Batman and Superman IV: "Do you bleed?" "Only on the home release..." (Now with SPOILERS)

[Kalbear]

Quote

We can be sure that at some point Batman is going to confront Superman over the deaths of innocent people during the Zod fight. I'm of the opinion that Superman will express regret. You seem certain he'll express callous disregard. Care to have a wager?

I didn't say that once, and you've chosen to deliberately misread me. 

My point remains that ideally you don't have to have Batman tell Superman he fucked up. Superman should be doing that himself. From what we've seen in the trailer we get Superman being fairly holier-than-thou about Batman. We don't get him feeling bad about things. It's possible we do, but everything we've heard and seen from the trailer and previews along with what the movie is based on partially (the DKR story) indicates that the moral high ground is held by Batman, not Superman. 

The complaint here is that Batman shouldn't need to tell Superman anything. And really, that Batman shouldn't be able to morally tell Superman a single thing. When Batman is the moral compass, that implies two things: that the movie is more about Batman than Superman, and that the movie is going to be pretty dark. 

And that kind of sucks as far as Superman being a stanchion of moral awesomeness goes. 

I think that Superman will express a lot of regret. I think that it's framed so that he has to. I also think that this diminishes the moral and ethical value of the Superman character a decent amount, and fans of Superman being a really good human being despite not being human aren't going to appreciate him being talked down to by a vigilante waging a fairly sadistic war on criminals. 

I'll take your bet if you take mine: do you think Superman was the protagonist in Dark Knight Returns?

[AndrewJ]

But the movie is called Batman v Superman. We need a reason for them to square off against each other. And I want there to be a reason for them to square off against each other. It will be great to see them go up against each other. And this is an excellent way of providing that motivation.

I take your point that many people would prefer Superman to show remorse without any prompting. But that wouldn't make for a particularly good movie. It makes a better movie if we see him come to terms with what he's done over the course of it and demonstrates to Batman that he regrets his past mistakes and is determined to do better in the future. True to the character? Dunno. A fun movie? Hopefully.

And... I'm gonna go with "no" in response to your question. I'm almost certain Superman wasn't the protagonist in Dark Knight Returns.

 

[The King in Black]

I'm taking a perverse satisfaction in seeing how Ben 'Batfleck/Gigli/Daredevil' Affleck went from the Internet's most hated man to "you know Ben Affleck's going to be the best part of this film, I hope they make a new solo Bat feature now". Oh fickle minded Internet, never change.

 

Though I always liked Affleck's more dignified, patient approach of letting people scream their lungs out and taking it all in his stride while also waiting for your turn to inevitably go around shouting 'Fuck you !' to everybody way more than a certain someone's almost petty behavior, you know *cough* My Superman is real Superman *cough*

[Kalbear]

Quote

But the movie is called Batman v Superman. We need a reason for them to square off against each other. And I want there to be a reason for them to square off against each other. It will be great to see them go up against each other. And this is an excellent way of providing that motivation.

I think it's fine, but it also squarely makes Superman the antagonist. I feel like there were better ways for them to fight that make it clear that neither one is wrong and neither one is entirely right, instead of adapting almost verbatim what DKR does with Superman. 

Avengers did this just fine with Captain America and Iron Man. It's not that hard. Off the top of my head - make Batman realize that Luthor is planning something horrible, have Superman wary of Batman to begin with, have Superman stop Batman from breaking the law and potentially killing or maiming Luthor and have them fight about how to stop crime. 

Personally, I don't like Superman that much and I do like Batman more, and I think a better DKR without some of Frank Miller's stupid fascist sensibilities would be awesome - but I can also see how that would make Superman fans a bit disappointed. 

[The King in Black]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think it's fine, but it also squarely makes Superman the antagonist. I feel like there were better ways for them to fight that make it clear that neither one is wrong and neither one is entirely right, instead of adapting almost verbatim what DKR does with Superman. 

Avengers did this just fine with Captain America and Iron Man. It's not that hard. Off the top of my head - make Batman realize that Luthor is planning something horrible, have Superman wary of Batman to begin with, have Superman stop Batman from breaking the law and potentially killing or maiming Luthor and have them fight about how to stop crime. 

Personally, I don't like Superman that much and I do like Batman more, and I think a better DKR without some of Frank Miller's stupid fascist sensibilities would be awesome - but I can also see how that would make Superman fans a bit disappointed. 

