Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice

[NinjaPug]

“@marcgraser: WB blinks and moves Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice to March 25 from May 6, 2016 and away from Marvel's Captain America 3”

[Slade]

Not sure what to think of those Batman rumors.

[Leo656]

I think they're making him a little too old but I get why. The origin's already been done to death and they want to address things like Robin without actually going there. So they're leaving more or less his entire career as a vague backstory... "Those Batman stories you like from comics, cartoons, other movies? Go ahead and let yourself think they happened, we're not going to show them but we don't want to invalidate or contradict them, either." I get it. I don't see why he has to be SO old, though, especially if they're going to have him carry on through Justice League. Unless, of course, they're going to spin off a Batman solo series set in "the past" with a younger lead actor. I can totally see them doing that.

[Bry]

Affleck's only 41, so if they are making his Batman 50 or older... that's dumb. That's a dumb idea.

You can easily have a seasoned Batman with some history who hasn't been doing it for 30 years. I know they're likely looking at The Dark Knight Returns for some inspiration here, but I feel like it'd be smarter to have Batman be 40ish with about 15 years under his (utility) belt. It wouldn't change much about their general concept - all of the rumoured details could still be in place - and it would be more natural for the actor. 15 years is plenty of time to give the character some in-story history, I think.

[Slade]

Going from what you two have said, I think he should at the most have about 15 years experience, since for some reason, he has to be a seasoned vet in this. I actually don't like that. I love the suit, think Affleck might be great, but would rather him not have been doing his crime fighting for so long. I just can't see Batman being an urban legend for 30 years, and nobody has solid proof he exists. Plus the Robin bit that was stated. Really?

[ObiWanFan4life]

Well, it looks like DC, just blinked. Hopefully this will be for the better for both movies.

[CyberCubed]

Hopefully this movie won't be the incomprehensible headache enduring mess that Man of Steel was.

[Leo656]

Since both Superman and Batman have always had visible nostrils, I'm kind of curious to see which minor annoyance you're going to latch onto and beat to death with this movie.

The bat on Batfleck's chest is a little too "chunky". Why not start with that?

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Since both Superman and Batman have always had visible nostrils, I'm kind of curious to see which minor annoyance you're going to latch onto and beat to death with this movie.

The bat on Batfleck's chest is a little too "chunky". Why not start with that?

His butt chin, the ears are too small, etc.

Edit: Also, I think I saw a link on Facebook that confirms Batman is in his mid-40s.

Edit 2: Here we go.

[Slade]

Has he still been doing it for 30 years? So he's been Batman since he was what? 12,13,14? That put him in his mid 40's. Late 40's would be 46-49 right?

[Leo656]

I'm almost positive it will be one of those things they mention maybe once in the movie and never again and will make absolutely no difference to the plot. Kind of like "8 years" having passed between "Dark Knight" and "Dark Knight Rises". They could have easily said "one year" had passed in between and it wouldn't have made a single bit of difference to the story, just like they didn't need to pinpoint Clark's age at 33 in "Man of Steel".

I'm not sure why they feel the need to do things like that, but in the end, it never matters to the story so I'm not really worried about it. "He's been Batman for a while" is as deep as they need to go with it, and nobody would have been concerned. Giving him an exact age and timeframe for his activities is unnecessarily problematic. They should have just said, "He's been Batman for years" and nobody would blink or think twice.

Just disregard the specifics and you'll be a lot better off. 20 years, 30 years, he's 40, he's 50... none of that matters. At all. I wish they never mentioned it.

[Slade]

I know it shouldn't. But it's gunna bug the crap out of me.

[Leo656]

Contrary to popular belief, there are some things I can easily ignore or hand-wave away if it makes things make more sense in the big picture. I don't like Clark being 33 before he becomes Superman, for example, partly because it's never, ever been written that way, and partly because, that just feels way too old. Add in the fact that, Jesus allegories aside - Clark's "sacrifice" being that he gives up his own private and personal life to become the savior of humanity - there's no logical reason to flat-out say that's how old he is, and I just ignore that entire thing. It's literally one line - "I've been here for 33 years", or whatever it was he said exactly - and ignoring it completely doesn't hurt anything.

So, in my head, Superman in MoS is 25, give or take, no matter what the movie said, because fictional characters should never have their ages outright spoken, anyway, because they almost never age. Just like how, in my head, Bruce didn't abandon being Batman for 8 whole years between movies, because he would never, ever, ever do that.

Having Bruce's age in "Dawn of Justice" set somewhere in his 40s is just as easily hand-waved away. Wanna say he's "really" in his late-30s? Go for it, I promise you, if they mention his age on-screen at all, it'll be one time, and never again. So, if it bothers you, just ignore it. It won't change the story at all.

