Batman vs Superman (Working Title) pushed back to 2016

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Sauce

July 17, 2015 was the date fans of the Batman movies deserved, but not the one that Warner Bros. needs right now.

The studio has pushed back the release of its untitled “Batman vs. Superman” film to May 6, 2016 — a delay of nearly 10 months — to “allow the filmmakers time to realize fully their vision, given the complex visual nature of the story,” the studio told TheWrap on Friday.

The move is an interesting piece of the Marvel/Disney Warner Bros./DC rivalry for a couple of reasons: It takes Warners’ team-up of Ben Affleck’s Batman and Henry Cavill’s Superman out of the same summer as “Avengers: Age of Ultron” — and puts it squarely in the early-May zone that Marvel has owned since the gangbusters launch of “Iron Man” in 2008.

In fact, Marvel had an as-yet-unveiled film set on that date — is it Doctor Strange? Black Panther? Iron Man 4? — setting up a who-blinks-first showdown in the megafranchises’ rivalry that Marvel has been dominating, at least in terms of speed and ease of development, for nearly six years now.

I get the feeling that when they say "time to realize fully their vision" what they are actually saying is "we are turning this film in Justice League #1, so we need more time".

**Kanluwen**

There's also talk that Affleck had a pretty serious injury to his leg right now, which if true would explain the delay as well.

**Flashman**

Without adopting Marvel's more structured approach, I have doubts whether this will work as well as The Avengers.

Adding a superhero (or two depending on who they were) each film might have worked e.g.

Film 1 = Superman
Film 2 = Superman and Batman
Film 3 = Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash

...but just piling everyone into the Man of Steel universe is going to be a mess.

**Paradigm**

Yeah, I do think they might be rushing it a bit to compete with Avengers, but on the other hand, given how pleasantly surprised I was with Man of Steel after the bitter disappointment that was IM3 (pending Thor 2, DC won 2013 for me with MOS), I'd rather they take the time to do it properly than rush it out, so in a way this is good news. They're never going to beat Marvel/Disney in terms out output rate, but they've shown with MOS they can make each film as good as anything in the Avengers, so that should be their goal going forward.

**timetowaste85**

Eh, 2013 wasn't huge for me with comic movies. Thor was the best, but still Norse mythology with Dark Eldar...I mean, Dark Elves with Raiders, didn't sit well with me. Thor vs Space Aliens and ships in Avengers? Great. Thor vs Alien tech in Asgard? No. MoS had issues I disliked, but it was better on the second viewing. Iron Man 3 would have been great if Ben Kingsley had been the proper Mandarin and if they didn't Disnify the movie (kid comes in and saves him). Actually, best comic book movie was Kickass 2. It was much better than the first, and everyone I watched it with felt the same (and we loved the first).

**Paradigm**

Well, like I say, I'm holding off on the final vote as I haven't seen Thor 2 yet, but it's going to have to be pretty awesome to beat Man of Steel. I rather like the techno-magic monster-aliens idea that runs through Thor, though, so if there's a lot of that I'll probably like it.

For me, 2013 comic-movie wise was:

IM3: 3/10. The plot was poor and contrived, there was only about 20 minutes of actual Iron Man, the ending was clichéd/disappointing and the less said about Extremis the better.

The Wolverine: 8/10. Far less predictable than I had expected, Jackman is still great as Logan, and the plot was nice and engaging. The action sequences were also awesome.

Man Of Steel: 9.5/10. It did a great job with a character that in previous incarnations I have not been a fan of, looked awesome, had great fight/action scenes and character.

The only comic films I've ever given a 10 to are The Avengers and the Dark Knight (and Rises), so MOS is pretty close to those in my opinion.

**Kanluwen**

Flashman wrote:
Without adopting Marvel's more structured approach, I have doubts whether this will work as well as The Avengers.

Adding a superhero (or two depending on who they were) each film might have worked e.g.

Film 1 = Superman
Film 2 = Superman and Batman
Film 3 = Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash

...but just piling everyone into the Man of Steel universe is going to be a mess.

Bear in mind that there is a bit of confirmation now that every hero is not just going to be thrown in/introduced in Batman v. Superman.
Justice League is reported to start filming around the same time as Batman v. Superman and we're seeing such a huge slew of characters having casting calls out as a result.

**hotsauceman1**

I hated Man of Steel, It destroyed superman for me. Superman isnt some Whiny emo brat. HE is a brave man who put the needs of others above himself. He doesn't purposefully kill. the DC animate movies do a better job with superman

**djones520**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hated Man of Steel, It destroyed superman for me. Superman isnt some Whiny emo brat. HE is a brave man who put the needs of others above himself. He doesn't purposefully kill. the DC animate movies do a better job with superman

I loved it. It made Superman seem more human, and that is always what was missing from him.

**hotsauceman1**

But he ISNT human, he is an alien with powers. He learns that he must use the powers for good and never kill.

**djones520**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
But he ISNT human, he is an alien with powers. He learns that he must use the powers for good and never kill.

Who was raised by humans. What your saying is exactly like saying my wife who was born in Korea but raised in the US, isn't an American.

