World's Finest

[Gatx]

I just don't know how they could possibly do it. They STARTED OFF with an Avenger's level crisis in Man of Steel that Superman averted on his own (well, with the help of the military, but that's still impressive considering how useless they tend to be in these types of movies) so what could possibly happen to warrant the help of an eccentric rich guy who uses little gadgets and ninja weapons?

 

[Rellik San]

You never know, it could be that in an interesting reversal, Batman comes in to teach a young and full of bluster Superman that even the smallest of crimes is worth his attention, not just the earth shattering stuff.

 

[Bbleds]

I see what Bob means by not being natural enemies in this "movie-verse" mainly due to their ideologies. Both with grim outlooks on life an personal oh so tortured souls the only thing I see them doing when they get together is writing dark poetry together while monologuing about the human condition. Maybe they'll end up fighting over whose is better.

 

[Veylon]

Why not bring Lex Luthor in as a catalyst? He's not a bad guy just yet in this universe and could call the two together to take on some sort of threat that requires both of them. He'd serve the role of Nick Fury, recruiting the various supers for his special team. But really he's manipulating them to serve his own ends.

 

[Darmani]

Part of the problem is Superman is inherent to comics, now. So fantastical and colorful and childlike. Batman more easily made the transition to crimefighter and "real world." Batman can fight organized crime, drug dealers, housing gentrification, and other perils from the headlines like law and order. Serious stuff that makes up adult entertainment.

Superman... can't. He can't be in cop drama, war movie, detective flick, or thriller. *shrugs*

So they are opposed and being so over the top but iconic Superman is unignorable. The obstacle to comics and superheroes are serious work gaiz.

For all its faults Byrne's reboot did help. And many aspects of Man of Steel work but in getting Superman to our world they became, like 90s comics, too self conscious and critical without need. At the least the "saving people" should have been more evident and it felt the story ended wrong from the one told.
How can he have a normal life after all that's been revealed and happened. And I'm one of the guys who liked their take on Pa Kent and that he died of something OTHER than a heart attack.
I even didn't mind the concept of Superman killing Zod or the pain and destruction or even him having a righteous temper.

But...still the burning bright happiness and character is missing. So I think this crossover is possible. But...alsonot necessary.

*sigh*

 

[Smokescreen]

I would vastly prefer a 'buddy cop' story, a little like Lethal Weapon, rather than a story where they are deliberate antagonists to each other.

There are very good reasons why Batman and Superman have become so iconic and important. Utilize them!

Fuck it, just take all the great stuff from the animated universe and roll with it. They don't always see eye to eye there- but they don't hate each other or even fight each other, at least not in the TDKR manner.

And you know what: Frank Miller's work does have some issues, not the least of them being how he turned Superman into a stooge; a crime that we are still paying for today, in some ways.

That doesn't mean it isn't a brilliant story: it is and it's well executed. But the fact that it's become THE BIBLE of Batman stories and it's impact on Superman, isn't a great thing.

 

[Starik20X6]

Someone suggested somewhere (I can't remember where) that the movie should go like this:

Superman is called in to help deal with this mysterious vigilante problem that's turned up in Gotham City. When Supes does track this guy down, surprise surprise it's Batman, who is following a lead on some kind of criminal conspiracy. There's a scuffle, but Bats ninjas his way out of there after planting a seed of doubt in Supes' mind about his employers. Batman's explosive attack on whatever villain factory/hideout they go with naturally draws the attention of Superman, who realises he's been conned by whatever crooked cops/officials asked him to take out Batman, then the two team up for the final showdown with the big bad.

Post credits scene where it's revealed Lex was pulling the strings on the whole thing, and the whole "they won't best me again" thing, setting up Justice League.

 

[rasta111]

I liked the animation where Superman is framed by Luthor so he and Batman team up and take on a host of villains trying to collect the bounty.

I'd like to see something like that in movie form. As for them being enemies... I don't tend to read DC comics really (their animation is really good though) as it's out of my generation somewhat so I don't really know about that.

Can't say I find the concept anymore appealing than Bob does though. Especially after seeing that schizo excuse for a Superman movie. Couldn't really figure out what was going on half the time so it was almost like the movie itself was prompting me to ignore it... More time to cram the over the top action in my face I suppose.

Can't complain really but I do hope they'll stop just seeing what they can get away with and go back to you know... Actually thinking about stuff. Instead of going fast as they can hoping no one notices then telling me to deal with it and move on... I'll move on alright.

 

[Shjade]

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is, was when it came out, and always will be absolutely fucking terrible.

No, Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Back is absolutely terrible. As in has zero redeeming qualities whatsoever. I don't know why I still keep it on my bookshelf with the other comics; it's probably infecting them with awful even as we speak.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is decent. It's still full of Miller-style crazy, but at least it's restrained crazy, as opposed to the aforementioned sequel in which all pretense of holding back the crazy is removed.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

How exactly do you get a two hour film out of THESE two franchises given what we saw in Man of Steel?!?

There has always been this sort of friendly argument amongst comic book fans over who would win in a fight between Bats and the Big Blue boy scout, but almost EVERY single scenario offered in which Batman could conceivably SURVIVE such an encounter (let alone actually WIN it) has been based on the premise of a.) the employment of kryptonite as a weapon and b.) Batman supposedly being willing to go to greater limits to defeat an opponent than Superman.

Scenario A doesn't seem viable since the Man of Steel mythos didn't seem to introduce kryptonite as a weakness, nor does Snyder seem inclined to go back on that as a convention.

Scenario B has never held much weight because Batman is as loathe to cross that "one special line" as Superman is, even when both characters probably share a great deal of responsibility for all the lives lost by NOT taking out final justice to end some of their more psychotic murdering villains.

In fact, Superman has only really crossed that line once in canon, when he slew Doomsday and that was only justified because he was going to die in the process, thus nobody would have been left to stop the creature if he had fallen.
Most of the other heroes were lucky to have escaped with their lives (some of them never really escaped to be honest.. it haunted them to the end of their days.)

I've also never really liked that argument that placed on equal terms Batman had the fighting advantage. Superman may have had super strength but he's still brawled with some of the best fighters in the UNIVERSE. At some point he learned how to stand toe to toe with someone when it comes to fisticuffs, and even minus his powers Clark is an imposing physical specimen of a man. Plus, to have to arbitrarily handicap Superman from the start just to win the argument is pretty much trying to give the win to Batman on easy mode. Oh gee well if Superman can't have his powers that define his character, then Batman doesn't get to have his gadgets or extensive training at the hands of Ninja masters and such. Fair is fair.

I digress.

The movie version of Superman from Man of Steel would flat out kill Batman before Bruce even knew he was coming. Hell, if they go with Nolan's Batman there won't even be much of a fight, since that stiff, slow ass Bat-suit was more a hindrance than anything else. Batman got his rump handed to him TWICE by Bane, who didn't even have his venom. He could barely hold his own against the Joker. In fact if you think about it, Batman pretty much SURVIVED the climax of his films rather than 'won' any of those particular engagements.

The best I can hope for is that they'll return to more comic book based writing in the next iteration of Batman.. lighten him up a little.. go more towards the Adam West end of things now. We've seen dark batman get darker and darker, let's make him more Brave and the Bold now.

Then we might actually have an interesting film.

Yeah, these arguments can be neatly wrapped up by asking a simple question.

"Which one of them can kill the other from orbit?"

Even when they have fought in the comics, Batman stated that Superman could easily kill him if Superman wasn't holding back. One time Batman sprained his wrist just PUNCHING Superman, and Superman said he was rolling with that punch. Even Returns had to blast Superman with a nuke block out the sun for a week, and make him really unwilling to fight just to make it even possible for Bruce to win.

Spending a movie showing each and every way Batman would be crushed by the demigod of Truth, Justice, and the (insert your country here)an way would not be interesting, and saying it would go any other way would just be LYING.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I actually liked The Dark Knight Returns, as grimdork as it was, and I was even hoping the film with the same name would have mirrored it more than it did, but since the film was a terrible Frankenstienian combination of that book and Knightfall, I ended up wanting to eye-vomit after that travesty. It set up the idea that the lawful good and chaotic good of Supes and the Bat would occasionally have some differences that they might get into a fistfight over (provoked by Bats, of course). Batman would have to be wearing a tank and cheat by using kryptonite (and possibly even other superheroes), and Superman would just be Superman, the supreme boyscout who could bench press a moon. Batman would make his point, Superman would see what he was trying to do, and realize he was being a bit blind about how to deal with the problem, and they'd compromise. They'd make up, match unstoppable force with the wit of the greatest detective, and bam, bob's your uncle, problem would be solved. It showed the strengths and morals of each character, neither wanted to flat out kill the other, and it could give each of them a "next time we do it my way" card.

Honestly, I'm just curious how they intend to do the teamup without the Joker. To my knowledge (which is admittedly a bit sparse in the team up department), most of the reasons the two join forces are because two of the biggest of bads have decided to temporarily work together before they stab each other in the back/face, and while Lex might be holding nascent ideas about bringing down the Man of Steel, there's no driving antagonist to really bring the Bat to his knees left (that can be played onscreen, at any rate. No actor in their right mind would take a Joker role yet). Unless we just cut to the heart of it and say some government entity is trying to put them down to prevent more of these incidents from showing up.

