3 Reasons Why 'Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice' Will Fail

Time Warner (NYSE: TWX  ) /Warner Bros.' Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, scheduled to be released on May 6, 2016, seems to get more crowded every week.

Although the project initially focused on Superman and Batman, the lineup now includes Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, Cyborg, Aquaman, and possibly even Nightwing. The confirmed cast includes Henry Cavill as Superman, Ben Affleck as Batman, Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, and Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

Source: Warner Bros.

Rumors have circulated that Jason Momoa, best known as Khal Drogo from Game of Thrones, will play Aquaman. Callan Mulvey, who was last seen as a member of SHIELD in Disney (NYSE: DIS  ) /Marvel's Captain America: The Winter Soldier, has also been cast in a role rumored to be the Joker. To top all of that off, the Flash could make a cameo, although it's unclear if Grant Gustin, who plays the character on the small screen, will be cast.

Put all of those characters together and you get one of two things -- the most epic live action clash of DC superheroes and supervillains on the big screen to date, or a disastrous supernova that wipes out the fledgling "DC Cinematic Universe." I think the latter could occur for three major reasons.

1. Too many heroes and villains
Let's first take a look at what Time Warner did in the past with Batman. The four films between 1989 to 1997 progressed in this manner:



Batman Returns

Batman Forever

Batman & Robin




Batman, Robin

Batman, Robin, Batgirl

Main villain(s)


Penguin, Catwoman

Riddler, Two-Face

Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Bane

Rotten Tomatoes





Source: Rotten Tomatoes.

Source: Warner Bros.

We can see the same trend with Sony's first Spider-Man trilogy between 2002 and 2007:



Spider-Man 2

Spider-Man 3





Main villain(s)

Green Goblin

Dr. Octopus

New Goblin, Venom, Sandman

Rotten Tomatoes




Source: Rotten Tomatoes.

Both Batman and Spider-Man stalled out after those final films, forcing a reboot of both franchises.

More recently, Sony tossed Electro, Green Goblin, and Rhino together in the 142-minute long battle royale known as The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Yet more characters did not generate greater returns -- The Amazing Spider-Man 2 actually earned less globally ($702 million) than the original film ($758 million), and fared worse with critics (73% vs. 53% at Rotten Tomatoes).

The key problem is that since studios believe that sequels always must be bigger than their predecessors, franchises often burn out within three or four films. If Dawn of Justice is as crowded as reports suggest, it could ruin the series and crush Warner's dreams of creating a DC Cinematic Universe to rival Marvel's.

2 .Time Warner lacks Disney's patience
Disney's The Avengers was a crowded movie that worked for a simple reason -- all the main heroes and villains had previously been introduced in less crowded films.

Time Warner wants to do the exact opposite. None of the new characters in Dawn of Justice, except for Superman, has a back story yet. Ben Affleck's Batman will not be a continuation of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight version. Wonder Woman hasn't appeared in live action form since the 1970s, except for a brief appearance in an abandoned NBC pilot in 2011. Non-comic book readers are probably even less familiar with Cyborg, Nightwing, and Aquaman.

Nightwing, Cyborg, and Aquaman. Source: DC Comics.

When Disney and Marvel were building up the Marvel Cinematic Universe, solo Avenger films made plenty of money. Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Disney's latest solo Marvel film, grossed $710 million worldwide on a budget of $170 million. Before that, Thor: The Dark World grossed $645 million on a budget of $170 million.

In the DC Cinematic Universe, not a single new DC film will arrive before Dawn of Justice in 2016. Therefore, it would make sense for Warner to develop new films for less well-known characters like Aquaman, Nightwing, and Cyborg first, and emphasize their connections to Man of Steel for marketing purposes. It would also be a smart financial move, since The Hobbit -- Warner's only annual film franchise -- concludes this December.

Warner clearly thought that the $1.5 billion that Disney grossed from The Avengers in 2012 would be a great haul for a single film. However, Warner apparently overlooked the fact that Marvel's five previous films played huge roles in promoting that single film.

3. Questionable creative decisions
Last but not least, Warner is putting too much faith in Man of Steel writer David S. Goyer and director Zack Snyder.

Goyer, a comic book writer, can be exceptional when paired with the right director (Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy) but abysmal when paired with the wrong one (Neveldine/Taylor's Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance). Goyer's writing for Man of Steel was solid, but Zack Snyder's over-the-top green screen explosions and chaos turned the film into a joyless, loud affair akin to his earlier films 300 and Sucker Punch.

Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch. Source: Warner Bros.

As a result, the critical response for Man of Steel was mixed, earning a 56% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Critics derided it as "endless violence" devoid of "humor and joy." Therefore, it's odd that Warner has handed over the reins of the DC Cinematic Universe to Snyder and Goyer, especially after Disney and Marvel demonstrated repeatedly that comic book films work best when darkness is balanced out with a dash of wit and humor.

The Foolish takeaway
Last but not least, it doesn't help that Warner plans to release Dawn of Justice on the same day as Disney's Captain America 3 on May 6, 2016.

Warner stands to lose a lot more than Disney in this game of box office chicken. Captain America 3 is the 13th installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but Dawn of Justice will only be the second film for DC. Moreover, if Dawn of Justice bombs, future solo films for Batman, Wonder Woman, and other characters could be jeopardized as well.

What do you think, fellow comic book film fans? Will Dawn of Justice crumble under the weight of too many heroes and villains, or will it be a disciplined, well-executed hit like Fox's X-Men: Days of Future Past?

Want some super powered returns for your portfolio?
Give us five minutes and we'll show how you could own the best stock for 2014. Every year, The Motley Fool's chief investment officer hand-picks one stock with outstanding potential. But it's not just any run-of-the-mill company. It's a stock perfectly positioned to cash in on one of the upcoming year's most lucrative trends. Last year his pick skyrocketed 134%. And previous top picks have gained upwards of 908%, 1,252% and 1,303% over the subsequent years! Believe me, you don't want to miss what could be his biggest winner yet! Just click here to download your free copy of "The Motley Fool's Top Stock for 2014" today.


Read/Post Comments (88) | Recommend This Article (59)

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 June 21, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Zerohero52 wrote:

    A marvel fan boy wrote this article. He wants the movie to suck. Too bad it won't.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 11:09 AM, redfox435cat wrote:

    It will suck because DC just doesn't get their target audience but think they do because they listen to themselves and themselves only. Kind of sad because they hit a grand slam with the last Batman but tried to do the same with Superman making superman what it was never meant to be, dark. DC won't learn its lesson for the fail of superman. For whatever reason DC keep trying to infuse politics into superhero movies which is a huge turn off for the genera and they have always done it.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 11:15 AM, stellar451 wrote:

    Well written op ed - but doesnt take in the primary reason the movie will not do well.

    David S. Goyer and director Zack Snyder.

    Goyer's story was solid and would have done well - except it was about Superman and he doesnt understand the character. It's all well and good to mix things up - changes are good and a retelling from a different perspective can be refreshing. Changing things in that ppl actually view your bad guy as the noble one means you lost your focus somewhere. And anyone that knows nothing about Supes knows that if nothing else that he stood for truth justice and the american way - this one snaps necks like they're chickens with no remorse. (And yes i am aware and discuss back instances of previous "killings by the character - irrelevant as most ppl arent well versed in canon history) Ppl go to movies to see heros fight and evil defeated. They walked out of this theatre wondering if evil won.

    Between this style of writing changes and Synders' perchant for explosions and mass destruction and directing style, coupled with the added multiple characters and the title will face on release? This does not bode well....

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 11:17 AM, kp22kc wrote:

    I will see Dawn of Justice before I see Captain America. I don't read comic books, but I have always liked the superhero movies and TV shows. I've always liked the DC heroes better than the Marvel ones. Marvel is good, but DC just has the better ones, in my opinion. Nothing can beat Superman and Wonder Woman. Batman is ok, but was never my favorite, except of course the Adam West Batman. I don't agree at all that Man of Steel was a fail. That was a great movie! I caught part of it last week on HBO and was only gonna watch for a few minutes and ended up watching until the end late into the night. I think it's a good idea to go the opposite way of Marvel and do all the heroes in the first movie and then movies with single heroes later. We already know they heroes, we don't need more origin stories.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 12:10 PM, cubsblue23 wrote:

    A well written and thought out piece. This is why Disney is superior to Warner and Universal. They do not just see what others are doing and react. Warner is planning literally dozens of Superhero ventures now to try to capitalize on Marvel's greatness at the box office. It will lead to a huge loss for Warner which could just be the nail in their coffin. They are just starting to recover from the AOL ownership.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 12:12 PM, nullfactory wrote:

    The author is correct due to one fact, to many heroes and villains.

    When you over saturate the story line, it ruins the immersion of the movie. period.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 12:24 PM, razorstar90 wrote:

    Let me get this straight. WB is taking an extra year to create this movie, but they are rushing it. X-Men Days of Future Past had about 10 superheroes and that movie turned out fine. We don't even know if every hero will have a big role as oppose to a cameo at the end or an end credit scene. Marvel is not all powerful. Besides Cap WS, The Avenges and Iron Man 3, MOS outgrossed every Marvel movie, and that was just his first go around. Those other movies are th 2nd and 3rd outings of those heroes. And MOS had ONE movie. They brought in Chris Terrio the Oscar winning screen writer to re-write the script and Zack Synder has directed Watchmen an ensemble piece that was pretty damn good.

    All of you idiots are full of #@$@. WB created the greatest superhero movie by far in The Dark Knight. and all of a sudden you forget that. Give me a dang break all. And Superman has killed before so shut up about that.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 12:29 PM, razorstar90 wrote:

    Oh and stop acting like DC is rushing their movies. WTF are you guys talking about. Since 2008 Marvel has put out 2 movies a year and introduced characters in each movie. DC says hey we are going to start doing that too and everyone says it's a bad idea. WTF is wrong with you people.

