WB to announce Batman/Superman movie for 2015

[NinjaPug]

Flash movie for 2016 and Justice League movie for 2017 at SDCC.

The B/S movie will be the follow up to Man of Steel.

[Zany Orange Dude]

Looking forward to hearing more about the Flash and Justice League movie. It's about time we got a movie for those.

[chrisdude]

If Hero Complex posts it, it's probably not BS

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/comic-con-2013-superman-batman-movie-will-follow-man-of-steel/

[NinjaPug]

The Hollywood Reporter is confirming it now. Curious to see what Marvel announces tonight.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/superman-batman-film-set-comic-589521

[MikeandRaph87]

Yeah, I read it last night on Yahoo! At first DC did not know if Justice League or Superman:Man of Steel 2 would be released first. Now, the decade old script of Worlds Finest gets a rewrite as Superman 2? Hmm...interesting! Looking forward to it but having to wait even longer to see Justice League in a film! Ugh. Flash? Not interested if its Barry. I would rather see Hal and SInestro fight it out in Green Lantern 2.

http://news.yahoo.com/superman-batman-team-dcs-next-big-move-183552380.html

[Zany Orange Dude]

I'm really curious to see who they get to play Batman since Bail, from my understanding, isn't reprising the role.

[chrisdude]

Ever since Nolan said The Dark Knight Rises was the end, I've denied that WB would let that property go. Movie franchises are rarely allowed to end on a good note. The make sequels until one fails. It's not always true, but it's the overwhelming trend. Because, as long as the last movie was a success, there's money left to be made.

I've fussed with friends, argued in a bar with fans, listened to people spout on about how Batman deserves a reboot. But I've never doubted that TDK would continue, and I fully expect them to bring back a Batman from that universe to team up with the Man Of Steel Superman.

I'm just watching the live blog, waiting for WB to confirm it...
http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/178289-comic-con-warner-bros-pictures-and-legendary-pictures-panel-live-blog

[Candy Kappa]

Or, they would reboot Batman with included history from Begins and Dark Knight, ignoring the ending of Rises.

[chrisdude]

Or, they would reboot Batman with included history from Begins and Dark Knight, ignoring the ending of Rises.C'mon now. Let's be serious.

[The Stryker]

Would people really be excited to see Superman meet John The Cop as Batman?

Kinda kills the spectacle of it.

[ZariusTwo]

Exactly. Get with it you numpties, the Nolan 'verse is over. This will be a new canon for Bats.

[NinjaPug]

Snyder/Goyer have said multiple times that the Batman from the Dark Knight trilogy doesn't exist in their Man of Steel universe.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPpOGnQCcAACSQ0.jpg:large

[CyberCubed]

Batman better be more campy here.

I cannot tolerate serious Man of Steel and serious Batman interacting. It would be like two one dimensional stage props staring at each other.

At least bring in Robin.

[chrisdude]

Snyder/Goyer have said multiple times that the Batman from the Dark Knight trilogy doesn't exist in their Man of Steel universe.Oh yeah, they've said it. But like saying the Dark Knight Rises was the end, I just don't believe it.

[Zulithe]

I'm okay with this.

Still hoping we get an Aquaman movie someday. Set almost entirely under the sea. It could be epic.

[CyberCubed]

So Wonder Woman doesn't get a movie yet Flash does? More proof they don't have faith in a female lead carrying a superhero movie by herself.

[NinjaPug]

They didn't officially announce a Flash movie during the WB panel. Still an unconfirmed rumor at this point.

[LeoNerdo]

This is cool man. I will remain cautiously optimistic until I hear a lot more because you never know how these things will go.
But at least they are doing something with the properties.

[Sword Slicin' Leo]

hahaha pathetic attempt, 2015 already year of Avangers 2 Sorry Batman,Superman

[gobo]

If Hero Complex posts it, it's probably not BS
It's 100% B/S. 8)

[Cure]

Batman better be more campy here.

I cannot tolerate serious Man of Steel and serious Batman interacting. It would be like two one dimensional stage props staring at each other.

At least bring in Robin.

This I can agree with. There's been enough seriousness for a while now.

[sdp]

DC copying Marvel? This is actually a time when I say great, I just hope it doesn't feel as rushed as the MAU but it looks like it will.

For Batman to work in this universe he will have to be preptime Batman, which is fine by me, I like that version a lot. Also I love gritty batman, I am tired of TDK style but there's other realistic Batman takes that don't have to go the route of TDK. A hax0r Batman would also be great to see. I'd also be more than fine in the unlikely case of Bale or Joseph-Gordan Levitt being Batman. I really don't see how "realistic" the trilogy is that it can't be made into a larger DCU. It's no different than BTAS and JLU being very different in tone.

I'm guessing people will be disappointed because this is a MOS sequel with Batman as a character, maybe not even a huge part of it, so not really the Worlds Finest movie, which is fine by me since I like MOS and I want more of that. So I hope it's either a World's Finest movie or MOS2 with a quick scene with Batman in it where they talk or whatever, but having a movie that is trying to be a Superman movie and then Batman comes and takes a big part but isn't really "worlds finest" I would'nt be a fan of. God I hope that made sense.

And I do hope they make a Flash movie, personally I'd prefer a TV show but oh well. I also think a soft reboot of Green Lantern and hacing John Stewart be GL there and continuing the good ideas the first movie had wouldn't be bad. There was also a very recent rumor about a Batman Beyond movie (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=de2ccb8ca8943c06669720e0a267a9f6&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.neogaf.com%2Fforum%2Fshowthre ad.php%3Ft%3D626686&v=1&libId=e0bb936f-fb86-4c9d-99c1-001e9aadb918&out=http%3A%2F%2Fca.ign.com%2Farticles%2F2013%2F07 %2F18%2Frumor-warner-bros-mulling-a-batman-beyond-live-action-movie&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&title=WB%20Mulling%20BATMAN%20BEYOND%20Live%20Acti on%20Film%20-%20Rumour.%20But%20AWESOME%20Rumour.%20-%20NeoGAF&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fca.ign.com%2Farticles%2F2013%2F07 %2F1...e-action-movie&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13743622312766) in the works, I think that's a great way to have Batman back without retreading old ground.

[Zany Orange Dude]

I am really looking forward to the Batman/Superman team up. When played right it can be very entertaining:)

[CyberCubed]

Considering the villain will likely be Lex Luthor, it seems Batman will fight him while Superman fights someone like Mettallo or Parasite.

[Slade]

This will more than likely have a Batman with a new canon than that of the Nolan verse. Goyer and Snyder have said Superman is the first hero to show his face in this universe.

But on the flip side of that, it has me wondering. If that's true, then as of Man of Steel, there is no Batman. So does that mean his first showing will be in this movie? Seems like there should be a new Batman movie before this one, to me at least.

[Turo602]

This will more than likely have a Batman with a new canon than that of the Nolan verse. Goyer and Snyder have said Superman is the first hero to show his face in this universe.

But on the flip side of that, it has me wondering. If that's true, then as of Man of Steel, there is no Batman. So does that mean his first showing will be in this movie? Seems like there should be a new Batman movie before this one, to me at least.

It would be kind of lame to have Superman be the "first" considering he's 33 in Man of Steel. Bruce Wayne already experienced a life changing trauma as a child, which eventually leads into his donning of the cowl. Which has been premeditated for a while, considering all the training he goes through before he becomes Batman.

Batman needs no introduction, all we need to know is that he exist, and bam, give us a Batman in his prime. As much as I liked Nolan's Batman, it felt like it was lacking something special. Sure, he looks like Batman, but he didn't really feel like Batman.

[chrisdude]

It would be kind of lame to have Superman be the "first" considering he's 33 in Man of Steel. Bruce Wayne already experienced a life changing trauma as a child, which eventually leads into his donning of the cowl. Which has been premeditated for a while, considering all the training he goes through before he becomes Batman.

Batman needs no introduction, all we need to know is that he exist, and bam, give us a Batman in his prime. As much as I liked Nolan's Batman, it felt like it was lacking something special. Sure, he looks like Batman, but he didn't really feel like Batman.Thats the thing. Batman didn't feel like Batman because he was forced into a realistic world. Where his knees wear out, and his gadgets and gear are second hand from the military. The issue is that Man Of Steel was made with the same "What if this happened in the real world" approach. So a more comicy Batman wouldn't fit in that world, and a Dark Knight Batman would. If they don't go with a Batman character from The Dark Knight trilogy, they're inviting a crapton if comparison that they may regret.

[CyberCubed]

Batman can be introduced because everyone knows who he is. It doesn't matter if he's a reboot.

[Turo602]

Thats the thing. Batman didn't feel like Batman because he was forced into a realistic world. Where his knees wear out, and his gadgets and gear are second hand from the military. The issue is that Man Of Steel was made with the same "What if this happened in the real world" approach. So a more comicy Batman wouldn't fit in that world, and a Dark Knight Batman would. If they don't go with a Batman character from The Dark Knight trilogy, they're inviting a crapton if comparison that they may regret.

I find it hard to believe that Man of Steel was trying to do what Nolan did with Batman. The only thing that struck me as realistic, was the affect he had on the world he was in. Other than that, Man of Steel was too sci-fi to even be considered on the same realistic scale of The Dark Knight trilogy.

[chrisdude]

Batman can be introduced because everyone knows who he is. It doesn't matter if he's a reboot.A new Batman could be introduced easily, but all the casual viewers will wish it was Bale or wonder why it isn't.

I find it hard to believe that Man of Steel was trying to do what Nolan did with Batman. The only thing that struck me as realistic, was the affect he had on the world he was in. Other than that, Man of Steel was too sci-fi to even be considered on the same realistic scale of The Dark Knight trilogy."The world he was in" is what I mean. A realistic world - plus Superman and Zod. Not like the old movies, where everyone loves Superman from day one, everyone cheers for him, and the people don't doubt his motives or fear his power.
And even from a sci-fi standpoint, the Kryptonian stuff was more grounded, like ditching the classic crystal technology that was "indistinguishable from magic," and just making everything out of metal, with engines and such.

[Turo602]

"The world he was in" is what I mean. A realistic world - plus Superman and Zod. Not like the old movies, where everyone loves Superman from day one, everyone cheers for him, and the people don't doubt his motives or fear his power.

And even from a sci-fi standpoint, the Kryptonian stuff was more grounded, like ditching the classic crystal technology that was "indistinguishable from magic," and just making everything out of metal, with engines and such.

Okay... then there's nothing wrong with that. It's still nothing like Nolan. And what's with the "not like the old Superman?" That **** needs to die already. Superman is a much more sophisticated character than that. If you want unbelievably happy Superman in a world of morons, then watch the old movies. A real world just further fleshes out Superman's character. It's what connects us to him, which is a huge part of who he is.

