Henry Cavill again out as DCEU's Superman (formerly "exits" then "returns")

[TurtleTitan97]

The DC cinematic universe appears to be losing its Man of Steel.
Henry Cavill, who has played Superman in three films, is parting ways with Warner Bros., sources tell The Hollywood Reporter. Though neither side is confirming, the British actor, who first donned the blue suit for 2013's Man of Steel, and then starred in 2016's Batman v. Superman and last year's Justice League, is said to be hanging up the red cape.


Warners had been trying to enlist Cavill, who most recently co-starred in Mission: Impossible — Fallout, for a Superman cameo in Shazam!, which stars Zachary Levi and will bow April 5. But contract talks between Cavill's WME reps and Warners broke down, and the door is now closing on other potential Superman appearances.
That's because the studio has shifted its focus to a Supergirl movie, which will be an origin story featuring a teen superheroine. This effectively removes an actor of Cavill's age from the storyline's equation given that Superman, aka Kal-El, would be an infant, according to DC lore.
Furthermore, Warners isn't likely to make a solo Superman film for at least several years, according to another source. "Superman is like James Bond, and after a certain run you have to look at new actors," says a studio source. As such, Cavill will join Ben Affleck, who isn't expected to reprise his role for director Matt Reeves' forthcoming Batman stand-alone film, as a hero on the way out.
A Warners source says the Shazam! deal fell apart because of scheduling conflicts. And that is backed up by the fact that Cavill recently signed on to star in the Netflix series The Witcher. However, another source says that the Witcher commitment came after the Warners impasse, suggesting a change in Warners' strategy.
"There's a recognition that some parts of the previous movies didn't work," says the studio insider. Another source says Warners is trying to hit a "reset" button with the DC universe, steering its ship slowly into another direction.
While Affleck and Cavill are segueing out, others who were seen together onscreen in Justice League are carrying forward. Gal Gadot is returning for Wonder Woman 1984, to hit theaters in November 2019. Jason Momoa headlines a solo Aquaman movie this December. And Ezra Miller remains on board to star in a Flash movie, which is due to shoot in early 2019.
Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara and chairman of Warner Bros. Pictures Group Toby Emmerich are looking to reinvigorate the studio's DC Universe, which is still playing second fiddle to the Marvel Universe in terms of box office and critical acclaim. Just six years ago, when The Dark Knight Rises closed out the Christopher Nolan trilogy, DC was the superhero team with the mojo. But so far, only Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman spinoff has lived up to the promise of the franchise.
What Warners hasn't done is wiped the slate clean in one fell swoop, something that is nigh impossible to do given the years of planning that goes into these films. When asked about the studio Sept. 6 at an investor conference, new WarnerMedia CEO John Stankey said, "Hats off to Kevin and Toby and their team." But he also took a shot at DC. "Some of our franchises, in particular at DC, we all think we can do better."
A version of this story appears in the Sept. 12 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/henry-cavill-as-superman-warner-bros-dc-universe-shake-up-1142306

[oldmanwinters]

Justice League: DOOMED!

[Papenbrook]

Now, if only Benny Boy decides to hang his worn-out bat cape ...

[Vegita-San]

'we can do better'

i.e. marvel is still kicking our 'dark and gritty and depressing' butt.

[Coola Yagami]

Just end it already. You tried, you failed. Let WW2 end the franchise.

[ZariusTwo]

Funny Henry bolted before we've heard anything concrete on Ben staying or leaving for the longest time

Mind you, what the hell has Ben worked on since JL? Henry's profile's skyrocketed with Fallout and Witcher.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Damn, that's a terrible decision. WB should've coughed up more for his salary. :tgrumble:

The DCEU's hits just keep coming... :tsad:

[newfan]

I liked Cavil, though I didn't think there would be much more to come with Superman for the time being. Unless there was a planned 2nd Justice League movie?

[Autbot_Benz]

Henry's Manager says otherwise


Dany Garcia
‏Verified account @DanyGarciaCo

Be peaceful, the cape is still in his closet. @wbpictures has been and continues to be our partners as they evolve the DC Universe. Anticipate a WB statement later today.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Henry's Manager says otherwise


Dany Garcia
‏Verified account @DanyGarciaCo

Be peaceful, the cape is still in his closet. @wbpictures has been and continues to be our partners as they evolve the DC Universe. Anticipate a WB statement later today.

Whew. Hopefully.

[ZariusTwo]

They're trying to control the narrative. Won't mean anything if there is'nt any fast track to developing a new Superman movie.

Affleck's went through the exact same thing

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

They're trying to control the narrative. Won't mean anything if there is'nt any fast track to developing a new Superman movie.

Affleck's went through the exact same thing

Basically, if you're not Margot Robbie or Gal Gadot, WB/DC could care less about keeping you happy. :tconfuse:

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, FAKE news.

Basically, all WB had to offer Henry was a stupid cameo in their stupid Shazam! movie. They're still saying a new Superman movie is "years away," so why exactly would he commit to... nothing, basically?

If they pull their heads out of their asses and offer him something meaningful I'm sure he'll do it, and I'm sure they can work it around this stupid "Witcher" thing.

[Autbot_Benz]

if the WB press release says Cavill is no longer superman. I think I am done with this DCEU Cluster****. As a DC Fan this is embarrassing.

[Autbot_Benz]

Statement from Warner Bros.: "While no decisions have been made regarding any upcoming Superman films, we’ve always had great respect for and a great relationship with Henry Cavill, and that remains unchanged"

[TurtleTitan97]

Statement from Warner Bros.: "While no decisions have been made regarding any upcoming Superman films, we’ve always had great respect for and a great relationship with Henry Cavill, and that remains unchanged"

In other words, "We're too lazy when it comes to making Superman films, so we're just gonna focus on making a ton of Batman and Harley Quinn spin offs".

[AquaParade]

Hard to blame them. They put out a fantastic film in Man of Steel and barely anyone seemed to appreciate it.

I understand those who say it doesn't represent certain elements that attract them to the Superman mythos, but I feel like there is a lot to appreciate, from the musical score to the breathtaking action sequences. Superman wasn't exactly the beacon of hope and optimism you get in something like Grant Morrison's All Star Superman, yet they worked hard to develop him and that goes a long way for me.

At the end of the day, we've got new management taking over the DC films and they're likely saddled with a lot of baggage from the previous few years. It must be quite challenging deciding what to reset and what to carry on with. I can take or leave Henry Cavill as Superman. I think he does a very good job, but I don't think he's irreplaceable in the role. I'm more upset about Ben Affleck leaving Batman. Not so much as an actor, but as a director.

[Andrew NDB]

"We love Cavill! We love him and our relationship with him so much, we're not planning any new Superman movies for years to come! We hope to continue to work on him after a few years... maybe."

What? They're not even saying anything at all, this is nothing about nothing. Morons.

[newfan]

Yeah I thought the statement didn't confirm anything either, other than they like Cavil but they haven't made decisions regarding superman movies so....

[AquaParade]

I do my best to stay out of conspiracy-mode, but I have to wonder if this is someone from WB or Cavill's camp leaking this info out to gauge the reaction or test the waters with their contract.

It just seems that social media and fan-response continues to become more of a factor in how many of these companies make decisions everyday.

[ranger_scout]

I enjoyed Cavill as Superman, but I wouldn't be all that sad if Affleck departs as well. I never found his portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman interesting.

[ZariusTwo]

WkoOxkE1bz8

Statement from Warner Bros.: "While no decisions have been made regarding any upcoming Superman films, we’ve always had great respect for and a great relationship with Henry Cavill, and that remains unchanged"

ROFL, that neither confirmed or denied anything in regards to Superman, just that Cavil still has a good working relationship with WB, meaning he could be on any of their movies, which doesn't necessarily have to be a DC film. They have made no decisions on Superman, which is just a fancy way of saying "we're not pushing forward with any"

[ABrown]

I was never able to see Cavill as Superman anyway. Neither him nor Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman seemed like very good fits at all.

[Andrew NDB]

The articles are so, so stupid. "Cavil is WALKING AWAY from Superman!"

How can he walk away from something that no one is offering him? That'd be like saying Stephen Amell is "WALKING AWAY" from playing Casey Jones again.

[TigerClaw]

Michael B Jordan is being considered for Superman. There is a Superman from Earth 2 that is black and his name is Val-Zod.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/09/12/superman-michael-b-jordan-reportedly-being-considered-to-replace-henry-cavill

[TurtleTitan97]

Michael B Jordan is being considered for Superman. There is a Superman from Earth 2 that is black and his name is Val-Zod.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/09/12/superman-michael-b-jordan-reportedly-being-considered-to-replace-henry-cavill

I like Val-Zod, but I certainly do not want to see him replace Superman.

In other news, Ben Affleck has officially bowed out as Batman according to the NY Post :
https://nypost.com/2018/09/12/ben-affleck-out-as-dcs-batman-following-henry-cavills-rumored-superman-exit/

[Andrew NDB]

Michael B Jordan is being considered for Superman.

No, he's not. FAKE news.


In other news, Ben Affleck has officially bowed out as Batman according to the NY Post :
https://nypost.com/2018/09/12/ben-affleck-out-as-dcs-batman-following-henry-cavills-rumored-superman-exit/

Hm, OK... let's look at the source in the article...

"Ben Affleck is hanging up the cape, according to a report that the actor is leaving the Batman franchise."

That's it, right there at the beginning. No link is provided to what "report" they're talking about (but it's safe to assume is from any one of a number of speculative news articles from today). And the movie isn't even to the casting phase... nothing for him to "walk away" from. More FAKE news.

[Leo656]

WB has a history of bad decisions, but this would be a huge mistake.

Superman is historically the hardest role in all of Hollywood to cast. They once spent ten years getting turned down by every actor in the industry, before whittling it down to Henry Cavill and Brandon Routh. They picked Routh, who was fine, then got rid of him when the response to "Superman Returns" was tepid. Luckily for everyone, they still had Cavill on stand-by and he still wanted to do it, so transitioning into "Man of Steel" wasn't as difficult. He's also a huge fan of the character and takes his role seriously, which helps. The last thing we need is an actor who's apathetic or dismissive of such an important role.

They wasted a lot of time and money already trying to find this guy. If they let him go, it'll easily be another ten years before another Superman movie while they "figure things out" again. It's simple math: Nobody wants to play Superman, except this guy, who REALLY likes playing Superman. Just stay the course.

We'll see. I don't think the people at WB realize what a huge mistake it would be if they let him go.

[Sumac]

Losing both "Batman" and "Superman" would be like a giant nail in the coffin for all of the DCEU plans. If all of this is true, than I think WB should just stick to standalone movies. They want to be different from Marvel? Well, there is a chance!

[AquaParade]

Losing both "Batman" and "Superman" would be like a giant nail in the coffin for all of the DCEU plans. If all of this is true, than I think WB should just stick to standalone movies. They want to be different from Marvel? Well, there is a chance!

I feel that Justice League was the final nail in the coffin. I think it's been a bit of a "rebirth" behind the scenes since that movie failed. Aquaman and Wonder Woman probably would have been scrapped as well, if they weren't deep into production, once that thing bombed. Wonder Woman having a higher chance of going forth, given it's success.
Point being, I get the feeling the new man in charge wants a fresh slate. Just speculation though.

[Autbot_Benz]

Cavill's Instagram response

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnpPIrmFN9n/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[TigerClaw]

Cavill's Instagram response

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnpPIrmFN9n/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
His manager also says he's still superman. So all that news about him quitting Superman is fake news.
https://twitter.com/DanyGarciaCo/status/1039902939261808640

[TurtleTitan97]

His manager also says he's still superman. So all that news about him quitting Superman is fake news.
https://twitter.com/DanyGarciaCo/status/1039902939261808640

I'll believe it when either WB or Cavill give a straight answer.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

His manager also says he's still superman. So all that news about him quitting Superman is fake news.
https://twitter.com/DanyGarciaCo/status/1039902939261808640

That's what Andrew just told you.:oops:

WB has a history of bad decisions, but this would be a huge mistake.

Superman is historically the hardest role in all of Hollywood to cast. They once spent ten years getting turned down by every actor in the industry, before whittling it down to Henry Cavill and Brandon Routh. They picked Routh, who was fine, then got rid of him when the response to "Superman Returns" was tepid. Luckily for everyone, they still had Cavill on stand-by and he still wanted to do it, so transitioning into "Man of Steel" wasn't as difficult. He's also a huge fan of the character and takes his role seriously, which helps. The last thing we need is an actor who's apathetic or dismissive of such an important role.

They wasted a lot of time and money already trying to find this guy. If they let him go, it'll easily be another ten years before another Superman movie while they "figure things out" again. It's simple math: Nobody wants to play Superman, except this guy, who REALLY likes playing Superman. Just stay the course.

We'll see. I don't think the people at WB realize what a huge mistake it would be if they let him go.

I know somewhere people coming out with this news said that the two reasons they have for doing this is because WB feels they're not going to be releasing a new Superman film anytime soon (even though they announced a MoS 2) and that they want to shift the focus towards Supergirl.

[ProactiveMan]

Damn! Can media communication get any worse?

[Andrew NDB]

(even though they announced a MoS 2)

No they haven't. Or do you mean years ago when they did, and then it morphed into BvS?

And they shouldn't be announcing "MoS2." They should be announcing it as "SUPERMAN." A super solid "SUPERMAN" that delivers the kind of solid, iconic Superman movie everyone wants yet still builds from MoS is exactly what might serve to propel the DCEU in the right direction, while stuff like Wonder Woman 2 keep the good will flowing on the side.

Instead of just WB throwing all their money at the Harley Quinn EU. Or FAKE Joker movies or whatever.

[Shark_Blade]

DCEU is dead except Wonder Woman (and maybe Aquaman).

Wait so him quitting is fake news? Confusion.

[Andrew NDB]

Wait so him quitting is fake news?

Utterly. It's the new "Affleck is out as Batman" thing. It's getting traction because it's new to talk about, as even the media outlets are getting tired of doing the same contradictory and baseless Affleck stories... though even during the Cavill stuff they're still sneaking that in there.

[Galactus]

Whether he's officially out or not probably makes little difference. The likelihood of making a followup to Man of Steel is extremely low and honestly after it's performance I don't think anyone is clamoring to make Justice League 2 either.

This may all be to create talk for the DCEU and maybe gauge how many people are there for them to attempting to fix the Superman and Justice League franchises but as of right now the only thing Caville has to look forward to as far as playing Superman is cameos in other DCEU movies.


Superman is historically the hardest role in all of Hollywood to cast.

Superman is only really hard to cast because the character is seen as ultra iconic that they can't take even a slight risk.

There's nothing hugely special about the character that requires such an extensive cast search. Maybe if they were going for Christopher Reeves version were he's playing two very different characters with Clark Kent and Superman but the likelihood they'll go that route an any modern Superman movie is low. All they need is someone suitably buff that can act. That's it.

Other than RDJ as Tony Stark I don't think there's ever been a casting of a prominent comic book character that hasn't met with skepticism from comic book fans especially when we see them in set photos in awkward looking costumes. The regular public don't care about that, they don't have this preconceived notion of characters they barely know and frankly they haven't properly known or cared about Superman for years.

Batman leapfrogged over him in terms of cultural relevancy years ago followed by Spider-Man. To a whole generations of kids (the ones who make and break these movies) most of the MCU characters are bigger than Superman. This may sound bad but it means the pressure should be off.

Just stick Superman in a movie with another super strong villain to fight. That alone would be successful enough to examine what people liked about it to focus on a sequel. Stop trying to make a huge reverential followups to the Donner ones, stop trying to do a storyline from the 90s that was never that good but seen as iconic at the time or make something edgy and introspective like Man of Steel (particularly if you got someone Zach Snyder who can't really pull that off). Anyway that's my little rant on the subject.

[Andrew NDB]

They don't need to resell us Cavill Superman as cameos in crappy movies. Do a bare bones SUPERMAN movie and that will sell itself. Bring in Brainiac or whoever they want. Make it topical with political disillusionment as a backdrop. Make him the beacon of what the American dream is supposed to be.

In 5 years or less no one is going to care that there was a sh***y JL movie. And bring in Lex Sr.. Damage control done.

[ZariusTwo]

Cavill's Instagram response

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnpPIrmFN9n/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Again, that neither confirmed nor denied anything, it's just Henry goofing off.

And quite smart of him too, because now his silence allows everyone to really start the buzz around him, and increases his profile and net worth.

[Andrew NDB]

Purely based on what is actually happening and not what the FAKE news articles are proliferating...

1. Henry Cavill is down af for more Superman.

2. WB is locked in a little bit of a losing war with his agent (who is apparently Dwayne Johnson's ex). Apparently only about the next point, which said agent is apparently succeedingly trying to grow into more (Cavill has no existing contractually obligated Superman appearances... ergo all articles about "he's walking away" simply can't be true):

3. There are rumors -- just rumors, but probably true -- that a Cavill as Superman cameo in Shazam! is a component of these negotiations.

4. Henry Cavill signed on for The Witcher which makes scheduling difficult as Superman. Which doesn't make too much difference as there is currently no Superman movie on the docket... but even then, Netflix stuff moves fast at a TV pace and he could film a hypothetical Superman movie by the same grace Millie Bobby can do Godzilla 2 in between Stranger Things season 2 and 3.

That's it. Nothing else to see here, folks. No one is "walking away" and there is no big story here.

[ZariusTwo]

The Angry One reacts

puL37Rl0UuU

John Campea

zXh_sWAEWI0

[ZariusTwo]

TMZ have sources saying there's no drama

https://www.tmz.com/2018/09/13/henry-cavill-superman-warner-bros-money/

[Galactus]

They don't need to resell us Cavill Superman as cameos in crappy movies. Do a bare bones SUPERMAN movie and that will sell itself. Bring in Brainiac or whoever they want. Make it topical with political disillusionment as a backdrop. Make him the beacon of what the American dream is supposed to be.

Sure but imagine yourself as a WB exec who looks at the poor reception for Man Of Steel, Batman v Superman and the all round floppage of Justice League; clearly something about the character (and most of the DCEU as a whole) that isn't connecting with people. Would you be willing to green light more Superman stuff?

I don't think it's their intention but cameos in other DC movies could be a good way to gauge interest in the character. If it turns out that they don't use a Superman cameo in Shazam that would be a clear signal WB has zero intentions of doing anything with the character

While I personally don't mind political themes in comic book movies, some of these characters are political by their very nature I'm not sure it's needed in an movie supposed to course correct what has gone wrong with the character.

I mean a disillusioned America might work if they were going to do the original Siegel and Schuster champion of the proletariat that Morrisson briefly brought back in his Action Comics and it might be worth it to see reactions to a socialist Superman but I'm not sure that's what is needed to course correct Superman, maybe a bit of that like showing Superman helping build homeless shelters or something but a more standard Supernan is not someone that easily lends itself to helping disillusioned America.

Just give us a simple hero vs villain story. Save anything more ambitious for a sequel

In 5 years or less no one is going to care that there was a sh***y JL movie. And bring in Lex Sr.. Damage control done.

No one cares about that ****** Justice League movie now or Man Of Steel or Batman v Superman but that doesn't help the case for keeping Caville. Sure, their failure isn't down to Caville's performance but you can't fault WB for thinking this version of the character has blotted his copy book with the public and exploring other options.

[Shark_Blade]

https://comicbook.com/dc/2018/10/16/warner-bros-done-henry-cavill-superman-franchise-dc/

“Warner Bros. Reportedly Done With Henry Cavill's Superman Movie Franchise

It looks like Henry Cavill's time as Superman really has come to an end, at least when it comes to movies centered around the Man of Steel.

According to a new report from Variety, Warner Bros. will not be moving forward with Batman and Superman movies featuring Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill. This means that a sequel to Man of Steel is off the table, though the report did not indicate that the studio is looking to recast the character of Superman even if it is looking for a Batman beyond Affleck.

The report says that the changes, which also includes news that production on untitled standalone Flash film starring Ezra Miller has been pushed back to late 2019 due to Miller's role in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, were prompted by the lackluster box office performance of Justice League. It seems that Warner Bros. had used the film's performance to take a hard look at its approach to DC movies.

The news that Warner Bros. won't be going forward with Cavill's Superman movies comes just over a month after reports that Cavill had exited the role after negotiations for a cameo in the upcoming Shazam movie broke down due to scheduling conflicts. While that report was never confirmed -- and was left wide open for all kinds of speculation thanks to a series of vague responses from the studio, Cavill's representative, and even Cavill himself -- the fact that the actor had signed on to play Geralt of Rivia in Netflix's The Witcher series.

Of course, while the report indicated that Warner Bros. is expected to look for a new Batman, there was no such indication about a new Superman. It's not impossible that the studio plans to continue with Cavill as the hero, just in a more diminished role.

Cavill played Superman three times in Warner Bros.' shared DC Comics movie universe. He debuted the role in 2013's Man of Steel. He returned to battle Affleck's Dark Knight in 2016's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. If his appearance as Superman in 2017's Justice League ends up his final outing as the character, it would line up with something noted in the THR report about Cavill's departure.

