Time Warner Inc.’s Huge Risk With ‘Batman vs. Superman’

Fans who are expecting to see the heroes they know when Time Warner (NYSE: TWX  ) brings Batman vs. Superman to the silver screen in 2016 may end up disappointed, Fool contributor Tim Beyers says in the following video.

In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times pop culture blog, Hero Complex, director Zack Snyder said Batman vs. Superman "explodes" the Man of Steel and Batman universes. He also said that, as a filmmaker, he isn't as "tied to the mythology," noting that he and his team had to create a distinct origin and mythology for Superman in making Man of Steel.

While it's too early to know precisely what Snyder has planned, history and his comments suggests that the Batman we see on screen won't be the same as the Batman we see in the comics. Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman is also likely to be a departure, just as Snyder's Superman was for many fans who saw (and ranted about) Man of Steel.

Batman vs. Superman multiplies the risk by involving additional big-name characters who represent rich brands for Warner. Batman alone sells hundreds of thousands of comic books monthly, while his origin is the genesis for the forthcoming Gotham TV drama from Twenty-First Century Fox. Confusing or disappointing viewers could show up in the sales logs while pushing back plans for a long-overdue Justice League film.

The good news? Snyder has plenty of fans who like not only his earlier work but also his interpretation of the Superman mythos. Man of Steel earned nearly $670 million worldwide while paying for more than 75% of the film's production costs via product placement.

Now it's your turn to weigh in. Are you excited to see what Snyder has in mind for Batman vs. Superman? Please watch the video to get Tim's full take and then leave a comment to let us know where you stand, and whether you would buy, sell, or short Time Warner stock at current prices.

Your pop culture knowledge is power. Use it for good.
Admit it. Even as Wall Street's chinwags moaned about the price tag, you knew Disney had struck gold when it purchased Marvel in 2009. How right were you? The stock has more than tripled since, all while paying dividends! Fortune-making returns like that are why we spend so much time writing about the business of comics, movies, TV, and video games. Like you, we're fans of all those things. But we're also experienced investors who want to help you turn your knowledge of all things geek into cold, hard moola, which is why we've created a special report to help you get started investing. Don't worry, it's free -- click here now to claim your copy.




Read/Post Comments (31) | Recommend This Article (8)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 7:31 AM, zeeEVIL1 wrote:

    Tim,

    I appreciate that you are a fan, but even the comic creators have very short memories.

    In the film, Supermn 2, Zod is depowered, his hand is crushed, and he is dropped into a bottomless pit. Then Lois kills Zods girlfriend.

    In the 80's, John Byrne rebooted Superman with Man of Steel.. He killed Zod in that book.

    The reason he killed him in Man of Steel, is because it was a no win situation. Zod, would continue on his path until there was nothing left. That was his purpose. It is what he was bred for.. Straight from his own lips.

    If you have an explanation of how he could have stopped him, during his first adventure, having never been in a physical fight before, against a trained soldier. please share.

    As for Pa Kent, It was a bit heavy handed, but it was understandable. He didn't want them to come for his son.

    In the real world, we would be terrified of Superman. We would not instantly accept him. Especially when a bunch of people just like him are tearing the planet apart.

    Comic creators, including Len Wein, have a hard time seperating the established -comic book- version from the film version.

    So, As a 40 year comic collector, I felt the movie was very good. Especially after watching it again.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 7:58 AM, ScottW wrote:

    Tim, you're absolutely right. What I've not been able to understand is why DC and Time Warner are ignoring the road map that Marvel created. Sure, some would look at it as just copying what Marvel did. But, there is an old saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They took a minor comic book character and turned him into a major movie blockbuster. In developing this Marvel Cinematic Universe, they have tied in other characters, only bringing them together at smartly crafted points. If this Batman vs. Superman movie fails, it will set back the development of any further DC characters.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 10:01 AM, JJ82 wrote:

    There are two schools of thought here.

    The thought that this is bad, mostly coming from older people set in their ways. They complained every single time someone was cast as Batman.

    Keaton was a COMEDIAN before Batman, people complained.

