Batman/Superman news and rumors

[Ice]

Eisenberg's look as Luthor revealed through Entertainment Weekly.

 

[Captain Canuck]

Eisenberg's look as Luthor revealed through Entertainment Weekly.

No middle stripe?

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

No middle stripe?

Based on all of the images that have been released so far, I think it's a bold move for WB to make this movie in black and white.

 

[Ice]

 

[wyokid]

 

[Ice]

Trailer goes live Monday, teaser trailer announcing teaser trailer is released

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=118793

What seems to be a snippet of the new trailer, and our first taste of Affleck's Batman voice. Spoiler alert: it appears to be even more growly than Bale's.

I really hope this movie is good, but I can't shake the feeling that they are taking the DC Cinematic Universe in completely the wrong direction. For the life of me, I can't see why they settled on Zach Snyder to shepherd this thing. Rumor has it that Michelle MacLaren dropped out of Wonder Woman because of creative differences with Snyder.

 

[DIrishB]

Here's the full trailer (though still cam quality, it's decent and everything can be made out/understood fine)

 

[wyokid]

I like the Devils line. That's damn good Luthor.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

Good God. It's like they heard people complaining that MOS was too dark and said, "you think that was dark? we'll show you dark!". I've been a DC fan my entire life, and honestly, based on that...not that interested in seeing it.



F*** you Zack Snyder.

 

[DIrishB]

Good God. It's like they heard people complaining that MOS was too dark and said, "you think that was dark? we'll show you dark!". I've been a DC fan my entire life, and honestly, based on that...not that interested in seeing it.



F*** you Zack Snyder.

Can you really make it a lighter movie when Batman is the top billed character? Short of going the Batman '66 route, that is.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

Can you really make it a lighter movie when Batman is the top billed character? Short of going the Batman '66 route, that is.

Sure you can. There's miles between the ultra-dark and gritty Batman of TDKR and Batman '66. Batman from the Animated Series, Batman from the Neal Adams years, for example. Batman doesn't have to be this inherently dark, depressing and joyless character. Superman should be sunlight and optimism. Not a "false god". I'm sure they're planning on commenting on the destruction of Metropolis (whether they meant to all along or did it as a reaction to how the ending of MOS was received, who knows). But we're not going to get a version of Superman who is actually inspirational. I have no problem with a darker take on Batman, but if you're going to go that route contrast him with Superman who is inspirational and positive. That sounds like a compelling version of Batman v. Superman. A conflict of ideologies as much as an actual physical fight. My main issue is that this seems to reiterate that the entire DC cinematic universe is going to be ultra dark and "gritty", possibly as a way to differentiate it from Marvel. Tsujihara, the CEO of WB said, "The worlds of DC are very different...They're steeped in realism, and they're a little bit edgier than Marvel's movies." I think this shows from that trailer. Sure I may be reading too much into a single trailer, but overall the tone and look is as joyless as I feared.

 

[wyokid]

Don't you see though? Man of Steel WAS their light hearted film

What's funny is I would say DC is less realistic than Marvel.

 

[Captain Canuck]

What's funny is I would say DC is less realistic than Marvel.

Yeah, this is definitely true. I'm not sure why DC is trying to be more gritty and realistic than Marvel when that's not what they're about as a company. They are known for their larger than life, primary colours, fantastical superheroes with capes. Go with that, have fun with it.

 

[E]

Granted I haven't seen Man Of Steel, but I have absolutely no idea what this movie is about based on this preview. It's just a bunch of stuff thrown together that doesn't tell me anything about the movie.

Maybe that's not necessary for the audience that they are catering to, but this trailer does nothing to make me want to see a movie I had little interest in in the first place.