    And all you punks know you'll be the first in line to see Batman v Superman. Everyone is going to see this movie because they have no idea what to expect. Cap 3 we know what'll happen in that more or less. Good action, solid story and something to affect the overall universe. Other than that, nothing shocking will happen. The marvel movies have gotten so damn repetitive it's sick. No real urgency no real danger. The characters do nothing out of character, it's meat and potatoes. At least DC tries new things and makes their character without fear of upsetting fanboys and their stupid comics.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 12:30 PM, TMFSunLion wrote:

    @razorstar90 -- X-Men: Days of Future Past worked for Fox for the same reason as The Avengers -- the characters all had established origins and back stories from multiple films.

    Dawn of Justice won't work because WB wants to toss in a ridiculous amount of characters to "kick start" its universe by force. It doesn't work that way.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Nitpicker wrote:

    You've got a lot of valid points, but I'll offer a few comments upon which to hang my hat of hope:

    1. The above mentioned superhero movies did not only suck from the number of heroes and villains. They had plenty of problems with the script and the casting as well.

    2. It is possible for a single movie to introduce many characters succesfully. Snyder's Watchmen did just that IMHO.

    3. We're already assuming that all these characters will get the same screen time as the characters of The Avengers, but that need not be the case.

    Maybe the rumours are wrong and they're actually filming solo films at the same time to which they are casting these guys.

    Maybe some of them will be introduced in the same way that Black Widow was introduced in Iron Man 2 and Hawkeye in Thor. They didn't steal any thunder from the main characters.

    Maybe some of them will only appear in in-movie 'news' like Hulk did in Iron Man 2 to establish that all these characters exist in the same world.

    Maybe some of them will appear in post-credit teasers.

    That's a lot of maybies, but there are plenty of ways to use and introduce these characters without making it crowded.

    The latest Batman-trilogy was actually pretty crowded when you think about it, each movie had 2-3 villains, but they still had a good balance between the characters.

    4. Personal taste. It always comes down to that. I liked 300 and Sucker Punch. Movies akin to those would not put me off ;)

    But I will agree that the points are valid and the movie could end up sucking for excactly those reasons. I'll just hope that it won't for now.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 12:52 PM, rman1979 wrote:

    First off, the person who wrote this article is way 2 bias! Definitely a Marvel fan & shame on u 4 being so negatively bias! I don't buy a word he squeaks out! I have always been a way bigger fan of DC characters than Marvel. Marvel is good, but DC is just supreme! I am a huge Superman fan, the best of the best in super hero's! Anyone who says they don't like him, is a liar. As u honestly can't tell me, u wouldn't love 2 have all his powers or even just 1 of them. Enough said on that. I also love Wonder Woman, she is the greatest female hero ever. I mean come on really Black Widow is that exciting? It's only because of the actress playing her. If she was remotely homely, there would not be much interest at all. The Scarlet Witch is a lot more interesting. But they both don't even compare 2 Wonder Woman! This person failed 2 mention, about Marvel films. Spiderman has become stale, the 3rd installment of Ironman was good, but to boring, as it should of been called: "Tony Stark 3, with cameo's of Ironman." LOL Thor is my favorite Marvel hero, but the 2nd movie, didn't make at all what the 1st did & it was a little dull. I thought most of it being in Asguard, was 2 much. I was never a fan of the comics, when they spent 2 much time up there. And Guardian's of the Galaxy? Most people have never heard of them! Ant-man the movie? Really? LOL "Man of Steel" was am awesome movie! The critics who didn't like it, must enjoy watching paint dry in a very humid room! LOL And the Justice League has the cream of the crop of super hero's! The Avenger's is a great team. But they don't even compare, cause they don't have the 3 biggest Icon's, in the history of comic hero's! U goofy critic's who seem 2 be more of a Marvel fan, must be eating 2 much brain dead soup! LOL So I am very excited about the Man of Steel sequel & no one is ever going 2 distinguish my enthusiasm 4 it period!!!

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, rexkramer wrote:

    You are correct, sir!

    Seriously. All very valid points, and as much as I want to see this movie do well (as I love the JL universe), all signs point to train wreck.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:13 PM, sai99shadow wrote:

    DC stands for Don't Care because they simply don't care what the audience wants and how to best capitalize on the Comic Movie phenom. Instead of taking the slow approach like Marvel they're trying to do it in reverse order. If it's not broke don't fix it. Superman (which was just rebooted) can't even get another stand alone film because DC relies too heavily on the big two (Batman & Superman). I mean they're essentially rebooting Batman only a few yrs AFTER the last film came out. Too many heros/villains and too many back stories to explain. To do the movie properly would take about 3 hrs. Then they're going to introduce ANOTHER Flash and Green Arrow eventhough the CW has a built in audience. This movie is going to flop hard.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:18 PM, unowenatlanta wrote:

    DC comics have always irked me with the no masks yet no one recognizes the characters and the names... God the names... superMAN, batMAN, wonder woMAN, aquaMAN.

    Nevertheless, I'm a fan of comics and I wish the B-team of comicdom well. With that, the author's logic does not flow. Just because there's an ensemble cast does not equal failure. I think the fear of failure that permeates our thoughts comes from the fact that the core of their universe is still unimaginative just like their names and costumes.

    I don't think they have it in them to bring the lot of their characters forward and modernize them. If DC were Marvel, those nuts would have tried to put the Xmen in their comic book costumes no matter how stupid they looked. Like they did with the Green Lantern.

    Nolan modernized Batman. As far as a fantasy/sci-fi is concerned, he made Batman real to us and made him make sense. How does a kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth learn to kick villain butt - Nolan had an answer. How does he get all those toys?!?! Nolan had a "real" answer. Anyway, I'll bet you money they do something stupid like allow Wonder Woman to come from that ridiculous Paradise Island...because they lack creativity.

    I'll still be first in line to see it whether its crap or not. LOVE the genre.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:21 PM, razorstar90 wrote:


    And how do you know all these heroes will have bigger roles. They cold have 1 or 2 lines and then be gone until Justice LEague. This is a set up movie fool. Remember in Thor how Hawkeye was introduced and he did shot a single arrow? All these cameos will be like that. Quick cut away shots. And F*** this idea that "you need stand alones for a movie to be good" that's BULL S*** Did Star Wars need a Luke Standalone movie before he was introduced in a New Hope. Did Katniss need a Katniss Origin story before the first Hunger Games. Did we need a John Mclain origin story before Die Hard. No to all of the above. You people are so full of it, you don't even realize it.

    It's so dumb. People are going to see this movie, the movie wont suck, it'll be fine. MOS was fine, it wasn't spectacular or amazing but it was pretty good. The main problem wasn't Synder it was the choppy script. They fixed that with Batman v Superman by bringing in Affleck and his writing team. The movie will be fine. So stop whining cause we all know your going to see the movie

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Hoser003 wrote:

    First thing is define "Fail". There is no doubt that Dawn of Justice will be a box office success if only because people have been waiting to see Batman and Superman on screen together for a very long time. If the movie is terrible, then it will not be a blockbuster success, but world wide, it will make a profit.

    1) Too Many Heroes / Villains: This is a tuff one to argue one way or the other, because we really have no idea how much any of the confirmed characters will be in it, much less the rumored. Take, for example, Cyborg. In all reality, we will not see Cyborg, but his alter ego Victor Stone. Stone was a football player that became Cyborg after an accident (short, short version). We already know that Dawn of Justice filmed a foot ball game scene last year, so it is possible that Cyborg could be nothing more than a sport show interview on a T.V. in the back ground. This really goes for any of the characters that are NOT Superman or Batman. We really don't know at this time. If they try to give each additional character a chunk of screen time, then I agree that they run the risk of drawing people away from the reason they came to see the movie in the first place. Batman vs. Superman.

    2) Lack's Disney's Patience: Yes and no. I agree that they seem to be doing their universe in reverse order than Disney, but that does not mean its a lack of patience. Disney's method was a risk considering that if any of the movies flopped (Hulk did not do well at box office but it did make a profit) then it would have made making Avenger a lot harder. By introducing multiple characters first, Warner Brothers will be able to read the publics opinions on who they like most outside of Batman and Superman. If the public really likes Aquaman but shows lack luster feelings towards Wonder Woman, then Warner Brothers knows to push forward with Aquaman and sit on Wonder Woman a bit longer. Now the big risk in doing it this way is if your platform launch film is not a good film, then no one may want to see a film based off of any of the characters in it.

    3) Creative decisions: I don't know that I would call the pairing of Snyder and Goyer a "questionable creative decision" quite yet. They have only worked on one movie together and while many did not like "Man of Steel" there were where more that did (earning a 76% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes). Just to put that into prospective, that means the 3 out of every 4 people that saw "Man of Steel" liked it, while 2 out of every 4 critics (earning a 56% on Rotten Tomatoes) did as well. Over all, that is a successful movie both from a review stand point and a financial (earning over $600m world wide). It cost just over $200m to make, add say another $100m for marketing and "Man of Steel" earned double its expenses. The two together have shown Warner Brothers that they can make a film that is both financially successful as well as viewer successful. We will only get a better understanding of their creative decisions once we have a better knowledge of how they are handling the multiple character introductions, and once we see the first teaser. As of right now, they have shown us Batman and the batmobile, and they both seem to be approving to the majority of interested parties.

