Plenty of people liked the movie, more than just an "it's okay".

People like arguing, and I'm pretty sure some people really, really want it to be the worst movie ever with absolutely no redeeming factors.

>>38399
There are two kind of people who disliked MOS

First, there are those who have legitimate grievanances about the movie, about how the plot, dialogue and characterization was constructed

And there are those who simply are NOT MUH SUPERMAN, and unfortunately they are the most vocal group

>>38399
Yeah their seem to be quite a few pushing at that, to me it was just kind of a non-entity, like it tried and should be praised for that despite a lot of it being misguided.

>>38403
Which loads a lot of concerns about going into the next film as Batman vs Superman. Given that next to nothing production wise has changed last I heard.

>>38407
I'm worried that it might end up being another punching contest.

>>38409
if the realism bit is in effect then either Batman will be OP from the start with some way to prevent Supes from fighting directly. Why this had to come from that crappy angle and not just be Worlds Finest right from the start I've no clue.

I loved it for the most part (saw it twice), but I can understand why people have mixed feelings about it. The movie really does cut through set-pieces, it didn't have much depth, and Lois sorta just felt forced into the last act for no reason.

>>38414
The only thing I felt forced about Lois was the kiss at the end, they should have left that for the sequel

I thonk this is the first iteration of Superman's origin story where Jor-El was a better dad than Pa Kent.

I actually liked Kevin Costner in the role, and I do understand that they wanted to characterize Pa as a overprotective parent, more concerned about protecting Clark from the world than the other way around... but I think they went a bit too far with that. It was almost like Pa Kent treated Clark as a disabled child.

It's telling that the first thing Clark did after Pa's death was to leave home and wander around trying to find himself, shit, I too would have been very confused growing up like that. At least the movie acknowledged it.

>>38418
Would you say even Pa treated him more like an alien then the trailer "you are my son" line lead people to believe. That some of reviews went with the notion the film tried way too hard to hold up the whole "he's an alien" bit balanced with things like his rage when Zod went after Ma.

I mean I can kinda see him seeing himself as an alien finding out all this origin stuff now and things. Wonder how hard Batman will drive that in the next film "I don't trust you, Alien"

Their Animated Series introduction is one of the best IMO.

Batman and Superman get acquainted

>>38422
I love that Batman tosses him.
But how?
Pure Badassness?
Yeah lets go with that.

>>38447
I am pretty sure Supeman doesn't weight tons. He simply was caught by surpise and was sufficiently shocked by Batmans temerity to not think about flying after being thrown.

>>38447
Superman weights 235ibs, his ability to withstand blows without being knocked down and being seemingly immovable stems from his flight abilities which when explained a few time mostly revolve around gravity manipulation which is also why shit doesn't break apart when he torques on it.

When not using that he's as easily tossed as a 6'3" 235ibs man.

Batman is 6'2" and 210 pounds but by surprising Superman and using judo throw him his own weight it would be easy done by anyone.

>>38452
Holy shit that came out gibberish, ignore me, work was rough.

I have some problems with MoS (didn't hate the movie, though) but I must say that it's one hell of a setup for the sequels . It would be nice to see Superman slowly building a reputation and making people feel safe and trusting him, not being accepted right off the bat as Earth's protector.

In the context of the events of the first movie, it would make perfect sense that somebody like Batman would be suspcious, if not downright hostile, towards Superman. If by the end of the movie Superman manages to gain Batman's trust (probably by giviing Bats a way to stop him like in the comics, IIRC there is word of god confirmation that Kryptonite does exist in this continuity), then that would feel like a pretty damn great victory.

Plus... dang, Lex flippin' Luthor. This is the perfect setup for the Luthor we always wanted but were always denied in the films. Not a crazy criminal but a powerful man of of immense charisma, rebuilding Metropolis from the rubble, seen as the common man's savior. I want to see Luthor publicly antagonizing Superman, rallying people against him, sowing fear and distrust, and in private laughing at Superman's face, using not Kryptonite as a shield but the simple knowledge that he does know that Superman is a good guy and can't act against him.

What I want to say, is that depending how the story is developed from the foundation laid by MoS, that could improve my general opinion about the movie.

Had a thought about MoS sequel since its supposedly a Lex heavy piece that it could start with Lex Sr and then move onto Jr who would bear a grudge for Superman over the death of his father say by overexposure to Kryptonite from the terraforming site or dies in the attempted excavation of it. Sr is the one being the evil megalomaniac slamming Superman as a danger and whatnot while trying to get something toe "destroy the alien" and Jr is a bit more open believing that maybe he could do good but then ends in Sr death and Jr doing the "father was right about you" bit.

