Batman vs. Superman Trailers and Clips

[Blacksun]

so they will hug?

[dumbduck]

Nah, it's clearly the start of the fusion dance.

[DochaDocha]

We get SuperBat, who has Batman's moodiness, Superman's indecisiveness, Batman's powers, Superman's weakness to Kryptonite, Batman's ability to cope with tragedy, and Superman's utility belt and car.

[luffyq1]

tumblr_nn26u2GuEn1r7hjkqo1_1280.jpg

[TheDarkKnightReturns]

Brillant !

[Powerboy]

It's a Batman-ified Superman movie. Just like the first. Dark, "badass," gritty.

It might end up good (though I didn't like the first movie), but you can still say this is not what Superman films should be.

The "Yo that was kewl" crowd is sure to love it. Just like they loved the Nolan films.


As a Batman fan, this movie is right up my alley. Too bad I'm a Superman fan too, I guess I'll have to wait more years for those films again.



Zach Snyder = Superman's Frank Miller

I remember back when DKR came out and, a couple of years later, the first Michael Keaton Batman, saying to a friend of mine that, the way things were going, if they ever did a new Superman movie, it would be all dark and gritty because that seems to be all they think sells anymore. He replied that it was great to present Batman that way but would be ridiculous to present Superman like that because that's just not who the character is.

And here we are. Ironically, that same friend loved "Man of Steel". Personally, I liked it but I think they made a huge mistake in thinking audiences would not respond to a bright and positive Superman movie. But it's the nature of Hollywood (and comics) that if one thing is successful, there will be copycats everywhere.

But this series was never intended to be a Superman trilogy. I'm almost surprised they didn't lead off with Batman and then bring Superman in since the tone is Batman's even in the first movie that he's not in. I wish they had faith that a Superman trilogy could work. But it would have to be a trilogy that embraced the Superman concept.

If I had to choose between Superman and Batman, I clearly go with Superman because I hated Miller's DKR and I know it had a lot to do with how Superman was treated although I disliked it before I even got to that part so that's not the only reason. But I'd rather go with something that gives us the two characters as the best friends they once were. Yeah maybe that's all Silver Age and not dark and cynical enough but it would be a welcome change. Maybe that's the thing. For movie-goers, a dark Superman and he and Batman having real antagonism is something new. But for comic readers, it's been plodding on for almost 30 years now.

[Powerboy]

Well, it was only a matter of time before the parodies came rolling in. I imagine there are a lot of fans who'd rather see this fake movie instead:

Yes and no. Obviously, the narration doesn't work because they would never be so antagonistic to each other. Admittedly, I'd rather see this movie.

I saw one of the early screen tests for the Adam West Batman and I really liked it. It was still a bit campy but done more seriously than what the series became.

[Powerboy]

As somebody pointed out, MoS Superman is almost a complete opposite of the Superman of Miller's DKR. He's a guy who doesn't take orders like a good soldier. He decides what he thinks is right to do. Of course, maybe that's why Miller's Superman was the poster boy of the American government while MoS is distrusted.

But I seriously doubt this is really going to be a complete DKR situation where it's all Batman is the hero and Superman is the fall guy at best or villain at worst. I suspect it's going to be a lot more about two guys and their idealogies who are both good guys though one a bit misguided (or both) clashing until they know each other better.

While it may slant toward Batman as DC knows he's their bread and butter, he's also being set up as maybe being a bit off the mark in his assumptions and that evens the playing field when it comes to who to cheer for. I think they know that there are huge numbers of both Superman and Batman fans out there. Batman may have the edge now but I suspect DC and the WB know it would be crazy to set either of them up as the true villain of the clash.

It reminds me a bit of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer Spike Wars where they knew some people loved Spike and some hated him and they played on that for ratings. Of course, they will play on an antagonism between Batman and Superman and maybe an antagonism with fans to get ticket sales. But they won't push it to the point of losing half the audience by having it be so one-sided that a lot of people become one-time ticket buyers.

[JBatmanFan05]

I remember back when DKR came out and, a couple of years later, the first Michael Keaton Batman, saying to a friend of mine that, the way things were going, if they ever did a new Superman movie, it would be all dark and gritty because that seems to be all they think sells anymore. He replied that it was great to present Batman that way but would be ridiculous to present Superman like that because that's just not who the character is.

And here we are. Ironically, that same friend loved "Man of Steel". Personally, I liked it but I think they made a huge mistake in thinking audiences would not respond to a bright and positive Superman movie. But it's the nature of Hollywood (and comics) that if one thing is successful, there will be copycats everywhere.

We disagree on liking the film, but agree on the huge mistake. I do love that irony of your friend's story, so thanks for sharing that.

[dumbduck]

I think Superman Returns had the perfect tone for a Superman movie. The tone and the tone alone. The problem is that Superman spent the entire movie doing a whole lot of nothing, creeping on Lois, and in the end he was humiliated by Lex and his nameless thugs.

MOS, IMO had a good story but a lifeless tone. I don't think the tone was dark. It was lifeless and depressing.

Superman has spent the last 30 years being defined by non fans of Superman. Bruce Timm, Bryan Singer, and now Zack Snyder. I can't believe it's that hard for Hollywood/Warner/DC to find someone who actually likes and gets the character and is willing to define him without meticulously limiting him so that he doesn't step on Batman's toes.

[JBatmanFan05]

I don't think the tone was dark. It was lifeless and depressing.

six of one, half a dozen of the other

Superman has spent the last 30 years being defined by non fans of Superman. Bruce Timm, Bryan Singer, and now Zack Snyder. I can't believe it's that hard for Hollywood/Warner/DC to find someone who actually likes and gets the character and is willing to define him without meticulously limiting him so that he doesn't step on Batman's toes.

Amen I say to you!

[dumbduck]

six of one, half a dozen of the other

It was...drab. Bleak. Dark for me is another thing. Sin City is dark. MOS was flat.

Amen I say to you!

I say a lot about Bruce Timm, but it's a Warner problem. When I watched the cartoons originaly I didn't think of them as a "Bruce Timm" realization. It was a corporate product. Only later I heard the name many fans were already complaining about. Young Justice had nothing to do with Timm. But they had that ridiculous subplot of Superdoucheman rejecting Kon. It wasn't human, it wasn't funny, it wasn't endearing. It only damaged Superman. And it is completely denied by the comics. It's a Warner thing.

[JBatmanFan05]

It was...drab. Bleak. Dark for me is another thing. Sin City is dark. MOS was flat.

Agree to disagree (even though there is no right answer in this question of semantics and preciseness of words). But when someone says (for example, the end of a film) "that film had a dark ending" and the ending actually was just drab & bleak....I think people would understand that no correction is needed, because a drab bleak ending is a dark one. For me, drab, bleak....is dark.

[dumbduck]

Best reaction:

[Powerboy]

Batman versus Superman the way it should happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQPYAhcEhlo