DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (Page 2 of 19)

Well, if BvS is good, it won't matter.  If it is a bit of a mess, the rumor gets confirmed.  I can't imagine it'd affect box office numbers (in fact, with lowered expectations due to the report, it could look better - "I heard it sucked, but it was actually pretty good"), and a report wouldn't really affect the WB's plans until after the movie comes out.

And even the HitFix report really only talks about how the Justice League movie would either be pushed back or go in a different direction creatively.  Which, based on 95% of the decisions that have been made for BvS, might actually save a Justice League movie.

Ha, well I'm sorry about that.  As we've chronicled here, I'm *very* worried about this movie.  I could list a dozen creative decisions that I'd label as missteps - but it's still Batman and Superman on the same screen.  It's still fun Dark Knight Returns imagery, Wonder Woman on the big screen, and a move towards the Justice League.  It's awesome.

I hope Snyder made a great movie.  I hope he can make a great Justice League movie.  But based on his prior track record (in my opinion), I'll unfortunately have to see it to believe it.

Regarding Snyder....I don't know.  I think 300 is visually a good film, and I enjoyed it the first time I watched it.  I tried watching it again and was sorta bored by it.  It just didn't hold my interest.

I liked Dawn of the Dead.  For some reason, I watched that movie every time it was on when they showed it on premium cable over and over again.  Like most zombie movies, the ending was clunky, but I think it was pretty good.

Watchmen was fine.  I thought he did an amazing job translating it from the book to film, but I just didn't love it.  I think the accurate translation actually exposed some of the narrative problems in the book. 

I liked Sucker Punch more than most people, but that was a movie most people didn't like.  Visually stunning and a pretty fun story, but I can see problems regarding the way it was presented.

All in all, Snyder's movies are all breathtaking from a visual standpoint.  Every one of them has a unique look that suits it, and I think he knows how to make a movie look great.  His action sequences are pretty great, and I think he does care about character.  But while I've generally enjoyed every one of his movies, I don't know how much re-watchablility they have.  I've still never really re-watched Man of Steel - only watched bits and pieces.

My main problem with BvS are the creative choices they've made.  I'm going to judge the movie based on what it is, not what it could be.  But a lot of the choices he's made are just so frustrating to me.

http://movieweb.com/batman-v-superman-d … rner-bros/

Another article where people make up comments "from Warner Bros." and then create a huge stink about them. I don't even understand why people are so worked up about these things. But it feels like a negative press tour to me. These aren't legit reports by any stretch of the imagination.

Further evidence that the HitFix theory was wrong. Justice League will begin filming two weeks after the opening of BvS.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/21/ju … s-April-11

Now, one could say that there is still time for the studio to slam on the breaks there (I still argue that it would be such bad press for them at that point that they probably wouldn't recover), but I would argue that if there studio were as worried as those anonymous sources have been telling gossip sites, they would have already found a reason to push filming back by at least a month or two, so they could see how BvS is received.

To change directors would mean reworking the script and going through the whole pre-production process again. It would set them back months, at least. And that would have a domino effect.

The whole idea of replacing Snyder is based on the rumor that he failed with BvS. This far, the studio has shown no sign of having lost their faith in the project.

Any time you have a series of movies planned out for years, they are going to be based on the assumption that the franchise is a success. Marvel's movies are based on the same faith. As are all movie series. Marvel didn't just freak out and get rid of Joss. They parted ways at a point where it made sense for them.

Right now, I see no reason to assume that Snyder should be replaced. I see no reason to believe that BvS is already a flop. This looks like business as usual.

The question is, what would make the Batman movie a better launching pad than Justice League? JL should be a good movie with a solid script, regardless of what happens with BvS. They should have people from Warner Bros and DC going over the script to make sure that Snyder isn't going crazy, and they should be showing that script to the people making any of the related movies, just so they can make sure that everyone is on the same page. Snyder isn't working in a bubble here. He is part of a bigger machine.

