BvS Zach Snyder plans to speak with Frank Miller for MoS Sequel

[Marvin]

Loeb's good batman stories span more than a year.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Loeb's good batman stories span more than a year.

Long Halloween about 13 months then. My point is Loeb hasn't written Batman as long as O'Neil or Morrison, whom have both proven their quality in longevity of writing the character over a span of years. I'm not taking anything away from Loeb at all, as I love TLH and it could be my favorite Batman comic, and it's popular for a reason, but people act like it's the end all be all Batman story. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people here have only read that Batman comic and passed it off as now knowing all of the facets of who Batman is. Like how people think Nolan's Batman is only valid take of the character, which in a way validates TLH as the same kind of thing. I just think... there are other great Batman stories out there besides TLH. It's not the only one. That's admittedly where this response is more rooted.

I love Dark Victory, Haunted Knight was okay, and Hush was overly convoluted as ****. But I still enjoyed every single one of them. Perhaps Jim Lee and Tim Sale help.

 

[NosfeRomas]

When I first read Dark Victory it was immidiately after i finished TLH, i got a good deal on the 2 trades and i picked them up at the same time thinking DV was an important sequel while it was pretty much the same story just not as interesting.

TLH is amazing on so many different levels, characters, mystery etc. DV was a less interesting mystery or even the same mystery but given in a less interesting way. Luckily i forgot about it quickly and when i read it again almost a year later i really liked it, it is a solid story but nothing special, it feels almost like a cash in although i don't think it was a cash in. The villain was the problem imo.


Hush is overrated, just like anything with Jim Lee's art. Not saying its bad but not worthy of the fuzz around it.

 

[Marvin]

My point was that between all those loeb bat books you mentioned(including Hush), he has shown longevity.

Not all morrison bat books are aces of influential and character defining perfection. Giving batman a son was fun but it wasn't TLH, if anything it was what I would consider a Loeb move to be honest.

If anything morrison is one of the more divisive artists going. I mean didn't he just try and relaunch superman with jeans and a t shirt? Not my cup of tea. I tend to judge these people by their best work strangely enough and for me 3 dollars, Loeb has earned some accolades.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Thus the fanwars begin :P

 

[Doctor Jones]

Before this potentially becomes a playground fight over who wrote what longer, what I mean is that Morrison and O'Neil check off both boxes. They both have written Batman for a long time and consistently put out great work. True Loeb went on a while, but in that time, he's considered hit or miss. Plus, Loeb jumped in with writing Batman from DV to Hush. He wasn't writing the character in between.

But it all comes down to opinion and preference. I personally think Morrison's run is all around consistently stronger than Loeb's. Loeb has TLH, but that is really his best out of his entire run.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Morrison is who I'd consult with for BOTH characters

 

[Doctor Jones]

Same here. I think he would have been of great use for MOS. He gets Superman. More than Goyer. But Goyer was going for a slightly different view point of Superman which is fine by me. But still, it wouldn't have hurt to make MOS less somber.

 

[Loki882]

It wasn't somber, it was less cheesy and more serious, but there was plenty of humor.

 

[Doctor Jones]

There wasn't enough humor. There was humor which I all liked, but there needed to be more times of levity. Especially towards the third act. I think the last humorous moment was when Superman got his powers back and broke out of the operating table.

It doesn't hurt to laugh. Humor does not equate to cheese which people here love to confuse.

Superman is Superman. He is a lighter character. Somber and serious are two different things. That doesn't mean he can't be taken seriously, which he was, but jeez, by the end of the film I could have felt slightly more upbeat. It was hopeful in a sense, but that is part of the flaws of the overall screenplay.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Let's see. Krypton gets destroyed-canon (inevitable)
-Clark is bullied for most of his life.
- Clark watches his dad die in front of him (many versions, but the way this was handled paints Clark in a bad life)
-His own kind turn against earth. (Most versions)
-The military are initially suspicious (realistic)
-Clark is insecure and does not know his role in life (it's an origin story, that's kind of inevitable)
-Some people die in Smallville (implied)
-Many people die in Metropolis (Okay, that's dark, but no more than many blockbusters)
-Superman is forced to kill Zod (Dark, but tonally appropriate to the character, IF he was put in that situation)

So while it seems like MOS is a dark movie, a lot of this is just the serious aspects of the mythos, with not a long enough running time to fill it with more warmth and humor.

