DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (Page 1 of 19)

(had this one written up before the other board went out)

The Suicide Squad...

Okay, seeing Harley is pretty cool, but when I saw Katana, a switch in my brain flipped and now I'm just asking myself what DC is doing. At least five of the characters in this movie are already recurring characters on Arrow and/or The Flash. I am cool with DC splitting the movie universe from the TV universe, but they're using too many of the same characters. Like with the Flash... Why the **** would I pay money to go see that story in a movie theater when I can watch it for free at home, and done well? Why go to a Suicide Squad movie that uses all of the same players when the characters are already being done on TV?

I think they should have made two lists. A TV list and a movie list. Split the characters between them and don't double any of them. I really like what DC is doing with their movies, don't get me wrong. This could be a really awesome movie and might not take anything away from the shows at all. But they're still diluting the formula here. I saw a picture of Katana on Arrow with her mask and then saw this picture of Katana not long after and I just don't get it. It's not like they don't have a lot of characters to play with. Why are they doubling so many of them?

This movie might play well because the characters and the Squad aren't regulars on TV. But when it comes to The Flash, the question "Why?" is going to be a huge thing for them to overcome. And they risk shooting themself in the foot by making a movie that people don't like as much as the TV series, and then bringing that element into the group movies.

Marvel is a mess already. There is a lack of continuity in their products and the quality isn't what it should be. I don't hate DC's strategy when it comes to separating the universes... but they should be smarter about it.

Well. I'll see it before I judge.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/34577 … n#/slide/1

Once again, it's not the fact that Metropolis was almost destroyed.  That was fine.  If Superman and Zod fought, the destruction was realistic (or, hell, might've been toned down).  These are gods fighting in a restricted space, and I think Clark did about as well as he could minimizing the damage.  That's not the problem.

The problem is that the scenes immediately after the movie are light-hearted and fun.  They're from a different movie that doesn't care that millions just died.  That's the problem.  And I'm *thrilled* that there will be consequences in the next movie because there should be.  But I'm also one of the people that loves connected movies/universes, and it bothers me less that the consequences are delivered outside of the movie that incited the incident. 

But people complain that Captain America and Iron Man 2 were meaningless because they were just setting up Avengers.  But in this current model, the entire 3rd act of Man of Steel is going to be paid off in Batman v Superman.  That, to get the entire story, you have to watch both movies.  Which is fine with me....but I think that's the reason why people are upset about the ending.  I don't think they're upset that people died or that there weren't consequences.  I think they're upset that the movie basically forgot it happened after it happened.  Which was just really....really weird.

Well, I think blockbusters tend to forget that the entire world changed so much after a couple thousand people died in one event on 9/11.  Whether you're talking about devastation in movies like GI Joe, Transformers, Avengers, or Man of Steel, you're talking about events that would make 9/11 look miniscule. 

And all the scenes after Zod dies are creepily serene.  Yes, the military is keeping tabs on Superman, but there's no real fear or worry in the general's voice.  More curiosity than anything, and there's no indication that Clark was just involved in an incident that all-but destroyed the country's best city.

Then the Daily Planet scene.  The city shows no sign of any damage.  The newsroom is really quiet.  There's talk of going to a basketball game.  Does this scene take place decades later?  Because there's no way that the newsroom would be that quiet.  There's no way there'd be a basketball game.  I'm not even sure the newspaper would be able to hire someone new considering the financial implications of an American city being practically destroyed.

It's just.....so weird.

And yeah I decided to throw time travel BS and paradoxes in a DC movie.  Sue me

I think it has to.  The footage where Affleck is staring at something in the trailer is probably Metropolis footage and not him staring at the cowl.

Apparently Affleck is writing and directing the Batman solo film.  He's better at either of those things than acting so that's good news.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/34692 … e#/slide/1

I take everything back.  Not worried about this movie at all.

Well, the color palate is bad.  And I think putting Bruce *in* Metropolis during the attack is a little too on the nose.  And, as per usual, I think they're teasing us with a Batman/Superman confrontation that will be resolved before the 2nd act.  And there's just *WAY TOO MUCH* happening - I just don't see how this movie is either a) unacceptably long or b) edited to a level of near-nonsense.