    Val Kilmer, too blond,

    Clooney? Lol.

    they even complained that Bale was too serious.

    Then of course the OMG SUPERMAN KILLED SOMEONE! people, that actually liked the fact that Superman was ultra cheesy goody and thus one of the most unrealistic superheros.

    The other train of thought mostly comes from younger people, who know the newer comics and want better versions of their heroes. They love the ideas coming.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 10:21 AM, TMFMileHigh wrote:

    @zeeEVIL1,

    GREAT comment. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. A couple of things to follow-up on:

    >>In the 80's, John Byrne rebooted Superman with Man of Steel.. He killed Zod in that book.

    Hm. I need to go back and read some of that run to see where he killed Zod. Can you post an issue number?

    >>If you have an explanation of how he could have stopped him, during his first adventure, having never been in a physical fight before, against a trained soldier. please share.

    As the story is set up, this does strike me as one of the most plausible endings -- but ONLY after it's revealed that Zod is somehow left behind when his comrades are transported off to the Phantom Zone. I'd have been happy to see the movie end there.

    >>As for Pa Kent, It was a bit heavy handed, but it was understandable. He didn't want them to come for his son.

    I'm still not sold, but I'll grant that the sacrifice fits the character Snyder showed us. The bigger question for me is this: what's the point in teaming Batman with Superman if they've both cynics? (Snyder's heavy-handed treatment of the character leaves Clark struggling to trust anyone.)

    >>In the real world, we would be terrified of Superman. We would not instantly accept him. Especially when a bunch of people just like him are tearing the planet apart.

    No doubt, and I loved the initial premise of the film. (Superman has to reveal himself because, well, what other choice is there?)

    >>Comic creators, including Len Wein, have a hard time separating the established -comic book- version from the film version.

    I don't buy this either, but only because I've been listening to Len on the Nerdist Writer's Panel, Comics Edition podcast and I think he's making a lot of sense.

    Overall, let me say that while I am commenting from the perspective of a long-time fan, I'm also keenly aware of the business challenges of toying with brands that bring in billions. Just look at the set-up for Rocksteady "Batman: Arkham Knight":

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/07/dc-is-still...

    I'll be shocked if that game doesn't sell 8 million copies. At $50 a pop, that's a $400 million retail franchise.

    Again, terrific stuff. Really enjoyed your comment.

    Thanks for writing and Foolish best,

    Tim

    --

    TMFMileHigh in CAPS and on the boards

    @milehighfool on Twitter

    http://about.me/timbeyers

    http://timbeyers.me

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 10:50 AM, rickyd wrote:

    As long that batman stays as a dark hero not a like the 1966 batman and his suit stays all black or black & grey & no blue & grey,all batman fans like myself will love it,if not we batman fans will not go or pay to see it & I think dc & warner brothers know this.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 11:20 AM, JoseKuervo wrote:

    Not sure what the big deal is In the comics Superman killed Doomsday, in the John Byrne era he killed Zod, and in the Golden Age he’s killed villains. In Superman II he killed Zod. It’s always as a last resort, but it’s not a hard rule like Batman who I may add used to kill plenty of people himself in the early years when he was created

    @TMF to answer your question when Superman executed Zod it was not in The Man of Steel but on Superman issue#22 October 1988. He also executed Quex-Ul and Zaora along with Zod using green K. The reasoning? They were too dangerous and like Zod in MoS, they vowed to destroy the Earth at any cost leaving Superman no other option.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 11:31 AM, TMFMileHigh wrote:

    @JoseKuervo,

    The difference here, I think, is that we see Superman kill in what amounts to the first 10 issues of this latest run. (Presuming the movie is a 220-page graphic novel composed of 10, 22-page issues.)

    In the comics, we'd go years of seeing Superman stop villains without killing -- in fact, taking special care not to *seriously* hurt anyone -- thus making the inevitable no-win situations all the more meaningful. (And destructive to Clark's typically gentle soul.)

    Nevertheless, in reading these comments, I find interesting that Snyder has maintained that his storyline is pretty faithful to the Superman we've seen in the comics, so long as we're willing to shut off selective memory.

