New Superman/Batman film

[polak]

It's cause it's combining their two biggest franchises.

Unfortunately for DC, they've completely f***ed up the groundwork for this (would've been a lot better if this was Nolans universe still) so it probably won't come any where near those numbers. If this was a Christopher Nolan movie, it'd probably crush the Avengers and probably come closer to Star Wars.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by polak

It's cause it's combining their two biggest franchises.

Unfortunately for DC, they've completely f***ed up the groundwork for this (would've been a lot better if this was Nolans universe still) so it probably won't come any where near those numbers. If this was a Christopher Nolan movie, it'd probably crush the Avengers and probably come closer to Star Wars.

Nolan's universe, which was both closed and grounded in reality, really wouldn't allow for a Superman. The studios made the right decision with limiting Nolan's work to 3 films, as the story had run it's course. Adding super-powered aliens to that mix would just be strange.

In order to combine Batman with any of the other Justice League members, you need a total re-imagining from what Nolan presented.

DC's choice moving forward was to do an individual Batman movie and then combine it with Superman, or just go straight for the combo. Given how recent the Nolan movies were, I 100% see why they made the decision they did.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by polak

It's cause it's combining their two biggest franchises.

Unfortunately for DC, they've completely f***ed up the groundwork for this (would've been a lot better if this was Nolans universe still) so it probably won't come any where near those numbers. If this was a Christopher Nolan movie, it'd probably crush the Avengers and probably come closer to Star Wars.

Originally Posted by blankall

Nolan's universe, which was both closed and grounded in reality, really wouldn't allow for a Superman. The studios made the right decision with limiting Nolan's work to 3 films, as the story had run it's course. Adding super-powered aliens to that mix would just be strange.

In order to combine Batman with any of the other Justice League members, you need a total re-imagining from what Nolan presented.

DC's choice moving forward was to do an individual Batman movie and then combine it with Superman, or just go straight for the combo. Given how recent the Nolan movies were, I 100% see why they made the decision they did.

I think you're both right. I'm in the casual superhero movie fan crowd who loved the Nolan Batman movies, and I wouldn't really want to see them taken in a sci-fi direction... the gritty realism of them (by comic book standards) really appealed to me. At the same time, the fact that the Nolan movies were so recent and so good also means that I'm not really in any hurry to have that overwritten with a new version of that universe. Critical response to the movies will probably go a long way to determining my interest, but if reviews are less than stellar, I may decide to just skip this movie entirely.
I'm not sure how representative my views are of other casual fans, but I'm sure I'm not the only one with that perspective. I don't think there's a right path DC could have taken here, except to maybe just let the franchise rest a while before trying to capitalize on it again. When a 'definitive' version of a story or character is done, I think it tends to deflate excitement about future versions. And one can argue whether the Nolan Batman movies are definitive, but I think for a lot of casual fans, they are.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by blankall

Nolan's universe, which was both closed and grounded in reality, really wouldn't allow for a Superman. The studios made the right decision with limiting Nolan's work to 3 films, as the story had run it's course. Adding super-powered aliens to that mix would just be strange.

In order to combine Batman with any of the other Justice League members, you need a total re-imagining from what Nolan presented.

DC's choice moving forward was to do an individual Batman movie and then combine it with Superman, or just go straight for the combo. Given how recent the Nolan movies were, I 100% see why they made the decision they did.

See, I don't think that's necessarily true. The only elements they are missing from the Nolan universe is the backstory with the Joker/Robin, which they are obviously using for Batman's motivation here.

However, that could be easily ret-conned to say that JGL's character became Robin and was killed at the hands of a recently escaped Joker. Now Batman has been pulled back after all thought he had died.

The 'realism' of Nolan's universe isn't a hindrance IMO. They tried to set Superman in the same realism. "How would the real world react to the arrival of Superman?" is the essential question of both Man of Steel and BvS. The transition of the universe to a more sci-fi setting happens in the continuity as Superman rises, and we can see how Nolan's Batman would react to such an extreme change.

I'm not saying it would be better or worse, just that they could have conceivably used the same arc to continue the story.

[polak]

Originally Posted by blankall

Nolan's universe, which was both closed and grounded in reality, really wouldn't allow for a Superman. The studios made the right decision with limiting Nolan's work to 3 films, as the story had run it's course. Adding super-powered aliens to that mix would just be strange.

In order to combine Batman with any of the other Justice League members, you need a total re-imagining from what Nolan presented.