So, say BvS is a flop. Everyone hates it. They hate every minute of the movie and the meeting of these characters is a disaster. What good will it do to make a Batman movie instead of a Justice League movie? What did Thor 2 or Iron Man 3 change about Marvel's plans?

I'm not really expecting BvS to be loved by everyone. I think it will probably be divisive, because I don't think that it will be the Marvel knockoff that people are expecting, just like Man of Steel wasn't the Donner movie that people expected. (I know you have other issues with the movie, but most people dislike death of Zod or the lack of bright colors and "Aw gosh" attitude)
Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy get praised for being different, because let's face it... aside from comic book fan, nobody knows who those characters are. So while they go off the rails and people love it, I doubt that people will be as forgiving with BvS. People *want* Donner's Superman. People *want* Batman from the animated series. And when they get the characters from the comic books, or something based on various elements from the comic books, those people will not be happy. Everyone thinks they know these characters, because they had the t-shirt and watched the cartoons.
So, I don't know.

I'm just open to seeing what they do with the characters. I've seen these characters range from silly cartoon versions to very layered, serious versions. I think that I'm just more open because I don't really expect them to be anything in particular.

Then again, the last thing I want is for them to cram someone like Lex into a movie where he wasn't supposed to be. That's the problem with reactionary writing by a studio... The goal should be to write a good script, not to hit all of the marketing goals. It's all a balancing act, but it's far too easy for the studio to get that wrong. They'll say that Lex was a hit, so the next thing you know, Justice League involves them bringing in Lex to be a reluctant part of the team. Now you have Lex Luthor on the Justice League.

It's like when they made Spike a good guy on "Buffy". It just didn't work for the character or the story, and it was done for all of the wrong reasons.

There would be no way to get Batman out before Justice League at this point. It would take a year of development on that movie, followed by production, followed by post. It would be two or three years away, which would then put Justice League at at least four years away. That would push back the introductions of every other character they have... basically, as I said before, they'd be better off just scrapping the whole plan at that point. Because it's a train wreck, compounded by the horrible PR that would be surrounding them because of it.

They can still make tweaks to the script for JL, and even reshoot some stuff if they want. They can bump up colors in post. They can do a lot of things within the structure of their schedule. None of that is really unusual though.

The thing with Man of Steel is that he isn't Superman until the end of the movie. They don't use the name, because that's not who he is. This isn't Superman being Superman. This is Clark accepting what he is, where he comes from, and who he wants to be going forward. There isn't room for optimism, because the movie's plot is about this man of steel being vulnerable and terrified. And there's no way to avoid that. He was raised to be scared of what would happen if people found out about him. The whole movie is about him living his worst nightmare, pretty much. And for a lot of it, things go the way his parents told him it would. The government doesn't trust him. They come after him. His alien heritage is a threat to the world and everyone wants him torn apart.

Iron Man is a fun movie, but it's not a good character piece. And Clark can't be Tony. There was no room in Man of Steel for him to be the light, optimistic guy that we know from the cartoons, because that's not who he is yet. The movie wasn't called "Superman".

Most people (again, not you) don't care about Clark Kent. To most people, Clark Kent is the disguise that Superman wears, and that is how the earlier movies approached the character. The story of his upbringing is glossed over. The fact that he had real human emotions is glossed over. They want the man with his hands on his hips and the cape blowing being him. But if you approach the character as a real character, you can't go there. That is the end of his development, not the beginning of it.

What I see when I watch Man of Steel is a story that I can relate to. It's a story about a guy who has skills that aren't going to make his life easy. He's not going to have the normal life that his parents had. He doesn't know how to make those skills work for him. He doesn't feel comfortable in his body. He doesn't feel comfortable in the world around him. Every time his powers have shown themselves to people around him, they made him look like a fool or an outcast. Even when he saved the bus full of kids, he was smacked down because of it (not literally).
But throughout the movie, he comes to understand who he is as a person. He comes to understand where he comes from. He comes to term with what he wants to be, and he overcomes the fears that he has been living with his entire life. That's the beauty of the scene where he steps out of the fortress and learns how to fly.