It only bothers me even a little bit because Bruce and Clark are generally close to the same age, but eh. How old they are really isn't in any way story-relevant.

I maintain, I'm almost 100% positive they're only doing it this way, so they can spin off a solo Batman series in a couple years with a different actor, showing Batman's pre-"Dawn of Justice" adventures. I'd put money on it, and I'm actually kind of excited to see how they do it. That way they can have the JLA movies and the solo Batman movies running parallel to each other, one with an older Batman running around with the JLA doing all the "big", cosmic-style stories (you just know a JLA movie is going to have Darkseid or some equally fantastical threat), and the other showcasing a younger, grittier, "street-level" Batman taking on "regular" bad guys like Joker, etc.

I actually think it's a really smart move to play, on their part. "Old Batman" running around with the JLA in a movie one year, "Young Batman" teaming with Robin and fighting Joker and Penguin in a movie the year after that. Makes a ton of sense to me.

[Slade]

What if they make a big deal about his age in the film? Though I'm with you and I'm sure they won't. It's only a minor nitpick really. I have more issues with the Lex casting....but whatever.

I can see that 2 Batman thing working, but still for me, that's too much bat and not enough super. Plus, and please correct me if I'm wrong, cus I can't remember for sure, but didn't Snyder say back in Man of Steel that Superman is first? Like there is nobody else yet? I may be wrong on that.

[Leo656]

"Superman being first" as in, the first "super-hero" the public is aware of in this film universe? I can't remember, he may have said that, and it still works if we're going with the "Batman is an urban legend" interpretation. It's not a stretch at all to believe he's been Batman-ing in secret for quite some time before Kal-El showed up. How many years? That's something I prefer be kept vague. They shouldn't be saying stuff like "Bruce is 40-50, he's been Batman for 25-30 years", that just over-complicates things. "Bruce has been Batman for a long time, and he's older than Clark" is as deep an explanation as they should have even attempted. I really hope they don't go into it too deeply in the actual film. I have a feeling they won't, because there's really no point to it.

I too would prefer a little more Superman and a lot less Batman in upcoming films, myself, but, I'm not naive. I am well aware that only myself and about three other people on Earth actually care about Superman anymore. He's not "dark" enough, "conflicted" enough, "angry" enough, or "violent" enough for a society that glorifies Batman and Wolverine. Superman stands for, "Doing good over bad is a choice, and we can all choose to be better people." That's too difficult a concept for modern audiences to grasp. Batman stands for, "Punch your problems until they go away." That's a sentiment people nowadays can whole-heartedly accept. Thus, "Superman Doesn't Sell," which is why the "sequel" to MoS immediately became "Batman Swoops In To Save The Superman Film Franchise" instead.

I don't have to like it, but I'm well aware of it.

[Slade]

Maybe I'm tripping, maybe it was fan talk? But something along the lines of Superman showing up and then others decide "Hey, if he can do it, I can too." Maybe I read it wrong. I can't recall.

[Turo602]

They did in fact say that Superman was the first superhero in this universe. Something along the lines of him inspiring others to come out. Which was then contradicted by Batman being a seasoned vet thing. I guess in their mind, Superman was the first to go public and make noise which then ushers in the age of superheroes.

[Slade]

I knew I read that somewhere. Thanks.

[Leo656]

More rumors from Supermanhomepage.com

http://supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=15370

The latest unsubstantiated rumor doing the rounds regarding the plot of "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" comes from GeekTyrant.com who claim that an extra who worked on the film for 10 days has shared with them some of the details of the movie's story.
Please note, none of this can be confirmed or denied at this point in time, so consider it both a potential spoiler as well as pure rumor until we find out more...

Spoiler:

According to the extra, the ending of the film has already been filmed. One of the scenes shot featured Batman breaking into Lexcorp to steal kryptonite, and apparently Lexcorp had somehow gotten ahold of General Zod's body.
He went on to talk about the timeframe of the movie and where it picks up, saying that it starts "as the battle between Superman and General Zod ends or is ending (which would explain all the damaged buildings and vehicles we've been seeing in photos) and Batman/Bruce Wayne is attempting to make his way to the Wayne tower in Metropolis."

There has been much speculation about whether the scenes Ben Affleck filmed in Detroit this past week are flashback sequences possibly set during the Superman/Zod battle seen in "Man of Steel", showing Bruce Wayne saving children from the damage caused to the Wayne Enterprises building in Metropolis.

The speculation continues...

Hmmm. "Hmmm", indeed...

[Slade]

If true, guess kryptonite will be introduced in this movie.