    >>@TMF to answer your question when Superman executed Zod it was not in The Man of Steel but on Superman issue#22 October 1988. He also executed Quex-Ul and Zaora along with Zod using green K. The reasoning? They were too dangerous and like Zod in MoS, they vowed to destroy the Earth at any cost leaving Superman no other option.

    Great! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

    Foolish best,

    Tim

    --

    TMFMileHigh in CAPS and on the boards

    @milehighfool on Twitter

    http://about.me/timbeyers

    http://timbeyers.me

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 11:39 AM, myka1319 wrote:

    With Christopher Nolan involved the tone will stay the same . Man of Steel was ok i didn't think it was great by any means. Though I don't think it's much of a risk, but with the casting of Ben Affleck the anticipation has been deflated . Through out the years of casting Batman it's always been backlash & the final results has been pretty good (with the exception of Clooney ) I think they will pull it off & it will lead into a Justice League film .

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Allend406 wrote:

    Casting has been a little weird, but man of steel was a good movie a little darker but stayed close to the superman origin. Also watchmen was pretty much exactly like the comics, so synder knows what he's doing. But Tim Beyers in his infinite lack of knowledge of all things comic books, says its in trouble before a trailer or screenshot has been released.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 11:51 AM, JoseKuervo wrote:

    So I guess the difference is 10 issues ? Considering it was Superman #22.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 11:56 AM, JoseKuervo wrote:

    Let me add it was a long movie. In a normal 90 min film I guess he would have killed in the 1st 10 issues. But being a 140 minute movie wouldn't the extra room justify the extra 12 issues ? Maybe I'm nitpicking since I personally don't feel is a big deal ( although I might see why some people would ).

    I've been reading Superman 43 years so it's not like I don't get it but still. I'm loving this version of him.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 12:03 PM, TMFMileHigh wrote:

    @JoseKuervo,

    Yeah. Or maybe it's just the selective memory problem that Snyder points out and @zeeEVIL1 refers to above. Or maybe it's a really *good* problem in that there's a huge audience that really cares about Superman as a character, and we want more of what's familiar.

    Separately, I think it's worth noting that Warner *did* have an interest in making sure the Superman we saw on screen was distinct, and for a purely business reason.

    Up until recently, DC Entertainment had been embroiled in litigation with the families of Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel. Establishing even minor distinctions would, theoretically, protect Warner from a crippling ruling.

    FWIW and Foolish best,

    Tim

    --

    TMFMileHigh in CAPS and on the boards

    @milehighfool on Twitter

    http://about.me/timbeyers

    http://timbeyers.me

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 12:40 PM, LocalMan22 wrote:

    I thought Zack Snyder did a great job at re-inventing a cheesy two-dimensional character to give him character and motivation, and bring him into the modern age of comic book movies.

    >> As for the death of Jonathan Kent: the death by heart attack was expected by fans, making his chosen sacrifice more significant. Jonathan was very afraid of how the world would react when learning about his son, and he was willing to sacrifice himself to protect his son. While Clark could have saved him, Jonathan insisted that Clark not reveal himself. -- that created a far stronger emotional link than a simple heart attack. Additionally, once Superman has been revealed, it gives him a much stronger motivation to save the people he cares about -- he couldn't do it then, but he is free to protect them now.

    >>In the real world, some people would be terrified of the all-powerful Superman, whose battle resulted in massive destruction. Zod's death gives even more reason to be afraid -- not even a soldier of his own kind can stop him. This is the perfect set-up for Lex Luthor, who puts himself in the position of believing he must save mankind, even if he must do it in secret. It also sets up a suspicious Bruce Wayne/Batman to investigate the new threat and to make sure he can control it by finding a way to defeat Superman. (I hope they focus more on Batman being more of a detective/tactician than the Nolan films.)

    >>I really liked the fact that Lois knows who he is from the beginning. One of the dumbest things of previous movie and TV versions of Superman were that his closest friends did not realize he was Superman when his only disguise was the silly but iconic glasses. (. . . and don't get me started about Smallville!) The trust he develops with Lois gives a reason for the romance to grow.