This 'leak' is coming from some anon guy claiming to be a test screener, so I doubt it's validity (especially because he praised Eisenberg's Luthor ) but apparently

Spoiler

Superman is holding back alot during the second fight with Batman, during which he has also found out a lot about his tragic past and why he is doing what he is doing, and just wants to talk to Batman, which Batman then somehow uses to his advantage to take down Superman. Even then, Supes still just wants to talk to Bruce and expresses his sorrow over the Zod thing, which Bruce still isn't ready to hear until Alfred basically calls him out over it and forces him to see how he's basically behaving like a dick.

Again, said person claimed Eisenberg's Luthor was amazing, so....

[AndrewJ]

But combine the desire to have B and S fight it out with the fans demanding Supes deal with the destruction caused in the previous movie. This is the perfect way to combine those two things. Sure, they could come up with other reasons for them to fight, but it makes this a stronger movie if it builds on the previous.

Some people have talked about these movies showing the journey Supes took to become the hero we know now. The first movie has him making mistakes. The second has him dealing with those mistakes and coming to terms with them and himself. He absolutely needs to be the hero the fans love by the end of the movie. But I don't think he needs to be so at the start. (Some of them may argue that he should always have been that hero, from the opening scene of MoS - as it's an intrinsic part of the character that he doesn't need to grow into. Those people probably shouldn't watch the movie - it's not for them).

[sifth]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Well, I think this is a bit unfair. When people said they wanted to deal with it, they wanted Superman to deal with it. They wanted him to recognize his failure and be upset about it, recognize that he had to do better.

Instead, what we're getting is Batman recognizing how dangerous he is, how reckless he is, and taking that point to him. Batman bringing down the symbol of Superman is not at all making Superman better; it's specifically and deliberately making him an antagonist. 

I think that's what you're missing; ultimately the people who watched MoS had a hard time feeling like Superman was the protagonist or at least one they support wholeheartedly like Christopher Reeve, and this doesn't make it better - it takes that feeling and uses it even more to make a bigger fight. 

I know you and me don't agree on much, but I think you are making some very solid points. This has always been one of my biggest issues with MoS. The fact that Superman is portrayed in such a violent way and the fact that he seems to have very little awareness that he's causing a great deal of harm to all the people around him in his fight with Zod.

 

I suppose we can only wait and see how the new film handles this.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, AndrewJ said:

But combine the desire to have B and S fight it out with the fans demanding Supes deal with the destruction caused in the previous movie. This is the perfect way to combine those two things. Sure, they could come up with other reasons for them to fight, but it makes this a stronger movie if it builds on the previous.

Some people have talked about these movies showing the journey Supes took to become the hero we know now. The first movie has him making mistakes. The second has him dealing with those mistakes and coming to terms with them and himself. He absolutely needs to be the hero the fans love by the end of the movie. But I don't think he needs to be so at the start. (Some of them may argue that he should always have been that hero, from the opening scene of MoS - as it's an intrinsic part of the character that he doesn't need to grow into. Those people probably shouldn't watch the movie - it's not for them).

Maybe. I'm skeptical that it's a stronger Superman movie. I think it might be a more entertaining movie, but I also tend to think that Batman is a more compelling superhero. 

And I think that you can have Superman come to the understanding that he did wrong but that not be enough for Batman. And have done it independently of what Batman thinks or feels. I think that's where  you can have this be strong - that Superman has to deal with someone who is a fanatic against him but who isn't a bad guy. 

And I'm skeptical, based on the trailers we've seen, that Superman thinks that of Batman yet. 

I guess...hmm. If I was trying to make Superman more of, well, Superman, what I'd do is have him spending a lot of work rebuilding Metropolis, publicly stating that what he's done and what harm he's caused can never be paid back but he'll spend his life trying to do so, while Batman still seethes and still sees him as a threat (the whole if there's a 1% chance then we have to consider it a certainty thing). Then have Batman confront Superman, Superman fight a bit for whatever reason, and end in a draw after Batman says that there has to be a way to stop you. 

Then later, Superman goes and finds Batman, and gives him Kryptonite. And tells Batman that he is right - that even though Superman does not think he'll ever succumb to darkness, there has to exist a way to stop him in case that happens. And that Batman is the only one that he trusts to do the right thing in that case. (this is somewhat stolen from the Mark Waid arc, but that's fine since it's awesome and shows both Batman at his best and worst and Superman at his best and worst)

I think that sort of thing would do a lot to make this more of a Superman movie. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 One of the main things it is is a takedown of '90s xtreem superhero trends, and there's a lot of those guys doing xtreem things, that's why Superman does what he does at all. There's plenty of brutality, both physical and emotional.
And it ends with a full-scale battle.