**hotsauceman1**

What im saying is he is supposed to be a herald for a new age, what humanity Could be, SHOULD be. There is a reason he is also called the "Man of Tommorow" He is the good humanity can become. One of my favorite lines from one of the DCA movies is "My powers do not put me above the law, I am no mans judge jury and executioner" when asked why he didnt kill lex luthor

**Ahtman**

So essentially it boils down to 'not muh Superman' again. Of course this overlooks that he has killed before in the comics where he 'heralded in a new age'. He rarely does it, and he is certainly not Wonder Woman running around lopping off heads, but it wasn't something wholly made for the movie. It seems odd to expect a guy who has been Superman less than 24 hours to be All-Star Superman who is at the zenith of his intellectual and physical abilities. This all goes back to people having a very defined, almost religious even, idea of what Superman is or does, and not following that blueprint leads to chaos and anger. The character has been around for 76 years; there is no singular definition of what he means. Superman has gone through a lot of changes, both in personality and his power set in that time. There is room for different interpretations and ideas, which is why the character has lasted so long.

**Seaward**

According to my calendar, 2016 is in fact the year of the Jumping Shark, so that works.

**Compel**

I had a lot of issues with Man of Steel after I first saw it. However, I will say, it's one of the few films I saw last year that stayed in my mind quite regularly since seeing it. - As in a thought strayed to it probably at least once a week.

So, after mulling it over a bit, I actually came to a conclusion. Any issues with MoS I had would probably be solved with a conversation along these lines.

"Lois... I killed a man, I killed Zod. The last other survivor from my homeworld. And, I. killed. him."
"I was there Clark, you did everything you could. He forced you to kill him. He wanted you to kill him. You had no choice."
"No, Lois. There must have been another way. I have these powers for a reason and it's not to take lives, it's to save them."

Then you get bonus points for letting Lex Luthor live at the end of the film, despite him doing bad stuff.

**AduroT**

Recent VGCats comic seems appropriate.

Spoiler:

**djones520**

Paradigm wrote:
Well, like I say, I'm holding off on the final vote as I haven't seen Thor 2 yet, but it's going to have to be pretty awesome to beat Man of Steel. I rather like the techno-magic monster-aliens idea that runs through Thor, though, so if there's a lot of that I'll probably like it.

For me, 2013 comic-movie wise was:

IM3: 3/10. The plot was poor and contrived, there was only about 20 minutes of actual Iron Man, the ending was clichéd/disappointing and the less said about Extremis the better.

The Wolverine: 8/10. Far less predictable than I had expected, Jackman is still great as Logan, and the plot was nice and engaging. The action sequences were also awesome.

Man Of Steel: 9.5/10. It did a great job with a character that in previous incarnations I have not been a fan of, looked awesome, had great fight/action scenes and character.

The only comic films I've ever given a 10 to are The Avengers and the Dark Knight (and Rises), so MOS is pretty close to those in my opinion.

Thor 2?

And I found The Wolverine to be extremely predictable. The only thing that surprised me was the balls the dude have to say "Let me reward you, by letting you give me immortality". I still enjoyed it though, much more then the Origin one.

**Paradigm**

djones520 wrote:
Paradigm wrote:
Well, like I say, I'm holding off on the final vote as I haven't seen Thor 2 yet, but it's going to have to be pretty awesome to beat Man of Steel. I rather like the techno-magic monster-aliens idea that runs through Thor, though, so if there's a lot of that I'll probably like it.

For me, 2013 comic-movie wise was:

IM3: 3/10. The plot was poor and contrived, there was only about 20 minutes of actual Iron Man, the ending was clichéd/disappointing and the less said about Extremis the better.

The Wolverine: 8/10. Far less predictable than I had expected, Jackman is still great as Logan, and the plot was nice and engaging. The action sequences were also awesome.

Man Of Steel: 9.5/10. It did a great job with a character that in previous incarnations I have not been a fan of, looked awesome, had great fight/action scenes and character.

The only comic films I've ever given a 10 to are The Avengers and the Dark Knight (and Rises), so MOS is pretty close to those in my opinion.

Thor 2?

And I found The Wolverine to be extremely predictable. The only thing that surprised me was the balls the dude have to say "Let me reward you, by letting you give me immortality". I still enjoyed it though, much more then the Origin one.

I've not seen Thor 2, so obviously can't judge yet. I can't wait to see it though.

By saying it wasn't predictable, what I meant was I thought it was going to be along the lines of; 'Logan becomes mortal, gets owned, gets immortality back, kills everything', and while there was an element of that, it was a lot more nuanced that I feared it would be. It was better than Origins, but I'd give Origins at least a 7.5, almost as good as The Wolverine. First Class is probably 8.5.

**Mr Morden**

For me (and likely your views will differ)

The Wolverine
8/10
Plenty of good bits but I prefered Origins

Iron Man 3
8.5 /10
Its got fun with Pepper and Tony - so tick, it had some great humour and style - tick, so so plot but all at a good standard.

