Superman vs Batman will open opposite Captain America 3

[The Dark Knight]

Agreed, johnny. Goyer says Marvel has had enormous success, but he's not sure if they should emulate that model. Hmmm. He also says "I don't know" in that interview and I think that's the extent of it. What pisses me off, is that companies or football clubs could literally have anybody they want, but perservere with 'favorite sons' just because. WB have been sitting on their hands for far too long. When they did strike out for something other, Green Lantern by Martin Campbell was dished up. The worst mistake anybody can make is not knowing where they're at.

[The Laughing Fish]

I don't get the impression Goyer knows what he's doing, and that interview confirms my thoughts.  He admits that it was a bad idea to have Superman kill Zod, and that it's odd that DC are situating their characters in 'realistic' worlds contrary to how DC's characters have been traditionally portrayed in the comic-books, but he doesn't intend to do anything about it.

Warner Bros should fire Goyer's ass and get someone like Kevin Fiege and Joss Whedon at Marvel Studios in who does know what the hell they're doing.  It's no coincidence that 'Batman Begins', the Batman film co-written by Goyer was the least interesting of the Dark Knight films.  Goyer is a hack.  Anyone who has seen 'Blade: Trinity' could have told you that a long time ago.

I've never liked David Goyer's stuff either. That being said, I do think that compared to the Nolan trilogy, Man of Steel is the lesser of the four evils. It's not without its problems; it is a Goyer script after all, so you can expect anything that guy does to be that good. But nonetheless I thought it was an alright movie. But it does bother me that suddenly he isn't supportive of the ending. Last year he argued that he doesn't think too highly of the non-killing moral code in the comics. He describes the principle as "a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don't believe in rules like that" (which begs to question why did his scripts have Batman pretend to have a moral code in the trilogy in the first place?). But now he thinks killing Zod was a mistake?!

You can find his quote from last year here: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/notyetamovie/news/?a=87565#LvQYHgbWGUP5wBsg.99"

[riddler]

Honestly I could have handled that interview better, here's along the lines of what I would have said

"As great as the avengers was, it wasn't necessarily the next logical step. Rather than introduce all our heroes in solo films and then mashing them together, we're going to take our time and intertwine them into each others universe. So the next logical step for us is put two of them into the same film"

On the subject of Goyer, he's not the genius some make him out to be. Check out some less than stellar comic works his name has been attached to
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (screenplay) / (story) / executive producer
Blade: Trinity (written by) / producer / director
Nick Fury: Agent of Shield (TV Movie) (written by )
The Crow: City of Angels (written by)



It is interesting that DC seems to be the more grounded. I was at a fan expo panel for Stan Lee in 2012 (and in case you didn't know, Stan Lee has worked with DC). He said he does try and use science into his works and how his characters got their powers;
Why can superman fly? Well because he's an alien and I guess immune to gravity
How does the green lantern ring work? magic
Why is the flash so fast? A mixture of chemicals

On the marvel side though even the more mystical characters still have an element of science to them; for instance Thor himself can't fly but his hammer can pull itself towards the sky. They could easily say "well Thor is a god he can do what he likes" but they did give him a bit of grounding.

[The Dark Knight]

With that said, me preferring the majority of Marvel characters over DC - I still get a fire in my belly. At my core, I'm a Batman/Superman DC guy. When I watch, say, Cap 2, Avengers or Iron Man I enjoy myself. But deep down always have that 'I wish this was Batman or Superman, they're better and more iconic' rivalry. But Marvel Studios cannot be denied. They've done a terrific job.

[Silver Nemesis]

I've always been more a fan of DC than Marvel. That being said, I feel no enmity towards Marvel whatsoever. I really don't get the animosity some comic fans feel towards rival publishers. Marvel has done an amazing job establishing their cinematic universe. Their movies have stuck closer to the source material than most other comic book films, and they've garnered consistently positive reviews from critics. They've been commercially successful too. In fact Disney's Marvel films recently surpassed Harry Potter as the highest grossing movie franchise in the US. And with the sizeable line-up of films they currently have in production, that record seems unlikely to be challenged any time soon.

