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.

The audience of 90% of the films income: "What's a Deathstroke? Is he a robot like Arnold Schwarzenegger?"


A Robin/Joker switch, they could get away with, but if it was, they'd almost certainly do it with Dick Greyson, not Jason Todd or Tim Drake (that was complicated enough in "Return of the Joker" and there were many years worth of tv show before that).

In saying that, I would like it to be a Jason Todd switch. He is more in the public consciousness in recent years. In saying that, you're still talking about only maybe 40% of the films income having heard the name "Jason Todd."

And ultimately, it's all about the money.

nkelsch wrote:
but Deathstroke Batman isn't actually a bad or non-cannon concept.

For a one-off comic run, with the proper setup and a limited audience that's familiar with the material, it could work. For a mass-market film, it;s just an utterly stupid idea, and one that has basically no grounding in any kind of reality. I get what people are saying, what I just can't comprehend is why they're saying or thinking it. Every piece of evidence used to say Batman is Slade could be equally used to 'prove' that Clark Kent or hell, Peter Parker are Batman in this film. Or even, shock horror, Bruce Wayne!

Pulling a switch like that can work in films. But you look at what Marvel are doing; they're clearly gearing up for switching to Bucky Barnes as Captain America (someone whose name is much less well known to non-comic readers than Batman's) and by the time they make the change, he'll have been in at least 3 if not 4 films, depending on whether they put him in the next Avengers film or not. Just saying 'this guy you all know is now this guy you've never heard of' just makes no sense.

 Compel wrote:
The audience of 90% of the films income: "What's a Deathstroke? Is he a robot like Arnold Schwarzenegger?"


A Robin/Joker switch, they could get away with, but if it was, they'd almost certainly do it with Dick Greyson, not Jason Todd or Tim Drake (that was complicated enough in "Return of the Joker" and there were many years worth of tv show before that).

In saying that, I would like it to be a Jason Todd switch. He is more in the public consciousness in recent years. In saying that, you're still talking about only maybe 40% of the films income having heard the name "Jason Todd."

And ultimately, it's all about the money.

This all is based upon if they are extending or ditching the Nolandverse or not where Dick, Jason and Tim literally don't exist. I guarantee a lot more movie-going public know who Robin John Blake is over Jason Todd or Tim Drake especially with convenient flashbacks to recent successful movies.

They have gone out of their way to avoid confirming Bruce Wayne and have avoided totally disavowing the Nolandverse when it would be so easy to do.

Makes a huge difference if this is a sequel to Man of Steel with a fresh batman vs a 5th movie in the nolandverse which sets up a 6th movie suicide squad in the Nolandverse and the current planned movie line up is predicated on that.

Sladebatman and Robin Joker both fit and are supported by the source material... Batman having a family and living a happy life as Bruce Wayne only to have them killed due to superman doesn't.

I think the 'killed my family' thing is more likely going to be clever editing to misdirect people that way and spur these sorts of discussions amongst the 'hardcore.'

I think the most likely scenario is going to be Occam's Razor, I'm afraid.

Joker is the Joker. He killed Dick Greyson. Batman retired as a result. He finds a note from someone about how Superman was responsible for their family's death in Metropolis. With urging from fellow businessman Lex Luthor, he decides to get back into the suit. Big fight.

Oh look, turns out Lex was the villain after all. Everyone teams up to take on Lex. End of film.

Oh look, Aquaman!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How is ruining Batman and the Joker for 99% of the audience better than a half-reboot and an actor swap?

That's just it -- there's NO POINT to twisting the audience around into that many circles. Batman isn't Batman, the Joker isn't the Joker, Alfred isn't Alfred...so why would anyone care about the movie? Is Lois actually Lois? She's a redhead in Man of Steel and BvS...but Lois isn't a redhead. This can't be an accident.

You know who is a redhead, right? Jimmy Olsen. WHO NEVER APPEARED IN MAN OF STEEL. The only possible explanation for this is that "Lois" is actually Jimmy after gender reassignment surgery.



Note how she dresses throughout the film -- nothing overly feminine, right? Always collared shirts, sweaters and vests. But Lois wears dresses, as this image shows. Her wardrobe was a clue, right there for us all along.



And what did she have with her in the Arctic scenes? That's right...a CAMERA. Just like Jimmy Olsen.

So why was this angle inserted into the film? Because WB is very friendly to the transgendered. Katelyn Jenner gave her first talk show interview on Ellen. Want to guess the studio? That's right...Ellen is filmed at the WB studios in Burbank.

MIND...BLOWN.