    At the end, every movie is a risk. Its just a matter of how big. Batman v. Superman is more of a risk for the rest of their shared universe than it is for its own standing as everyone will want to see Batman and Superman sharing the big screen. Batman v. Superman's ultimate success will come with its staying power. Will it be good enough of a film to see only minor drops in earning after its opening weekend, or will it leap from the opening box office skyscraper and land flat on its face the next week? For now, I am cautiously optimistic. I really want this to be a good movie and have yet so see anything, other than the casting of Wonder Woman, that indicates that it may not be. I will reassess after I see the first teaser trailer.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:31 PM, jesterjim wrote:

    Batman is my all-time favorite super hero. But Ben Affleck as Batman. Seriously? Did you not see Daredevil? That alone was a turn off. Gigliman! Zack Snyder has failed to impress (sadly). I had hopped for so much more after 300, but Sucker Punch was just garbage. I would love to see them do this right but it seems they are just making one wrong choice after another. I feel for Jason Momoa, this is going to ruin his career.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:33 PM, whogan wrote:

    Dawn of Justice is going to completely suck & bomb simply due to the casting if nothing else. I was excited when first hearing about this movie & as soon as I heard Ben Affleck is playing Batman, I swore this movie off... won't even waste my money to see this!

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:37 PM, adorety wrote:

    Op Ed. indeed. This article is strictly speculative opinion. I get more of a sense that the writer is far more inclined to the Marvel universe than the DC universe, which is fine. We all have different tastes.

    1. The movie is called Batman v Superman:Dawn of Justice. Obviously there are going to be some additional characters needed to be seen so the Justice League has a starting point. I must speculate as well and guess that other than Supes and Bats, any other character will have very little screen time, other than perhaps Wonder Woman.

    I would guess there will be a parallel storyline with Superman against someone and Batman against another and at some point the two converge and differing methods of crime fighting will cause a head to head. Batman always wants everyone to stay out of his way when he's working.

    2. If Nightwing makes an appearance it would make a lot of sense and allow for some backstory revelations and I'm sure it would be during a 5-7 minute chase/fight scene with a brief follow up.

    3. The newest Superman movie brought Superman to our reality. With massive superpowers fighting each other destruction is unavoidable, and besides, Avengers et al have plenty of explosions and deadly violence. Additionally, Zod gave Kal no choice. I would have been more disappointed if Zod was left alive to escape and kill thousands again.

    4. In summary, until we see how little characters will take up the screen I'm going side with this being a big success. This is not Justice League. This is a pre introduction with lots of super heroes already established, so you have to give them some recognition. On top of that, before the Justice League movie comes near the end of this decade, we will have seen a stand alone Wonder Woman movie and there are plans for a Lantern/Flash movie to be made before Justice League. And after all that there will be a Superman 2. They will be throwing in a Sandman movie as well featuring J.G. Levitt.

    Warner/DC does not need to follow Marvel's footsteps and show a bunch of back story movies, that would drag everything down to a snails pace. We already know Batman's past and now Superman's past. Wonder Woman can be a new mysterious arrival since she is from a "magical" island of Amazonian women.

    My one gripe is....Where is J'onn J'onzz, the Martian Manhunter? Perhaps another alien character as powerful as Superman and Wonder Woman is too much for the audience, in Warner's collective mind.

    Check out some JL fan fiction at Cyber Joke

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:44 PM, legacys7 wrote:

    It will fail simply because how they're approaching this. No origin stories for starters. The stories should be where many of the characters have their own movies first, with a good story line and some of those characters making cameo appearances in the other super heroes movies. Similar to what Marvel is doing. DC is trying to do too many things at one time, where as Marvel's similar approach was a build up story where each character were gradually given to us. They made you interested. They make you you wait after the credits to see what was next. Good marketing, good writing and good effects.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:45 PM, dcmarvelite wrote:


  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:45 PM, dcmarvelite wrote:

    First, I grew up a fan of both DC and Marvel characters so I would actually love to see both the DCCU and MCU continue to succeed. I have never understood the pure DC or Marvel fanboys that actually want to see a movie fail. Essentially that would be bad for the entire genre and hurt both sides. The writer here obviously is a pure Marvel fanboy and hasn't really done his research about the Batman v Superman film. It's already been stated that while Goyer is the first writer for the film it's actually Chris Terrio, the writer of the fantastic film Argo, who is re-writing BvS. That should solve those fears of a bad film write even though after watching the Nolan trilogy we should really have none. Second, it's been stated again this IS a Batman/Superman film NOT a Justice League film. Any other characters, outside of Wonder Woman who may have a little bit bigger role, will have small cameos to set up 2017s Justice League movie. We're talking some roles with as much as a couple minutes of screen time obviously nothing to worry about. As far as the villains, nothing has been confirmed outside of Lex Luthor. Lots of speculation about a Joker, Metallo, etc... but NOTHING outside of Lex is confirmed. And the fact they are waiting until 2016 to put this out means they are focusing on making a great film to set up the awesome slate of DCCU movies ahead: Shazam, Sandman, Justice League, Wonder Woman, Flash/Green Lantern team up, Superman 2. And to say that Captain America 3 would crush BvS is proof that you are a Marvel fanboy writing this article. With only regards to Spider-man, Superman and Batman are the only other comic book heros that have mainstream pull of an epic nature. And I LOVED Cap 2. Probably one of the most well written comic book movies EVER. But Cap could never touch the juggernaut that will be BvS. And honestly, we probably won't see both movies go head to head anyway. One will opt out, just makes sense from a business standpoint.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:50 PM, magicman222 wrote:

    The writer of the article forgot the three MAIN reasons why this film will fail:

    1. Casting (except for Henry Cavill)

    2. Casting (except for Henry Cavill)

    and last, but not least. . .

    3. Casting (except for Henry Cavill)

    I'll bet you didn't see that third reason coming!!

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Terastas wrote:

    Time Warner probably was originally going to be patient in putting the Justice League movie together, and were introducing their heroes individually.

    They stopped at Green Lantern. And I think we all know the reason why they stopped there.

    What Time Warner likely concluded (instead of that they hired a bunch of idiots to manage that movie) was that, if they couldn't make Green Lantern work on the big screen, they DEFINITELY wouldn't be able to make Flash, Wonder Woman or Aquaman work on the big screen either.

    Which, in turn, begs the question: Why even have them in the movie at all? I don't see Green Lantern in the confirmed cast yet, so why not rub out the ones they had no faith in to begin with too?

    They can, in fairness, get away with not introducing every single character with their own movie (can you say "Hawkeye?"), just as long as the characters they neglect to mention are not extraordinary. Cyborg is. . . Well, a cyborg; not a lot of explanation required there. Batman, likewise, is just an archetypical vigilante -- with no powers, he requires no explanation beyond the motivation for his costume.

    Wonder Woman's magic lasso and Aquaman's ability to talk to fish, however, require explanation.

    So were I to give advice to Time Warner, it'd be to use the first Justice League movie to introduce JUST ONE of their "must provide explanation" (Wonder Woman in "Justice League," Aquaman in "Justice League 2," Martian Manhunter in "Justice League 3," etc.), and to otherwise keep its ranks exclusive to the talented-but-mundane "no explanation required" heroes like Batman, Nightwing, Green Arrow, the Question, Crimson Fox, Wildcat, and Steel (not played by Shaq this time).

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 2:06 PM, indytims wrote:

    @Razorstar - Avengers was -way- better than any of the Batman films - I don't have enough space here to explain to you why. And I get the impression that you really haven't watched a lot of the Marvel movies, especially Cap. And you are also wrong on the fact that anyone in particular will be 'first in line'. I know I sure won't. The movie keeps sounding like more and more of a disaster with every announcement. Will DC sheep go to this movie when it comes out, and will it rake in some serious coin? Of course it will. Even though the movie will PROBABLY suck, doesn't mean it won't sell tons of tickets (look at Transformers for the perfect example of this). DC (like Marvel) has a built-in fan-base that is pretty enormous, die-hard, and forgiving. They'll go see this movie no matter how terrible it is..

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 2:09 PM, daddydave wrote:

    Although I agree with some of the statements above (too many characters has been done wrong way too many times and only done right a small handful of times) I believe there is more hope for this movie than the author thinks.

    Synder has already mentioned that Wonder Woman will only have a small role in Batman v Superman, so I can only imagine that the likes of Aquaman, Cyborg, and others will be cameos (much like Hawkeye in Thor). It's a interesting way of introducing the characters, and gives the producers a look to see who is well received/should get their own movie, and who is not. (Who would have thought Quicksilver from DOFP would be so popular?) I like the idea of having a bunch of cameos from the other JL members, just as long as the main focus of the movie is Batman vs. Superman, and Lex Luthor pulling some strings

    Something else that Warner Brothers has going for them where Marvel is no contest is television. (Agents of Shield could have been so good) Arrow is INCREDIBLE. By far the best Superhero TV show in years, and that trailer for The Flash shows all of the positive signs. I think they need to continue to capitalize on that. Give fans multiple mediums to which they watch the DC universe expand. Give the Big A-listers (DC's big 3) movie franchises, the B-listers TV shows (Green Arrow, Flash, Nightwing perhaps) and then see what would be best for the others (Maybe a mini-series for Aquaman, Green Lantern and Cybrog, like Marvel is doing for Daredevil).

    I think the biggest problem with DC is that they are too focused on Marvel. They should ignore any thoughts of competing with Marvel, and focus on giving comic book fans the movies their deserve (you know now that I think about it, it's probably a lot less DC trying to compete with Marvel and more WB trying to keep up with Disney). Feige has always said that the only reason Marvel has done so well, is because they stick to the source material. They do not deviate, and they do not allow Hollywood to take the movie over. The Marvel movies are played out LIKE their comic books, witty banter and all. Nolan's Batman movies are JUST LIKE the comic books, dark and metaphorical. If DC uses the comic books as blueprints (or they could be like FOX and just take their screenplays directly from best-selling stories) then they will succeed. Games of Thrones, Hunger Games, Harry Potter; they all stay close to the source material and it brings success.

    One last note: if Marvel can make us believe in Asgardians, then DC has no excuse with the Amazons. I'm ready for that lasso.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 2:17 PM, msorrentino wrote:

    I think that both Batman vs Superman & Cap 3 will be box office successes but that BvS will get less favorable reviews if the writers handle the huge cast poorly.