[TurtleTitan97]

I am really looking forward to the Batman/Superman team up. When played right it can be very entertaining:)

Same here. Been hoping that this would happen someday. :tsmile:

[Leo656]

I'm looking forward to seeing how they do this. It's possible they may do a loose interpretation of Man Of Steel #3, the first meeting of Superman and Batman in the post-"Crisis" universe. In that continuity, it was established that Batman had already been active for some time before Superman showed up, although he kept much more quiet and was still mostly thought of as an urban legend. I don't expect them to recycle that issue's plot, but carrying bits of the story over would be no stretch.

I'm expecting Bruce to be more than a little suspicious of Clark, and maybe a bit annoyed, too... that satellite could NOT have been cheap, after all. I also see Luthor making his on-screen debut, using Superman and Zod's destruction of the city as a way to manipulate the public against Superman. LexCorp will almost certainly be responsible for helping Metropolis rebuild, putting Lex in a good position to sway public opinion. He'll probably have reason to cross paths with Bruce Wayne at some point, setting the wheels in motion for Superman and Batman to unite against a common enemy. I could see Metallo being in this; possibly as a prototype weapon to "keep Superman under control", developed by LexCorp for the military. There's a ton of neat stuff they could do.

Of course, I'm a bit concerned it'll be a bunch of rehashed stuff from all the rejected Superman/Batman scripts from 10 years ago, and I'm sure a good chunk of that stuff will make its way in, but that's what they did with "Man Of Steel" and that turned out pretty good. I actually do see including Batman as a way to add a little humor into things. Not by making Batman a lighter character than we've seen recently - they'd be crazy to try and drastically change what the public paid billions of dollars to see over the last 8 years and 3 Batman movies - but rather, I can see the potential for humor in the way Superman and Batman interact. There's almost always some instance whenever they interact in which things turn darkly comical, and I can see that being true in the new movie as well.

I'm looking forward to it; my only concern is, this movie will have a ton going on and it has the potential to feel crammed. But I'll trust them, seeing as how I've enjoyed most everything they've done so far.

[CyberCubed]

They have to have a Batman villain in this movie.

I'd love to see Lex Luthor team up with The Riddler. Two intellectual minds trying to bring down the heroes.

[Zany Orange Dude]

They have to have a Batman villain in this movie.

I'd love to see Lex Luthor team up with The Riddler. Two intellectual minds trying to bring down the heroes.

Ooo that be an interesting pair to have work together.:)

[Redeemer]

I find it hard to believe that Man of Steel was trying to do what Nolan did with Batman. The only thing that struck me as realistic, was the affect he had on the world he was in. Other than that, Man of Steel was too sci-fi to even be considered on the same realistic scale of The Dark Knight trilogy.

I actually think they were trying to make a darker version of Super-man, like Nolan did with these movies(even though Frank Miller invented dark batman)

[chrisdude]

Okay... then there's nothing wrong with that. It's still nothing like Nolan. And what's with the "not like the old Superman?" That **** needs to die already. Superman is a much more sophisticated character than that. If you want unbelievably happy Superman in a world of morons, then watch the old movies. A real world just further fleshes out Superman's character. It's what connects us to him, which is a huge part of who he is.Chill, bro. I was explaining how Man of Steel was more realistic, not claiming that it shouldn't have been.

But there's nothing wrong with a comic book hero who doesn't live in cynical and suspicious world. There's nothing wrong with a fictional world in which a hero is loved instead of feared. It's not a rule that it's better for superheros to inhabit realistic worlds. Hollywood just realized that it's a good way to serve superhero stories to a mass audience who can't wrap their minds around things that don't feel real.

And, some would argue that Superman is meant to be an unreachable standard, a god-like ideal, and he has no business being relatable or connected to us. And that he's only shifted in that direction over recent decades in order to fit in with the superheroes that were created long after he was.

[NinjaPug]

Since this is essentially the Man of Steel sequel, I wonder how much of the Batman universe we'll get in the movie. I'm doubting we get Gotham City or a traditional Batman villain. I think they're essentially using him in this movie as a springboard for a Justice League movie and as a way to reboot the Batman character for standalone films.

[Zany Orange Dude]

For anyone who is curious, here's how they announced it. The crowd goes crazy when the logo pops up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2spdUrYi6-c

[Voltron]

Thats the thing. Batman didn't feel like Batman because he was forced into a realistic world. Where his knees wear out, and his gadgets and gear are second hand from the military.

1. They made it clear that all of Batman's gear was not in production on any level. The tanks, the armor. . . everything. It was all in R and D. In fact, it became a plot point in the second movie when the accountant found all the missing stuff from that department and threatened to blackmail Bats.

2. I have to disagree with Chrisdude's assertion that it didn't feel like Batman. To me, it TOTALLY felt like Batman. Everything was there. Perhaps not as much of it as some may have wanted, but it was.

Setting Bats in as real a world as possible gave some respectability to the story. It was more relatable than the other movies that came before it. Some of the explanations may not of have been perfect, but it was a lot better than having a Batman credit card or ice skate boots.

I find it hard to believe that Man of Steel was trying to do what Nolan did with Batman. The only thing that struck me as realistic, was the affect he had on the world he was in. Other than that, Man of Steel was too sci-fi to even be considered on the same realistic scale of The Dark Knight trilogy.

I still think MoS wasn't that great.

[CyberCubed]

Man of Steel wasn't great, and the movie had a number of problems. But it was still decent enough.

Hopefully the sequel humanizes Superman more and gives us more Clark Kent scenes. Also Clark and Bruce interacting will be fun.

[chrisdude]

1. They made it clear that all of Batman's gear was not in production on any level. The tanks, the armor. . . everything. It was all in R and D. In fact, it became a plot point in the second movie when the accountant found all the missing stuff from that department and threatened to blackmail Bats.Yes, yes. I just mean they weren't his. He was handed a tank. They slapped a bat symbol on a suit. My point is, the stuff was just given to him.

2. I have to disagree with Chrisdude's assertion that it didn't feel like Batman. To me, it TOTALLY felt like Batman. Everything was there. Perhaps not as much of it as some may have wanted, but it was.

Setting Bats in as real a world as possible gave some respectability to the story. It was more relatable than the other movies that came before it. Some of the explanations may not of have been perfect, but it was a lot better than having a Batman credit card or ice skate boots.That's kind of what I mean. I feel like we respected it before this trend of making things realistic started. The parts that weren't plausible - Bruce's unbelievable intelligence as a detective and gadgeteer (Yes, I'm aware Nolan didn't make up Lucius, but still), along with Bane's venom, Catwoman's affinity for cats, and the dark, frightening personality of Gotham City (It's not just New York), are all parts of the Batman universe. And things were sacrificed, in whole or in part, for the sake of realism and believability. I'm not saying it's bad. And you may consider it better. But things were given up. They straight-up took things out because they weren't realistic.

[JakeSully]

This should be a great crossover, i've been waiting for one for a long time.

[That Matt Guy]

I just want a DC movie where the hero isn't a manic depressive.

[Gin Rummy]

Hopefully this movie will be less like Dark Knight Rises and more like Avengers. The Nolan Trilogy was great, but I always felt they lacked fun. I'm tired of getting deep political insight from a man in a latex suit. I'm not saying make it campy, but to throw realism out the window for this one. Set the tone in line with the more recent Marvel flicks.

With Superman/Batman I hope They just make a straight blockbuster to lead into the Justice League movie.

[NinjaPug]

Couple new rumors out there for this movie:

- Christian Bale has been offered $50 million to reprise Batman. If that's true then I don't think there is any way he turns it down. I know he said he'd never return without Nolan directing but that is an insane amount of money for one movie.

- Mark Strong and Bryan Cranston are the rumored front runners for Lex Luthor. I think both would be a great choice.

[The Stryker]

Really hope Bale doesn't return. It's time to move on from those movies already.

I'll take him over Joseph Gordon Levitt but 50 mill is WAY too much for head-cold voice Batman.

[CyberCubed]

I doubt those rumors are true. Most of the casting has said they want an older Batman for this movie around 40 years old and Bale has said constantly he's done with Batman.

Sounds like some fanboy of the Nolan universe wants it to continue.

[NinjaPug]

I doubt those rumors are true. Most of the casting has said they want an older Batman for this movie around 40 years old and Bale has said constantly he's done with Batman.

Sounds like some fanboy of the Nolan universe wants it to continue.

I think it's BS too but Bale is 39 years old so he would fit in with what they want to do. $50 million would make me do a lot of things I said I'd never do again too.

I'd rather have him over JGL or Ryan Gosling, who I've also seen rumored to be up for the role.

I find it odd that they're looking for someone older to play Batman. I would think they'd want someone younger that they can use for a new set of Batman films and a Justice League film. Or they could just have the actor playing the role after they turn 50 a la Downey Jr - Iron Man.

[CyberCubed]

I hope we never see Joseph Gordon Levitt in a DC film again. I can't stand the idea of him being either Batman OR Robin.

Also in terms of the guy himself, it kinda bugs me how small his eyes are compared to his forehead.

[Leo656]

That's absolute bullsh*t. Know why? Because the ONLY reason they have Batman in the Man of Steel sequel is because MoS cost too much and they didn't turn as big a profit as they wanted. Their own people have said MoS needed to earn $1.1 billion globally, and "only" made a bit under $700 million, and that's why they panicked and added Batman to the sequel before MoS was even done playing. WB doesn't "trust" anyone but Batman to carry a movie and have it make money.

A big reason they needed to make so much money back? It cost almost $150 million just to advertise the film after it was finished. Which means they spent that much on the colossal task of informing the entire WORLD that yes, there was in fact a new Superman movie out. Fine, but HOW could they EVER justify spending even 1/3 of that much money on ONE GUY to reprise and sleepwalk through a role he has repeatedly said he does not want to do?

Let's say it IS true. Let's say WB pays Bale $50 million for ONE movie; keeping in mind they've already said the point of MoS and its sequel is to establish sequels, a "New DCU", and a Justice League movie. Actors do not make LESS money for each movie in a series, they make MORE. So if they have Bale come back for MoS2 at $50 million, he could be conceivably making $80-$100 million, BY HIMSELF, if he does two or three more as Batman. NO. F*CKING. WAY. They already want MoS to come in under a $200 million budget; they can't spend half of that or even a third of that on ONE GUY. It's mathematically impossible, they'd bankrupt and destroy Warner Bros.

