Michael Corvin

I know we've all over analyzed all kinds of shit since prior to Man of Steel but, a tip of the cap to you sir.

You keep typing but all I keep seeing is "billionaire playboy who moonlights as a superhero who would be crushed without his gadgets" fighting alongside "a superhuman 'god' from another world." The gadget hound hides his face while the demigod does not. Which two heroes does that describe?

The only substantial difference is the tone of the films.

I, for one, love this idea. By introducing an established Batman in this movie it might mean the next Batman flick we get WON"T be another origin story.

RocShemp

At the most, they'll probably establish the parents demise as they did in the Arkham games. For instance, how it was done in this intro sequence for the latest game:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/mkZx6hJeI8E?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Groucho

Apparently in an early draft of the script a young Lex Luthor is the thug who kills Batman's parents.

RocShemp

I know you're kidding but

Sonic

Batman costume leaked!

Paul_SD

So you're saying he needs to engage in cosplay before he can actually think tactically? This is my point- he doesn't need to go to the trouble of elaborate cosplay to "access his gifts" almost all of which are he could be doing from a Batcave command center with an internet connection.
Exactly! which is why it's going to seem silly when he maintains that persona while interacting with him. "Here, let me put this costume on...or at least the mask, before I talk to you like an equal."

But I guess there are many people here who didn't find it monumentally silly when the Mayor and Police chief let an anonymous vigilante who conceals his identity, privately interrogate and have physical contact with a major terrorist suspect. Yes- if you didn't think that was dopey as hell, then you'll likely be very excited to see S&B interacting like equals on screen together.

fujishig

I think that's largely why Morrison made Batman almost infallibly smart in his iteration of the Justice League... it was the only way he could stack up with the rest of the Big 7. But at times, Superman is written with super intelligence, so he's smarter, faster, stronger, can fly, etc. (and really, with super speed alone he should win 99% of the time). But with that in mind, unless they're going up against a bunch of bad guys, or some kind of Kryptonite threat, Supes makes almost the entire Justice League redundant. Supes could beat Batman's rogue gallery without much of a sweat, but of course it's the job of the writer to work around that.

But logic doesn't need to apply here, it's the two biggest characters in their arsenal teaming up, the World's Finest if you will, and people will pay money to watch their first interaction on film.

Supermallet

So, what, now Paul is bemoaning the very existence of Batman? If you don't like the character, stop exposing yourself to movies and shows that feature him.

Rex Power Colt-Robot Man

One should never stop exposing themselves Mallet. Regardless what the last judge said.

robin2099

Seriously ? You could literally say that about every single super hero ever created. This really doesn't make much sense.

But your ok with the idea of a vigilante who conceals his identity who works with the police in the other movies? You know honestly I think it's time you stop watching these super hero movies. You dislike Man of Steel, dislike the Nolan trilogy, and you dislike Arrow. Maybe it's time you just accept that the super hero genre isn't going to give you what you want in a super hero movie anymore.

Supermallet

"To children," he said.

Paul_SD

I honestly can't tell if people are just baiting me, or if the points I'm trying to make are that unclear.

This whole back and forth started because I disagreed with the concept that the presence of Batman makes more sense in a MoS sequel than a character like WW.

Let me try this from another angle- you don't need Batman in MoS:2 because , in the effort to woo the audience that adores Batman but always thought Boy Scout Superman was lame, they've re-jiggered the character to be more like Batman anyway.
He's not bound by law and has stated he intends to work outside it, by personal fiat (like Batman). He's not answering to anyone for his actions (like Batman).
Where is the driving force (thematic concept) here to make these two useful and not redundant in a single narrative (that will likely feature a global or interstellar threat of some kind)?