    Cap 3 is really more about setting things up for Steve Rodger's death in Avengers 3 (Chris Evans contract ends with Cap 3 & Avengers 3) and having Bucky aka the Winter Soldier take up the mantel of Captain America just like in the comics. Stan Sebastian the actor who portrays Bucky signed a nine picture deal with Marvel as opposed to Chris Evan's six picture deal.

    Overall, it is sink or swim for BvS if it fails good buy DCCU, if it is successful than MCU will have decent competition and the fans of both companies will win.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 2:19 PM, JJ82 wrote:

    Actually the "take away" from this article is that anyone that writes about why a movie is going to fail before knowing a thing about it other than who is cast in not worth listening to.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 2:35 PM, herkman3 wrote:


    I think that you read what you wanted to read from this article. The writer NEVER said that or even hinted at Cap 3 out-earning (let alone "crushing") BvS. He was saying that WB has more to lose by scheduling their movie for the same release date as Marvel's Cap 3. Cap 3 is just one of many stepping stone movies within the MCU while WB is completely reliant on BvS being a success, financially and critically. Besides that mistake I agreed with most of your assessment and we'll have to wait to see what the future holds for DC superhero solo films.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 2:35 PM, rman1979 wrote:

    Ok sai99shadow & unowenatlanta, again u 2 r so negative, that's what is wrong with this world! Slow approach as Marvel? Marvel is throwing out 3 to 4 movies a year, um that isn't a slow approach! And DC is making the Man of Steel sequel this way, because if u do remember. At the Comic con, where they displayed the Superman/Batman logos together & that this movie was going 2 have the 2 biggest hero's of all time in a live action film. The crowd went crazy with excitement! 2 me, that is what people have been wanting!! Sai99shadow, u sound like a very boring critic. LOL And Unowenatlanta, really about the names? Hmmmmm SpiderMAN, IronMAN, SpiderWOMAN, X-MEN, & the worst by far on any level....AntMAN! LOL So how is this any different? Not a very brilliant comment. LOL Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman, we're created in the late 1930's & early 1940's & I think their origins r very creative & definitely entertaining! Oh & Paradise Island is definitely a great part of Wonder Woman's heritage. I think u r in that same room, watching the paint dry. LOL Your comments r so wishy washy. Why would u wait in line 2 see this movie, when u r panning the characters? DC is the original & by far the best. I liked the Green Lantern movie! Non comic fans might of not been 2 familiar with him. But it was a great movie. I think 2 many people r expecting perfection. And news flash! There is nothing in this world, that is perfect. Also, I like Ben Affleck as Daredevil, it was a good movie. He's a great actor. Yes we all have our own opinions, but some of ur so mean, cruel & unimaginative comments, just have no merit. As I've always said, kindness goes so much farther than being nasty & negative. Just be excited they r making this movie or get excited about something else positive.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 2:36 PM, msorrentino wrote:

    @daddydave : One problem the difference between Arrow and Agents of SHIELD is that AOS takes place in the same universe as the movies aka the MCU. DC on the other hand has already said that Arrow & The Flash are separate from the Man of Steel universe.

    The Marvel Cinematic Universe is composed of the Movies, the One-Shots (short films included as bonuses on the DVD/Blu-Ray versions of the movies), Agents of SHIELD, the upcoming Agent Carter, and the Marvel/Netflix Originals consisting of Daredevil, Iron Fist, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage the storylines of which will come together for The Defenders, all of the shows will be 13 episodes long.

    The DC Cinematic Universe is composed of the Man of Steel and the upcoming Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice.

    Also, Agents of SHIELD became much better after the events of Captain America The Winter Soldier and season 2 looks like it will be awesome. Plus, I believe the writers of AOS have learnt their lesson on how to tie the show into the MCU while not having the entire season's plot circle around a single MCU movie in this case CA:TWS. The first half of season one of AOS suffered because they did just that.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 2:55 PM, herkman3 wrote:


    You sound really immature with all of your cussing and name-calling. Keep your emotions in check and maybe people will take you little more seriously. Also, the movies you used to "prove" that movies don't need origin stories don't fit at all. Die Hard and Hunger Games WERE origin stories as they explain how those characters became what they are, heroes. Comparing any other action movie to superhero movies is just an attempt to prove your point regardless of relevance. Watchmen was a failure and Star Wars was very unique in that they told people beforehand that the first movie was actually the fourth movie in the chronological movie franchise.

    This is a speculation piece and that is made obvious in the way the writer sets it up before his list. These articles should always be taken with a grain of salt. While expressing your personal opinions in these comment sections can be very enlightening (I have learned a lot from those that know how to express themselves) there is no need to get butt-hurt over what these writers say. Let's keep it clean and have fun here.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 3:33 PM, dusty65 wrote:

    Star Wars films had Lots of Characters

    Star Trek Films had Lots of Characters

    Lord of the Rings




    Iron Man


    Captain America


    Batman (1989)

    Superman I and II

    All of these movies have lots of what? It not knowing how to handle all those characters or sacrificing other characters that make it bad. Look at Batman and Robin, but also any other movie that is made.

    Disney took over after Captain America: First Avenger people. Marvel was working with Paramount from Iron Man on. The had a 9 picture deal, and Disney bought the rights back for the movies from Avengers forward. Disney didn't plan crap, that was Marvel Studios and Paramount.

    Last wait and see. Wait until the frickin movie comes out before you give it the death knell. Good gawd, just wait until 2016, and then bitch about it.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Dthelounger wrote:

    3 reasons why this article will fail: #1 The writers lack of knowledge in regards to comic movie fans, and what they want to see (the 2 biggest heroes ever in the same film). #2 Writers that have zero optimism and hate on films before they're released should get slapped 2 times. #3 This guy must be a Marvel fan-boy, cause I didnt hear the "too many heroes in one film" complaint about the Avengers.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 4:46 PM, rman1979 wrote:

    @ Dthelounger

    Thanks man! Your post is by far the best 1 I've seen on here! True in every aspect! Appreciate the honesty & humor!

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Smurfkillersquee wrote:

    I'm gonna say right now that this movie is a HUGE gamble on DC's part. They think it will do super well. And it is possible it might, but bad casting has already started to destroy this movie's reputation. Many people have already lost faith in this movie SOLELY because of casting.

    And I thought Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengence was a good movie.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 5:31 PM, InitialG wrote:

    It'll suck because DC is so desperate to catch up to Marvel they are throwing unlimited money at dumb ideas and bad directors. Batman vs Superman?

    Yeah should be called the Justice League prequel or better yet name it the the Justice League movie.

    What DC should do is make a solid Batman movie with Affleck, make a solid Wonder Woman with Gadol then put them all together in the Justice League.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Hectorl202 wrote:

    This movie will not tank. Most, if not all movie viewrs, can care less about the marvel vs dc politics. They will enjoy a movie just for what it is, A GOOD MOVIE.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 6:14 PM, deathadder wrote:

    This article, better yet, Motley Fool should be ashamed of it's self, this article is pure speculation to get people to click on it, again, this article is pure speculation. Batman V Superman having both Superman and Batman alone is going to be awesome, as well setting up Justice League is going to be even more awesome. Unless after going to both Batman V Superman and the Justice League movie that follows turns out to be a huge dump, I plan on seeing every WB DC movie like I intend on seeing every Disney/Marvel movie. Comparing this movie already to Spiderman 3 and Batman & Robin is just both silly and again speculation. You should be hoping this movie does equally as well as all the Disney/Marvel movies, that DC does indeed create it's own movie universe, unless you are invested heavily in WB DC failing, in that case, you should write like a million of these speculation articles every day (which you know, you kinda do...) .

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 6:19 PM, bubkusjones wrote:


    Nobody complained about The Avengers because The Avengers IS an ensemble piece. That's how it was always meant to be done and it showcased heroes who had their solo films (or, for Iron Man, 2 solo films) and "origins" done. The whole thing was about these established heroes joining forces to combat an enemy none could defeat alone.

    Same thing with X-Men, since that was also mentioned. The X-Men was built as a TEAM, always has been, always will be. You may see the odd solo adventure film from one of the bigger characters (so far, only Wolverine), but by and far they will be together.

    BvS was going to be MoS2, then they brought in Batman (with Ben Affleck of all people), and then they brought in Wonder Woman, then Cyborg, then Aquaman. Rumors were talking about a possible Green Lantern appearance, too (be it Ryan Reynolds Hal Jordan or a John Stewart played by whomever). They can't make up their minds about this picture.

    It's not the ensemble of multiple heroes/villains that is the issue, it's that it went from a solo Superman sequel to a pseudo-Justice League "origins" movie in about as long as it took for reviews on MoS to come back rather poorly.

    The studios didn't like how Man Of Steel performed, and didn't think that a solo sequel so soon would be worth the investment. So, they decide to attach a property that had just so recently shown it's success, both critically and commercially, with Batman. They also cast a well known actor in Ben Affleck in order to capitalize on his fame and drawing power, despite his previous failure as Daredevil (and to most fan's dismay). Then, in order to make it less obvious that they have no confidence in the "Man Of Steel" incarnation of Superman, they toss in a few other heroes and make it a pseudo-Justice-League film.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 6:59 PM, chrismcv wrote:
  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 7:30 PM, rman1979 wrote:

    it's amazes me, on how much ignorance prevails with all the Marvel crazies!! Oh & really initialG? a bad idea is Antman! And unless u can see into the future, u have no clue how it will do. Just don't go see it! But let the people who r excited 2 see, not hear all ur negative & nasty replies. If this issue is going 2 change or ruin ur life or anyone else who is whining, maybe u all need 2 evaluate, how stupid u Marvel fans r making a big issue about nothing, that is going 2 personally affect u. Well unless u all r in fear, that DC is going 2 knock Marvel 2 it's knees! LOL Also, to: bubkusjones No one was complaining about the Avengers cramming all of those hero's in the movie, because DC fans r respectful & have more class, than 2 stoop down 2 all the violin screeching going on about this movie, which is only coming from Marvel whiner's. LOL We all need 2 agree 2 disagree & move on. This annoying drama is getting way 2 old. This is my last post, so all of us DC fans r definitely geeked 2 see this movie, just like non partial people will be 2. So Marvel fans, u can just look forward to seeing in the coming years: "Spiderman 16", "Ironman 25-Rusted!" or trying 2 desperately understand, why an "Antman 2" was ever made!!!! LOL

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 7:49 PM, InvisibleZombie wrote:

    First off, this isn't 1989 or even 2007. A lot has changed in the media and obviously film department since then.