He does have a sense of humor, and he does have the warmth that we have come to expect from Clark, but he is presented as a real person. The animated shows don't make him a real person. They show him as someone who is so powerful that there is always a way for him to get out of a situation with his hands clean and the perfect curl on his head. People complained about him killing Zod, because "that's not Superman". But if you put characters into live action, the bar is raised. There was no convenient place for Superman to put Zod, where he could eventually escape and destroy even more buildings later. There was only the sloppy answer. And the thing that made him a hero in that moment was that he was willing to sacrifice his cartoonish ideal version of that outcome for the sake of the innocents. It hurt him, but it had to happen. People keep saying "Just put your hand over Zod's eyes", but he will have to take his hand away at some point.

Going forward, I do expect to see a different version of the character. I'd like to see him lighter and more like what we know, but I don't want them to use the humanity, and I don't want these movies to be a live-action cartoon, like the Marvel movies. If I want a cartoon, there are plenty of them out there. In live action, I want them to take these characters and explore them in a real world, full of flesh and blood people.

I love the arc of Man of Steel. I do see it as extremely optimistic. I just think that it's a more grounded version of that optimism, and it makes the optimism more earned.

I get your criticism... but a lot of it is based on information from other films, shows and comic books, and not the movie itself.

Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WuvMy2c70g

It's true. Clark doesn't explore his powers until he is pushed into it. He doesn't know how to fly or super speed until he explores those powers in the film. He doesn't super speed to save the guy on the boat in the beginning of the movie, or to save the men from the oil rig. He shows no sign of being able to fly. So, assume that he knows that he is really strong when the tornado comes for Jonathan... what is he supposed to do with that? He can run into the tornado and get swept away with his father, but how will that actually save Jonathan if they both still end up crashing down?

I don't think you're remembering all of Jonathan's scenes. Jonathan knew that Clark was going to grow up to be something special. He knew that Clark was going to change the world, but he didn't know how to help Clark do that. With the kids on the bus, Jonathan didn't believe that Clark should have let them die. He just didn't know what he believed Clark should have done. He says "maybe" Clark should have let them die, but when you watch him say it, you know that he isn't saying it because he believes that Clark should have let them. He's saying it because those kids are safe and in that moment, his son is not. He is scared.

Man of Steel shows Clark just starting to explore his powers, and just starting to understand them after years of trying to ignore them. We're used to seeing the scene with him learning to fly in the corn field, but that never happened here. We're used to seeing Clark speed over to school because he missed the bus, but that never happened here. And that's the problem with the criticism that I see of this movie. People are judging this movie and all of its characters based on what we know from everywhere else. That is a burden that none of the Marvel movies (except maybe Spider-Man) have had. Nobody knew Iron Man before RDJ put on the suit. We knew what Cap looked like, but he wasn't/isn't something that is a part of American culture. Thor... to this day, nobody cares about Thor (part of me felt a cold stare from HunterD_Raven when I typed that, but he hasn't posted on a Sliders board in years, so I don't care!!!).
Batman and Superman don't have the luxury of being introduced to the audience, and people can't put aside what they know about Superman and just watch the movie for what it is. They expect him to do this or that, because it happened on Smallville or in a movie from 1978. Not to sound petty, but that's not fair.

As for coloring... I thought Man of Steel was beautiful. I loved the way it looked, and I didn't like the brighter version online. Look around you right now. The light, the shadows, the colors that you're wearing (if you're anything like me) are not comic book bright. My jeans are muted blue. My skin isn't glowing. My shirt is an earth tone.

Man of Steel reminded me of when I was a kid. The cool breeze that blows through the laundry in the late afternoon, while little Clark is running around in his towel-cape. Maybe it's because the colors remind me of movies from that era too... Field of Dreams, Groundhog Day, even up to Twister and stuff like that. The movie looks like a *film*, not a comic book movie. The visuals in Man of Steel, namely the coloring, instantly brings me back to a hundred spring nights when tornado watches were in effect around my home in Texas, or a cool summer night in New Jersey. I don't know how to explain it, but it was a very evocative film for me. It made me relate to Superman's upbringing more than the overly warm coloring of Smallville did, and far more than I could have if everything was in primary colors.  He would have looked silly wearing his "normal" colors in this movie.

