Man of Steel 2 begins filming

[silveralex]

^^^All of which are terrible, and way too complicated. Jut call it Batman/Superman World's Finest and be done with it.

You mean Superman/Batman - World's Finest, right?

But yeah the names above are not sounding great. Still, studios often buy up plenty of domains they never use.
BTW - the worldfinests domain shows a condo in FL and a house in Montreal.

[Hedji]

^^^All of which are terrible, and way too complicated. Jut call it Batman/Superman World's Finest and be done with it.

Absolutely. Can't believe World's Finest isn't even on the table.

But look at those titles. EVERY one of them has to do with darkness. Ooooooh...gritty! Stop worrying about epic-grim-gritty-darkness, Warner Brothers. Just worry about FUN!

[thunderbolt]

^^^All of which are terrible, and way too complicated. