Justice League Trailer Teaser.

[Francisco]

So instead, he'll be the guy who saves the day when Batman's team building and planning fails. He will LITERALLY be the only reason why the League's first outing isn't its last, and even Batman will have to look up to him in admiration.

Seems like a perfectly fine trade to me. "Okay, Bruce! You get all the pre-game hype! I'll actually come in and win the game!"

I hope it goes that way instead of him coming back mind controlled until Batman "frees" him so he can join the fight against the invaders.

[Vanguard-01]

I hope it goes that way instead of him coming back mind controlled until Batman "frees" him so he can join the fight against the invaders.

IF he comes back mind controlled, it won't be Batman who saves him. It'll probably be Lois, if they're going to continue on with the Knightmare sequence's declaration that "She is the key!" At best, Batman will be responsible for getting Lois to Clark so she can do her thing.

And that's assuming they'll do a mind control story at all, of course. If Superman comes back mind controlled, they can't let him do much damage or be seen by the general public, unless they want to completely undo everything we saw in BvS. You can't have the world mourn his heroic sacrifice in one movie, and then show them that they were right to fear and mistrust him in the next.

It would be better to just scrap the mind control idea (if there even WAS such a plan) and just have Superman come back and save the day.

[Francisco]

IF he comes back mind controlled, it won't be Batman who saves him. It'll probably be Lois, if they're going to continue on with the Knightmare sequence's declaration that "She is the key!" At best, Batman will be responsible for getting Lois to Clark so she can do her thing.

And that's assuming they'll do a mind control story at all, of course. If Superman comes back mind controlled, they can't let him do much damage or be seen by the general public, unless they want to completely undo everything we saw in BvS. You can't have the world mourn his heroic sacrifice in one movie, and then show them that they were right to fear and mistrust him in the next.

It would be better to just scrap the mind control idea (if there even WAS such a plan) and just have Superman come back and save the day.

It's the WB. They don't know how to do anything else but prop Batman at the expense of everyone else. I hope I'm wrong and it turns out to be different this time around.

[Ascended]

So instead, he'll be the guy who saves the day when Batman's team building and planning fails. He will LITERALLY be the only reason why the League's first outing isn't its last, and even Batman will have to look up to him in admiration.

Seems like a perfectly fine trade to me. "Okay, Bruce! You get all the pre-game hype! I'll actually come in and win the game!"

I very much doubt we'll ever see it, but I really want them to explore Batman's past.

Bruce has been the Bat for years by the time BvS hit. And what does he have to show for it? A dead Robin, a Gotham that is just as dirty and horrible as it was when he started, and a broken psyche that was easily manipulated by an addled Lex Luthor who, from all appearances, was either half crazy to begin with or driven insane by having Darkseid in his head.

The DCEU Batman is utterly, totally ineffective. He is the last person who should be leading the League. And I'd really like to see how he got to that point. I doubt that Batman's fall from grace happened just because Superman and Zod blew up a building. This Batman is obviously troubled, and hasn't handled the stresses of his life as well as other versions. And I think there's actually some really good storytelling there. But I expect WB to just focus on the idea that "Superman died and Bruce learned a valuable life lesson (dont ask us what it was!) and now he's okay again! Watch him punch Slade Wilson in the face! What? No, not that Wilson, another one who doesnt break the fourth wall with stupid jokes!"

I want that quippy conversation between Clark and Bruce about who leads the League (that Snyder has mentioned) to amount to Clark saying "they agreed to follow you? You're kidding! You're a mess of a person!" and Batman saying "I know, right!? Thank god you're here to take over now!"

[Vanguard-01]

It's the WB. They don't know how to do anything else but prop Batman at the expense of everyone else. I hope I'm wrong and it turns out to be different this time around.

Warner Brothers has never had the chance to prop Batman at the expense of other characters because this is the first time they've ever put Batman in a setting where there ARE other heroes. And the first time they put him and Superman together in a movie, they had Superman prove himself the better man and convince Batman to build a team in his honor. You can call it "propping Batman at Superman's expense" all you like. It doesn't change the fact that Batman FAILED in his mission to kill Superman. Heck, Batman failed as a hero for trying to kill Superman at all. And now, Batman is just trying to carry on Superman's legacy, and he's going to fail at that too until Superman comes back and accomplishes what he couldn't yet again.

