So If Superman is willing to kill, why do we need Superman vs Batman

[MartyMcFly]

OK cool so it's 2 Batmans gotcha.

Breh it's not 2 batman's. Clark, much like Bruce, had to learn lessons to become the hero we know him to be. Go back and read the old superman comics, he was quite the b*stard and not the clean cut hero everyone sees him as now. So in order to truly show how a character obtains his morals and his attributes, you put him in a situation where he has to grow from which is exactly what they did. So if the new movie starts and he's on some "Nah no killing" which is a rule batman also has but he's always willing to flirt with that rule. That's how you make the contrast between the two. Superman has to be able to grow and develop just like any other character

 

[MartyMcFly]

If your are going by movie universe cannon this is a totally different Batman than Nolans own. So we have no idea what this Batman has done and if he has killed anyone. Also just because he did what he had to stop Zod why would that make him brooding? Also superman was clean cut in his movie. He turned himself over to the military and worked with authorities while batman more then likely will work outside of it.

Damn right lol. Batman would've never ever turned himself over. He would've said "yeah no thanks" and kept it moving and told the military to go fukk themselves

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

If your are going by movie universe cannon this is a totally different Batman than Nolans own. So we have no idea what this Batman has done and if he has killed anyone.

I think it's very possible that this new batman will act as kind of a loose continuation to the nolanverse... sort of like was kilmer was to keaton. it was a fresh start but it shared the continuity of the burton series.

according to what we know:

- batman is "older", possibly coming out of retirement.

- the joker exists and is allegedly locked away in arkham by the time of suicide squad.

neither of those things conflict with what happened during the Nolan movies.

 

[BelowTheMasonDixon]

Breh it's not 2 batman's. Clark, much like Bruce, had to learn lessons to become the hero we know him to be. Go back and read the old superman comics, he was quite the b*stard and not the clean cut hero everyone sees him as now. So in order to truly show how a character obtains his morals and his attributes, you put him in a situation where he has to grow from which is exactly what they did. So if the new movie starts and he's on some "Nah no killing" which is a rule batman also has but he's always willing to flirt with that rule. That's how you make the contrast between the two. Superman has to be able to grow and develop just like any other character

Or more than likely what happened was, due to the success of the dark knight trilogy, they decided to make "Man of Steel" "dark" as well...

But yall gonna front like yall don't notice it.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fighting-words/man-steel-hollywoods-tired-obsession-dark-superheroes-1308305
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/bp/first-reviews-man-steel-too-dark-too-big-160000239.html
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/17/man-of-steel-review

 

[MartyMcFly]

Or more than likely what happened was, due to the success of the dark knight trilogy, they decided to make "Man of Steel" "dark" as well...

But yall gonna front like yall don't notice it.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fighting-words/man-steel-hollywoods-tired-obsession-dark-superheroes-1308305
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/bp/first-reviews-man-steel-too-dark-too-big-160000239.html
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/17/man-of-steel-review

That could very well be true breh but I'm looking at the story reasons and where you can go with it not the business reasons. I get the business aspect of it but as a filmmaker and a writer its your job to make the business reasons work for you creatively. And in my opinion they have a great place to go due to that decision and you can pull a lot from it

 

[MartyMcFly]

I think it's very possible that this new batman will act as kind of a loose continuation to the nolanverse... sort of like was kilmer was to keaton. it was a fresh start but it shared the continuity of the burton series.

according to what we know:

- batman is "older", possibly coming out of retirement.

- the joker exists and is allegedly locked away in arkham by the time of suicide squad.

neither of those things conflict with what happened during the Nolan movies.

While I on the other hand think they're doing away with what Nolan did completely. But that's just me

 

[Ed MOTHEREFFING G]

Or more than likely what happened was, due to the success of the dark knight trilogy, they decided to make "Man of Steel" "dark" as well...

But yall gonna front like yall don't notice it.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fighting-words/man-steel-hollywoods-tired-obsession-dark-superheroes-1308305
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/bp/first-reviews-man-steel-too-dark-too-big-160000239.html
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/17/man-of-steel-review

yet when superman was making RED/BLUE/YELLOW/WHITE bright fluffy movies, even as recent as superman returns, they got roasted for being corny and couldn't hold up today.

just face it

some of you just don't like superman

dont watch then

 

[Devilinurear]

I think it's very possible that this new batman will act as kind of a loose continuation to the nolanverse... sort of like was kilmer was to keaton. it was a fresh start but it shared the continuity of the burton series.

according to what we know:

- batman is "older", possibly coming out of retirement.

- the joker exists and is allegedly locked away in arkham by the time of suicide squad.

neither of those things conflict with what happened during the Nolan movies.

It could but we will not know until the movie. I kind of doubt it though because if superman was around when Gothem was under siege then he is pretty fukked up person.

 

[MartyMcFly]

It could but we will not know until the movie. I kind of doubt it though because if superman was around when Gothem was under siege then he is pretty fukked up person.

There's also the scene from dark knight returns that they're redoing for this movie with young Bruce and his parents which goes completely against what happened in batman begins

 

[MidniteJay]

Eh, that's one of those things that's kind of a necessary evil. The "no kill" rule makes it so -

1. If a show/comic/etc happens to be censored and the censors won't allow death, there's a justification for it in the story.

2. Even if they did kill the bad guys, it's not like they would stay dead. Nobody in comics aside from Uncle Ben stays dead, so it's probably best not to kill the villains in the first place since they'll just come back a couple months later.

I know about number 1 but number 2 the baddies just keep coming if they're not killed off anyway on some revenge shyt.

I prefer the story line where the bad guy gets killed and then another takes his place. If they're not killed convincingly ok he/she can make a return but if they get their head chopped off and body incinerated, I don't want to see that villain again

 

[Jello Biafra]

OK so he killed someone in the movie universe before Batman, which one is the dark brooding character and which is the clean cut hero.

Didn't Michael Keaton's Batman rack up a large body count of nameless henchmen and thugs? For some reason I have a recollection that in that first Burton Batman movie there were points in the film where no fukks were given as to whether bad guys lived or died.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Are we sure that this is going to be Nolans Batman?? Cause he's just about done by the time Two-Face dies. Him getting the beats from Bane just told us what we already knew.

Also IIRC, Bats and Supes were aware of each other for quite some time before they actually formed the Justice League, but Bats stayed away from Metropolis because that's not his stomping grounds and Supes stayed out of Gotham because he wanted to observe Batman to find out what he was really about.

Also that situation that Gotham was in with Bane was one that Clark would have approached carefully so I don't blame him

 

[Jello Biafra]

Or more than likely what happened was, due to the success of the dark knight trilogy, they decided to make "Man of Steel" "dark" as well...

But yall gonna front like yall don't notice it.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fighting-words/man-steel-hollywoods-tired-obsession-dark-superheroes-1308305
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/bp/first-reviews-man-steel-too-dark-too-big-160000239.html
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/17/man-of-steel-review

Why do so many people confuse "dark" with "serious". They are not the same thing.
And everyone admits that WB has gone in a more serious direction with their DC movies. What I don't get is why that causes so many people to be all butthurt. We already have the more lighthearted Marvel movies so having a different vision for the DC stuff works for me.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Why do so many people confuse "dark" with "serious". They are not the same thing.

I blame 9/11

 

[MartyMcFly]

Didn't Michael Keaton's Batman rack up a large body count of nameless henchmen and thugs? For some reason I have a recollection that in that first Burton Batman movie there were points in the film where no fukks were given as to whether bad guys lived or died.

Sure did. most egregiously in batman returns when he strapped dynamite to a clowns chest and threw him in the sewer