    TAS2 had more problems than overcrowding, that's another story. (In fact overcrowding really wasn't one of the problems!)

    The DC characters are VERY well known, why do people insist this isn't true after all of these decades?

    It does not a take a build up of years to bring heroes together, that's the way Marvel chose and it worked. Though I still think some of their films dallied too much, an hour of the first Iron Man was spent waiting for Iron Man.

    Not every successful film NEEDS years of back story and set-up, didn't everyone get hooked into the first Star Wars within the first 10 minutes? Let's say, for kicks, BvS introduces six of those characters in the first 10 minutes, it could be the most dazzling opening of a film ever!

    (Yes, if written right of course.)

    Other films I needed no prolonged introductions to: Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Terminator, Blade, X-Men, Planet of the Apes, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Mummy... The original super-hero comics themselves rarely wasted pages on origins and introductions, they were usually brief or shown later on in flashbacks. And if a person can't understand Wonder Woman or Aquaman without seeing as series of two-hour movies then they probably can't understand any of these films and won't be a potential audience anyway.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Nitpicker wrote:


    I don't think that's an issue at all.

    First off, Batman vs. Superman is an old idea, not just some last-minute after-thought. There was even a script by Andrew Kevin Walker back in 2001 and the studio went on to hire Akiva Goldman to rewrite it. Bale was supposed to be Batman and Josh Hartnett was offered the role of Superman. Now, I am not supporting that choice, I am just saying it happened. And when the project got cancelled, Akiva Goldman put a Batman vs. Superman poster in I Am Legend as some sort of inside joke.

    I am not saying that this has anything to do with that other than the title and basic concept, I am just saying it has been on the table before. It has precedence.

    I think it's a great idea to put the two guys together. They've always existed in the same universe in the comics. They've teamed up a lot of times, and they've also had conflicts - and even fights.

    Second, as we're establishing a cinematic universe for these guys, we don't really need to keep thinking of the movies as being part of this or that hero's or group's series.

    So we don't have to label Batman vs. Superman a sequel to MoS or a prequel to JL. It's just a story in a string of stories. A chapter in a string of chapters. It's all gonna be part of the overall chronology.

    And we are used to this from comic books. We know and understand how it works. When for example the heroes goes off to fight a secret war (you know, Secret Wars, a 12-issue limited series), that story stands alone. It's not a sequel to any particular hero's or group's series. But it becomes part of the chronology. Each individual hero's solo comic book issues after that will make reference to those events. For example there would never have been Venom without Secret Wars.

    I don't see why the movies couldn't simple be like that. Stories in a string of stories. All part of a cinematic universe. No sequels or prequels. Just chapters.

  • Report this Comment On June 21, 2014, at 8:28 PM, dragonfly1023 wrote:

    DC might have a blockbuster on their hands with the right mix of darkness, humor and talent although I agree introducing nearly every member of the Justice League into a movie originally called Batman VS Superman changed to Batman VS Superman: Dawn of Justice seems like they're placing all their eggs in one basket and throwing a Hail Mary. I think the biggest problem is adding multiple villains to the plot as well. That might prove to be a major mistake since both Spiderman boots failed to allow enough screen time to establish a coherent story line between the villains. Any way it turns out I can't wait to see it.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 12:49 AM, randaljbatty wrote:

    "Superman Returns" got a 76% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, while "Man of Steel" got 56%.

    According to the article ..."the critical response for Man of Steel was mixed, earning a 56% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Critics derided it as "endless violence" devoid of "humor and joy." "Superman Returns as far less violent and contained a fair amount of humor. Could this be part of the discrepancy in the ratings? At the time, "Superman Returns" was derided by many as being too soft and soulful. Thus, the studio did another reboot, trying to infuse a Dark Knight-like element in the character, and mixing it up with plenty of action sequences. That formula didn't seem to work. This makes me think that the audience simply doesn't know what it wants... or the "right" Superman film has yet to be produced.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 12:55 AM, superraider77 wrote:

    I love both Marvel and DC but I have to tell you....getting sick of having Marvel shoved down our throats. Hope DC finds a way to make all this work. BTW this writer is a BIG Marvel guy. SvB is going to be epic! Disney and Marvel know this. That is why they allowed CAP3 to be released on the same day. They are hoping that it will be big enough to take money and attention away from seeing the "Most Iconic Superheroes ever created"! battle it out on-screen. Shame on Marvel for allowing this.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 1:11 AM, futon wrote:


    Some of your points I agree with and others I do not. I do agree that this movie is going to fail. I do not agree that too many characters is always a bad thing. That logic is faulty. I have no preference towards either Marvel or DC. I grew up watching batman and superman movies. I watched Batman, Xmen, and Spiderman cartoons.

    After the Batman reboot (which I loved) I had huge expectations for Superman. It was a massive disappointment. Superman is the king of all superheros and he was done no justice by Zack Snyder. Yes the movie made a lot of money, so it's considered a success on paper. But if you actually watch the movie it is not enjoyable. It has no sense of humor and takes itself way to serious. On top of that there are far too many plot holes and it just doesn't make any sense. Superman destroyed the city he is trying to is that about? I'm supposed to be rooting for this guy and I honestly didn't find him that interesting. His acting was terrible, and his backstory was changed too much. Clark Kent works at a newspaper company...everyone knows that!

    That would be like making it so Bruce Wayne doesn't own Wayne enterprises. It makes no sense!! I was so pumped to see that movie and came out so mad that it was bad.

    That being said Zack Snyder isn't the man for the job and that's going to be the biggest flaw with the films. As long as he directing it's going to be a problem. Also if he has anything to do with casting which i'm pretty sure he does, then he needs to be fired just for that alone. These casting decisions make zero sense.

    Henry Cavill as superman was awful. He didn't have the right build or the right look and his acting was mediocre.

    Ben Affleck as batman? I don't get it. You know what I might get it if he was directing. Fire Zack and hire Ben to direct the film and we might be going in a direction I can handle.

    Gal Gadot as wonderwoman... she's not much of an actress.

    Just stop DC, stop before you set the DC universe back for another decade.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 1:14 AM, futon wrote:

    PS: It's hilarious how everyone keeps saying the Writer is biased towards Marvel yet everyone here is rooting for DC to beat Marvel. Isn't that biased?

    I don't think the writer is biased at all, he just wants DC to make good movies. The problem is they are rebooting Batman 2 years after the franchise was wrapped up and Man of Steel was a gigantic piece of garbage. Michael Bay would have done a better job with Man of Steel and that's saying something...

    No one would be talking about DC failing if DC hadn't given everyone reason to believe they would fail. Man of Steel was so bad I have no desire to spend another cent on DC comics. And i'm mad about that because I waited so long for a good Superman movie and i'm still waiting.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 1:20 AM, Nitpicker wrote:


    Marvel claimed the date first. They did that in june 2013. DC pushed BvS to that same date in january 2014. So it's DC challenging Marvel and not the other way around.

    Nobody can win an argument about who's got the more iconic characters. It's all a matter of taste.

    Also, iconic characters does not guarantee a succes. This has been proven time and time again.

    There is no reason to argue over who's going to win on that particular date. BvS is new. Cap3 is a 2nd sequel. Obviously moviegoers will be more excited about the new. But none of the movies will be running for 1 day only. Most people will probably go and see both.

    I know I will.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Nitpicker wrote:


    Trying to protect a city? That's just a pile of bricks.

    No, he was trying to save the people. Zod would have enslaved everybody and in time destroyed much more than what was destroyed in that short-lived battle.

    Not just the one city, but the entire planet.

    Cavil didn't have the right build? What do you mean? Too muscular?

    I'll agree that Ben Affleck seems an odd choice at this moment.

    Don't be mad. Life is long. If this doesn't work, they'll reboot in 2020 or something like that ;)

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 2:09 AM, futon wrote:


    Classic Superman would have never destroyed the whole city in this fight. It just didn't make sense. They tried way to hard to make Superman hardcore and gritty and forgot what he really is. Gritty is Batman's job not Superman.

    Yeah Cavil was just too big like he spent a crap ton of time in the gym. Superman is supposed to be in good shape but also unassuming when he's just being Clark Kent the reporter. This new Superman isn't going to be able to blend in at all.

    By time they reboot in 2020 i'll have given up.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 2:14 AM, rkinne01 wrote:

    Do we really need to tell the back story of Batman, Superman, or Wonder Woman again? Everyone knows the background of each character, retelling each story again is just a waste of time.

    Aquaman may not be on the level of "the big three" but he is still a well known character in his own right. Cyborg may need some back story.

    Why not throw in Arrow from the current TV show? He has a well established background and would draw the show's audience. The upcoming Flash TV show as well as the new Gotham show would also bring people to theater.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 3:28 AM, caltong08 wrote:

    This article is so speculative. Didn't read it all because c is built on b which is built on a. And a assumes too much.

    Where are the editors at MF to screen out what are, frankly, useless articles.

    I am speaking as both a Marvel and DC fan of five decades.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 3:37 AM, btc909 wrote:

    You won't see a decent Superman movie until Brad Bird is the director. If you want a reasoning for this; watch The Iron Giant.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 3:50 AM, Nitpicker wrote:


    I remember many stories with great battles and great destruction. Superman can't always persuade villains to take it outside.