See how easy this nonsense is? These theories are about nothing other than obsessed fans crazed for continuity with the Nolan films and unwilling to accept that *roles have been recast*. Yes, the Joker is full of tats now. Cripes, we need Gene Hackman to stand up and say "This is your Joker."

Figure it's either mind control or maybe some form of clone.

The latter of course turning full on evil/out of control later on.

 reds8n wrote:


The latter of course turning full on evil/out of control later on.

Ah, that's actually closer to some of what we've kinda sorta heard here too - good one!

I have heard the actor that played Zod in MoS saying his role in this is a bit like russel crow's, in that its an AI\interactive recording, so i wonder if Superman is feeling guilty about Killing Zod a while ago, and has been 'talking' to zod's AI and its twisting his mind into believing he is better than humans.

We've already seen a toy of the "desert Batman," and it's been titled "Knightmare Batman." Take that for what you will.

Again, I think it's almost certainly a dream or vision. But it might not be Bruce's. It could be Diana's vision of an Injustice-type future. I think it's interesting to note that the building on the left in this shot looks like it could be a temple.



And of course, these scenes almost certainly take place in this set:



So are we looking at a vision of Diana's about possible future events taking place on a ruined Paradise Island?

I tried to read that article. I consider my mind blown. And not in a good way. Didn't have enough booze in my system to handle the level of insanity shown.

Honestly, Jar Jar Binks as a major Sith Lord makes more sense than the straws grasped at in the article. I'm a big fan of Deathstroke. And Batman. And I've never heard of this arc. I could see them doing it as an elseworld's animated movie. Would be awesome there. But not on the big screen. That's doomed to failure.

Here's the new trailer Looks great to me so far.

That trailer showed waaaayyyyyyy too much.

Alrighty... I'm excited.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That trailer showed waaaayyyyyyy too much.

Par for the course with trailers these days. Star Wars has been a nice change of pace.

Oh God I hope that's not Doomsday. He looked awful.

And yeah... now we know the plot of the whole film.

 -Loki- wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That trailer showed waaaayyyyyyy too much.

Par for the course with trailers these days. Star Wars has been a nice change of pace.

Both true, but to me it tells me enough.

1. As plot filler it starts with the intro. Intros and origins can always be relied upon to take up half of a superhero film and is relatively 'cheap' to script.

2. A brat Lex Luthor just doesn't seem to cut it with me. And Batman is unrecognisable in the wrong way.

3. Queue the lame reasons for Batman and Superman to fight.

All in all, I am staying away out of indifference. Probably will get around to watching it on satellite TV in a few years time if nothing better is on, but I wont have much anticipation waiting.

Looks great to me. I was hoping there would be a Bruce/Clark scene where they just argue about their alter-egos. Dooms-Zod-day looks all right to me, maybe the face is a little off but other than that he's fine. Luthor should be great, I'm actually getting a 'what if Tony Star were actually 100% loony?'vibe from him, which is different but I can definitely see it working.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm not going to lie when I say I think Ben Affleck makes a better Bruce Wayne than Christian Bale, and I will see this on the opening day with my wife.

Personal preference here but I can't stand Ben Aflect I think he is a terrible terrible actor. I love the trailer and was gutted to Ben appear. Still looking forward to the film and the concept looks cool but I know my deep loathing of Mr affects acting skills will ruin it a little for me.

..about the 2M mark ... the flying things...



those look like Parademons right ?

.. so maybe that whole "knightmare" sequence is a vision/similar of a possible future.

Where supes/someone is working for Darkseid ?

Good spot! And gives me hope too, that we'll see Darkseid at some point. I had been wondering if Marvel building up to Thanos would put DC off Darkseid as they are really very similar, but I do think that he'd still make an excellent villain to bring the Justice League together (as he does in the N52 JL run) and I think they could handle him differently enough that casual moviegoers would be able to tell them apart. And if I recall, JL1 is actually in 2017, a year before Infinity War, so they could beat Marvel to the punch if they wanted to.

I'm hoping for DS in the first JL film, while Luthor becomes the Big Bad of the whole series in the same way Marvel have set up Thanos.

I liked it. I hate to say but Afflect plays angry entitled pretty well in that scene.

 reds8n wrote:
..about the 2M mark ... the flying things...



those look like Parademons right ?

.. so maybe that whole "knightmare" sequence is a vision/similar of a possible future.

Where supes/someone is working for Darkseid ?

Yep...I do believe those are paradaemons. IMO, it's probably a vision granted by the gods to Diana about a possible future should they fail to band together to stop big D. In the vision Supes has either been twisted, or is a clone like the Brutaal character from the Earth-2 series.

It seems as though the Amazons will play a role not unlike the Asgardians in the MCU -- namely, a bridge to the less grounded, more cosmic stuff. Which makes sense.

