Is that real? Please tell me it's not some sort of sick joke to make fanboys masturbate madly like never before.
Do you realize? After 75 fucking years, this is the first time these characters will be onscreen together in live-action. Plenty of cartoons, never live-action. None of the Superman shows ever had Batman. Bruce Wayne was aaalmost on Smallville. That godawful 70's "Legends Of The Superheroes", special had Adam West, but no Superman, cuz of the Chris Reeve films. That godawful 90's Justice League pilot didn't have Supes or Batsie. The 90's Nick Cage Superman that didn't get made was going to have a George Clooney Batman cameo. They've always kept just missing each other. Whelp, they're finally gonna pull it off.
Guaranteed, the concept will end up being cooler than the finished product. Man of Steel, while intermittently entertaining, was deeply flawed. From 2005 to 2012 audiences got accustomed to a Batman grounded in the real world of Chicago & Pittsburg, not a world of god-like aliens. I would be much more excited to see Batman or Nightwing with Joseph Gordon Levitt, and if they wanted to throw in a bit more of the fantastical have the villains be Clayface or Killer Croc.
I love the concept but...IF the next Batman is going to be distinct from Nolan-Batman, which we've always been told Nolan's was a "pocket-verse" which was unconnected to other superhero realities, then won't it be a bit awkward to INTRODUCE your Batman in a Superman film? Seems like it would have been better for us to meet him as a character who shares the same world with Clark first, then team up.\ All that said, if they are going to do it I hope they borrow from the Timm-verse something of the concept that Luther is the villain, and Clark's initial contact with Bruce is because of some business interaction between WayneTech and LuthorCorp
Do we really need another origin movie? What frustrated me about Man of Steel was that much of it was a retelling of the first two Donner films, albeit without the heart. I think I would rather have seen a concentration of why Superman is who he is and what it feels like to be him as I felt the first Donner movie accomplished the origin perfectly without needing to revisit it. Both Burton's Batman and Nolan's version effectively deal with the origins and all within the past 25 years. After 7 Batman films during that period, and countless animated efforts, does the audience really need to learn where Batman came from again? If the movie is a success the franchise would always have the chance to go back and do a spin off retrospective. Most of Batman's dynamic has now been covered in recent decades, and five of those occasions it was done pretty effectively. His dynamic with others, however, has never been touched. I say go straight for the new stuff.
ooookay then.... http://io9.com/theyre-doing-a-superman-batman-movie-but-thats-not-851711013 Yes, please.
Sweet Jesus. EDIT: Holy shit, TDKR was based on an over the hill Batman coming back, yes they borrowed heavily for the last movie, but an older Batman... Christian Bale is coming back kids.
You just had to go there, WAB! Now Clyde or Paladin will have to close the thread for potential flaming and trolling.
I made it clear in my original review that there were elements of Man of Steel that I liked. If by this repeated line, which you've now tried several times, you're hoping I react the same way as Dayton & X react to JJTrek with baseless ranting and disagreement then I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment.
I didn't say anything about an origin story. But Batman is THE cash cow of the DC (on film) verse. It doesn't seem to me to make him the step-child of the Superman franchise, with all due respect to the latter. No, I don't mean an origin story, jost one that establishes that Bats is his own film franchise, just the way that Cap/Thor/IM are each their own separate franchise, not children of the Avengers franchise. It looks to me like DC is skipping a step for the sake of a stunt. Another reason - IF they are going to do anything remotely in the same vein as TDKR, then they need to establish some reason for animosity between the two. The old-men in TDKR had a rich and long history both with each other and the world around them, you can't shoe-horn that into a movie about a Superman who just now became Superman, and you sure as hell don't want your brand new Batman to be a grizzled veteran. So you have to throw out the whole reason they fight in that comic and come up with a new one. The only way to do that and not have either of them be a bad guy is to establish both their storylines separately. You can - if you are creative, make Two-Face the primary villain (he still hasn't been done justice in a Bat-Film) and use that as a reason to do so minimal flashbacks to "early Batman" as Bruce remembers the clean Harvey - that's as much "origin" material as you need, just use those scenes to establish how we got a Batman in this verse) and let whatever Dent is now involved in lead him into a much larger crime that Luthor is involed in, some thing that rocks Batman's world and leads him to go for Luthor's throat or plan to. Then the team-up movie has to deal first with Batman going after Luthor, Supes being put off by Bruce's tactics and them having conflict before eventually coming to terms and acting to stop the evil plan whatever it is. You might even indulge the idea that initially Bruce suspects that Clark is a tool of Luthor (maybe Lex leaves clues to make that happen) and thus explain why Batman would have prepared himself to take down Superman. Point being - any such story is much easier to do if you use a Bat-film to establish THIS Batman's character and motivation so that the fight they presumably have means something. (BTW, don't we have to establish the existence and effect of Kryptonite in this 'verse before we can put Bruce in a fight with Clark?)
I'd still like to see someone have the balls to do a Bruce-Wayne-before-Batman series. Hell, the CW lives for kick-ass teenagers, right? Show the shooting, the misery, and so forth in the pilot and the decision to train himself and then you can pick up when he's, say, 16 with a world-traveling young man intensely training himself and meanwhile bedding numerous hot chicks (including, slipping Talia in for a while) and doing something similar to "year one" without the cowl in the last season ending the series with the moment when the bat crashes through the window. None of that would need to undermine the larger Bat-franchise at all, there would be no real points of conflict. You wouldn't really have much of the supporting cast. Maybe Harvey Dent is a friend in Gotham, Alfred is there of course, presumably an "Officer Gordon" would appear from time to time but otherwise, you have a completely free hand to move him around to exotic locations and various opportunities to kick-ass.
2015 Avatar 2 | Avengers 2 | Batman/Superman | Die Hard 6 | Finding Nemo 2 | Independence Day 2 | James Bond 24 | Jurrasic Park 4 | Mission Impossible 5 | Pirates o/t Carribean 5 | Star Trek 3/XIII | Star Wars 7 | Terminator 5 | Exciting as it may seem to us nerds, it doesnt have one. Single. New. IP.
A couple years before Smallville, that very idea was floated on AICN, and the fanboys shouted it down, and they morphed it into Smallville with Clark instead. Go figure.
I agree, but DC is so desperate to jump start their own film franchises that I'm sure they feel they can't wait that long. Eventually the public's fascination with superhero movies is going to diminish. Yeah, we'll see. The whole "evil corporate CEO" villain thing is pretty played out, at least in the comics.