I can see Bale returning (and frankly, half-assing it, as he CLEARLY isn't interested any more), but not for those numbers. And if he does, you can bet the plot of Justice League will involve killing him off, so they can replace him with a cheaper, younger actor. Better to start fresh, at this point. The Dark Knight Batman Universe got a lot right, but a lot wrong, too. "Man of Steel" is supposed to represent a fresh start for the DCU in movies, I say we go all the way with it. It's an opportunity to get a "mulligan" on some stuff that didn't work in the Batman and Green Lantern movies.

[CyberCubed]

Also Bruce Wayne is interchangeable like James Bond. Audiences are used to a new actor playing Batman all the time.

This isn't like Iron Man or Wolverine, who have now been typecasted as their actors to the general public that if they ever DO re-cast them there would probably be backlash.

In fact I remember a lot of casuals disappointed that Spiderman was re-casted and didn't even know the new movie was a reboot. I cannot see Iron Man or Wolverine re-casted in the future without some type of backlash from casuals.

[Leo656]

I can. Nerds (of which I am one) get so whiny so easily, and it's also really easy to surpass their expectations and make them feel stupid for thinking the way they did. Remember the whole "You can never top Michael Keaton as Batman/Jack Nicholson as Joker! It's stupid to even try, they should just stop doing Batman movies arrrrrrggghhhh!" thing? MOST of those people feel pretty stupid now, and they should; Bale and Ledger both did a great job, respectively. "Better"? Opinions. But nothing less than "great" in either case.

Iron Man 3's ending was done the way it was so they could continue on without Downey if they had to, either rebooting the franchise or simply leaving the door open for "his" trilogy to end and another to begin. He was not confirmed and signed for Avengers 2 at the time they made Iron Man 3, and frankly, they WANT him gone. He costs too much, and he's gotten into all the other Avengers' actors ears telling them how to conspire and con for more money for Avengers 2 and 3, and they're listening because of how much HE got paid, and they want the same. Anyone would, but frankly, it is already an abomination how much these guys get paid. So it's no shock the studio would LOVE to get rid of Downey, regardless of how popular he is. Thanks to him, there's a slim chance Avengers 3 might be ALL new actors by then, thanks to Downey's greed and the greed he has seeded in others for the right to play make-believe and be treated like a hero for it. Whatever. If he goes, fine.

Jackman is already so old that extensive CGI "airbrushing" is required to make him look younger and more fit on screen, and whether you think it's bad or not, my professional opinion is that he had to undergo some serious "chemical assistance" from either steroids or HGH to get as big as he is in the new movie. Which is common among actors, but at his age, it's not something he should KEEP doing or he's going to get serious health problems. He's probably already debating if it's worth it to keep going. I bet the studio wants to use the new movie as a way to keep the door open, if the timeline changes or whatever, they have an excuse to replace the whole cast if they want to... and again, by the time it happens, I'd say they will have to.

I can see some backlash from some of the more completely delusional fans, but I honestly feel MOST people will understand the simple math: Downey's Greedy + Jackman is old = New Actors and That's That. Everyone is replaceable. They did great in both cases but by now I wouldn't mind seeing others get a try in the roles.

[CyberCubed]

There will be reboots eventually of course, but probably long down the line when the current Marvel movie franchises finally crash and burn. But that may not be for a while yet.

If the Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man movies bomb, it may cause Marvel to rethink their strategy and only focus on the core heroes again.

[Jester]

*coff*Edward Norton*coff*

[Leo656]

Norton might still be playing Hulk if he didn't try and literally take over the entire movie during filming and act like he was the director, too. It's like he was ASKING to get fired. He did a good job, but apparently he has a huge ego and there's no room for that.

[Jester]

And there was some slight grumbling...then Ruffalo knocked it out of the park.

[Leo656]

He was pretty spiffy.

They all have it easy, though, because whoever plays Banner is really only killing time in the audience's mind until the monster shows up. I'd argue all three modern actors did good with the role, but all three were equally replaceable.

[NinjaPug]

This will cause some interesting comments:


Ben Affleck Is The New Batman


AUGUST 22, 2013 | 06:11PM PT
Film will bow July 17, 2015


Ben Affleck is Batman.

The actor will replace Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne in the upcoming untitled Superman-Batman feature for Warner Bros., the studio announced Thursday.

“Man of Steel” actors Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne and Diane Lane are reprising their roles with Zack Snyder on board to direct.

The film is slated to bow on July 17, 2015.

[Jester]

And DC continues to be beaten to a bloody pulp in live action movies by Marvel...if this is true.

[NinjaPug]

It's definitely true. WB issued a press release today.

[Jester]

Um, source...it'd be nice to see where this quote came from.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/ben-affleck-will-play-batman-in-man-of-steel-sequel-due-july-17-2015/
or
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/ben-affleck-is-the-new-batman-1200586881/
would have been nice.

[TurtleTitan97]

Not sure how I feel about this. Hopefully he'll be a good Batman.

[Shreddhead]

George Clooney is no longer the strangest Batman casting.

Well to be fair, I wouldnt have expected most of the live action actors to be cast as the bat. Im just crossing my fingers and hoping Ben will surprise me.

[TigerClaw]

Its interesting the fact that Ben Affleck actually played Superman in a previous film. As George Reeves as Superman.

[ToTheNines]

Not a BFD, he's gonna be in costume the whole time probably.

But, like everyone else, I don't get it either. They normally cast unknowns for superhero stuff, so it'll be kinda weird seeing Cavill and Affleck interact as Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne.

[That Matt Guy]

Ben Affleck could be a good Batman. He seems to be hit and miss though with his roles.

[NinjaMan]

Matt Damon as Robin?

[MikeandRaph87]

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2690301

I thought I had breaking news and you guys are already on it. :trazz:

Being 43 at release of the first film Batman will appear I would have thought WB would want to go a little younger though he was mentioned as a director for Justice League. I am not really sure what to make of this. He is okay as an actor and he does have a previous superhero outing that viewers claim does not hold up well(I never saw it not being a DD fan).

Did anyone else think it was a joke or a rumor when first reading the headline? It seems sudden and an odd hour to break.

[Zany Orange Dude]

Well....I'm not sure what to think...?

[NinjaMan]

Jon Hamm would have been an excellent choice.

[LeoNerdo]

My initial interest in this film is fading. It's not the end of the world, it's just kind of a blah announcement.

[Raph's Girl]

With Ben portraying George Reeves/Superman in "Hollywoodland" it's gotten to the point that they should just go ahead and cast him as the entire JLA. :P

[NinjaMan]

Make it happen

[Slade]

Did anyone else think it was a joke or a rumor when first reading the headline? It seems sudden and an odd hour to break.

Yeah I did. Still not sure what to think either.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

I don't really have a full opinion on this news since I never watched Daredevil. However, I'm willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Remember what people said about Michael Keaton BEFORE the 89 movie was released?

[Slap-Happy]

Calling it now. Ben Affleck as Batman is going to be like Chris Evans as Cap. It's a choice that divided a lot of people, but the actor ended up embodying that role.

Honestly a lot more excited for this.

[Shark_Blade]

Best news I heard today. :)

[FlogginMcMurryZombiePizza]

http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/Ryan_Comstock-McMurry/560837_507146406038606_1473788611_n_zps208aac7b.jp g

[ZariusTwo]

Those Kevin Smith "Fatman on Batman" podcasts are gonna be torture to listen to for the next few months

[Turo602]

Considering a lot of the names that were being tossed around, I actually found myself relieved it was Ben Affleck. I'm not totally bothered by this, I just want to see how he does. Casting, no matter how strange has seemed to work before. Let's hope this is the case. I still find it weird though, considering Affleck is a big star. I'm used to seeing unknown actors actually become the role, like Christian Bale and Henry Cavill. Seeing Affleck as Batman is just... Ben Affleck as Batman.

[chrisdude]

My friend sent me a text, last night. It read, "ben affleck?" So I googled the name, assuming it was news of some sort.

I was like,
http://i.imgur.com/d3UUknk.gif

I'm sure Ben Affleck is a good actor, or whatever. But I'm not sure he's an actor that the average viewer can see past. We'll see...

[ObiWanFan4life]

If Daniel Craig, Michael Keaton, and Matt Smith have taught us anything, it's not to automatically pass judgement and run the risk of looking like an idiot. I'm just going to wait and see how he does.

[Zachatello00]

Could be worse, they could cast Megan Fox as April. Just imagine...

[The Stryker]

Could be worse, they could cast Megan Fox as April. Just imagine...

Herr herrr. Funny joke!

My sides. Completely intact.

[CyberCubed]

I've never watched anything Ben Afflect was in so I have no opinion. Judging by looks he looks like a Bruce Wayne.

[ObiWanFan4life]

This video sums up my thoughts quite perfectly:

VLp2R6ee0n8

[Lord Nightwalker]

I was very disappointed. I remember when casting for Batman Begins was just in the making that Ben was asked about the part and if he was interested in doing it. He more or less said hell no, he wanted no part of any more comics based films, especially Batman. So what($) changed his mind?
If the role was sooo beneath him before, then why is it ok now?

[The Stryker]

The Batman franchise was coming off of Batman & Robin back then.

[ObiWanFan4life]

I was very disappointed. I remember when casting for Batman Begins was just in the making that Ben was asked about the part and if he was interested in doing it. He more or less said hell no, he wanted no part of any more comics based films, especially Batman. So what($) changed his mind?
If the role was sooo beneath him before, then why is it ok now?

Because he has experience with failure, he PUBLICALLY admitted that Daredevil damaged his career.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

me personally, i am just waiting for a clip. I've never seen Ben Affleck in anything so i have no idea what to expect, so I'm waiting for evidence

[ObiWanFan4life]

me personally, i am just waiting for a clip. I've never seen Ben Affleck in anything so i have no idea what to expect, so I'm waiting for evidence

I suggest you watch Argo and good will hunting.

[Lord Nightwalker]

I suggest you watch Argo and good will hunting.

And Dare Devil. Just for comparison.

[TigerClaw]

The fans has started a Petition to force Warner Bros to remove Ben Affleck as Batman. http://movies.yahoo.com/news/fans-petition-warner-bros-remove-ben-affleck-batman-164352377.html

[Zulithe]

e0QWdnhW9jM

[ObiWanFan4life]

The fans has started a Petition to force Warner Bros to remove Ben Affleck as Batman. http://movies.yahoo.com/news/fans-petition-warner-bros-remove-ben-affleck-batman-164352377.html

So, History DOES repeat itself.

[Turo602]

The funny thing is, I always thought he was a better fit for Green Lantern and Ryan Reynolds for Flash. Apparently they're seeing something Batmanish about him we aren't though.