    Long before Man of Steel, I predicted that DC should follow up Man of Steel with a re-introduction of Batman (without re-telling the origin). Eventually, the two of them will need to team up to defeat a foe (maybe something that Lex creates using tech derived from the bits of the Kryptonian ship? Maybe Metallo?). As a result, they realize that they need a team to handle some threats, which leads them to create the Justice League. I hope they keep Lex Luthor in the shadows -- it will open up a lot more options.

    Snyder is right to re-invent parts of the classic comic mythos for DC characters. DC's stable of characters is both iconic and cheesy. Modern Superhero movies are trying to make them more realistic and believable -- if you accept people with super powers. Batman has been popular because he was more realistic with realistic motives. Man of Steel brought Superman into this same more realistic world, and I expect the changes Snyder makes will do the same. (Remember in Watchmen, Snyder changed the giant psychic space squid into a way to blame Dr. Manhattan, which I thought was a far superior choice because it was an extension of what already existed and avoided the deus ex machina plot device of the squid.) Wonder Woman is a cheesy character who needs to be modernized. The same with many of DC's other characters.

    And this will make them far more marketable, too.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 1:22 PM, jlaxmn00 wrote:

    I feel there was a lot left to tell in regards to the character of Superman in MOS. I had hoped a sequel would delve into those issues you raised in this article.With the WB's decision to do a team up film I don't see how they will do so. The film seems very crowded to do any real character development for anyone in the first film. I remember reading articles that talked of a MOS sequel and how they would build on the characters including Perry and Lois. This was of course before the team up announcement. I honestly think Warner Bros. is just trying to play catch up with Marvel at this point. It is understandable ( Star Trek got a new lease on life due to Star wars back in the late 70s) but,the potential for disaster is greater. That said I have faith in Snyder. I really enjoyed 300, Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 1:46 PM, DarkestKnight13 wrote:

    I for one am extremely excited for the Batman/Superman movie and I think its going to do absolutely huge business for WB. I personally loved Man Of Steel but I understand as a huge comic book fan that some fans are not going to love the changes that are made to their favorite characters. So I know Man Of Steel is not for everyone. But what I am the most excited for is to see Snyder's take on Batman. I am the complete opposite of every Batman fan out there though as I did not like Nolan's Batman very much. He was much too grounded for my taste and seemed to lack any type of fantasy and fun. I still think Burton's Batman is the best. Ideally I would like to see a dark Batman but yet still have a fantasy to him, and a proper Batmobile unlike the Tumbler. Also Gotham City must be Gotham City, not just Chicago as in the Nolan films. I can not put into words how much that infuriated me.

    If this movie is great than WB will be set for the next 10 years with more sequels and spinoffs that will come out of this movie. If this movie is bad than it might be difficult to create further DC movies out from this, and another reboot will be needed. Regardless I do know for a fact, whether this is a good movie or a bad movie, it is going to make a TON of money.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 2:17 PM, BionicBookWorm wrote:

    I think any extreme deviations from established mythology are risky, but in the same breath, you never know what fans (new or old) will connect with. The positive $$ response to Man of Steel (MoS) seems to indicate that Snyder's direction has strong appeal with general audiences even if it may not sit well with die hard fans.

    That being said, I hope that in the case of Wonder Woman they stay true to her origins that are tied to Greek Myth. There was a rumor circulating the web not too long ago that suggested the Amazons might be descendent from a Kryptonian colony that was established on Earth (the origin of the buried K-ship from MoS). I think that would be a mistake as it would have a tendency to make Diana another Kryptonian, effectively destroying her unique nature as a character.

    While I wasn't fond of the Superman-kills-Zod scene (he could have blocked the shot with his hand, deflecting the beam back into Zod's eyes - perhaps even blinding him, slammed his head into the floor giving time for the humans to escape, whatever - there were options). But, earlier commenters are correct, Superman has killed in the comics.

