Man of Steel

[thecolorsblend]

I say they should call it either Man of Steel II (with whatever subheading they want) or World's Finest. I read some idiot on Stupidity Hype or some such try to argue that the title must include both characters names for marquee value or else you'll lose Joe Sixpack (or Nigel Pint for those across the pond). Had to wonder where that nitwit has been the past five years.

[The Dark Knight]

Apparently a Batman vs Superman domain has been aquired by WB recently or some jazz. Make of that what you will.

Such a title grabs the attention, but I hope it's not an entirely truthful title. Meaning they're at at each others throats for a solid chunk.

[thecolorsblend]

Apparently a Batman vs Superman domain has been aquired by WB recently or some jazz. Make of that what you will.

Such a title grabs the attention, but I hope it's not an entirely truthful title. Meaning they're at at each others throats for a solid chunk.

Ditto. I mean, look, it's a good (sometimes great) comic book page but a prolonged struggle between those two would "realistically" end with Batman as a stain on the wall inside of five seconds.

For those same reasons, I also can't picture Clark sweating Batman through the movie. "Oh no, what if that puny mortal figures out my secret identity and comes looking for me while I'm making out with Lois or writing another Pulitzer Prize-winning exposé? I might have to divert part of my attention for almost half a nanosecond and thump him into orbit somewhere above Pluto!" Nobody wants that.

Whatever their confrontation is, do it like a 90's comic book- it lasts a page or two AT MOST and then the rest of the thing is a true blue team-up. No BS, no irony, no self-deprecation; just good old fashioned superheroics.

Speaking of, this concept should be FUN. A Batman/Superman team-up movie isn't the vehicle for pondering life, politics and morality in a post-consumer age. Just make with the punchy-punchy run-run and leave the deeper mysteries and big questions to somebody else.

[The Laughing Fish]

Speaking of, this concept should be FUN. A Batman/Superman team-up movie isn't the vehicle for pondering life, politics and morality in a post-consumer age. Just make with the punchy-punchy run-run and leave the deeper mysteries and big questions to somebody else.

Another positive thing I realized while watching Man of Steel was I didn't feel any preachy, heavy-handed pretentiousness like I did watching Nolan's Batman films. But I'm worried that the writers' egos could always inspire them to come up with something clever than it actually is. If they try to come up with themes at the expense of telling a coherent and logical story again then BvS will just be an incomprehensible borefest.

[johnnygobbs]

Apparently a Batman vs Superman domain has been aquired by WB recently or some jazz. Make of that what you will.

Such a title grabs the attention, but I hope it's not an entirely truthful title. Meaning they're at at each others throats for a solid chunk.

Ditto. I mean, look, it's a good (sometimes great) comic book page but a prolonged struggle between those two would "realistically" end with Batman as a stain on the wall inside of five seconds.

For those same reasons, I also can't picture Clark sweating Batman through the movie. "Oh no, what if that puny mortal figures out my secret identity and comes looking for me while I'm making out with Lois or writing another Pulitzer Prize-winning exposé? I might have to divert part of my attention for almost half a nanosecond and thump him into orbit somewhere above Pluto!" Nobody wants that.

Whatever their confrontation is, do it like a 90's comic book- it lasts a page or two AT MOST and then the rest of the thing is a true blue team-up. No BS, no irony, no self-deprecation; just good old fashioned superheroics.

Speaking of, this concept should be FUN. A Batman/Superman team-up movie isn't the vehicle for pondering life, politics and morality in a post-consumer age. Just make with the punchy-punchy run-run and leave the deeper mysteries and big questions to somebody else.

I 100% agree with the first part of your post.  A prolonged Batman v Superman fight would be stupid.  They're so unevenly matched.  The vast bulk of the film should be some type of team-up, albeit an uneasy one ala your typical buddy-buddy cop movie.

But I disagree with the last part of your post.  I definitely think the film should be fun but there should be at least some food for thought too.  My favourite parts of MOS were the philosophical discussions between Clark and Jonathan Kent as to whether he should use his powers and whether he'd be accepted by mankind.  As strong and imposing a villain Michael Shannon's Zod was I found the fight scenes in 'MOS' rather relentless and wearying.  They were too brutal and joyless to be considered 'fun' and they went on and on.  I'm not saying the Donner films are necessarily superior overall but when it came to 'Superman II's' fights scene versus 'MOS' I definitely think the inventive and purposefully artificial-looking face-off between Superman and Zod, Non and Ursa in the earlier film made for a far lighter and therefore more palatable and 'fun' action sequence than Superman and Zod's slugfest in 'MOS'.

If these new films are going to have such a serious, dour tone than they can't simply be relentless punch-ups.  If these movies want to sit at the adults' table they have to have something to say.

[Edd Grayson]

It's OK if some want the movie to be fun, but let's think about it for a while... we have a man whose parents were murdered in front of him when he was a kid and an alien who is the last of his race and is both loved and feared by humanity. Not exactly the most joyful of protagonists 

[johnnygobbs]

It's OK if some want the movie to be fun, but let's think about it for a while... we have a man whose parents were murdered in front of him when he was a kid and an alien who is the last of his race and is both loved and feared by humanity. Not exactly the most joyful of protagonists 

I think the Christopher Reeve Superman films were shamelessly fun and so to some extent were the Burton/Schumacher ones but post-Nolan DC movies all seem to be brooding, earnest and ultra-serious.  That's fine I suppose but if you're going to take such a serious tone you better back it up with some thematic weight too.

Of course the great thing about the Burton Batman films is that they're both fun/funny and substantial/smart, which is another reason why I don't think they get the half the credit they deserve.  They're not going around drawing attention to themselves with a sign saying 'feel my pain'.

[The Joker]

Of course the great thing about the Burton Batman films is that they're both fun/funny and substantial/smart, which is another reason why I don't think they get the half the credit they deserve.  They're not going around drawing attention to themselves with a sign saying 'feel my pain'.

Agreed. I enjoy the Nolan films, however Burton's run presented alot about the psychology of the characters, and mythology of that world, but in a decidedly more subtle manner, than what we've had the Nolan Trilogy which tended to overtly dip into being melodramatic in terms of scenes, and dialogue.

[Edd Grayson]

Burton was subtle, Nolan was "in-your-face". It's not hard to see why Nolan is so praised by the maionstream while Burton gets bashed...

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

Apparently a Batman vs Superman domain has been aquired by WB recently or some jazz. Make of that what you will.

Such a title grabs the attention, but I hope it's not an entirely truthful title. Meaning they're at at each others throats for a solid chunk.

Very excited about this announced movie. We'll never have Chris Reeve and Michael Keaton onscreen together so this is the next best thing.

I too don't want them against each other. I imagine there will be a little of that. I think the whole "Dark Knight Returns" thing Frank Miller did with Superman caused damage to the character's popularity. I mean who would really side with the nice blue boy scout against the much cooler no rules badass Batman? Kind of one sided from the get go. But I also think it hurt Batman too. For me it made him a bit of a twat and a tad stupid even. Heroes like that should be smarter and maturer enough to understand who there allies are from their true enemies. Although their methods conflict Superman and Batman are always on the same cause. The fact that Batman wanted to beat the crap out of poor Clark Kent and not those Mutant punks (who had done a fair share of twisted things throughout the book) staggered my mind. All Superman did was follow orders.