Man of Steel

[thecolorsblend]

The way I see it, WB is happy enough with Man of Steel's numbers to commit to a sequel just over a month after the US release. That obviously never happened with Singerman.

That tells the real tale, if you ask me.

[The Dark Knight]

Just some random thoughts which anyone is free to ridicule or ignore. It is very easy to kick someone when they're down. When they've made a mistake. It is another thing to lend them a hand and move on. We all get this feeling in our guts when we're the culprit. In this aspect, I've welcomed Superman. Call it naïve, turning a blind eye or whatever - we can't all be grit and pessimism all the time.

[The Laughing Fish]

It's the dark side of the Internet. Yeah, it gives everybody a VOICE... but at the same time it gives EVERYBODY a voice. It doesn't matter how many times something gets completely debunked, some idiot's misunderstanding of the situation is still out there ten years later as fresh and "relevant" as when it was first posted.

This is going to sound elitist but there's no way around it; there are a lot of people out there who just shouldn't have a bullhorn. But then, I also happen to think not everybody should have the right to vote either so what do I know?

Well, you're going to love this - some sport reporter ( ) of the UK version of the Huffington Post gave his misinformed opinion why Batman vs Superman shouldn't happen:
Source - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/samuel-luckhurst/batman-vs-superman-film_b_3643745.html

The reaction to the Batman/Superman film literally brought tears to some fans' eyes at Comic-Con on Saturday. A project which previously failed to take off with Wolfgang Petersen at the reins in 2004, it is an aggressive and bold effort by DC Comics to match Marvel's output.

But it is the wrong approach, and as a lifelong fan Batman fan, it is demeaning to the character after three thrilling pictures.

HA! I for one that think those so-called 'thrilling pictures' were demeaning and a huge disservice to Batman, especially if you put them under the slightest scrutiny. But anyway...

He has an unrivalled rogues gallery and, via the camp 60s TV show, was firmly imposed on popular culture to the extent that the majority of media outlets shoehorn a tedious "holy" line into a Bat-related story. Christian Bale said, ahead of Batman Begins' 2005 release, "If all the other superheroes were sitting together here in this room, they'd all be getting along fine with each other, but they'd be thinking, 'What's wrong with that dude sitting over there?'" Batman is not a team player.

Last time I checked in the comics and cartoons, Batman is a fellow member of the Justice League and works well with others if the time calls for it. And please don't give me that it won't work in a "reality-based" world - that's just an apologist's way to justify this faux-reality that certain filmmakers have made.

Nolan, a cerebral filmmaker responsible for four masterpieces this century, is an essential cog in the DC machine if they want to be known for quality over quantity.

Don't make me laugh - his films are filled with plenty of out of character moments and guilty of their own plot holes - probably more than your standard superhero film. Apart from Memento and The Prestige, the guy is nowhere near what he's cracked up to be. Cerebral? 

In fact, despite its own share of flaws, I'd also take Man of Steel over Nolan's own Batman films any day. It's probably the only comic-based film with Nolan's involvement which I can appreciate for what it is.

Marvel, meanwhile, are synonymous with quantity, rather than quality. The Avengers was such an enjoyable blockbuster because of the slew of ambivalent pictures which preceded it. Iron Man was promising until the final act, but the sequel was risible. Edward Norton, the titular The Incredible Hulk, was annoyed at the final cut, Thor was an accomplished precursor to the Avengers but Captain America wasn't. All of those films were released within a hectic four-year period.

Please, Captain America: The First Avenger was by far a better origin story than Batman Begins, and a good movie too. Again, I thought the only black mark in Marvel's recent movies was Iron Man 2, the rest I can appreciate their actual quality instead of pretending to be arthouse cinema, and sucking hard at it.

Call me spoilt by Marvel, but I for one am sick of heroes living in their own universes. If this movie is done right, then I see no reason why it's a terrible idea.

[thecolorsblend]

Call me spoilt by Marvel, but I for one am sick of heroes living in their own universes. If this movie is done right, then I see no reason why it's a terrible idea.

I was done with the immaculate universe concept after seeing Batman89. I freely admit that it makes no sense now but back then I was desperate for a Michael Keaton/Christopher Reeve team-up film. I didn't understand that it wasn't so simple back then and that DC weren't in possession of the Superman movie rights at the time. But still, it's what I wanted. And WB has wanted the same thing. Ever since they got the movie rights back, they've tried to build a shared universe. Hell, go back and read the various scripts and drafts for Burton's Superman movie. DC has been angling toward something like this for a long time. This is something we could have and should have gotten back in the 90's in a fair and just world.

I've wanted something like this my entire life and now that we're finally getting it, I suffer naysayers badly. As the rest of your post says, the Nolan fans have their trilogy now. It's perfect and undisturbed. Nobody can ever or will ever take that away from them. Now they need to STFU and let the rest of us get on with our shared universe.

[BatmAngelus]

Fun fact: A year before breaking the scoop, LA Times actually predicted this would be the follow-up to MoS in a fun feature article speculating different movies for Batman, post-Nolan. 