    Superman has always been bulky. I grew up with the reboot by John Byrne's in the 80s where he was a high school football quarterback, went to the gym with Lois Lane and had dumbbells in his appartement to explain his muscles. And when Cat Grant arrived, she noticed all the things Lois didn't. Not that he was Superman, off course, but that he was a handsome and well-build man.

    But I've also seen Cavill in a suit, and he actually doesn't look too big. He's no Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    I'll agree that Man of Steel offers a different take on the guy. But it doesn't really bother me that much. It's just one version and I've already seen plenty on both the big and the small screen. They're all more or less different from each other, and I think it's okay.

    So I don't really get the giving up part because I am not waiting for them to do him right one time and then never again. I think the superhero characters are like James Bond or Robin Hood in the way that they are strong enough to survive different portrayals. The bad ones won't ruin the good ones. And it's always interesting to see what they've done this time around.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 3:55 AM, SafeDrunkDriving wrote:

    A movie will only suck if the screenwriting sucks. There has to be a emotional connection between the actor and the screenplay. This is how Avengers worked and also most of the X-Men movies. What would make the Superman vs Batman work is to channel the elements of the animated cartoon: Justice League Unlimited to the movie. It is hard to use a cartoon to justify the screenwriting of a live action movie, but it did work with The Dark Knight.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 5:12 AM, joneswuta wrote:

    I did not read the entire article just browsed through the pointers because I think it's disrespectful to make judgments about opinion without at least getting the basics of the opinion. However, the entire premise of the article is flimsy at it's best. I actually thought it had groundbreaking official news when I read the headline only to discover it's one of those publicity opinion pieces. Just as a basic rule, to base your entire opinion over rumour is a good foundation for people not taking you seriously. More specifically, only a handful of contracted WB/DC people have access to the script. That means while opinions are good, they should be based on reality. Every single DC character has been rumored to be in the next movie. Nightwing,Joker,Metallo,Flash,Aquaman,Cyborg,Darkseid,Green Lantern but only 4 major characters confirmed. Batman,Superman,WonderWoman and Lex Luthor. Obviously characters like Alfred or Lois Lane are part of the two main characters and are no brainers.

    The next issue we need to look at is, what exactly does "too many characters" even mean. Should the movie be focused on Batman,Superman,WW and Lex with everyone else an extra. The problem with cinema today and critics, is branding. They look at characters as mere brands and that's it. This is a problem Marvel created. Every single, character in comics is now a brand in the movies. That's what Nolan tried to defuse. He made Ra's al Ghul a character. He made The Joker,a character. He made Lucius Fox,Alfred,Talia,Catwoman, Bane,Bruce Wayne characters. They were not just humorous trademarks or Easter eggs. You could empathize with Talia,be frightened of the Joker, dislike Jonathan Crane, marvel as Harvey Dent unraveled. That's the thing they were going for with Man of Steel that many people failed to grasp. They were not trying to make Superman the idealistic comic book brand. They were trying to create the character of Clark Kent his split personality Kal-El. How would a kid who thought he was a human being but cursed with certain characteristics his parents told him to conceal. A boy who felt within him that he had something powerful but hated it because it robbed him of being normal. The conflict his father had and the dramatic realization that he was actually an alien. The tragedy that changed his life. Living a life of anonymity and fear. Then being hunted by this persistent reporter. Suddenly his life of obscurity and hiding begins to fall apart. Not only is he exposed, but the very lives of the human race he fears is at immediate risk because of his very existence. If this was the very first time the character of Superman was created with no comic books and prejudice, it was going to be one of the most powerful original films based on superhero fantasy.

    It was not dark, but dramatic. If you take away your premeditated judgments and see it the way it was, any normal person would empathize with the various characters. He was not badass. Just a man in crisis with too much placed on his shoulders when he just wanted to be left alone. So effectively,WB and DC have always tried to be more dramatic and Marvel-Disney more blockbuster. Their stories are character based not brand based. They take risks. People fail to realize one thing. If Nolan's Batman take was done after The Avengers, it would have been derided. Too dark, too serious, humorless not fun etc. That's why many don't realize how big a risk that creative direction is. So with BvS I don't fear any creative success. Commercial success and critical appraisal though is a different animal. The correct opinion the article should have adopted was," Is BvS going to fail because WB are not conventional". Because truthfully that's the main problem. Right now they are doing a complete opposite take from Marvel and going for a team up instead of the easiest and more conventional solo movie then team up route. They are again doing something that has not been done before and more than a blockbuster they seem to be going for character success. Movies like Watchmen are essentially unfilmable but WB went for it. Making Superman a character normal humans can empathize with in the real world is not conventional, but apparently undesirable too. People have been conditioned by branding thereby at least via cinema, studios like Marvel and Paramount have killed characterization. When you hear Transformers, you know the story even if it hasn't come out. Same old thing. Megatron gets killed but returns in the sequel. We anticipate the humorous interactions of brands like Iron Man and Thor and wait the Ant Man Easter egg. We know you don't leave Marvel movies before the credits have ended. So even before CA2 was released, you knew there'd be the end credit scene for the next Avengers. Ultron becomes another brand to anticipate and they've even outlined the movie direction for the next 100 years. There's no consequence. Iron Man and the gang will be back to fight the next world threatening brand.

    With WB they are at risk because the world has moved on. Make us laugh, make us cheer. Just don't make us feel or think. Straightforward. Superman doesn't kill because Christopher Reeves said so. He is happy and he is a perfect hero. He has no emotional weakness or path to follow. Give him a villain to beat down and save the world by fighting on the moon with no consequence to the planet. Have him return home, smiling and triumphant, with folk waiting for him with American flags female groupies. He should also fry eggs with his laser beams because we want to laugh. Fortunately, though WB knows the international market ALWAYS has its back. Even if they make the odd mediocre movie eg Pacific Rim, they are trusted internationally. That's why BvS will ultimately succeed. Just like MoS and The Dark Knight were both rescued by the international market

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 5:32 AM, Nitpicker wrote:


    Which cartoon do you believe justified the screenwriting of The Dark Knight?

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 6:04 AM, bhanks wrote:

    Well, as a long time comic book fan of both DC and Marvel (though, admittedly I prefer Marvel), I can see arguments on both sides. But, ultimately, I have to say that this movie is going to fail miserably. The arguments for or against MOS can be made, but what they really did was go with, basically, the "Superman: Earth One" story. A new, uncertain, darker Superman. It was a reboot movie and I understand it.

    That being said, I don't understand a damn thing that they are doing with S v B. Not the least of which is the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman. I KNOW why they did it, but I don't UNDERSTAND why. And its not just because its Ben Affleck, though for me that's reason enough. Its because in doing that, they are changing the base storyline and dynamic of the relationship between Batman and Superman.

    Then, you add in the WAY too many characters, forced together in a mash-up movie that's just going to be cluttered. Batman and Wonder Woman need their own movies before this one. Why? Because the Earth One origins are a little different than the ones we're all used to. Not wildly so, but enough. In these movies you have a couple cameos to iintroduce the lesser-known characters. And I know I'm saying the same thing as a lot of others, but the formula works when done that way.

    Simply put, WB and DC have not learned what Disney and Marvel have. LISTEN TO THE FANBOYS. They are the CORE audience. They are the people that are going to go see the movie 2 or 3 times in the theater and then buy it on DVD/Blu-Ray.

    Personally, speaking as a fanboy, who loved Man of Steel and hated X-Men:Days of Future Past, I'm boycotting this movie. I WILL NOT pay money to see this movie. The overpopulation of characters, the lack of progressive story leading up to, and the casting of Ben Affleck mean, to me, a fan of comics and movies alike, that there are no redeemable qualities to this movie. And I actually feel bad for Mr. Cavill, because I thought he did an excellent job in Man of Steel. WB and DC should stick to TV shows...they seem to do those well.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 6:09 AM, Nitpicker wrote:


    I think you're making a lot of valid points about the Nolan-movies and MoS.

    But I disagree completely about the lash out at Marvel. Their characters are not just brands. When they started back in the day, the DC characters were brands, not characters. Superman and Batman was first and foremost Superman and Batman. Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne were just alter egos by name. We knew a little about their background, but nothing ever happened in their daily lives.

    It was Marvel who made stories about heroes trying to balance their two sides. Peter Parker wasn't just Spider-Man all the time. He had a life with school, work, girls, friends etc. When he ran off to be Spider-Man people it made an impact in his life. He was letting people down, he was getting late to school/work, he was always tired and so on. He had a full life and that made him a complete character, not just a brand.

    And the same is true for most of the characters. Most of them are struggling with their powers and transformation. Most of them have lives besides their superhero persona.

    And I think most of this has been brought into the movies as well. Maybe not in all of them, but certainly in a lot of them. So I just don't agree that the Marvel characters are only brands.

    I'll totally agree that they not as dark as the latest DC movies. They also add some humour and lighter moments. But I see plenty of drama as well.

    I am not against DC in any way. I am just saying, that I can't agree that Marvel's characters are just brands.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Nitpicker wrote:


    You lost me. In what way does Ben Affleck as Batman change the base storyline and dynamic of the relationship between Batman and Superman?

    Is he too Afflecky to be Superman's equal or...?

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 8:31 AM, sai99shadow wrote:

    This issue with too many heroes/villains is valid because eventhough we KNOW these characters we don't KNOW this new incarnation of these characters. Everyone knew before MOS that Superman did not kill and yet he kills Zod. So the fact that these characters are based on people we know we really don't know them. Will Wonder Woman's appearance be explained? We is she from? What about Batman? He sticks mainly to Gotham yet he's going to bump heads with Superman in Metropolis? I'm not saying that it can't work it just seems like DC is desperate to launch as many franchises as possible off of this one movie alone and that doesn't bode well for this film. It could work if it was a "World's Finest" live action movie but it's called BVS: Dawn of Justice meaning the other heroes will be introduced in some capacity and though we know them we really don't.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 8:59 AM, crvalle41 wrote:

    The fact that spiderman 3 and batman and robin were just terrible movies and poorly written is the reason those movies failed not the fact that they had to many heroes or to many villains in the movie had nothing to do with it.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Jarky wrote:

    Another prophecy of doom from Motley Fool. Every article sounds like this.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Nitpicker wrote:


    True, but we've also grown accustomed to background stories becoming entire movies. Back in the good old days we just had to know that Batman's parents had been murdered when he was a child, Superman was an alien sent to Earth and raised by farmers, Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider etc.