DC's choice moving forward was to do an individual Batman movie and then combine it with Superman, or just go straight for the combo. Given how recent the Nolan movies were, I 100% see why they made the decision they did.

I don't necessarily disagree that it'd be hard to fit Superman into the Nolan universe - That's why I think Superman is the stupidest character ever - but financially speaking having Nolan still attached and a proven Batman everyone loved would have put this movie at a different level.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I think you're both right. I'm in the casual superhero movie fan crowd who loved the Nolan Batman movies, and I wouldn't really want to see them taken in a sci-fi direction... the gritty realism of them (by comic book standards) really appealed to me. At the same time, the fact that the Nolan movies were so recent and so good also means that I'm not really in any hurry to have that overwritten with a new version of that universe. Critical response to the movies will probably go a long way to determining my interest, but if reviews are less than stellar, I may decide to just skip this movie entirely.
I'm not sure how representative my views are of other casual fans, but I'm sure I'm not the only one with that perspective. I don't think there's a right path DC could have taken here, except to maybe just let the franchise rest a while before trying to capitalize on it again. When a 'definitive' version of a story or character is done, I think it tends to deflate excitement about future versions. And one can argue whether the Nolan Batman movies are definitive, but I think for a lot of casual fans, they are.

I'd agree. To truly have the viewers forget the Nolan Batman, you'd need the franchise to rest for another 10 years or so.

That being said, using the Nolan Batman again would be a huge mistake. The third film was already running out of steam, and the franchise was done. Plus it already did the "old Batman" thing. The Nolan trilogy did a great job of depicting Batman at 3 different stages of his career, and resolved his character in the final act. So to include him you'd ether have to have him coming out of retirement, which takes away from the original trilogy, or set the movie prior to the Dark Knight (he was retired/in hiding between the Dark Knight and the DKR).

Let's also face it that signing on Bale for more Batman films, especially the 6+ required from these films just wasn't a possibility. So you're left with two choices, reboot him or don't include him at all.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MattyC

See, I don't think that's necessarily true. The only elements they are missing from the Nolan universe is the backstory with the Joker/Robin, which they are obviously using for Batman's motivation here.

However, that could be easily ret-conned to say that JGL's character became Robin and was killed at the hands of a recently escaped Joker. Now Batman has been pulled back after all thought he had died.

The 'realism' of Nolan's universe isn't a hindrance IMO. They tried to set Superman in the same realism. "How would the real world react to the arrival of Superman?" is the essential question of both Man of Steel and BvS. The transition of the universe to a more sci-fi setting happens in the continuity as Superman rises, and we can see how Nolan's Batman would react to such an extreme change.

I'm not saying it would be better or worse, just that they could have conceivably used the same arc to continue the story.

The Nolan Batman comes out of retirement. The world suddenly discovers aliens, a population of super powered people in Atlantis, a man who can run at the speed of light, another man with a magical ring, an Amazonian woman, etc....

That universe is so different that any attempt to combine the two would essentially just be a total reboot of the Nolan universe. They've chosen a gruff older version of Batman anyways. That's about as close as we can get.

The two options are create a new Batman or don't include him.

[GreenLantern]

They made the right call by rebooting the Batman portion of the universe. TDK trilogy was great but it ran its course. Let us just be happy that we got a good version of Batman already, so anything from here on out is gravy, look at those poor Spider-Man fans.

[sa226]

I think that was my favorite part about the Nolan universe. How grounded in reality it was. It kind of felt like a thing that could actually happen. That trilogy is as much a crime thriller as it is a Superhero movie.

Though it didn't stop Nolan from stretching it a bit too much. Microwave emitter? yahuh. Batman has a thing in his shoe that magically attracts a swarm of bats in seconds? Hmmkay. Batman jumps onto roof of van caving it in Superhero style instead of bouncing off? Right. Bruce Wayne is broken down with no cartiledge left in his joints, then puts on leg brace, kicks down brick wall and beats roided out guy who feels no pain? Sure.

Its tough to do. I'm a fan of the continuation and there is a definite plot line that could have worked merging with the Nolanverse. But it makes way more sense to reboot the whole thing. Originally I thought it was too soon for a new Batman, but TDKR was almost 5 years ago and Batman Begins was almost 11 years ago.

[djsFlames]

I'd be excited if it wasn't Zack Snyder at the helm. He already butchered (or more accurately put, mediocred) the Superman reboot. Terribly written and directed CGI mess of explosions and falling buildings. Why'd they put him behind this one after that? Affleck looks like he's worthy of the part but there's only so much a cast can do when they're given rubbish material to work with.