It was funny to see message board comments this morning saying that the movie looks too jokey. Although those were undoubtedly from teenage Marvel fanboys complaining that it looked too grim just a few days ago.

Oh, and good to see that Jimmy...erm, I mean "Lois" is in the film. Even as it appears clearer and clearer that BvS is what it says on the can, I'm sure that guy will find a way to "uncover" that Luthor is actually the Toyman and that Doomsday is Saturn Girl.

I kind of feel like while yes it certainly does seem to show off a lot of the plot, it was actually kind of necessary to offset some of the rumors that have been flying around.

Additionally the DC films(and the TV shows as well!) have been pretty open about their stuff. The cast of "Suicide Squad" reputedly were going out of their way to interact with fans during their downtime while filming.

I hate Ben Afflec, but this looks pretty damn good.

I found this trailer disappointing. The first trailer was far better. This one just felt like too much stuff, not very well edited together. Also the 'is she with you?' line is terrible. Sad, as I have been really looking forward to this film since I rewatched MoS and found myself liking it much more with a second viewing.

Ben Affleck looks like he will make a good Bruce Wayne, but I'm not sure about his Batman, yet.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I kind of feel like while yes it certainly does seem to show off a lot of the plot, it was actually kind of necessary to offset some of the rumors that have been flying around.

Additionally the DC films(and the TV shows as well!) have been pretty open about their stuff. The cast of "Suicide Squad" reputedly were going out of their way to interact with fans during their downtime while filming.

I think the reveals -- and the fact that this trailer doesn't seem to match the others in tone -- were carefully considered choices. This one seems intended to show us that the film isn't all grimness and brooding by teasing us with the action sequences, and illustrating that there will be a little humor in the film at times. And yes, they revealed Doomsday. However, it's clear that it (he?) is a very disposable villain, and that there may be a whole 'nuther level of bad guy above Lex waiting in the background.

Plus, had they only shown Doomsday in silhouette or something, you'd have confused fanboys typing "ROTFL!!1! so lex luther creatd darkside?! snider ur an idiot" on message boards everywhere.

I don't think they movie guys give a gak about fanboys typing anything anywhere.

I get the Affleck hate, but I don't share it. It seems like he's been typecast since Mallrats as a spoiled douche, so Bruce Wayne should be a role he's comfortable with. I also think he has more range than Bale, so I expect his Batman to be at least as good...unless the writing is as bad as that trailer makes it look.

The plot looks paint by numbers at this point, and I'm getting a Fant4stic vibe that the writers or the director were not entirely onboard with the source material. I hope the movie is good, but as of now, my expectations are very low. Doomsday in particular looks half-assed in every vector of his execution, from backstory through visual design and on into sound mixing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To me, Doomsday is being treated how comic book movies always treated iconic villains before the Marvel movies hit it big, like a generic villain cooked up by the screenwriter and then dressed in a well-known character's metaphorical clothes. Expect Dr. Doom levels of phoning it in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To me, Doomsday is being treated how comic book movies always treated iconic villains before the Marvel movies hit it big, like a generic villain cooked up by the screenwriter and then dressed in a well-known character's metaphorical clothes. Expect Dr. Doom levels of phoning it in.

You got an awful lot on the BG out of a tiny bit there. You may be right. It looks like

S vs. B
badguy creation of Luthor appears
Ms easy on eyes appears
BAM!

(back at the Hall of Justice, Aquaman makes sandwiches for the team)

I kind of like FB boy as Luthor. Its a really different take. Hard to top Kevin Spacey and Gene Hackman...

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To me, Doomsday is being treated how comic book movies always treated iconic villains before the Marvel movies hit it big, like a generic villain cooked up by the screenwriter and then dressed in a well-known character's metaphorical clothes. Expect Dr. Doom levels of phoning it in.

If I'm understanding you properly, I don't think I'd agree. And I also don't think I'd be holding up the MCU's treatment of villains as something to emulate. They've been one 2-dimensional tin can after another to get knocked over by our heroes.

Doomsday will be a tin can in this one too, but he's not the main villain for the film or the ultimate villain for the DCCU. He/it is really just filling the role of hired muscle for the main villain. Granted, that doesn't really fit the character's appearance in the comics as a lead baddie, but then that storyline was awfully thin just because there's nothing to the character beyond growls and smashing. Personally, I have no objection to Snyder and Terrio positioning Doomsday as a disposable villain. I think he works better there.

Not everyone may agree, but I think the DCCU's approach to villains looks more promising than what we've seen in the MCU, just because we're getting a film to set up their world so early in the series.