Sorry to ramble. It's one of the few movies that I've seen over and over again, within a short length of time.

I do hope that Superman isn't all grim and menacing in the new movie. The trailers have been all from Batman's point of view, and in Batman's style. So unless this is a Batman movie that features Superman as a side character, I would hope to get more balance from the finished movie.

What we see of Clark's childhood is a lot of him being scared to see what he can do. As a small child, x-ray vision terrified him. As a young teenager, the idea of accidentally killing someone terrified him. He was living in a nightmare world, and there was no waking up. His powers were like an abusive relative for him, so I don't think that he would be trying to see how fast he could go or how strong he was. He would be trying to see how normal he could be, because this wasn't a kid who fantasized about being The Flash. This is a kid who wanted people to *stop* looking at him. I think that he probably had a lonely childhood and didn't play with other kids very much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4teJPCcJSQ0

In that scene, we see Clark being bullied. He was in the truck, reading a book until he was pulled out by the other kids. Then he didn't say a word to them. They wanted a reaction from him. They wanted the weird loner kid to do something, but he didn't.

While we saw Martha coaching him on how to pull back on the x-ray vision and the super hearing, we know that he didn't discover flying until later. He could control his heat vision as a child (he burned a door knob without blowing it up and burning down his school) We saw him jump, and we know that he was strong, but flying is an extension of his jumping power. Speed is an extension of his strength. From this, we can know that these are two areas where he didn't push himself. He didn't want to know, because the extent of his power scared him since he was a child.

I really don't think that he knows how to super speed at the beginning of the movie. I don't think it just takes more out of him, I think that he is unaware of those elements until he starts to embrace his powers. I think that the oil rig was probably the first time he'd done anything on that scale. The first time he pushes himself is when he learns how to fly. He jumps, and then pushes just that much harder in order to fly.

On another note, I kinda did feel like Clark's secret was a sort of open secret in Smallville. Pete Ross didn't seem like a close friend, but he seemed to know things. The priest didn't seem completely floored by Clark talking to him about being an alien. He swallowed kinda hard, but then moved on.

I look at it this way... If I'm racing my brother down the street, my goal is to run as fast as I need to in order to beat him. Just like when I pick up a phone... Even if I forgot that I can lift 100 pounds or whatever, the amount of strength that I use to life that object is determined by the result I'm getting, not the limit of my ability. You don't usually start off at 100% of anything you do. Running starts at 0mph and works up to whatever you need to get the job done. Technically, most of us are capable of lifting more than our perceived limit. Our brain limits us, but in extreme situations, people have lifted hundreds or thousands of pounds more than they thought they could.

When Clark was learning to fly in MoS, it was an extension of jumping. He jumped, and fell. Then he had to learn how to put that next boost into that jump, which became flight.

Maybe part of his body has a "normal" mode that would allow him to live in a normal world without crushing people and busting down walls, and super strength or speed would require a learned ability to break down the blocks that his brain has in place.

We see him as a boy without control of his hearing or vision,  which makes sense. I mean, you can't normally shut down your ears. The way we use them is different than our arms and legs.

Another interesting article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/ … a1847970bb

That's a big question to answer. I guess it depends on which perspective we're approaching this from.

As a viewer (and as a storyteller myself), success to me means that it's a good movie. Good characters, good acting, good script, good directing. If I walk away from it psyched, that is a successful movie.

I imagine that the studio's view of success would be more about dollars and cents, and what the movie can bring to their future plans. But I do think it would be incredibly hard for this movie to not serve a useful purpose, in terms of setting up future movies.