"There's a recognition that some parts of the previous movies didn't work," a source told THR. Another source hints that this is just one big moment as Warner Bros. attempts to "reset" the direction of DC Films. This idea is backed up by comments from WarnerMedia CEO John Stankey during an investor call earlier this month, in which he said that "Some of our franchises, in particular DC, we all think we can do better."“

Wtf is even going on anymore.

[Sumac]

Bye DCEU.
It was nice knowing you. Not.

At least it's another prove that when you become greedy - things might not go as you've planned.

[AquaParade]

If you didn’t see this coming after Justice League’s performance, you haven’t been paying close attention.

[Leo656]

It's the same exact thing from a month ago, except with this month's date.

"Pretty sure this time, though. More or less. Maybe."

JOURNALISM, folks. :roll: F*cking internet.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, that article is FAKE news. The actual source it cites is the Variety article here, which is just about the Flash's date getting bumped back:

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/flash-standalone-movie-release-date-1202980356/

The final paragraph there about Ben as Batman and the Superman thing is only speculation by the writer based on existing articles floating around (which, again, are cases of articles feeding into one another and creating stories that aren't real) and not any source or even "source."

[ranger_scout]

Jason Momoa said that Henry Cavill is "absolutely not" leaving the role of Superman. Momoa just spoke to Cavill and he's 100% sure that he's not going anywhere. We will just have to wait and see if he's right.

https://www.etonline.com/jason-momoa-says-henry-cavill-is-absolutely-not-leaving-superman-character-exclusive-115758

[Andrew NDB]

Jason Momoa said that Henry Cavill is "absolutely not" leaving the role of Superman. Momoa just spoke to Cavill and he's 100% sure that he's not going anywhere. We will just have to wait and see if he's right.

https://www.etonline.com/jason-momoa-says-henry-cavill-is-absolutely-not-leaving-superman-character-exclusive-115758

Stupid. Again, what difference does it make if Cavill is "leaving" Superman or "staying" Superman if no one has remotely any plans for a Superman movie?

[ZariusTwo]

Amy Adams has not had any official conversation about her status in the DCEU

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/dc-entertainment/278099/amy-adams-lois-lane-dceu-status

[Andrew NDB]

Amy Adams has not had any official conversation about her status in the DCEU

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/dc-entertainment/278099/amy-adams-lois-lane-dceu-status

Why would she? Again, they're not even thinking about a new Superman movie. Which is beyond retarded.

[Papenbrook]

Now, if only Benny Boy decides to hang his worn-out bat cape ...


Mission accomplished.

[oldmanwinters]

Ha, Warners distances itself from the DCEU by simply pointing to the success of Wonder Woman and Aquaman and saying "we like what they did."
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/warner-bros-ceo-says-dc-192550544.html

[Andrew NDB]

"I've not given up Superman."

http://www.darkhorizons.com/henry-cavill-ive-not-given-up-superman/

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

"I've not given up Superman."

http://www.darkhorizons.com/henry-cavill-ive-not-given-up-superman/

HE hasn't, but Warner Bros sure has. :tsad:

[Turo602]

"I've not given up Superman."

http://www.darkhorizons.com/henry-cavill-ive-not-given-up-superman/

He's gonna have to say that again in another year.

[ZariusTwo]

HE hasn't, but Warner Bros sure has. :tsad:

WB haven't given up on Superman, they're simply demoting him to television

[Andrew NDB]

Variety confirms he's back in the saddle. Probably.

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/henry-cavill-superman-movie-dc-comics-batman-justice-league-cameo-1234618227/amp/#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

[Turo602]

That time of the year again?

[ZariusTwo]

Probably using the hype of the Snyder cut release for leverage.

[AquaParade]

The apparent resurrection of the Snyder verse is rather unexpected. I'm glad to have it back, if that is the case. Now that they have established themselves with different tones (aquaman, WW) and even separate universes (Joker), I'd be happier than ever to have a "main dc universe" fully functioning.

Definitely room for all types of projects.

[Sumac]

It shapes into interesting situation, whether Snyder verse will be resurrected in all its glory or DC will continue to distance from it.

I don't remember such tug-o-war in the production of the cinematic universe yet.

[IMJ]

Definitely down for a Man of Steel 2 with Cavill!

[sdp]

Snyderverse is not happening, it's a one movie cut to please fans. They're definitely looking into fixing the DCEU which is a shame, having movies with little thought to connecting them would be the same way, I don't mean disregarding continuity but not being as connected, batman changed? who cares, joker is a little different but takes elements from Phoenix even if he's now in a different decade? sure.

If you try to be stricter like the MCU it'll fail since there's way too many contradictions already for it to work, be as loose as possible while mantaining the "same" characters in a way. Sort of how Image comics used to do it, all were in the same shared universe but no one gave a **** in the individual comics if something didn't make sense.

[AquaParade]

Snyderverse is not happening, it's a one movie cut to please fans. They're definitely looking into fixing the DCEU which is a shame, having movies with little thought to connecting them would be the same way, I don't mean disregarding continuity but not being as connected, batman changed? who cares, joker is a little different but takes elements from Phoenix even if he's now in a different decade? sure.

If you try to be stricter like the MCU it'll fail since there's way too many contradictions already for it to work, be as loose as possible while mantaining the "same" characters in a way. Sort of how Image comics used to do it, all were in the same shared universe but no one gave a **** in the individual comics if something didn't make sense.

No one knows yet. But the splash that the Snyder cut is making, combined with the ball finally rolling with Henry Cavill is telling.

[Galactus]

If the DCEU does get back on track there's no way it will follow Snyder's vision. At best it will use many of the same actors and vaguely reference the movies that came before but it's visual style and tone will definitely not take it's cues from the Snyder movies.

Not to knock what a huge victory this is for fans who fought for the Snyder cut but there problems with selling that vision of the DC universe to the general public. Not to mention another big name in Affleck is likely never to return properly and it's a big question mark over whether Ezra Miller would be allowed back.

[TommyT]

He's going to need a full toupee by the time they get to filming that.

[Galactus]

Hopefully they can cgi his head hair in better than they cgi-ed his moustache out.

[Andrew NDB]

Why would they need to CGI his hair? Practical hair pieces (even small ones) have been used for decades to great effect.

[Leo656]

Chris Reeve wore one. On account of his Alopecia. Lotta people don't know that. I believe throughout all four films.

[TommyT]

I'm saying he's getting old. That was the joke.

HE IS GETTING....

Old. This whole thing has taken far too long.

[Andrew NDB]

Ridiculously long. But better this than some kind of "The Man of Steel" reboot with a 25 year-old.

[TommyT]

Debatable.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Ridiculously long. But better this than some kind of "The Man of Steel" reboot with a 25 year-old.

What, so Clark Kent can show up in Harley Quinn 3?

I don't see the win here. Maybe if DC/WB actually had an idea of what films they were even going to make, I'd be a bit more receptive.

[NinjaPug]

Ugh looks like their plan for Superman is to reboot presumably without Cavill. Plus ****ing JJ Abrams is involved. No thanks.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ta-nehisi-coates-to-write-new-superman-movie-for-warner-bros

[AquaParade]

With Coates writing, I won't be surprised if Clark is black.
Not that it matters - he is an alien after all - as long as it's a well told Superman story that doesn't strive to be divisive or make race more of a conversation than it needs to be in a Superman movie.

I think J.J. Abrams is okay. I don't love his work but I do think it's pretty damn good, so I'm excited to see what he can do with Superman.

All speculation, but I don't think Cavil and his team were being all that easy to work with. Look, I don't necessarily blame him for not wanting to follow WB's lead, when it comes to their plans for Superman. He's smart to remain cautious about what projects he takes on.
But it sounds like they've been trying to at least get him in cameo roles for a while now. From Shazaam to The Flash, it sounds like it has fallen through each time. He didn't really back the Snyder Cut until the last minute either. I don't know if the guy just isn't a team player or what, but I have to believe he is a significant part of the reason we've seen so little of his version of Superman.

It was even sort of weird how he posted that video a year or two ago of him holding up a Superman action figure and saying nothing, in response to all the rumors of him being done playing Superman. I got the vibe that he couldn't really say much to fans, because he was probably the one holding the deal up. Either way, it was a strange reaction, so it's hard to draw a logical conclusion from it.

Again, I'm just having fun speculating based on the few clues we've been given. I acknowledge that I could be wrong.

[Galactus]

People will obviously cite his previous Superman pitches (which were terrible) as why JJ Abrams shouldn't handle the franchise but that's was all during a period when WB wanted to reinvent the wheel. Left to his own devices I imagine Abrams will do something a lot more traditional. It won't be groundbreaking or anything special by any means but won't be off putting to the general audience like Man of Steel was.

[NinjaPug]

Flyby was an abomination but generally I just think JJ is a terrible storyteller. I'm sure I've gone off on JJ here multiple times so I'll save you all from another diatribe.

Also think we'll definitely get a black Superman with this one. You'll be seeing countless clickbait articles about Michael B Jordan, John Boyega, John David Washington, Yayha, etc. playing him until they officially cast someone.

[Leo656]

Oh yeah, 99.9% probability that they cast a black guy. "Because it's the one thing we haven't tried yet to 'modernize' the character and appeal to a new audience!" Dumb.

None of this bodes well. Ah well, I'm done with comic book movies anyway after "Justice League" next month. I might watch the Flash gimmick out of curiosity but that promises to be horrible, I'm just kind of curious as to how big a train wreck it will be.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Honest question: are there many "cornfed midwestern country boy" African-Americans? Is that a thing?

Because in my brain, that conjures up a white guy who either looks like Steve Rogers or Clark Kent. And "All-American cornfed midwestern country boy" is what matters for who Superman is.

I'm willing to be taught differently on this. I just want to know.

Also, JJ Abrams is the syphilis of movie producers. He honestly is what raises all the red flags for me here, not Superman's skin color.

[Leo656]

For me it's both of those things. Those are two big "Do Not Wants".

[Coola Yagami]

Honest question: are there many "cornfed midwestern country boy" African-Americans? Is that a thing?

Because in my brain, that conjures up a white guy who either looks like Steve Rogers or Clark Kent. And "All-American cornfed midwestern country boy" is what matters for who Superman is.

I'm willing to be taught differently on this. I just want to know.

Also, JJ Abrams is the syphilis of movie producers. He honestly is what raises all the red flags for me here, not Superman's skin color.

The movie will either pretend cornfed all american country black people are a thing or they'll change all that.

Expect the movie to deal greatly with 'what it means to be a black man with power' with heavy emphasis on 'black' and not so much the 'man' part.

[Leo656]

And for what it means to be an "alienated outcast" who can never TRULY be accepted by the world they live in no matter how much they try. That nail will be banged hard and repeatedly, you can expect.

Because, y'know... those themes were taken SO well in the last few Superman movies. The general audience absolutely loves it when the "outcast" thing is at the forefront. That's why all the Superman movies since "Superman Returns" make so much money and get such overwhelmingly great reviews.

WB totally gets the character. Totally.

[CyberCubed]

I severely doubt they'll do a black Superman. This isn't some side character or spinoff, this is Superman, one of the most iconic superheroes of all time. Casting a black man as Superman isn't very likely, he's not a side character or minor character.

Plus having a black man raised in Kansas by possibly still white parents (assuming Martha/John are white), gives "slave vibes" and I don't think they want to do that.

[Leo656]

Depends. By all accounts, a few years ago Sony was hellbent on having a black Spider-Man for their next movie (the one that eventually became "Homecoming") until the internet backlash was too great and they switched gears. And they technically could have gotten away with it by using Miles Morales, but they decided to play more conservative. But they originally wanted to have him be a black guy. Which is probably why they got Zendaya for "MJ", as a compromise.

Race-flipping is an easy way to win points nowadays. Hollywood wants to look "progressive" and "forward-thinking". The easiest way to get ink (and protect your movie from criticism) is to race-flip someone, predominantly a main character. Because then if you don't like the movie itself, "You're a racist". What "better" way than to have it be Superman? It solves both of their problems; they get a ton of coverage AND nobody will be allowed to say they didn't like the movie. Win/Win for WB.

You could stand to be a lot more cynical, 'Cubed.

[CyberCubed]

I mean there were rumors the next James Bond would be black too but that didn't pan out (although I guess it technically could since I'm sure Daniel Craig is done with Bond).

But eh, I cannot see Superman or Batman ever being black. They are just too iconic. There's a reason the next Batman movie again has a white actor, and why Superman on TV is a white guy too. There are just some things that can't be changed. It would cause way too big a rift, even black people themselves don't want it.

[sdp]

Yeah, it's not some conspiracy theory that hollywood wants to change people's mind, they pander to what's popular at the moment, they don't have the guts to give us a black superman. I'd be all for it just because that would be an actual statement but they're just going to diversify other characters who aren't the main one.

[frank_one]

If they decide to go with a black Superman (I still doubt they will do it) we can expect Martha and/or John being black as well.
Whenever I read the name "JJ Abrams" a shiver runs down my spine.

[CyberCubed]

Like in Man of Steel, Perry White was black played by Lauren Fishburne. But nobody cared because well...it's Perry White. Nobody cares what Clark Kent's boss looks like. He's a minor character all things considered.

[AquaParade]

I'd say there is a good chance he is black and they've already picked him out. It could really go either way, but in one corner you have:

A. The success of Black Panther
B. The recent "vacancy" of the role Boseman was just playing. Not specifically Black Panther, but as a black superhero idol to fans across the world.
C. The need to distance this version from the very recent, previous incarnation
D. They may feel satisfied by having a white Clark on television
E. WB has been emboldened by taking risks. "Joker" speaks to this.

On the other:

A. Coates didn't dictate Captain America be black when writing the comics
B. There may be more leverage in showing how lame white people are through the lens of white Superman, if this is indeed the angle (lol).

[CyberCubed]

So of course, Resetera loves the idea of a black superman and hopes it happens:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-new-recently-announced-superman-film-will-star-a-black-superman.385538/

[AquaParade]

I don't hate the idea. I don't want the story of Superman to be about race, and there is reason to believe that could happen. But it's not such concrete evidence that I am willing to start ******** my pants and calling for doomsday now. I've seen too many hot takes like that backfire, even around here, over the last few years.

I'm cautious, but hopeful that they can make this an authentic Superman story that isn't about skin color.

[Leo656]

Regardless of that, the name "J.J. Abrams" should be enough reason to abandon all hope.

The guy is simply a parasitic vulture who attaches himself to popular franchises so that he can "fix" them (until they break) and he can continue to be credited as a "visionary" when he's anything but. He's a hack.

His "Star Trek" ripped off Star Wars. His Star Wars ripped off "Better Star Wars". His "best" thing was probably "Cloverfield", which was just "What if we made a Godzilla movie where nobody could see the thing they're paying to see... or anything else, either?" The only thing close to an "original" idea that was well-executed was probably "Super 8", and much of the hype for that movie was "It's a 'Cloverfield' prequel!" until suddenly it wasn't. And that wasn't all that original, either.

Abrams sucks. He makes garbage in a very pretty trash can, so that people can't figure out that it's garbage until the stench is overpowering. It's entertaining garbage, his movies aren't unwatchable, but they completely fall apart upon any serious thought.

He's not necessary for this project. BUT, all WB cares about is money. "Force Awakens" made money. "Rise of Sh*twalker" made money. That's how Abrams gets this undeserved reputation for "saving" damaged brands... because they make money, even though they still suck.

He's NOT the magic bullet WB thinks he is, and the fact that HE'S the guy they run to to "fix" Superman shows that they learned absolutely nothing from the Joss Whedon Experiment.

[Coola Yagami]

I'm cautious, but hopeful that they can make this an authentic Superman story that isn't about skin color.

Nope. They literally have no reason to do it unless they make it all about skin color.

I mean that's not right but that's how they think.

They could make an awesome movie that ignores his skin color and the Powers That Be will see it as a missed opportunity to virtue signal the **** out of it.

[Autbot_Benz]

According to THR, the project is being set up as a "Black Superman story," which is an idea WB has been kicking around for quite a while. Black Panther star Michael B. Jordan reportedly wanted to develop his own take on Supes back in 2019 (sounds like there was some truth to the rumor) when he first joined the studio, and while nothing ever came of that, it is "possible that the studio could return to him to star down the line."

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/superman/superman-warner-bros-expected-to-recast-the-man-of-steel-with-a-black-actor-in-the-role-a182777#gs.u392my

[AquaParade]

They should get an asian guy. I just want to see what happens. I have no theories.

[Leo656]

https://i.imgur.com/i7KSh7U.gif

[Galactus]

Nope. They literally have no reason to do it unless they make it all about skin color.

I mean that's not right but that's how they think.

They could make an awesome movie that ignores his skin color and the Powers That Be will see it as a missed opportunity to virtue signal the **** out of it.

There's an interesting story to tell in; what if the most powerful man on Earth is also part of a marginalised group. I would never trust JJ Abrams to do that story though,

I would trust him to feed us a lot of member berries for previous Superman movies and maybe that is what is needed. A palette cleanser after the previous version just didn't capture the public imagination but a daring and thoughtful new take new franchise is not in his wheel house.

[Leo656]

Moviegoers don't even want a "daring and thoughtful" interpretation of the character. They got that - one that was closer to the comics than any other version ever has been or likely ever will be - and they rejected it.

I travel in a lot of circles where people profess to love and be experts on Superman. They're not, they watched one or two old (and overrated) movies and a kids' cartoon and thus SAY they're "experts", but whatever, that's their prerogative. In any case, they and other people are often incredibly vocal about what they want from a Superman movie.

Movie audiences ONLY want Chris Reeve Redux. That's it. That's ALL they want or will ever accept from a Superman movie. They'd rather have his head Deepfaked onto a stunt guy than an actual actor. John Williams score. Corny jokes and kittens in trees. That's it, that's all. A Superman movie that is NOT Exactly That, has no hope of succeeding at the box office or with critics.

I don't like that. Frankly, as much as I loved those movies as a kid, I've come to strongly resent them for becoming the "FW TMNT" of the Superman franchise, trapping the character in amber and making it impossible for anything different (or BETTER) to come along and be accepted, because people blinded by their own nostalgia just "Nope" it by default. I'll always respect those movies for what they did in elevating the genre as well as the character in the public consciousness... but frankly, I kind of hate them now. Like I'd rather watch MoS another hundred times before ever watching Donner's movie again even once. "Dated" isn't even the word for it. BUT, it's what "everybody" loves, and the only thing they'll accept.

There's people out there who want a Black Superman, sure... but most of those people aren't Superman fans. Whenever this idea has come up in actual fan circles, they puke on it. This is just the most cynical and blatant type of pandering, and entirely predictable. They feel like they've "tried everything", so now they just want some of that "Get Out" money.

But yeah, this isn't gonna work. And a "daring and thoughtful new take" isn't going to work, because we've already seen that fail. NO Superman movie that doesn't star Deepfake Chris Reeve backed by a John Williams Score has a hope in Hell of being acclaimed or making money. These people will tell you as much if you ask them. "Why can't they just copy the Reeve movies down to the last detail?" It's non-stop, every time a movie idea gets floated.

I don't claim those people, by the way. People can bitch all they want about MoS, it's the best Superman movie ever made and the best one we're ever going to get, period. To disagree is to simply be wrong. BUT, it's "not what they wanted", and neither is this.

Here's what's gonna happen: This will under-perform (at best), WB will simply say "Modern audiences don't care about Superman", and then they just won't even attempt another Superman movie for the next 20-30 years. Mark it down, that's the reality.

[TigerClaw]

Moviegoers don't even want a "daring and thoughtful" interpretation of the character. They got that - one that was closer to the comics than any other version ever has been or likely ever will be - and they rejected it.

I travel in a lot of circles where people profess to love and be experts on Superman. They're not, they watched one or two old (and overrated) movies and a kids' cartoon and thus SAY they're "experts", but whatever, that's their prerogative. In any case, they and other people are often incredibly vocal about what they want from a Superman movie.

Movie audiences ONLY want Chris Reeve Redux. That's it. That's ALL they want or will ever accept from a Superman movie. They'd rather have his head Deepfaked onto a stunt guy than an actual actor. John Williams score. Corny jokes and kittens in trees. That's it, that's all. A Superman movie that is NOT Exactly That, has no hope of succeeding at the box office or with critics.

I don't like that. Frankly, as much as I loved those movies as a kid, I've come to strongly resent them for becoming the "FW TMNT" of the Superman franchise, trapping the character in amber and making it impossible for anything different (or BETTER) to come along and be accepted, because people blinded by their own nostalgia just "Nope" it by default. I'll always respect those movies for what they did in elevating the genre as well as the character in the public consciousness... but frankly, I kind of hate them now. Like I'd rather watch MoS another hundred times before ever watching Donner's movie again even once. "Dated" isn't even the word for it. BUT, it's what "everybody" loves, and the only thing they'll accept.

There's people out there who want a Black Superman, sure... but most of those people aren't Superman fans. Whenever this idea has come up in actual fan circles, they puke on it. This is just the most cynical and blatant type of pandering, and entirely predictable. They feel like they've "tried everything", so now they just want some of that "Get Out" money.

But yeah, this isn't gonna work. And a "daring and thoughtful new take" isn't going to work, because we've already seen that fail. NO Superman movie that doesn't star Deepfake Chris Reeve backed by a John Williams Score has a hope in Hell of being acclaimed or making money. These people will tell you as much if you ask them. "Why can't they just copy the Reeve movies down to the last detail?" It's non-stop, every time a movie idea gets floated.

I don't claim those people, by the way. People can bitch all they want about MoS, it's the best Superman movie ever made and the best one we're ever going to get, period. To disagree is to simply be wrong. BUT, it's "not what they wanted", and neither is this.

Here's what's gonna happen: This will under-perform (at best), WB will simply say "Modern audiences don't care about Superman", and then they just won't even attempt another Superman movie for the next 20-30 years. Mark it down, that's the reality.
What people want is a movie that does not deconstruct Superman. They just want Superman to be doing Superman things, and ignore all the drama on whether he should go out there and save people. Things like that. They want the classic boy scout Superman.

[Leo656]

Except he's actually a very introspective character with a lot of depth and nuance. Things that the recent movies went into, because they're a huge part of who he is.

If people want "Santa Claus with a cape" because they're too juvenile to accept anything deeper than that, or that he's not a one-dimensional constantly-smiling cardboard cutout, that's their problem. It doesn't mean they're right.

You of all people aren't allowed to speak at me about Superman. You're a known imbecile who likes terrible things.

[TigerClaw]

Except he's actually a very introspective character with a lot of depth and nuance. Things that the recent movies went into, because they're a huge part of who he is.

If people want "Santa Claus with a cape" because they're too juvenile to accept anything deeper than that, or that he's not a one-dimensional constantly-smiling cardboard cutout, that's their problem. It doesn't mean they're right.

You of all people aren't allowed to speak at me about Superman. You're a known imbecile who likes terrible things.
Whatever, I speak whatever I want and I like Superman also.

[Leo656]

You like the Worst Possible Version of every single thing you profess to like, which is why nobody takes you or your opinions seriously.

You're allowed to speak, and I'm allowed to call you out for speaking nonsense. Goes both ways! 'Merica.

[TigerClaw]

You like the Worst Possible Version of every single thing you profess to like, which is why nobody takes you or your opinions seriously.

You're allowed to speak, and I'm allowed to call you out for speaking nonsense. Goes both ways! 'Merica.
The same way I can call you out.

[Leo656]

:lol::lol::lol: Your arms ain't long enough to box with God, homie.

[Vegita-San]

you're both pretty angels....so..black superman..

duIxpPYR8sY

this 'writer' needs to be called out for his stupid ass comments.

https://youtu.be/duIxpPYR8sY

[frank_one]

I must be the only one who appreciated Cavill's movies and never cared for the Reeve's ones.

[Galactus]

Moviegoers don't even want a "daring and thoughtful" interpretation of the character. They got that - one that was closer to the comics than any other version ever has been or likely ever will be - and they rejected it.

I travel in a lot of circles where people profess to love and be experts on Superman. They're not, they watched one or two old (and overrated) movies and a kids' cartoon and thus SAY they're "experts", but whatever, that's their prerogative. In any case, they and other people are often incredibly vocal about what they want from a Superman movie.

Movie audiences ONLY want Chris Reeve Redux. That's it. That's ALL they want or will ever accept from a Superman movie. They'd rather have his head Deepfaked onto a stunt guy than an actual actor. John Williams score. Corny jokes and kittens in trees. That's it, that's all. A Superman movie that is NOT Exactly That, has no hope of succeeding at the box office or with critics.

I don't like that. Frankly, as much as I loved those movies as a kid, I've come to strongly resent them for becoming the "FW TMNT" of the Superman franchise, trapping the character in amber and making it impossible for anything different (or BETTER) to come along and be accepted, because people blinded by their own nostalgia just "Nope" it by default. I'll always respect those movies for what they did in elevating the genre as well as the character in the public consciousness... but frankly, I kind of hate them now. Like I'd rather watch MoS another hundred times before ever watching Donner's movie again even once. "Dated" isn't even the word for it. BUT, it's what "everybody" loves, and the only thing they'll accept.

I should also have said that as well as daring and thoughtful it would have to be good. We've had this discussion before but putting a character like Superman in a dour objectivist story doesn't really work. To his credit Snyder got that Clark/Superman could never be that so in the end he is neither changed by his experiences nor does he change the world around him. It's daring and thoughtful but it doesn't really work.

I'm not so sure that people want the Donner movies regurgitated. For a long time fans dismissed them in the same way they dismiss the Adam West Batman series. Granted there's been a turnaround of opinion on the '66 Bats series I still don't think anyone wants that in a movie and I believe the same is true the Donner Supes movies. They basically got a literal followup to those movies in Superman Returns and audienced turned their noses up at that.

Audiences not wanting a dour, joyless version of the DC characters doesn't mean you suddenly kiddy and campy. There is all sorts of different flavours in between.

There's people out there who want a Black Superman, sure... but most of those people aren't Superman fans. Whenever this idea has come up in actual fan circles, they puke on it. This is just the most cynical and blatant type of pandering, and entirely predictable. They feel like they've "tried everything", so now they just want some of that "Get Out" money.

I don't really want a black Superman but it's not something I'd so no to either. The way I see it there is two roads they could go with it.

1. The movie is completely faithful to the Superman mythos except for the detail that he's black and it's treated as completely unimportant.

2. They go more realistic and actually explore what African American Clark's life would be like and would the public would think if the most powerful man in the world was black and reinterpret the Superman mythos through that...much like Red Son reinterpreted Superman if he was a Russian and a communist.

I don't think either of the above are end of the world scenarios except in the minds of people who make youtube shows ranting about SJWs.

[Leo656]

I must be the only one who appreciated Cavill's movies and never cared for the Reeve's ones.

Nah man, I'm with you on that. I grew up with the Reeve movies but I'm over them.

All I ever wanted was a Superman movie that represented the comics, and that's what "Man of Steel" was. The Reeve movies had heart but for budget reasons they weren't able to really do more than scratch the very surface of the character or the universe. I waited my whole life for a Superman movie that faithfully represented My Era of the comic book canon, the 1986-2005 era, and we got that, and I was happy with it.

They can keep their "reinventions", the character doesn't NEED to be "reinvented" no matter how much they think it does. The material is already Right There, they just need to execute it properly. And they need to just give up the idea of a Superman movie making Batman Movie money, it simply isn't ever going to happen. I'm the biggest Superman fan in the world but even I recognize that most people either don't care or just plain hate the character. There's no reaching them, just accept that it's a niche character for a niche audience who actually likes Good Guys Who Are Good Guys, and accept that that concept isn't a billion-dollar box office type of character. No Superman movie will ever make a billion dollars, because movie audiences want anti-heroes, NOT "good guys".

They need to stick to the comics, and stop aiming their sights too high.

[Andrew NDB]

If I was born before I was maybe the Reeve's ones would be more magical to me... but I grew up reading the John Byrne, Dan Jurgens, Roger Stern Superman comics and beyond a couple of quibbles, "Man of Steel" was largely the Superman movie I was waiting for.

[Leo656]

I should also have said that as well as daring and thoughtful it would have to be good. We've had this discussion before but putting a character like Superman in a dour objectivist story doesn't really work. To his credit Snyder got that Clark/Superman could never be that so in the end he is neither changed by his experiences nor does he change the world around him. It's daring and thoughtful but it doesn't really work.

I'm not so sure that people want the Donner movies regurgitated. For a long time fans dismissed them in the same way they dismiss the Adam West Batman series. Granted there's been a turnaround of opinion on the '66 Bats series I still don't think anyone wants that in a movie and I believe the same is true the Donner Supes movies. They basically got a literal followup to those movies in Superman Returns and audienced turned their noses up at that.

Audiences not wanting a dour, joyless version of the DC characters doesn't mean you suddenly kiddy and campy. There is all sorts of different flavours in between.



I don't really want a black Superman but it's not something I'd so no to either. The way I see it there is two roads they could go with it.

1. The movie is completely faithful to the Superman mythos except for the detail that he's black and it's treated as completely unimportant.

2. They go more realistic and actually explore what African American Clark's life would be like and would the public would think if the most powerful man in the world was black and reinterpret the Superman mythos through that...much like Red Son reinterpreted Superman if he was a Russian and a communist.

I don't think either of the above are end of the world scenarios except in the minds of people who make youtube shows ranting about SJWs.

Snyder's movies weren't "dour and joyless", and if that's what people took away from them then they simply watched the movies wrong. They're projecting. That might be what they saw but that's NOT what the movies were trying to represent. Not even a little bit.

The movies were quite simply about a guy who's determined to do "the right thing" in a world that doesn't accept altruism. A world that tears people down for being "good guys", and does everything short of trying to force them into being Bad Guys. That's the world we live in, so if people can't handle seeing that kind of a world onscreen then they can't handle looking in the mirror.

And yet, he endures and perseveres. Even when people TELL him to stop, he refuses. As Lois points out before he's even Superman, "I don't think that (giving up helping people) is an option for you." When his mother tells him "You don't owe this world a thing", he visibly disagrees with that sentiment. And in the end, he gives his life to save a world that fears and hates him, a world that was openly telling him to STOP being Superman. And he did it all because it was the right thing to do. He wasn't "Superman" because it was easy, or because people threw him parades or lauded him for his heroism; he was "Superman" because it was hard and because only he could do it and because it needed to be done.

The real heroes don't do it for the parades or the accolades, they do it because it's right. And when people tell them to quit, they don't. They persevere and endure.

THAT is what those movies are about, and I'm very sorry that more people didn't recognize that simply because of a desaturated color palette and a subdued and melancholy musical score. If you seriously can't see the hope and triumph in that story, and all you see is "dourness and joylessness", then I'm sorry, you didn't watch it right. That might sound like a dick thing to say, but it's the truth.

And if people would rather see a guy getting kittens out of trees because it makes them feel better about their own little selves, well, then they're pretty hopeless themselves. They don't want "Superman", they want a one-dimensional cardboard cutout devoid of human feelings aside from "Happy All The Time". Santa Claus With A Cape.

I know that's what a lot of people want. But that isn't Superman. Once upon a time, maybe, when comics and super-heroes were aimed only at pleasing five-year olds, and being bland and safe was the name of the game. But those comics were terrible and that version of Superman was terrible. There weren't even ten issues of Superman written before 1986 that were worth reading for anything more than laughing at. That's not an opinion, that's an objective fact. You had "For the Man Who Has Everything", you had "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow", and then you had a ton of garbage. And I think it says a lot that only Alan freaking Moore was able to make Pre-Crisis Superman interesting and not a complete joke.

Superman is an introspective character with a lot of pathos and drama inherent to his stories. It's about the guy with the hardest job in the universe trying to balance that with having a normal life when he knows he never can. It's about someone who forever walks the line between doing Too Much and Not Enough. If people don't want or like that, then they actually don't like Superman.

And that's fine. But they shouldn't insist that they do and then claim to speak for everyone as to what's best for the character. They don't actually even know the character well enough to have such strong opinions. They watched one movie, a cartoon show, and set themselves up as expert caretakers of the character. That's not allowed. People who don't even know who Superman is aren't allowed to say "This is how it should be." They don't GET to do that.

If I was born before I was maybe the Reeve's ones would be more magical to me... but I grew up reading the John Byrne, Dan Jurgens, Roger Stern Superman comics and beyond a couple of quibbles, "Man of Steel" was largely the Superman movie I was waiting for.

Amen, brother. To people who know the comics, that movie is practically The Bible come to life.

And to people who don't know the comics and don't care, well... they don't deserve an opinion.

[TurtleTitan97]

Audiences not wanting a dour, joyless version of the DC characters doesn't mean you suddenly kiddy and campy. There is all sorts of different flavours in between.


Agreed. Well said Galactus.

[mrmaczaps]

If I was born before I was maybe the Reeve's ones would be more magical to me... but I grew up reading the John Byrne, Dan Jurgens, Roger Stern Superman comics and beyond a couple of quibbles, "Man of Steel" was largely the Superman movie I was waiting for.

I feel like MOS was written with "snaps Zod's neck" as the start & they worked backwards. They failed the Kents. Clark is a farmboy and they missed the mark. I grew up with 80s Superman. Man of Steel the mini series was MY Superman. The focus was on the man, rather than the Super, which I think is the better take on Superman. Clark is who he is, Superman is what he does. Cavill played the roll well certainly but the film was too dark. The action was great, but Zod & co has been done twice now. Lets get Brainiac or Mongul & War World or something and maybe Intergang with Guardian in the mix. Not the Supergirl CW version though. :lol:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I'm still very disappointed that we couldn't just get a normal Man of Steel 2 and 3 with Brainiac or Parasite or Metallo. And a Lex Luthor who isn't autistic and twitchy.

[Leo656]

I feel like MOS was written with "snaps Zod's neck" as the start & they worked backwards. They failed the Kents. Clark is a farmboy and they missed the mark. I grew up with 80s Superman. Man of Steel the mini series was MY Superman. The focus was on the man, rather than the Super, which I think is the better take on Superman. Clark is who he is, Superman is what he does.

You're 100% wrong on that idea. Snyder and Goyer have both repeatedly explained that all the way up until they started filming, the ending was written as "Zod gets sent back to the Phantom Zone with everyone else", but they decided very late in the game that they needed to do something else. For one thing, it's entirely predictable, and for another, him killing Zod is about as literal as it gets in displaying Clark severing his last ties to his homeworld. The entire film's premise was about Clark rejecting his "alien" heritage in favor of his "human" side. "Krypton had its chance." He's Kryptonian by birth, "human" by choice. That's the message the movies were trying to put over - "This is my world..." - but again, a lot of people watched them wrong. They didn't notice, apparently, how the guy cooks his breakfast on a stove, cooks his fiancee dinner from scratch, rides a bicycle to work or takes a ferry to Gotham City, even though he doesn't NEED to do any of those things. He CHOOSES to do these things, because he sees himself as human. He quite notably only uses his abilities when he's "on the clock"; when he's "Just Clark", he's just Clark.

The premise of "the focus being on the Man more than the Super" was illustrated repeatedly. People just needed to get over themselves and actually let themselves see what was on the screen in front of them. There's a REASON why he never calls himself "Superman" even once, except to say that it "was never real". He doesn't see himself as "Superman", he sees himself as "Clark."

Whether or not the movies "failed the Kents" is a matter of opinion, but it's one I don't agree with. Jonathan quite clearly says that one day Clark is going to "change the world", but he also doesn't want him to try and do so until he's ready, because "the world isn't ready". And the world WASN'T ready, and that was more or less the entire point: Jon Kent was right. I mean, look at the world we live in; if Jesus Christ came back tomorrow, he'd be right back up on that cross by next weekend, because that's the world we live in. And when Martha says "You don't owe this world a thing," she was speaking as a mother who'd rather see their child happy more than anything. Any parent I know would let the whole world burn so long as their own kid was safe and happy. I saw nothing offsides in how the Kents were portrayed; they were just maybe more protective of their son than they're sometimes presented as being.

But even THAT fit the concept Snyder was trying to put over, which is that Clark is Superman mostly because he WANTS to be, not because anyone TOLD him to be. Because "Superman" is the missing piece insofar as "What am I supposed to do with myself and these things I can do?" In a lot of other versions, it comes off like he does it because Jor-El told him to, or because Jon and Martha told him to; in this version, he takes their input but ultimately makes it his OWN decision to put on the cape and present himself to the world. And that's important; it's important that he have agency. Some people claim that Cavill's Superman was "too passive", but again, I have no idea what movies they watched; Cavill's Superman is constantly doing what HE wants to do, openly ignoring what other people say he ought to do. It's a VERY proactive version of the character. The entire point of BvS was that maybe he's TOO proactive; that was literally the entire plot.

So yeah, I don't know. The things you personally profess to like best were all right there in the movies quite clearly. Like, they went out of their way to present those themes. Perhaps you simply need to see it again and look closer. "Too dark" is a matter of opinion, but one can't honestly say that those themes and ideas weren't presented in the movies; they were.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

As a parent, I think I've grown less antagonistic towards Man of Steel's portrayal of Pa Kent.

Yeah, I'd be a monster if it meant saving my kid or keeping him alive. Screw the rest of you.

I think my only problems are Pa Kent dying to save the family dog (come on, man!) and too much CGI overload with the World Engine.

It's been a couple of years since I last watched it, though, so it's high time I rewatch it and see if my opinion has even further softened. :tlol:

But my opinion ain't changing on Jesse Eisenberg Lex Luthor or the entire portrayal of Batfleck in Batman V Superman. (Ben Affleck played an amazing Batman, just poorly written.)

My $0.02.

[Leo656]

He also rescued a little girl. So yeah, you need to watch the movie again.

There was the dog. But it was more about the little girl.

A LOT of people would do well to watch it again. Most won't, but they ought to.

I openly admit, the first time I saw it I gave it a solid B to B- and my feelings were very mixed. My wife hated it. But we watched it again when the Blu-ray came out, and by the third time, it was both of our favorite Superman movie. By several miles.

It's definitely not the only movie that has too much going on to be fully taken in with just one viewing, there's a ton of films like that, but it is a very prominent example of such. It's very layered, and presents more of itself the more you watch it. I've seen it more than most but I notice something new each time. I like that.

Now, some people are very openly "I watch a movie exactly Once and that's it," but I never have and never will understand that. It's their prerogative, but I think it's dumb most of the time. I mean, sometimes yeah, if it's like super terrible like Chickbusters or BayTurtles, then even watching it once is too many times, but most things - movies, books, songs, games, etc. - get better, not worse, upon multiple experiences. And very few people would only listen to a song or play a game One Time. But with movies, a ton of people are "one and done" even if they like something they watched. And that's very strange, to me.

Anyways, yeah, you would do well to watch it again. Once a viewer gets over the What Happened, they're better-positioned to let the Why It Happened sink in deeper, and then things make a lot more sense and sit better. Too many people watched that movie and couldn't get over being smacked in the face with how different it was from their own expectations for X and Y. "I'd expect Pa Kent to say this and not that; I'd expect the music to sound like This and not That," and all that kind of thing. But once you just let all of that go and really just watch it, knowing what's coming in advance and being more at peace with it, you start to notice more things. Literal things, symbolic things, metaphorical things. And that's pretty cool.

Some people also hate (or don't recognize) symbolism or metaphor or allegory - and again, that's their prerogative - but that's a ton of what that movie is. So 1. If a person ain't into that, they probably didn't care for the movie in general, and 2. Even if a person IS into that, they're not gonna catch all of it in one or two viewings of the movie, there's simply too much going on.

Feel free to email me about it later, you and I always have great conversations about this kinda thing. Free of all the rabble, of course.

Your Batman opinion is bluntly terrible, though. :lol: That's exactly what a Batman who's been fighting a losing battle for 20 years and saw his kid sidekick get murdered would behave like. Maybe that's not the guy you wanted, but there was nothing "poorly written" about it. :trazz: It's another case of "not being what you would have done" doesn't equal "a bad take".

It's okay, we can't all bat 1.0. :trazz:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

He also rescued a little girl. So yeah, you need to watch the movie again.

There was the dog. But it was more about the little girl.

****, man, I didn't remember a kid at ALL. So I rewatched a clip.

nrOEiUQUBxk

It's not about the little girl. Pa Kent hands her off to Clark and goes back for the ****ing dog. Which Ma Kent (Martha!) locked in the vehicle.


Your Batman opinion is bluntly terrible, though. :lol: That's exactly what a Batman who's been fighting a losing battle for 20 years and saw his kid sidekick get murdered would behave like. Maybe that's not the guy you wanted, but there was nothing "poorly written" about it. :trazz: It's another case of "not being what you would have done" doesn't equal "a bad take".

It's okay, we can't all bat 1.0. :trazz:

I already accept that my Batman opinion is "terrible" because I'm a huge Red Hood fan. :tlol: Also Damian. :trazz:

But no, when the majority consensus is "Batman shouldn't have been done that way", you can't just say I don't like it because it's not how I would have done it.

Actually, I'm curious. Have any major Batman writers commented on Batfleck? I know some Superman writer claims to have screamed at the theater screen during Man of Steel because he hated it so much... :tlol:

[Leo656]

It's not about the little girl. Pa Kent hands her off to Clark and goes back for the ****ing dog. Which Ma Kent (Martha!) locked in the vehicle.




I already accept that my Batman opinion is "terrible" because I'm a huge Red Hood fan. :tlol: Also Damian. :trazz:

But no, when the majority consensus is "Batman shouldn't have been done that way", you can't just say I don't like it because it's not how I would have done it.

Actually, I'm curious. Have any major Batman writers commented on Batfleck? I know some Superman writer claims to have screamed at the theater screen during Man of Steel because he hated it so much... :tlol:

Whew, lots to unpack here! Hope you brought your pillow. :trazz: It's gonna be one of my Extra-Special Two-Parters! Everybody just loves those!