But as far as getting Superman and Batman fighting each other on the big screen, I'm freakin' satisfied.  The movie might suck, but we'll always have this trailer.

https://youtu.be/NxQbI0hWi3I

This looks pretty awesome. And while it seems strange to make this one of the big DC movies, it also gives us a chance to see some great DC characters that we would never see in a movie otherwise.

I like the DC style. Marvel chose to play up the cartoonish elements of their comic books. DC chose to play up the more serious, elements. They chose to not compete, but to do their own thing. Smart.

There was a really funny post on reddit regarding the Will Smith line "So that's it, huh?  We're just some kind of suicide squad" - the guy said Will Smith should do a cameo in every movie where he says the movie title out loud.  Some of the funnier ones:

"So that's it, huh?  The Force Awakens?"
"So that's it, huh?  We just go Back to the Future?"
"So that's it, huh?  It's just the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes?"
"So that's it, huh?  They just a bunch of Mean Girls?"
"So that's all we do, huh?  Just Eat, Pray, Love?"

and my personal favorite

"So that's it, huh?  Its some sort of Superman 4: The Quest for Peace?"

(There might be a minor spoiler in this, but it's barely a spoiler and I'm just speculating on a trailer.  But if you want to be completely blind on this movie going in, you can see yourself out)

Okay.  BvS trailer 2.....geez.  What a disappointment.  I could go into the myriad of reasons why the trailer really concerned me (on a movie I was basically already sold on), but I want to focus on one thing.  This is something the movie will almost certainly explain, but it ties in with my biggest problem with this movie since day one - what I'm seeing about Batman is very contradictory, even between trailers.

So the whole point of Batfleck is that he's older.  He's been Batman for a while, and he comes out of retirement to take on Superman - since he's the only one who can.  And I've come to peace with that - the DCCU can *sorta* be a sequel to the Dark Knight trilogy in the sense that Batman is old and retired - the continuity will be different than the Nolanverse but people can pretend that Bruce returned, got partners, fought Joker again, etc.  And unlike Marvel, DC decided to go with an older version of a popular/established character instead of rebooting him again.  It's a side to the Batman story that, unlike Spider-Man, they'll actually show us.  Whatever.  That's fine.

And in the three trailers we've seen, there's tons of evidence that this is true.  Robin suit.  Riddler question mark.  Jared Leto Joker stuff in both this and Suicide Squad.  This is very clearly a Batman who has done his thing, retired for whatever reason, and moved on.  Heck, the Keep Calm and Call Batman sign from Man of Steel backs up this story. 

Cut to trailer 2.  Bruce shows up at a fancy gala, and Clark asks him about his thoughts on the "Bat vigilante" in Gotham.  And they have a philosophical argument about civil liberties and the media and blah blah blah.

Now, again, I know this is material that will 100% be covered in the movie.  But....what?  Why is Clark Kent asking that question, and if this isn't the exact moment that Bruce learns that Clark is Superman, then Brucefleck isn't smart enough.  If Bruce has been Batman long enough to have an established rogues gallery (and he does), then there's zero reason for Clark Kent to get a quote from Bruce.  It would be like getting a quote from someone about the OJ story.  Or 9/11 - it would've been a story that was covered over and over again.  I'm sure there would've been a hundred quotes from the Son of Gotham regarding the bat vigilante.  And there's no way anyone would call him that - they'd know he was Batman.  He'd probably have his own damn statue in Gotham to match Superman's in Metropolis.

Clark would've been on Earth and in the US for Batman's whole career - he would've known about Batman.  It would've been a big story.  And Batman's disappearance would've been a big story.  But both of those stories would've died out.  The way Clark's investigating Batman ("nobody cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman") makes it seem like this happened:

Batman's career in Gotham was either completely spotless (say, 1960s Batman level) or his career was completely that of legend (say, first half of 1989 Batman).  Either way, Batman returns to Gotham and uses infinitely more brutal tactics to take down criminals (backed up by the Gotham article and Clark's comment about "civil liberties").  But I'm sorry, I don't buy that.  I could see an angry Bruce coming back out of retirement to fight Superman, but why would he brutally fight criminals first?  Why would he alert Superman of his presence?  Is he training to get back into shape by taking it out on criminals?

Then there's the whole timeline of this.  The trailers have implied that Batman was already retired when Superman showed up.  That Bruce was in Metropolis and ran into the chaos and saved that girl and then became Batman again.  That's fine.