Let's flash back to before Man of Steel came out. I was not super thrilled with what I was hearing about the movie. We had a British actor playing Clark Kent, which is like an American playing James Bond, I think. We had a script written by someone who had written a comic book in which Superman declares that he's not American, he is a citizen of the world (a phrase that I hate, by the way). We had Zod, who I felt was too familiar and had already been done twice before (on film and on television). Lois Lane not only didn't look like Lois Lane, but she was being played by someone who I didn't feel too excited about. And on top of that, we knew that Jor-El was going to be playing a large role, which looked like another story where Clark is more alien than he is human. The trailers looked beautiful, but I wasn't sure where they were going with the movie.

Obviously, my opinion has changed. The things that I thought they were going to do wrong were creations of my own imagination and in the press. I think that in the end, Man of Steel was a great movie. I think it's a successful movie (in terms of quality and also profit, though it didn't blow people away in terms of money)

Then again, it's also a movie that isn't universally loved. It's sparked a lot of debate and conversation. Does that make it better or worse? I don't know. I think that most good movies are the ones that you can talk for hours about, just like a book. If you're universally loved, you're not taking chances.

I really can't speak about what success means to the studio. So for me, it will mean a good, high quality movie. Something that excites me, both as the kid who grew up with these characters, and as a writer who gets stupid excited over great characters. If I walk out of the movie depressed that I wasn't involved in making the movie, it's a success.

I do expect a Batman movie (and probably another Superman movie at some point), though it's not on the schedule right now. I expect that Affleck will produce/write that, but probably won't direct it (a huge action movie is hard to direct and star in at the same time). I'm open to the idea of messing around with the schedule of releases (if The Flash should disappear, I'd understand that). But I don't think that they will cut way back and go back to square one. Aside from the Justice League movies, Snyder isn't directing the upcoming movies. He's not responsible for Suicide Squad or Wonder Woman, aside from serving as a producer and keeping things from going off the rails in terms of the universe that's been established. I think that the success of those movies will fall on the shoulders of the people who are writing/directing/starring in them. I imagine some will be better than others, but the best they can do is keep going, trying to make each movie the best it can be, and learn whatever lessons they can for whatever sequels are down the road.

One thing that they haven't done, that I know of, is commit to three Aquaman movies, three Cyborg movies, etc., which Marvel has done. It would probably be smarter to see how people respond to characters before doing anything like that. It might be best to explore different characters, like the rumored Booster Gold/Blue Beetle movie. DC/Warner has always kept the door open for other movies along the way, whether they be Batman/Superman sequels, or things like Justice League Dark. I think it's smart to keep their options open and not just make movies with characters that they might want to use in a Crisis movie fifteen years from now.

Did any of that answer any of your questions?

Yeah, my thoughts are layered here.

In regards to HitFix's comments, I just don't believe what they're saying. And I disagree with what they were saying will happen, based on their unsubstantiated rumor/wild theorizing. I have been known to theorize, but their crazy rambling was then picked up by several other websites and reported as a legitimate story about the movie being a failure and Warner Bros. being in the process of major damage control. This hit on some of my issues with the media and how news is reported these days. It's irresponsible.
The sudden surge of negative articles, based on "inside reports" and unsubstantiated rumors feels like the campaign ads we have been seeing on TV. It feels more like Marvel is running a negative press campaign than it does an actual, legitimate story. Marvel may have nothing to do with it, but it feels like a negative ad campaign, rather than legitimate reporting.
So, my frustration with HitFix was on a few levels. First, I strongly disagree with what they said. I don't believe that BvS is going to be a massive flop, and I don't believe that Warner is going to clear their slate because of it. I don't believe that even if BvS was a flop they would overhaul their whole slate, because it would look reactionary, like damage control. After a huge event on the CW, outlining their plan in detail, it would be disastrous for them to rework the slate. And for that reason alone (the CW special, that is), I do not believe that they are as worried about BvS as HitFix made them out to be.
And my other issues have just been about crappy journalism around the internet, resulting from HitFix's (wrong) theorizing. I pointed out that JL is filming on time, just to highlight how wrong I thought HitFix was. They said that JL would be reworked and pushed back to allow for a Batman movie. I disagreed with that. If Warner/DC was as worried about BvS as they say, they wouldn't have scheduled production on JL to start before they know how the BvS dust is going to settle. Bringing production to a screeching halt midway through would be another disaster in terms of publicity.

