Superman/Batman movie

Warner Bros./DC has announced a Superman/Batman movie to follow Man of Steel! It is in pre-production now and it will be released in 2015. David Goyer is quoted as saying "We’re actually not sure whether the title is Superman vs. Batman or Batman vs. Superman but yes, it’s–that rematch, that combination, the two guys onscreen and that’s happening."

I'm so stoked for this! This is a fantastic way to introduce a new Batman in my opinion! So Excited!!

I've got mixed feelings. It seems like a lack of confidence in Superman's ability to carry his own movies. But if they execute well, yes, it could of course be awesome.

They had tried this before (with the same title even) but it never got produced. I had even saw the script for it online but it's been removed

I don't know, Paeter, I'm not convinced we won't see another Superman standalone movie, it'll probably just be after JL... I just think they know what the fans want and have been clamoring for (for decades, I might add). If there is ANYTHING in their stable that could compete with Marvel's Avengers juggernaut, this is it. I couldn't be more excited... Snyder and Goyer taking Henry Cavill's MOS and throwing a new Batman into the mix? AWESOME!

45shiro45 wrote:I don't know, Paeter, I'm not convinced we won't see another Superman standalone movie, it'll probably just be after JL... I just think they know what the fans want and have been clamoring for (for decades, I might add). If there is ANYTHING in their stable that could compete with Marvel's Avengers juggernaut, this is it. I couldn't be more excited... Snyder and Goyer taking Henry Cavill's MOS and throwing a new Batman into the mix? AWESOME!

Yeah, I'm with you. And I'm one of those fans who wants this. Just unsure of the timing.

See, another issue is character. Pairing these two works so well in comics because we know both characters from their own books and get to see those characteristics play off each other when they are brought together.

We don't know this new Batman yet. And yes, I think there could be significant differences in the way he's handled from the Nolan trilogy. I think they would play off each other best if we got one solo movie for the new Batman first.

Imagine, even if you're a fan of everything Marvel and know those characters front to back, how much less fun and interesting the character interactions would have been in The Avengers if we hadn't had a Thor movie, or a Captain America movie to introduce us to the "movie versions" of these characters first.

Can this lack of "priming" be overcome? Sure. But if they rush this it further reduces that likelihood.

I'm thinking Warner should just take their time so they can have a great franchise universe that will fill the gap after the Marvel movie universe inevitably reaches the point of needing a reboot. These two monster franchises should be taking turns, not going head to head. With that mindset, things get rushed and the audience loses.

We'll see, though. I'd love to be surprised with awesomeness. That was certainly the case for me with Man Of Steel.

I roll my eyes at this, not because of the concept, but because of the likely motivation. Like Paeter says, this is probably pandering shallowly to the fans to compete with Marvel, rather than telling a great story to get fans in.
I love Batman, but he has some of the worst fans in all fandom (which is not to lump all Batman fans in that group, mind you). These are what I call the Bat-wankers, people who don't just love the character, world, villains, etc. of Batman, but who do so mindlessly and are hostile to any variation or competition. Superman seems to take the brunt of this garbage, such is in TDKR (Frank Miller is probably the prototypical Bat-wanker). Ironically, one of the biggest anti-Superman arguments Bat-wankers tend to make is "he's boring because he can do anything and there's no danger", yet they will literally and seriously (I've seen it happen) answer any criticisms against their lord and savior Batman with "he's Batman" and act like that is the argument. How is that not the very same thing they accuse Superman of doing (often incorrectly).
Pardon my rant, but my point is that we're likely to see another lame attempt to pit these two against each other and let Batman win, not because it makes sense or even fits the theme of this upcoming movie, but because mindlessly pandering to Batman fans, including the obnoxious Bat-wankers, will get them lots of opening weekend money, which is the main point of films these days.
I hope they do otherwise, and the two characters do well together often, but as Paeter said, that's with a long history behind them. With the number of upset viewers who really hated "Man of Steel" and the number of fans who thought it was the best movie ever (my girlfriend and I were the exceptions to the polarized opinions since we found it adequate, but not awful), this will probably boil down to a dramatized version of the "Who Would Win" polls you're seeing everywhere online lately. Those are fine for forums and fan sites, but I really hope 2015's major DC movie will be more than that.

When do you think Marvel will do a non avengers Team up movie like this?

Rickster wrote:When do you think Marvel will do a non avengers Team up movie like this?

I almost put Iron Man 2 in that category, but you're probably thinking along the lines of two equally established heroes right?