You wouldn't have to rate it R but if you were to show the full extent of what's going on there it could easily be. The thing is in live-action that kind of thing inevitably gets amped up. It's why MoS had loads of people complaining about how Superman casually demolishes loads of buildings without worrying about bodycount when in the comics and cartoons that kind of thing happens a lot, usually either ignored entirely or handwaved with 'shitty economy' jokes or similar. Hell, one of his most celebrated moments in the tv shows of him talking about being careful not to hurt people is immediately followed by massive, careless property damage in the presence of squishy civilians. But people don't seem to complain about that one.

I agree with Kingdom Come being very capable of an R rating. The opening sequence alone has Captain Atom being torn in half by the Parasite. The theme is certainly dark enough as well. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Then later, Superman goes and finds Batman, and gives him Kryptonite. And tells Batman that he is right - that even though Superman does not think he'll ever succumb to darkness, there has to exist a way to stop him in case that happens. And that Batman is the only one that he trusts to do the right thing in that case. (this is somewhat stolen from the Mark Waid arc, but that's fine since it's awesome and shows both Batman at his best and worst and Superman at his best and worst)

 That would be just about perfect. Loved that Waid run as well. It worked really well. That writer really understands the dynamic between those two characters, methinks. I really hope the filmmakers take that approach...

MARK WAID: Superman is largely guileless. He's honest, he knows that his entire existence and acceptance by mankind as a friend and not an enemy requires him to be trustworthy, and he smiles. Batman realizes that having someone like that on your side, able to work in the sunlight, is an asset - not just because of his powers but because there are moments during a crisis when you don't want the people you're trying to help to fear you. And Batman genuinely likes Superman because while their methods differ, Batman respects someone who is as dedicated to the cause of justice as he is, and he respects the depth of personal sacrifice called upon for a Superman. But one of Superman's natural shortcomings is that he can't think like a criminal. He just can't. That doesn't make him stupid or simple - he just has a natural blind spot when it comes to understanding abnormal,anti-social behavior because he's so trained in being selfless that he can't put himself in the shoes of someone whose motives are purely selfish. And while he's an optimist, he's a realist, too - he understands that there are many, many dark and corrupted men and women who live in the shadows and prey upon the weak, and it takes someone like Batman to help him comprehend what motivates them, how they think, and how they'll act next. Superman's in his element when he's dealing with in-your-face threats or external cataclysms; Batman's excels at criminal psychology. 

[sifth]

 

 

Then later, Superman goes and finds Batman, and gives him Kryptonite. And tells Batman that he is right - that even though Superman does not think he'll ever succumb to darkness, there has to exist a way to stop him in case that happens. And that Batman is the only one that he trusts to do the right thing in that case. (this is somewhat stolen from the Mark Waid arc, but that's fine since it's awesome and shows both Batman at his best and worst and Superman at his best and worst)

 That would be just about perfect. Loved that Waid run as well. It worked really well. That writer really understands the dynamic between those two characters, methinks. I really hope the filmmakers take that approach...

MARK WAID: Superman is largely guileless. He's honest, he knows that his entire existence and acceptance by mankind as a friend and not an enemy requires him to be trustworthy, and he smiles. Batman realizes that having someone like that on your side, able to work in the sunlight, is an asset - not just because of his powers but because there are moments during a crisis when you don't want the people you're trying to help to fear you. And Batman genuinely likes Superman because while their methods differ, Batman respects someone who is as dedicated to the cause of justice as he is, and he respects the depth of personal sacrifice called upon for a Superman. But one of Superman's natural shortcomings is that he can't think like a criminal. He just can't. That doesn't make him stupid or simple - he just has a natural blind spot when it comes to understanding abnormal,anti-social behavior because he's so trained in being selfless that he can't put himself in the shoes of someone whose motives are purely selfish. And while he's an optimist, he's a realist, too - he understands that there are many, many dark and corrupted men and women who live in the shadows and prey upon the weak, and it takes someone like Batman to help him comprehend what motivates them, how they think, and how they'll act next. Superman's in his element when he's dealing with in-your-face threats or external cataclysms; Batman's excels at criminal psychology. 

Very well said. I completely agree.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It's never a good sign when a studio makes what seem like panic moves just before a movie is set to be released.

22 hours ago, Leap said:

 That's a perfect use of that gif.

 

Also, whilst I don't think that an 18 rating precludes a Superman story from getting Superman's character across, I have very little confidence that it will do that anyway and this news does nothing to strengthen that. However, I do think it's fair to say that this time a few years ago, the news that we'd be getting a whole crop of R-rated superhero movies would have been hugely exciting.

Leap,

The quote function is evil, so I'm trapped in your box. I think an R rating helps Superman. You can make everything else around him darker and more realistic about the failures of man, enhancing his image as a more enlightened being.