I would change the word characters to brands and agree wholeheartedly.
The word character implies the focus is on storytelling and that they would be utilized because they have specific thematic functions that you can't get anywhere else from any other character already found in his supporting cast. I really don't think that is the case with Batman. If he is going to be positioned as a potential antagonist to Superman, who doesen't trust him and is laboring to create contingencies if Superman turns out to be bad...well, all that is covered by Luthor- right down to the nearly limitless economic and scientific resources.
If Superman needs tactical support or thinking...well we've already established a relationship with the military and more specifically a mutual respect relationship with a specific military commander.

Supermallet

So, you're not opposed to Batman (despite your multiple posts tearing apart every element of the character), you're just opposed to him sharing the screen with characters more powerful than he is?

Paul_SD

I think that to have that character share the screen in a live action film, you need a vastly different tone to support the incongruity.

example- In the Adam West show, they would frequently have B&R show up amongst civilians who would just shrug it off like "of course there's a guy dressed up in an outlandish costume talking to the bartender, what's so odd about that?" As a viewer you don't sit there and fixate on how silly that seems because the tone and handling of the rest of the plot doesn't undermine that scene or call attention to it by comparison.

It's worth noting too that the show rarely acts like the material is beneath them. It doesn't wink at you all the time and say "this is really stupid, isn't it". The genius of the show was that it treated the material absolutely straight and doesn't shy away from the innate foolishness you can't avoid in the concept. This is what fans who hate it can't reconcile- the concept of Batman is both audacious and inane. The TV show embraced both those qualities while the Nolan films try (and for some like me, fail) like a magician with misdirection to distract you from the latter while playing up the former.

I see Batman interacting with the super-powered , more fantastical members of the JL in a live action film taking place in a Nolan-esque tonal universe playing very much like that scene in the bar in the Adam West show...with the exception that filmmakers are going to have to labor aggressively (stinger music cues, moody expressionistic lighting, dramatic camera angles) to keep you from noticing how incongruous Batman really is to the rest of the characters there.

Josh-da-man

Actually, it was my takeaway from TDKR that the acrimony between Clark and Bruce stemmed from a falling out they had when the government banned superheroes and Superman went along with it and began working for the president.

hanshotfirst1138

Arguments about his fascism not withstanding, Batman is a character who has to operate outside of the law and in the dark by imposing fear, always more of a presence than a person, and tries to remain mysterious. Superman wears a big bright costume, does interviews for the newspapers, is very public, and is dedicated to "truth, justice, and the American way." It totally makes sense that one would become a tool for the government while the other would operate outside of the law. Their world views and methods are polar opposites. Hell, even their power sets are different, Superman is godlike and invincible, Batman human and vulnerable. The current version of Batman (and the Nolan incarnation) have pretty much eliminated all of the wild gadgets and stuff from the Silver Age too, making the character even more hyperrealistic. When they worked on "World's Finest," Bruce Timm actually talked about how much of a problem the building blocks were, the two characters are so different. Timm and co figured out a way to make it work. Let's see if Snyder and Goyer can do the same. I'm not as uppity as some fans about Affleck, it's those two I'm worried about.

Supermallet

I love the Adam West TV show, but let's face it, that was a different time, with different sensibilities, and a different view of what Batman is. As for accepting Batman among these other characters, it's called suspension of disbelief.

Paul_SD

Yes. And ironically it's going to be the presence of Batman that is going to heavily tax this, where more outlandish and fantastical characters wouldn't.

There is much more latitude for something like this in an animated show or comic book medium because the nature of the mediums are less literal. They trade in shorthand narrative devices- the respective mediums ask things of the readers/viewers that the readers/viewers then supply without a conscious effort to fill in the blanks/square the corners.

slop101

You know, seeing Evangeline Lily believably kick ass in the new Hobbit movie, I realized she'd make a great Wonder Woman. Too late for that, I suppose...

Supermallet

Not enough muscle mass.

slop101

She looks like freaking Hercules compared to the bean-pole they actually cast.

Hokeyboy

So you're saying she didn't have to unhinge her jaw to get that elf role?

auto

slop101

You and your Zionist conspiracies...

Supermallet

Yeah, if Israelis are known for anything, it's sitting back and taking it.