[Lord Nightwalker]

Apparently. Maybe he will surprise us, But I am doubtful. I remember how fans were upset with Keaton until they actually saw him in the part. Then the excitement was on! Perhaps this will end up the same.

[alliance]

Horrible News...

a crappy actor and a ridiculously overrated director gets to play Batman

this is why DC is getting its ass kicked and why its gonna kill the hype for this as well, knowing this fancy female is getting the role is gonna be a lot of unnecessary hype for what was supposed to be hype for a lot of positives. Superman vs Batman is what were supposed to be talking about and the thrill of match making but now that's overshadowed because movie execs are completely oblivious with the public they produce for and their record show just that..

they always f*ck things up with crappy remakes and comic book movies and I hope this movie crashes and burns, I just cant get into knowing that the Dark Knight is gonna be played by this sugar coated Fairy..it just wont be believable know matter how they spin cause we know Affleck is a pure panzy in real life.. when he we see certain actors we identify with characters they portray, when we see Daniel Craig we know that's f*cken Bond..

Bennifer doesn't have that ONE DAMN BIT its just another project for him to impress his wifes females f*cken friends telling her how she has such a great husband and the perfect life..

Affleck should be f*cken shot...

[愛]

I love lying on the internet, too.

[Jester]

Affleck should be f*cken shot...
I know I'm not thrilled about him being Bruce either...but really? Come on now.

[Andrew NDB]

The funny thing is, I always thought he was a better fit for Green Lantern and Ryan Reynolds for Flash. Apparently they're seeing something Batmanish about him we aren't though.

I could see Reynolds being a pretty perfect Flash but there's nothing about Hal that I see in Ben Affleck. He'd be a pretty perfect Kyle Rayner Green Lantern, though... getting a little old now, though. Around Chasing Amy time would have been perfect.

[Jester]

There's a guy at work who says Neil Patrick Harris should be The Flash.


I can totally see it.

[LeoNerdo]

There's a guy at work who says Neil Patrick Harris should be The Flash.


I can totally see it.

I think he'd be a good flash. He did the voice in JL New Frontier.

[MikeandRaph87]

There's a guy at work who says Neil Patrick Harris should be The Flash.


I can totally see it.

I personally think Kevin McGill can voice a better Flash than NPH. While NPH did Barry's Flash I think Kevin could do Wally West very well.

One thing I am surprised has not been toyed with is one actor to play Bruce Wayne and another play Batman. Christian Bale was an excellent Bruce Wayne. Batman? Meh. Val Kilmer was an excellent Batman and a decent Bruce Wayne. Hey, if James Earl Jones can voice Vader and David Prowse can be the body why not?:trazz:

[CyberCubed]

At least his Batman voice won't sound like a bad cold.

[chrisdude]

At least his Batman voice won't sound like a bad cold.I'm reminded of this...
FsCdTUgj_2Y

[Zachatello00]

I have to admit that my initial reaction was negative, until I heard there was a petition to have President Obama remove Affleck from the role. Now, I'm all in.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/08/23/ben-affleck-as-batman-thousands-sign-petition-to-remove-him/

man, people can really be stupid.

[ObiWanFan4life]

I have to admit that my initial reaction was negative, until I heard there was a petition to have President Obama remove Affleck from the role. Now, I'm all in.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/08/23/ben-affleck-as-batman-thousands-sign-petition-to-remove-him/

man, people can really be stupid.

Wow, I - Where do I begin? Not only are people passing judgement before seeing any pictures or footage....But they're going as far as getting the PRESIDENT involved somehow. The level of immaturity here is STAGGERING, and that's saying something.

[shuriken]

huh that's hilarious. SOme people get waaay to serious about their superhero movies. Affleck is decent. Liked him in Argo, the Town and Good will hunting. I'm even gonna go so far and say that he was ok as Daredevil. Everything else about that movie was just off though, Like Bullseye and Elektra. Kingpin was ok tho.

[ObiWanFan4life]

oXb18tuKyoA

[CyberCubed]

The people complaining are idiots. He'll be in full costume for most of the movie anyway, you won't even see his face.

[Jester]

The people complaining are idiots. He'll be in full costume for most of the movie anyway, you won't even see his face.
*coff*WilliamFichner-as-EricSachs*coff*

[Leo656]

Could be worse. I'm very amused at how WB continues to spin MoS as an unbridled success, when everything they've released about the "sequel" (which apparently is now NOT a sequel but a "continuation of this new universe", which means "Only Batman Makes DC Money") screams "Panic Button".

Fact: MoS was NOT the huge success they wanted and needed it to be. It skewed too dark and that hurt the box office and repeat business, especially among kids who didn't like it or weren't allowed to see it; internal reports said the movie absolutely HAD to make over $1.1 billion world-wide to be "successful", and it did not. It "only" made about $700 million, so we get the announcement "Don't worry guys, BATMAN is in the next one!" (while MoS is still in theaters, mind you; nothing desperate there, eh?), and since Affleck's movies do usually make money (more among women, many of whom did not like MoS) they probably figure this will fix things.

Could be worse, could be better. I'll wait and see, but literally everything about it screams "desperation" to me. To me, what makes it a bad choice is not so much his acting ability (he's hit-or-miss, at best), it's that they HAD to have known the negative backlash that would come from this announcement. They can't be THAT out of touch; they have to KNOW that just like Megan Fox as April, a large chunk of the population is so against seeing them in anything at all that they will refuse to see this movie entirely. It's a juvenile way to be, but the fact is people ARE that juvenile and petty, and it's going to hurt the box office, even if only a little.

Why they would go out of their way to cast a controversial, love-it-or-hate-it choice in as big a role as Batman (and face it, basically every DC movie going forward depends on this movie being a huge success and nothing less) is beyond me. A much better idea would have been to go with another semi-unknown so that the audience could go in with no prejudices and see for themselves if the movie was good. Now you have a huge chunk of people who will refuse to go see it (or at least make a lot of negative noise about it, which is just as bad).

Bad word-of-mouth kills more movies than bad quality, so I'm a bit perplexed by the choice. Nothing good can really come of it. Even if he excels as Batman, at best some people who were on the fence say "Eh, he was ok." People who hate Affleck will still hate Affleck, most of them will stay home, and most of the haters who do go won't want their online "reputations" soiled, so they will trash the movie anyway, even if they secretly liked him in it.

Plus, he's kind of old; yeah, we get a new Batman every few movies anyway, but now we're guaranteed it. So much for a long-term plan for a brand-new comics universe, when one of the main characters will have to be re-cast within 5 years.

Ah well. There is absolutely no promise that Affleck will suck as Batman, but the fact that so many people are furious about it proves it was a bad choice. He could be good, and it will make no difference. That's a shame; I was really hoping for big things with the chance for a new Batman; now I'm just already looking past him to the inevitable next guy. :ohwell:

[CyberCubed]

I'm still wondering who the Batman villain will be. I can't see them not throwing in at least one Batman villain in this alongside Lex Luthor.

I'm betting on The Riddler, if only I can see how Luthor and him would have a meeting of the minds.

Its also been far too long since The Riddler has been in a Batman movie.

[Leo656]

If he'd be anything like Carrey's portrayal, Riddler can stay the hell home. :lol:

Nah, I'd be curious to see a new interpretation myself, but he's too small-time for this sort of movie. It's implicit that the villain(s) in this film be of a caliber that ONLY the combined efforts of Superman and Batman together could stop them, or else why bother? Luthor's always been the no-brainer and will undoubtedly be the "main" villain, but even anyone used as his pawn will have to carry their own share of a 2-hour movie. I know it's possible but I don't see Riddler being that guy.

Right now, I'm at a loss to who else I'd pick. Forcing Batman into the project added a bunch of confusing problems. A joint Batman/Superman project is a lot harder to make work than two solo movies would have been. There's still a lot of stuff about this new Superman and his world that we don't know or needs to be expanded on; having a big chunk of the movie split between him and Batman (and HIS supporting cast) isn't the best way to do that.

I still really wish they'd waited and done one more solo movie with Superman before panicking and adding Batman. It's making things more complicated than it has to be.

[chrisdude]

I really feel like this was a reactionary, Plan B decision, based on Man of Steel's mixed reviews. They didn't have a Batman actor to announce, and even Henry Cavil said Superman needed another movie before he teamed up with the Justice League.

It really feels too early. We hardly know who Superman is. And if this is truly a new Batman, and not a recasting of Nolan's, it's hard to imagine this movie not being a cluttered mess.

[NinjaPug]

I doubt we see a Batman villain in this movie. At the end of the day this is a sequel to Man of Steel. I think Batman will be primarily be used as a foil to Superman. Since this version of Bats will have been established as Batman for some time I doubt they will delve into his origin much.

[Leo656]

Actually, the latest press release went to great lengths NOT to call it a "sequel". It is "a continuation of the universe established in 'Man of Steel'." Thus opening up the possibility for Batman and Co. to take up as much time if not more time than Superman in he next film (Because remember, "Batman Sells More Tickets"), as well as return to doing solo movies with either Superman or Batman later on if they decide to after "Justice League".

It's obvious they're going full speed ahead to establish (in the broadest strokes possible) as much of the JLA roster as they can in the next two years because they really, really want to (and have to) do "Justice League". They cannot wait until "Avengers 3" comes out, they need to do JLA NOW, and frankly, they put themselves in this position by being timid and waiting too long and now they're paying for it. They could have started crossing universes over when "Batman Begins" and "Superman Returns" came out, had "Green Lantern" exist in the same spiritual universe, and so on. Now it's almost ten years later, Marvel Studios is practically bleeding super-hero movies and making billions doing it, and WB has to play catch-up in less than 5 years or risk losing out. So we're getting rushed-out half-baked stuff like what S/B looks like it's turning into.

I'm trying to stay optimistic, and let's face it, who doesn't want a Superman and Batman movie? But I'm not convinced we'll be getting the best possible version of it. Everything about it seems ill-conceived, so far, or rushed at the very least. I think they waited way too long to try and get some of the Marvel/"Avengers" pie, and now they're cornered.

[The Stryker]

I knew DC and WB had their hearts in the wrong place when their original plan was to get Man of Steel 2 out in 2014 and then somehow have Justice League out in theaters before Avengers 2.

They want a piece of that money so bad but it's like they learned nothing from Marvel's planning. "Huh. A movie built up for years with several well made movies that establish all of the characters? Know whats a better idea? Just cramming everyone into one movie with barely any build. No waiting! We're geniuses!"

