Leaderboard

This is not going to work. Batman versus Superman has been an iconic image ever since Frank Miller wrote the scene in The Dark Knight Returns. And it worked because, until that moment, Superman had been unassailable, and Batman always his ally. But that was in 1986, the days of the great changes - the days of the Crisis, the end of the Silver Age and the dawning of the Dark Age of comics - the age we have lived in ever since*. It just doesn't work anymore. The whole "Who would win, Batman or Superman" debate is so played out. Batman can't win; anyone who thinks about the issue for a minute will realize this - but this conclusion is indigestible. The trump card - traditionally Kryptonite, but we haven't seen any of it so far in the new DC movie universe - is a tired plot device (then again, so are Superman's powers, of course), which has no right of being as effective as it is consistently portrayed. And beyond it, Batman has no chance of victory against someone who can do what Superman has already been shown to be capable of doing. And Superman being worshiped as a god? Really? He couldn't handle that by sitting down with these people for a while and explaining he's just a guy? I am going to assume a large part of the movie will center on him failing to do so. I think the main flaw we're looking at is throwing Superman into real-life problems, and that will always fail. You can't have a world like ours and a guy like Superman at the same time. It doesn't work. Just ask Alan Moore: he is highly critical of superheroes because they never change things; they fight to maintain the status quo. And why do they do that? Because the true goal of superheroes is not to save the world, or make it better, but to sell comic books. Action Comics is a monthly, and if Superman were to do what he logically speaking should do, namely take care of all the big problems - for instance, seek out and destroy all weapons of mass destruction anywhere, apprehend terrorist groups and hand them over to the International Crimes Court, clean up pollution, and end world hunger and poverty - then the comic would end. Which is exactly what happened in Alan Moore's Miracle Man. The opposite also happens sometimes: Superman cracks under the pressure of being a superhero, goes on an insane rampage and destroys the world. That's what happened in Mark Waid's Irredeemable (Which has a pretty metafictional happy ending; I recommend it). The 'Superman' there is actually called 'the Plutonian', but it's pretty obvious who we're really looking at. And, of course, we now have the genuine article losing it and turning on the world in DC's Injustice: Gods among us. The 'god' in that title is definitely not worthy of worship. Grant Morrison, for his part, views Superman as a living archetype, who inspires us to be Supermen (and -women) - something which literally happened in his run on JLA. But in his comics, Superman frequently ends up sacrificing himself, taking himself out of the equation, to give us the room and opportunity to rise to his level (See All-Star Superman). Kind of like Christ, really; perhaps appropriate, since Superman was after all created by two boys called Shuster and Siegel, and sent out into a gentile world. But these are all comic books. And comic books are not movies, as we keep learning. A comic book can be read and re-read, at your own pace, giving you time to pick up on hints, clues, indications that more is going on than meets the eye. That is not possible when watching a movie. The audiovisual medium is much more forceful than comic books. I have read - but can't vouch for it - that our ability to critically assess what we see on a screen shuts down ten seconds into a movie or TV-show. That is why movies and TV-shows actually work; we're drawn into the story whether we want to or not, because our subsconscious cannot conceive of the fact that what we are seeing is not real. Our evolution does not account for the concepts of acting, let alone creative editing, special effects and emotive music. Why would the sight of a ridiculously-garbed man whom we know for a fact to be Henry Cavill, a guy who after that day's acting went back to his trailer or whatever, fighting another ridiculously-dressed person (Even if it's Antje Traue) evoke anything in us? But in fact it does. That is why a bad comic is an annoyance, but a bad movie can be a franchise-killer. And that is why you have to tread so carefully when making a movie, and not just clasp on to what you think might be popular because you understand only the glitz, the headlines and the concepts which you think might be cool. I have a deep-set suspicion that there are producers in Hollywood that want a movie that presses the concept of Batman and Superman throwing down merely because they think it would make a cool visual - and have wanted it for years. As some of you may know, a few years ago there was talk of an animated feature with this concept. It never happened. Because what can happen? Either outcome is unacceptable, as in any battle between two heroes. In epics, it was acceptable because the classics were innately tragic; heroes always met a deadly fate. But these are superhero comics. So it will be a compromise at best; they will agree to be allies, or at least to not fight anymore. That didn't work in Godzilla versus King Kong, and that one had two 'anti-heroes' rather than actual heroes. So what are we looking at? Fisticuffs in what should be a hilariously uneven battle anyway, over a meaningless disagreement, with no beneficial outcome; probably a lot of property damage, and apparently the founding of the Justice League. It screams desperation; DC is on a hideous disadvantage compared to Marvel in the movie world, and after considerable success with Arrow and The Flash compared to the somewhat lacklustre Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter, Daredevil blows everything that came before it away without even featuring a single truly super-powered character. Now, it seems, they want to catch up all in one go after the also less-than-stellar Man of Steel by including not only Superman, but also a new Batman (bad move, IMHO, after the Dark Knight trilogy) as well as Wonder Woman and even Aquaman and Cyborg. It's just not going to happen. If you take white truffles, Beluga caviar, Kobe beef, Dom Perignon and saffron, toss it all in a big pan and cook it according to a recipe for risotto, the result will not be the tastiest dish in the world. DC just seems to not be able to juggle super-powers properly. Green Lantern was really not bad, but it really wasn't very good, either. The Wonder Woman vehicle never made it beyond an unscreened pilot. Maybe it's because DC is trying to push their brand of superheroes - who traditionally are above human flaws - as just ordinary guys with their own problems. Hal Jordan was a man without fear. Wonder Woman was a princess from an advanced society of immortal women who fought only for justice. Superman was the man of tomorrow. They were above dumb human foibles. Marvel Heroes usually are not - except Thor - they all emphatically had problems, and they generally weaponized them. Iron Man is a hero because his heart was almost shredded by shrapnel. Spiderman is a hero because he feels guilty. Captain America is a heroic super-soldier because he was a sickly weakling. Bruce Banner is a hero, albeit a problematic one, because his experiment failed. And Daredevil, well, if he wasn't blind, he'd be just another lawyer. But Thor was always a hero, and so are Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the Green Lantern. Hal Jordan was sought out because he wasn't flawed; Diana became the Wonder Woman because she was the most accomplished Amazon; Superman is a hero because he has the power of a god and the will of a messiah. They are not heroes in spite of their flaws; they have no relevant flaws. True, people keep trying to focus on what they perceive as flaws, but it never works out. These heroes are from a different age. Anyway... if tl/dr: I don't think this movie will be very good. Although it will probably look awesome. * Traditionally superhero-focused comic books are held to have been published during the Golden Age (1938-1954), the Silver Age (1954 - 1985) and the Dark Age (1986 - today). In reality it's of course much more complicated than that, as even individual authors go through considerable changes over the years.

I'm glad to hear that you're well. Best of luck with your move.