Originally Posted by :
After decades of fighting evil solo, Batman and Superman will finally be teaming up on the big screen, sources confirm to The Hollywood Reporter.
Man of Steel director Zack Snyder will direct the tentpole with Henry Cavill returning as Superman. It is unclear who will play Batman in the new film. A release date of 2015 has been set, with a Flash movie appearing in 2016 and a Justice League movie in 2017.
Snyder's Man of Steel, which rebooted the Superman franchise, has grossed north of $600 million worldwide since it hit theaters this June.
Originally Posted by :
Warner Bros. is about to bring together two of its most iconic heroes: Superman and Batman will unite in a new film, the follow-up to “Man of Steel,” set for release in 2015.
According to two sources with knowledge of the movie, Warner Bros. intends to announce the news at its Comic-Con International panel Saturday morning. Said a Warner Bros. spokesperson, “We don’t comment on rumors regarding these properties.”
“Man of Steel” director Zack Snyder is expected to reunite with screenwriter David S. Goyer and star Henry Cavill for the new film. It’s unlikely Christian Bale will step back into the bat suit, as the actor has indicated publicly that he has moved on from his days as Bruce Wayne.
“Man of Steel” producer and “Dark Knight” trilogy director Christopher Nolan is expected by some to produce the project, but the exact nature of his involvement is unclear.
The move marks the culmination of years of effort on the part of Warner Bros. and DC Comics to bring their superheroes together in a similar fashion to their primary competitor Marvel, which successfully combined its superheroes into a $1.5-billion box-office hit with “The Avengers.”
In the comic world, the two heroes are teaming up in a new series, “Batman/Superman,” by writer Greg Pak and artist Jae Lee.
Originally Posted by tk13:
Probably better than the reviews, but it also probably could've been much greater.
Spoiler!
Just trying to cram so much into one movie was it's biggest flaw. I don't know if I really have any problems with Affleck, or Eisenberg. There's a lot of things I liked about both performances. It's just a lot to fit in.... Batman, the Justice League characters, Luthor, Doomsday, Kryptonite, on top of a plot about Superman's God-like status and the Congressional debate.
Some people probably find that Congressional/God part of the storyline boring, but that was the kind of thing I think Chris Nolan would've hit out of the park and taken this thing to another level. There were some genuinely good ideas in this film. But it felt like they had to race through all of these things to fit them in one movie. Same with a lot of the characters, especially Lex, even Bruce Wayne and Clark and Lois to an extent. We never got to enjoy a lot of things about these characters because it was a race to the Justice League.
In many ways, it sounds like they're taking the opposite tack of that of Marvel: Instead of a bunch of standalone movies that lead to The Avengers, BvS and Justice League come before the stand alone films, minus Man of Steel.
I get the feeling that BvS will be viewed as a better film that makes much more sense in 2020. [Reply]
In a similar vein, I've watched Man of Steel several times in recent days on FX... gotta say it definitely gets better with multiple viewings, the acting is excellent and the action is even better
Some of you have hit on the problem. It's in the title. This wasn't a Batman movie, and it wasn't a Superman movie, and thus had no identity. Most of the first half seemed like a Superman movie, just a continuation of "MoS", with occasional glimpses of grumpy Affleck as Bruce Wayne. There was precious little Batman in it. Then, near the end, after the faceoff with Supes, Batman finally got one good fight scene and I said, "Okay, this is more like it, reminiscent of the Nolan films," and then it was done. At least Marvel is smart enough to tie films more to single characters (although I have a feeling "Captain America: Civil War" will be a Captain America vehicle in name only, and probably could've been called "Captain America vs. Iron Man").
The thing is, I had no problem with the storyline of most of the film, although they dragged it out. If they'd made Batman's change of heart more believable, gotten a better Luthor with more exposition about why he is the way he is, given a bit more screen time to Wonder Woman, improved the CGI for Doomsday, and removed the beginning part (because, as has been said, we really have no need to see little Batman fall into the cave), this movie would've went from mediocre to fairly decent.
And, honestly, people love to pick on DC, but Marvel's films have not been great, with the exception of the three Captain America films. The first "Iron Man" was very good, "Iron Man 2" was bleh, and "Iron Man 3" was a horrible assrape of every fanboy's mind. "Thor" was okay but boring, and "Thor 2" was better but still wasn't great. "Avengers" was very good but we forget there are only two real action setpieces (the helicarrier scene and the final battle) and the rest is a lot of talking. "Ultron" was a piece of crap. Granted, "GotG" and "Deadpool" were pretty damn good, but before that it wasn't like Marvel was wowing us at every turn... [Reply]
Originally Posted by JD10367:
Some of you have hit on the problem. It's in the title. This wasn't a Batman movie, and it wasn't a Superman movie, and thus had no identity. Most of the first half seemed like a Superman movie, just a continuation of "MoS", with occasional glimpses of grumpy Affleck as Bruce Wayne. There was precious little Batman in it. Then, near the end, after the faceoff with Supes, Batman finally got one good fight scene and I said, "Okay, this is more like it, reminiscent of the Nolan films," and then it was done. At least Marvel is smart enough to tie films more to single characters (although I have a feeling "Captain America: Civil War" will be a Captain America vehicle in name only, and probably could've been called "Captain America vs. Iron Man").