I don't know that I'd want to see that kind of movie from Marvel in Phase 2, but I WOULD be interested in seeing the characters serve supporting roles in each others movies. For example, after seeing them drive off together at the end of Avengers I was really hoping that Bruce Banner would be a "back at the laboratory" character in Iron Man 3 while Stark was out doing heroics.

Confirmed: Ben Affleck is the new Batman!


http://screenrant.com/batman-ben-affleck-superman-man-steel-sequel-release-date-2015/

Totally didn't see this one coming. Personally I don't like this casting choice, because I've never liked him as an actor. He was good in Argo, but other than that I can't say I cared for him. Christian Bale is a hard act to follow. We'll see...

Seriously? What the crap??
Okay, I'll have to think about this for awhile.

I actually had no issue with Affleck in the Daredevil movie, especially the director's cut. The script and direction were what troubled that movie for me.

But he seems like a bit of an older choice as an actor. Isn't he in his mid-forties now? Not a good age to build a new franchise on. Though I do like the idea of Batman being older than superman. Gives him some extra "grizzle" in comparison. And a "JLA" Batman is going to rock more for his brains than his physique.

I'm also NOT a fan of casting big names in iconic roles. The more iconic the character, the more unknown the actor should be, in my opinion. Especially in the case of heroes. (Villains you can use celebs for with less negative effect.)

This will be interesting...

[quote="DNArington"]Confirmed: Ben Affleck is the new Batman!
So Warner Bros. learned nothing from the Green Lantern debacle. Fans didn't like Ryan Reynolds, and Warner just put him in anyway to get a mass audience, and guess what? The movie sucked! I love DC, but they're just trying to ape the Marvel movies without understanding why they work: they get people who get the material. It's like they're playing Mad Libs with their properties instead of...telling stories. They just swap "Batman" for "Iron Man", "Superman" for, well, "Batman" and think they'll get the crowds.
Ben Affleck is not a terrible actor, but he is not an expressive one, and Batman is a passionate character. He might brood a lot, but it comes from his rage and grief, not from being a Type B personality. Plus, even with the success of "Argo", Affleck is still seen as a punchline to a lot of geeks (as is Daredevil, for that matter) and this will hurt their already strained credibility with the geeks.
Maybe he'll surprise us again and be great, but why does Warner insist on stacking the board so heavily against themselves in advance? I agree with Paeter, they should go with no-names (like Cavill) and let them embody the role.
One more thing, why choose an actor with such a distinctive, infamous chin to play a role whose only exposed skin will be...HIS CHIN?!

Here's an interesting article I found on this. It's compared it to Heath Ledger as the Joker. I was otherwise occupied at that time so I didn't know what to expect, but here's hoping Affleck can pull off something similar, only without dying.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heath-ledger-was-criticized-before-played-joker-2013-8

tmorrill wrote:Here's an interesting article I found on this. It's compared it to Heath Ledger as the Joker.

It makes fair enough points, but that doesn't make this a good decision. A couple points:
Heath Ledger had not done comic movies, mostly rom coms and dramas. The initial backlash was based in ignorance. Affleck has done a comic movie, an infamously bad one (the director's cut was MUCH better) and he was one of the worst parts of it due to his bland acting.
Heath Ledger was not already a joke in pop culture, Ben Affleck was and still is.
Many people (myself included) utterly loathed Chris Evans' Johnny Storm in the "Fantastic Four" movies, and were horrified to hear that he'd been cast as Captain America, only to be surprised and relieved that the flaws of that character must have been the writing, and not the actor since Evans was perfect as Cap! It's entirely possible that Benny boy will surprise us, but, on the heels of the wedging of Batman into the Superman sequel and the cashing in on the "who would win" trend, many fans fear that this means that these decisions are being made for meta, marketing reasons and not because they're the best choices for the films themselves.
I haven't seen "Argo", so I'm not suited to talk about that movie, but the general buzz is that he was great as both actor and director. Also remember that Affleck began with ol' Matt "lucky extra chromosome" Damon on independent films they wrote themselves to star in. It seems that Affleck is at his best when in smaller, more self-initiated roles and projects.
I think it's safe to say that Ben Affleck did not write the upcoming Superman movie, nor will it be some little labor of love. This will be a marketing juggernaut, made to get butts in seats as quickly as possible while the studios get the biggest share of the ticket sales, and when Ben Affleck gets involved in those films, we get "Armageddon", "Pearl Harbor", and "Daredevil".