I don't see a lot of propping Batman at anyone's expense.

[Vanguard-01]

I very much doubt we'll ever see it, but I really want them to explore Batman's past.

Bruce has been the Bat for years by the time BvS hit. And what does he have to show for it? A dead Robin, a Gotham that is just as dirty and horrible as it was when he started, and a broken psyche that was easily manipulated by an addled Lex Luthor who, from all appearances, was either half crazy to begin with or driven insane by having Darkseid in his head.

The DCEU Batman is utterly, totally ineffective. He is the last person who should be leading the League. And I'd really like to see how he got to that point. I doubt that Batman's fall from grace happened just because Superman and Zod blew up a building. This Batman is obviously troubled, and hasn't handled the stresses of his life as well as other versions. And I think there's actually some really good storytelling there. But I expect WB to just focus on the idea that "Superman died and Bruce learned a valuable life lesson (dont ask us what it was!) and now he's okay again! Watch him punch Slade Wilson in the face! What? No, not that Wilson, another one who doesnt break the fourth wall with stupid jokes!"

I want that quippy conversation between Clark and Bruce about who leads the League (that Snyder has mentioned) to amount to Clark saying "they agreed to follow you? You're kidding! You're a mess of a person!" and Batman saying "I know, right!? Thank god you're here to take over now!"

So true! LOL!!!

[JAK]

Warner Brothers has never had the chance to prop Batman at the expense of other characters because this is the first time they've ever put Batman in a setting where there ARE other heroes. And the first time they put him and Superman together in a movie, they had Superman prove himself the better man and convince Batman to build a team in his honor. You can call it "propping Batman at Superman's expense" all you like. It doesn't change the fact that Batman FAILED in his mission to kill Superman. Heck, Batman failed as a hero for trying to kill Superman at all. And now, Batman is just trying to carry on Superman's legacy, and he's going to fail at that too until Superman comes back and accomplishes what he couldn't yet again.

I don't see a lot of propping Batman at anyone's expense.

That remains to be seen. Just because WB hasn't had the opportunity yet to do so in the cinematic world (at least via storytelling, you could say all the Batman movies at the expense of others is something) doesn't mean people are desperately clutching at straws when they come to this conclusion.

WB and DC have had a long history of propping up Batman at the expense of other heroes - very often Superman being one of those. The DCAU and most iterations of the Justice League comic books have done just that. How often (in games, cartoons, etc) is the rest of the JLA taken out or turned bad somehow and who's the last hope to save us all...? Batman. And the Flash one time, that was cool. But usually Batman.

The BvS Batman is very screwed up. I'd say almost (but not quite) as badly as the Injustice Superman in some ways. But he still got the largest chunk of BvS (theatrical cut, at least) and is the feature here. I honestly don't think there's any way he won't be propped up in some fashion. Now, I say that wanting to be wrong. But given WB's history.. I don't see it happening.

And... Batman failing to kill Superman was a 1:1,000,000 chance fluke. Had Superman said anything else or taken any longer to speak, he'd be dead.

[JAK]

I very much doubt we'll ever see it, but I really want them to explore Batman's past.

Bruce has been the Bat for years by the time BvS hit. And what does he have to show for it? A dead Robin, a Gotham that is just as dirty and horrible as it was when he started, and a broken psyche that was easily manipulated by an addled Lex Luthor who, from all appearances, was either half crazy to begin with or driven insane by having Darkseid in his head.

The DCEU Batman is utterly, totally ineffective. He is the last person who should be leading the League. And I'd really like to see how he got to that point. I doubt that Batman's fall from grace happened just because Superman and Zod blew up a building. This Batman is obviously troubled, and hasn't handled the stresses of his life as well as other versions. And I think there's actually some really good storytelling there. But I expect WB to just focus on the idea that "Superman died and Bruce learned a valuable life lesson (dont ask us what it was!) and now he's okay again! Watch him punch Slade Wilson in the face! What? No, not that Wilson, another one who doesnt break the fourth wall with stupid jokes!"

I want that quippy conversation between Clark and Bruce about who leads the League (that Snyder has mentioned) to amount to Clark saying "they agreed to follow you? You're kidding! You're a mess of a person!" and Batman saying "I know, right!? Thank god you're here to take over now!"