But when the movie starts, tons of time seems to have passed.  Metropolis seems fine so it was completely rebuilt.  Not only that, Superman has won over the public in Metropolis enough that he's universally revered (if it was 50/50, there's no way that statue gets built - it would need to be overwhelming - "False God" graffiti notwithstanding.  And the Senate is now finally having hearings (it took almost 3 years for the 9/11 report to be published - this would probably be more extensive since it deals with alien life and much more destruction).  I'd guess that at least 2-3 years had to have passed since the Superman/Zod fight.

So Bruce is all pissed off, comes out of retirement, brutally beats up criminals to such an extent that reporters start reporting on his new tactics.  But he doesn't go to Metropolis - he stays in Gotham.  And for the years he's waiting, Clark would've built an impressive amount of goodwill - enough to win over everyone in Metropolis - that Bruce simply ignores?  Superman would've done an interview before the Senate hearings, I assume, where he'd explain that Zod was bad and that he did his best to save people in Metropolis.

And in the mean time, Lex is (spoiler) so (spoiler) can (spoiler) in the 3rd act.  Does that take 2-3 years?  And if he's manipulating a fight between Batman and Superman, why does *that* take 2-3 years to pull together.

Which brings me to my complaint, finally.  None of the above really makes sense to me at the moment.  It almost seems like they wanted to use an older Batman for story reasons, but their plot is almost universally describing a new/younger Batman.  Someone who decided to be a hero and train after seeing the destruction in Metropolis.  Someone who would've just burst onto the scene in Gotham who the media (including Clark) don't know much about.  And that his battle with Superman is Batman's real coming out party.

Except that Batman is older and retired and famous enough for Perry White to know him and for him to have a rogue's gallery and a Robin that lived and died, but the media still refers to him as the "bat vigilante" and getting opinions on him and his tactics are still newsworthy.  And Batman himself was so mad about what happened with Zod/Superman that he waited 2-3 years before doing anything directly about it?  Except, of course, doing random Batmanning in Gotham, enough to be newsworthy.  Lex, despite being just as scared/suspicious as Bruce, has his own plan that also takes 2-3 years to pull off.  That he knows Clark well enough to know by name but hasn't ever met/shook hands with.

It seems like a jumbled mess.  And while the movie can answer most of my questions, the dialogue when set side to side with themselves still implies a disparity in logic.

Anyone else bothered by this?

Yeah and there's enough from the trailers to show that they're going to do some work with the timeline to explain what's going on.  Not only are there newpaper clippings of what Batman's been up to, there's a couple actual shots from Batman fighting crime in Gotham (or at least fighting street-level crime somewhere).  There's at least one scene in Gotham (riddler question marks would only be there, right), and we saw the DCCU's version of the Thomas/Martha Wayne deaths.  Not to mention seeing Man of Steel from Bruce's perspective.  So they'll explain who Bruce is and what he's been doing and how it relates to Superman.

And what's funny, it's the the way the question is phrased that bothered me - and that could be fixed in editing or taking a different take (which happens all the time).  "Mr. Wayne, what do you think of the reappearance of the Batman?" is a question that seems to cover all Clark's bases within the true context of the movie.  Batman disappeared.  Now he's back.  Let's ask the biggest man in Gotham about that.

I can break down my other issue in SPOILERVISION

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Lex's characterization.  I don't get it.  He's worn the wig in every appearance, and he just comes across as a goofy character.  I don''t see Lex that way.  Even when he's trying to be scary, it doesn't come off as intimidating, and I just never really bought Eisenberg's casting (I didn't buy Ledger's casting either so this one is just a thought now).  I've always thought Lex should be the same size or bigger than Superman.  Where Lex is an imposing man who still looks at Superman and thinks he can take him.  Someone who might shatter his hand trying to punch Superman.  I actually thought Kevin Spacey was cast correctly, and I thought he did a great job.

Now the Doomsday thing really didn't bother me.  It's just a tease.  I think the Zod twist is kinda cool.  Doomsday is a guy who can realistically fight the DC Trinity on his own.  And unlike the Avengers movies, we're going to see 3-on-1 as opposed to 7-on-150 or whatever.

