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 DaneMcCloud:
I've watch "Man of Steel" multiple times now and while I didn't dig it initially, I get his vision now. I really have high hopes for the new DC universe. They're killing it with casting. "The Suicide Squad" couldn't have cast better actors.
I've said it before, really not a fan. That said, there wasn't anything so bad that it it's beyond saving in the sequel if it's played right.
Not excited about Eisenberg as Luthor but I suppose we'll see. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kysirsoze:
I've said it before, really not a fan. That said, there wasn't anything so bad that it it's beyond saving in the sequel if it's played right.
Not excited about Eisenberg as Luthor but I suppose we'll see.
As a Marvel fanboy and a person who's always hated the Superman character I thought MOS made him interesting.
In all of comics SM is the one character so powerful he might as well be God. That guy just doesn't interest me. He almost can't lose.
To show him as a person, a human with weaknesses and imperfections, makes me want to watch.
I know the SM purists hate it but I think it made the wider audience relate more to the character... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rausch:
As a Marvel fanboy and a person who's always hated the Superman character I thought MOS made him interesting.
In all of comics SM is the one character so powerful he might as well be God. That guy just doesn't interest me. He almost can't lose.
To show him as a person, a human with weaknesses and imperfections, makes me want to watch.
I know the SM purists hate it but I think it made the wider audience relate more to the character...
The thing is, that's how he's been in the comics for a long time. I'm all for showing his human frailty. It's something most other film adaptations have completely whiffed on. It's just that it was done in a cheap, hackneyed way. His character arc is all over the place and he just seems to barrel through the movie with little to no awareness of what he's doing and who it's affecting.
I'm hoping the sequel pounds this home and it is about him learning to really be a hero with a feeling of care and responsibility. If it's just more wonton destruction and death in the name of "justice" count me out. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kysirsoze:
The thing is, that's how he's been in the comics for a long time. I'm all for showing his human frailty. It's something most other film adaptations have completely whiffed on. It's just that it was done in a cheap, hackneyed way. His character arc is all over the place and he just seems to barrel through the movie with little to no awareness of what he's doing and who it's affecting.
I'm hoping the sequel pounds this home and it is about him learning to really be a hero with a feeling of care and responsibility. If it's just more wonton destruction and death in the name of "justice" count me out.
To me this is like complaining about the Hulk character in Avengers.
The Hulk hasn't been a dumb giant for most of the last 30 years but that's how people expect him. I nit pick and find reasons to hate the Avengers Hulk but all in all they did a really good job.
It's not about 30 or more years of comix continuity - it's about introducing these characters to a brand new audience with the "essence" of them being true do the stories.
When Supes walked away from the drunks it seemed like a real sacrifice. When Supes threw that semi over a phone pole at the truck stop I cared. It had meaning. He knew he could rage out at any time but didn't.
The idea of SM having resentment and anger over what he has to deal with isn't touched on outside the comix.
The Mark Ruffalo Hulk was only ok until he said "I'm angry all the time." That changes him from a very black/white character to a more complex one. It frames that whole movie completely differently at that point. He could have raged out and bounced every character off the dirt at any point.
It adds a deeper meaning that makes us care. It shows restraint. Morality. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rausch:
To me this is like complaining about the Hulk character in Avengers.
The Hulk hasn't been a dumb giant for most of the last 30 years but that's how people expect him. I nit pick and find reasons to hate the Avengers Hulk but all in all they did a really good job.
It's not about 30 or more years of comix continuity - it's about introducing these characters to a brand new audience with the "essence" of them being true do the stories.
When Supes walked away from the drunks it seemed like a real sacrifice. When Supes threw that semi over a phone pole at the truck stop I cared. It had meaning. He knew he could rage out at any time but didn't.
The idea of SM having resentment and anger over what he has to deal with isn't touched on outside the comix.
The Mark Ruffalo Hulk was only ok until he said "I'm angry all the time." That changes him from a very black/white character to a more complex one. It frames that whole movie completely differently at that point. He could have raged out and bounced every character off the dirt at any point.
It adds a deeper meaning that makes us care. It shows restraint. Morality.
Well, again, I like that they tried to go deeper. I just felt like they didn't do it well. They took the easy way out. I mean, the obligatory "you're not my dad" scene? And it just so happens to be minutes before he dies in the most absurd and unnecessary way possible? Lazy writing. Also, that truck stop scene made no sense to me. Sure he didn't kill the guy, but what he did to that truck was a full blown temper tantrum. I understand wanting to focus on his frustrations and internal conflicts, but that's a bit much. That's taking him down a path that is in complete opposition to the foundation of the character.
Destruction of Smallville with no attempt to take the fight away from civilians. The same in Metropolis. Killing Zod.
Maybe some of these things can be redeemed in the sequel as Superman learns to be the hero he's supposed to be, but there's a lot of problems left by MoS. Nothing can fix the poor writing in the first one, but maybe it will just be... better. I don't know. Here's hoping, but I am highly skeptical. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kysirsoze:
Well, again, I like that they tried to go deeper. I just felt like they didn't do it well.
I'd disagree.
And I absolutely hate the character.
Originally Posted by kysirsoze:
They took the easy way out. I mean, the obligatory "you're not my dad" scene? And it just so happens to be minutes before he dies in the most absurd and unnecessary way possible? Lazy writing.
To me that was just pointed flash-back.
No one wants an origin story for the most popular comix character of all time. Supes is the single most recognizable character out there. It was only convenient because they made the decision to use a highligher instead of spelling it all out.
They touched the bases while not dragging down the story with a huge origin story. And I thought they did a great job of that.
Originally Posted by kysirsoze:
Also, that truck stop scene made no sense to me. Sure he didn't kill the guy, but what he did to that truck was a full blown temper tantrum. I understand wanting to focus on his frustrations and internal conflicts, but that's a bit much.
Is it?
Once we know what he's able to do it's, again, restraint. To me it's much like the Marvel "protecting those that hate and fear us" mantra.
It's not true to his origin (welcome: fanboy hate) but it's more realistic. Here is where DC fans get introduced to the difference between the comix and the DCCU.
Originally Posted by kysirsoze:
That's taking him down a path that is in complete opposition to the foundation of the character.
Here is where I'd disagree.
Here is where he STARTS down his path towards what he already is in the Comix. In this film he is flawed and new and not the 30 years of BS time spent as a boy scout. He has lived in this world, knows it, and fights NOT to be a dark influence.
He all but begs Zod not to be what he is before doing what he has to.
THAT character, not some unchallenged morally superior avatar for god, makes him interesting as a character... [Reply]
Morally challenged is one thing. Morally compromised is another and he came awfully close to that in film 1. I can see we won't find much common ground here, but I do really hope the next one is good. I'd love to look forward to DC films the way I do to Marvel films these days. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kysirsoze:
Morally challenged is one thing. Morally compromised is another and he came awfully close to that in film 1. I can see we won't find much common ground here, but I do really hope the next one is good. I'd love to look forward to DC films the way I do to Marvel films these days.
Fair enough.
I'd love to share that opinion if not for the fact Disney is destroying the Marvel U to make them compatible with the Cinematic U. [Reply]