It'll never happen, but if I knew that scene was in Justice League, I'd buy a ticket just to see that!

[Sacred Knight]

In the end I think they made a huge mistake making Batman so aged a veteran. Its just not going to work; in fact I strongly anticipate Affleck being recast by the time JL2 comes along. But then again they made a huge mistake in jumping the gun and doing BvS way too early in the first place. So they have a ton of obstacles to overcome with past bad decisions in regards to hoping this all ends up working out.

[Vanguard-01]

That remains to be seen. Just because WB hasn't had the opportunity yet to do so in the cinematic world (at least via storytelling, you could say all the Batman movies at the expense of others is something) doesn't mean people are desperately clutching at straws when they come to this conclusion.

WB and DC have had a long history of propping up Batman at the expense of other heroes - very often Superman being one of those. The DCAU and most iterations of the Justice League comic books have done just that. How often (in games, cartoons, etc) is the rest of the JLA taken out or turned bad somehow and who's the last hope to save us all...? Batman. And the Flash one time, that was cool. But usually Batman.

The comics and cartoons are still primarily marketed toward comic fans. A very small market, which has shown an incredibly strong preference for Batman. Movies are a completely different animal. With movies, you want to appeal to the widest audience possible. Not just Batman fans. Yes, the movie Batman fanbase is also quite large, but there are other fans out there to whom they must appeal.

The BvS Batman is very screwed up. I'd say almost (but not quite) as badly as the Injustice Superman in some ways. But he still got the largest chunk of BvS (theatrical cut, at least) and is the feature here. I honestly don't think there's any way he won't be propped up in some fashion. Now, I say that wanting to be wrong. But given WB's history.. I don't see it happening.

Screen time doesn't mean anything about propping Batman at Superman's expense. Most of that screen time was him plotting to kill a good man for the crime of being different. It still doesn't cast Batman in a good light. It still showed that Superman, not Batman, was the better man and the real hero of the story.

And Superman HAS to save everyone in Justice League, because otherwise there's no point to resurrecting him. They bring him back just to turn him evil, undoing everything BvS did? They bring him back just to have him become totally incompetent and in need of Batman's help? That makes no sense. It destroys the drama of bringing him back. You may as well leave him dead at that point.

And... Batman failing to kill Superman was a 1:1,000,000 chance fluke. Had Superman said anything else or taken any longer to speak, he'd be dead.

In fiction NOTHING is a 1:1,000,000 chance fluke. The writer is God, and what He intends happens. Full stop.

The script went to great lengths to establish the common name between Superman and Batman's mothers. The script showed us the pain Batman carries and the level of madness to which he was descending. The script chose the exact time and place in which to fully drive home that point and show its significance to the story.

There was no fluke. Everything happened by design, just like in every other work of fiction.

[JAK]

The comics and cartoons are still primarily marketed toward comic fans. A very small market, which has shown an incredibly strong preference for Batman. Movies are a completely different animal. With movies, you want to appeal to the widest audience possible. Not just Batman fans. Yes, the movie Batman fanbase is also quite large, but there are other fans out there to whom they must appeal.

Yeah.. but the movie that's making tons of money right now is "Lego Batman", not "Lego Superman". I get what you're saying, I'd even agree to an extent, but the company clearly has a preference.

Screen time doesn't mean anything about propping Batman at Superman's expense. Most of that screen time was him plotting to kill a good man for the crime of being different. It still doesn't cast Batman in a good light. It still showed that Superman, not Batman, was the better man and the real hero of the story.

And Superman HAS to save everyone in Justice League, because otherwise there's no point to resurrecting him.

It's certainly what I'd want to see, and I agree. It doesn't mean it's what they'll do, but him saving the League would be amazing. I do think he'll have a role, I just think that Batman will have to have a major hand in it and not be just another JL'er being saved.

They bring him back just to turn him evil, undoing everything BvS did? They bring him back just to have him become totally incompetent and in need of Batman's help? That makes no sense. It destroys the drama of bringing him back. You may as well leave him dead at that point.

We'll certainly disagree here, but while the first one won't happen, and not totally the second one, either.... destroying the drama of bringing him back in some way may well happen. Hopefully you're right and that doesn't happen. I'm just saying that there's validity in the idea that it may not happen.