[Leo656]

I agree; that's why I wished they'd started the build back around 2006. But WB got timid after "Superman Returns" fell short of its hoped-for $6 or 700 million gross worldwide (while STILL being one of the Top 10 highest-grossing films in theaters and on DVD that year), and started ignorantly believing that the only "safe" thing to do was focus on Batman exclusively. Even then, they planned to branch out into JLA territory, but then as now, they had no plans to build it up like Marvel was already doing with Iron Man and the rest. The plan even back then was to still rush it out and hope everyone was awestruck by the spectacle of seeing a half-dozen super-heroes in one movie. Now they won't even be able to claim that, since it's already been so long since "Avengers" came out.

They absolutely have to do a JLA movie. NOT doing one would be the stupidest decision ever. But they're kind of stuck, because no matter what, they'll be compared to and accused of "copying" Marvel. I almost feel like that's a huge reason they WON'T do the "slow build" like Avengers' individual films. If they do it that way, the internet laughs and says "They're copying Marvel", and everyone knows that Hollywood, while being nothing at all original, hates to be portrayed as "copying" anyone. So WB, in its haste to be "different" while still carbon-copying a proven formula for success, subscribes to a shoddier model of planning and execution for the sole sake of cashing in quickly while not being compared *too* much to the competition.

They're stuck in a no-win situation. They have to do the movie, and they no longer have the luxury of doing it like Marvel did Avengers. It's a shame. I haven't given up hope, though; as fun as it was, "Avengers" was no classic of modern cinema, and even a weak JLA film would easily compare favorably as long as the effects were good.

[CyberCubed]

Well its obvious Lois Lane will take a backseat in this movie. Instead of a Superman/Lois dynamic it will be a Superman/Batman one.

Since there were hardly any Clark Kent scenes in the movie its disappointing since we'll never see the Lois and Clarke relationship portrayed at the Daily Planet.

Most likely Lois will have a small role, at best.

[Leo656]

Well, along with red trunks and human parents who are still alive, his relationship with Lois is one of the things that makes him "boring" to "teh kidz", so it was tossed out for the most part because it won't directly lead to more explosions. That's Hollywood for you.

[The Stryker]

Well, along with red trunks and human parents who are still alive, his relationship with Lois is one of the things that makes him "boring" to "teh kidz", so it was tossed out for the most part because it won't directly lead to more explosions. That's Hollywood for you.
I don't think thats for kids. More likely the 20 something net-crowd that require everything to be joyless and cryptic to consider it good.

[Leo656]

Yeah, that too. Probably moreso, yeah.

[NinjaPug]

Well its obvious Lois Lane will take a backseat in this movie. Instead of a Superman/Lois dynamic it will be a Superman/Batman one.

Since there were hardly any Clark Kent scenes in the movie its disappointing since we'll never see the Lois and Clarke relationship portrayed at the Daily Planet.

Most likely Lois will have a small role, at best.

None of that is obvious at all. I'm concerned they'll do some Lois/Bruce/Clark triangle.

[CyberCubed]

Lois was too low key in the film. She was just there. There was no dynamic.

[NinjaPug]

I thought this was the best film version of Lois to date. I'm glad they finally made her a credible investigative journalist.

That said, I don't care if they cut her role to give more screen time to Batman/Bruce.

[Leo656]

She was "the best", but that's not saying much. To qualify, she only need not be as dumb as a brick (Kidder's Lois) or flat as cardboard (Bosworth, in more ways than one ;)).

[CyberCubed]

At least this Batman is not a reboot. I don't think I could tolerate going through the origin story yet again.

When they made the next set of Batman movies they should do the same. Batman is already experienced and into his career, with the Nolan films being in a loose continuity in that those events happened, just differently for this new universe.

I'm sure they're going to use the villains they didn't use in the Nolan films too. Like Riddler, Penguin, etc. just to keep away from redundancy.

[Jester]

Why? They're putting freakin' Batman in a Superman movie to bolster his sales numbers. It's not a continuation of the Batman movies, so it could give us a different take on an already used famous Bat-villain.

Besides, how often when Batman and Superman team-up are the Superman villain not Lex and the Batman villain not Joker? If they do "heroes team up to stop their greatest foes" it'll be Lex and Joker.

[MikeandRaph87]

While I am tired of Joker and Lex Luthor, the reason they keep on using thme is because those two are the biggest threats to the biggest heroes. The two villians worked together in the late 60s' in the Worlds' Finest title a few times and then again in a 1990 updated mini series. Finally in the Superman/Batman:World's Finest film with the uneasy alliance of Lex Luthor and The Joker. So there actually is some material for Goyer to look at for Superman and Batman teaming up against Lex Luthor and The Joker.
He4K-V502Xg

[chrisdude]

Why? They're putting freakin' Batman in a Superman movie to bolster his sales numbers. It's not a continuation of the Batman movies, so it could give us a different take on an already used famous Bat-villain.

Besides, how often when Batman and Superman team-up are the Superman villain not Lex and the Batman villain not Joker? If they do "heroes team up to stop their greatest foes" it'll be Lex and Joker.I sort of doubt this. Yeah, Batman makes more money than Superman. And yeah, I wholeheartedly believe that this Superman/Batman movie is a scrambled effort. But I'm not totally ruling out the possibility that Affleck's Batman is a recasting of a Dark Knight trilogy Batman.

Yes, Snyder said that TDK and MoS weren't in the same world. But, I don't think this Superman/Batman was their plan, back when he said it. The Man of Steel's tone was very similar to TDK (So even if it is a "different take" on Batman, it probably won't be too much different). The Dark Knight Batman would fit right in that world. Are Nolan and Goyer really going to try to reinvent their own Batman right after the success of the Dark Knight trilogy? In a world their own Batman is already suited for? After leaving their Batman story fairly open-ended? Yeah, Spider-Man and Hulk were rebooted after just five years, but people hated Spider-Man 3 and Hulk. But this is something people loved. If they don't use that Batman, they have to live up to it, while establishing him in a movie that features Superman, or just skipping it and confusing casuals. If they do use that Batman, only Affleck has to live up to it.

I'm just saying it's not out of the question.

And I think we can forget about seeing the Joker anytime soon.
For the same reason, just times 100.

[CyberCubed]

That's why its called a loose continuity. Same way TMNT 4 acknowledged the live-action trilogy.

The new Batman movies aren't a reboot, it'll be a recasted Batman fighting villains they didn't do in the Nolan trilogy. I'm certain the writers would much rather go for villains like Riddler, Penguin or Mr. Freeze over using Twoface and Joker again...for example.

[chrisdude]

That's why its called a loose continuity. Same way TMNT 4 acknowledged the live-action trilogy.

The new Batman movies aren't a reboot, it'll be a recasted Batman fighting villains they didn't do in the Nolan trilogy. I'm certain the writers would much rather go for villains like Riddler, Penguin or Mr. Freeze over using Twoface and Joker again...for example.I'm just saying that there's just as much risk in using a new Batman character, as there is in continuing from TDK with a new actor. I don't think either option is the obvious no-brainer, but everyone seems to assume that since this isn't Bale or Levitt, that this must be an entirely new character. After all, there have been plenty of rumors since The Dark Knight Rises that WB has been throwing money at Bale and Levitt. Yeah, the loose continuity thing may be the way they go (though I think it made more sense for TMNT, as they didn't have one single prominent version that was fresh in everyone's mind), but at that point, they may just have old Bruce come out of retirement after the events of Man of Steel.

I don't see a reason to feel certain about how it will be handled.

[CyberCubed]

Also in the original Batman movies, they recasted Michael Keaton as Batman....yet Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were treated as sequels to Batman 1989 and Batman Returns. And those movies also had a much campier and goofier setting than the first two.

I expect something similar.

[Slade]

I sort of doubt this. Yeah, Batman makes more money than Superman. And yeah, I wholeheartedly believe that this Superman/Batman movie is a scrambled effort. But I'm not totally ruling out the possibility that Affleck's Batman is a recasting of a Dark Knight trilogy Batman.

Yes, Snyder said that TDK and MoS weren't in the same world. But, I don't think this Superman/Batman was their plan, back when he said it. The Man of Steel's tone was very similar to TDK (So even if it is a "different take" on Batman, it probably won't be too much different). The Dark Knight Batman would fit right in that world. Are Nolan and Goyer really going to try to reinvent their own Batman right after the success of the Dark Knight trilogy? In a world their own Batman is already suited for? After leaving their Batman story fairly open-ended? Yeah, Spider-Man and Hulk were rebooted after just five years, but people hated Spider-Man 3 and Hulk. But this is something people loved. If they don't use that Batman, they have to live up to it, while establishing him in a movie that features Superman, or just skipping it and confusing casuals. If they do use that Batman, only Affleck has to live up to it.

I'm just saying it's not out of the question.

And I think we can forget about seeing the Joker anytime soon.
For the same reason, just times 100.

I've read a few articles stating that it's been confirmed that this will be a new batman. Don't know how reliable any of it is though.

[chrisdude]

Also in the original Batman movies, they recasted Michael Keaton as Batman....yet Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were treated as sequels to Batman 1989 and Batman Returns. And those movies also had a much campier and goofier setting than the first two.

I expect something similar.Personally, I'd love to see both Batman and Superman handled in a more lighthearted manner. I'd take another Batman Forever any day.

[shuriken]

Personally, I'd love to see both Batman and Superman handled in a more lighthearted manner. I'd take another Batman Forever any day.

I agree. I haven't seen Man of Steel but just looking at the trailers it didn't look like a Superman movie to me. Superman should be a foil to Batman's darker persona. That dynamic works well.

[CyberCubed]

I haven't watched Batman Forever in like 15 years. I don't remember how the movie was other than it being a bit goofy. Was it as bad as Batman and Robin or was it decent?

[DarkLightDragon]

A tad better than B&R. It's not good, but it's also far from horrible.

[Jester]

I haven't watched Batman Forever in like 15 years. I don't remember how the movie was other than it being a bit goofy. Was it as bad as Batman and Robin or was it decent?
Much better than B&R...but mainly because it had strong villains. Carrey's Riddler was the scene stealer. It was cheesy, but not as painfully so as B&R.
Oh and it didn't have:
Cqon0nVWA4A

[MikeandRaph87]

Batman Forever is my favorite Batman film. It does have some eye rolling moments though(which one does not?) like Riddler's light up jump suit at the final fight or his red hair. Jim's natural hair was that of the Riddlers' so why the stupdi wig? It could have gotten deeper into the psyche of the Bat when Bruce said "I killed them!" when talking to Chase about what makes him tick and the origin of why he does what he does. Also, Two Face was more a lethal version of goofy like Riddler( who is morei n character to do so thanks to the awesome Goshin portrayal) and not enough focused on the man Harvey Dent. I enjoyed the tone it was lighter than previous but it was not campy either. It was a good mix. I like Denny O'Neil type Batman which is like Miller meets West. The film was the best of them to capture it aside from the two animated films. It was a bit cheesy but it was fun and a great plot. I also enjoyed it becaue it had two of my favorite DC characters involved Dick "Robin" Grayson and The Riddler. Like I sadi it like all of the movies have something that bugs me and a couple of threads it could have handled better but its a good popcorn flick I can enjoy to this day.