- What do you have against dogs? I have a dog, I'd absolutely go back and try and save my dog if I were in his position. Starting to question your values altogether. :trazz:

- I'd actually rather say it's "terrible" because you actually like "The Dark Knight Rises". :lol: :trazz: Now THAT is a bad take on Batman. Real shame, first two movies were great! That one sh*t the bed so hard it was coming through the basement ceiling.

Entertaining action movie. Fun to watch, hits some good emotional beats. But as for Batman and every other character in the movie, every choice they made from A-to-Z was wrong, wrong, WRONG. It's pretty much only acceptable if you forget everything you know from the comics about these characters, which I simply refuse to do. That isn't who Bruce Wayne is. That's not who Bane is. That's not who Alfred is. That's not who ANY of them are, or how they behave, not in ANY canon that exists except Just That One. And that's where the "questionable choices" in DKR differ from the ones in BvS; the ones in BvS at least have some strong basis in the historical canon of the character(s), whereas in DKR they literally just made stuff up.

So yeah, we can talk Bad Takes In Batman Movies, but my gun's got a lot more ammo. I can do this all week! :trazz:

- I disagree that it's "majority consensus" that the Affleck portrayal was wrong, because for one thing Internet Rage Nerds Who Like To Repeat Themselves aren't actually the majority of people in Real Life. The people who say "Batman shouldn't act that way" have the same problem with Batman that Chris Reeve fans have with Superman. Too many people think DCAU Batman is "The Real Batman", and he isn't. He's a cartoon character, immune to lasting change or actual human emotions or behavior. They have a hard time accepting or imagining a version of the character that... y'know... behaves in emotionally appropriate ways in response to the situations he finds himself in. And that's really all that movie presented, in the case of both Superman AND Batman. "What if these characters actually behaved like human beings in response to the things happening around them, and not static archetypes?"

If Batman had been Batman for 20 years, watched Robin die, and wasn't "damaged" by it all, then he would be another cardboard cutout, and not a human being. If this guy who already felt powerless and impotent because he couldn't save his parents, couldn't save his partner, and couldn't save Gotham, suddenly found himself in a world where "the gods hurl thunderbolts" and didn't feel even MORE powerless, impotent, and angry, as well as determined to do whatever it took to impose his will on such a world by any means necessary... then again, he wouldn't be behaving in a realistic manner.

So again, you (and others) can say it's not what you wanted to see. You can say it wasn't to your taste. But you can't say that it was "poorly written" or even poorly executed, because it was completely natural and valid for the story they chose to tell and because it has roots in the comic book canon. We can argue all day long about whether "broken, damaged Batman" was what you or they wanted to see, but if he wasn't in such a dark place when we find him at the start of the movie and for most of the running time, then his eventual redemption through Clark's sacrifice wouldn't be as meaningful. He had to have completely given up all faith in humanity for his "Men are still good" soliloquy to have the appropriate weight behind it. He had to be wrong, in order to learn any lesson. He had to be the villain of the story in order for him to ultimately be redeemed. He had to be faithless and hopeless in order to find his faith and hope again. In short, he had to have an arc.

With all respect, these ultimately ARE "You Problems". As in, not being willing to take the material for what it's trying to be and not what you'd rather see. And as you pointed out, others do feel the same way. BUT, they also can't get over silly sh*t like "OH MY GOD he shot at people (who were shooting at him with bazookas!)" and "How DARE he try and kill Superman (who he ONLY knows as an alien menace who knocked over half a city and isn't privy to things about Clark's character that we the audience knows)" and all that kinda thing. Believe me, I'm well aware of what "they" say, and most of it comes off as very ignorant. I pay very close attention, and I know who "they" are. They wanted a flawless, always-right, all-knowing Batman just like they wanted the same exact thing from Superman. They wanted their cartoon heroes played by real actors; they didn't want the characters behaving as "real people". And I know that's not exactly how YOU feel, but that's who you've chosen to align yourself with by citing "consensus". So sure, feel free to disagree about the take, but don't do it "Because Consensus"; those people are extremely ignorant and you're frankly smarter and better than they are.

There's not a single thing invalid or out of character for that portrayal Batman as long as the person watching the movie decides to accept, "This is Batman who's been through a ton of awful sh*t by this point." Not a single thing. Just like most of people's issues with the portrayal of Superman can be dismissed with, "It's Year One Superman who isn't perfect at this stuff yet." And again, if you or any other viewer insists that it's NOT valid or well-done because "They shouldn't have Gone There"... well, that IS a You/They Problem.

Batman in BvS is simply the Batman from "A Lonely Place of Dying", except in a universe where there was no Tim Drake to reverse the downward spiral after Robin's death. Nothing more, and nothing less. Read that story again, particularly at the very beginning, and imagine That Batman in another 15 or so years if there was nothing to pull him out of his despair, and then tell me that the Batman in BvS isn't the absolute natural evolution of that same guy. Just a few weeks after Jason's death, Batman was beating bad guys to a pulp for the sheer hell of it and almost had a full-blown death wish already. Tack on another decade-plus? Yeah, do the math, you get BvS Batman.

What I suspect is that a lot of people didn't like it because as huge Batman fans, they couldn't accept him being that level of asshole, not even if it made sense within the context of the story. I've seen people say as much, more than once. "He shouldn't be that mean, he shouldn't be that vicious or bloodthirsty of a guy"... but I think that if he was pushed there over a long traumatic period of time then yeah, he actually should be. Because 1. It's canon, 2. It fits the character, and 3. It makes logical sense within the story's context.

I think if the Affleck "The Batman" prequel movie had actually happened, then a lot of peoples' take on how his Batman was presented in BvS would have been a bit more understanding. Maybe people needed to be spoon-fed more of his downward spiral before they could buy or accept him being in such a dark place. But I simply won't accept that it's out of character, badly written, or any of those things. Those are opinions - misinformed or dismissive ones - not factual statements. People who pay attention know better.

I mean, if you disagree then you disagree, but I'd like to see your homework, is all I'm sayin'. :trazz:

(Cont.)

[Leo656]

- I don't know what any Batman writers have said or thought. I respect their opinion on the matter but in the end, people are very nitpicky about whether or not it even matters. John Ostrander essentially created the Suicide Squad, and he loved the Squad movie, saying it was like his original vision brought to life, and everybody just turned around and told him he was an idiot because they didn't like it, therefore his opinion was invalid. So if Jeph Loeb or Grant Morrison liked (or disliked) BvS... would it matter? The only honest answer is, "Only if the person citing them as a reference agreed with their opinion."

Mark Waid, however, is an idiot, and his takes on Superman are as awful as his takes on Flash are brilliant. His favorite version of the DC characters are the goddamn Super-Friends. Which automatically means he's got a 6-year old's brain in a 60-something year-old's body, because Super-Friends was absolutely godawful trash before the "Super Powers: Galactic Guardians" revamp. I don't know if his claim is true, but he CLAIMS that he stood up in the theater and screamed at the movie screen when Superman snapped Zod's neck... because that's how a well-adjusted grown man behaves. :roll:

F*ck Mark Waid. The best thing he ever wrote with Superman in it was "Kingdom Come", and while that's a great story in and of itself, the entire plot hinges on Superman being a crybaby first, a quitter second, and then an oblivious moron for the entire second and third act. It's a great story, but I resent that the guy who wrote THAT thinks he's any kind of authority on Superman, or what's appropriate for his character. The entire plot of his "best story" only got to happen because of Superman doing something he would never, ever do, which is quit being Superman because someone hurt his feelings. :roll:

So yeah, the movie theater story probably IS true, because Mark Waid certainly is "special".

BUT, he writes a damn good Flash, and I will readily admit that. 1993's "Return of Barry Allen" is, was, and will remain the single greatest Flash story ever told, period. But he also wrote "Birthright", which means that when it comes to Superman he should keep his goddamn mouth shut.

[mrmaczaps]

You're 100% wrong on that idea. Snyder and Goyer have both repeatedly explained that all the way up until they started filming, the ending was written as "Zod gets sent back to the Phantom Zone with everyone else", but they decided very late in the game that they needed to do something else. For one thing, it's entirely predictable, and for another, him killing Zod is about as literal as it gets in displaying Clark severing his last ties to his homeworld. The entire film's premise was about Clark rejecting his "alien" heritage in favor of his "human" side. "Krypton had its chance." He's Kryptonian by birth, "human" by choice. That's the message the movies were trying to put over - "This is my world..." - but again, a lot of people watched them wrong. They didn't notice, apparently, how the guy cooks his breakfast on a stove, cooks his fiancee dinner from scratch, rides a bicycle to work or takes a ferry to Gotham City, even though he doesn't NEED to do any of those things. He CHOOSES to do these things, because he sees himself as human. He quite notably only uses his abilities when he's "on the clock"; when he's "Just Clark", he's just Clark.

The premise of "the focus being on the Man more than the Super" was illustrated repeatedly. People just needed to get over themselves and actually let themselves see what was on the screen in front of them. There's a REASON why he never calls himself "Superman" even once, except to say that it "was never real". He doesn't see himself as "Superman", he sees himself as "Clark."

Whether or not the movies "failed the Kents" is a matter of opinion, but it's one I don't agree with. Jonathan quite clearly says that one day Clark is going to "change the world", but he also doesn't want him to try and do so until he's ready, because "the world isn't ready". And the world WASN'T ready, and that was more or less the entire point: Jon Kent was right. I mean, look at the world we live in; if Jesus Christ came back tomorrow, he'd be right back up on that cross by next weekend, because that's the world we live in. And when Martha says "You don't owe this world a thing," she was speaking as a mother who'd rather see their child happy more than anything. Any parent I know would let the whole world burn so long as their own kid was safe and happy. I saw nothing offsides in how the Kents were portrayed; they were just maybe more protective of their son than they're sometimes presented as being.

But even THAT fit the concept Snyder was trying to put over, which is that Clark is Superman mostly because he WANTS to be, not because anyone TOLD him to be. Because "Superman" is the missing piece insofar as "What am I supposed to do with myself and these things I can do?" In a lot of other versions, it comes off like he does it because Jor-El told him to, or because Jon and Martha told him to; in this version, he takes their input but ultimately makes it his OWN decision to put on the cape and present himself to the world. And that's important; it's important that he have agency. Some people claim that Cavill's Superman was "too passive", but again, I have no idea what movies they watched; Cavill's Superman is constantly doing what HE wants to do, openly ignoring what other people say he ought to do. It's a VERY proactive version of the character. The entire point of BvS was that maybe he's TOO proactive; that was literally the entire plot.

So yeah, I don't know. The things you personally profess to like best were all right there in the movies quite clearly. Like, they went out of their way to present those themes. Perhaps you simply need to see it again and look closer. "Too dark" is a matter of opinion, but one can't honestly say that those themes and ideas weren't presented in the movies; they were.

I honestly enjoyed it right up til the end where he snaps Zod's neck. That one scene pulled me from the movie & I hated it with ever fiber of my being. Still do. Its out of character in 80 years of Superman. With exception to Doomsday & the pocket universe Kryptonians from Superman v2 #21 or #22, I think. I've rewatched it quite a few times & do own most of the DCEU movies on bluray... MOS is better than BVS, which was terrible. Martha! :lol: Yeah, I get in the real world, it would be dark & 4 people fighting with those powers would probably damn near destroy the world, but its possible for a movie to be light hearted & entertaining & remove itself from how crap the real world is today. I'd also rather they stop doing origin movies. Do an opening montage of Krypton going boom, the rocket in space, crashing in Kansas, two old folks, baby pics & maybe Lana & high school football sequences then flash the logo & open up with Perry White yelling "Lane! Kent! Get in here!" Or Superman doing something simple or whatever. Helping put out an apartment fire. Hell, a cat in a tree as a call back to Reeve's Superman. Then let the film play out with 100 more minutes of action.

A live action Red Son would be kinda fun to see too but maybe thats just me. :lol:

[Leo656]

So let's do a thought experiment. Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that this isn't a scenario someone wrote, let's pretend that "Superman" isn't an "icon" with 80 years of history and his face on kids' pajamas. Let's pretend, for a moment, that the characters and scenario that took place at the end of MoS was actually really happening, exactly as it did up to the point where the fight with Zod ended.

There's no way to send him back to the Phantom Zone. There's no way to take away his powers. He's stronger, a better fighter, and more ruthless. This person has promised to kill every last man, woman and child on your adopted planet, just to make you suffer, and he 100% means it. He has sworn that this only ends one way, "Either YOU die, or I do."

You've taken the fight across the city, across the globe, into outer space and back, and he simply won't stop. Beating him up hasn't worked. Reasoning with him hasn't worked. Begging him to stop didn't work. He is going to kill everyone, unless you do something, and do it Right Now. And you've chosen to prevent that from happening, you've decided it's your sworn duty to protect this world and everyone in it from situations Exactly Like This.

So again, if you're Superman, and this is not a movie, not a drill, not make-believe, and this is REALLY HAPPENING... tell me, then... What Does Superman DO? Remember, you're not a kids' cartoon character with an editorial mandate that says "You can't ever kill anyone because it will hurt the sales on those kids' pajamas," you're actually the last line of defense against literal global genocide.

The correct answer is: You Kill Space-Hitler. That's it. That's the only right answer. Forget the kids' cartoon character stuff. Lest we forget that back in 1939, before he became a "kids character", Superman frequently did stuff like throw bad guys in front of their own bullets that they'd shot at him. And those guys were a lot less dangerous than Zod was, so he probably could've/should've handled it better. "Early-Installment Weirdness," I get it.

I'm just saying, that "Rule" only exists because someone decided that it was a bad look for him to be using lethal force once he was doing cereal commercials. It was a business decision, not a storytelling decision. "Superman Never Kills" didn't become a thing because the writers were sincere about making him "a better person" or "a better hero" any of that... it was because they could sell more dolls that way. That makes the "rule" disingenuous, even if it's well-intentioned or even noble. It was still a "rule" they invented for the sake of selling toys, and nothing else. Certainly not for the "integrity" of the character.

And he should sincerely not WANT to kill anyone, sure. But in a situation like the MoS situation, there's absolutely nothing offsides or vulgar about what he did. It was the correct move for the scenario he was in. Now, if someone wants to say, "Putting him in such a No-Win Situation was a bad way to showcase the character just in general", that's a conversation. But there really wasn't any other way to get out of that, and if he didn't kill Zod, the alternative would be Everyone Dies.

One to save millions? Billions? That's a forgivable act, even if you're Superman. To NOT have killed Zod would have been wrong.

I look at any super-hero - even Superman and Batman - just like cops and soldiers, when it comes to that sort of thing. Their job is ultimately to try and minimize the loss of life, but sometimes the only way to do that is by killing someone. You don't WANT to do it, you shouldn't LIKE to do it, and you shouldn't take pleasure in it... but there's sincerely times when you have no choice, and it doesn't "pervert your values" or "make you any less of a hero" if you do.

It would have been different if killing Zod clearly wasn't a painful act for him. That would have been bad, if he was all glib about it like it didn't matter. But that guttural scream and that "Why did this have to happen...?" look he gave Lois puts it all into perspective. He clearly wasn't happy about what he did, and he sincerely wished there had been another way out... but there wasn't.

Sometimes, there isn't any other way. Sometimes, You Have To Kill Space-Hitler.

If it hadn't been handled as well as it was - and he hadn't killed Zod in the comics for the exact same reasons - I'd have had a bigger problem with it. But contextually, it made perfect sense, and while "codes of honor" are fine and all, at the end of the day it's MORE important to stem the loss of further life by any means necessary. A "hero" who'd let more people die just because HE didn't want to kill anyone... is honestly not much of a hero.

Again, I know the debate rages eternal about whether or not it was even "fair" to script Superman into a no-win scenario like that, but that's kind of where the drama happens. His whole life is pretty much making the best out of bad choices. This was just a very extreme example of that.

...He (and Lois) also blatantly kill Zod and Co. in the theatrical cut of Superman II... and then they laugh about it. But nobody ever talks about that! :lol: Goes to show you how much people are willing to forgive and ignore when your movie is scored by John Williams and not Hans Zimmer. :trazz:

[mrmaczaps]

So let's do a thought experiment. Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that this isn't a scenario someone wrote, let's pretend that "Superman" isn't an "icon" with 80 years of history and his face on kids' pajamas. Let's pretend, for a moment, that the characters and scenario that took place at the end of MoS was actually really happening, exactly as it did up to the point where the fight with Zod ended.

There's no way to send him back to the Phantom Zone. There's no way to take away his powers. He's stronger, a better fighter, and more ruthless. This person has promised to kill every last man, woman and child on your adopted planet, just to make you suffer, and he 100% means it. He has sworn that this only ends one way, "Either YOU die, or I do."

You've taken the fight across the city, across the globe, into outer space and back, and he simply won't stop. Beating him up hasn't worked. Reasoning with him hasn't worked. Begging him to stop didn't work. He is going to kill everyone, unless you do something, and do it Right Now. And you've chosen to prevent that from happening, you've decided it's your sworn duty to protect this world and everyone in it from situations Exactly Like This.

So again, if you're Superman, and this is not a movie, not a drill, not make-believe, and this is REALLY HAPPENING... tell me, then... What Does Superman DO? Remember, you're not a kids' cartoon character with an editorial mandate that says "You can't ever kill anyone because it will hurt the sales on those kids' pajamas," you're actually the last line of defense against literal global genocide.

The correct answer is: You Kill Space-Hitler. That's it. That's the only right answer. Forget the kids' cartoon character stuff. Lest we forget that back in 1939, before he became a "kids character", Superman frequently did stuff like throw bad guys in front of their own bullets that they'd shot at him. And those guys were a lot less dangerous than Zod was, so he probably could've/should've handled it better. "Early-Installment Weirdness," I get it.

I'm just saying, that "Rule" only exists because someone decided that it was a bad look for him to be using lethal force once he was doing cereal commercials. It was a business decision, not a storytelling decision. "Superman Never Kills" didn't become a thing because the writers were sincere about making him "a better person" or "a better hero" any of that... it was because they could sell more dolls that way. That makes the "rule" disingenuous, even if it's well-intentioned or even noble. It was still a "rule" they invented for the sake of selling toys, and nothing else. Certainly not for the "integrity" of the character.

And he should sincerely not WANT to kill anyone, sure. But in a situation like the MoS situation, there's absolutely nothing offsides or vulgar about what he did. It was the correct move for the scenario he was in. Now, if someone wants to say, "Putting him in such a No-Win Situation was a bad way to showcase the character just in general", that's a conversation. But there really wasn't any other way to get out of that, and if he didn't kill Zod, the alternative would be Everyone Dies.

One to save millions? Billions? That's a forgivable act, even if you're Superman. To NOT have killed Zod would have been wrong.

I look at any super-hero - even Superman and Batman - just like cops and soldiers, when it comes to that sort of thing. Their job is ultimately to try and minimize the loss of life, but sometimes the only way to do that is by killing someone. You don't WANT to do it, you shouldn't LIKE to do it, and you shouldn't take pleasure in it... but there's sincerely times when you have no choice, and it doesn't "pervert your values" or "make you any less of a hero" if you do.

It would have been different if killing Zod clearly wasn't a painful act for him. That would have been bad, if he was all glib about it like it didn't matter. But that guttural scream and that "Why did this have to happen...?" look he gave Lois puts it all into perspective. He clearly wasn't happy about what he did, and he sincerely wished there had been another way out... but there wasn't.

Sometimes, there isn't any other way. Sometimes, You Have To Kill Space-Hitler.

If it hadn't been handled as well as it was - and he hadn't killed Zod in the comics for the exact same reasons - I'd have had a bigger problem with it. But contextually, it made perfect sense, and while "codes of honor" are fine and all, at the end of the day it's MORE important to stem the loss of further life by any means necessary. A "hero" who'd let more people die just because HE didn't want to kill anyone... is honestly not much of a hero.

Again, I know the debate rages eternal about whether or not it was even "fair" to script Superman into a no-win scenario like that, but that's kind of where the drama happens. His whole life is pretty much making the best out of bad choices. This was just a very extreme example of that.

...He (and Lois) also blatantly kill Zod and Co. in the theatrical cut of Superman II... and then they laugh about it. But nobody ever talks about that! :lol: Goes to show you how much people are willing to forgive and ignore when your movie is scored by John Williams and not Hans Zimmer. :trazz:

Okay, yeah. In the real world what Supes does is called self defense (specifically in this case "of others") by killing Zod, he saves that family stuck in the corner. The theatrical cut of Superman II, Zod & co aren't killed, just depowered and then locked up. There is a shot of them being cuffed & stuffed into a police snow cruise thing. Unless I'm remembering that wrong & its only Lex being cuffed & stuffed. I'd have to go look at the Donner cut again.