    As I recall, the Zod he killed was on an alternate Earth that he and his companions had already destroyed (the Earth of the Matrix-Supergirl) and had full intentions to find his Earth and do the same). So, it's not unprecedented. It's just DARK, and I don't think most die-hard Superman fans like their Man of Steel being dark. Also, the end scene didn't feel quite as desperate as it was played out to be. It felt forced, and by default that tends to not sit well with viewers. Recklessly crashing a million-dollar drone didn't help either. It would have been more 'Superman' to have the General's car driving up and find it blocking the road. The move was a haughty power-play, which isn't classic Superman at all.

    Overall, I think MoS was a good movie. Like others, I don't think it was a great one. Snyder will likely create a good film - that's kind of what he does - but, I'm not so sure these characters are 'my' Clark, Bruce and Diana. I hope they will be, but we'll just have to wait and see. I hope he creates something that will serve as a springboard for these characters and this universe to continue to grow with. Either way, I'll see it, buy the DVD, rant about it on a few chosen message boards if needed - that's kind of what I do.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 2:40 PM, jhs39 wrote:

    The grosses for Man of Steel were extremely front-loaded, much more so than those for Christopher Nolan's last two Batman films or for Ironman 3, suggesting that there was a lot of pent up demand for the Superman film but that people didn't necessarily want to see it more than once and that word of mouth was mixed. I think that's the real reason Warner Brothers decided to do a Superman Vs Batman film instead of a straight sequel to Man of Steel (which had been the plan before it opened to mostly negative reviews and huge box-office drops). I really think Warner Brothers was afraid that a sequel to Man of Steel might flop and that Superman Vs Batman was an act of desperation rather than an attempt to catch up to Marvel quickly.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Droppo wrote:

    I don't understand why they want to make these movies in the first place if they insist on changing so much. What was the purpose in the first place? If you want a new character with a new story, create one. These characters already have long and detailed histories and iconic appearances. Why change what makes people like them in the first place?

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 4:03 PM, jdwoodlane34 wrote:

    Honestly, I'm not sure it matters all that much. The risk of the kind of setback described, at least in comics, was taken almost three years ago with the very controversial New 52 reset, whose Superman redesign actually mirrors that of the MAN OF STEEL film. Also, if the studio wants this to lead into a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie, it will. MAN OF STEEL was the real litmus test, so even if the follow-up meets with more than its share of detractors, it's still likely to do as much opening weekend and even repeat business due to curiosity, alone, and combine with sales of tie-in merchandise (mostly to less discriminating child audiences) to justify going forward IF the execs and creatives agree to do so.

    My concern in terms of its competition with Marvel is that the DC brand only has maybe two big creatives who seem to not only be overseeing, but actually DOING everything. Kevin Feige may be the top man at Marvel, but they at least get different writers and directors for the different characters and franchises. With DC, I think Warner Brothers just panicked and decided to let the Nolans choose what writer and director would do everything in terms of cinema for the foreseeable future. That, I think, is a mistake - especially with Goyer, who benefits disproportionately from his association with the DARK KNIGHT trilogy, of which he only actually wrote the first movie (he only has "story" credit on THE DARK KNIGHT and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES). Otherwise, he's a serviceable genre writer whose track record among die hard fans is sketchy at best. Likewise, Snyder's only real claim to fame is his 300 and maybe SUCKER PUNCH. His WATCHMEN movie did okay, but many aired grievances over changes to the ending and so forth.

    Lastly, I don't think Warner/DC should be competing directly with Marvel in the first place. That is, I don't think they should adopt even a similar approach. For one, it runs the risk of being too little, too late, since Marvel is now about six years into its master plan. With that being the case, what Warners and DC really needs to do - since their next movie doesn't even come out for another 2 years, a year AFTER the AVENGERS sequel - is to position itself solidly as Marvel's successor. Even though the rivalry between the two comics publishers is largely manufactured, the readers know and appreciate that there are fundamental differences in the way the publishers' respective characters are created and treated and so, as expected, those differences are going to show in movies.