A lot of it comes down to strategy. According to Kevin Feige, Marvel has planned ahead as far as 2028! From the very beginning they've taken risks investing in several simultaneous pictures at any one time. And they've used a mixture of veteran directors (Kenneth Branagh, Joe Johnston) and new upcoming talent (the Russo brothers) to great effect. They deserve their success, and I'm happy to see them reap the rewards of it. I haven't seen Winter Soldier yet, but I'm hoping to this weekend. If it's as good as everyone says it is then I'm in for a treat.

I know a lot of DC fans believe we'll eventually get our own cinematic universe, with the Superman vs. Batman movie serving as a launching point for standalone films starring Wonder Woman, the Flash, Aquaman, et al. Personally, I don't believe this is ever going to happen.

Prior to the release of Man of Steel there were rumours circulating that WB was only willing to commit to one film franchise at a time. These rumours indicated they were hoping to replicate the success of The Dark Knight trilogy with a Man of Steel trilogy, but that if Man of Steel didn't meet their expectations they would divert their resources to rebooting Batman instead of making more Superman sequels. But then, as a precipitous show of confidence, they went ahead and commissioned the Man of Steel sequel before the first film had even been released, thus backing themselves into a corner when the film underperformed. And let's be honest, it did underperform.

Variety reported that the movie cost 225 million dollars to make, plus another 150 million dollars to market. That's an investment of $375,000,000 from Warner Bros. Jeff Robinov was so confident of the film's quality that he predicted it would make over 1.3 billion dollars.
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/warner-bros-sets-bar-high-for-latest-and-priciest-incarnation-of-superman-1200493334/

And how much did it make? $687,999,518; roughly half of what projections had forecast. And on top of that it got panned by critics. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 'ROTTEN' rating of 56%. And it has a 'Top Critic' rating of 54%, which is lower than Batman Forever (1995). It didn't get nominated for a single Academy Award (even Superman Returns was nominated for one) and has proved extremely divisive amongst fans.

Like I say, I haven't seen Winter Soldier yet, but it already seems to be outperforming Man of Steel on every level. It's got a 'CERTIFIED FRESH' rating on Rotten Tomatoes with a score of 90% and a 'Top Critic' rating of 73%. It's receiving universally positive reactions from the fans, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it ended up making more money. This is especially embarrassing for WB for several reasons:

1) Superman is one of their top tier characters, whereas Captain American is generally perceived as being a second-tier Marvel character (by the public, not comic fans).

2) Man of Steel was released in the summer holidays when all the kids were off school, while Winter Soldier was released in April. Yet Winter Soldier is giving it a run for its money at the box office.

3) Man of Steel had a production budget of 225 million dollars. Winter Soldier had a production budget of 170 million dollars, expanding its profit margin even further over that of Man of Steel.

Now you might be wondering why I'm comparing Man of Steel to Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Are the two films in competition? Well, actually yes they are. WB made it a competition when they announced the Man of Steel sequel would be released on the same day as Cap 3 (admittedly they didn't know the film scheduled for release on that date was Cap 3, but they knew Marvel had booked the date for something). And considering Cap will be appearing in Avengers: Age of Ultron next year – which, along with Star Wars Episode VII, will probably be the biggest movie of 2015 – the momentum for Captain America 3 is only going to increase. And as some people have already pointed out, Cap 3 doesn't need to outperform Superman vs. Batman at the box office; it only needs to detract from its rival's takings. Which it probably will.

Anyway, regarding Goyer...

I'm not sure. Marvel has had enormous success, but I'm not sure that everybody should try to emulate them either.

But they clearly are trying to emulate them. Why pretend otherwise? If someone establishes a successful strategy, it makes no sense whatsoever not to use it.

Yeah, I think it's a lot easier to make Batman relatable than it is to make Superman relatable.

A billionaire playboy living in his mansion is more relatable than a guy who works a fulltime job, takes care of his parents and sustains normal day-to-day relationships with his girlfriend, friends and co-workers? This tells me that Goyer still doesn't get what makes Superman tick. He needs to look beyond the superpowers, special effects and 'angry god' angst and try seeing the relatable character beneath the surface.

We don't sit in a room with cigars and say, "Look at what these guys are doing!" It doesn't work that way.

I think that's precisely how it works. Only it's not Goyer and Snyder chomping on the cigars; it's the suits high up at WB. These are the same people whose commercially-driven decision-making led to Batman and Robin in 1997. I suspect Snyder and Goyer are just following their mandates.