I don't view the DCU's success as being as connected to the MCU as other people seem to. I think they're different animals, and if you go to the theater to see BvS and expect it to look and feel like a Marvel movie, you will be in for a horrible surprise. People will make that comparison. People will be upset that the movie doesn't look like a cartoon. People will think that it's too dark, if only because it's not all primary colors. I think that until DC establishes what it is and people know what to expect when seeing their movies, and stop seeing them as some sort of slip-up in the coloring department, the movies will be pretty divisive among the general audience. I don't know that these will be the sort of movie that you take your kids to see a hundred times, but it might be the type of movie that a comic book fan goes to see a hundred times. I think that the movies will be judged against the Marvel movies by the press, because they view all comic book stories as being the same (and as being children's stories on top of that), but I personally think that it's a mistake to compare the two worlds.

I really am hoping that the trailers have just been a reaction to the positive feedback about Batman, because they seem to be very Batman-centric. Even Superman in the trailers is only seen from Batman's point of view most of the time. I don't want Superman to be angry and brooding all the time, but I do think that if he is depicted as a person with real human issues, people will probably read that as broody no matter what. I don't know that they will ever win with Superman, because so many people (especially aging critics) really want the Donner version back. That would just be such a huge mistake though.

I confess to a certain distaste towards Ben Affleck as Batman -- because, like Slider_Quinn21, I really hate old people. No, not really. It's just -- I think that only certain types of people should play superheroes. Ben Affleck has a *lot* of skeletons in his closet and it's the sort of thing that really distracts from just seeing a character -- I don't want to look at Bruce Wayne and see a gambling philanderer who passes out in casinos, I don't want to look at Captain America and see a jailbait chasing cokehead. That said, it's not terribly fair in that everyone has lives and dark sides and I find myself giving Robert Downey Jr. and Christian Bale a free pass because their various mental shortcomings are in keeping with the characters they play. For superheroes -- I prefer Tom Welling types, people with extremely low key personal lives that don't get in the way of seeing their character and only their character.

A friend of mine went to high school with Erik Knudsen (Alec from CONTINUUM) and was at a loss to describe anything significant about him whatsoever; he was polite and reportedly liked to sit quietly thinking.

For an older Batman -- I think I would choose someone like Adrian Paul (who is 56). I know nothing about him and never will. :-)

Hahaha, I don't hate old people!  I'm becoming an old person myself.

What drives me crazy is this disjointed mess where Batman and Superman aren't contemporaries.  I just can't get passed that.  I actually think it's an interesting story for an elseworld, in the same sense that I think Red Son Superman and Thomas Wayne Batman are cool concepts.  But we're talking about the main DC cinematic universe, and changing a fundamental part about it. 

Now trust me, I get it.  I know why they're doing it.  When you make Batman older, you give him the wisdom to make the moral argument against Superman.  You let yourself do a cool Dark Knight Returns bit.  You give yourself the ability to do Bat-Family stories that you can't do with a young/new Batman.  And, most importantly, you find a way to deal with a problem that Justice League stories face: how can a man in a bat costume fight alongside gods?  What enemy can fight both Superman and Batman?

In a realistic sense, it sidelines Batman.  He can be the mentor, calling plays from behind a radio.  Because a young Batman would want to fight - an old Batman might understand that he serves the team better if he doesn't..

So I get it.

And in a standalone Batman/Superman movie, I think it'd be okay.  Lex Luthor Jr. (with a mysteriously absent Lex Luthor Sr.) might be okay.  The problem is that this isn't standalone.  We're going to get "official movie versions" of all the heroes we love, and Batman is going to be this mentor character who will be yelling for the rest of the Justice League to get off his lawn.  They're going to see him as this weird old man with no powers who is going to be telling them how to hero properly.