But Affleck's Batman voice?  Isn't it just as bad as Bale's?  And just like the end of Dark Knight Rises, where Bruce is using the voice even though EVERYONE THERE knows who he is, Batman is using the voice when talking to Superman in a scene that's gotta be in Act 3 - when Superman has to know his identity by now.

I'm going to see it.  And it's going to get it's full chance.  But, man, that trailer brought up a ton of concerns.

Friggin Title For My Next Book.  Done.

No, I agree.  I'm 100% sure there will be *an* answer to my concerns.  I'm just worried it won't be a good one based on what I'm seeing.

Agreed.  But the contradiction is Perry White calling him "The Batman" in the first trailer.  And the "Keep Calm" sign calling him Batman.  So people know he's Batman.  And are pretty sure he exists.

Yeah.  I definitely see that.  And I read somewhere that Affleck said that both characters sorta come into meeting each other already knowing the other's identity (I don't know if that's a spoiler since it's a 3rd person account of an interview with zero context) and if that's the case, that scene's context changes a bit.  Either way, Clark is definitely slanted.  What's weird is that both characters should know better.  If Batman and Superman showed up on the scene at the same time, that's one thing.  But if Batman has rescued Gotham a hundred times from at least 3-4 members of his rogues' gallery.  Superman should know that Batman is a good guy, whether or not his methods are a little out there.  And if this is 2-3 years after Metropolis, Bruce shouldn't be as skeptical as Lex.

I mean, again, Clark would've been a teenager during Batman's career?  Maybe even a preteen?  Wouldn't every kid at Smallville Middle/High School be going bonkers for the masked vigilante in Gotham?  Wouldn't Clark have been a big fan of Batman?  And that's what bothers me about the age thing - these guys aren't contemporaries anymore.  Bruce is a hero that Clark grew up watching.  That's really really weird to me.

Possible spoiler - ****

Word is that that whole sequence is a dream.  Not sure where people are getting that, but it makes sense.  Batman is a soldier living in some sort of post-apocalyptic Superman-dominated society.  That's why Superman looks evil, has soldiers, and Batman is in fatigues.  No idea if that's accurate, but it makes sense.

****

Yeah.  Actually reminds me of one of my favorite Max Landis tweets of all time.  Someone asked him why, in scripts, he always refers to Bruce as Batman and always refers to Superman as Clark.  His answer is genius to me.

"Because Superman is just Clark in a costume.  Bruce Wayne died in an alley.  That thing in the suit is Batman." 

I think that's a pretty awesome way of looking at those characters.

Maybe.  We know it's possible from this image

But every time we've seen Lex (in 3-4 different scenes), he's wearing the wig.  Looks like he's worn it in all three acts - even when he's acting menacing.  Lex is what I'm most worried about.

Well we all know Dark Methods are used by Alphabet Soups regardless but Gitmo rankles many because they stopped hiding what they were doing partially but also because if it is no longer a hidden thing then why not do it with full honesty on US Soil instead of more Double Dealing, Rules Lawyering, Bullshit from the Politicians and Intel Agencies.

Either keep it hidden or go fully transparent and own it.

Whether it is right or wrong ironically is not really the driving force behind the outrage and discomfort even if many try to claim it is.

Sadly most people just want clarity and to get on with things so Gitmo is kind of a festering sore they dont want to think about but are unable to fully reconcile.

I really like that bit of Head Canon pf yours Slider_Quinn21.
Seems very plausible.

Yeah but if Batman never showed himself, wouldn't that make him even a bigger hit to young kids?  Their imaginations would go crazy thinking about what he'd look like.  Would he have actual wings?  Would he have fangs?  Is he a literal half bat / half man?  I'm sure some of the kids in Clark's middle school would have family in Gotham, and they'd claim they saw him. 

And if Clark didn't idolize Batman as a kid, then Barry Allen might've.  Or Hal Jordan.  Or Oliver Queen.  Or Victor Stone.  That's been my problem with this from the beginning.  Batman is a legend and the rest are getting started.

And there'd definitely be Halloween costumes.  They might not be accurate to Bruce's actual suit, but they'd exist.

But we know that Batman ran with Robin.  We know that Robin's costume is colorful - I doubt Batman was strictly a legend his whole career.  Robin tends to lighten up Batman a bit, and I bet he made some sort of public appearance at some point.