Ben Affleck is the next Batman.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/23/ben-affleck-to-play-batman-in-man-of-steel-sequel

I don't even.

>>38666

That is impressively poor casting.

But... but Cavill was so good. How do they fuck up that badly?

Fine with Affleck. Less fine with the fact that the movie will be made by the same people who made Man of Steel, but that was ship we were sailing in from the start.

Can't suck as badly as george clooney... right?

>>38675
I don't know, did you see Daredevil?

>>38676

To be fair, Affleck's performance was not the problem with that movie.

The point some of Affleck's defenders have been citing is that nobody who has ever been cast as Batman was ever someone you'd expect to play Batman. And in the case of TDK trilogy, some of the other characters who ended up working out (Joker, Catwoman, Bane) were also "man, this would never work" tier.

>>38678
>implying Ann Hathaway was not a perfect choice
>implying Bane wasn't FUCKING TERRIBLE, cast, acted or otherwise.

Bane was fucking HARRABLE, though that's not on Hardy, I can only think of one worse miscast in the year and that was Cumberkahn, forget race they were just really bad for the roles.

>>38673
Don't have to worry about that, but this is might kill all Supes appearances for years...again.

>>38679
But atlest he was comedy gold.

And is it just me or was the Green Lanturn movie getting way less hate then Man of Steel.
As a GL fan I will see that as a good thing.

But man, DC & WB just can't stop fucking up can they?

>>38679
I liked him, despite the voice. I thought he should have been an original villain, though, not Bane. Hathaway was perfect, but on paper, she wasn't who I had expected.

I still hold onto the belief that John Harrison is John Harrison, and we still haven't seen the "real" Khan yet.

>>38681
Nope, they are remarkably incompetent and out of touch.

>>38681
>And is it just me or was the Green Lanturn movie getting way less hate then Man of Steel.
>As a GL fan I will see that as a good thing.
You probably shouldn't. GL didn't get a lot of hate because it was just sort of all around mediocre and unremarkable. No one gave a shit about the Green Lantern movie. There would be more griping about that fact, except Green Lantern just isn't that popular among the mainstream.

Man of Steel's problem was different, and Film Crit Hulk really nailed it on this one, I think--the movie was technically competent on pretty much every front. The casting was great, the acting was great, the effects were great, the aesthetics were great, and there was even emotional torque in it, it's just that....there was no real reason that anything that was happening needed to be happening, and no character arc for pretty much anyone, and Lois Lane (despite being one of the better Loises in terms of writing and acting) really didn't do anything that made her a necessary part of the movie. And it made all the right motions to build good scenes, it just gave no indication of understanding what those scenes needed to be used for.

Honestly, if you can make it through the whole thing, it sums up the issues with the movie better than I can: http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-importance-of-dramatizing-character/

So anyway, my point is: people complain about Man of Steel more than GL not because GL was better, but because Man of Steel had more wasted potential. GL didn't even really have any potential, beyond the source material.

What's the problem with Affleck? Daredevil was 10 years ago, he has matured professionally quite a bit since then

>>38685
When playing certain heroes you need the appropriate presence.

Cavil nailed it, he has Supes presence through and through, Ryan Reynolds couldn't be less Hal Jordan if he tried, Afleck is the same, Bale despite his difficulties had the Batman presence.

Afleck? There is nothing about him that is in the slightest bit keeping with Batman.

>>38686
He'd make a pretty good Bruce Wayne, though.

>>38687
Ehh he could do a Douche Wayne but I don't feel him pulling off the communication that "I've got a absurd amount of wealth so things come to me naturally" that he plays up while in the public guise of Bruce Wayne. Both Bats and Supes have three faces Their Public,Personal and Professional persona. Giving those the correct voice is a unique balance. Kevin Conroy had it quite well.

http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2013/08/23/cranston-reportedly-inks-six-picture-deal-as-lex-luthor/?

ohhhh why must you make me so confused Warner Brothers. Eh bout time we had a Villain centric movie I guess.

>>38687
I always thought that line from Keaton was funny, that logically the guy playing Batman should be someone you wouldn't expect to be Batman.

Twitter reactions.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=47503

When an open troll like millar just brings out the popcorn to watch the mess, it's not a good sign.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/08/24/joss-whedon-ben-affleck/2694733/

Yep the guy making stuff for the "opposing team" says its good casting and its Whedon so that is double concerning.

>>38693
Concerning in what sense? It's entirely unsurprising that Whedon would say that--he's fairly infamous for seeing potential in actors that other people don't see, sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly. He's convinced Eliza Dushku is a great actress, for an example of when he's wrong. But he's right more often than he's wrong--he's used a lot of actors you wouldn't expect to great effect in his own movies.

Problem is, Snyder's not as good a director as Whedon, at least not for character stuff. Affleck's actually probably a lot better at it than Snyder is, at least on character stuff and plot. Whether that means that they're going to butt heads or whether it means Affleck is going to be able to help elevate the areas that Snyder's weak at (which would actually be incredible--Snyder's got great aesthetic sense, so if he had someone else to shore up his weak characterization and plotting, we could have an amazing move on our hands)

"We are now living in a world where Ben Affleck is Batman and Robert Pattinson would be perfect as Lobo. Interesting times."

-Kevin Macquire

It's just a shame, DC has yet to make a truly competent movie so I don't know why any of it ever bothers me.

>>38696
> Affleck's actually probably a lot better at it than Snyder

This. Not only character stuff, but in The Town he made some pretty nifty action pieces with a relatively low budget. I can imagine Affleck thinking "welp, I could direct this better" during the filming.

>>38693
> Yep the guy making stuff for the "opposing team"

US VS THEM IMRITE?

>>38698
Well last time Snyder didn't use a second unit for anything so maybe Affleck can do some of that for when people aren't throwing punches and stuff since this is supposed to be more a Clark and Lex movie.

>>38686
>Ryan Reynolds couldn't be less Hal Jordan if he tried

He would have made a damn fine Wally West, though, if it hadn't died in development.

Why did they even pick Green Lantern to make a movie about anyway? I never understood why it was even made in the first place.

>>38702
The movie went into development around the time Sinestro corps had just finished because Lantern popularity was blowing, it had hoped to make a movie of comparable quality, they failed and Blackest Night came out and no one gave a shit about any of it anymore.

>>38701
Yeah I'd have been on board for that.

Thank you based Patton Oswalt.

>>38710
C'mon, Patton. We all know if you're going to play a Batman villain, it's going to be Condiment King.

I really think this movie should have been both the second movie in a new Batman Superman series and that Nolan should have only made two Batman films instead of three with Rising being a different film and Affleck's first in the new series. It would have put it on a more level footing like Marvel has done with their stuff leading to their bigger pictures.

Oh oh, I just came up with a twist on the whole Ben thing.
What if he was a Dredd Pirate Roberts Batman from the incorporated.
That would so blow peoples minds!
And there for never happen.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/7987-Batfleck
Well okay then.
I am happy about this casting now.

I liked Man of Steel. All I was looking for in a Superman film was something where Clark didn't come off looking like an OP douchecanoe, and in my opinion, the film pulled that off. Clark won, but not effortlessly, and he came off as a sweet, down-home boy, but not a stereotypical Southern moron.

I want a Batman and Superman film, but I agree with Bob that I don't want a "Superman fights Batman" film. I want them to just verbally bicker a little, any fight resulting in a scuffle, and then Lex Luthor as played by whatsisface from Breaking Bad shows up and they have to ~*learn to work together*~ and then at the very end, Diana/Wonder Woman shows up. Because it's been way too goddamn long since she's had any justice done to her, either.

>>38739
Just gotta figure some way to make them not scared to death about making a Wonder Woman film. Course they'd then have to actually promote an image of that doesn't come from the common misunderstandings of her. And not talk about her Origins in the literary sense because that would just bog things down.

>>38741
Honestly everything about Wonder Woman bog her down.
Where is she from?
>A hidden girls only magical island.
Whats her weapon of choise?
>A golden lasso that makes you tell the truth.

Yeah I can see the jaded fucks over at WB DC have problem with her even without the Percy Jackson stuff.

But I have some ideas how to fix thing!
Number 1: Make a Xena Warrior Princess meets Stargate SG1 fanfic and then just change all the names and character quirks.
Number 2: Make her relationship with Queen Hippolyta the one between a 16 year old and her overprotective mother.
There, more relatable and comedy gold.

>>38741
>>38759
I want a Wonder Woman movie, and I want to see Wonder Woman specifically. Not Xena. They can make a Xena movie on their own if that's what they're trying to make.

>>38762
But whats the diffrents? Please explain.

Oh and Nummber 3: go the J J Abrams road by making her MYSTERIOUS(tm).

>>38761
talking more of her background from her creation not her book origin.

I've always liked the idea of Lawless playing the part of warrior like mother and Carter being the more diplomatic and by the book grandmother both working to train the new Wonder Woman kinda like what the reboot had going before nu52

>>38763
Just because two women are strong Amazonian women with dark hair does not even remotely make them the same character.

This is why people write women badly. If they make a badass lady character, they just turn her into a clone of another badass lady character without bothering to set her apart.

Let's just have a Wonderella movie instead of a Wonder Woman movie.

>>38768
Why not both?

http://www.harkavagrant.com/nonsense/wonderwoman328.png

This is less funny when realizing how horrifyingly accurate it is.

>>38814
No fun allowed the comic!
Sad that some people real think of this when it comes to Wonder Woman.
>>38766
Um, sorry I brought up Xena I guess.
I just wanted to keep me idea simple and not bore you with my like 4 pages long take on a Wonder Woman tv show I got the idea for when the horrid pilot was reviewed on tgwtg.
A (greek) monster of the week concept wont work for a movie anyway.

>>38817
>No fun allowed the comic!
I don't understand how that meme applies to a comic mocking how poorly utilized Wonder Woman is.

>>38818
The way she has been handled is no fun.

>>38817
>>38818
>>38820
Anon is right. It's not "no fun allowed", it's "people, both male and female, both of whom haven't read Wonder Woman comics and only have a vague idea of what she's like and what her history is, trying to decide what to do with the Wonder Woman movie". If I were Diana, I'd be pissed off about that too.

(Although Kate Beaton might have also portrayed Diana as grumpy and a chain-smoker because it's hilarious.)

I'd be up for reading your idea. Just don't make Diana and Xena the same woman. Writing a badass female character (or a badass male character, for that matter) isn't as easy as just changing some names. For example, Xena only fights with Gabrielle and that guy who's played by Bruce Campbell, right? Whereas Diana is usually in the middle between Clark's idealism and Bruce's broodiness. Diana is often seen with a bunch of Amazons or other superheroes. Xena has a sword, Diana has a lasso and an invisible plane (or an invisible car in the DC animated shorts-- that shit was rad as hell).

The only thing we need to keep from the pilot is to find a decent way to add pants. I kinda liked the pants, the ones from the pilot were just gross shiny pleather and needed to be switched out with nicer material (The Wonder Woman /porn/ had a better costume, for chrissakes). And if they want a jacket, just add one that isn't a bolero, that's more of Black Canary's schtick.

>>38821
ohh how about an Eisenhower Jacket short enough to work since it terminates at the hip line and I think its something she'd find on the island in some amazons pile of knickknacks back from WWII.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/8067-The-Big-Letdown

>>38866
> Moviebob

N-N-N-NOPE

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/ben-afflecks-batman-will-be-tired-and-weary-says-warner-bros-topper-1200609573/

Heh someone got the old Batman Beyond script passed around by mistake.

>>38879
If it leads to an actual Batman Beyond movie, I'm okay with that.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/batman-prequel-series-coming-fox-635645

So a Gordan centric GCPD show. Neat.

And Arrow season 2 opener gives better feeling towards why Ollie feels he failed his city and to why he left then Rises did for Batman. Hope that upcoming Flash stuff does a good job.

>>39082
I loved it. Ollie turning a new leaf was great.

Oh hi Black Canary, if I wasn't paying attention I'd not noticed her.

Will Superman ever get another single movie?

Likely no since after this they'll be gearing for Justice League or a Trinity film in their odd attempt at trying to catch up to what Marvel has already started.

>>39106

If they tried their hand at adapting specific Superman or Batman stories as full-length features, DC would probably end up better off than they’ll end up by trying to replicate Marvel’s success.

Alas, Marvel kinda fucked us in the ass on this one. On one hand, we get awesome Marvel films. On the other hand, we get shitty Marvel films on top of DC trying desperately to outdo Marvel films (shitty or otherwise) and other comic book films oversaturating the market.

>>39107
Yea, course Marvel isn't responsible for about half that Marvel glut with them leasing out the rights to others before they got their studio off the ground. Hey at least X-men isn't bad as I'm looking forward to Trask being a badass.

If I was in DC's shoes I'd stick to my strengths, animation and a brighter (used to be anyway, fucking Nu52 garbage) tone than Marvel, using the new 3-D assets to construct animated masterpieces.

Batman works in live action, Green Lantern could work in live Action but what DC should try is to nail down is it's animation market and get animation that's not Disney back into theaters.

When they put out Mask of the Phantasm they had the right idea, they were heading in the right direction, they need to get back to that.

>>39109
Mask of the Phantasm was a flop at the end of it's theatrical run, though.

>>39110
But why was that?

>>39111
Because theatrical cartoon movies aimed at adults were still a fairly hard sell at the time? Even now you're definitely limiting your audience by releasing a theatrical superhero movie as a cartoon.

Don't get me wrong--I think that the fact that that's true is utterly stupid. I don't think there's any reason animation should apply to any specific genre or demographic. But the fact is that it's very expensive to make good animated movies, and the american moviegoing public still isn't used to the idea of flocking toward animated movies for grown-ups. You'll get plenty of adults going to movies aimed at kids and families, even plenty of adults without kids doing so, but evidence thus far has been that they're slower to do that with stuff that tackles heavier subjects.

>>39112
Hell, theatrical 2D aniimated movies are a hard sell nowadays, regardless of the target audience.

>>39113
And unless it has some kinda idiot mascot most won't promote it. Action Adventure...pfft it needs a mentally defective comedy creature.

>>39114
How to Train Your Dragon did well as an action adventure, and showed restraint with regards to broad comedy (focusing more on dry comedy from the snarky protagonist). But it was computer animated and aimed at an "all audiences" demo, rather than adults.

>>39115
Yea the rare exceptions since sadly Dreamworks seems to be backsliding in some places and Pixar/Disney becoming like their older films. I felt Megamind was a good attempt and something in the Superhero area that could be expanded on but sadly they have stated they want to steer away from "parody and satire"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebXB0lBoaQ0

You know keep football as some constant in the Cinematic Universe films and I'd be all in.

Also wondering how long Bats has been active in this universe since he's supposed to be war worn Batman.

Batman Vs. Superman Filming (HD)

I don't quite get it, why is Superman killing Zod such a massive deal breaker for a lot of people?

Ironman has killed in cold blood a ton of people onscreen. So has Captain America. Hulk has killed US soldiers that were doing nothing but their jobs, and yet people still loved him in Avengers. And yet, everybody finds those movies lighthearted and fun.

Is it because the "no kill" oath? Well, Batman has that too, and yet he's been murdering people in most of his films. Starting with Burton's film, the only Batflick that hasnn't featured him intentionally causing at least one death was in Batman & Robin.

>>39124
You say that like Batman killing people was not also terrible.

>>39124

Those characters are not Superman.

Captain America is a soldier; of course he kills. The Hulk is a big dumb animal; we're supposed to be a bit afraid of him even as we sympathize with him. Iron Man is and had always been a huge jerk. Even Batman is just a guy with equipment, training, and extreme methods. Him killing is a departure from the character but it doesn't shake the core of the character.

But Superman simply isn't Superman if he isn't a paragon of moral virtue. If he doesn't stand for the possibility of a better way, then he is nothing. A Superman without the compunction against killing is terrifying, not virtuous or comforting.

It just does a lot more violence to the core and function of his character than it does for other characters, even characters who share his no-killing taboo.

>>39126
> Him killing is a departure from the character but it doesn't shake the core of the character.

Uhm, no. Not killing is a moral choice that Superman, makes. A character-defining choice? Absolutely, but Batman goes beyond that, him being psychologically unable to take a life goes against everything the character stands for.

>>39127

Not really. It is more of a psychological issue with Bruce, but because Batman is predicated on the non-functioning of the law enforcement and justice systems (there wouldn't be a need for Batman if Gotham wasn't so corrupt top to bottom)...well, it's still a significant deviation from his character, but it's not so far out of its way that it can't be incorporated. He's not a paragon the way Superman is.

If Superman kills, he stops being Superman and becomes an invading alien tyrant - just like Luthor always warned us.

>>39128
Again, I disagree. The "no kill" policy is something even more personal and defining for Batman. If he kills, if he makes an exception just once, then he would not stop there. The "dark" would overtake the "knight" and he'd end up no better than a high-tech Punisher. If Superman doesn't kill because that would make him look like a villain, Batman doesn't kill because that would transform him into one.