In fiction NOTHING is a 1:1,000,000 chance fluke. The writer is God, and what He intends happens. Full stop.

The script went to great lengths to establish the common name between Superman and Batman's mothers. The script showed us the pain Batman carries and the level of madness to which he was descending. The script chose the exact time and place in which to fully drive home that point and show its significance to the story.

There was no fluke. Everything happened by design, just like in every other work of fiction.

You know what I meant, but I'll apologize for not being clear, anyway - I meant "in the context of the story". Yes, in fiction nothing is by chance - my main problem with Superman killing Zod in MoS (and Superman #22, while we're at it) is based on that very thing. But my point is that he failed only because he stopped - his decision. Neither Lois nor Clark were in any position to stop him, if he'd been so inclined. That's why I wouldn't be so quick to call it a failure on his part. It's not that he couldn't. He wouldn't, he didn't. But, as much of a bat$#it Batman as we saw, it wasn't because he couldn't. That part was made absolutely and painfully clear.

[Vanguard-01]

It's certainly what I'd want to see, and I agree. It doesn't mean it's what they'll do, but him saving the League would be amazing. I do think he'll have a role, I just think that Batman will have to have a major hand in it and not be just another JL'er being saved.

Of course Batman will be involved in the story's conclusion. So will the rest of the League. Batman may help in Clark's resurrection or he might help him figure out exactly what he needs to do to save the day. He may even support Clark's efforts to some extent. But the point of the story, as per Zack Snyder, is to show that the League NEEDS Superman and won't be whole until he's with them. Pretty sure Clark's role will be the most significant in stopping Steppenwolf.

We'll certainly disagree here, but while the first one won't happen, and not totally the second one, either.... destroying the drama of bringing him back in some way may well happen. Hopefully you're right and that doesn't happen. I'm just saying that there's validity in the idea that it may not happen.

I don't see any point to resurrecting Superman only to have Batman steal all the glory for their victory. I just don't.

You know what I meant, but I'll apologize for not being clear, anyway - I meant "in the context of the story". Yes, in fiction nothing is by chance - my main problem with Superman killing Zod in MoS (and Superman #22, while we're at it) is based on that very thing. But my point is that he failed only because he stopped - his decision. Neither Lois nor Clark were in any position to stop him, if he'd been so inclined. That's why I wouldn't be so quick to call it a failure on his part. It's not that he couldn't. He wouldn't, he didn't. But, as much of a bat$#it Batman as we saw, it wasn't because he couldn't. That part was made absolutely and painfully clear.

Yes, Batman COULD have killed Superman. He still didn't. He didn't accomplish his task. He lost. Superman won.

The movie established that Batman could kill Superman with a well-thought-out strategy, the element of surprise, a Superman who had no desire to fight, and access to an extremely rare substance. Change almost any of these factors, and Batman very likely loses. And even still, it changes nothing. Batman was WRONG to want to kill Superman in the first place. Even if he succeeded in killing Superman, he would've killed the last bit of goodness in himself. He would've become the very thing he hated. Not to mention, of course, he would've succeeded only in serving Lex Luthor's agenda.

You go, Batman! You succeeded! At destroying your humanity for the amusement of another criminal! Hope you and your fanbase are proud!

Even if Batman had won, he would've lost.

[W8IN4KAL-EL]

So instead, he'll be the guy who saves the day when Batman's team building and planning fails. He will LITERALLY be the only reason why the League's first outing isn't its last, and even Batman will have to look up to him in admiration.

Seems like a perfectly fine trade to me. "Okay, Bruce! You get all the pre-game hype! I'll actually come in and win the game!"

Hope that's indeed what happens @Vanguard but remember Snyder hates him so that scenario is bound not to transpire.

[Vanguard-01]

Hope that's indeed what happens @Vanguard but remember Snyder hates him so that scenario is bound not to transpire.

He has said the exact opposite on many occasions.

[The Kid]

In the end I think they made a huge mistake making Batman so aged a veteran. Its just not going to work; in fact I strongly anticipate Affleck being recast by the time JL2 comes along. But then again they made a huge mistake in jumping the gun and doing BvS way too early in the first place. So they have a ton of obstacles to overcome with past bad decisions in regards to hoping this all ends up working out.

I agree. I think they should have gone with a Batman in his 30s instead of jumping straight to The Dark Knight Returns.