The thing is, I had no problem with the storyline of most of the film, although they dragged it out. If they'd made Batman's change of heart more believable, gotten a better Luthor with more exposition about why he is the way he is, given a bit more screen time to Wonder Woman, improved the CGI for Doomsday, and removed the beginning part (because, as has been said, we really have no need to see little Batman fall into the cave), this movie would've went from mediocre to fairly decent.
And, honestly, people love to pick on DC, but Marvel's films have not been great, with the exception of the three Captain America films. The first "Iron Man" was very good, "Iron Man 2" was bleh, and "Iron Man 3" was a horrible assrape of every fanboy's mind. "Thor" was okay but boring, and "Thor 2" was better but still wasn't great. "Avengers" was very good but we forget there are only two real action setpieces (the helicarrier scene and the final battle) and the rest is a lot of talking. "Ultron" was a piece of crap. Granted, "GotG" and "Deadpool" were pretty damn good, but before that it wasn't like Marvel was wowing us at every turn...
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
In many ways, it sounds like they're taking the opposite tack of that of Marvel: Instead of a bunch of standalone movies that lead to The Avengers, BvS and Justice League come before the stand alone films, minus Man of Steel.
I get the feeling that BvS will be viewed as a better film that makes much more sense in 2020.
It may very well be. The thought actually crossed my mind... with the way studios are becoming eager to "split up" movies unnecessarily, like the Hunger Games... I'm amazed WB didn't do that here, they could've made three different movies out of this film. But I get it, they want to get into Justice League before Marvel finishes The Avengers. [Reply]
There's a lot of stuff that needs to be explained. The dreams, particularly, and the Flash appearance. Things that could influence the long-term reception to the movie. If they pay off later - in a good way... - it could be pretty neat.
One thing I caught today that I missed yesterday was Carol Ferris. Remember the officer who says Superman is kind of hot at the end of MoS? That's her, and she was briefly in BvS, too. Hello Hal Jordan? [Reply]
Ok, got tickets to see this at the late show in the Prime theater. I figure if it sucks ass that I'm still seeing it in a Prime theater and at least I'll be comfy, lol. [Reply]
Originally Posted by keg in kc:
There's a lot of stuff that needs to be explained. The dreams, particularly, and the Flash appearance. Things that could influence the long-term reception to the movie.
One thing I caught today that I missed yesterday was Carol Ferris. Remember the officer who says Superman is kind of hot at the end of MoS? That's her, and she was briefly in BvS, too. Hello Hal Jordan?
I remember seeing Captain Ferris at the end of MoS saying how Supes was hot. She was the general's driver. I wondered if she could be a precursor to Hal and the Green Lantern Corp. [Reply]
The thing is, I had no problem with the storyline of most of the film, although they dragged it out. If they'd made Batman's change of heart more believable, gotten a better Luthor with more exposition about why he is the way he is, given a bit more screen time to Wonder Woman, improved the CGI for Doomsday, and removed the beginning part (because, as has been said, we really have no need to see little Batman fall into the cave), this movie would've went from mediocre to fairly decent.
That's along the lines of what I thought.
Spoiler!
For instance, having Lex try to frame Superman to make him look bad... I actually thought that was great. Great idea, and great execution of that entire Congressional hearing scene. I did not see the explosion during the hearing coming. They almost could've made that a key storyline to the film, and it would've given Lex some real teeth as he outsmarts Superman over and over. But instead they had to go back to the Bruce Wayne storyline and setting up Doomsday.
IMAX was better visually. There was something like 40 minutes shot in the format and I could actually see the difference today. Big chunk of the bottom of the screen in one of the dream sequences just wasn't there. I was like 'huh, I guess that diagram of the difference in screen sizes that I saw online yesterday wasn't full of shit after all.' [Reply]
I think they probably cut a lot of stuff that would've made Lex' s actions make more sense. It's weird seeing a Zach Snyder movie where I think more exposition might've helped. [Reply]
IMAX was better visually. There was something like 40 minutes shot in the format and I could actually see the difference today. Big chunk of the bottom of the screen in one of the dream sequences just wasn't there. I was like 'huh, I guess that diagram of the difference in screen sizes that I saw online yesterday wasn't full of shit after all.'
Interesting.
I can't stand 3D. More specifically, I can't stand 3D movies where the movie wasn't filmed in that medium but shown in it anyway. Probably why I just never even consider going to a 3D movie anymore. Though if done correctly, it's great. [Reply]