 

[MB202]

I actually told my co-workers about this... and aside from arguing who the best Batman was, I feel bad for saying that it's called "Batman vs. Superman", even though there was nothing implying that they would fight.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

My prediction;

Overall, it will be an o.k movie. In the same way the first X-Men movie was an o.k movie. It will be popular, but not enough to make back it's budget. But in order to deny Marvel money (how exactly that is supposed to work...) they will pump out as many hero movies as they can. We will end up with an easily forgettable saga.

 

[Winnosh]

I miss the days before Disney bought Marvel and the two companies were allowed to be friendly rivals.

Its the one thing I never realized would go away. DC and Marvel used to be neighbors they would stare at each others lawns and complain that the other had better grass and then go and have a BBQ together.

Now that they are owned by seperate big companies we'll never get a JLA Avengers movie or even comics crossover again.

 

[Trek1701a]

I'm seeing this movie being made because I don't think DC/Warner has that much confidence that a straight Superman sequel would do all that well. If they did and wanted to add a character, they could have added someone like Wonder Woman, Flash or maybe even the Martian Manhunter as his backstory could take a week to explain. But they chose Batman, that to me sounds like they wanted to bolster Superman's numbers. Maybe they thought that since people thought Superman in the movie was too dark, they would give them an even darker Batman.

If Cavill's Superman actually fought Batman that fight would last about two seconds. He fought and killed someone within his own power range, a human, even with fancy gadgets would be like a fly to him. Which is one of the many reasons Zod was an extremely bad choice for the villain in the first movie, they needed someone or something to challenge him, but not push him to extremes so fast, but I digress. I don't want to make this about what I think was wrong with the Superman film. I'll just say as an action film it wasn't bad, but as a Superman film it needs a lot of work.

I don't think anyone would call them friends, but they have high respect for each other. That's why Superman always entrusts Batman with some Kryptonite should he go off the ranch, because he knows Batman will do what is necessary.

 

[Sergey Sund]

This comment section has been very intersting.
I disagree with some of it, though. Long post incoming:

For example: DC does care what the fans think - but that's a bad thing!
Think about it: No-one here wants to see the clichee "they fight each other, they make up, they team up, they fight crime" formula. It has been done to death.
Yet, why would WB go into that direction? Because X vs. X is a traditional fan topic. When you talk to comic fans it's one of 5 topics: What superpowers would you want? How stupid/hot/impractical is X's costume? What would have been your version of X event/how could X event be improved? DC vs. Marvel - which leads you to who would win in a fight X vs. X?

So, with a fan culture like that - why would WB bet the farm on a buddy cop movie, or do anything else than what the fans obviously want to see? If they check out this comment section - we have, so far, bitched about MoS, and discussed the topic of X vs. X - even though we all agree that we have no solid indicator that they will even fight, and we all agree that the basic X fights X formula is a terrible idea.
We hate the idea - yet, everyone wants to talk about just that. Why would they make another movie?

Also Dark Knight Returns is a pretty awesome comic.
I had a class last semester, in which we read and analysed it, and there's a lot of thought behind the surface.
So I really disagree with Raika, who said that:

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is, was when it came out, and always will be absolutely fucking terrible. Frank Miller can't write his way out of a shoebox and it's painfully apparent in that story in particular. It's infantile, nihilistic trash for teenagers who want to feel "hardcore". That's all it'll ever be, and pretty much nothing good can come of a movie taking hints from that, especially since Man of Steel completely missed the point of Superman as a character to begin with.

Well, I'll admit DKR has some real problems: Batman using guns, killing people, rolling on people with a tank ("Rubber bullets! Promise." <- rubber bullets, my ass!).
In a way, there is some fundamental misunderstanding of Batman in DKR, just as with Superman in MoS.

However, in DKR, Supes and Bats have the exactly right positions within society: Superman is working with and for the government, while Batman works from the shadows and is a thorn in the governments side.
The point is raised that Batman, by operating outside the law, and by using unsanctioned violence, while being not accountable, inspires all these crazy madmen, gives them something to work against.
It's no coincidence that they have a pro-Superman, anti-Batman psychologist running around.

Batman is so good at what he does because he does it without the whole bureaucracy - he goes where he needs to go to collect his evidence. The problem is that, because the system is faulty and the Joker is set free by some celebrity psychologist, Batman is needed. The POTUS even wants to give him a medal.
But he inspires all the crazy people, who are drawn to the unsanctioned violence Batman uses: Think of the Sons of Batman (previously Mutant gang members, who "convert" to Batman-ism after Bats beats their boss), and how they just straight up mob-murder people for stealing handbags.