 

[DIrishB]

Sure you can. There's miles between the ultra-dark and gritty Batman of TDKR and Batman '66. Batman from the Animated Series, Batman from the Neal Adams years, for example. Batman doesn't have to be this inherently dark, depressing and joyless character. Superman should be sunlight and optimism. Not a "false god". I'm sure they're planning on commenting on the destruction of Metropolis (whether they meant to all along or did it as a reaction to how the ending of MOS was received, who knows). But we're not going to get a version of Superman who is actually inspirational.

That's a huge assumption. The whole point of MoS was to introduce a Superman who was green, a rookie, who didn't have the lofty ideals and years of do-gooding to back it up. The whole point is of his journey to that point and learning from his experiences.

I'm not saying it's being done in the most valid or tasteful manner, but I find most detractors of MoS or the DC movie-verse in general (of which we've only seen one film) tend to overlook that or the common sense aspects of the film (the argument used that blames Superman for Metropolis' destruction is ludicrous).

Is it dark and gritty? Absolutely. And there's a certain logic in that. If the world isn't in need of a team of superheroes due to crime, corruption, and strife, well, what's the point of the Justice League? The JL will presumably grow out of that tone directly as a response. Hopefully by halfway through or whatever, they'll use some properties with a lighter tone.

I have no problem with a darker take on Batman, but if you're going to go that route contrast him with Superman who is inspirational and positive. That sounds like a compelling version of Batman v. Superman. A conflict of ideologies as much as an actual physical fight.

I agree but it's unrealistic and ridiculous to expect Clark to reflect those qualities right out of the gate. The Superman-related films in this universe are part of his origin, transitioning him towards that inspirational and positive hero. Having him start out that way robs the property of a lot of character growth and self-discovery, especially in relation to the world.

My main issue is that this seems to reiterate that the entire DC cinematic universe is going to be ultra dark and "gritty", possibly as a way to differentiate it from Marvel. Tsujihara, the CEO of WB said, "The worlds of DC are very different...They're steeped in realism, and they're a little bit edgier than Marvel's movies." I think this shows from that trailer. Sure I may be reading too much into a single trailer, but overall the tone and look is as joyless as I feared.

I do think you're reading too much into it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're criticizing the films for using a common sense approach to the characters. Yes, Superman does represent a positive idealism, but he should develop that idealism and moral code over time (that isn't to say he shouldn't start as positive, which MoS reflected in some sense, but that the idealism that springs out of that, and the experience he gains over time, shouldn't be inherent to the character at the start... he should earn those, gain them through experience and learning. In fact, I'd argue if he does retain that amazing idealism and positivity even in the face of the darker and grittier world they're presenting in the DC cinematic universe, he's arguably just as positive, or even more so, than the version represented in the comics.

All I'm saying is give it time. Allow them several movies to develop the characters and allow them to improve and change as a natural result of their experiences in the first few films they appear in.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

That's a huge assumption. The whole point of MoS was to introduce a Superman who was green, a rookie, who didn't have the lofty ideals and years of do-gooding to back it up. The whole point is of his journey to that point and learning from his experiences.

I'm not saying it's being done in the most valid or tasteful manner, but I find most detractors of MoS or the DC movie-verse in general (of which we've only seen one film) tend to overlook that or the common sense aspects of the film (the argument used that blames Superman for Metropolis' destruction is ludicrous).

Is it dark and gritty? Absolutely. And there's a certain logic in that. If the world isn't in need of a team of superheroes due to crime, corruption, and strife, well, what's the point of the Justice League? The JL will presumably grow out of that tone directly as a response. Hopefully by halfway through or whatever, they'll use some properties with a lighter tone.

I agree but it's unrealistic and ridiculous to expect Clark to reflect those qualities right out of the gate. The Superman-related films in this universe are part of his origin, transitioning him towards that inspirational and positive hero. Having him start out that way robs the property of a lot of character growth and self-discovery, especially in relation to the world.

I do think you're reading too much into it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're criticizing the films for using a common sense approach to the characters. Yes, Superman does represent a positive idealism, but he should develop that idealism and moral code over time (that isn't to say he shouldn't start as positive, which MoS reflected in some sense, but that the idealism that springs out of that, and the experience he gains over time, shouldn't be inherent to the character at the start... he should earn those, gain them through experience and learning. In fact, I'd argue if he does retain that amazing idealism and positivity even in the face of the darker and grittier world they're presenting in the DC cinematic universe, he's arguably just as positive, or even more so, than the version represented in the comics.

All I'm saying is give it time. Allow them several movies to develop the characters and allow them to improve and change as a natural result of their experiences in the first few films they appear in.

I don't necessarily want to argue about point after point. I recognize that this is just a taste of the film, and that we are still a far way from seeing this. My concerns could very well be proven wrong come next year. I really hope that is the case. I've preferred DC to Marvel my entire life, so I would like nothing more than for them to succeed. That said, this trailer gives credence to all of the worrisome rumors that I've read about Batman v. Superman. Just the overall look of that trailer is oppressively bleak and joyless. You may have a point about expecting too much from their Superman so early. However, I think it may be asking too much of audience to follow these movies for years before we get a version of Superman who is everything that he is in the comics. Why not have him be start out as a positive, inspirational hero who affects the world through his actions, rather than a somewhat lost young man who gradually becomes a hero largely because his father figures tell him to. Not to go on a tangent, but I've never understood the insistence that Superman was sent to Earth by Jor-El to become some Christ-like figure. To me, this just takes away so much of the autonomy and decision making from Clark. Isn't it more heroic to do good things because you decide to rather than because your dad told you to?

Regardless, this trailer just doesn't do anything to make me think these characters are in good hands. I enjoyed Man of Steel, and have defended it a lot of times, but I recognize that there are substantial problems with it. Rather than learning for some of the issues I (and a lot of other people) had with it, they seem to be doubling down on the grit and darkness. You say that there is a certain logic to this. Honestly, I'm kind of confused regarding what you mean there. Obviously there should be stakes and seriousness to any movie, but when the general theme of a movie universe is a kind of gritty darkness, that's something else entirely. Furthermore, I think it's going to start wearing on people and turn them off from the DC movies. It's one thing to have a world in need of saving. It's another thing when a lot of the worlds problems seem to be caused by the very heroes we are supposed to be rooting for. As for your statement that JL will grow out of this reliance on darkness and grit. I'm not sure though. The impression I get is that based on the Nolan films, WB is planning on following that course for all of their heroes (which is a huge mistake). Just look at Aquaman. He looks like a goth pirate.

Again, I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, just that I'm very worried based on everything I've seen and heard. Zach Snyder is Zach Snyder. For whatever reason, WB seems to have handed him the keys to the DC cinematic universe. I've just never seen anything in his work to suggest that he's interested in, or capable of, making a fun and exciting superhero movie. He strikes me as being someone who mistakes grittiness for depth.

 

[Ice]

Trailer released officially:

[video=youtube;s6UJGx8wuD0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6UJGx8wuD0[/video]

The IMAX one on Monday will still have something extra, as Snyder said on his Twitter account.

 

[DIrishB]

I don't necessarily want to argue about point after point. I recognize that this is just a taste of the film, and that we are still a far way from seeing this. My concerns could very well be proven wrong come next year. I really hope that is the case. I've preferred DC to Marvel my entire life, so I would like nothing more than for them to succeed. That said, this trailer gives credence to all of the worrisome rumors that I've read about Batman v. Superman. Just the overall look of that trailer is oppressively bleak and joyless. You may have a point about expecting too much from their Superman so early. However, I think it may be asking too much of audience to follow these movies for years before we get a version of Superman who is everything that he is in the comics.

I hope by Justice League Clark has gotten to that point. Also, considering audiences line up in droves for crap like the Transformers films, I don't think there's any such thing as "asking too much of the audience".