And yeah, MOS feels like they wrote the situation as a no win, Zod dies or Superman/Earth dies event, which I find less entertaining because, lets face it, thats the real world today. Batman, either 89 or Returns, had Bats kill a few thugs. Never noticed that as a kid. But, I think in Returns, one of the thugs throws a bomb at Bats in the opening fight sequence, I think, and then he knocks it away and throws the thug after it and off screen it blows up. Killing someone is defense of self or others isn't murder. Again tho, I want to be entertained not flash-banged with fictional space Hitler when we have actual literal Hitler types in charge of locations across the world, actively locking people up and or killing them for speaking out against their tyranny. And with MOS, I was quiet entertained until Zod attacks those people. That point in the film just took me out of it but maybe it was also the entire audience freaking out too. I'll dig it out today & watch it again. I've got nothing going on and its snowing. Lol

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

- I disagree that it's "majority consensus" that the Affleck portrayal was wrong, because for one thing Internet Rage Nerds Who Like To Repeat Themselves aren't actually the majority of people in Real Life. The people who say "Batman shouldn't act that way" have the same problem with Batman that Chris Reeve fans have with Superman. Too many people think DCAU Batman is "The Real Batman", and he isn't. He's a cartoon character, immune to lasting change or actual human emotions or behavior. They have a hard time accepting or imagining a version of the character that... y'know... behaves in emotionally appropriate ways in response to the situations he finds himself in. And that's really all that movie presented, in the case of both Superman AND Batman. "What if these characters actually behaved like human beings in response to the things happening around them, and not static archetypes?"

You callin' me a dog hater? I wouldn't have left the dog in the vehicle! Martha closes the door, runs all the way to the overpass, and then remembers "oh yeah, I left Sparky in the back seat." Come on.

Okay, you say:

"He's a cartoon character" ... "What if these characters actually behaved like human beings in response to the things happening around them, and not static archetypes?"

But that's exactly what Bruce Wayne does in The Dark Knight Rises. Nolan tried to do a realistic take on Batman, someone crazy enough to dress up in an armored Bat suit but still has real relationships beyond "this Robin will be a good sacrificial soldier in my eternal war against evil." It's a quasi-realistic take on Batman, so at some point, it's going to diverge. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight both do a much better job of being REAL Batman movies.

I think my opinions on both TDKR and BvS have sort of settled and morphed to be about equivalent. Both very flawed movies with great performances and some really great material, both hamstrung by some pretty terrible problems. On the one hand, Jesse Eisenberg's acting. On the other hand, Marion Cotillard's death scene. On the one hand, John Blake. On the other hand, Lex Luthor. Batman acts out of character in both movies. And so on.

Anyway, back to BvS specifically, I agree that Batman has to have an arc. I really like the points you make about him being the villain of the story who finds redemption. But a homicidal Batman is just as much a departure from "canon" as is "Rachel died so I think I'm done now" Batman.

As to what Batman writers opinions might be, knowing their opinions wouldn't change my own opinion, at least not by much. But I'd still be very curious. They've written lots of Batman stories (hopefully well received stories, not dreck like Batman Odyssey or some such) so they've got cred; they've got history.

And for the record, I'm totally fine with Clark killing Superpowered Space Hitler. There's really nothing else he can do unless he wants more blood on his (Clark's) hands. It's the guy's first ever fight with a fellow Kryptonian (and a lauded war hero and combat specialist, FFS), and everyone thinks he's gonna pull a magic rabbit out of Zatanna's hat and just put Zod in an armbar or something? Clark has no idea if it's even possible to access the Phantom Zone, and in the meantime, people are dying. Snap the neck, suffer the guilt.

...

$hit, I just realized Superman and Batman go through the same moral quandary when fighting a superior foe to protect Earth. Dammit. :tlol:

[ZariusTwo]

The theatrical cut of Superman II, Zod & co aren't killed, just depowered and then locked up. There is a shot of them being cuffed & stuffed into a police snow cruise thingl

You clearly grew up on the international cut they ran on television, which has never had an official DVD release outside of fandom circulation. Such a scene exists, but it was never in either the theatrical Lester cut or the official Donner cut, in the latter, it was available only as a deleted scene

[Leo656]

Yeah, the "Arctic Police" bit from Superman II was in the International and later the Donner cut deleted scenes, but not the "real" movie. In the movie MOST people watched for 20+ years, Superman depowers Zod and Co. and then he and Lois knock them into a bottomless abyss in the Fortress and laugh about it while triumphant music plays. Alternate Cuts and deleted scenes don't count when 99% of the audience is not privy to such information, and can only go by what they saw in front of their own eyes.

Ergo, some of the exact same people who took great issue with Superman snapping Zod's neck - an act of war to save lives which is treated as a seriously regrettable act that tears Superman up inside - were perfectly fine with Superman (and Lois!) killing three people and the whole thing literally being played for laughs. And this is why I don't take a lot of people's criticisms seriously.

As for the rest of your POV, mczaps; I get it, personal preference. You'd rather have escapism. That's your prerogative. I want things to be "played straight" or "kept real" as much as possible. In a movie that was TRYING to be escapist fantasy, I'd definitely accept a different ending. But in a movie where the entire point was to be "realistic", I want them to stick to that and not waver.

For better or worse, they stuck to the "mission statement" with MoS. It can be a conversation about whether that take was "necessary" or not. But what I don't like, is someone arguing that it was poorly executed simply for being exactly what it set out to be. Not that that's what YOU are saying, I just mean in general. Someone is within their rights to say, "That's not the take I'd have done, or prefer to see." But I will forever argue that for what they were trying to accomplish with that movie, they succeeded masterfully.

I like what I like, and I want what I want, sure. But I'm also perfectly willing to defer to authorial intent sometimes. From a different direction, I'm sure that "Thor: Ragnarok" succeeds brilliantly at what it sets out to be. I have no interest in seeing it, I don't care for that type of humor in my super-hero movies, generally, but I'd never say it's "bad" at doing what it tries to do, or being what it tries to be. The most I can say is, "That's not what I would have done, it's not what I want to see." I'm willing to believe that for what it aims to do, it succeeds.

And I think that's what it comes down to, sometimes. Being willing to meet the creator(s) halfway.

Oh, FYI: In my neck of the woods we never saw the "Arctic Police" scene on TV. I watched that movie religiously every single time it aired on TV after 1983 until like 1993 and I saw that scene for the first time on the Donner Cut DVD. Other countries or parts of the U.S. may have showed it, but not in my area.

[Leo656]

You callin' me a dog hater? I wouldn't have left the dog in the vehicle! Martha closes the door, runs all the way to the overpass, and then remembers "oh yeah, I left Sparky in the back seat." Come on.

Okay, you say:

"He's a cartoon character" ... "What if these characters actually behaved like human beings in response to the things happening around them, and not static archetypes?"

But that's exactly what Bruce Wayne does in The Dark Knight Rises. Nolan tried to do a realistic take on Batman, someone crazy enough to dress up in an armored Bat suit but still has real relationships beyond "this Robin will be a good sacrificial soldier in my eternal war against evil." It's a quasi-realistic take on Batman, so at some point, it's going to diverge. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight both do a much better job of being REAL Batman movies.

I think my opinions on both TDKR and BvS have sort of settled and morphed to be about equivalent. Both very flawed movies with great performances and some really great material, both hamstrung by some pretty terrible problems. On the one hand, Jesse Eisenberg's acting. On the other hand, Marion Cotillard's death scene. On the one hand, John Blake. On the other hand, Lex Luthor. Batman acts out of character in both movies. And so on.

Anyway, back to BvS specifically, I agree that Batman has to have an arc. I really like the points you make about him being the villain of the story who finds redemption. But a homicidal Batman is just as much a departure from "canon" as is "Rachel died so I think I'm done now" Batman.

As to what Batman writers opinions might be, knowing their opinions wouldn't change my own opinion, at least not by much. But I'd still be very curious. They've written lots of Batman stories (hopefully well received stories, not dreck like Batman Odyssey or some such) so they've got cred; they've got history.

And for the record, I'm totally fine with Clark killing Superpowered Space Hitler. There's really nothing else he can do unless he wants more blood on his (Clark's) hands. It's the guy's first ever fight with a fellow Kryptonian (and a lauded war hero and combat specialist, FFS), and everyone thinks he's gonna pull a magic rabbit out of Zatanna's hat and just put Zod in an armbar or something? Clark has no idea if it's even possible to access the Phantom Zone, and in the meantime, people are dying. Snap the neck, suffer the guilt.

...

$hit, I just realized Superman and Batman go through the same moral quandary when fighting a superior foe to protect Earth. Dammit. :tlol:

To the bold: Because YOU UNDERSTAND THE MOVIES! :lol: Like I've said before, nothing Snyder does is by accident and every scene parallels another scene or event from a previous film. He does this A LOT. Watch "Wonder Woman" again, and pay attention to the Diana/Ares scene; it's a DIRECT rip from MoS, right down to Diana saying "I can't be a part of this!" None of that was by accident.

See, this is why I like you, man. We don't have to agree on everything, but at least you UNDERSTAND things. :)

There's ALSO a bit of subtext that most people didn't pick up on, in where "Dark Batman" represents what Superman MIGHT one day become if he ever abandons his own faith in humanity. Alfred's whole "turns good men cruel" soliloquy. It foreshadows the Knightmare scene where in the Dark Future it's Superman who's become a tyrant. So that's another reason why Batman was in such a dark place; he's kind of a "cautionary tale" for Clark. "Don't Ever Become This." Clark, in the film, is tested but still hopeful and optimistic, whereas Bruce has already given up on everything and in turn become a vicious and bloodthirsty individual. When Clark sees Batman, he sees what he MIGHT become if he ever abandons his own ideals the same way Bruce did.

Just a little tidbit not everybody picked up on. You might've, I don't know. :)

To address a couple of other points in this Very Awesome Conversation we're having:

- But see, I still maintain that Batman WASN'T out of character in BvS. He was in-character for a Batman who's been pushed too far for too long. And we've seen a lot of hints of that in the comics for years and years and years. Bruce Wayne's own grip on sanity has been shown to be quite tenuous, at times. I've read comics where (in-canon) he crippled people when he didn't have to just to prove a point, or blow off steam, so I can absolutely see him branding criminals or some of the other stuff he does in that movie. Part of why I'm a Robin fan is because it's long been established that without Robin, Bruce can get pretty f*cking unhinged and it doesn't take much to push him there. So yeah, I will never honestly feel like his BvS portrayal was out of character. Maybe it was out of character for "25-year old, In-His-Prime Batman", but definitely NOT for "PTSD 40-something Batman."

- On the other hand, I see Dark Knight Rises Bruce as being SEVERELY out-of-character, because 1. They have Bruce behave in ways that are completely contrary to established canon, and 2. It's not even consistent with the first movie in the series, which did a GREAT job of establishing Bruce and who he is and what he believes in.

He becomes Batman because "Your system is broken." Cops and politicians are corrupt and can't be trusted to do what is necessary to enforce "true justice". "Batman Begins" makes it a point to stress this motivation. Bruce sees himself as the Only Sane Man in a world that's corrupt, and he gets to "break the rules" because he knows he's incorruptible. Awesome! That's not only valid, that's canon.

"Dark Knight Rises" blasts this all to hell, however. First of all, he quits being Batman, something I'm on record as saying Bruce Wayne would probably never do. His paranoia, sense of duty, and inherent mistrust of the broken "system" would NEVER allow him to just walk away and let the corrupt cops and politicians carry on without him. Their incompetence and greed was the entire reason he became Batman, so HOW could he ever walk away?! Those things are NEVER going to go away, and so long as Bruce was breathing, he'd be "fighting the war". That's who he is. He doesn't have it in him to turn a blind eye to injustice, or else he wouldn't even BE Batman.

Further, he quits for awful reasons. For one, as stated, he trusts that the cops and politicians are gonna do a better job this time, which is... yeah, I already explained why that's total bullsh*t. For another, he keeps chasing pussy! He wants to quit for Rachel, he wants to quit for Talia... what the F*CK is WITH this guy? Again, this is NOT who Bruce Wayne is as a character. This isn't just "a realistic take" or "a different take"... this is some COMPLETELY made-up nonsense that either misunderstands or disregards WHO Bruce Wayne is and why he's Batman in the first place.

"Begins" got Bruce so, so RIGHT. And that's why "Rises" rings so terribly false to me; it's not only wrong for Bruce in general, it's not even consistent with his motivation from the same series of films. It's like he's a totally different GUY all of a sudden and it doesn't even make any sense.

I can buy a Batman pushed too far who's become bloodthirsty and cruel, as in BvS. Those things are consistent with his character, even if it requires an understanding that he's been pushed over time to become this because of a series of traumatic events. I can NOT buy a Batman who trusts cops and politicians to be honest and noble and therefore he isn't needed anymore, or a Batman who quits his job to chase beaver. I can not and will not accept those things.

- We won't agree on Jesse's Lex, and that's fine. But one thing I've noticed, and chosen to incorporate into my own headcanon, is that he becomes more "unhinged" and off-kilter only AFTER he interacts with the Kryptonian ship. Whether that was intentional, I have no idea, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that his "communion" with the ship drove him temporarily mad, which in turn explains some of the more severe "twitchiness" and verbal tics. If a person REALLY doesn't like it, that's their own prerogative; but it's worth pointing out, to me, that there may at least be an in-story reason for it, intentional or otherwise.

For me, it was about the script, and the character was scripted well. Performance... eh, that's a conversation. For once, I liked that Lex was written to be as completely Pure Evil as he was in the comics they were pulling from. The whole "kindap and torture Clark's Mom" bit, for example, was right out of one of Byrne's early issues, albeit executed much differently in that case. But it's a thing Lex would do and has done, so I loved that. I can see why some people didn't like the performance, but for me the scripting made up for that. So I really don't mind it at all. But we can agree to disagree on it, sure, I get why it bugs some people.
-------

But yeah, man, you and I have just, like, THE BEST conversations, man. :) This is why you're one'a my favorites!

[AquaParade]

Both those movies are just different interpretations of Batman. He's nigh unbreakable and works in both contexts. It's not like either one is on some Adam West high.
And hell, even that sort of works for what it is.

[Leo656]

I mean, the fact that it was the Silver Age gives Adam West Batman a lot more leeway. Bruce Wayne had an entirely different relationship with police and established authority back then, and became Batman for slightly different reasons.

Pre-1980s, Batman was more of a "super-cop", and he worked openly with the police. Fully-deputized, all of that. "The police and authorities are all corrupt or incompetent" was not an essential part of the narrative yet, at that point in time. It wasn't as much of a reason as to why he became Batman.

But once that BECOMES part of the narrative, it changes the story, it changes his motivations, and you have to remain consistent with that.

If in the story, Bruce becomes Batman BECAUSE the authorities are all corrupt or incompetent or both, and he has no faith in anyone but Gordon, and his relationship with the police and the government is mostly-adversarial... then it doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever for him to ever one day up and decide, "Y'know... we locked up a bunch of bad guys, so now I feel pretty 'safe' in giving up this Batman gig. I'm quite certain all the bad cops are gone and that nobody's ever gonna be on the take in Gotham City again. I can just step back and let the regular law and order types handle it from now on, they got this." He also didn't end up with Rachel at the end of "Begins" because of how much Gotham needed Batman more than Bruce needed a normal life.

So again, Bruce's motivations in quitting in between "The Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Rises" makes zero sense at all within the narrative presented in the first two movies and his already-established motivation. That isn't just "a different take", it's quite simply bad writing and inconsistent characterization. It's got slightly less to do with not being consistent with comics canon, and MORE to do with the fact that his character wasn't even consistent within the canon of the films themselves.

I am willing to forgive Nolan and Co. for this to a point because he has admitted that he made DKR with a figurative gun to his head and a hard deadline to meet, which means certain creative choices probably weren't thought through as much as they were on the first two films. But it is, indeed, a giant gaping hole in the story if you're still remembering the first movie by the time you watch the third.

[AquaParade]

I see it as Bruce just reacting to all the trauma. Nolan's trilogy being as grounded as it is, you can only expect a man to keep it up for so long. Awful **** went down, Joker stole Harvey's soul, he lost the love of his life. I think that is justification for him to retreat into his shell for a while. I don't think it contradicts anything we saw earlier in the trilogy.

[Leo656]

So he suddenly just doesn't care anymore? The system isn't "broken" anymore? So he goes and cries in his room for eight years because the job was a lot harder than he thought it would be?

That's... a way to go, I guess. But that's not who "Bruce Wayne" is. That's some guy some writer made up and called "Bruce Wayne". And it IS contradictory with the first two movies, which portrayed him as a particularly driven and focused individual.

Bruce Wayne processes trauma into motivation and only becomes further entrenched in his personal "war" the more things go bad. That's the only version of the character I recognize. I am not okay with him being a "quitter". The "love of his life" didn't even wanna be with him anyway. I have a huge problem with those movies even being primarily driven by a romantic subplot to begin with. That was some tacked-on studio nonsense that felt very out of place in a Batman movie entirely.

It's the same problem I have with "Kingdom Come", and Superman quitting being Superman to go mope on his VR farm because someone called him "old-fashioned". He's not a big crybaby like that, not ever. The story only works by twisting the character into something he isn't and would never be. Like, he literally didn't even quit being Superman because Metropolis blew up or Lois got killed; he was fine still being Superman until people made fun of him for not killing the Joker, and THEN he took his ball and went home. Not because he was "traumatized", which would have made sense in that context. He most directly quit because someone made fun of him. Dumb! Good story, bad characterization/motivation.

I mean, ultimately, you and I have very different criteria for this sort of thing, and I get that. You've kind of said or implied over time that there's no "rules" to this sort of thing, sometimes, and any "new take" can do whatever they want to do. Whereas I firmly believe that SOME things are part of a character's bedrock and can't be changed or else they're now an altogether different character.

For me, Bruce Wayne cannot be a quitter, a crybaby, or a poon-chaser who abandons his mission for every pretty face that catches his eye. Those things have never been canon anywhere except in this one movie. And that's why I don't think DKR is a very good Batman movie, and why it betrays the character in some pretty fundamental ways. That trilogy got off to a fantastic start with a movie that completely nailed everything, and then as it went on they kind of forgot what they had started off with. Bruce is not the same guy in Part 3 as he was in Part 1; he got a lot dumber, weaker, and harder to root for. And in this case, I don't think "he saw some sh*t" is quite good enough.

It's not a terrible movie, I just see a mile of difference between the guy in the first movie and the guy in the third, and that all of his "character development" was for the worse.

You CAN write it that way, sure. You can write anything that you want. I personally just think that it makes Bruce Wayne look really, really weak and impotent when he's supposed to be the guy you're rooting for. I'd rather see a "damaged" Batman who does bad things for (what he thinks are) the right reasons, like in BvS, rather than a "damaged" Batman who makes nothing but bad decisions because the plot demands that they happen and comes out of the movie looking like a complete idiot, like in DKR. To me the former makes infinitely more sense than the latter.

But. To-may-to, To-mah-to. :)

[Andrew NDB]

All the delays in WB's DC slate of movies are to accommodate new Cavill material, says another article:

https://geekositymag.com/henry-cavill-to-film-new-scenes-as-superman-for-the-flash/?fbclid=IwAR0G4zuRtB5sxwZmMXEK1KNT2hMF4H2tpUauLdnU 0ZgjVvnhM9YLzGZTjJE

[Vegita-San]

couldn't get a justice league with reeves and keaton. keaton and cavill maybe?

[Andrew NDB]

couldn't get a justice league with reeves and keaton. keaton and cavill maybe?

Not really interested in that. I WAS interested in Keaton sharing scenes with Affleck in Flash... but apparently that didn't happen.

[Leo656]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Cavill's Superman is more entrenched in peoples' minds as a "Zack Snyder Creation" than any of the other JL members, even though he handpicked all of them. But only Cavill starred in a Zack-directed solo film, so he's more "Zack's Guy" than the others. And we know how WB feels about anything Snyder-affiliated.

Discovery merger or whatever literally just happened so there's no way that's a factor this soon in. Their people wouldn't be involved in this stuff yet.

I guess there's a chance that WarnerMedia decided to flex on WB and force the issue. But again, I'll believe it when I see it.

Be nice if it does happen, but still. His fate is to be a guest star in a bunch of other guys' movies, while Michael B. Jordan gets an HBO Max Val-Zod Superman show and someone else gets the Black Superman theatrical movie series? That's a bummer. Cavill deserves way better than that, but I guess it's better than nothing.

IF it's even true. Which I don't believe it is. Why not? Because I want to see Cavill play Superman again, and if I want something the universe makes it a point to do the opposite.

We'll see. I don't buy it.

[Autbot_Benz]

I hope that rumor is true too I wanna see Cavill Finally get to play Full on Confident Superman now that he is done finding himself dying and being reborn. Always liked him as Superman.

[ZariusTwo]

Zaslav has reportedly made the call to scrap all Superman film projects in the works at Warner and make a concerted effort to get Caville back.

https://www.supermanhomepage.com/rumor-warner-bros-scrapping-all-superman-projects-to-bring-back-henry-cavill/

[Leo656]

No way the universe loves me THAT much.

Even if it doesn't happen... so long as Coates's Black Superman thing gets thrown in the dumpster I'll still be happy.