It's just weird to me.  It's weird that Dick Grayson will be Superman's age or younger.  That Clark might be Tim Drake's age.  That characters that are older than Batman already (like Penguin) might be dead from old age. 

Batman already had all his adventures.  It looks like Bruce is coming out of retirement to be Batman.  And yet there's going to be Batman solo films.  Is he going to come out of retirement several times?  How many times is Bruce going to look at Alfred and say "one more time?" 

It's just weird.

43 isn't old for Bruce Wayne.  But it is old for Batman.  He's the same age he was in Dark Knight Rises (or several years older)....his body wouldn't be able to keep up with it.  Unless Affleck is playing Batman at 32, Batman is passed his prime.  Every other hero will be in their prime, but Bruce will be passed his.  Which either makes Batman the mentor figure for the Justice League, he's going to need to wear that powered suit in every fight (which is why a 50-year-old Tony Stark is believable - the tech is doing all the work), or Batman fighting alongside the Justice League is even more ridiculous.

I actually really like the idea that Batman can exist on the same battlefield as the Justice League.  It's silly, but it's cool.  But when you make Batman already-retired, you're taking most/all of that away.  Now he's older than everyone in addition to having no powers.  You've handicapped the only hero who was already severely handicapped.

I just feel like they're sacrificing a lot just so they can make a Dark Knight Returns parallel.

I get the concern. It is valid. But I think we have to see if they can sell the idea. In the comics, Batman's age is questionable. Dick is in his mid-20's at least, but Bruce isn't played as an old man. It is all iffy, so any translation to screen will be weird.

But yeah, if they can't sell Affleck as a functional Batman, then the next Batman movie will have to be someone else taking over for him. Fortunately, that concept wouldn't be outside the boundaries of the source material.

I didn't mean to gang up. This is a worthy discussion, not something that I think you're entirely wrong about. I was just providing a counter point.

I like the back and forth here. It lets me explore both sides of the issue without having to do all of the thinking for myself. I won't have a final opinion until the movie actually comes out and I see it (which will probably not be right away)

Now I'm actually wondering about the age of Batman in the comics. Say he was 25 when he started... which assumes that he dropped out of college and spent several years training. Say he worked alone for at least three years before Dick came to live with him. At that point, Dick would have still been a young teenager (too young for emancipation and still needing a guardian). So say Dick was 14 or 15 when that happened. Bruce and Dick work together for a few years at least... Dick is shown as still being Robin in college, right? So maybe four or five years there? So he'd be at least 32-ish by now (if not older).

Factor in time for Jason Todd, Tim Drake and Damian Wayne as Robin, and I would think that he'd have to be pushing 40 in the comics. It's hard to say how much time actually passes, since the characters don't age normally. Jason was Robin from 1983 to 1988. Tim's first appearance was something like 1989, and he was Robin until well into the 2000's. Bruce would have to be in his 40's right?

Meanwhile, Superman doesn't really age at all... but neither does Lois. They both still look like they're in their earl 30's.

I mean, I always just sorta assumed that Batman and Superman were the same age.  Is Superman really supposed to be Dick's age?  Because that just seems bizarre.  Also, is there any continuity where the two of them are friends because if they're the same age, I could see that.

Ugh.
http://collider.com/best-superman-movie … superman-1

Seriously, the Donner movie was not good. It was horribly written, horribly directed and horribly cast. The only reason for its popularity is that there weren't a lot of superhero movies at the time. For the past few decades, it's been riding on nostalgia, and the fact that this is the only Superman that a lot of critics know, and therefore any Superman that isn't cartoonishly, stupidly bright and sunny becomes "grim".

Okay I listened to the first half of the podcast, and it's actually about all the Christopher Reeve Superman movies.  I've only listened to the first part of the Superman stuff (most of the first part of the podcast is recent comic movie news), but one of the guys definitely hates all the movies.  But one thing he didn't hate, necessarily, was Reeve in the role.