But why are WB placing the fate of the entire DC cinematic universe in Snyder's hands anyway? I can understand the whole 'In Nolan I Trust' thing because Nolan had a track record of critically and commercially successful films. But let's take a look at Snyder's career.

Zack Snyder has made six feature films. They're listed below along with their respective critical reactions courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes:

Dawn of the Dead (2004) – 75% 'CERTIFIED FRESH'
300 (2006) – 60% 'FRESH' (but only by 1%)
Watchmen (2009) – 65% 'FRESH'
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010) – 50% 'ROTTEN'
Sucker Punch (2011) – 23% 'ROTTEN'
Man of Steel (2013) – 56% 'ROTTEN'

And their 'Top Critics' scores:

Dawn of the Dead (2004) – 52% 'ROTTEN'
300 (2006) – 35% 'ROTTEN'
Watchmen (2009) – 40% 'ROTTEN'
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010) – 50% 'ROTTEN'
Sucker Punch (2011) – 14% 'ROTTEN'
Man of Steel (2013) – 54% 'ROTTEN'

So to summarise, 50% of his films have been received negatively by the majority of critics. 100% of his films have been received negatively by the top rated critics in the business. Metacritic offers a similarly bleak appraisal of his filmography.

The financial performance of his films isn't much more encouraging. Dawn of the Dead and 300 both met/exceeded box office predictions and were considered financially successful. Watchmen earned a respectable $185,258,983 on a 130 million dollar budget, but didn't make as much as WB was hoping. Sucker Punch was a flop, grossing only $89,792,502 on an 82 million dollar production budget (that doesn't include marketing costs). And as I mentioned earlier in this post, Man of Steel – while performing respectably – only made about half of what they were hoping it would. So while his films fare better with audiences than they do with critics, they're still not the guaranteed box office gold that Nolan's are.

So once again, why is WB investing everything in Snyder? Because he likes comics? I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm being harsh on the guy. I just don't have much faith in him and Goyer helming something as massive as the DC cinematic universe. And I certainly don't have faith in the studio bosses who are pulling their strings from behind the scenes.

Disney/Marvel have a massive slate of films lined up for the future. Far too many to name.

Fox also has a bunch of films lined up for their own shared cinematic universe:

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Fantastic Four (2015)
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Fantastic Four 2 (2017)
Wolverine 3 (2017)
As-yet untitled film (2018 – rumoured to be an X-Force movie)

Fox is also rumoured to be working on a Mystique spinoff, a Deadpool movie and some sort of crossover picture where the Fantastic Four will encounter the X-Men.

Sony has similar plans for their own shared cinematic universe. They've already announced The Amazing Spider-Man 3, and they're developing spinoffs based on The Sinister Six and Venom.

So between Disney, Fox and Sony, we're going to be inundated with Marvel superhero films from now until at least the end of the decade. And how many DC films are currently in production?

One.

Superman vs. Batman.

And if we're lucky, we'll get a Justice League film three of four years after that. As a DC fan, I find this situation very disheartening. 

[The Laughing Fish]

^^ I'm not sure if I agree with Man of Steel's box office returns as underwhelming. Warner Bros. can be greedy all they like and get disappointed that it didn't meet their expectations, but Man of Steel did gross more money than any MCU Phase 1 film at the box office, with the obvious exception being The Avengers. Yes, the Iron Man and Thor sequels have made more money, and possibly so will Captain America. But the thing they have in common is they're all sequels. Man of Steel was an origin story, and a Superman movie that had to restart the franchise after Superman Returns' failed attempt to continue the Reeve era, and that movie had a box office gross that grossed $391,000,000 despite a budget more than $207,000,000.

On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 'ROTTEN' rating of 56%. And it has a 'Top Critic' rating of 54%, which is lower than Batman Forever (1995).

For the record, Batman Forever has a rotten rating of 41%. 

Anyway, if WB are serious about developing a DC Cinematic Universe, then they should look for other directors and writers to work on future projects. Variety is one of the things that made Marvel so successful so far.