One was World's Finest, directed by Zack Snyder with Henry Cavill as Superman to continue Man of Steel

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/after-dark-knight-what-if-tim-burton-took-back-gotham/

[The Joker]

Looks like we got our next Batman.


http://movies.yahoo.com/news/ben-affleck-set-play-batman-man-steel-sequel-011253917.html


EDIT: I figured I would place the news here as well since it's regarding the sequel.

[The Laughing Fish]

I found a video that defends the film for its common criticisms, and makes an argument that Superman has killed before in the comics - with references.

It looks like it came from this article, since they both make nearly identical arguments, with evidence from comics showing Superman responsible for killing villains, or getting villains killed.
Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/theSentry/news/?a=93008

The only few problems I have with some of the rebuttal though is the point about only Batman had a moral code, not Superman. That's not true. Also I didn't like how the author argued why did people never had a problem with Burton's Batman for killing villains, but didn't mention Nolan.

***EDIT***: It's quite possible, according to that article, that Superman snapping Zod's neck was inspired by Action Comics #805.



However, the author did get something half right, half wrong. He said that Superman just stopped within an inch from killing Zod instantly. That's correct. But he's wrong that Superman struck Zod with his the elbow, and Zod succumbed to his death. I've the read that issue was from a five-part mini-series called The Harvest. Long story short: Zod was a dictator of the nation of Pokolistan and then tricked Superman and stole his identity. He disguised himself as Supes and outsmarted the entire world and President Lex Luthor by taking over as global dictator. Superman came back from his imprisonment from outer space and agreed to free all off his worst enemies to join him in overthrowing Zod. Lex and Metallo agreed to get the yellow sun back, which turned red thanks to Zod, in the hopes that Superman can survive long enough to subdue Zod till the disappearance of the red sun would make Zod's powers obsolete. Zod survived Superman breaking his neck, but exposure to the yellow sunlight caused Zod to die from his his fatal injury. Before that, Superman backed away right at the last second from instantly killing him because he didn't want to undermine his sense of morality. Nonetheless, while Superman snapping Zod's neck was an apparent indirect cause of death, it still doesn't change the fact that it got Zod killed.

[Edd Grayson]

Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel isn't such a deal breaker for me, because, while I love the Richard Donner Superman and the animated Superman shows in which he doesn't kill, I didn't feel too bad for a character like Zod dying, he was basically going to commit genocide, it's not like he was an innocent that Superman killed, and I don't think it such a big deal for a hero to kill the villain in a film.

It's the same thing with Batman, I am well aware he doesn't kill or use guns in most incarnations, but I'm not going to be very critical if he kills a villain in a film, unless of course it is established in the film that he does not kill and yet he breaks his " one rule " and people conveniently forget about it , *cough* Nolan 

[johnnygobbs]

Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel isn't such a deal breaker for me, because, while I love the Richard Donner Superman and the animated Superman shows in which he doesn't kill, I didn't feel too bad for a character like Zod dying, he was basically going to commit genocide, it's not like he was an innocent that Superman killed, and I don't think it such a big deal for a hero to kill the villain in a film.

It's the same thing with Batman, I am well aware he doesn't kill or use guns in most incarnations, but I'm not going to be very critical if he kills a villain in a film, unless of course it is established in the film that he does not kill and yet he breaks his " one rule " and people conveniently forget about it , *cough* Nolan 

On one hand I'd rather the new Superman franchise didn't begin with Supes killing someone.    On the other hand, he was protecting innocents from being killed by Zod and he also felt completely distraught whilst he was doing it.  Plus, I always figured that Superman's rule was that he didn't kill humans.  I'm not saying Krytonian lifeforms are worthless and that the killing of other species is justified, but Superman  sees himself as a guest on Earth, and one who greatly outmatches ordinary mortals in terms of his powers.  Thus, he doesn't kill humans, no matter how evil they may be (i.e. Lex Luthor).

[The Laughing Fish]

Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel isn't such a deal breaker for me, because, while I love the Richard Donner Superman and the animated Superman shows in which he doesn't kill, I didn't feel too bad for a character like Zod dying, he was basically going to commit genocide, it's not like he was an innocent that Superman killed, and I don't think it such a big deal for a hero to kill the villain in a film.

True. Some apologists will try to make up excuses why killing Zod off was a betrayal to Superman's character e.g. "why didn't Superman use his heat vision to lobotomise Zod instead of killing him?". Well, here's my rebuttal: if you're going to argue that, you might as well demand Superman to do the same thing against Zod, Ursa and Non in Superman II, especially during the battle of Metropolis, or Superman every comic  that involves a big crisis against a villain. There's no need for a double standard.

It's the same thing with Batman, I am well aware he doesn't kill or use guns in most incarnations, but I'm not going to be very critical if he kills a villain in a film, unless of course it is established in the film that he does not kill and yet he breaks his " one rule " and people conveniently forget about it , *cough* Nolan 

Exactly. People can say whatever they want about Man of Steel, but at least Superman never made any promises that he couldn't keep. He never pledged to become "an incorruptible, everlasting symbol" or "declare "I'm no executioner". Unlike Nolan's Batman.