    I know, I am really cutting it short, but think about Tim Burton's Batman. He didn't spend the entire movie telling the story about how Bruce Wayne became Batman. He used the ever-popular method of flashbacks and other hints here and there during the movie.

    Watchmen is a movie with several characters that also handled the introductions without going into fully detailed background stories.

    X-Men too.

    I do think we've gotten some great stories from the movies that have done the detailed version of the actual transformation from "zero" to hero.

    I just don't think it has to be like that everytime and with every character. They can be reduced to a number of need-to-know information which can be presented in various ways, and beyond that we'll get to know them through their interaction with each other.

    PS. Actually the comic book version of Superman has also killed. John Byrne's Superman killed Zod & Co. with kryptonite back in the 80s.

    He's also killed in various special stories. And the Smallville-guy killed an escaped phantom. And attempted to kill Brainiac.

    And can we really say that Cristopher Reeve didn't kill anybody in the past movies? What excactly happened to Zod, Ursa and Non in Superman II? They're stripped off their powers and everybody is okay with them falling into the cracks of the Fortress where they'd most likely die from the fall or the cold.

    In Superman III Vera is turned into a cyborg and when the computer is destroyed, she is no more. But as a cyborg should would have been part human. Did she die from his actions?

    He also strangled a version of himself but that was off course just a bad trip ;)

    In Superman IV he destroys the Nuclear Man. Off course he was just a creation by Luthor, but if we've learned anything from Star Trek, it would be that any sort of life is legitimate.

    So it's not really such an essential rule after all, that Superman doesn't kill.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Dowjonesup wrote:


  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Dowjonesup wrote:

    Snyder is a problem true but so too is Cavill.

    His defenders will at times acknowledge his wooden performance but blame that on the script. Except if you read reviews of his other films he is often described as "wooden" in his acting. Vulture has a summary of reviews for him in MOS and its very mediocre. Even EW owned by TW was not too kind on him.

    Cavill could be replaced tomorrow and there would hardly be a ripple.

    The problem is WB needs to stop casting pretty boy model types who can't act in this role. Reeve was unique in that he was a solid actor and a model type too.

    Rare combination.

    Speculation has started as to who will replace Cavill. Joe M. has been mentioned. Too old probably, but that is what a mean. Very handsome even though not a pretty boy and he can actually act.

    If WB limits itself to pretty boy actors in replacing Cavill it will be a tough job.

    If WB goes the Joe M. route the universe expands and it will be much easier to find an actor who has the acting skills to pull the role off.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Dowjonesup wrote:

    Snyder is a problem but so is Cavill.

    His defenders admit his performance was wooden, some anyway, but blame that on the script. Sorry, read reviews of his acting in other films and the "wooden" word used to describe him has been used before. has a summary of Cavill's reviews as Superman. Pretty mediocre. EW, owned by TW, was not impressed.

    Cavil could be replaced tomorrow and there would hardly be a ripple.

    WB has seemingly set as the number one criteria in MOS and SR that the actor have pretty boy/model looks. Forget acting ability.

    Reeve was a rare case - model looks and a very good actor.

    Speculation is starting as to who will replace Cavill. Joe M. has been suggested. Excellent choice though he is probably too old. He is not a pretty boy yet handsome still the same and he can act!! Go figure.

    If WB limits itself to pretty boy actors in replacing Cavill good luck.

    If they instead expand their horizons to actors who look more like Joe M. then their chances of finding an actor who can pull the role off is going to be much greater.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 5:52 PM, williest1 wrote:

    As comic book fans, my buddy and I have blogged extensively over the years about how DC/Warner Bros have consistently failed to capitalize on DC Comics' catalog of superheroes on the big screen.

    The main reason is less to do with too many characters, but more to do with lack of vision on DC's part. What really sets Marvel apart from DC is Stan Lee. Stan Lee was the genius visionary behind the 'Silver Age' renaissance of comic books introducing Spider-Man, Hulk, FF, X-Men et al. DC Comics' takes place in fictional settings (Metropolis, Gotham, Central City, etc..) - Marvel takes place right in good ole U.S. of A. - the Tri-State area to be exact (NY, NJ, CT). There is a bit more familiarity involved with Marvel characters when their exploits take place in real world settings. Advantage: Marvel.

    Marvel's characters are not clear-cut 'good guys/bad guys'. Some are anti-heroes or reluctant heroes - and many of their villains are victims of tragedy. DC is mostly Good vs Evil, and that can be quite tedious. Marvel makes for more compelling storytelling. Advantage: Marvel

    Since the 1970s, DC/Warner has basically made nearly 20 Superman or Batman vehicles (two characters over and over) - where Marvel made TV shows, cartoons or movies of at least 10 different characters, thereby extending the audience and familiarizing the public. Advantage: Marvel.

    Marvel's world is steeped in a sort of realism, technology-meets-science fiction/fantasy. Stan Lee's vision started paying off when technology caught up to film-making...and all the Marvel characters started ringing up big bucks. Now that the general populace is used to the Marvel Brand, they can gamble on lesser known properties like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man. DC has a popular stable of characters - but most were realized on the smaller screen with re-imagined TV shows (Arrow, Smallville) or cartoons. again - Advantage: Marvel.

    For whatever unknown reasons, DC Comics is FINALLY taking major steps to extend the canon of DC characters, albeit too late in the game. Marvel has since revolutionized what a pop-culture movie can be and do (The Avengers) and now the future looks extremely bright. Marvel has plans 20 years ahead to introduce even more characters, A-listers thru C-Listers (Luke Cage) - where DC is only now thinking about Justice League.

    In terms of introducing the JL roster, it will be a tough job to sell a Flash, Martian Manhunter, and Aquaman to a fickle public.

    I won't even MENTION the madness that is Plastic Man. Although if the brains at DC/Warner Bros were smart, they'd make a fun-loving, zany Plastic Man movie ASAP. He is one of the most intriguing characters in all of comic books. Marvel doesn't have a character that can rival him. Think 'The Mask' x 10.

    Marvel Comics takes huge chances where DC coninues to largely regurgitate the same two guys over and over again.

    Clear advantage: Marvel Comics.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Nitpicker wrote:


    If you're counting Marvel's tv-shows since the 1970s, you should also count Wonder Woman and The Flash. And don't forget there was a Green Lantern movie and the Watchmen movie. And technocally Catwoman should probably count too. And Supergirl.

    But I do agree that DC has mostly been re-doing Batman and Superman again and again and again. We've clearly seen more variety from Marvel, and they've also been taking more risks with characters like Daredevil, Elektra and The Punisher.

    DC hasn't been consistently failing. The Christopher Reeve movies was a big deal. At least the first two. The same goes for Tim Burton's Batman movies and the Nolan trilogy.

    Smallville and Lois & Clark was also succesful each in its own way.

    But yes, Marvel has been doing a better job at capitalizing on their catalogue. I have never understood why we didn't get a Wonder Woman movie already. She seems like such a no-brainer as she is already a well-known character.

    I think DC are catching up at least to some extend as far as making the characters more in touch with the real world. We're getting deeper into their background stories and they're not as black and white (good or evil) as they've traditionally been. They're becoming more flawed and human.

    And I don't think it's too late. I also don't think it will be tough to sell Flash, Aquaman and the Martian Manhunter. They've all been part of the Smallville-universe already, and they are still pretty well-known characters, at least Flash and Aquaman is.

    Flash is actually getting a tv-show that will be related to Arrow. So maybe he won't be in JL as well. Who knows.

    I love every character in tights. I'm just a huge fanboy. DC, Marvel, Dark Horse etc. I want them all and I am crossing my fingers every time.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 7:47 PM, Jeffrey2 wrote:

    With the failure of SR and MOS it seems WB is not continuing the Superman franchise. The consequences are two fold and both good.

    No more Superman makes room for other DC characters to get their own films and be in JL.

    WB will deep six Superman but Disney/Marvel will come a knocking. At some point WB will be offered enough that they'll sell Superman.

    And seriously - Marvel, after seeing the success they've had with CA, is likely to turn Superman into the successful franchise it should be but that WB can't make happen.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 8:13 PM, Death215 wrote:

    Two reasons why it WILL succeed.

    1. Superman

    2. Batman

    No matter how bad the movie sucks it will be successful because people want to see them in a movie together. Also every kid on the planet will drag their parents to see those two in a movie no matter how the movie is.

    No matter what this movie will get tons of money.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Dowjonesup wrote:

    What exactly would Disney & Marvel have to pay WB for them to sell Superman? Maybe the financial gurus at Motley can figure how that would be priced out.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 8:33 PM, Dowjonesup wrote:

    To add a bit, its known Marvel/Disney are interested in getting Superman. During the court fight the family supposedly had feelers from Disney/Marvel.

    Its a pride thing for the WB board, but if they aren't going to use Superman the shareholders will press to sell the asset. An unused asset is a depreciating asset. T-shirts and comics don't bring in money.

  • Report this Comment On June 22, 2014, at 11:43 PM, Nightwingtopus wrote:

    I disagree with this article for many reasons.

    No. 1 reason why this movie will NOT fail: Superman and Batman. Regardless of the quality people will watch it.