In fact, speaking of Robin, Clark/Barry/Hal/Oliver/Victor are all Robin's age.  Maybe even younger.  You could've had a young Clark Kent *wishing* he could be Robin.  Heck, there could be a DCCU elseworld where Clark Kent *was* Robin.  That's just....way too weird.

Yes.  I think Dick Grayson is a great character that needs a spotlight.  Like I said a while back on the older board, I was hoping we'd get the full gambit.  Original Robin leaves, Teen Titans, Jason Todd, Death in the Family, Barbara/Killing Joke/Oracle, Tim Drake, etc

My fear is that there's one Robin, Dick Grayson, and he's the one that's dead.  Robin hasn't been in any of the promotional material outside of the vandalized suit.  A Robin is dead.  Now maybe Bruce doesn't want to include Dick (if Jason is dead) in his war on Superman, but he brings Alfred.  And even if Bruce/Dick had a falling out and he's out there Nightwinging it - Bruce has been working on this plan for years in that case.  Dick's a smart guy.  He'd figure it out, right?  And just show up?  Which is maybe what happens but if Dick Grayson shows up in a weird blue/black costume randomly, I think that's gonna confuse the heck out of some people.

No time to type up my thoughts on SUPERGIRL. You'll have to settle for stuff I sent Matt in Hangouts.

MATT: "Is SUPERGIRL any good?"
ME: "I like the cast of SUPERGIRL and I like the basic concept, but they've made some awkward choices that have more to do with marketing than characterization. Basically, the stories they tell with Supergirl would be more effective if she were 19 - 21 and in college instead of 25+ and in a steady job. There's an overreliance on voiceover to communicate what is completely obvious on a visual level."
MATT: "The worst offender of that was QUANTUM LEAP."
ME: "There's constant references to an off-camera Superman which is clumsy and feels more like a lawyer authoring the script rather than actual storytelling. The special effects are more impressionistic than realistic, but they're vivid."
MATT: "Well, the DCU has to start somewhere, right?"
ME: "It's a FUN show -- but it's full of logical errors and awkward choices due to legalities and marketing rather than choices in how to depict this character. They have done something very smart -- every version of Superman in LOIS AND CLARK, the animated series, and SMALLVILLE had super-speed -- moving, thinking, reacting and acting like the Flash. Supergirl doesn't have superspeed -- she can just move fast, but it takes time for her to accelerate just to fly at hypersonic speed. So, instantly, the character can be put in difficult situations. Also, Supergirl is not indestructible. Gunfire doesn't harm her, but explosions, blows, heavy duty missiles and other ballistic armaments are established as being an actual threat -- the force could shatter bones or snap her spine or flatten her brain. Again -- most Superman shows have Superman immune to all that, which made him really hard to write. I'm engaged by it, but it's filled with problems. Melissa totally convinces as a hapless, awkward innocent who can become absolutely terrifying because she's angry and has laser eyes."
MATT: "Hahahahahahahaahh!"
ME: "There's this scene where Supergirl has used up all her solar energy and is powerless and she comes across a convenience store robbery and she goes in and convinces the gunman to put down his weapon. And it's not well written, but the actress totally sells the stark terror that she could die and the resolute commitment to saving these people."

ME: "I'd say the main problem is characterization -- Supergirl has no clear backstory. Where did she go to school? Why is she working in media? Who are her friends? What made her decide to hide her powers? How could she have gone 25 - 30 years before seeing a situation that called for her direct intervention? None of this is filled in and Supergirl is written as a dorky college girl who just got off the bus. She doesn't seem to have any body of knowledge on any subject or any specific interests -- she's so blandly defined on paper . The actress has to fill in all these gaps via heartfelt sincerity and earnestness -- and at first, it doesn't seem like a performance -- but there's a couple episodes where Supergirl loses her temper and it is so scary and all the cute, awkward body language just vanishes and Supergirl seems like a demonic force of rage and Melissa puts these lines in her face that make her seem 20 years older. So, she's a very good actress."
MATT: "The absolute glut of superhero programming is frying your brain to a crisp. Haha! You and the Bboard! Living the superhero dream!"
ME: "The SMALLVILLE years were very bleak."

While I'm flattered that you'd like me to give you your opinion for you, I feel like this is something you need to decide for yourself. But if you do watch it, please post at length here about what you thought.

SQ21 Complaint 9548 regarding Old Bruce / Young Clark:

In the universe, Bruce can call Clark "son" and it's not super weird.