I blame both WB and Snyder. WB for wanting a 2 hour movie for more screenings, and Zack for not having the best of priorities in what to trim or keep.

If MOS balanced its time better, it could allow for more lighthearted instances. But the action was extended, while a lot of character moments felt 'clipped.'

 

[STARMAN]

Wished for a little more balance too.

 

[Marvin]

Morrison is who I'd consult with for BOTH characters

You can consult any modern writer with a brain, just like you can consult half the people in this forum, everyone in their unified criticism seems to know the simple key to the character. JMS could probably write an essay on what superman is about and it would no doubt put to shame any of our "essays" on the property.

Like I said, Morrisons take on the new current youthful superman is pretty silly imo, but I respect that it's just that, a take. WB commissioned a take with MoS, something maybe not just for certain fans that have a check list of things that will make them happy or else. Such as a villain ending up in a prison the way all superman villains do(except for the times they don't). But I digress, If I had hard about the details for MOS and the green light for WF a year after Returns, I'd probably jump for joy. As good as something is there is always going to be someone else that wants something more.

Morrison used to be my go to writer but sometimes he get's weird. That final crisis series is just too weird for me. His Xmen run is awesome but weird, I much prefer Whedons. Who get's the characters more? Who had the better run? I'm sure both these guys could tell us what works about Xmen, however their runs are about different things. The producers of MOS(yes all of them) probably get superman but their film is about certain things. Explaining how Waid get's superman after Kingdom Come is not the same as explaining how he get's superman after Birthright.

Everything has it's place and I think when it comes to "getting" superman, all of these folks have something of value to add. Bruce Timm being a good example of hit and miss ideas that depending on the day of the week, fan boys will usher forward as the ultimate consultant.

There is so much Superman in MOS, it's just a shame more people can't seem to agree if there was enough.

There wasn't enough humor. There was humor which I all liked, but there needed to be more times of levity. Especially towards the third act. I think the last humorous moment was when Superman got his powers back and broke out of the operating table.

It doesn't hurt to laugh. Humor does not equate to cheese which people here love to confuse.

Superman is Superman. He is a lighter character. Somber and serious are two different things. That doesn't mean he can't be taken seriously, which he was, but jeez, by the end of the film I could have felt slightly more upbeat. It was hopeful in a sense, but that is part of the flaws of the overall screenplay.

It's all a matter of opinion.
For example you say the humor ended on the operating table, though I'm sure if you think hard enough you might find a few more moments of induced levity. What sucks is when people don't think hard enough in their memory and then apply statements about the matter. Such as, "the film needed humor in the second half cause that would equate to balance and films need that."

Whats more is when the levity is objectively there for the purposes you all suggest it should be, but then another group of detractors sound off about all the things wrong with "I think he's hot".

It's all just opinion, and no matter what you do, there is going to be criticism.

 

[Loki882]

Lets see, that last act dealt with a genocidal alien attacking Earth, it SHOULD be taken seriously. That is not the situation to be joking around and cracking one-liners constantly.

 

[Marvin]

Lets see, that last act dealt with a genocidal alien attacking Earth, it SHOULD be taken seriously. That is not the situation to be joking around and cracking one-liners constantly.

Are you talking about avengers, ID4, MiB or MoS?

Everything has it's place.

 

[vantheman77]

I will never accept Batman being established before Superman. It will always be Superman as the first, whether public or private.

No point in going the Dark Knight Returns route since that has been adapted into a 2-part animated film.

I wonder if Zack Snyder and David Goyer will touch upon Superman's citizenship since Goyer wrote the comics story about that in future MOS sequels.