[CyberCubed]

Man I've avoided rewatching Batman Forever since the 90's because I thought it was as bad as Batman and Robin was.

If the movie is actually decent I may have to rewatch it now. I honestly don't think I've seen the movie since I was 11 or 12....lol.

[Leo656]

I thought it was just OK. I hated Carrey's Riddler, honestly. In part, it was because I was aware of the problems the movie had during production when several actors passed on the movie based on the script. Riddler was originally supposed to be the minor villain role, causing several actors (including Robin Williams) to pass on it; but when they got Carrey involved (post "Ace Ventura" Jim Carrey, who was the biggest star in the world), they re-wrote the entire movie to be a vehicle for him and that always really bothered me. It also irked me that they paid him a lot more than they were willing to pay Michael Keaton, who was supposedly the star of the series yet was forced to quit rather than the studio acquiesce to his requests for a raise and more screen time.

Ah well, ancient history now, I suppose. But I didn't like it as much on repeat viewings, either; I thought it was already sliding too far back towards the Adam West version, and both villains were cartoonishly over-the-top (Tommy Lee Jones admittedly didn't give a crap about the project, and it shows). And while not as "Man, I wish he were dead" annoying as he was in "Batman and Robin", Chris O'Donnell's version of Robin was way too off-putting.

It's still worth an occasional look, though. It's not *as* bad as "Batman and Robin", and some parts of it were okay, but to me the best parts of it hint that there's pieces of a much better movie hidden way underneath all the neon gloss. I've heard there was at one point a much darker version of the movie in production, before the studio and toy companies got involved and made them release the movie we actually got. I'd be interested in seeing what the original planned version was.

[ZariusTwo]

The deleted scenes of Forever are worth a look Leo. The bit where Bruce resolves the whole storyline with the red book and confronts the giant bat in the cave is, while a little corny by today's standards, very dark and atmospheric and really puts this film's Bruce in touch with his Bat roots.

Forever will always be special to me as it was the first Batman fllm I could go see in the theatre, I was high on Carrey at the time, and Kilmer is very causal and reserved as Bruce, allowing O'Donnel to play the scarred figure of the narrative.

The movie is also insanely quotable and has THE best soundtrack out of the entire pantheon of Bat-flicks

[MikeandRaph87]

The deleted scenes of Forever are worth a look Leo. The bit where Bruce resolves the whole storyline with the red book and confronts the giant bat in the cave is, while a little corny by today's standards, very dark and atmospheric and really puts this film's Bruce in touch with his Bat roots.

Forever will always be special to me as it was the first Batman fllm I could go see in the theatre, I was high on Carrey at the time, and Kilmer is very causal and reserved as Bruce, allowing O'Donnel to play the scarred figure of the narrative.

The movie is also insanely quotable and has THE best soundtrack out of the entire pantheon of Bat-flicks

I have seen the recut beginning but the deleted scene(s). Where could those be found? A later DVD release? I have the first released DVD version.

[CyberCubed]

Damn, you guys are making me want to rewatch this movie. Does Two Face have any split personality at all? I don't remember that and that was disappointing since he seemed like a Joker clone.

[chrisdude]

Ah, the days when superhero movies were fun...

[ObiWanFan4life]

Ah, the days when superhero movies were fun...

Name one GOOD Superhero movie from that era

[The Stryker]

Name one GOOD Superhero movie from that era

Batman Forever.

[ObiWanFan4life]

Ah, the days when superhero movies were fun...

You mean when we got such gems as:
SuperGirl
Roger Corman's Fantastic Four
Tank Girl
Barb Wire
Generation X
Batman and Robin
Shaquille O'Neil's Steel
Justice League of America

Yeah, THOSE were the days. :roll:

[shuriken]

I haven't watched Batman Forever in like 15 years. I don't remember how the movie was other than it being a bit goofy. Was it as bad as Batman and Robin or was it decent?

It had a good mix of ridiculousness in there with semi-seriousness. Robin's family is killed and Batman almost dies so there's that. It's miles better than Batman and Robin, and it also uses a lot of neon lights.
Twoface doesn't have a split personality, it's more like he's got OCD with the coin flipping and is more bi-polar than anything.

[ZariusTwo]

I have seen the recut beginning but the deleted scene(s). Where could those be found? A later DVD release? I have the first released DVD version.

Yeah, those scenes were part of the special edition DVD that came out when Batman Begins opened. They can also be found on the blu-ray

You mean when we got such gems as:
SuperGirl
Roger Corman's Fantastic Four
Tank Girl
Barb Wire
Generation X

That lot isnt all that bad actually...maybe I'm being biased though because I ate that s*it up as a teen. I remember reading the Barb Wire comic book adaptation a ridiculous amount of times

Corman's FF and that early Captain America movie are too histerical to hate

[MikeandRaph87]

Yeah, those scenes were part of the special edition DVD that came out when Batman Begins opened. They can also be found on the blu-ray

I got it on DVD way back around Christmas 2002 not long after I first acquired a DVD Player. So the second version has it,perhaps clips around the net such as youtube? The main thing I want to know is, the deleted scene finishes the plot thread about Bruce's psyche and why he became Batman when he told Chase "I killed them!"? Thanks,dude.

[TigerClaw]

Check out this Fanmade trailer for Man of Steel 2 featuring Ben Affleck and Bryan Cranston as Lex Luthor.

U4U4he3GgC4

[chrisdude]

I only know Mark Strong as Genovese in Kick-Ass, so I can't really judge him. But I have no doubt Cranston could do it.

Also, what's the Elysium suit doing in there? Some enemy reference I'm not recognizing?

[MikeandRaph87]

I only know Mark Strong as Genovese in Kick-Ass, so I can't really judge him. But I have no doubt Cranston could do it.

Also, what's the Elysium suit doing in there? Some enemy reference I'm not recognizing?

http://media2.firstshowing.net/firstshowing/img3/sinestro-GLmarkinterview-ph5401.jpg

He was Sinestro in Green Lantern. He did a good job. I hoped he would be the villain of Green Lantern 2, but perhaps he plays Lex Luthor as the big bad instead.

[Shreddhead]

Not to harp on the Batman forever discussion, but I always enjoyed that film. I had it on vhs and watched the hell out of it as a kid. In my nostalgia tinted eyes, its not even close to as bad as Bman and Robin. Plus I always really liked its design for the batmobile.

And this is pretty random, but I came across this today and laughed:
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr05/2013/8/26/9/enhanced-buzz-24292-1377522595-0.jpg

In all honesty, I think he may be able to pull it off (especially if hes in the batsuit for the majority of the film). He definitely has the jaw line/ stubble for a badass bat.

[Leo656]

The movie is also insanely quotable and has THE best soundtrack out of the entire pantheon of Bat-flicks

I do really like "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me". Like, MORE than a friend. Also Offspring represent with "Smash It Up".

You gotta love the '89 soundtrack though. Prince owwwwwwwwwwns. "If a man is considered guilty for what goes on in his mind/ Give me The Electric Chair for all my future crimes!" So awesome. Was I the ONLY guy who went to the store and bought this expecting the moody Danny Elfman score and instead was blindsided with pure Sexadelic Funk from the Gemini Himself? And am I also the only guy who was pleasantly surprised rather than pissed? :lol:

[MikeandRaph87]

This morning it was made official the studio went with Bryan Cranston over Mark Strong to play Lex Luthor. Bryan has proven to have a great range and should do well. I think fans will react more positively to this than Affleck's casting has been as Cranston rides on the bleated success of Brekaing Bad. I actually fan cast Cranston as Baxter Stockman.

Multiple outlets report on Affleck and Cranston reuniting from Argo to Man of Steel 2.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/entertainment/movies/bryan-cranston-reportedly-cast-lex-luthor/nZdbD/

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/breaking-bads-bryan-cranston-to-play-lex-luthor-in-man-of-steel-sequel-8785892.html

[Jester]

Leo...how could you forget Seal's great Kiss From a Rose
jwvNAai29_0

[Shreddhead]

Leo...how could you forget Seal's great Kiss From a Rose
jwvNAai29_0



I remember renting the soundtrack from my local library and playing kiss from a rose, smash it up, there's a light, and bad days for hours at a time. Sooo good

[NinjaPug]

This morning it was made official the studio went with Bryan Cranston over Mark Strong to play Lex Luthor. Bryan has proven to have a great range and should do well. I think fans will react more positively to this than Affleck's casting has been as Cranston rides on the bleated success of Brekaing Bad. I actually fan cast Cranston as Baxter Stockman.

Multiple outlets report on Affleck and Cranston reuniting from Argo to Man of Steel 2.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/entertainment/movies/bryan-cranston-reportedly-cast-lex-luthor/nZdbD/

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/breaking-bads-bryan-cranston-to-play-lex-luthor-in-man-of-steel-sequel-8785892.html


Yeah, that's not official.

[Leo656]

Ehhh, I heard "Kiss From A Rose" too much. To this day, I swear it plays every time I walk into a pharmacy, and occasionally a K-Mart. On the other hand, "Smash It Up" is rather obscure, even to a lot of Offspring fans. I try to over-appreciate the unappreciated, if that makes any sense. :lol:

[TurtleTitan97]

So, um, Justin Bieber posted this image on his Instagram, with the hashtag #robin??


http://media.bestlittlesites.com/images/users/uploads/25139/tumblr_mt3ek3jNmQ1szegy4o1_400.jpg

I really hope that this is just some kinda prank because if not... WHY?!?! Why out of all the people you could chose to play Robin, they went with him?!?! Uggh...

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111111327/3183849-batman-facepalm.jpg

[The Stryker]

It's most likely a prank or something to do with the Funny or Die video he's doing. On a project like this, actors don't get full scripts anyway.

If he was cast, that would be HUGE news.

Gonna be fun to watch the overreaction though.

[CyberCubed]

There won't even be a Robin in this movie, its ridiculous to even think about.

They're going to be too busy trying to make sure Superman and Batman work together chemistry wise on-screen, without adding sidekick characters to the film.

[NinjaPug]

Robin is a girl in the story that the script says it is based on.

Do not believe.

[CyberCubed]

I'm surprised we still don't know who is playing Lex Luthor in the film.