Superman is not "corrupt" in DKR - he just choses to act with force (=violence) sanctioned by the official government. He works from within the system, still having faith that it ought to work. Which is, of course, why he gets hit in the face with a tactical nuclear warhead.
I'd argue that makes him see Batman's point, in the end. Superman's silence, as he discovers Batman's ultimate trick, can be read as silent approval: Supes freaking GETS IT now. The system is not perfect. Better to have a Batman around in the shadows should you ever need him.

Coming back to an earlier point: DKR would have never been made had Miller listened to the fanboys.
DKR is what is called a "revisionary narrative" - meaning that after DKR's version of Batman you couldn't go back to the old version. Adam West's Batman got overwritten by the new, gritty, grim Batman.
Example: For all of Batman's history, the yellow symbol on his chest was just .... well, because! Because superheroes have symbols on their chests. Because yellow makes the black bat symbol pop.
DKR >explains< the symbol for the first time! It's a deliberate target, painted on Batman's chest so villains will shoot his chest. The only other bright spot on the costume is Batman's lower face, which would be the first thing bad guys see and shoot at instead. So he gives them a better target. He can armor his chest. He can't armor his face.
And because DKR has this >explanatory power< it convinces us more than all earlier versions. We can never think away that explanation, so it replaces the old, inferior explanations, versions and instances.

These are not my ideas, btw, as I said: I had a class. If you're interested go look up my two main guys:
McCloud's "Understanding Comics" and Klock's "How to read Superhero comics and why".
It's theoretical stuff, literary analysis - but in the very least you're gonna get some awesome comic tipps, from literary experts, who name-drop you the industry's best as secondary sources
I had a ball reading those texts because some freaking phd was ratteling down a list of very good comics - and I had read them all!
Enjoy.
And sorry for the wall of text. I needed to vent information.

 

[Hammartroll]

You know I don't understand why Batman can't be an equal opponent to Superman. Lex Luthor is supposed to be Superman's arch nemesis and he's a normal human, aided by the power of his intelligence, technology and corporation. Bruce Wayne is pretty much the same.

 

[Sergey Sund]

You know I don't understand why Batman can't be an equal opponent to Superman. Lex Luthor is supposed to be Superman's arch nemesis and he's a normal human, aided by the power of his intelligence, technology and corporation. Bruce Wayne is pretty much the same.

Superman doesn't know any hideouts of Lex Luthor's. He knows where the Batcave is.
Lex Luthor invents all kinds of super-heavy weaponry. Batman doesn't. Why?
Because Batman doesn't kill, he doesn't use guns. All his equipement is non-lethal and therefore less powerful.
Batman always acts alone (yeah, Robin, Watchtower, etc. but Batman is always in the front line with them).
Lex Luthor works from the backround. He manipulates everyone. He sends other, more powerful people to do his work for him.

That is why Luthor is more dangerous than Batman: He is a villain that plans everything and would sacrifice people to further his cause.
Batman has a destinct handicap here.

captcha: most interesting man

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

That last couple of paragraphs is why I'd take the first three Burton/Shumaker Batman films over the Nolan trilogy any day (although the fourth one is another story; I'd take at least the third Nolan movie over that one, since the third one had lightened up a bit on the "realism.") I will never understand why our popular media got so grimdark after 9/11. We went from good guys saving the day in movies and TV shows that can best be described as /fun/, to watching "heroes" torture "terrorists" and being expected to root for the guy doing the torturing. I don't know about anyone else, but I was less interested in how "realistic" a happy ending was, and more interested in a temporary escape from all the horrible stuff in the real world. If I want to see a world where the good guys aren't all that good and they don't always win, I'll turn on the friggin' news, you know?

Fortunately, over 10 years on, we're finally moving away from that crap and into some more hopeful fare. It's a shame Warner Brothers still isn't understanding that with their DC comics based movies.

 

[crazy_madness]

Sadly Zack Snyder wouldn't do a wacky,campy overthetop Batman vs. Superman...=[

that's a great mistake of movies...taking themselves too seriously.
because that leads to put-on pseudo depth...

like in man-of-steel...
-would have been an awesome movie if they didn't force the origin story and philosophy into the film...
they wanted to make a movie about Superman beating Zod through buildings...
they could have left it at that and it would've worked.

you can't make a movie profound on purpose.
but if you have something to say and try to illustrate that - the movie gets "deep" on it's self.
(that's why Watchmen works - because Alan Moore has something to say)

so alternatively:
embrace the stupidity!

(FarCry:BloodDragon; Dredd 3D; Batman(1966))

so ultimately it's about honesty...i guess.