Ugh.

Yeah, I mean it's definitely weird of me.  But it's just so bizarre that Batman and Superman aren't contemporaries.  I'm almost to the point where I want to write an alternate version of the DCCU where a teenage Clark idolizes Batman and sneaks off to Gotham in his spare time (he has super-speed so it'd be like running down the street) to watch Batman do his thing.  Something happens where Clark reveals himself and fights his way out of it.  Bruce is impressed and makes him a Robin. Clark is beside himself and throws himself into being Robin (even lying to his parents about some sort of summer camp/internship/whatever).  When fighting some random minions, Clark loses control for a second and seriously injures one of them.  Batman looks at him with fear, and Clark runs off.

Suicide Squad does look fun.  It looks crazy, and I hope that carries over.

My big question is: does it appeal to the general public?  Was Guardians of the Galaxy successful because it was fun, or was it successful because it was in the Marvel brand (so far, there is no DC brand)?  Is Will Smith enough?  Is buzz going to be enough?

Because I see a ton of comics people getting excited, but I wonder if that extends beyond comic people.

BvS seems to be touching a lot of the right bases, but have you heard that Jesse Eisenberg based his Luthor on Max Landis?  I'm a big fan of his and that's still super weird to me.

So the final BvS trailer came out.  An, honestly, I'm surprised we didn't get a trailer from Superman's perspective.  In every single trailer we got, Superman is pretty much the bad guy.  Batman thinks he's the bad guy.  Lex thinks he's the bad guy.  The US government thinks he's the bad guy.  You have the weird dreamlike sequence where Superman is menacing with guards and rips off Batman's mask.  You have him walking/standing alone in a defendant's podium in a courtroom.  There's the weird sequences where he's hovering over flood victims and standing/doing nothing while people worship him.  There's the threats to Batman "If I wanted it, you'd be dead already" and "The Bat is dead."  There's even the odd scene with Ma Kent where she tells Clark that he never owed the planet anything.

The only truly heroic thing we've seen in any of the promotional materials is him saving the NASA-looking rocket.

Snyder has said that this isn't a sequel to Man of Steel.  And we all know the controversy regarding the end of that movie where audiences have criticized how Superman handled the last fight.  But I'm just really surprised that we haven't seen much defending Superman in this movie.  Clark tries to vilify Batman, but it seems like Bruce and Perry are there to defend Batman when he does. 

So I wonder if that's what this movie is.  Batman's story where Superman is sorta distant so it seems like he's worse than he is, Superman convinces Batman that he's good, and they team up with various Justice Leaguers to fight Doomsday.

Because that's just another weird artistic choice that I don't necessarily like.  Just throw it on the pile, I guess.

I watched a video on HitFix today, and they were saying that Warner Bros. is *very* worried about this movie being a springboard for the DCCU.  That there are two things that work in the movie - Batman and Lex.  And that everything else sorta falls flat.  And if this last trailer is any indication, they're hoping to drive that point forward.  That, hey, this might be the best Batman we've ever seen on screen.  That, hey, this is really BATMAN vs superman.  And that maybe we'll see Justice League pushed back, and DC is going to let the real foundation for the DCCU ride on Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and the new Batfleck solo film.

And I can definitely see that.  I think it was you who said that you expected to see a Batman trailer, a Superman trailer, and a joint one.  And what's weird is that we know there are Clark-centric scenes in the movie.  We see him and Ma Kent.  We see him and Perry.  But even those scenes paint Clark in an odd way.

What's bizarre to me is that this is so the opposite of how this relationship usually works.  Superman is the freakin' boy scout - everyone loves him.  Batman is the Dark Knight - he's often painted as a villain even in his solo work.  Gotham has this uneasy relationship with him because he's this vigilante.  No one ever calls Superman a vigilante.  So the idea that this movie is somehow Batman as the hero and Superman as the villain is just so backwards to me.  But for most of the trailers, that's sorta what we're seeing.  Clark is distant and menacing and very alien.  Batman is this underdog who puts on the suit to show this guy what humans are all about.

But it's also playing the more traditional angle - "Bat vigilante" - "trampling on civil liberties" - "thinks he's above the law" - but these are all quotes from Clark.  So it almost plays into the villain side of things - Clark is jealous of Batman for some reason, and he uses his job at the Daily Planet to battle for the public's admiration.