 

[Doctor Jones]

You can consult any modern writer with a brain, just like you can consult half the people in this forum, everyone in their unified criticism seems to know the simple key to the character. JMS could probably write an essay on what superman is about and it would no doubt put to shame any of our "essays" on the property.

Like I said, Morrisons take on the new current youthful superman is pretty silly imo, but I respect that it's just that, a take. WB commissioned a take with MoS, something maybe not just for certain fans that have a check list of things that will make them happy or else. Such as a villain ending up in a prison the way all superman villains do(except for the times they don't). But I digress, If I had hard about the details for MOS and the green light for WF a year after Returns, I'd probably jump for joy. As good as something is there is always going to be someone else that wants something more.

Morrison used to be my go to writer but sometimes he get's weird. That final crisis series is just too weird for me. His Xmen run is awesome but weird, I much prefer Whedons. Who get's the characters more? Who had the better run? I'm sure both these guys could tell us what works about Xmen, however their runs are about different things. The producers of MOS(yes all of them) probably get superman but their film is about certain things. Explaining how Waid get's superman after Kingdom Come is not the same as explaining how he get's superman after Birthright.

Everything has it's place and I think when it comes to "getting" superman, all of these folks have something of value to add. Bruce Timm being a good example of hit and miss ideas that depending on the day of the week, fan boys will usher forward as the ultimate consultant.

There is so much Superman in MOS, it's just a shame more people can't seem to agree if there was enough.



It's all a matter of opinion.
For example you say the humor ended on the operating table, though I'm sure if you think hard enough you might find a few more moments of induced levity. What sucks is when people don't think hard enough in their memory and then apply statements about the matter. Such as, "the film needed humor in the second half cause that would equate to balance and films need that."

Whats more is when the levity is objectively there for the purposes you all suggest it should be, but then another group of detractors sound off about all the things wrong with "I think he's hot".

It's all just opinion, and no matter what you do, there is going to be criticism.

But that's the thing: I really did try to think past that part but I couldn't think of a part. And actually, I was going to say the last bit if humor was when he broke the cuffs, then I remembered the operating table.

It's just there were moments in the third act where I thought, "You know, I think it's about due time for a chuckle right now."

 

[The Guard]

I like Jeph Loeb in small doses. The problem with Jeph Loeb's stories over the years is that they tend to be somewhat derivative, and rely on what has come before, either in classic literature or in Batman's mythology, and the nostalgia people have for certain story elements. The Long Halloween and Dark Victory, as good as they are in places, relies on existing canon and concepts to tell its story. Beyond that, it's a fairly straightforward mystery tale. They don't bring much new to the table. They feel familiar, and comfortable, but rarely do they break new ground. Loeb's greatest strength with The Long Halloween was taking an existing portrayal of Harvey Dent, and bringing it back into focus as a main character in a narrative, when it had been 10-15 years since we'd seen this in mainstream comics or one shots.

As for consulting with Frank Miller, Joel Schumacher consulted Bob Kane for BATMAN FOREVER. How much impact do you think that had on the film itself? Odds are Snyder could consult with pretty much anyone he wanted, he simply happens to already have a working relationship with Frank Miller (300), and that's the meeting that we're hearing about. It doesn't mean that he won't talk to anyone else at DC, or read any other comic book arcs. Lord knows Goyer has and will, based on his track record. This stuff is more about "press" than about shaping the story for a major motion picture. I wish people would stop overreacting so much.

 

[godisawesome]

But that's the thing: I really did try to think past that part but I couldn't think of a part. And actually, I was going to say the last bit if humor was when he broke the cuffs, then I remembered the operating table.

It's just there were moments in the third act where I thought, "You know, I think it's about due time for a chuckle right now."

It was kind of odd for me, because I think it depends on the audience you see it with. Mt third screening had the most diverse age group, so everyone chuckled pretty well at the incidental humor. My second screening was a smaller age range and okay, but not great.