Why not have him be start out as a positive, inspirational hero who affects the world through his actions, rather than a somewhat lost young man who gradually becomes a hero largely because his father figures tell him to. Not to go on a tangent, but I've never understood the insistence that Superman was sent to Earth by Jor-El to become some Christ-like figure. To me, this just takes away so much of the autonomy and decision making from Clark. Isn't it more heroic to do good things because you decide to rather than because your dad told you to?

Eh, yes and no.

As for having him start out as a positive, inspirational hero, well, he sort of is. The MoS flashbacks showed that the motivation to help people was always there with Clark, as evidence by the school bus crash into the river scene. Clark saved the entire bus load, including the kid who was picking on him. Seems those elements of selflessness, courage, and idealism are inherent to Clark, and MoS portrayed that.

As for his dad telling him to do it, in MoS Clark is sort of berated by Jonathan for exposing his abilities, not because John is a selfish jerk, but because he's a parent, and he loves his son, and is genuinely worried the government might come and take him away.

As for Jor-El, I agree. His motivation in sending Kal off in the rocket was to preserve his son's life. Nothing more or less.

Regardless, this trailer just doesn't do anything to make me think these characters are in good hands. I enjoyed Man of Steel, and have defended it a lot of times, but I recognize that there are substantial problems with it.

Oh I agree. I've never claimed MoS was a perfect film, only that a lot of the flak it gets is unwarranted and illogical if you stop and think about it for a second.

Rather than learning for some of the issues I (and a lot of other people) had with it, they seem to be doubling down on the grit and darkness. You say that there is a certain logic to this. Honestly, I'm kind of confused regarding what you mean there. Obviously there should be stakes and seriousness to any movie, but when the general theme of a movie universe is a kind of gritty darkness, that's something else entirely.

What I'm saying is that gritty and dark tone that's been presented so far is (hopefully) an intentional approach to outlining the need for these heroes, and as the universe goes on through multiple films I'm hoping that tone lightens some.

I think Suicide Squad will go a long way in that regard. While it'll be over the top on many aspects, hoping some of that will be humor through the interactions of the different psychos on the team.

Furthermore, I think it's going to start wearing on people and turn them off from the DC movies.

I disagree. Heck, the Harry Potter franchise kind of destroys that theory of yours, considering the movies progressively got darker and made more money as they did.

It's one thing to have a world in need of saving. It's another thing when a lot of the worlds problems seem to be caused by the very heroes we are supposed to be rooting for.

So did Clark force Zod to come to Earth? Did Clark force Zod to try to terraform the planet for Kryptonians (killing all human life)? How is it Clark's fault? Merely for existing? I'm not sure how your statement doesn't apply to essentially ALL comic book characters.

Besides which, we've seen ONE movie, and you're acting as if it's a trend. It isn't... yet.

Hell, if anything, Batman is far more responsible for the havoc that's unleashed on Gotham from the Joker in the 1989 Batman film than Superman is for the destruction in Metropolis. I've asked repeatedly how Clark could've avoided that and never received a valid answer. If he left in an attempt to draw Zod away from Smallville and Metropolis, Zod likely would've started killing innocents to draw Superman back. And that was the point. Zod held all the cards.

As for your statement that JL will grow out of this reliance on darkness and grit. I'm not sure though. The impression I get is that based on the Nolan films, WB is planning on following that course for all of their heroes (which is a huge mistake). Just look at Aquaman. He looks like a goth pirate.

I could be wrong. But my point is that so many rail on the darkness and grit of MoS without acknowledging that audiences apparently like that tone, considering how often it's used to bring in big box office dollars. I'm certainly not saying that's the only way, because it's certainly not, but it's a marketable approach. And it's one that helps differentiate from Marvel's more tongue in cheek approach (though even Marvel are getting dark and gritty with Daredevil and the other Netflix shows).

As for Aquaman, he may look like a goth pirate, but I'll take that over the flamboyant roller-disco costume he's been sporting for awhile. I'd love to see someone design that orange and green costume in a way that looks good on film... Don't worry, I'll wait.