[The Anti-Targ]

17 hours ago, The King In Black said:

I'm taking a perverse satisfaction in seeing how Ben 'Batfleck/Gigli/Daredevil' Affleck went from the Internet's most hated man to "you know Ben Affleck's going to be the best part of this film, I hope they make a new solo Bat feature now". Oh fickle minded Internet, never change.

 

Argo perhaps? Or maybe The Town? I think those were his critical redemption movies. But because neither were block busters perhaps the mass audience who goes to superhero movies are only just coming around to the fact that Ben Affleck is actually a talented guy.

 

17 hours ago, The King In Black said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Superman is holding back alot during the second fight with Batman, during which he has also found out a lot about his tragic past and why he is doing what he is doing, and just wants to talk to Batman, which Batman then somehow uses to his advantage to take down Superman. Even then, Supes still just wants to talk to Bruce and expresses his sorrow over the Zod thing, which Bruce still isn't ready to hear until Alfred basically calls him out over it and forces him to see how he's basically behaving like a dick.

Again, said person claimed Eisenberg's Luthor was amazing, so....

Well I for one am looking forward to Eisenberg's take on Luthor. We've had multiple interpretations of The Joker over the years and more have been great than crap. I don't see why a millennial Luthor should automatically be rubbish.

[Veltigar]

I don't know who came up with this thread title, but I just want to say that he/she is brilliant and deserves this

[sifth]

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Argo perhaps? Or maybe The Town? I think those were his critical redemption movies. But because neither were block busters perhaps the mass audience who goes to superhero movies are only just coming around to the fact that Ben Affleck is actually a talented guy.

 

Well I for one am looking forward to Eisenberg's take on Luthor. We've had multiple interpretations of The Joker over the years and more have been great than crap. I don't see why a millennial Luthor should automatically be rubbish.

I'm personally just not a fan of Eisenberg as an actor. I don't find him very talented at all. Now if it were Bryan Cranston playing Luthor, I would see this film without question. Eisenberg though..............while not a deal breaker, he's at least enough to make me instantly expect the character to suck going in.

 

Just my 2 cents though.

[The Unborn]

Cranston playing Luther isn't really inspired casting at all, IMO.

And for Affleck, I was happy when he was cast. I knew he would probably end up in the same situation as Ledger for the Joker. 

[The King in Black]

17 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Argo perhaps? Or maybe The Town? I think those were his critical redemption movies. But because neither were block busters perhaps the mass audience who goes to superhero movies are only just coming around to the fact that Ben Affleck is actually a talented guy.

 

Well I for one am looking forward to Eisenberg's take on Luthor. We've had multiple interpretations of The Joker over the years and more have been great than crap. I don't see why a millennial Luthor should automatically be rubbish.

It's just so weird you know. You'd think those who were mocking him (and there were many, remember that ridiculous petition ?) would at least stick to their guns. Looking at the scene now, you would be forgiven to believe that everybody loved this decision from the get go.

Hey, I don't have the skills to either act myself or to give a professional critique, so far be it from me to diss Eisenberg. I am skeptical about it (and given what we've seen so far I have my reasons) but that doesn't mean Luthor can't or won't be amazing.

 

[polishgenius]

17 minutes ago, The King In Black said:

It's just so weird you know. You'd think those who were mocking him (and there were many, remember that ridiculous petition ?) would at least stick to their guns.

Why? I wasn't mocking him, but my initial reaction was that although Affleck had done some decent jobs I hadn't seen anything from him that made me think he could do Bruce Wayne/Batman. Having seen the trailers, they say otherwise, so I've changed my opinion. I suspect the same is true for many. Why are you making that out to be the less reasonable option between that and sticking to the same opinion in the face of evidence?

[The King in Black]

Just now, polishgenius said:

Why? I wasn't mocking him, but my initial reaction was that although Affleck had done some decent jobs I hadn't seen anything from him that made me think he could do Bruce Wayne/Batman. Having seen the trailers, they say otherwise, so I've changed my opinion. Why are you making that out to be the less reasonable option between that and sticking to the same opinion in the face of evidence?

Skepticism is one thing. I for example am still skeptical of Eisenberg's ability to portray Luthor. "Can XYZ do this role justice ? Does XYZ have the ability to portray this role ?" is very much different from "Ha ! They cast XYZ in tis role ! He is too old/she does not have the physique/ he/she is black !"  and much of the so called backlash against Affleck fell in the second category.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Leap said:

Huh, that's an interesting way of looking at it. I very much hope this is what happens. In fact, one might almost say it would be difficult for Snyder to /not/ get it right when contrasted with the likes of Doomsday, Batman and Luthor.

I won't hold my breath.

I wouldn't either. I hope we're wrong and the movie is great, but I wouldn't bet on it.