But honestly, I was always more irritated and anged by some of the more classic humor from the old films and silver age. Silver Age is my least favorite Superman, and I absolutely loathe charlatan Clark. There's better ways to disguise Clark from Superman, but I hate that idiot. That interpretation isn't funny, makes Clark seem like a *****e, and makes me bored while I wait for Superman to show up.

And I'm from the 90s when it comes to Superman. To me the humor should come in sparse waves dealing mainly with Lois and Clark flirting or, for a Batman and Superman team up, their conflicts.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

It'd be nice if he later said something like, Frank's a smart guy, but I don't like the direction he's taking Superman, and his Batman is something I disagree with, or something like that. Honest, but not mean. Just something to assure us that he didn't get a host of crazy ideas to influence him.

 

[Figs]

Denny O'Neil's Batman is consistently the best of them all. With Morrison's and Dini's Bat trailing closely behind.

Not sure how I would rank those three against each other, but I agree that they're great.

 

[shallbecomeabat]

Morrison wrote Final Crisis...

Which is one of the greatest superhero crossovers ever written. Its funny how so many people act like its heroes reborn or something like that. Its a highly acclaimed series. I also love it to death, own the single issues, the hardcover and absolute edition.

Waid, even when he never wrote anything craptastic, for my taste he never wrote anything legendary as well. He came close with Kingdom Come and Birthright and I like his Daredevil right now, but I still don't think he is as great as everybody makes him out to be at the moment.

I would love for Morrison to have a pow wow with Snyder, though.

 

[BH/HHH]

Sorry but I don't think much comes close to the great solo Jeph Loeb Batman Stories, the Long Halloween, Dark Victory, Hush and even Haunted Knight are 4 of the best Batman books I've ever read. I'm not too keen on Morrisons Batman tbh.

 

[dnno1]

It's funny. Of course Superman fans don't want to see Batman come onto the scene, steal the spotlight and make Superman look bad.

But at the same time, as a Bat-fan do you think I want to see my favorite character rushed into a reboot only to serve as fodder for Superman in a Superman movie? The mere idea of putting Batman on the same screen as a god-like hero is nerve-wracking to me, because it's so easy to unintentionally make Batman seem impotent and comically inadequate next to someone like Superman. It's happened in the comics so many times. So you're damn right I want to make sure Batman gets his moments to shine and is shown to be a worthy adversary to Superman. It makes sense too- why should someone as powerful as Superman eventually respect and value Batman as an ally if Batman can't find a way to go toe to toe with him? If Batman manages to beat Superman at some point, then Superman knows he's a worthy ally going into the future.

I want Batman to be given his due respect in this movie not for the sake of some sort of fanboy fap-fest, but because it's what's right for the story. And I don't think Batman and Superman only having "minor" disagreements and then teaming up is what best suits the nature of their relationship. These two need to have it out in a big way. It's Man vs. God. The potential is epic.

This is going to be tricky as hell to pull off. And a lame compromise situation where they just have a few scuffles but then have to pull it together in the third act sounds SO tired, predictable and corny.

It seems like no matter which way they go, there's a downside for someone.

So you didn't like this:

[YT]i4bXBDr7KUg&f[/YT]

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

So much of what Frank Miller has done his entire career is to do and say the most over the top things in his work to rile up the fans. End of story. I don't think Snyder is going to be taking much if anything from Miller except for this: The conflict that occurs between Superman and Batman in modern comics is all about opposing world views that are deeply held by both men. Miller's take (I don't agree with it, just giving his view here) is that Superman sees order as the natural and proper state of society/mankind/the universe. It's somewhat believable, I mean he is a guy born into great power and an arguement could be made he can't ever really understand or see lifes nature through a "mortal's" eyes and experience. Miller's Batman is a person that had his sense of order in the universe shattered as a young child. He believes order MUST be imposed on the wider world, to think otherwise is either naive or stupid.

I'm not endorsing this dynamic in a team up film with the two, but I think more or less this core idea will be what Snyder will try to incorporate into the script, not some "let's bash Superman because he's lame" theme some here seem to fear.