Again, I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, just that I'm very worried based on everything I've seen and heard. Zach Snyder is Zach Snyder. For whatever reason, WB seems to have handed him the keys to the DC cinematic universe. I've just never seen anything in his work to suggest that he's interested in, or capable of, making a fun and exciting superhero movie. He strikes me as being someone who mistakes grittiness for depth.

I do agree with you there.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

I hope by Justice League Clark has gotten to that point. Also, considering audiences line up in droves for crap like the Transformers films, I don't think there's any such thing as "asking too much of the audience".

I just don't see the point in taking multiple films to establish that Superman is a optimistic hero who does good things for the betterment of mankind. While your crack about Transformers is accurate, lets not act like Man of Steel was beloved. The response was fairly tepid, as has been the response to this trailer. WB and some fans seem to think that the audience will just come out in droves to see the DC movies. I'm not sure that's the case. I'm sure they do for this movie, in nothing else because it's Batman and Superman in a live action movie for the first time, and that the opening weekend will be huge. Whatever happens after that will depend on the quality of this movie. If it's bad, I can very easily see people giving up on Justice League. I'm not saying that WB should base everything they do on Marvel, but Marvel is there and they have established a hugely successful movie universe. DC is the new kid in town. If they aren't hot out of the gate (which they haven't been so far), the consumer has an already established alternative that is churning out fun, quality movies that people seem to love.

Eh, yes and no.

As for having him start out as a positive, inspirational hero, well, he sort of is. The MoS flashbacks showed that the motivation to help people was always there with Clark, as evidence by the school bus crash into the river scene. Clark saved the entire bus load, including the kid who was picking on him. Seems those elements of selflessness, courage, and idealism are inherent to Clark, and MoS portrayed that.

As for his dad telling him to do it, in MoS Clark is sort of berated by Jonathan for exposing his abilities, not because John is a selfish jerk, but because he's a parent, and he loves his son, and is genuinely worried the government might come and take him away.

As for Jor-El, I agree. His motivation in sending Kal off in the rocket was to preserve his son's life. Nothing more or less.

But my point was that all of his actions are based on what Pa Kent and Jor-El tell him to do. Sure, he saves the bus, but he would have been a monster not to. I'm not the audience should consider that a feather in his hat. After that he kind of wanders aimlessly around the world (and yes, he helps some people in the process) until he ultimately dons the Superman outfit at the behest of Jor-El's recording on the scout ship. I'm not 100% on the details since I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I believe that's how it went down. As for Pa Kent telling Clark not to expose his powers, I actually don't have a problem with that. As you said, he's a parent and that's a reasonable concern. I do have a problem with Clark listening to that advice though. Again, his path to becoming Superman is dictated by one of this fathers. It just strikes me as more interesting and dramatic if Clark himself decides to become Superman, especially if Pa Kent isn't completely behind the idea.

What I'm saying is that gritty and dark tone that's been presented so far is (hopefully) an intentional approach to outlining the need for these heroes, and as the universe goes on through multiple films I'm hoping that tone lightens some.

I think Suicide Squad will go a long way in that regard. While it'll be over the top on many aspects, hoping some of that will be humor through the interactions of the different psychos on the team.

I agree that the dark tone is intentional, but I disagree in that I don't think it's meant to serve any narrative purpose. I honestly just think it's the look of the DC movie universe because Snyder seems to be at the wheel and he loves dark, gritty stuff, and maybe as a way to consciously differentiate this comic book universe from Marvel's. There's really nothing that leads me to believe that they plan on moving past this at some point. Time will tell, but I just think this is the tone that they've landed on for all of their movies. Has Zach Snyder ever made a movie that didn't have a dark, gritty look and feel? I don't expect him to start once he makes Justice League in a few years.

I disagree. Heck, the Harry Potter franchise kind of destroys that theory of yours, considering the movies progressively got darker and made more money as they did.