[Silver Nemesis]

But the thing they have in common is they're all sequels. Man of Steel was an origin story,

So was Superman: The Movie (1978), and that was made in an era when superhero films were viewed as childish and unprofitable. Superman was held in especially low regard at the time thanks to a recent TV special based on the Broadway spoof 'It's a Bird... It's a Plane... It's Superman!' (1975). And yet that movie's domestic gross alone (adjusted for inflation) came to $478,940,400; almost half a billion dollars. By contrast, the adjusted domestic grosses for the two most recent Superman films were:

•   Superman Returns - $255,065,300
•   Man of Steel - $290,003,600
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=superman.htm

Which means Man of Steel grossed less than 35 million dollars more than Superman Returns in the US. Now take into account that Man of Steel had additional revenue from 3D ticket sales, which can cost up to 40% more than regular cinema tickets, and you'll see that the two films weren't that far apart in terms of the number of tickets sold. Global box office might be a totally different story, but since it's impossible to adjust worldwide gross for inflation, we can't accurately compare them.

Getting back to the Marvel Phase 1 comparison, the only one of those characters who was anywhere near as well known as Superman was the Incredible Hulk. The rest of the Phase 1 heroes were relatively unknown amongst the general cinema going public. So they were bound to make less money in their debut films. Superman, on the other hand, is the most recognisable superhero on the planet. And he's remained prominent in the public eye in recent years thanks to Superman Returns, the Smallville TV show and a number of successful animated films. So in terms of brand awareness, Man of Steel already had a massive head start over any of Marvel's Phase 1 films.

If anything, the fact that Man of Steel was a reboot only increased the hype. It was marketed as being from the makers of The Dark Knight trilogy, with Christopher Nolan's name plastered all over the promotional materials. Remember the whole 'IN NOLAN WE TRUST' slogan that was flooding the internet prior to the film's release? And the hype worked, the movie opened big. In fact it had the 16th highest grossing opening weekend of all time (unadjusted for inflation). The problem was that once people saw the film, not many of them wanted to see it again. So the opening weekend gross ended up accounting for 40.1% of the film's total US takings.
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/

That initial success reflects the audience response to the hype; the sharp drop-off in subsequent weeks reflects the audience response to the film's quality. Sorry if it sounds like I'm bashing the movie. That's not my intention. I actually thought it was ok and that the critics were a little too harsh on it. But then I'm biased towards it because Superman is my favourite superhero. But even with that bias, I still only thought the film was ok. It should have been a lot better.

I think Superman Returns and Man of Steel both did decent business at the box office. But if Warner Bros thought SR performed disappointingly, then they must think the same thing about MoS, even if they're not openly saying so. Here's an interesting 2008 quote from Jeff Robinov (the same guy who confidently predicted MoS would make 1.3 billion, and who then resigned from Warner Bros a few weeks after the film's release) concerning WB's reason for choosing a Superman reboot over another sequel:

"It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned. Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009. But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB121936107614461929?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB121936107614461929.html

This more or less confirms speculation that their original plan had been to make a series of Superman films similar to The Dark Knight trilogy. The fact that they're now adding Batman to the mix, despite saying earlier that they wouldn't, indicates that they're just as unhappy with MoS as they were with SR. The problem is they can't get away with yet another reboot so soon after the last one, so now they just have to run with it.

after Superman Returns' failed attempt to continue the Reeve era

Did it fail? I know it's become trendy to bash the film ever since the reboot was announced, but judging it objectively on its own merits, was it really the huge failure the haters make it out to be? As I mentioned earlier, it's difficult to accurately compare the overseas performance of SR and MoS, but we can compare the adjusted domestic takings. And on those terms, both movies performed within roughly the same bracket; successful, but not as successful as the studio was hoping.

In addition to doing modestly well financially, Superman Returns earned positive reviews from critics. It has a 76% 'CERTIFIED FRESH' rating on Rotten Tomatoes, was nominated for an Academy Award, a BAFTA and 5 Saturn Awards (winning 5 other Saturn Awards in addition to those nominations). It grossed more money than Batman Begins and was praised by Quentin Tarantino as one of the best films of 2006 (apparently Tarantino liked it so much he wrote a twenty page review of the film, but it's never been published).

Warner Bros was initially enthusiastic about the sequel. And had they gone ahead with it, Superman: The Man of Steel (2009) would have finally given audiences the chance to see Superman fight Brainiac on the big screen. We probably would have gotten a third film in 2012, and then WB could have rebooted Superman along with Batman in the same movie in 2015. Did WB really make the right decision, cancelling the SR sequel in favour of Nolan and Snyder's film?

and that movie had a box office gross that grossed $391,000,000 despite a budget more than $207,000,000.