[superstaff]

I like Cavill, I really do.

But WB/DC has no idea what they're doing. It's so obvious. The fact they even entertained the Coates version is proof of that. But furthermore, they first wanted a DCEU headed by Snyder. When it didn't make the numbers they wanted, they dumped him. They 'course corrected' with Josstice League, and that failed. Then they tried to save face by going, "Welp, we're gonna make movies with no continuity ties!" Then we get Joker and The Batman. Then they said they wanted to do stuff with Keaton's Batman with the DCEU. Now they are going back to the Snyder well...for now. They don't know what they're doing, they keep chasing their tails like hopeless little puppies except it's not cute.

Will they still want to do the DCEU stuff when Flashpoint (or whatever it's going to be called) inevitably underperforms? What will they do then?

[Leo656]

YOU... were s'posed to go to bed, my dear. :trazz:

[superstaff]

YOU... were s'posed to go to bed, my dear. :trazz:

Ah, no, no. I had stuff to do, not go to sleep. :lol:

Also! I hate WB (and basically all major studios nowadays). I like typing out the whys.

[Leo656]

Don't we all.

WB has been a behind-the-scenes sh*tshow for longer than most people know. Almost every good movie they've ever made, in reading about it (I do a LOT of reading about behind-the-scenes stuff in movies) there's always some section where it says "The film had a troubled production..." and then a million really stupid things that happened that almost ruined everything.

Everything from Batman '89 to Beetlejuice right up to today was basically saved in the editing room. Like, a shocking amount of their stuff was on the razor's edge and owes everything to whoever did the final edit.

And Lord, I know a lot of people found BvS "questionable", but I've seen and read a lot about what WB actually wanted to be in that movie, and all I can say is that even if a person hates it, they owe Zack Snyder and Chris Terrio a bunch of hugs and kisses for "Nope'ing" WB on all their little "notes". Because they wanted a VERY different (and much, MUCH darker and more violent) movie.

Like for example, the desert scene in the beginning. Imagine the Terrorist Warlord punching Lois in the face, Superman swooping in, nuking the guy with his heat vision, turning around and murdering all the OTHER terrorists with his heat vision, then flying off to have a romantic moment with Lois.

WB wanted the movie (after the flashback) to start with That Scene. They actually expected it to be a "stand up and cheer" moment for the audience. Superman murdering a bunch of people after watching his girlfriend get punched in the face.

Zack and Chris were like, "...So what if he DOESN'T do that? But maybe Lex FRAMES him and SAYS he did that... because y'know, we don't think Superman needs to be lasering people to death, we kinda need audiences to like this guy." :lol:

WB also wanted Batfleck to be a lot more explicitly murderous and Zack and Chris Nope'd on that as well.

People can dislike the final product if they must, but the script WB gave Zack and Chris to work from before they fixed it was so, so, SO much worse. Like legit, "Justice League" never even would've been an idea, had WB's version of BvS been made. It would have been a bloodbath.

Most "good movies" happen by accident. Especially WB movies. They sure don't come from the sh*tty ideas the studio forces directors and creatives to work from.

[drgon78]

Paramount hasn't done to much to make me angry but Disney and WB hasn't really stopped making me angry in recent years.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

No way the universe loves me THAT much.

Even if it doesn't happen... so long as Coates's Black Superman thing gets thrown in the dumpster I'll still be happy.

Everyone deserves to come out unscathed once in a while.:lol:

That's what really matters to me. As someone whose black himself, I find it disingenuous to do a black Superman movie (let alone rumored to be Michael B. Jordan which is as much of a joke casting choice and Donald Glover :roll:) for the sake of representation. Just do a Cyborg movie (with a different actor obviously) or a John Stewart Green Lantern movie.

And whether they get Cavill back or not, Superman needs another live action movie.

[superstaff]

WB has been a behind-the-scenes sh*tshow for longer than most people know. Almost every good movie they've ever made, in reading about it (I do a LOT of reading about behind-the-scenes stuff in movies) there's always some section where it says "The film had a troubled production..." and then a million really stupid things that happened that almost ruined everything.

Everything from Batman '89 to Beetlejuice right up to today was basically saved in the editing room. Like, a shocking amount of their stuff was on the razor's edge and owes everything to whoever did the final edit.

Yeah, I've also delved into WB's background, and listened to commentaries, and what not. It seems like there's a lot of truth said during that WB boardroom scene in Looney Tunes: Back in Action. They really are clueless morons who don't understand anything. Not just movies, but anything. Their good stuff is, indeed, happy accidents.

See, if they really did want a 'feel good', Reeve-esque Superman, I have no idea why they thought Zack Snyder would deliver that. I'm not saying he's a bad director, no. But his movies have a very specific feel to them, and Snyder excels at making things dark and edgy, not just tonally but also aesthetically. A Snyder Superman was never going to be soft and cuddly, or general audience friendly. I still remember the discourse on Watchmen, and most normies didn't 'get' what Snyder/Moore were trying to say with that story (and only cared about the obnoxious 'blue peen' memes).

It's like, they wanted their movies to have a different feel to them than Marvel's so they hired Snyder to spearhead the DCEU (I think Nolan was involved as EP for MoS, and made suggestions for that movie, but not beyond that, right?). They didn't understand his style of filmmaking, of course. Then they got spooked with MoS' numbers. So they dipped their hands into the cookie jar more and more and more. I may not like a lot of the DCEU, but damn WB for their cowardice, and not committing to what they seemingly wanted in the first place. They turned Josstice League into a MCU copycat mess that nearly everyone hated, then they've been acting like beheaded chickens since, not knowing what they want to do and throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. All they do know is that they want that sweet MCU cash.

[Leo656]

Huge disconnect between what WB suits liked and thought general audiences would like. That's the simplest explanation.

Both Watchmen and BvS supposedly got standing ovations during closed-door screenings amongst WB executives, then didn't light things up with mainstream audiences at all. Which says that the people upstairs sincerely thought that what they were selling would actually do well, until it didn't. At which point, they panicked and didn't know WHAT to do, and just started flinging crap at the wall.

[Autbot_Benz]

Zaslav has reportedly made the call to scrap all Superman film projects in the works at Warner and make a concerted effort to get Caville back.

https://www.supermanhomepage.com/rumor-warner-bros-scrapping-all-superman-projects-to-bring-back-henry-cavill/

If zaslav does this and cans JJ Abrams so his black John Constantine show never happens I will be a zaslav fan instantly

[Leo656]

See, I can't see them doing this because Coates would probably sue for some kind of breach, and then scream "racism" all over the internet.

Does WB want to deal with that? That's the only thing. I'd love for it to be true I just don't know if it can be.

[Andrew NDB]

See, I can't see them doing this because Coates would probably sue for some kind of breach, and then scream "racism" all over the internet.

Does WB want to deal with that? That's the only thing. I'd love for it to be true I just don't know if it can be.

What would be the breach? I'm sure he got paid for his probably racist screenplay. There wouldn't be any guarantee a movie would be made.

[Leo656]

Eh, I guess. I'm sure he'd come up with SOMEthing just to be a nuisance.

[Autbot_Benz]

Cavill will be at SDCC this year at Hall H with Warners

It now seems that a significant update on Henry Cavill's Superman future is on the horizon. In an article from Deadline about what types of announcements could come during San Diego Comic-Con 2022, the outlet mentioned that there is buzz that the Man of Steel star will make a surprise appearance during the WB/DC Hall H panel on Saturday. The article notes that the surprise appearance will see Cavill tease attendees with more Superman appearances in the DCEU. This could mean an official announcement about Henry Cavill's Superman future is coming this weekend.

https://screenrant.com/superman-henry-cavill-dceu-return-announcement-sdcc-2022-rumor/?utm_content=buffer57562&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_source=SR-TW&utm_campaign=SR-TW

[Andrew NDB]

Cavill will be at SDCC this year at Hall H with Warners



https://screenrant.com/superman-henry-cavill-dceu-return-announcement-sdcc-2022-rumor/?utm_content=buffer57562&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_source=SR-TW&utm_campaign=SR-TW

"Reportedly" it says. But reportedly by whom?

[Autbot_Benz]

"Reportedly" it says. But reportedly by whom?

Its from a deadline article

Dwayne Johnson and the Warner Bros theatrical session will serve as Marvel’s opening act earlier in the day, with Black Adam and Shazam: Fury of the Gods getting their much-deserved closeups on the Hall H stage. There’s also buzz that Henry Cavill will put in a surprise appearance to talk up more Superman.

https://deadline.com/2022/07/comic-con-2022-schedule-what-to-expect-marvel-the-rock-teen-wolf-1235072894/

[Andrew NDB]

Huh. Well there is only one reason Cavill would be at a WB presentation... so there's that.

[Autbot_Benz]

Deadline's Buzz rumor was BS Cavill did not show up at the WB Hall H. WB only showed Shazam and Black Adam for their DC stuff that's it.

[Andrew NDB]

If he doesn't pop up in something there in the next few hours that's that.

[IMJ]

Wow I was really hoping the rumor was true and we were getting MOS 2....

[ZariusTwo]

Meanwhile, it was announced Zack Snyder would be voicing himself in Teen Titans Go:lol:

There's your scraps for the day.

[Andrew NDB]

Wow I was really hoping the rumor was true and we were getting MOS 2....

I'm looking a the schedule for Hall H. Nope, nothing left that could remotely be an opportunity for Cavill to pop in. Or tomorrow, but that's not surprising because nothing happens on Sundays.

Well, there's always those two black Superman projects coming, one by that super racist guy.

[Leo656]

Tsk tsk. People still haven't learned that "hope" is for movies and comic books, not Real Life.

You people still look forward to things. :lol: That's precious.

[Vegita-San]

why? MOS sucked.

[Leo656]

You spelled "Best Superman movie that has or will ever be made" wrong, son.

[Vegita-San]

reeves 1 and 2? agree!

[Andrew NDB]

The only good thing in the Reeves movies is Reeves. That's not enough.

Only bad things in MoS was the way Pa Kent went out and the stupid lesson there and Superman being a little aloof in the destruction of Metropolis. That's it. The rest was gold.

[Vegita-San]

you kids are nuts. :).

What did we get in MOS? A Fortress that hardly got used. no Purpose. Music that starts but never goes anywhere into a theme. a Pa Kent that was a horrible adoptive father, basically just saying to his son, look out for himself. a Superman that really had no reason to save earthlings or want to be among them for that matter. A hero that causes collateral damage willingly to stop the bad guy. including potential lives.

yeah. Not my superman

[Leo656]

Superman II is f*cking dog sh*t. Terence Stamp barely holds it together but even with him in it, it's pretty f*cking unbearable.

The first Reeve movie is "oh-kay" but it only really works if you first see it around age 5. WAY too dated by now, everyone I've ever shown it to as an adult who never saw it before thinks it's just plain dumb. If you don't already like Superman it's not gonna make a mark. It gets more Right than Wrong but it's way too cheesy to hold any weight with anyone who's not a child or already a fan of the character.

MoS actually turned a ton of people who thought Superman was dumb into Superman fans by making him a relatable character with human emotions, something the Reeve movies never bothered to do. He's just Santa Claus With A Cape in those movies. You get a few glimpses of actual depth in them but they immediately walk it back every time.

And that ending to the first movie was always f*cking terrible.


yeah. Not my superman

So go watch cartoons. Movies are for grown-ups.

MoS is the Byrne/Jurgens Superman in live action, no more and no less. Go read those books again and we can revisit this conversation.

[Andrew NDB]

I've said it before but I still mourn what could have been had WB approached things differently. If they'd soldiered on with Green Lantern 2 (learning from their mistakes, of course), made TDKR differently so as to dovetail into a DCEU, Wonder Woman proceeded as planned... what an amazing shared universe that would have been. BvS with Bale and Cavill, man, that'd have been awesome. And Justice League would've felt fully justified and not cart before the horse. Ryan Reynolds' Hal instead of Cryborg.

[Vegita-San]

LMG, The only way they think they can make superman cool is by constantly showing covers with glowing red eyes ? Anyone who does that doesn't understand superman.

Your vaunted cartoons got him right. At the End Of Justice League, Superman goes all out against darkseid. he says how he constantly holds back. constantly afraid he's going to go too far. that he might hurt someone and loose the publics trust. but knows that Darkseid can take it. And then proceeds to beat the **** out of him. THAT is superman.

Lets also not forget when Darkseid kills his cop friend, and you see a very touching moment of him standing besides his grave at sunset. you won't get that in MOS. There is no reason for the public to LOVE that Superman...so the whole friggen thing doesn't work.

[Leo656]

Superman being a little aloof in the destruction of Metropolis.

Considering it's his First Day At Work I can't even really be bothered by this part.

Since so many people have read a million comics, watched a million cartoons and other movies and such, they're so used to seeing Superman be "perfect" and know exactly what to do in every situation. When watching MoS they often ignore or disregard the fact that the guy just sorta walked into this whole scenario and has no idea what he's doing. Which is why he's mostly just reacting vs. acting, the whole time.

But he learns. As reflected in BvS when he immediately tries to take Doomsday into space. He didn't think of that with Zod until they'd already knocked over half of Metropolis, but in BvS he was a year more experienced and had already been in a similar fight once before. So by then he had "tools" he didn't have when he fought Zod.

Year One Superman is always reckless and "aloof", going back to 1938. He always gets more "polished" as he goes along. I was actually shocked - and still am - that anyone even takes points off for things like this.

[Leo656]

There is no reason for the public to LOVE that Superman...so the whole friggen thing doesn't work.

You think "the public" SHOULD have unconditionally bent down to show love of a guy who literally just fell out of the sky and - as shown - has the power to break the world if he felt like it? Why? They know nothing about the guy yet.

WE know Superman is a good guy because we're the audience. "They", the characters in the world of the movie, do not. Until he sacrifices himself to stop Doomsday. That was the entire point. "Gosh, I guess he really WAS a hero; we were burning him in effigy five minutes ago but he still gave his life to save the world." At which point they DID love him.

The entire point of MoS and BvS was how he had to 1. Learn how to Be Superman, and 2. EARN people's trust and support. You don't just throw on a cape, say "HI! I'm here to help!" and have the whole world unconditionally trust and love you. That isn't how sh*t works, man. Maybe it works that way in cartoons and fairy tales. Not in reality.

But again, you keep comparing something that was trying to tell a more realistic story against something made explicitly for little children. Stop that. Preference is preference but it's like you are deliberately missing the entire point of the movies.

That's maybe the WORST thing about the Reeve movies. Guy just shows up and everyone immediately trusts him no questions asked. Even in Part III when he goes "bad" for a bit, he just shows up and says "Awww, I'm sorry!" and everyone shrugs it off. F*cking awful.

Last time someone with "magic powers" showed up on this planet and said "I just wanna help out", we stuck him on a cross. And again, that was the entire metaphor for Clark in MoS/BvS/ZSJL. His entire arc parallels that of Jesus Christ. They kind of go out of their way to beat you over the head with it, actually.

[Vegita-San]

like that one shot of him being pawed at by a giant crowd too afraid to go near a god? Yeah. No thank you.

there's a reason marvel went back to the 'trust your friendly neighborhood spiderman' line. some things are timeless and just work.

[Leo656]

I've said it before but I still mourn what could have been had WB approached things differently. If they'd soldiered on with Green Lantern 2 (learning from their mistakes, of course), made TDKR differently so as to dovetail into a DCEU, Wonder Woman proceeded as planned... what an amazing shared universe that would have been. BvS with Bale and Cavill, man, that'd have been awesome. And Justice League would've felt fully justified and not cart before the horse. Ryan Reynolds' Hal instead of Cryborg.

I would've liked a GL 2 but I can't really get on with the rest of this. Nothing Nolan established would have worked for a DCU with other super-heroes in it. That would've been awful to try and retrofit, and judging by Bale's pitiful performance in Dark Knight Rises, he was already mentally done with being Batman by then anyway. Plus, he flat-out said he was not interested in ever doing a Batman in a movie with other super-heroes. Sure, they could have thrown $30 million at him to sleepwalk through it, but would it have been any good? Nah.

And Cyborg's arc was one of the best things about Snyder's Justice League, you're nuts. I know you hate the actor but let's be objective here. There is nothing that Reynolds cracking jokes would have added that would've been "better" than what we got. Actually, it would have probably made the Green Lantern character look pretty weak considering by rights, he should be able to handle Steppenwolf pretty easily all by himself. Having Hal get slapped around so that Superman could make the save would've been pretty bad. It was acceptable with the roster they had since they're all way weaker characters than Superman, but it would have been very weird seeing Hal (or any GL) be forced to take a knee for even a second.

By the time the League got around to fighting Darkseid in a future movie, by all means stick a Green Lantern in there, he'd be necessary. For Steppenwolf? They would have had to keep coming up with contrived scenarios to take him off the board because he's just too powerful.

[Leo656]

like that one shot of him being pawed at by a giant crowd too afraid to go near a god? Yeah. No thank you.

there's a reason marvel went back to the 'trust your friendly neighborhood spiderman' line. some things are timeless and just work.

I guess you didn't catch in his facial expression how that whole scene made him extremely uncomfortable since he doesn't want to be hero-worshiped? Or how it was a deliberate homage to how in the 90s comics there was a literal "Cult of Superman" that he was none too thrilled with, either?

The narration in the montage immediately after that literally drives home the point that "The people of Earth might see him as a god, but HE doesn't see himself that way and he doesn't want them to either." Again, the entire point of the f*cking scene. They literally have a narrator say out loud, "Maybe he's not some Devil OR Jesus character... maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing?". Which as we The Audience know, IS actually what he is.

The entire point of the montage was to make all of this explicitly clear. Were you taking a leak?

Dude, those movies 100% went over your head.

[Andrew NDB]

It wouldn't be perfect, but the Nolan movies could have served as DCEU pieces if they'd just rejiggered that third movie. It would need to be him rising to the challenge of being Batman on a big scale, not retiring and then re-retiring, of course. But I can easily watch Batman Begins and TDK and then watch MoS and imagine that being the same universe. Maybe not so much if we get into stuff like "but in the 1940s, there used to be the JSA, and WW was seen fighting and flying around WWI!" but enough to make most things work well enough.

As for Bale not wanting to do a 4th or being mentally done, I don't buy it. Even this past month or two he said he'd do a 4th movie if Nolan picked up the phone. I also remember an interview with him after BvS where he said a big part of him is screaming that he wished that was still him in the suit.

Steppenwolf vs. a GL wouldn't be too bad. It would be like when GL fights Mongul or something.

[Leo656]

Eh. Bored Christian Bale doing it for the money isn't any fun to watch. I hear you, I just don't agree. He's my second-favorite Batman but he had his turn.

I do understand his frustration though, since he's also said he felt like he never got to go deep enough into the character and I agree with him. They got off to a great start with him, but even by the second movie they were already f*cking it up and forgetting who Bruce was. They spent the entire first movie establishing that "He has to be Batman because the system is too corrupt to function as it should", and then in the second one he meets Harvey Dent and IMMEDIATELY starts thinking "Oh, yeah, this guy's cool, maybe I don't need to be Batman anymore." :roll: And then he got sidelined for huge chunks of the movie once Nolan started finding Ledger's Joker more interesting. And the less said about the third movie, the better.

So I agree with Bale that he was kind of robbed of the chance to go deep into Bruce's character, but maybe he should have raised his voice more during the filming of Dark Knight, or definitely during the third one. But again, I get the feeling by the third one he just wanted to be done. He looks SO bored in that one, like "Let's just get done and go home."

I don't doubt that it tortures him, but again, hindsight is 20/20 and he had his chance to speak up. I wish he would have, maybe the third movie wouldn't be so "ugh."


Steppenwolf vs. a GL wouldn't be too bad. It would be like when GL fights Mongul or something.

At least Mongul is yellow. Why would he struggle against Steppenwolf?

I love the Green Lantern character but I admit that his stories are often contrived because he SHOULD be one of the strongest and most unbeatable characters there is, yet he always struggles against guys that should be no sweat for him Because Plot. You have a ring that reacts to your thoughts; just make a thicker force field or a bigger gun, or something.

It's like Gardner is the only Lantern with the imagination and willpower to actually use the damn ring properly.

[Cowabung-Gal]

Meanwhile, it was announced Zack Snyder would be voicing himself in Teen Titans Go:lol:

There's your scraps for the day.

He must be a masochist then.

[Vegita-San]

Dude, those movies 100% went over your head.

or you just like the dark, bleak, less humanity, look that DC is going for here.

The whole reason they see him as a god is because he was brought up beilving in 'you don't owe humanity anything'. and basically turned his back on them. He only helps out when he absolutely has too. otherwise he's more into climbing into a tub with lois (and who can blame him?)

The first reeves movie you have jorel saying ' they are a good people, my son'. setting it up for WHY he wants to be a hero in the first place. there is none of that here. Or they stepped over it quickly just to go with the cool, dark, brooding look to make every hero a batman.