I know Superman isn't the villain, but if this were an original property, it's definitely how I'd think it was set up.  Batman is the hero and Superman is the villain. 

I've been skeptical about this movie from day one - I just want it to work out so well, but I just wasn't a big fan of Man of Steel.  I wasn't a fan of the Affleck casting.  Wasn't a fan of older Batman.  Wasn't a fan of so much so soon (Superman...and Batman!  And Wonder Woman!  And Lex!  And Doomsday!  But also Aquaman and Cyborg and Flash!  But also Superman's side characters!  But also Alfred!  And maybe Robin!...etc).  Wasn't a fan of the Eisenberg casting.  Wasn't a fan of the darker tone.  And now I'm worried that it isn't going to be as fun as this movie *needs* to be.  I think the tone is going to be wrong, and I think the creative direction is going to be wrong.  I don't think Zach Snyder is the right guy for this.  I watch that trailer and it's *so close* to exactly what I want, but I find myself almost wishing it was closer to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsmqc4RhSQY) more than what we're getting.

Yeah, I think it just depends on where you're coming from on this issue.  Superman and Batman mean so much to so many people, and I think people want it to be perfect.  So if you didn't like Cavill or you don't like Affleck or you don't like Eisenberg as Lex or Snyder's tone/feel then the movie is already starting off on a bad foot.  And then you have people that are sorta rooting for the movie to fail before it comes out.

I dislike a lot of the angles they took - I admit that.  But I also really want this to be good.  I'm a bigger DC fan than a Marvel fan.  I religiously watch the Arrowverse, and I recently started Supergirl after they finally connected the DC universe together (the only outlier is Gotham and that doesn't really fit with the others).  I enjoy the Marvel stuff too, but I've always been DC > Marvel. 

But I think the problem with this approach is over-ambition.  They planned all these extra films based on the success of a sequel to a movie that wasn't universally loved.  Marvel didn't do that until after "phase one" succeeded.

No, I get that.  I didn't really hate any of the Phase 1 movies for the reasons you and ireactions didn't like them.  Especially since I don't necessarily care for Thor or Captain America as characters, the fact that they were living in a world with Iron Man (a character I did like) was pretty cool. 

The issue I see is with a foundation.  Iron Man set up the MCU really well.  It's fun but a little fantastic.  It's sarcastic and doesn't take itself too seriously.  And, for the most part, people loved Iron Man.  So even though their movies weren't great, Thor and Captain America followed a similar lead.  It also was fun and didn't take itself too seriously.  And the MCU was able to succeed with these movies that are fun but not necessarily great.

The problem with the DCCU is that it's foundation is Man of Steel.  A movie that is, at best, mixed.  It's an odd tone for a Superman movie, and the way Superman was represented wasn't universally accepted.  So if BvS also has a mixed reception, then I totally agree with the HitFix video, and everything will ride on Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and the Batman solo film.  Because if the foundation of the universe doesn't work, then there's nothing to build on.

I think the part of the video I agreed with the most was the idea that the DCCU needs a Kevin Feige.  Say what you will about the MCU, but it definitely feels like a streamlined universe.  X happens in Movie 1, and it affects Y in Movie 2 and gets played on in Z in movie 8.  It might cheapen all eight movies, but it makes the universe feel real and contained.

And I disagree that BvS isn't just a prequel to Justice League in the same way that Iron Man 2/Thor/Captain America were prequels to Avengers.  In fact, Zach Snyder has come out and confirmed that BvS is exactly that.

That's sorta what I'm talking about.  I actually think this would've been done better with a gentler hand and more buildup.  Maybe there should've simply been "Batman vs Superman" - not "Dawn of Justice" - you get Batman (again, I'd have him be younger but that argument is played out) to show up in Metropolis to investigate Superman.  You have a Clark who's deeply remorseful about what happened and trying desperately to make it right (maybe even to the point where it's affecting his life as Clark Kent).  Clark's act is so genuine and nice and "truth, justice, and the American way" that it makes Bruce and Lex suspicious.  Bruce comes as a detective who wants to believe that someone can be that good - that Clark was just sloppy (having watched the footage a billion times).  Misunderstanding happens.  Bruce fights Clark thinking he's found the secret.  Lex activates Doomsday or his mech suit or whatever.  Clark convinces Bruce.  Combine to fight bigger threat.  End of movie.