But that budget includes money that was spent on the previous attempts to make the movie, dating back to the early nineties. It includes the salaries of Kevin Smith, Nicolas Cage, Chris Rock, Tim Burton and everyone else who was ever attached to one of those projects. It includes all the preproduction costs for Burton's Superman Lives – money spent constructing costumes, sets and special effects that never made it onto the screen. And even with all that extra money added to Singer's actual expenditure, the budget was still smaller than that of Man of Steel.

For the record, Batman Forever has a rotten rating of 41%.   

That's its overall rating. Its 'Top Critic' rating is 56%. Man of Steel's 'Top Critic' rating is 54%.

Anyway, if WB are serious about developing a DC Cinematic Universe, then they should look for other directors and writers to work on future projects. Variety is one of the things that made Marvel so successful so far.

Absolutely. They should really have a number of different filmmakers working on multiple films at the same time, but all coordinated in accordance with a shared game plan. That's exactly what Marvel and Kevin Feige are doing.

[The Laughing Fish]

Hmmm, I didn't realise that Superman '78 grossed THAT much when adjusted for inflation. It's something that no Superman movie has achieved ever since. To be fair though, Superman II grossed more than $309,000,000 when adjusted, which Man of Steel was the only movie that came anywhere close to that mark.

Superman, on the other hand, is the most recognisable superhero on the planet. And he's remained prominent in the public eye in recent years thanks to Superman Returns, the Smallville TV show and a number of successful animated films. So in terms of brand awareness, Man of Steel already had a massive head start over any of Marvel's Phase 1 films.

Fair point. Although I'd argue most people are familiar with Captain America compared to Iron Man and Thor, but he's not as popular as Superman, Batman or Spider-Man. But admittedly that's beside the point anyway.

If anything, the fact that Man of Steel was a reboot only increased the hype. It was marketed as being from the makers of The Dark Knight trilogy, with Christopher Nolan's name plastered all over the promotional materials. Remember the whole 'IN NOLAN WE TRUST' slogan that was flooding the internet prior to the film's release?

Off-topic and totally beside the point, but: Ugh, how could I not remember?    Crap like that made me initially hesitant about giving the film a chance at all. It turned out that I found the movie to be less flawed than most of Nolan's stuff other than The Prestige and even Memento. It does made me laugh that the complaints of the hero of causing collateral damage and killing the villain could easily be applied to Nolan's Batman if they're honest about it.

But back on topic, I definitely see what you're saying. All this this hype and yet the movie's box office revenue, according to Box Office Mojo, declined by 65% by the second week it came out - which they claimed it was they sharpest decline since Green Lantern.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm bashing the movie. That's not my intention. I actually thought it was ok and that the critics were a little too harsh on it. But then I'm biased towards it because Superman is my favourite superhero. But even with that bias, I still only thought the film was ok. It should have been a lot better.

You don't need to say sorry - I thought the movie was good for the most part, but there are some things that did hurt it and prevented it from being great. So yeah, I wouldn't hesitate to agree that it should've been better too. Though, I still don't think it's more flawed than some critically acclaimed films out there.

Did it fail? I know it's become trendy to bash the film ever since the reboot was announced, but judging it objectively on its own merits, was it really the huge failure the haters make it out to be?

I for one don't actually hate Superman Returns, but the more I watch, I'm less impressed with it. I found it to be poorly written, yet at the same time largely forgettable.

I thought it was a bad idea trying to retcon the Reeve movies by trying to make this film the 'sequel' that takes place after Superman II, with a cast that looks absolutely nothing like Reeve and co. But what's worse was it tooks place when Superman returns to Earth after a five year absence. This totally contradicts the 'I won't ever let you down again' line from SII's ending, in my opinion.  Not only was Superman's voyage into space a complete waste of time (especially since he had been told by Jor-El that Krypton had been completely destroyed in Donner's film), but when he comes back home we're later informed that Lois' son is actually his son too. This puts Superman in an unfavorable position that nobody wants or cares to see. We don't especially care for this revelation because Superman shouldn't have left in the first place, and then the kid is just a narrative dead end. If Superman reveals that he is the boy's father, he'll destroy the family dynamic, devastate Richard White and possibly risk his own son's life if this information somehow falls into the wrong hands...but if he keeps the truth hidden then the boy will never learn who his real father is.