Hopes are not high.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by blankall

The Nolan Batman comes out of retirement. The world suddenly discovers aliens, a population of super powered people in Atlantis, a man who can run at the speed of light, another man with a magical ring, an Amazonian woman, etc....

How is that any different than Iron Man?: Regular guy builds a suit and fights crime. World suddenly discovers aliens, that the God of Thunder was actually a real thing, a whole separate galaxy of alien civilizations, the Hulk is a thing, super soldiers/inhumans are possible, guy who can be smaller than an atom, sorcerers, etc...

That universe is so different that any attempt to combine the two would essentially just be a total reboot of the Nolan universe. They've chosen a gruff older version of Batman anyways. That's about as close as we can get.

The two options are create a new Batman or don't include him.

I don't disagree that they should have done what they are doing, but I do disagree that that or nothing were the only options.

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I'd be excited if it wasn't Zack Snyder at the helm. He already butchered (or more accurately put, mediocred) the Superman reboot. Terribly written and directed CGI mess of explosions and falling buildings. Why'd they put him behind this one after that? Affleck looks like he's worthy of the part but there's only so much a cast can do when they're given rubbish material to work with.

Hopes are not high.

The only people that are concerned about this movie are people that havent wanted it to be good in the first place. The early impressions from people that have been confirmed to have seen advanced screenings are overwhelmingly positive and at times down right glowing.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by RyZ

The only people that are concerned about this movie are people that havent wanted it to be good in the first place. The early impressions from people that have been confirmed to have seen advanced screenings are overwhelmingly positive and at times down right glowing.

Who are these anti good movie crusaders you speak of? And why would anyone want the movie to be bad?

There are exactly zero reputable reviews out there so far. Actually sounds to me like maybe the only people not concerned are the people who will say the movie is good no matter how bad it is.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Who are these anti good movie crusaders you speak of? And why would anyone want the movie to be bad?

There are exactly zero reputable reviews out there so far. Actually sounds to me like maybe the only people not concerned are the people who will say the movie is good no matter how bad it is.

It's definitely become a trend to slag the movie. The truth is we've seen very little footage and most of the footage we've seen so far is very action orientated.

It's become a very Avengers vs. DC thing too.

[Jason14h]

The only people that are concerned about this movie are people that havent wanted it to be good in the first place. The early impressions from people that have been confirmed to have seen advanced screenings are overwhelmingly positive and at times down right glowing.

This literally makes zero sense to me.

I think Zack Snyder is horrendous. (I liked 300 though) I thought the 1st half of Superman was good and the 2nd half turned into typical Snyder crap.

I am hoping this movie is good. But I am worried it will turn into a mindless, darkly filmed, non sensacle mish mash of building being destroyed and zoomed out battles.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

This literally makes zero sense to me.

I think Zack Snyder is horrendous. (I liked 300 though) I thought the 1st half of Superman was good and the 2nd half turned into typical Snyder crap.

I am hoping this movie is good. But I am worried it will turn into a mindless, darkly filmed, non sensacle mish mash of building being destroyed and zoomed out battles.

I quite liked the Watchmen. His work on the Watchmen, being a DC property, is probably what led to Snyder getting the Justice League/BvS gig.

[GreenLantern]

I think the DC vs. Marvel thing can't be avoided.. They share the same space so naturally there will be a competition between the two. Like Arnold and Sly in the 80's/90's, Flames and Oilers in the 80's, Monster High vs. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic in the 2010's... its just how it goes.

Also this competition isn't anything new, the comparison has been going on since as long as I can remember, seems only natural it would spill over into the movies as it already exists between the comics, video games, trading card games, board games, lunch boxes, kids pajamas and whatever else you can think of.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Marvel and DC naturally have competition but as a fan I like the company that makes good movies. I don't cheer for Marvel movies because I like Marvel and hate DC. It's because Marvel has faithfully translated many of my favourite characters to the big screen. DC has not. Simple as that. That's why I trust Marvel and I'm concerned about DC. The trailer looking like a bad parody didn't help. If they'd made a crazy good trailer I'd be all over this. I'm aware that trailers don't equate to good movies but it is the only thing we have to judge so far. That and DC and Snyders spotty track record.

[polak]

I like the Dark Knight movies more than any other superhero movies. Superman is just terrible. You have a hero who can literally do anything he wants. Such a stupid concept.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

Monster High vs. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic in the 2010's... its just how it goes.

Ah yes, that famous rivalry we're all familiar with.