We just recorded an episode about this (and other) casting surprise.

Personally, I point to Hollywoodland and Argo, where we see that Affleck can do a nuanced and dark performance. I see this happening:

1. He WILL direct a DC movie in the future. I'm convinced that is part of the deal here is that they wanted him because of his Oscar win with Argo.

2. The character he plays in Argo could easily be the type of Bruce Wayne I want to see in a movie. Here's what I want: Bruce Wayne as a businessman who actually cares about business; Batman as the world's greatest detective, figuring thing out.

You can listen to Strangers and Aliens for more, but these are some thoughts.

BenAvery wrote:1. He WILL direct a DC movie in the future. I'm convinced that is part of the deal here is that they wanted him because of his Oscar win with Argo.

If Argo is any indication, he is a terrific director and I would be fine with him directing the Justice League movie somewhere down the line.

BenAvery wrote:Batman as the world's greatest detective, figuring thing out.

Right! I want to see the super-genius he is in the comics and that he will need to be to take down Superman. He should have a plan for every situation and by the time the Justice League rolls around, he should have figured a way to take down every member of the team. 

DNArington wrote:

BenAvery wrote:Batman as the world's greatest detective, figuring thing out.

Right! I want to see the super-genius he is in the comics and that he will need to be to take down Superman. He should have a plan for every situation and by the time the Justice League rolls around, he should have figured a way to take down every member of the team. 

Yeah, that's where I see this casting going, too. And the character direction is a no-brainer, since this is almost always the side of Batman emphasized when he is in a Justice League book. (To my great delight!)

I'm interested to see how this plays out. I absolutely loved Man of Steel, and I'd really like to see Superman stand alone for at least one more movie before we start heading down this track toward Justice League.

That said, I loved The Avengers so I'm keen to see if DC can come up with something equally cool. I do agree though with some of the comments above, that what made Avengers gold was having been introduced to the characters each in their own movies first (and then seeing plot elements from all of those movies in Avengers).

DC have a hard act to follow so then maybe approaching it in a slightly different way than Marvel is what is warranted here.

AdamCollings wrote:

DC have a hard act to follow so then maybe approaching it in a slightly different way than Marvel is what is warranted here.

I agree. It's a gamble that could go horribly wrong or be totally worth it.

Agreed,* this is a good way to build to a JL movie without just following the exact pattern Marvel did.


*at least until they announced that Wonder Woman is also going to be in it played by Gal Gadot:


I don't really want Wonder Woman in this movie unless it is just a cameo/after credits scene or something, but then I wouldn't have wanted it ruined. I haven't seen her in anything, so I can't really comment on whether she is a good choice or not. I just hope she bulks up. I don't want it to be like the Sarah Conner Chronicles, where a small woman is throwing people though walls and it just looks silly.  

I dunno. With a normal human character like Sarah Conner what you say makes sense, but with a superhero I think it's a bit different. A super hero's strength isn't exactly coming from their muscles in the normal way. That's why I don't like a big bulky superman. He doesn't need to be bulky because he's Kryptonian.
Of course I'm not that familiar with Wonder Woman's powers so I may be totally off in her case.

I fall in the "bulk up" camp on this one. On a subconscious level a bulked up superhero looks more imposing and powerful, even if logically they don't need to be bulky. In Wonder Woman's case I think it makes even more sense, since as an Amazon Warrior she would want to be pushing herself to be in peak physical fighting form (even if she has to bench press freight trains to stay in shape).

Heard this casting news a few days ago and while I haven't seen her in anything, my first thoughts were that her face looks like a good fit (slightly eastern/exotic features) but I REALLY hope she can act and not just be pretty (this is more important to me than anything) and she also ought to start downing protein shakes and living at the gym asap.

I've seen her in Fast Five (part 5 of the awesome The Fast & the Furious franchise). Maybe 4 as well, can't remember. Anyway: she's SKINNY! (with emphasis on skinny). In Dutch we actually call such a figure "a bag full of fish bones". Not very flattering I admit (but then again, it's not intended to be...  ).
So not Wonder Woman. Brrrr.

I would have to agree that I am not very keen on the very thin Gal Gadot being wonder woman. However, she did say that she was going to bulk up for the part.

Godfixated wrote:I would have to agree that I am not very keen on the very thin Gal Gadot being wonder woman. However, she did say that she was going to bulk up for the part.

Whew! Good news! Thanks for the update!