No Wonder Woman.  No Flash.  No Aquaman.  No Cyborg.  If you want to tease these things, that's fine.  Wonder Woman needs a tease, I guess.  Maybe mention weird things regarding the ocean where Zod's gravity thing was going off.  Tease these characters but don't show them.  There are two characters in this world - Batman and Superman - and just hints of others.

Then Suicide Squad to introduce a different element.  Then Wonder Woman gets her own movie.  Bam, now you have a Trinity.  Once you have that in place, you can do Justice League.  It's already two parts so you can spend the first act getting these guys together.  Flash doesn't need a full movie to be introduced - he runs fast.  You might spend some time on Cyborg, but I'd spend a lot of time on Aquaman.  Set up Atlantis and some of that stuff because it needs explanation, and it'd be fun.  Maybe even make the reason for the Justice League *be* Atlantis attacking - that could be a whole movie before Darkseid shows up.

(this is the part where I'd say Green Lantern was canon and cast Ryan Reynolds.  I'd also have cast Bale as Batman if he has to be old and I have all the power int his hypothetical.  That way, these characters are already established)

I love the idea of taking the material seriously.  What I don't like is not having fun with it.  And while Man of Steel was a better movie than most of the Marvel movies, it wasn't much fun.  And Superman needs to be fun.  *Especially* the way they made the ending.  Imagine Man of Steel where Clark spends the first half of the movie just having fun with his powers.  Almost like Spider-Man except more wonder and less dickish.  Then he gets hit with the whole Kryptonian stuff - meets Jor-El, meets Zod, learns the true weight of an entire planet's destruction.  Then he goes to fight Zod and wins but the whole city has been destroyed.  Clark has to learn to take this whole hero thing seriously but we still know, at heart, that he's a fun-loving, genuinely good guy.

And it's the same thing with BvS - which, the way it's being presented, doesn't look very fun.  When you compare it to Captain America: Civil War, which does look to be character-motivated, it looks dark and violent.  All the fights in Captain America are during the day with bright colors.  All the BvS fights are sepia-colored with big explosions and/or set at night or in the rain.

All I'm saying is that there's tons of middle ground between the MCU and the Dark Knight Trilogy that could've been used for a world that Batman and Superman share.  Instead, it seems like they took the Dark Knight model and put the rest of the DC universe in there.  When, honestly, the only DC characters that fits in the Dark Knight world is Batman.  That's why Bruce is a part-time Justice Leaguer and an outcast. 

Just my two cents.  I don't love these characters as much as you do, so I could be wrong in my interpretation

The trailers place emphasis on super-hero registration, but I'm not sure that's the full reason for the fight.  In the previous Cap movie, Zola insinuated that the Winter Soldier killed Tony Stark's parents.  I'm not sure how much Tony cared about his Dad, but his Mom may be a different story.  In that light, such a revelation would be analogous to Batman finding out that his parents were killed by Superman's pal Jimmy Olsen.  Would Bruce care if Clark claimed Jimmy was brainwashed at the time?

As for Civil War, I think the comic idea worked a little better than this movie spin; but it had problems too.  The comics presented the spark point as a bunch of kids playing hero which led to the destruction of a town (including a school full of kids).  The government then pushed for super powered registration and mandatory training of people with powers.  It was a metaphor for the current U.S. debate on gun control and school violence. Despite Cap's own experience in being helped by his army training, he saw too much of a Nazi / Jew dynamic in the idea of registration; so Cap was opposed.  Iron Man had a more modern point of view removed from the idea of Jewish concentration camps because all he had ever seen of that was in books or movies.  It was of an academic exercise to Tony while Cap had his heart in it.

We may see some of the above brought up in the movie version of Civil War; might see none of it.  I don't think think Civil War was a response to Batman v Superman, though.  I think it was a response to the Spider-man rights becoming available.  Marvel wanted a quick way to shove Spidey into things as part of a big event; and the comics version of Civil War fit that bill.

TF, I'm responding to your comments, but I'm going to move that response to the MCU thread. I think I've shifted the conversation toward Marvel here, and now I must set right what once went wrong...

To be continued... in the Marvel thread.

(EDIT: I was posting this before the thread was moved. Ireactions became the evil leaper and stole all of the glory)