    Marvel's characters, while fanciful in a sci-fi way, are still fairly grounded in real world cities like New York and recognizably modern behavior that is punctuated with humor. DC, being "the first," for all intents and purposes, has a roster that is older and, perhaps appropriately, more mythic in nature. Superman represents any number of Greek Gods while Wonder Woman is a direct descendant of them. Aquaman is of Atlantis, Flash is a proxy for Hermes and the concept of Green Lantern with his power ring is comparable to any number of ancient myths. The tone, also, is usually more serious, especially with Batman, who is really just a tragic version of the Sam Spade character who dresses up in a frightening costume and knows how to fight. Another big difference is that, with many of Marvel's characters, their superhero guises are almost incidental - the result of accidents or grudging necessities. They are more or less burdens that have to be dealt with by the likes of Peter Parker, Bruce Banner and arguably even Steve Rogers and Tony Stark. With Marvel, we're really following the people behind the costumes. With DC, the costumes are more or less the point. Superman was BORN Superman. Batman's true self is the one he shows while in costume because he cares so little for the life he has to lead as Bruce Wayne. Aquaman is a king, Wonder Woman a princess and/or queen, etc.

    The Batman/Superman movie is just really hard to get a good read on at this point. I think the general concensus is that most people have always wanted this to happen, but they're skeptical about the way in which it is happening and the overall lack of fanfare, which many interpret as an indication that this was a purely business-related decision meant to compensate for the fact that even though everyone expects a sequel to MAN OF STEEL, they probably don't think a standalone Superman movie would make enough money and, therefore, included Batman and Wonder Woman with the excuse that everyone is clamoring for a JUSTICE LEAGUE film, anyway.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 5:09 PM, derbyschafer wrote:

    A HUGE RISK ??? Are you kidding me this is something that has been needed to give Warner the boost it needs. I like a lot of you am a life long collector and if I had to pick Marvel or DC it would be Marvel for comics and movies. As a kid the DC comics were not real enough which sometime in the Mid to Late 80's or even the early 90's DC started getting more realistic which with that re-vamped helped them out big time. I know us comic book people expect certain things yet I can appreciate a twist or turn and hope they do keep it more Modern in terms of the Story and well look at the world we live in. I will definitely see this movie and do hope that the end will have a sneak like Marvel/Disney currently do say "Flash, Green Lantern and who ever will be on the Justice League Film sorta of show up ...leading to the Justice League. I also believe this will be the film that if done correctly with a Great Story could be a billion dollar film. Keep it real keep it believable .. because even though Marvel is my all time favorite the GREATEST COMIC which I hope becomes a Movie would be "The Dark Knight Returns" where an Older Batman and Superman whom is married to Wonder Woman get into a Fight with a special bat suit " Iron Man'ish" and of Coarse the One Armed Green Arrow. Now this is Movie they should be working on too to Follow Up on Superman/Batman.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Smurfkillersquee wrote:

    going to be honest. I've lost faith in some of the casting decisions. I'm open minded, I liked Bale, and Keaton as batman. They both fit into their respective eras as great Batmen, but I can't help that after Dark Knight, they would have tried to keep that version of Batman because it's what everyone is expecting, AND hoping for. No one wants to see a cartoony batman vs darker themed superman fight. The casting choices have just been going to hell, and I'm sorry, but I have no faith in this movie if they are just going to shoehorn a bunch of confusing plot.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 5:57 PM, JTRK wrote:

    There are so many things wrong with this rendition, and it is only getting worse, that everyone I know will not go see it. Neither will I. I will not waste my money on a bastardized version of a loved classic. They are going to spend $250M on the POS and it will fail.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 6:41 PM, KEBrainchild wrote:

    I think you are Jumping the Gun tim.

    AFAIK, Snyder finally brought the REAL superman to screen, in terms of raw power. He mixed some things up like clark kent, but everything was very fresh.

    I think you are WAAAAAYYY off, even mentioning Nolans batman. First off, Nolans Batman is not common batman mythology. Nolan screwed SOOOOO MANY things about batman up. So if He's allowed to, then I Welcome what snyder may have in store, because MAYBE just MAYBE Snyders batman will remind us MORE of the comic book Batman Myths. Ugh.