[Master Splinter]

Robin is a girl in the story that the script says it is based on.

Well then with the biebs playing Robin it makes even more sense then...

-ms

[raph27]

So, um, Justin Bieber posted this image on his Instagram, with the hashtag #robin??
(ugliness)
I really hope that this is just some kinda prank because if not... WHY?!?! Why out of all the people you could chose to play Robin, they went with him?!?! Uggh...
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111111327/3183849-batman-facepalm.jpg

Hopefully it's a prank....otherwise SLEDGEHAMMA TIME.

[CyberCubed]

A musician is not an actor, he would never be cast in a movie. And yes I realize a lot of musicians are also actors, but Will Smith he ain't.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

If bieber is robin, then this movie is doomed

[chrisdude]

I'm surprised we still don't know who is playing Lex Luthor in the film.I'm not. I'm still convinced this movie was thrown together when they saw Man Of Steel's lackluster box office performance.

As for Bieber, this has got to be a joke. Like Cubed said, there's no room for Robin in this movie. And if, in some stupid alternate reality, Justin Bieber was seriously being considered for the role of Robin, WB wouldn't give a script a huge star like him (I'm sorry, but it's true), and not legally bind him to secrecy. They'd want to reveal it their own way, were he to be cast.

[CyberCubed]

Yes, its a joke because there would be NDA's. No actor casted for a film can post a script on the internet or give away details of the story. They'd either be fired or fine.

[NinjaPug]

The Wrap is saying the Bieber stuff is nonsense. It was expected but nice to see someone report it.

http://www.thewrap.com/justin-biebers-batman-vs-superman-script-was-totally-phony-after-all/

[MikeandRaph87]

The guy is just a fad with a limited audience. Besides the strongly assumed rumor the guy himself started was a small role in a funnyordie.com skit video perhaps in relation to the Batman involvement in the sequel to the new Superman franchise. What is worse than Ben Affleck as Batman to fans?Wwell, him as Robin would be the answer. Will Ferrell is probably right. I would like to see Dick Grayson in a film but not this way.

[The Stryker]

The guy is just a fad with a limited audience. Besides the strongly assumed rumor the guy himself started was a small role in a funnyordie.com skit video perhaps in relation to the Batman involvement in the sequel to the new Superman franchise. What is worse than Ben Affleck as Batman to fans?Wwell, him as Robin would be the answer. Will Ferrell is probably right. I would like to see Dick Grayson in a film but not this way.

No idea what you're trying to say here.

It was all a gag. No need to even talk about it much more.

[CyberCubed]

Although he's too old to play the role now, I think Jason Biggs would have made a hilarious Robin when he was younger.

[Leo656]

Ehh, I'unno. He kinda has a weird face. Grayson (assuming the Robin in a film would be Grayson) has always been a much sought-after pretty-boy. More after becoming Nightwing, but he was always established as being kind of "man-pretty". I don't think of Biggs; honestly, Robin is a tough role to cast because age and looks and acting ability all factor into it.

After the '89 movie I was really hoping for Ralph Macchio to be Robin in a sequel. I loved the Karate Kid movies and I thought he was young enough still to do it at least once; looking back I still think it could have worked, especially since O'Donnell later established that an older Robin could at least semi-work. Sadly, Ralph Macchio vanished into the Phantom Zone after Karate Kid Part III, never to be seen again, so we'll never know what might have been.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

The only problem I have with this movie is introducing Batman in a movie where he is already experienced while Superman is still developing. That would sound like an unfair fight if this really is going to be a Superman vs Batman movie. I understand that it is too soon for a new Batman reboot but I can't help but think that DC is just rushing out this new continuity to get a Justice League movie.

Also, does anyone even know who's older between Batman and Superman?

[Jester]

Um...does it matter?

[LeotheLateBloomer]

No, just curious since Synder said that Batman is older than Superman in this film. I was wondering if it's the same in every continuity.

[The Stryker]

The only problem I have with this movie is introducing Batman in a movie where he is already experienced while Superman is still developing. That would sound like an unfair fight if this really is going to be a Superman vs Batman movie. I understand that it is too soon for a new Batman reboot but I can't help but think that DC is just rushing out this new continuity to get a Justice League movie.

Also, does anyone even know who's older between Batman and Superman?

Batman is going to be older than Superman and have more experience. How is that a problem in a fight? Batman is usually portrayed alittle older than Superman anyway. Atleast way more world weary and less naive.

I don't know if you know this but Superman can punch buildings into orbit. Batman having the experience edge makes little difference in the 'fair fight' argument.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

True, it is Superman. As far as age goes, it's never really mattered to me, I just always thought that they were around the same age until I saw The Dark Knight Returns.

[The Stryker]

True, it is Superman. As far as age goes, it's never really mattered to me, I just always thought that they were around the same age until I saw The Dark Knight Returns.

They are around the same age usually. Superman just ages slower.

Which like usual means age normally until around 30 and then stop aging normally.

[Leo656]

Yeah, various DC editors have stated over the years that both Superman and Batman are pretty much "forever 30" (or I guess now "forever 25" in the New 52 universe), but I don't think they've ever flat-out stated who was older as far as what year Bruce was born vs. when Kal-El's rocket crashed. Who has more experience varies in the telling, also, as in some cases Superman appeared first and thus inspired more people after him to become super-heroes and vigilantes (since he technically was a vigilante until being "deputized" by the Metropolis PD after a few years in storyline), but in other re-tellings there were entire generations of super-heroes before him, and he decided to become a super-hero based on *their* exploits. Whether Superman was an influence on Bruce becoming Batman, or whether Batman was operating in secret for a couple years before Superman showed up, is something that always changes depending on who is telling the story.

In this case, they're clearly going with Bruce having been Batman for several years already. I wouldn't be surprised if they're even using the Dark Knight trilogy's events as a loose backstory so they don't have to do a full reboot. Which I kind of think is stupid, because they're purposely putting themselves in a corner where they'll need ANOTHER new Batman actor in about 5 years or so, and explicitly stating how old characters are in these kinds of movies is stupid. Having Clark be 33 in Man of Steel was already about 10 years older than he's been in every other version of the origin story (all just so they could squeeze in another Jesus metaphor, something that was done a lot smoother in Superman Returns), and now having Batman be 40-ish on top of that is just odd. Especially when in the comics all the DC characters were editorially de-aged to 25 so they'd be "more relatable to the younger audience".

Also not thrilled at how the next big DC movie is essentially a re-worked story idea that was rejected about a dozen times between 2000 and 2005. The original pitch revolved around Bruce's love interest getting killed and Batman going on a quest for vengeance while Superman stands in his way. Now that pitch heavily featured Lex and Joker, so obviously some details won't be the same in the final film, but the fact they recently did a casting call for a woman to play Bruce's love interest is very telling. They're simply cherry-picking ideas from rejected scripts instead of coming up with a new story that stands on its own, which is *exactly* what Man of Steel did and part of why it had so many issues. It can still be a good movie, but it's not "feeling" the way I expected a Batman/Superman movie to feel, as far as how they're approaching it. All the ideas seem kind of haphazardly thrown together. And I'm annoyed the sequel likely won't get as much storyline follow-up as MoS needed, because they have to squeeze in Batman and Co. now.

I'unno, I'm excited, but not like I thought I'd be, and the more news that comes out it just seems like a rush-job. I still think we needed another Superman solo film first. Especially since all signs point to him getting smacked around by Batman in "his own" movie, which is going to be annoying.

[Jester]

Random Superman question: Has he ever been shown to "age out" of his Clark Kent identity? I mean, after a while that whole Kryptonian slow aging is gonna be difficult to explain, perhaps leading him to have to put aside Clark and be Superman 24/7. That'd have to be mind bending, because to me Clark is who he is and Superman is the mask...unlike Bruce, who is the mask for Batman. How would he adapt to not having the escape that was mild mannered news reporter Clark Kent?

[Leo656]

Again, depends who's telling the story. They've done a few stories where his identity gets exposed and he basically "kills off" his Clark identity and continues on as Kal-El. In some, he himself doesn't appreciably age but as the "mortals" around him grow older and die (including Lois) he becomes less attached to his "Clark" persona, since he no longer really needs it, and usually his humanity in general. He usually ends up with Wonder Woman in those scenarios. Sometimes he outlives all life on Earth and seeks out new worlds; in those cases, he usually looks late-middle aged, or just shy of 65.

In one or two stories, he still appeared young enough so that he started over again with a new identity and made all new friends and family. It's always different. Since he's generally shown to be slowly growing more powerful as he absorbs more solar energy, along with aging slower, the specifics of his aging process is something writers have to carefully dance around, because nobody really wants to see or accept the Superman storyline going in that direction. It's too morbid, seeing him outlive his loved ones and possibly all life on Earth. They make fun "What If?" stories, but that's about it.

For one of the WORST interpretations of "Old Superman", check out #4 on this Cracked.com list of "5 Superheroes Rendered Ridiculous By gritty Reboots: http://www.cracked.com/article/151_5-superheroes-rendered-ridiculous-by-gritty-reboots/

"Superman: At Earth's End". Santa-bearded Superman fights twin Hitler clones and evil Batman clones and uses The Stupidest Most Ridiculously Oversized Because It Was The 1990s Gun Ever Drawn to kill Clone Hitler. It's atrocious. Did anything good come out of the 1990s? At all? Or did they just ruin everything?

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

For one of the WORST interpretations of "Old Superman", check out #4 on this Cracked.com list of "5 Superheroes Rendered Ridiculous By gritty Reboots: http://www.cracked.com/article/151_5-superheroes-rendered-ridiculous-by-gritty-reboots/

Hey Leo656, do you mind posting the picture here, if it isn't too inappropriate.

I have a thing installed on the computer that blocks some websites.

[Krutch]

I got this one, buddy.

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/0/8/3/4083.jpg?v=1http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/0/7/5/4075.jpg?v=1http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/0/7/2/4072.jpg?v=1

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

^^

Woah. Superman needs a shave and haircut:lol:

Anyway, Thanks for that Krutch.

[Leo656]

Thanks dude! I was at work. Yeah that sh*t is awwwwwful.

[CyberCubed]

I still wonder what Batman villain is going to appear in this. Who could play off Lex Luthor well other than Riddler?

I doubt we're going to see Joker or any villains from the Nolan trilogy as its too soon to bring them back in a new continuity.

[Leo656]

They wouldn't necessarily *need* a Batman villain, especially if they're keeping true to earlier claims that the movie would still be very Superman-centric. Frankly, I'm worried about the very real potential for Superman to get crowded out of "his own" movie by the Batman "guest stars". All signs would point to Billionaire Lex being a main villain of the film, and done right, he'd be more than enough. In the books it's long been established that Bruce hates Luthor as much as any of his "own" villains, anyway. If any Batman villain were to appear at all, it could conceivably be in a very minor role, either a brief cameo or a hired hand for Lex and nothing else.

