Discussion in 'Community' started by Jedi_Master_Conor, Nov 9, 2006.
Superman has already had his sequel taken from him by Batman - how much weaker does he need to get?
Ha hah! Well, according to the news that broke out yesterday, Superman will have a proper sequel to Man of Steel.
So, I'd like to point out that -- if the schedule is accurate -- that the time between Man of Steel and Man of Steel 2 is the exact amount of time between how long it takes to reboot the most popular comic character in the world (Spider-Man, from Spider-Man 3 to The Amazing Spider-Man), as well as only 2 years longer than how long it took to reboot Superman (Superman Returns to Man of Steel) and less time than rebooting Batman (the second most popular comic book character; The Dark Knight Rises to BvS: Dawn Cuts Through Grease).
As well as, y'know, how long it takes to do three Iron Man films.
What's your point?
My point is that DC still can't do anything with any sort of scheduling and either they're petrified of a Superman sequel (hence putting it at a reboot-cycle timeframe) or it's just bad planning.
Again, if the schedule is true -- which is far from a given.
More likely just the planning. Cavill will be doing Superman back to back with "Dawn Of Justice" and "Justice League". If the studio is still planning to keep him beyond that, they'd have to sign him to a new film. And given how Marvel, Fox and Sony are lining up things up with their summer slate for the next few years, Warner Brothers might be deciding to do one film per year, thus avoiding competing with the two to three films that comes with the Marvel characters.
I thought last summer's Superman: Man of Steel film was superb, and far superior to any other film or TV version of the character (and this is coming from someone who grew up with the iconic Chris Reeve films). One of the many things I liked about the film was that they gave Krypton a much more sci-fi element (cloning, laser guns, etc.), which seemed obviously inspired by the excellent 1986 comic book re-boot of the character, by artist/writer John Byrne.
That being said, IMHO there should at least have been 2 more Superman films (3 in all) only focusing on the character & his villains, before combining him with the DC universe - there are a plethora of stories & characters that could be the focus on two more Superman films..... I'm not sure why Superman AND Batman had to be the focus of a 2nd film. Why not just give the spotlight to Superman for at least 2 more films, before combining him with the rest of the DC universe? H*%$, even Batman's recent 200X re-boot gave the character three films. And why does there need to be another Batman film so soon after the last one (2012)?! And, if the character needs to be re-booted again, why not give Batman his own movie?! As far as I'm concerned, by doing this the film studio/DC is saying that Superman can't carry a film on his own - which is unadulterated B&^l$%#$....
On the contrary, Batman is entering Superman's world that was established in Man Of Steel, I think that's evidence enough that Superman can carry a film. It's still his supporting cast plus Alfred and it is his villain.
The fact that Batman is in the film at all will take the spotlight away from Superman. It would be the same as if, for example, any of the Iron Man movies also featured Spider-man, or any of the other Marvel super heroes.
Conversely, if it were a Justice League movie with Superman/Batman/other characters, that's completely different . Films like X-men, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc. are ensemble team/group films and as such have more than one heroic character...
I don't think of it that way. Batman and Superman are two sides of the same coin so it's a natural progression of the Superman character we got to see in MOS.
The Winter Soldier had Black Widow and did just fine.
At this point, I don't think a Spider-man apperance would take any thunder from RDJ's Iron Man.
And Falcon. "Iron Man 2" had Nick Fury and War Machine. When it comes to using Batman here, there's obviously a story point that Goyer and Snyder felt was worth tackling. Which seems to be that there are consequences for Clark's battle with the Phantom Zoners, which Lex will try to exploit and Batman will find himself questioning both men. If the Aquaman cameo is true, it would certainly lend credence to the impact of the invasion. Also, it's probably smarter to assemble the universe in a different fashion. Marvel had the luxury of giving independent stories to each hero, before establishing how Loki's revenge will take shape. Here, it looks we're going from Clark trying to earn the people's trust to facing consequences for that action and then the League forming to prevent a repeat of the destruction visited on Metropolis, Smallville and down by the Indian Ocean. From that we'd see the other heroes dealing with the new status quo, whereas with the Avengers we had the strands of the aftermath leading right into the next conflict.
The reason I excluded Iron Man 2 is because it was absolutely terrible.
Sure, but Cap was dangerously close to being relegated to a tier 2 character and Black Widow is what, Tier 3?
As in, comparing apples and oranges with pomengrantes and lychees is a useless exercise. Superman and Batman are flagship characters and arguably the two most well known (and possibly popular) heroes in the world.
If Spiderman and the X-Men (or even just Logan) teamed up on film, then your analogy would work. Until then, and so long as people insist on comparing the Justice League (tier 1) with the Avengers (Tier 2) they're going to end up making proudly inaccurate analogies.
And Ender, you don't feel it's a problem for Superman -- the Big Blue Boyscout of the DC universe, the character who is above reproach -- to potentially unite the Justice League by... having every member of the Justice League absolutely pissed off at him and his motivations (and have it be justified of course)?
Batman might be pissed. Aquaman's pretty much always upset at the surface world. We don't know what Diana, Barry and Hal are thinking.
Ender, I don't know how, or what you'd use to break them into tiers - both characters were featured heavily as mains in The Avengers and top billed. However, if you don't see either of them as "major" characters, then yes, the analogy doesn't work.
I think most if not all comicdom would have called the Avengers a second tier team of Marvels. Their #1 team was of course the X-Men, followed by FF.
Ah, okay, I get what you're saying a bit better. I was thinking within the constraints of the established cinematic universe for Marvel.
I wouldn't even do it like that. For Marvel, basically Spider-Man is top-tier. Everyone else is arguably a tier below that, unless you want to count Wolverine in the Spidey-tier by himself.
But I agree, all Avengers, all FF, etc. would be second-tier. X-Men would probablybe Tier 1.5.
fixed that for you. Now how long does it take to you see where and why?
Only in terms of comic book sales. Even prior to Bendis taking over ten years ago, the Avengers team was considered the premiere team and the X-Men were the most unusual of the teams, with the Fantastic Four being the family.
Wait, so comic book sales aren't what are and are not determining top-tiers of superheroes?