    Please dont confuse the world out here. Nolan had 1 great batman movie. The other 2 were horrible. What exactly to you means moving away from bat myths in reference to nolan films? You mean the fact that he wore a 300 pound rubber suit, flew in a horrible bat copter that could hardly fly, didnt know more than 5 fighting moves much less styles, wasnt a DETECTIVE!!, was hyper realistic where in the last movie he had no cartilage in his knee. 0_o,.....If thats bat mythos to you then i cant WAIT for Snyder to move away from them. yuck. Good riddance nolan.

  • Report this Comment On March 08, 2014, at 10:06 PM, woobot wrote:

    I’m fairly new to the DC Universe, as I grew up reading Marvel, and now I really don’t read much except for an X-Men title now and then. But I will go on record and say I’m willing to give Snyder some good will towards SvsB based on decisions he made on MOS. And I also actually think that Affleck will be one of the better Batmans to don the cowl in long time. Physically he’s perfect, never cared for him much as an actor, but that chin is a Bruce Wayne birthright. And I was very impressed with the understated performance turned in by Cavhill, so the two together has me very interested in what kind of chemistry there’ll be between them. I’m really not a DC fan, and yet the potential character arcs and storylines in SvsB has me more interested in it than say… Days of Future Past.

    I also thought MOS benefited from a masterful score from Zimmer and Co., it was powerful and heartbreaking… better than the Batman scores if you ask me. I only wish he was coming back for SvsB, but I think I read he’s not. The score really gave MOS gravitas and pathos… I hope Snyder is wise enough to keep some of that heart in this next film. Nobody wants to see a one hour extended fight sequence with Batman. Like others have suggested, it would be wise to make Batman a tactician, the world’s greatest detective who is alarmed by this alien’s seemingly unstoppable superpowers, and wise enough to know only his smarts will allow him to go toe toe with him.

    I’m a little leery about the casting of Lex Luthor, but trust Snyder enough at this point to figure he’s on the right track with Eisenberg. You can’t hate what you don’t know… and I presume Eisenberg is a good enough actor to be able to play a somewhat different type of character than what we we’ve seen from him previously. I’m kinda excited to see him play a villain, but one who’s cunning, conniving and hell-bent on world domination… I guess not too unlike Mark Zukerberg, so perhaps Snyder has a plan after all.

    And lastly, the only real chink in the MOS armor for me is the Goyer effect… But since I’ve heard that Terrio (Best Adapted Screenplay – Argo) is coming aboard for re-writes, I’m feeling that much more hopeful towards the prospect of SvB. Still, WB really needs to stop with the whole Superman Vs. Batman thing… please, let’s get at title for this picture. And I’ve seen the site names registered by WB, and quite frankly they are mostly uninspired. I really hope it’s not a tacky title, keep it classy, keep it elevated… Here’s to making a good one! Don’t forget to introduce WW as a strong and powerful heroine, not some cartoony sex symbol. And show us a potential threat that would lead to the creation of a Justice League... and BAM… a rival superhero franchise is born, well at least that’s what were hoping for.

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2014, at 5:26 PM, amputech1 wrote:

    I don't think this movie will be good. The casting is horrible. I don't think Gal Gadot will do a good job. She doesn't have enough acting experience to pull off such a monumental character. Her english is also very limited. Wonder woman is a warrior she is no where near anorexic. Gal Gadot said she would work out for the role but there isn't enough time for her to gain 50 pounds. I'm also iffy about Ben Afleck not to mention Jesse Eisenberg that looks like a 10 year old. I wasn't a fan of Man of Steel there were so many things that were wrong with that movie but I would take me an hr to explain.

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2014, at 7:28 PM, leobowdyo1 wrote:

    I will say that I didn't see the new superman..so I seriously doubt I will watch this producers idea of what superman/batman should be.

    I will add that most comic book movies try to appeal to two general audiences.

    1. the hardcore comicbook fan that insist the writers/directors/producers adhere to cannon law

    2. People that don't read comics/don't know much about the character and really don't care about the "ultimate character" cannon law.