Again, in your vaunted cartoons... Shazam versus Superman. Shazam quits the justice league because he thinks that superman was a boyscout like him. Superman admits this is not the case. he has emotions just like everyone else. and even the other hero's are shocked with 'I thought YOU where the boyscout!' and he goes something like 'not by a long shot'.

You CAN be a 'goody too shoes' without being all dark, moody and depressing.

bet you think B:TAS batman is weak for taking the time to save the criminals, even if he agrees with their vengeance tactics most of the time (he doesn't help mr.freeze's enemy get un frozen, for instance.). we don't see that code of justice anymore.

I await your 'Jane, you ignorant slut' reply ;o)

[Leo656]

You're projecting what YOU somehow saw rather than seeing what the movies were trying to say. Because you seemingly went into them comparing them to childrens' cartoons.

You're definitely not the only one who did that, I see an unfortunate number of people who did the same thing, but it's definitely not the right way to approach this set of movies.

I mean, you clearly got hung up on certain things and ended up taking the opposite of their intent. For example, the line Martha gives him about "You don't owe this world a thing", and how Clark makes a face like, "...Well, that's nice of you to say but I don't really agree with that at all." Or how in the first one Lois points out that he simply doesn't have it in him to NOT help people, which is an accurate assessment he doesn't even try to argue with her about, he silently concedes that she's spot-on. Or how the entire conflict he goes through in BvS is how he wants/needs to keep being Superman despite the fact everyone keeps telling him to go away. He can't, he doesn't have it in him to look the other way.

The entire Clark Kent plot of BvS went over your head. "I just want to help. Why are they making this difficult? Should I even bother trying to help, if they don't want me to?" And then he ultimately decides "Yes, duh, of course I should." But I mean, that's why it's an "arc" and not a straight line.

The more you talk about it the more obvious it gets that you went into it with your fists up ready to hate it and - surprise - hated it. But I mean, to misunderstand the entire point of it all... that's pretty baffling. Like, pretty much every message the movies tried to convey, you took the opposite from. Somehow.

I mean, "He only gets involved when he has to"... I don't even know where you come up with that much. He never "turned his back on anyone", he went up a mountain to think for a minute and came right back, which he does ALL the time in the comics so I don't see why this is even any issue. The movies simply don't illustrate the things you're saying at all. If we're gonna start just plain making things up to support our opinion then there's really no point in even having the conversation.

What I'm getting is, you want him to be portrayed "perfect" the way he is in the cartoons and the Reeve movies. Well, that isn't the character in general, and in fact, it's a huge reason so many people hate the Superman character. "He's too perfect, who cares what he does?" To show him in a more down-to-earth light and struggling with his role was the entire point of the exercise. If you don't like it, that's fine, but to say its "wrong" is just myopic.

It makes even less sense why he'd be all polished and perfect when he's been "Superman" for figuratively 5 minutes in these movies. The entire point of them was that he's NOT perfect. To deliberately miss or ignore that point says more about the viewer than it does the movies.

You are aware that quite a few Superman stories do exist about how hard his job is, right? Just because that's the first time they bothered to tell that storyline in a movie rather than a comic book doesn't mean they "got it wrong". I'd argue it's the first time they got it right, quite frankly. All I ever hear anyone say is, "Superman sucks, he's so perfect, he never struggles, nothing hurts him, who cares?" And those people are wrong, too. But it's not surprising to me at all that most of the people who've always looked at the character that way, liked MoS and BvS for actually showing the character deal with sh*t in a human and realistic way. "Wow, I could actually relate to him for a change." Aren't we supposed to be able to relate to a character? Aren't "characters" supposed to be "characters" and not cardboard cutouts?

Like, how is a story about an outcast who finds his ultimate place in the world after a lifetime of searching "bleak"? How is a guy with ultimate power who chooses to be humanity's protector instead of its god-king illustrating a "no humanity" point of view? These movies are saying the polar OPPOSITE of what you took from them.

Whether it was on purpose or accidental, You Missed The Entire Point. When a movie goes out of its way to say "The Sky Is Blue", and the person watching it says, "This movie says the sky is pink!", that's gotta be on the person watching it. I mean, it happens, but still.

[Vegita-San]

he destroyed half their city. no wonder they don't want his help. even reeves superman is always about protecting the people first. that's what was never set up properly in this movie. and makes no sense on why he would want to help anyone at all, other than 'it's him'.

honestly, that's how I take it from your point of view. you hate the lighter stuff where he actually acts human. this stuff, all dark and grey is more up your alley.

and that's fine. but it's not superman. even the 'darker' original comics where more brightly colored.

Go watch justice league and his arc there. that is superman. he's not a goody too shoes.. An alternate version of him actually killed lex luthor and said it felt great, scaring the **** out of oru superman because he knows he has it in him. that is good writing. what I saw in MOS wasn't.

I never saw him finding his place. all I remember is a public not trusting him, or doing the other half of worshiping him as a non entity god in a creepy way.

Maybe I should re watch this thing tonight. see if it's aged better, but I doubt it.

[Leo656]

It's not at all about "hating the lighter stuff", that's simply more projection.

Honest question: Do you read Superman comics, or is it just cartoons? Because it really keeps sounding like your whole deal is that movies based specifically on the comics have more in common with the comics than the cartoons or Reeve movies.

I'd have more to say but my wife wants to start a war so I gotta go.

[Vegita-San]

I started from the beginning. The Books from the 40's that where collected in chronicles. At least the first 4 volumes of WW, Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. They got harder to find and I think they stopped altogether.

I picked up a few modern stuff. the Killing Joke. Some other stuff that was recomened. 90's stuff wasn't bad.

Not so sure about the New 52 crap though. Superman #1 didn't hold my interest. kept up with Supergirl a bit just to see how it got, never finished it. picked up super woman #1. and that one where lex becomes the man of steel. jst kind of 'eh'.

and then I see stuff like this, and think, maybe it's a good thing I don't read them.
https://scontent.fewr1-6.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/293787959_10159742297190211_6717198223627299246_n. jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=eXrO8iTbBS0AX-IZG_u&_nc_ht=scontent.fewr1-6.fna&oh=00_AT9A_7f-ll3-V-LyXGh6w9GxJRrZBc5QPS4fhpq6ogQRSg&oe=62E1D3D0

[Leo656]

Well I specifically meant the Byrne/Jurgens 80s/90s Superman run since that's what the movies were borrowing from mostly. That's what I was asking about.

She's still pitching a fit but I just wanted to clarify that. If I get a chance I'll try and revisit this later but she's being a real pill so no promises.

[Vegita-San]

looking up some of the images, I would have to say no... some of this stuff looks pretty stupid.

https://doomrocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cyborg_Superman_003.jpg

[Andrew NDB]

Those were some of the most exciting times in comics, and by far.

[MikeandRaph87]

It was a swerve that Mongul was carrying out the orders of Cyborg Superman opposed to the opposite way around. I still don't get the reason Coast City was targeted though.

[Leo656]

I still don't get the reason Coast City was targeted though.

Just synergy, really. No other "important" characters were living there and they were gonna shake up Green Lantern in a few months, so it all worked out pretty smooth.

Here's some Inside Info you may not be privy to: Whenever DC does an "event", they pull out a list of characters and cities that are "expendable", in case they wanna kill someone for dramatic effect or knock some sh*t over. For example, Nightwing is ALWAYS on the "Can be Killed" list, as is Guy Gardner, and so on. They don't always actually kill them, but certain people and places are eternally on the block. I forget who blew the whistle on this some years ago, maybe it was Alan Moore, I don't know. But yeah, DC has a "kill list" and in that specific case it was Coast City's number that came up. If they weren't doing the Green Lantern shake-up that same year, who knows which one would've gotten blown up?
----------------

So okay, Vegita, your perspective makes a lot more sense now. And I've pointed this out to a lot of people before: Snyder's movies borrowed most heavily from the Superman comics that ran from 1986 and onward, which are quite a bit different from older comics and the Reeve movies... the Justice League cartoon borrowed a lot from those same 80s and 90s comics BUT they also lightened it up a lot because it was for children.

In the 80s and 90s comics, Superman wasn't - and isn't - universally beloved by everyone, definitely not when he first shows up. He's always very controversial and whenever he slips up there's no shortage of people screaming "This guy does more harm than good, F*CK 'em." Which is what we see in the movies. This was nothing new, since even in the 30s and 40s he was a "rogue" and the cops would be shooting at him and trying to arrest him and whatnot. But yeah, in 1986 it was a bit of a left turn because for years upon years we had "Boy Scout" Superman. Suddenly, from 1986 and onward, he was a much more introspective character, always grappling with the existential dilemma of whether he was doing Too Much or Not Enough. That's the main thread that Snyder's movies chose to focus on: "If you're the most powerful person in the world, how is that going to affect you REALLY? Especially when nobody can collectively decide if you're a Hero or a Menace?" And we see that theme played with over and over again in the films.

Now, if that theme or storyline does not interest you that's entirely your prerogative. But a person can't claim that a filmmaker is "doing it wrong" by simply adapting Page to Screen. It turns out that Snyder simply chose to lean on source material that you haven't read and don't seem to care much about.

That much is understandable. But can you not see how people who LOVE those comics, that specific era and interpretation of the character, would be thrilled to see what THEY recognize be put to film? You gotta try and meet people halfway sometimes, man. There are MANY different iterations of the Superman character and everyone has "their version". And every time a different version gets a spotlight, someone else's preferred take has to take a knee. But there isn't one single version of the character that pleases everyone. That's why every single Superman movie, TV show, and comic book is so "controversial". Because everyone thinks their Superman is "Right" but that ignores the fact that some of the interpretations of the character have almost nothing in common.

Me, I like it when people do the books. Nobody ever does that, especially not with Superman. If a person doesn't read the books, I can see why they wouldn't care. But I mean, if someone wants to say those movies are "bad" because they used a 1990s template instead of a 1950s template, that to me is a bit silly. They're not "bad", you just didn't like them. They succeeded masterfully at what they were actually trying to do, though.

For context's sake, let's reframe it as an Adam West Batman fan arguing with a Michael Keaton Batman fan. The Adam West fan goes, "That Batman movie was terrible! That's not who Batman is! I watched that show back in the 60s and I loved it! I KNOW who Batman is! F*ck Keaton, that is Not My Batman."

Wouldn't that honestly be kinda silly? Wouldn't we roll our eyes at the Adam West Batman Fan for making that case? And wouldn't we say, "DUDE, it's just a different version of the character based on more modern source material, chill the f*ck out"? I know I would.

Because for some reason, with Batman, we collectively accept that there's a hundred disparate versions that have pretty drastic differences between them, and that it's all its own level of "valid". That's how a show like Batman: TAS can come out and people can say, "Oh, well that's great." And then the Brave and the Bold cartoon comes out, is totally different, and it's like "OH, hey, this is ALSO great from a totally different direction!"

For some reason, with Superman, people don't seem able to accept all of that so easily. Even though there's arguably been even MORE different takes on Superman than there have been on Batman, so one would think it'd be clear that they're not going to have the same approach every time.

But I get it. You have Your Version and the movies didn't give you Your Version, they borrowed heavily from comics you have no attachment to. That's fine. But let's just be real, the fact that they didn't serve you what YOU wanted in no way makes them "bad" or "misguided", any more than "Brave and the Bold" was a "bad" cartoon just because it wasn't the Batman cartoon *I* wanted. Just another take, completely valid from another direction.

I'd certainly never ask you to watch the movies again, but what I will say is that it's never a good idea to try and hold something up against something it's not even trying to be, and saying This Is Right and This Is Wrong. What you've basically been doing with Superman, metaphorically, is comparing Keaton Batman to Adam West Batman and saying "It should've been like THIS", when the people making either of those things were using entirely different approaches, and both of their approaches were valid in their respective time and place.

[MikeandRaph87]

I know that each time a company-wide event takes place that there is a kill list though I have not put much thought into it. I believe it was extra material in Crisis on Infinite Earths that Wolfman shared a sample of one that included the likes of Mr. Freeze and Mr. Mxyzptlk.A list that Jeanette Kahn created and had in bold Flash (Barry Allen) since it was decided the title would be canceled. I know Marv was able to add Linda Danvers after explaining the need of making Superman the only survivor in any way of Krypton. However, he disagreed about Bland Barry believing it was self-inflicted (Bates) and could be corrected so he created the loophole that would later be exploited. Other than that I know that a master list was created for Infinite Crisis by Dan Didio and Paul Levitz reviewed it. Shuster's heirs were giving DC grief so they removed the Superboy clone from the board after Levitz overrode Didio on Dick Grayson.


I don't know about locations, but I can see where if it was set in stone that Green Lantern was going to be shaken up from lead character it was opportune to use the location as forfeit and drive a plot. I suppose it was similar with Bludhaven.If Dick Grayson was on the chopping block and Bludhaven had no further purpose it was expendable. At the very least it would allow Dick Grayson to change locations.


What are your thoughts on Superman as presented in Batman/Superman: World's Finest?

[Vegita-San]

i like both Adam and Keaton batman. BOTH where good movies. However, Batman returns was a HORRIBLE movie....as was Batman and Robin, while they mostly had the same type of stlye, or a different take on the style. Where as Batman, and Batman Forever are considered good to decent.

Too me, Superman MOS and to throw it in there, Superman Returns, where just horrible movies. They did not get the character of superman right. In Returns, he's not a creepy stalker that's only happy when he gets what he wants. That's not a core aspect of the character 98% of the public has ever seen before. and it's not what they expect.

Returns suffers from the same problem MOS has. they don't understand the character. or if they did, they didn't telescope it clearly enough that people understood it. There are ways to set up that he's learning how to do the job, and make it part of the plot, without it seemingly making him un caring or careless about the general population.

MOS didn't do that IMHO, all thanks to his terrible upbringing by pa kent INO.

[Vegita-San]

and arguably, I think that whole 'destroying the city' thing was there JUST to give reason for batman to see him as an enemy to take down. in a fight that didn't need to happen.

Worlds Finest in TAS did a far better job of showing how they meet, distrust each other, find out each others secret identities within seconds, and the feud goes on from there.

[Coola Yagami]

and arguably, I think that whole 'destroying the city' thing was there JUST to give reason for batman to see him as an enemy to take down. in a fight that didn't need to happen.

Worlds Finest in TAS did a far better job of showing how they meet, distrust each other, find out each others secret identities within seconds, and the feud goes on from there.

True but BVS wasn't even a concept when they destroyed the city in MoS.

[AquaParade]

For context's sake, let's reframe it as an Adam West Batman fan arguing with a Michael Keaton Batman fan. The Adam West fan goes, "That Batman movie was terrible! That's not who Batman is! I watched that show back in the 60s and I loved it! I KNOW who Batman is! F*ck Keaton, that is Not My Batman."

Wouldn't that honestly be kinda silly? Wouldn't we roll our eyes at the Adam West Batman Fan for making that case? And wouldn't we say, "DUDE, it's just a different version of the character based on more modern source material, chill the f*ck out"? I know I would.

Because for some reason, with Batman, we collectively accept that there's a hundred disparate versions that have pretty drastic differences between them, and that it's all its own level of "valid". That's how a show like Batman: TAS can come out and people can say, "Oh, well that's great." And then the Brave and the Bold cartoon comes out, is totally different, and it's like "OH, hey, this is ALSO great from a totally different direction!"

For some reason, with Superman, people don't seem able to accept all of that so easily. Even though there's arguably been even MORE different takes on Superman than there have been on Batman, so one would think it'd be clear that they're not going to have the same approach every time.


What’s the difference between this and you being upset that the version of Riddler that Reeve’s went with attempts
Murder, just as many other versions of The Riddler do?

You claimed that the version of Riddler you know hates the idea of
Killing, and that The Batman film was flawed for featuring one that was willing to kill. Which is rooted in the comics, mind you. The Riddler tried to murder in his very first appearance, and many time’s thereafter.

You’re right about Batman in general - we do tend to accept the different versions.
Except you don’t. This is the same exact argument I have used against you in the Batman thread over countless differences you pointed out between the movies and the comics.

You were also upset about them casting white characters as black, which Snyder also does in Man or Steel. You said this was only done as stunt-casting, and that the character don’t resemble how they looked in the comics or something. But this would apply just the same to Clark’s boss. Or the way they treated Clark’s buddy Jimmy, really. That’s a stunt a move, if anything (“let’s make this random slaughtered journo Jimmy Olsen! Lol”)

Mind you I agree with everything you said above, it’s just that you could copy/paste it from my posts in the Batman thread, in response to complaints you had about the movie veering from source material, or even just generally accepted source material, by your account.



But yeah, Man of Steel is awesome. I’d love a sequel someday, and I’d love for Snyder to do it. Looking less and less likely but at the same time it seems silly to imagine Cavill never playing the role again. Monkey’s Paw scenario is that we see him do some Tobey Maguire-Spidey stuff in a Final Crisis film, 12 years from now.

[Coola Yagami]

So Cavill never showed up at the con after all?

[Leo656]

So Cavill never showed up at the con after all?

He's reportedly in England shooting The Witcher. The "rumor" was never more than wishful thinking to begin with.

[AquaParade]

I like BvS but the writing is extremely shaky.

Especially the fact that Superman and Batman can’t have a discussion after cringe-Lex blackmails Superman.

Plus, the more time goes on, the less I appreciate Batfleck as Batman. I don’t feel like he actually brought anything to the table other than a dull quiet rage.

[Andrew NDB]

And yes. You guys better remember this the next time you're going to say, "But Deadline said it!"

I like BvS but the writing is extremely shaky.

Especially the fact that Superman and Batman can’t have a discussion after cringe-Lex blackmails Superman.

Plus, the more time goes on, the less I appreciate Batfleck as Batman. I don’t feel like he actually brought anything to the table other than a dull quiet rage.

1. There should have been at least one Batfleck movie first. Period.

2. The Jesse Eisenberg experiment was a failure. A neat thought but a failure.

3. Doomsday? Now, like this? Hahahahahahaha. Should have just been some version of Bizarro if anything.

4. Murderous Batman. Nope.

The rest, I enjoyed. Some great moments, just too much too soon.

[AquaParade]

And yes. You guys better remember this the next time you're going to say, "But Deadline said it!"



1. There should have been at least one Batfleck movie first. Period.

2. The Jesse Eisenberg experiment was a failure. A neat thought but a failure.

3. Doomsday? Now, like this? Hahahahahahaha. Should have just been some version of Bizarro if anything.

4. Murderous Batman. Nope.

The rest, I enjoyed. Some great moments, just too much too soon.

Yeah, I agree with all this.

I’m not as hell bent against Batman murdering. I can get behind either take on the character, it just depends how it’s framed. Here it felt a bit overzealous, but it fit into the world they created, so I didn’t mind too much.

[MikeandRaph87]

And yes. You guys better remember this the next time you're going to say, "But Deadline said it!"



1. There should have been at least one Batfleck movie first. Period.

2. The Jesse Eisenberg experiment was a failure. A neat thought but a failure.

3. Doomsday? Now, like this? Hahahahahahaha. Should have just been some version of Bizarro if anything.

4. Murderous Batman. Nope.

The rest, I enjoyed. Some great moments, just too much too soon.

Agreed but add Superman using the kryptonite spear was stupid in-story. Wonder Woman is the warrior who weilds such weapons and can hold her own.

Making Zod into Doomsday was uninspiring. Bizarro would have been more interesting.

[NightwingBegins]

Batman returns was a HORRIBLE movie...

Mental note: Take his opinions with a grain of salt. Especially with blasphemy of those proportions.

[MikeandRaph87]

I like your name as I go by Robin4084 elsewhere, however I happen to agree with him. There is only one Batman movie I plain out dislike and don't have a copy of, Batman Returns. It is trying to be so hard to be dark that its campy in hindsight. It is more of a Burton film and less a Batman film. Returns is bad one way while Batman & Robin is too far the other way. The difference for me is my love of the characters used in Batman & Robin.

[AquaParade]

Believe it or not, I found The Batman possibly more jarring in the way it portrayed Batman’s carelessness around human life.

I really like The Batman, but during that highway scene, he seems to be at least the partial cause of some potential civilian casualty.

And while I can buy into a reckless Batman, who gets overzealous and makes mistakes, it felt a little awkward because the script didn’t really seem to acknowledge it.
Unless I missed something, which is possible.

Overall, I think The Batman had a much better script, but I found that part jarring and I’m still trying to digest it.

Or I’m overthinking it and Pattinson is just young and reckless. I guess that’s fine too.

In BvS, at least the message was clear, I guess? That said, my favorite rendition of Batman isn’t necessarily one that has gone over the edge and lost sight of “the mission”. Especially in his first appearance.

[Sumac]

Snyder might have wanted to explore deeper themes in relation to Superman and his powers, but his lack of maturity, doomed everything to look like an edgy fanfic.