Not to mention that every scene in this movie drags on to the point the camera focuses on every little item in the background; making the movie unnecessarily long than it had to be. Seriously, the only impressive things I found about this movie are the cinematography and the special effects. That's it.

And as simple as it might sound, the fact that Superman Returns was the first movie in the franchise for 19 years and yet its global box office revenue was smaller compared to the reboot, and was met with negative backlash by the majority of the fan base that only grew over time goes to show that maybe the film wasn't as cracked up as critics were making it out to be. Sure, people have mixed feelings on the reboot too, but at least it's better to start over from scratch with hopes of telling future stories; not trying to continue a bygone era and not even coming close to matching it.

In addition to doing modestly well financially, Superman Returns earned positive reviews from critics. It has a 76% 'CERTIFIED FRESH' rating on Rotten Tomatoes, was nominated for an Academy Award, a BAFTA and 5 Saturn Awards (winning 5 other Saturn Awards in addition to those nominations). It grossed more money than Batman Begins and was praised by Quentin Tarantino as one of the best films of 2006 (apparently Tarantino liked it so much he wrote a twenty page review of the film, but it's never been published).

And yet this is another reason why I never take critic reviews and awards ceremonies seriously. I mean, Superman Returns won an award for Best Writing, despite the plot for that film was so thin to the point that it's mostly forgettable. But given the undeserved crap I see that the Saturn Awards have rewarded in the past, I'm not that surprised. But I'm surprised Tarantino rated the film so highly, I'd be interested to read what he liked about it.

For all the complaints about Man of Steel's pacing, I thought it was an improvement in that department compared to Returns.

RE: the Top Critic rating. Ah, I didn't realise that such a thing even existed on Rotten Tomatoes.  I stand corrected. Though I still don't care what the critics  say. 

But that budget includes money that was spent on the previous attempts to make the movie, dating back to the early nineties. It includes the salaries of Kevin Smith, Nicolas Cage, Chris Rock, Tim Burton and everyone else who was ever attached to one of those projects. It includes all the preproduction costs for Burton's Superman Lives – money spent constructing costumes, sets and special effects that never made it onto the screen. And even with all that extra money added to Singer's actual expenditure, the budget was still smaller than that of Man of Steel.

You know, I keep hearing some conflicting things about Superman Returns' budget, and this is the first time I've heard of this. I actually found what you've been talking here:

Superman Returns (2006)
Estimated production budget: $270 million
Total worldwide box office: $391 million.
Details: So as we've observed before, this movie made roughly as much money as Batman Begins. But because Bryan Singer's film was saddled with the budgets of all the failed Superman movies of the 1990s and 2000s, including Tim Burton's and McG's, it was a failure on paper.

Source: io9.com/5873224/hit-movies-that-everybody-thinks-were-flops

But I thought the movie cost $207 million?  And there are other sources saying the film's estimated production budget was $270 million. So which figure was the right cost exactly?

RE: WB's box office estimations, was it really reasonable to expect a reboot  to gross a billion dollars? I could understand if wanted the movie to gross more than The Amazing Spider-Man reboot.

Anyway, regardless of their true reasons, I'm just glad that WB are attempting to start a cinematic universe. I'd hate to see this Superman last a trilogy, and then we are forced to reboot it all over again for a shared universe.

Absolutely. They should really have a number of different filmmakers working on multiple films at the same time, but all coordinated in accordance with a shared game plan. That's exactly what Marvel and Kevin Feige are doing.

But they most likely won't though. The thing with Marvel is they seem like they are their own corporation and have a vision that they keep fulfilling, even after they were bought by Disney. DC, on the other hand, lack that kind of identity - they truly act like a subsidiary to WB. And WB have other films they are committed to, films based on comics aren't exactly their priority. And Goyer's comments especially aren't that encouraging - reminding me how he needs to be given the boot ASAP.

[Silver Nemesis]

But what's worse was it tooks place when Superman returns to Earth after a five year absence. This totally contradicts the 'I won't ever let you down again' line from SII's ending, in my opinion.