Man of Steel
7/10
Looked ok, very silly plot points (we fly our prisoners off planet but can't escape in our giant hyperspace capable spaceships, hmmm - or maybe they did and its only Supermans mom that dies)............The end fight is poor - it just drags on and on - compared to the brilliance of Thor 2's or Avengers end fight. Oh and I thought Sups defended the planet not just the US as he aluded to at the end of the film ?

Thor 2
10/10
My film of the year - got everything right and up there with the sheer qualiity of Avengers - fun, clever, good plot, action and heart.

DC have alot of catching up to do IMO but Man of Steel was getting there........

**timetowaste85**

Mr Morden wrote:
For me (and likely your views will differ)

The Wolverine
8/10
Plenty of good bits but I prefered Origins

Iron Man 3
8.5 /10
Its got fun with Pepper and Tony - so tick, it had some great humour and style - tick, so so plot but all at a good standard.

Man of Steel
7/10
Looked ok, very silly plot points (we fly our prisoners off planet but can't escape in our giant hyperspace capable spaceships, hmmm - or maybe they did and its only Supermans mom that dies)............The end fight is poor - it just drags on and on - compared to the brilliance of Thor 2's or Avengers end fight. Oh and I thought Sups defended the planet not just the US as he aluded to at the end of the film ?

Thor 2
10/10
My film of the year - got everything right and up there with the sheer qualiity of Avengers - fun, clever, good plot, action and heart.

DC have alot of catching up to do IMO but Man of Steel was getting there........

I think one of the things that "makes" comic book movies for me is the verbal sparring. Nolan got the dark, gritty sparring in Batman, Joss got the humorous sparring with Avengers, and Thor 2 carried that same humorous verbal sparring between Thor and Loki. Loki mocking Thor's driving skills made the movie for me. I had issues with it in places, but that scene stole the movie. I don't think Thor had any chance of making it without Hiddleston; much the same way as Iron Man didn't have a prayer without RDjr. I felt MoS had no sparring, it was simply "this is wrong, and I'm finding myself and finding a better way". It lacked the gritty sparring of Batman and the sarcastic sparring of the Marvel-made movies (as opposed to FOX's Marvel movies). That's it in a nutshell for me-verbal sparring.

**kronk**

The only comic book movie worse that Thor 2 is Catwoman.

I don't know what people are smoking.

**timetowaste85**

kronk wrote:
The only comic book movie worse that Thor 2 is Catwoman.

I don't know what people are smoking.

Daredevil, Elektra, Ang Lee's Hulk and from what I've heard, Ghost Rider 2 all disagree with you. Back to your puppets, Jeff!*

*see my last post in the car thread as to why I call Kronk "Jeff." It'll carry on all day until I get bored.

**kronk**

Even Batman and Robin was better than Thor 2.

**Da Boss**

Man of Steel got the difficult stuff so right I couldn't believe it. A fight that was tense and satisfying to watch with Superman, that actually looked as destructive as Supes fighting should be, and with cinematography that just made it look gorgeous. I was also happy with him killing Zod, because Supes unlike Batman DOES kill when he needs to, and I've always liked that.

However they messed up all the easy stuff, establishing Clark and his family, establishing superman and lois, all that stuff was messed up really badly. The Tornado scene was laughable.

I think they'll need a REALLY talented writer to do a Supes/Batman movie justice without messing up one or other character.

**timetowaste85**

kronk wrote:
Even Batman and Robin was better than Thor 2.

Now you're just trolling.

Bat-nipples =/= Thor driving.

**Squigsquasher**

kronk wrote:
Even Batman and Robin was better than Thor 2.

I LIKED Batman and Robin...

**Mr Morden**

kronk wrote:
The only comic book movie worse that Thor 2 is Catwoman.

I don't know what people are smoking.

Both are better than the recent Batman films

**timetowaste85**

Mr Morden wrote:
kronk wrote:
The only comic book movie worse that Thor 2 is Catwoman.

I don't know what people are smoking.

Both are better than the recent Batman films

Ha. Haha. Yeah...no. 95% of the population would probably disagree with you. Of course, we can all take comfort in knowing that the best Batman movie out there was Under the Red Hood. Rottentomatoes backs up my statement. Not opinion, mind you. Statement. Fact.

**Mr Morden**

timetowaste85 wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
kronk wrote:
The only comic book movie worse that Thor 2 is Catwoman.

I don't know what people are smoking.

Both are better than the recent Batman films

Ha. Haha. Yeah...no. 95% of the population would probably disagree with you. Of course, we can all take comfort in knowing that the best Batman movie out there was Under the Red Hood. Rottentomatoes backs up my statement. Not opinion, mind you. Statement. Fact.

Never heard of Under the red Hood to be honest - I'll have a look.

**Compel**

"It'd be too damned easy. All I've ever wanted to do is kill him. A day doesn't go by when I don't think about subjecting him to every horrendous torture he's dealt out to others and then... end him. But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place, I'll never come back."

Under the Red Hood is tremendous. As is Batman: Year One (a direct comic to screen translation, pretty much).

The Dark Knight Returns is good, but I don't like how they changed The Joker's final scene in it from the comic.