If they hold true to their promises to answer some of the lingering questions form MoS, as well as expand their new Superman universe in ways they didn't have time for in the first film (fully establishing his secret identity, as well as his relationship with Lois and the Daily Planet), they can't over-crowd the movie with Batman stuff, even if it seems obvious that they would. So I almost think they might not have a full-fledged Batman villain in a big role. And that wouldn't exactly bother me. Batman and Co. have gotten more than their share of exposure in films and TV the last few years, so if the film ends up not equally representing Batman's world as much as Superman's, I think that's fine if it actually serves the movie better.

[blindturtle02]

I really want to see more of Superman's world and way of life since I can't just go out and pick up a comic. We'll probably get more Supes exposure. I've loved Batman since I got introduced to the animated series as a kid, but was sort of disappointed that he's going to be in the next Superman flick. I've gotten used to the idea though. Besides, Batman and Superman tie as my two favorite heroes so it's cool. I just hope Bruce and Lex don't hide behind Kryptonite for the entire movie, but really what else can you do if you don't have any powers and are fighting against Superman? I guess Batman could make some kind of mechsuit. Nah, they'll probably leave the battle armor to Lex if he's going to be in the second one. I hope he's the cool and calculating businessman I've gotten used to in the DCAU. The crazy campy Luther from the old Superman movies just doesn't do it for me. And I guess Darkseid is out for this title. But hopefully he'll get a decent portrayal in live action some day. Oo, it'd also be nice to see Brainiac but I doubt they'll use him either.

[NinjaPug]

I still think its a pretty big assumption that a Batman villain will be in this movie. We'll see.

[CyberCubed]

I'm kinda hard pressed to think they wouldn't include a Batman villain, since Batman would feel out of place otherwise. If this movie takes place in Metropolis why would Batman even be over there?

Obviously there might be some Bruce Wayne/Luthor business talk but without one other familiar Batman character he'd feel out of place.

Unless they go with a lesser known villain like Dead Shot or Black Mask, I'm fully expecting Riddler or maybe even Penguin.

[Krutch]

I think the fact that Hans Zimmer doesn't want to return more or less proves that DC/WB didn't have this Batman & Superman movie planned ahead of time. You'd think someone at some point during production of MoS would have told him the plans. But he seems like he was in the dark about the whole thing, and now he's having doubts about returning, seeing as though he already "did that."

[Leo656]

I'm kinda hard pressed to think they wouldn't include a Batman villain, since Batman would feel out of place otherwise. If this movie takes place in Metropolis why would Batman even be over there?

Obviously there might be some Bruce Wayne/Luthor business talk but without one other familiar Batman character he'd feel out of place.

Unless they go with a lesser known villain like Dead Shot or Black Mask, I'm fully expecting Riddler or maybe even Penguin.

Nah. All people need and want is Superman and Batman in the same place at the same time. Any old reason will do, for the most part. They don't necessarily need to balance it out for the same reason they don't need to go over Batman's origin again for this movie: People know his story already. If it's a Superman-based story, any Batman villains would just be clutter and/or an expository plot device.

After both Superman and Batman were rebooted in '86, their official "First-Ever Team-Up" (Man of Steel #3) involved them teaming up to take down f*cking Magpie, a D-List Batman villain if ever there was one. The point of the story wasn't who they were fighting, the point of the story was that Superman and Batman were together, and the villain was simply a device to move the story along. I suspect the movie will be very much the same thing.

Again, they *could* use almost any Batman villain, but I almost hope they don't, or if they do that it's in a small role, just to briefly show Batman beating on someone familiar to enforce that this movie takes place after he's long been "established". Having a Batman villain playing equal to Lex or whoever the main villain is would seriously just clutter an already-cluttered movie.

[CyberCubed]

Keep in mind when this movie comes out it'll have been nearly 4 years since the last Batman movie. Even though this is Man of Steel 2, its still going to be viewed partly as a Batman film.

People are going to want to see at least one Batman villain there.

[NinjaPug]

Keep in mind when this movie comes out it'll have been nearly 4 years since the last Batman movie. Even though this is Man of Steel 2, its still going to be viewed partly as a Batman film.

People are going to want to see at least one Batman villain there.

Or not even a full 3 yrs between films.

I don't want a Batman villain in the movie at all unless it's a bit part setting up Batman's character in Gotham near the beginning of the film. I don't want someone teaming up with Lex that requires Bats and Supes to team up and take them down.

Also, here are the football jerseys for the Gotham vs Metropolis scene in Batman / Superman movie they are filming this weekend:

http://i0.wp.com/batman-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/BvSFootballJerseys.jpg?zoom=2&w=800

[Leo656]

That's neat. I kinda can't believe they're already filming the sequel. Partly I'm happy, because I do want to see the movie sooner rather than later and for me, as a child, the wait between Superman IV and Superman Returns was absolutely dreadful. I NEVER want to wait almost 20 years for a Superman movie again.

The other part of me is concerned, because so far everything about the sequel seems to be done in a rush and out of desperation. It's rarely ever a good thing when they tell you essentially what the sequel will be about while the main film is still in theaters, like they did a few months ago when they announced this. I kind of have to think they're going to repeat what they did with MoS, working off older rejected scripts, cherry-picking from them and then throwing it all in a blender and calling it a movie. MoS was almost entirely the Abrams script, so I'm guessing a lot of Superman/Batman will be based off the story they wanted to use originally for that movie before they went with "Batman Begins" instead.

For those who don't know, the plot of what was to be "Superman vs. Batman" ten years ago involved Bruce Wayne's wife getting murdered by the Joker, Batman deciding to finally kill him once and for all, and Superman has to stop him because "killing is wrong" and all that. I *believe* Luthor was involved heavily, possibly as the one who had Joker kill Bruce's wife. Batman and Superman fight and argue philosophy before teaming up to stop the bad guys. In other words, it's exactly the way Hollywood would tell the story of Superman and Batman being in a movie together, exactly as cliche and predictable as one would expect.

I'd almost bet that the movie we get ends up being 9/10s that, with someone in place of the Joker since it'll be another 10 years before anyone wants to even touch that character after Ledger's portrayal. They're doing a search as we speak to cast Bruce's girlfriend, and we all know Bruce's girlfriends only exist to be killed off; she'd literally have no other point to exist in this film. We also have a good idea Lex will be a main villain. They've also promised that the plot will deal heavily with Superman's "no killing" policy and how it evolves after the ending of MoS. They've also said the story requires an older, more world-weary Batman.

Add it all up, and you get "Batman, tired and fed up, snaps after his love is killed and decides to finally cross the line to punish her killer, only to be obstructed by Superman, who decided after killing Zod that heroes in their position must subscribe to a higher moral code. Batman calls him a hypocrite, they fight for a while, until they decide to go after The Real Enemy (Lex, in all likelihood). Afterwards, they call a truce and form an uneasy alliance." That's the movie I'm betting we get.

And it's not the WORST they could do, but it's kind of annoying to me all the same. Because it's so easy and predictable it could have been written by a child (in fact, it seems exactly like the kind of scenario a kid playing with action figures would come up with). And I kind of hate how in Hollywood their idea of a "new story" is taking a script that was rejected years ago, pulling it out of a drawer, changing a few names and calling it "Fresh and New".

Ah well. We'll see how it goes. I am looking forward to it, but I have a feeling it's not going to satisfy many people more than on a surface, "Look, it's Superman and Batman in a movie!" level.

[Krutch]

Not sure this is the right thread for this but did you guys ever hear about the proposed sequel to Superman Returns?

Basically Braniac comes to earth and gives humanity all these gifts and cures cancer and stuff, while at the same time learns that Jason is Clark's son. In the end Clark learns Braniac goes from planet to planet trying to force evolve a planet to its evolutionary best before destroying it and moving on to the next. Superman stops him but not before Braniac uploads a Doomsday virus into Jason, turning him into Doomsday for the final act of the film.

Not sure I did the plot pitch justice there but I'd be so, so much more interested in seeing that then Superman vs Batman, especially since I think Leo656 nailed my feelings about how rushed and cliched this thing is feeling.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Not sure this is the right thread for this but did you guys ever hear about the proposed sequel to Superman Returns?

Basically Braniac comes to earth and gives humanity all these gifts and cures cancer and stuff, while at the same time learns that Jason is Clark's son. In the end Clark learns Braniac goes from planet to planet trying to force evolve a planet to its evolutionary best before destroying it and moving on to the next. Superman stops him but not before Braniac uploads a Doomsday virus into Jason, turning him into Doomsday for the final act of the film.

Not sure I did the plot pitch justice there but I'd be so, so much more interested in seeing that then Superman vs Batman, especially since I think Leo656 nailed my feelings about how rushed and cliched this thing is feeling.

That actually sounds quite decent. It would have been better to have Doomsday for the next film, but whatever.

I am still looking forward to Man of Steel 2. I really enjoyed Man of Steel, so naturally i am looking forward to Man of Steel 2.

[ObiWanFan4life]

That actually sounds quite decent. It would have been better to have Doomsday for the next film, but whatever.

I am still looking forward to Man of Steel 2. I really enjoyed Man of Steel, so naturally i am looking forward to Man of Steel 2.

As am I, but like many have said, this whole movie seems cobbled and out of desperation, and it's going take some kind of a miracle for this movie to work.

[Leo656]

I'd heard the follow up to "Returns" probably would have had Brainiac, but not the full bit like that. Seems interesting, not entirely sold on Jason being Doomsday but realistically you have to get him out of the way SOMEhow if they were going to do more movies (as was the plan), and blatantly killing him off wouldn't go, being a kid and all. Turning him into Doomsday and having to be exiled in the Phantom Zone or something, or taken off-world by Brainiac, at least sort of solves the problem. Doesn't excuse him existing in the first place, but a sequel absolutely would have had to get rid of him, since most people really hated the idea of the kid.

I'm always gonna be sad Returns didn't get a follow-up. Maybe it'll be like X-Men, and in ten years the studio will realize Singer was on the right track after all and brings him back to un-screw all the screw-ups his successors caused. Not that he's all that great or anything, but his Superman movie at least felt like Superman. It was just slow and Lois was horribly miscast.

[Krutch]

Superman Returns Ultimate Retrospective (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Np8mWnu4w)
Skip to the 2:30:00 mark(yeah, its a long podcast) to get the breakdown on how it would have played out. Seems like such a missed opportunity.