So, Informant, this is for you.  If Christopher Reeve was cast in Man of Steel, do you think he would've done a good job with that script?  Same question, I suppose, with Brandon Routh....who, again, I thought was a pretty decent Superman in the boring Superman Returns (which they lumped in and review apparently).

Ha, I'd forgotten that Affleck played Superman.

See, I didn't love Reeve either.  Although he did something that is still sorta amazing to me - I think he played Clark and Superman very differently.  I sorta see his Clark Kent as the sort of bumbling oaf that couldn't possibly be Superman.  I don't know what kind of cinematic tricks they used, but his Clark seemed lanky and unable to control his body.  He reminded me of a friend of mine who is physically imposing but just a complete klutz.  But his Superman didn't seem that way at all.  Most other versions of Clark (Welling, Routh, and Cavill) just look like Superman in glasses.  To the point where they didn't really even bother with the Clark Kent persona for most of Man of Steel.

But, yeah, those movies are so bad.

I'd like to have seen Routh work with the Man of Steel script.  I'm not sure he has the acting chops, though.  I haven't seen him really do anything serious.  Even his work on Arrow/Legends is done with this boyish fun.

The problem with Reeve's portrayal was that there was no real character. He was playing a character as Clark Kent, and he was playing a character as Superman. There is a definite line between the two, because he played them as two separate people. I equate that movie with the old Batman TV series. It was just too much.

Superman is very muscular in the comic books. That is what the character is supposed to be. Reeve was a fairly average build, obviously sucking in his gut. And his movements weren't strong enough either. He practically pranced through some scenes. I would probably put him down as the worst actor to play the role.

I don't think it's fair to say that they didn't bother with the Clark Kent character in Man of Steel. The entire movie was Clark Kent figuring out how to become Superman. I don't think that Clark should be bumbling and lanky. That guy would be drawing way more attention to himself than Clark probably should. I think the difference between Clark and Superman should be far more subtle than that. Man of Steel and Smallville had similar takes on the character.

I agree that Routh is probably better off playing less serious roles. I don't know that he has the authority for Superman, but he does roles like Ray Palmer well. Plus, he has brown eyes. Superman shouldn't have brown eyes, and the contact lenses were obvious and weird.

I think Man of Steel managed to play this issue well. It's impossible to believe that Lois would't know that Clark was Superman, so they didn't even pretend to make it work. In doing this, they made the story more believable (to me anyway). They have Clark wearing glasses, but Superman is never clearly seen by most of the people in the movie. He wouldn't be easily recognizable. Especially since his outfit would draw more attention than his face.

There are celebrities who can walk around without being recognized all the time. People whose faces are all over the place, all the time. They change their hair or their clothes, and you wouldn't even notice them on the street. With women, it's easier because of hair and makeup. But guys too. I think it's more possible to blend than people suspect. And while people might think that Clark Kent looks a lot like Superman, the same way Keira Knightly looked like Natalie Portman when they were younger, nobody would really think that these two famous people are actually the same person.

That would work. I'd even like to see Clark happily live a quiet, normal life. I'm just not sure that the larger audience would go for it. They already complain about him not being true to the comic books in Man of Steel.

I don't see the Fortress as any kind of home really. It has always just seemed like a resource to me. A library/storage area. His living there would separate him from humanity.

There are a few ways that I could take the character.

1. He takes over the farm and provides produce for Metropolis-based restaurants.

2. He works as an independent journalist/blogger. Nobody probably cares to listen to Superman's opinions on anything. And voicing an opinion as Superman could be taken the wrong away anyway. Maybe running his own site would allow him to be Clark Kent to the world.

3. He could work at a normal, boring desk job in Smallville.

Things have changed a lot over the past few decades. Now, he wouldn't have to be in the city to make a living or to have his ear to the ground. Clark doesn't seem like someone who has always dreamed of living in the city either. So, why would he?

The problem is that while his life may need an update, I don't know how do do that without doing away with a lot of great, iconic supporting characters, or alienating the audience who expect certain things from Superman.

He still needs a home, food, internet, Netflix, etc. Being super wouldn't solve everything unless he stole money.