You know, now that I think about it, Superman must have left Earth immediately after saying that line. Otherwise he surely would have known Lois was pregnant. He would have heard the baby's heartbeat, or seen him with his x-ray vision, or noticed subtle changes in Lois' complexion or body temperature. Something like that. But he didn't know, which means he must have left straight away. He literally must have left the White House, flown into space, smiled for the camera, then boarded his spaceship (which was waiting for him in orbit) and taken off. By time the credits finished rolling he'd probably already left our solar system.

"Sorry I've been away so long. I won't let you down again." And then he leaves Earth defenceless for the next half a decade. It does sort of undermine the whole ending of Superman II.

Not only was Superman's voyage into space a complete waste of time (especially since he had been told by Jor-El that Krypton had been completely destroyed in Donner's film), but when he comes back home we're later informed that Lois' son is actually his son too.

I suspect the real reason – by which I mean the writers' reason – for having him be away so long was so the kid could grow up a bit. I find it hard to swallow that Superman would just leave his adopted home to pursue a futile venture that serves no purpose other than to satisfy his own curiosity. Now if he'd left someone else behind to do his job for him – for example, the Eradicator – I'd find the situation more acceptable. Then when Lex infiltrates the Fortress of Solitude he could have found the crystals that control the Eradicator and reprogrammed him to serve his own evil agenda. Instead of Lex distracting Superman by fixing the brakes on Parker Posey's car, he could have sent the Eradicator on a rampage in downtown Metropolis. And it could have been the Eradicator who delivered the beat down on Superman on the kryptonite continent. That would have made the film a little more interesting IMO.

But I'm surprised Tarantino rated the film so highly, I'd be interested to read what he liked about it.

Tarantino's always been something of a contrarian. He slags off acclaimed filmmakers like Alfred Hitchcock and John Ford, while at the same time praising people like Lucio Fulci. 

For all the complaints about Man of Steel's pacing, I thought it was an improvement in that department compared to Returns.

I thought both movies suffered from the same problem of overindulging visual effects in the final act. And in both cases it adversely affected the pacing and made the action scenes drag on for far too long. It's a common problem I see in a lot of modern blockbusters. I suspect the high cost of computer animation makes filmmakers reluctant to cut CGI footage.

But I thought the movie cost $207 million?  And there are other sources saying the film's estimated production budget was $270 million. So which figure was the right cost exactly?

I'm not actually sure. Most of the sources I've seen give 204 million as the budget. It's possible the 270 figure reflects the production budget plus marketing costs. But that would mean WB only spent 66 million on marketing, which sounds a bit low for a movie of this size. I'd estimate the marketing costs to be at least 100 million, but I could be wrong.

But they most likely won't though. The thing with Marvel is they seem like they are their own corporation and have a vision that they keep fulfilling, even after they were bought by Disney. DC, on the other hand, lack that kind of identity - they truly act like a subsidiary to WB. And WB have other films they are committed to, films based on comics aren't exactly their priority. And Goyer's comments especially aren't that encouraging - reminding me how he needs to be given the boot ASAP.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Marvel Films make independent creative decisions about their films without interference from Disney. Disney fronts the money, but basically lets them get on with it. It's a very good partnership they've got going. By contrast, far too many creative decisions are being made by the suits at WB. And these people don't understand the appeal of the properties they have the rights to. They're all right as long as they have a visionary director like Donner, Burton or Nolan helming their projects. But as soon as that person moves on, they're stuck. The best thing really would be if WB would lease the rights to some of their characters to another studio. It's obvious they're only interested in Batman and Superman anyway, so why not let some other studio establish a shared universe featuring some of their other lesser known characters?

[The Dark Knight]

You know, now that I think about it, Superman must have left Earth immediately after saying that line. Otherwise he surely would have known Lois was pregnant. He would have heard the baby's heartbeat, or seen him with his x-ray vision, or noticed subtle changes in Lois' complexion or body temperature. Something like that. But he didn't know, which means he must have left straight away. He literally must have left the White House, flown into space, smiled for the camera, then boarded his spaceship (which was waiting for him in orbit) and taken off. By time the credits finished rolling he'd probably already left our solar system.

"Sorry I've been away so long. I won't let you down again." And then he leaves Earth defenceless for the next half a decade. It does sort of undermine the whole ending of Superman II.

Indeed. Whatever way you look at it, SR opens up a can of worms. I know SM3 and SM4 are pitiful, but ignoring those movies does more harm than good. They should've just let it be. A reboot then would have been the best decision.