I think that's something else entirely. Harry Potter had the benefit of being adaptations of a hugely successful book series. I'm not sure how much of their ever increasing success was due to tone, and how much of that was just because beloved movie franchises tend to gross more and more, especially as they near the end of the story. More importantly, the progressive darkness of the films served a purpose. It represented the growing threat and power of Voldemort and the Death Eaters as they gained more and more support. As I've already touched on, I don't really think there's a reason for the doom and gloom of Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman other than that's just what Snyder likes.

It seems to me that there is a real pendulum swing back towards fun action movies. The success of the entire Marvel cinematic universe is this, as is the recent success of teh Fast and the Furious franchise. Now, I have no way of proving that (it's just my hunch), but I think it' s the case.

So did Clark force Zod to come to Earth? Did Clark force Zod to try to terraform the planet for Kryptonians (killing all human life)? How is it Clark's fault? Merely for existing? I'm not sure how your statement doesn't apply to essentially ALL comic book characters.

Besides which, we've seen ONE movie, and you're acting as if it's a trend. It isn't... yet.

Hell, if anything, Batman is far more responsible for the havoc that's unleashed on Gotham from the Joker in the 1989 Batman film than Superman is for the destruction in Metropolis. I've asked repeatedly how Clark could've avoided that and never received a valid answer. If he left in an attempt to draw Zod away from Smallville and Metropolis, Zod likely would've started killing innocents to draw Superman back. And that was the point. Zod held all the cards.

Clark never forced Zod to come to earth, but Zod came to earth because of Clark. Even if it was completely unintentional on Clark's part, he's the reason why Zod came to the planet. I believe that's exactly how the plot went. So, while I'm not saying that you should blame Superman, I don't think you can necessarily say that Superman beating Zod was him solving some issue that had always been there. Metropolis would have been better at the end of Man of Steel if Clark had never put on the cape.

I could be wrong. But my point is that so many rail on the darkness and grit of MoS without acknowledging that audiences apparently like that tone, considering how often it's used to bring in big box office dollars. I'm certainly not saying that's the only way, because it's certainly not, but it's a marketable approach. And it's one that helps differentiate from Marvel's more tongue in cheek approach (though even Marvel are getting dark and gritty with Daredevil and the other Netflix shows).

I think they like that tone when it's done right. Man of Steel did solid box office numbers, but it wasn't a smash hit. Guardians of the Galaxy did better and it had next to no name recognition before it, and had no real stars. Man of Steel was about one of the most iconic characters of all time. Regardless of box office numbers, I think the common perception of Man of Steel is that it was lackluster. It came and it went. That's fine for most movies, but not when that movie is trying to launch a multi-franchise film universe, but I digress. WB could very well be using a dark and gritty tone because of the success they've had in the past with those sorts of movies (the Nolan Batman films especially). If that's the case though, I think it's a mistake. Those Batman movies were successful because they were well made and that tone works for Batman.

As for Aquaman, he may look like a goth pirate, but I'll take that over the flamboyant roller-disco costume he's been sporting for awhile. I'd love to see someone design that orange and green costume in a way that looks good on film... Don't worry, I'll wait.

I realize that this is probably meant to be mainly a joke, but really don't see why we should assume that they couldn't do a more faithful adaption of his classic costume for the big screen. Is Aquaman's costume really THAT much more ridiculous looking than Captain America's? Than Thor's? I don't really think so. They certainly don't have to go for a straight page to screen transfer, but if they wanted to they could put something on screen that looked much closer to Aquaman's classic look. He's King of Atlantis? How about some gold scalemail? You're halfway there.

I'm not even saying that what they decided to do with Aquaman's costume is horrible. It could look fine. I understand the desire to change the look, even if I don't agree with it or think that it's the best approach. The thing about the Aquaman costume that makes me think he'll be just as dark and depressing as all of their characters seem to be, is the way it was presented in that photo. It just looks joyless and not at all fun.