    1) Many characters does not always equate to failure

    It's more of sequelitis. The reason why first movies have smaller number of characters is that it's an origin story and a bulk should be about building the character. The sequels usually have larger casts because the conflict should be "bigger" and of course, they take advantage of the success of the last movie to introduce more known characters.

    Captain America 2 has lots of characters but it worked very much and I think it's one of the best superhero films.

    2) Warner on patience

    Agree and disagree. We don't know exactly the role of Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Cyborg in the film. They could be just an audience to the conflict between Superman and Batman. Black Widow and Hawkeye didn't have their own movies but they worked well in the Avengers film.

    This point is better applied to the incoming Justice League movie, but pretty much I say the JL movie is dependent on the success of BvS.

    And Nightwing isn't confirmed yet!

    Lastly on DC and Marvel on cartoons and adaptations:

    Marvel has always been easier to adapt because it's more grounded on reality. DC stories are harder to adapt because it's difficult to balance the kiddy fantasy components in the comics and the darker flawed superhero wish of the older audience as well as overpowered heroes but in cartoons they do so well. DC animated films with characters other than Sups and Bats are overall GOOD and cartoon series like Justice League Unlimited, Teen Titans and Young Justice are pretty popular and well-written too. The Young Justice cartoon is so excellently written and compelling that it's better than many live actions series and I heard GLTAS is too until CN cancelled them for having an older and gender balanced audience (because they can't sell boy's toys.)

    I think the DC line-up will be a financial success. Although it may not be as critically acclaimed as Marvel films, as long as Dc matches its animated films' quality it will be fine.

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 1:30 AM, Rono3849 wrote:

    So the real theme of this story is to buy Disney stock and sell Time Warner stock. Captain America will trump Batman & Superman at the box office....yeah, right.

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 3:21 AM, OrangeIcon wrote:

    There is no formula in film-making...Why are Frozen and Titanic the #5 and #2 highest grossing films of all-time? Because they both have ice as part of the storyline? I've heard the argument about too many heroes and villains, but how does that explain the Harry Potter franchise. You've got a main hero and a main villain but each have plenty of help.

    I think WB is getting it right with Dawn of Justice because their characters are more well-know. Batman and Superman are the two most recognizable comic book charaters in history. We don't need another Batman back story. We get it! Marvel HAD to do stand alone films for the likes of Iron Man and Thor because no one knew them before they were on the big screen. If you watched them team-up to fight Loki the first question would be: WHO IS LOKI? Marvel/Disney doesn't own the rights to their most well-known characters i.e X-men and Spider-man. They had to introduce the Avengers separately. DC is sitting pretty with all the rights to all their characters so they can do things differently than Marvel/Disney.

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 7:44 AM, MarkLaw12 wrote:

    Dawn of justice wouldn't fail because...

    1. Zack knows how to do fight scenes. They are always brilliant with 300, man of steel and even sucker punch had brilliant fight scenes.

    2. Goyer i don't like him but he's got great ideas and that's a reason why the dark knight trilogy was a success. I doubt he's a good writer but i'll keep giving him a chance though dawn of justice is a bigger project and he's got assistants on the page

    3. batman vs superman will make loads of money because hearing the name alone will draw fans and non-fans alike.

    4. Let's see what 2016 brings. Captain america the winter soldier was so brilliant but unless the black panter is introduced in the sequel it wouldn't be able to take on dawn of justice.

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Nitpicker wrote:


    Oh yes, it really is a shame that Marvel/Disney doesn't have the movie rights to Spider-Man and the X-Men. I would have loved to see Wolverine and Spider-Man in a movie. They've got great chemistry in the comics because they're such an odd couple.


    I am sure Disney would love to buy Superman, but I doubt WB will sell him.

    Man of Steel did gross $668 mio. And it's the same version of Superman they're putting into BvS and JL.

    But I'll agree that if they did sell him, Disney could make him work.

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 10:20 AM, georgethree33 wrote:

    Three reasons this movie will succeed:



    Wonder Woman

    Never been seen before on screen together EVER.

    That's all the reasons we need to know it'll succeed. But beyond that - casting is great, the designs so far look great, the director is passionate about the story, and the studio will make sure the film delivers.

    Reasons why this article fails? It's extremely biased, presumptuous and contradictory.

    1. Too many heroes and villains…. you mean like X-men, Star Wars, the Avengers, Transformers or Guardians Of The Galaxy? Too many characters like that?

    2 .Time Warner lacks Disney's patience….right that's why they took FOREVER to relaunch Batman after the Burton films, and then patiently relaunched Superman AGAIN after Superman Returns didn't generate the kind of sequel they wanted. They took their time to develop this universe. Unlike say… their competition who licensed all their characters out to multiple studios and flooded the market with lousy superhero films like Daredevil, and multiple Fantastic Fours, Spider-mans, Ghost Riders, and Punishers. While only the recent Avenger related films are entirely Marvel's responsibility - all of these are Marvel's regardless who shot them.

    3. Questionable creative decisions ….. Sure because casting 3 guys to play the Hulk in 3 films is perfectly reasonable. Because relaunching Spider-man with yet another origin is perfectly logical. Because firing the writer and director of Ant-man - the driving force behind the film - months before shooting is supposed to begin - yeah - that's not questionable at all….

    This writer is a Marvel troll. Batman v Superman will succeed because DC is smart enough to follow Marvel's path and just be another also-ran. DC's universe will already be well established because of Gotham, Arrow, and The Flash - because the WB is using their TV wing to much greater success than Marvel's Agents Of Shield.

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Nitpicker wrote:


    I don't think Cap3 is supposed to take on BvS. I know they obviously pushed BvS to that same release date to do just that. But I doubt it'll go down like that.

    Wheather Cap3 is a better movie or not, it is a 2nd sequal, so it's such an unfair fight in terms of how much buzz you can create about it that I think Marvel should simply ignore it.

    The big question would be if they could launch something else that is new and exciting.

    But then again, many of us are going to see both, so I don't know if it's really a fight.

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Nitpicker wrote:


    You do come off a bit biased against Marvel yourself :)

    1. It doesn't really make sense to compare this to Star Wars or Transformers. The difference is that the characters in those stories are each other's friends, family and partners. They do not exist without each other as solo characters.

    I do disagree with the article and I think it can work to team these guys in a single movie, but I also get the point, because each of them are strong and independant solo characters as well, so it will require a good balance.

    2. Well... I don't know if the 8 years between Batman & Robin (1997) and Batman Begins (2005) is forever, but it seems like an appropriate distance.

    There is 5 years between Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man. So a little less.

    And only 4 between The Dark Knight Rises and BvS (Batman re-boot).

    I do get the point about patience because Marvel introduced many of the characters in a solo movie before The Avengers, where as the rumours go that DC'll be making Wonder Woman, Aquaman etc. after BvS and JL. So it could seem that they won't risk doing the solo movies first.

    I think solo movies makes sense when you have strong and independant solo characters. But I am not saying BvS and JL couldn't work without them. I just understand the point about patience.

    3. Come on... DC had 3 guys playing Batman in the 90s. And Ben Affleck's Batman is a relaunch only few years after Bale's Batman. I don't think one of them can take the high ground in such matters.

    We don't disagree on everything. I too am looking forward to Snyder's BvS and I am hanging my hat of hope on the fact that he did Watchmen.

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Jeffrey2 wrote:

    @nitpicker Rumors WB may not continue Superman as a solo franchise but use him in JL only. Wouldn't it make sense to sell the rights if WB is going to make such limited use of him?

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Jeffrey2 wrote:

    @nitpicker It seems that using Superman in a JL film every so often only gains WB not much. Lots of DC characters could be placed in the JL. No direct revenue stream from Superman.

    What would Disney pay? 100 million?

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Nitpicker wrote:


    I am not sure it would make sense.

    Are we talking the live-action cinematic movie rights only or tv and animation rights as well?

    Because they have used the character in two live action tv-shows and a great number of animated tv-shows and movies too.

    If we're only talking live-action cinematic movies, then maybe it could make sense at some point.

    But still it's such a permanent decision that I think we're far from that point right now. I do agree the JL movies could work without him. But if BvS is succesful, it might make sense to do MoS2 at some point also.

    We can't forget that MoS grossed $668 mio. Sure the reviews were mixed, but they often are on movies like this. I don't think they're ready to drop him yet. If they were, they could have gone straight to a JL movie without him. BvS must be an attempt to keep him alive and let him grow on people.

    But I will agree there could come a day when they just don't know what to do with him, and if we're only talking live-action cintematic rights, that may be possible.

    And I am sure Disney could do something great with him. Also, that might open a door to some cross-over projects too. Superman Vs. Hulk for example. That could be epic!

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Dowjonesup wrote:

    If WB isn't making more Superman cinematic films do what Marvel and Sony did.

    Sony bought the cinematic rights only and can keep them as long as they make a Spiderman related film every 5 years or so. Sony doesn't even get the toys rights from the film. Only DVDs. Marvel gets a percentage of each films gross.

    Maybe WB could pursue that?

  • Report this Comment On June 23, 2014, at 6:15 PM, chrismcv wrote:

    Why a Hollywood adaption of 'The Atom' Would Be Smashing:

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: 3001565, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/5/2015 10:34:09 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...

Leo Sun

Leo has covered the crossroads of Wall Street and Silicon Valley since 2012. Follow him on Twitter for more updates!

Today's Market

updated 13 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 16,102.38 -272.38 -1.66%
S&P 500 1,921.22 -29.91 -1.53%
NASD 4,683.92 -49.58 -1.05%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

9/4/2015 4:01 PM
DIS $100.97 Down -1.02 -1.00%
Walt Disney CAPS Rating: *****
FOX $26.92 Down -0.12 -0.44%
Twenty-First Centu… CAPS Rating: ***
SNE $24.56 Down -0.76 -3.00%
Sony Corp (ADR) CAPS Rating: **
TWX $70.01 Down -0.69 -0.98%
Time Warner CAPS Rating: ***