only ones that really want this to happen are pretty much the same folks who want to see the DCU connected with the CW TV series...which again boils down to the same reason: because they're impatient and can't wait any more longer for something better.

 

[The Batman]

I would wager contextual lapses in time don't hold as much weight as real-time. Three films are standard, and is usually enough time for people to get acquainted with the main character.

Which is why I don't have as much as a problem with killing Supes in B vs S. You don't necessarily need three films to get to know a character, not if you do your job right.

If Indiana Jones died in Temple of Doom, I'd care, because Raiders of the Lost Ark did a good job of endearing him to the audience.

 

[McLarenMP4]

Copied from the doomsday thread.

Superman after MOS in the minds of the public is 50% good & 50% bad due to the destruction caused by the final battle etc..
they are going to be using this as a theme throughout the movie imo and is why Batman as yet doesn't trust him & quite rightly so.
Superman has been doing his best since the end of MOS saving people and trying to show people that he is to be trusted.
But there are still people who do not trust him, even after all these feats of heroism.
Suddenly there is this huge rage monster that is literally unstoppable and no one can take him down. Enter Superman who takes Doomsday away from the public and defeats him which ends with him sacrificing his life for the public who didn't trust him.
The public who were skeptical about him can now see that his intentions were good and he actually sacrificed himself for them and are humbled by it.
Having him just kill doomsday and not die would still make people skeptical of him but to actually sacrifice himself for humanity would convince them that this guy did have our best intentions at heart.

 

[AnneFan]

In theory, you're right....but I doubt that the Batbreaking scene in TDKR loses its power just because BaleBats was only Batman for less than even three years.

Indeed. It's all in the power of iconography. It's still the image of Bane going to town on Batman.

 

[Herolee10]

By doing the "Death of Superman" arc now, it means that we won't get a chance to see the entire Justice League be present for the famous "Friend for a Funeral" scene in the film since we're still missing a few of the JL members, and we have no idea as to where and how long characters such as Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Cyborg will even show up for the film....so it's not really a safe bet that they'll all befriend Superman to the point where they would attend his funeral.

Plus, it really doesn't send a good message about the heroes where they feel like they need to combine their efforts together in order to pick up the slack after Superman is no longer with them.

Even though Superman is my favorite character, I wouldn't go as far as saying that what he does is equivalent to the combined efforts of the entire justice league.

 

[Steamteck]

No. I hate the idea. I hated the comic. I hate Doomsday as a character. Only the animated series made him even vaguely tolerable.

It would be a way for WB to disappoint me more than IM3 though.

 

[Herolee10]

Plus, didn't the idea of killing Superman in the comics take place due to the comics being asked by Warner Bros television to postpone Clark and Lois's marriage in the comics so that the television couple could catch up to the event?

 

[Majik1387]

You're saying this in the time of rumours that Lex could be a mix of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg with long blonde hair?!

A Lex Luthor based off a mix of Gates and Zuckerberg while a good and interesting idea, is f-ing genius when compared to Death of Superman.

It would reek of horrible writing left over from JL: Immortal or whatever it was called where one of the Flash's died.

Cavill's Superman will have two years of experience in B vs S, so he hasn't "only begun"

Bale's Batman only had a year and half of crimefighting time, with an eight year break, and Nolan still had Bane break his back.

And it was still s****.

In theory, you're right....but I doubt that the Batbreaking scene in TDKR loses its power just because BaleBats was only Batman for less than even three years.

Indeed. It's all in the power of iconography. It's still the image of Bane going to town on Batman.

Going to town on a guy who was never clearly shown to be a good crime fighter doesn't really impress. Especially when after the fact, you learn he's just a whipped boy.

 

[smallville fan]

Yes...lets kill off the company's most popular character so that Superman fans can feel good about their favorite superhero.

Yeah. Why not have the "older and weary" guy with many more years of experience sacrifice himself? That make much more sense.

But we all know he'll come back from the dead, I mean it's because he's Batman! Wouldn't DC get behind that? Showing that Batgod Batman is so awesome that he could beat death?

That fact that the most experienced superhero in that world dies for the human would teach the newer heroes what it really means to be a hero. Then the heroes would go on to form the JL in honour of Batman, with Superman front and center of the League calling all the shots and inheriting everything Bruce Wayne owns, even Alfred.

Who wouldn't get behind that? I think it's a brilliant ploy, with everyone thinking that Superman's going to die, only to have expectations subverted. It's just like how everybody thought Superman could never kill on film, but then Zack Snyder surprises us.

 

[Jekecy]

Which is why I don't have as much as a problem with killing Supes in B vs S. You don't necessarily need three films to get to know a character, not if you do your job right.

If Indiana Jones died in Temple of Doom, I'd care, because Raiders of the Lost Ark did a good job of endearing him to the audience.

That last point is an important one. It could take one, it could take two, it could never happen. I do not think MOS left the character in good enough standing with people (inside or outside the film's context) to properly take advantage of what his death could bring to the story.

They could conceivably redeem the character in the next one, though it would seem too swift and slightly futile to wipe away all that work by the end. This is the fanboy in me talking, but I just think their world is still too small and young to have that sort of story take place now. I'd always imagined it as the second big hallmark to occur after the birth of the superhero era.

 

[Tempest]

But we all know he'll come back from the dead, I mean it's because he's Batman! Wouldn't DC get behind that? Showing that Batgod Batman is so awesome that he could beat death?

That fact that the most experienced superhero in that world dies for the human would teach the newer heroes what it really means to be a hero. Then the heroes would go on to form the JL in honour of Batman, with Superman front and center of the League calling all the shots and inheriting everything Bruce Wayne owns, even Alfred.

Who wouldn't get behind that? I think it's a brilliant ploy, with everyone thinking that Superman's going to die, only to have expectations subverted. It's just like how everybody thought Superman could never kill on film, but then Zack Snyder surprises us.

It should be revealed in the end that Superman was the mastermind behind the entire thing. He seems the type, doesn't he?