However, Batman returns was a HORRIBLE movie....as was Batman and Robin, while they mostly had the same type of stlye, or a different take on the style. Where as Batman, and Batman Forever are considered good to decent.
Batman Returns is mores style over substance, or as I like to say: "more Burton, than Batman", but that's OK by me, since I love this style and I feel Burton nailed what Batman universe should be like: real enough to believe it, but surreal enough, so guy who dresses as a bat doesn't look out of place. A problem Nolan movies have, in my eyes. Because of this, I can forgive lack of deep storyline, especially, when actors go all out on their characters in a good way.

Batman Forever is, IMO, worse than Batman & Robin, since it stuck between Burton vision and Schumacher vision. Child of two cooks, belonging to neither. They also turned Two-Face into Joker 2.0, which was a waste of a character.

[Vegita-San]

Batman Forever is, IMO, worse than Batman & Robin, since it stuck between Burton vision and Schumacher vision. Child of two cooks, belonging to neither. They also turned Two-Face into Joker 2.0, which was a waste of a character.

yeah, that's true. there are some great moments in both movies. but ALOT of bad stuff in between. Barbra and Alfreds relationship in 4, for example. Robin's desire for revenge in 3.

Poison Ivey and Bane I remember being wasted to the point of 'why?' and Harvey was too much like The Riddler, who BOTH where basically Joker 2.0. They acted so twin like.

[Andrew NDB]

Batman Returns is fine if you don't mind it not really being about Batman or Bruce Wayne without any sort of arc for either. Such a rich atmosphere, though. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin really aren't worth talking about.

[Vegita-San]

Mental note: Take his opinions with a grain of salt. Especially with blasphemy of those proportions.

mental note, new poster on ignore, fastest ever ;o).

[Vegita-San]

Batman Returns is fine if you don't mind it not really being about Batman or Bruce Wayne without any sort of arc for either.

not really. Zombie Catwoman? A Penguin that might as WELL be a Mutant Penguin who literally eats raw fish? A Guy who gets electrified so much you see his skeleton?

yeah, no thanks. that's why I was so shocked by the B:TAS portrayal of The Penguin. Seemed MUCH more believable that he was a wealthy owner of businesses and had a sweet tooth for things aquatic.

[Andrew NDB]

not really. Zombie Catwoman? A Penguin that might as WELL be a Mutant Penguin who literally eats raw fish? A Guy who gets electrified so much you see his skeleton?

I saw Batman Returns when I was like 10. I didn't know or care about what Catwoman or Penguin was like in the comics at the time. I mean, the 60s show was on TV all the time, so I was gratified Catwoman and the Penguin weren't like that, but that's all.

Believe it or not, I found The Batman possibly more jarring in the way it portrayed Batman’s carelessness around human life.

I really like The Batman, but during that highway scene, he seems to be at least the partial cause of some potential civilian casualty.

Was he smashing people to death intentionally with other cars on top of them while openly machine-gunning multiple people to death in the Batmobile? Because he was, in BvS.

I liked Nolan's idea for Batman's general no killing policy. "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you." Simple.

[Vegita-San]

I saw Batman Returns when I was like 10. I didn't know or care about what Catwoman or Penguin was like in the comics at the time. I mean, the 60s show was on TV all the time, so I was gratified Catwoman and the Penguin weren't like that, but that's all.


I liked Nolan's idea for Batman's general no killing policy. "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you." Simple.

that's basically what they did, but instead of him waddling and going 'wa wa wa'...they went EXTREME into the penguin myth, making him have deformities, shaped like a penguin, eating like one, talking to 'em. Catwoman they just went totally off the rails with.

And I do agree about nolan's line there. simple and perfect, and solves the problem of villains getting out of jail and doing the same thing over again.

[AquaParade]

Batman Returns is mores style over substance, or as I like to say: "more Burton, than Batman", but that's OK by me, since I love this style and I feel Burton nailed what Batman universe should be like: real enough to believe it, but surreal enough, so guy who dresses as a bat doesn't look out of place. A problem Nolan movies have, in my eyes. Because of this, I can forgive lack of deep storyline, especially, when actors go all out on their characters in a good way.


I agree with this. I always want to like Batman Returns, because of the style, but end up bored with the story when I watch it. I just love the look of the costumes, the gothic tone of Gotham, the winter setting. It's all so cool looking.

I can understand that complaint with the Nolan movies, but it doesn't break immersion for me, personally. The Dark Knight is still my favorite Batman movie. Not a huge fan of Begins though.
I probably like Rises more than most.



Was he smashing people to death intentionally with other cars on top of them while openly machine-gunning multiple people to death in the Batmobile? Because he was, in BvS.

I liked Nolan's idea for Batman's general no killing policy. "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you." Simple.

No, it's only Batman's fault for pursuing the Penguin, which is arguably a risk worth taking, but that's up in the air when you're already dealing with a vigilante.

So, yeah, Snyder's Batman is on a different level, for sure. And I don't love that direction for Batman....but it's baked into the script and I appreciate that.

When I see it in The Batman, I'm not exactly sure how to feel. Does he care that he helped cause that wreck? I don't really know. I'm not sure it's the best thing to be that ambiguous about. Still, I love The Batman, so it's not a huge deal for me.

Nolan often gets criticized for that line, because people feel like it's splitting hairs. I don't really feel one way or another about it. I'm fine with it.

For me this all just boils down to the fact that there is more than one way to do Batman.

Lately, I'm really into the idea of a Batman who doesn't want to kill. I'm fascinated by the idea that Batman's arch nemesis is death, itself. However abstract or not that may be, I like that being the engine that drives him, the thing he fights against, and the thing he fears.

[Leo656]

I loved Batman Returns in theaters and on VHS as a kid. As an adult, it depends on my mood but definitely Love/Hate. Some days I REALLY don't like it. It's very disjointed and things just kind of happen with no rhyme or reason. Why is it so easy to just hack the Batmobile and stick a bomb in it? Why is this Batman SMILING while he kills people? It's a fun two hours but it's less a "movie" than a bunch of scenes of Weird People Doing Weird Sh*t sort of stitched together. If I had to nail down how I feel, I'd say it's a terrible "Batman Movie" but a fun little "Tim Burton Movie With Batman In It." If that makes sense.

Robin's arc in "Forever" would have been a bit better if Bruce didn't just end up killing Harvey anyway. All that "You can't give in to vengeance" stuff and then it's like, "...I mean *I* can kill whoever I want, but you gotta take a knee, kid." Weird stuff.

It's just weird how for all his "One Rule" preaching in Nolan's trilogy, Bale's Batman easily has the highest body count thanks to the fire at the League compound. I ain't letting that sh*t go. To prove a point about not wanting to kill ONE person... He killed EVERYONE. "By accident". I love the movie but that was... Something. How nobody caught it in editing is beyond me. I guess you could assume they all scattered but I am not so naive as to buy it.

[AquaParade]

The difference is that Bruce didn’t execute any of them, per say. He assumed they are well trained ninja and can escape a burning building, should they choose to escape rather than engage him.

That’s different than slicing someone’s head off, while they are helpless.

At least, that’s what I assume the script is banking on.

[Andrew NDB]

The difference is that Bruce didn’t execute any of them, per say. He assumed they are well trained ninja and can escape a burning building, should they choose to escape rather than engage him.

That’s different than slicing someone’s head off, while they are helpless.

At least, that’s what I assume the script is banking on.

Yeah, I never thought any of them died there. Maybe one or two. And maybe that guy who they wanted him to execute, ironically.

[AquaParade]

Yeah, I never thought any of them died there. Maybe one or two. And maybe that guy who they wanted him to execute, ironically.

Oh yeah, I forgot about him lol. Maybe Bruce did too. I guess the idea is that he hop-scotched away.

[Andrew NDB]

Oh yeah, I forgot about him lol. Maybe Bruce did too. I guess the idea is that he hop-scotched away.

I think it can be broken up pretty well, logically:

First situation: Kill this thief. He refuses to do so because he won't take a life. The situation is over.

Second situation: They're all going to kill him since he wouldn't take that life. The best he can do to survive is ignite the black powder and hope he could cobble together some kind of getaway in the chaos. He did. Not igniting the black powder would just be suicide, and then presumably the ninjas would kill the thief anyway because his sentence was already decided by them. At least by igniting the black powder the thief would have some kind of chance of getting away, even if unlikely.

He couldn't have been expected to come up with a solution to the second situation that would also guarantee the thief's life, or any/all of the ninjas on the fly like that. For one, he wasn't even close to even being Batman yet and didn't have any gadgets or grappler or anything.

[AquaParade]

True.

Plus I think it's more about defining his principles than showing he can save every life possible. Maybe that guy was screwed no matter what and he understood that.

On the other hand, anyone from The League dying is slightly different, seeing as they are planning to execute Gotham. They've admitted they are going to kill in the future.

[Sumac]

not really. Zombie Catwoman? A Penguin that might as WELL be a Mutant Penguin who literally eats raw fish? A Guy who gets electrified so much you see his skeleton?

yeah, no thanks. that's why I was so shocked by the B:TAS portrayal of The Penguin. Seemed MUCH more believable that he was a wealthy owner of businesses and had a sweet tooth for things aquatic.
I don't see it any more absurd than a guy who bathed in chemicals and ended up looking like a clown. Or a guy whose body / face ended being scarred exactly 50/50. Or a guy who turned into a clay monster. Or a woman who turned into half-human half-plant.

Batman villains were always absurd and in that regard Batman Returns take on Catwoman and Penguin are pretty par for the course for Batman stories. Its just they have nothing to do with how those characters are in comic books. Like Penguin is basically has Killer Croc story.

I can understand that complaint with the Nolan movies, but it doesn't break immersion for me, personally. The Dark Knight is still my favorite Batman movie. Not a huge fan of Begins though.
I probably like Rises more than most.
It does for me, though, since Nolan goes so hard into realism, that guy in a batsuit looks incredibly out of place in that world. Like he would be in ours.

[Vegita-San]

Batman villains were always absurd and in that regard Batman Returns take on Catwoman and Penguin are pretty par for the course for Batman stories.

It does for me, though, since Nolan goes so hard into realism, that guy in a batsuit looks incredibly out of place in that world. Like he would be in ours.

except it goes a bit too far in the other direction. now you're entering almost horror category. and this was never part of their origin before. IT's like Batman Returns is the Rise of TMNT version of batman.

And yeah. Realism in Batman is OK to a point. No super powered villains for him to take on makes the bat costume stand out alot more. maybe that was the point?

[MikeandRaph87]

except it goes a bit too far in the other direction. now you're entering almost horror category. and this was never part of their origin before. IT's like Batman Returns is the Rise of TMNT version of batman.

And yeah. Realism in Batman is OK to a point. No super powered villains for him to take on makes the bat costume stand out alot more. maybe that was the point?

That is why I want a do-over for Ra's al Ghul. He needs the immortal eco-terrorist angle to embrace the hero in his own mind concept.

[Sumac]

except it goes a bit too far in the other direction. now you're entering almost horror category. and this was never part of their origin before. IT's like Batman Returns is the Rise of TMNT version of batman.
I am not really sure, what origin has to do with anything.

The problem is not their origin, but how they are portrayed in general, which I have admitted is not like they are on (most) comic books. Also, if anything horror is quite fitting genre for Batman, since his roots in pulp fiction, which consisted out of detectives and horrors.

Rise of TMNT is more like drug induced version of Turtles and, if anything, it is more similar to the Schumacher's take on Batman movies. Cartoonish acid trip galore everywhere. So I am have no ****ing clue why Burton's Batman compared to Rise in your head.

And yeah. Realism in Batman is OK to a point. No super powered villains for him to take on makes the bat costume stand out alot more. maybe that was the point?
Until you remember that quite a lot of Batman villains has either superpowers or gimmicks imitating them.

I am not saying Nolan's take was bad, just that it was not for me.

[Andrew NDB]

And then there's Reeves' take. Yikes. That's not down to earth, that's like below the earth. Underground somewhere.

[Cowabung-Gal]

Rise of TMNT is more like drug induced version of Turtles and, if anything, it is more similar to the Schumacher's take on Batman movies.

Thank goodness the turtles didn’t have nipples on their plastrons.

[Leo656]

That is why I want a do-over for Ra's al Ghul. He needs the immortal eco-terrorist angle to embrace the hero in his own mind concept.

See, I felt like Ra's in "Batman Begins" was 99% perfect with this being the only part missing. It was sort of implied in a sense through his speeches about wanting to "restore balance" and all that, but in the movie as-presented it was strictly through "punishing evil and injustice".

But add just a couple lines of dialogue about "Oh, yeah, and these bad people are also poisoning the Earth, too," and then you're all the way there.

I was hoping they'd do something with the Lazarus Pit, like I half-hoped that in "Rises" they'd have him come back that way. But I wasn't counting on it, since if Bane can't have Venom then Ra's probably can't be thousands of years old via Magic Spring Water either.

[AquaParade]

And then there's Reeves' take. Yikes. That's not down to earth, that's like below the earth. Underground somewhere.

Pretty much the same ask as Nolan films imo.

The "venom juice" stood out as the most fantastical aspect of Reeve's Batman, but that's still pretty grounded.

Nolan doesn't ask much either though. Unless I'm forgetting stuff.

[Andrew NDB]

Pretty much the same ask as Nolan films imo.

Yeah, right.

Nolan? Air glider cape fabric that gets stiff with electricity. Reeves? $299 squirrel suit from Amazon. Nolan? Tumbler with jumping springs, can convert and deploy a Bat Pod motorcycle. Also "The Bat" harrier-style plane. Reeves? A normal muscle car and that's it. Nolan? High tech military armor customized. Reeves? Some army surplus outfit with normal boots.

And on and on and on.

The "venom juice" stood out as the most fantastical aspect of Reeve's Batman, but that's still pretty grounded.

What venom juice?

[AquaParade]

Yeah, right.

Nolan? Air glider cape fabric that gets stiff with electricity. Reeves? $299 squirrel suit from Amazon. Nolan? Tumbler with jumping springs, can convert and deploy a Bat Pod motorcycle. Also "The Bat" harrier-style plane. Reeves? A normal muscle car and that's it. Nolan? High tech military armor customized. Reeves? Some army surplus outfit with normal boots.

And on and on and on.



What venom juice?

Those are some good points. It's all within the same realm of possibility, but I guess Reeves is more "down and dirty". It really just seems like he has access to cheaper ****, but the world seems just as "grounded", to me.

I see what you mean though and I don't fully disagree.

The juice I'm referring to is the stuff Batman injected himself with before beating the crap out of Riddler's thug. I suppose it's just an exaggerated form of PCP. as far as we know, but there ya go.

[Andrew NDB]

The juice I'm referring to is the stuff Batman injected himself with before beating the crap out of Riddler's thug. I suppose it's just an exaggerated form of PCP. as far as we know, but there ya go.

Oh, I didn't even notice that or forgot about it already. Some kind of adrenaline or speed cocktail I guess.

[Andrew NDB]

What's going on here?

https://i.ibb.co/mh0HgNW/296745955-10160377696130719-3729227874872700375-n.jpg

Also... eh, is Zack OK? Like, health-wise?

[AquaParade]

He’s trolling his own fan base, so who knows.

That SDCC tweet was a bit weird.

[Sumac]

They just should focus on making good standalone movies. Maybe with cameos from other characters.

But it is clear their "shared universe" plan doesn't work. And MCU is floundering and while it is currently carried on by the momentum of their previous successes, if failures will continue to pile up, even MCU can become a non-factor. So, there is no reason for DCCU to strive for matching them anymore.

Main problem of DCCU is that they never had their own Feige, who would have a coherent vision of the shared universe project. Snyder was a bad choice for it and everyone who came after him, basically were just high-ranked bureaucrats, who didn't had any kind of vision at all.

[IMJ]

It does suck that Snyder's vision was better than anything that appeared after. The Aquaman movie was pretty middle of the road, and the Shazam movie was boring.

I don't know which way the DCUE should lean. Hyper-realism, or hokey schlock. Neither seems to work for large parts of the fandom.

When all else fails, just go back to the key tenets of the best of the source material. Grant Breyfogle, Frank Miller and Jim Lee's Batman runs weren't amazing reads because they were "in the real world". It's because their stylized versions fit the form of comic-book world that they embraced. Same thing with any key Superman or Green Lantern story.

[AquaParade]

It does suck that Snyder's vision was better than anything that appeared after. The Aquaman movie was pretty middle of the road, and the Shazam movie was boring.

I don't know which way the DCUE should lean. Hyper-realism, or hokey schlock. Neither seems to work for large parts of the fandom.

They should embrace both, imo. Whichever serves the story they are telling.

I like the idea of a loose multiverse. Let these worlds exist on their own, and bring them together for the occasional event film.
As opposed to Marvel, where it all feels part of the same fabric.

Yeah, it causes some problems and there won’t be as much payoff as something like Infinity War/Endgame, but at the end of the day it allows them to tell more varied stories and be less predictable than Marvel has been.

If done right, they can still get a “pop” from whatever “Crisis” event films they choose to do, just based on the excitement of seeing these characters come together.

It’s not a perfect solution, but neither is chasing Marvel’s lightning in a bottle execution.

I think it will actually lead to more interesting movies. I like the idea of Snyder films, Reeve’s films, and Todd Phillip’s films co-existing along with whatever else. Bring the appropriate pieces together occasionally and people will be a bit more invested in the overall picture, which seems like a must at this point.

It’s like the concept of canon - treat it as a tool in your belt, not as an anchor weighing you down

[Vegita-San]

Hire the TV Writers. Those people get the properties they work on. most of the movie writers don't. that's why they look down on the TV side, thinking they are ' better'.

[IMJ]

Hire the TV Writers. Those people get the properties they work on. most of the movie writers don't. that's why they look down on the TV side, thinking they are ' better'.

This minus components that make it for "The CW".

[Vegita-San]

and I would add the good TV Writers Justice league, B:TAS, Superman TAS, Flash S1-3.

[IMJ]

Imagine a Paul Dini written Batman movie starring Affleck.

[Sumac]

Imagine a Paul Dini written Batman movie starring Affleck.
Will it contain sex scene with Batgirl on the rooftop?

[Autbot_Benz]

Will it contain sex scene with Batgirl on the rooftop?

That scene was all Bruce Timm not Paul Dini.

[Andrew NDB]

They just should focus on making good standalone movies. Maybe with cameos from other characters.

But it is clear their "shared universe" plan doesn't work. And MCU is floundering and while it is currently carried on by the momentum of their previous successes, if failures will continue to pile up, even MCU can become a non-factor. So, there is no reason for DCCU to strive for matching them anymore.

Main problem of DCCU is that they never had their own Feige, who would have a coherent vision of the shared universe project. Snyder was a bad choice for it and everyone who came after him, basically were just high-ranked bureaucrats, who didn't had any kind of vision at all.

Geoff Johns was supposed to be the Feige. But a Feige he is not.

[TigerClaw]

Geoff Johns was supposed to be the Feige. But a Feige he is not.
The issue isn't really Geoff Johns, Its more on Warner Bros, They are a studio that allows its directors to do whatever they want, They don't really care about some connected universe, They give free rain for the director to do whatever they want with there IPs.

[Sumac]

The issue isn't really Geoff Johns, Its more on Warner Bros, They are a studio that allows its directors to do whatever they want, They don't really care about some connected universe, They give free rain for the director to do whatever they want with there IPs.
Which is why they've hired Snyder to be in charge of DCCU?

[TigerClaw]

Which is why they've hired Snyder to be in charge of DCCU?
Yeah, But it didn't pan out for them, They were hoping for critical and box office success, So they dumped the whole connected universe idea and just go back to standalone movies, But under the guise of the movies being part of the multiverse.

[Andrew NDB]

Which is why they've hired Snyder to be in charge of DCCU?

Not in the same way Feige is.

[Sumac]

Not in the same way Feige is.
He was supposed to be.

[ZariusTwo]

The honeymoon is over for Warner Discovery. It is expected sharp cuts and lay offs will occur between August and Thanksgiving

https://deadline.com/2022/07/warner-bros-discovery-layoffs-streaming-decisions-loom-earnings-1235081582

[Andrew NDB]

The honeymoon is over for Warner Discovery. It is expected sharp cuts and lay offs will occur between August and Thanksgiving

https://deadline.com/2022/07/warner-bros-discovery-layoffs-streaming-decisions-loom-earnings-1235081582

Good. Fire them all. Get'em out of there. Pull them out by the roots.

[Sumac]

Supposed to be? No, he was.
If he was, DCCU would have been MCU true rival.

[Andrew NDB]

If he was, DCCU would have been MCU true rival.

Maybe more of one, but I dunno. Zack knows cinematography and storyboarding and not much else. He's also not very bright and not a good mouthpiece for some kind of massive universe caretaking. Can you imagine Zack giving rousing speeches to the public about Phase 2 or 3 of the DCEU? You can see Feige is always thinking and has a sharpness to him. Snyder seems... a little vacuous. Unless you're asking him about lenses or something.

Geoff was closer to the Feige figure in every way but as the mouthpiece. He doesn't like to talk in public. He just likes snaking around in the shadows, behind the scenes.

[mrmaczaps]

So, is Cavill back as Supes or out as Supes? I don't want to go back & try to read all the other stuff to find it. Lol