    So you end up with a mishmash like the xmen movie that really doesn't please anyone...sure the movie makes money because people are desperate to see their heroes on the big screen.

    Most of the movies make alot of movie overseas because of the special effects/violence and cgi..

    so it isn't like the producers are rewriting shakespeare folks

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2014, at 7:31 PM, leobowdyo1 wrote:

    so you have a producer that is rewriting the characters' origins..

    you cast actors/actresses that most people either hate or think are absolute wrong for the roll

    you making a movie from a graphic novel that most people have never read...

    hmmm how soon before this mess appears on netflixs?

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2014, at 7:47 PM, stubdu wrote:

    I think it makes sense that Zack Snyder ' isn't as "tied to the mythology," '. Theres already been 3 Batman movies in 7 years time ( 2005 to 2012 ). And then there's Supes in Man Of Steel ( 2013 ). So, we've already had plenty of origins to go around for the 2 main characters in this next Superman v.s. Batman movie. I say doing something different for a change is good. Who wants to see the same thing over & over again ? That's my point, It's going to be something different, And I say change is good !

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2014, at 11:37 PM, dtwilliamson wrote:

    I'm torn, but I cross my fingers and say my prayers that Zack Snyder will make a good movie.

  • Report this Comment On March 10, 2014, at 12:03 AM, blimpieman1 wrote:

    As much as I'd love to see this movie succeed (and it will financially), DC has just never succeeded with movies the way Marvel has. How many miserable Batman movies have we sat through? Wonder Woman has tried to be a movie for years and they just could never do it. Green Lantern? So much potential but it didn't deliver to lead into a JLA movie as they had planned. Marvel has had so many movies about their characters (Ghost Rider, The Punisher, Wolverine) and have done well with the X-men, Spider-man, and now Avengers franchises. DC has the character base but just cant pull the movies together. They have always done much better with TV and kids cartoons. I am one of the die-hard "old-school" comic fans. The New 52 actually caused me to stop reading many of my favorite DC titles. I WANT to see the comics brought to life on the big screen, with origins and characters as close as possible to what I'm used to. I'm not big on DC's elseworlds storylines and would rather not spend $15 on one in the theater. Marvel not only has the formula down for how to do their movies true to comic form (with the exception of Daredevil) but vary It with different writers and actors that fit the role. DC has struggled for years with this and is still struggling and I have major uneasiness about this upcoming film. Superman Returns, Green Lantern, Watchmen, and even the last Nolan Batman were just adequate movies with no future in them.

  • Report this Comment On March 12, 2014, at 3:02 PM, bman53186 wrote:

    I can't believe people are still hung up on the ending of the "Man of Steel" movie. Look, I'm a long time comic fan, but honestly the changing of the mythos behind characters and/or the altering of a character's persona doesn't really bother me.

    What does bother me? 2 things:

    1.) People get themselves all worked up over the destruction in "Man of Steel" and the changes, and it blinds them from the real problem. It wasn't that great a movie. The pacing wasn't great, the characters weren't engaging, and the action beats overpowered the story. Most importantly, to me, the overall tone/mood of the film is really flat, the "sad" moments have little impact because most of the movie is sad. It is a true testament to the power of effective comic relief. People overlook this because they are too busy complaining about the end.

    2.) The "earth shattering" changes to Superman to bring him into this "post Dark Knight, more serious future", to me, just left like lazy writing. I envision a boardroom where all the big wigs are like,

    "Alright boys, we need to revitalize the Superman franchise. We need to really roll up our sleeves, dig in, and get some serious creative-"

    Then somewhere from the back of the room, "Hey, let's just have him kill someone."

    "Sounds good. Gentlemen, lunch?"

    It really was the easy way out. It convinces people that he is dark and serious like batman without having any of the real meat behind the story. Then it gets everyone else talking about it for months because they hated it. It comes down to this, if "Man of Steel" was truly a great movie, they would have made a MoS 2 because it would show that it is strong enough to carry the DC-movie-verse. They know that that movie didn't have anything to build off of, so they are propping it up with other big names like Batman and Wonder Woman.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2869194, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/20/2014 4:41:48 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement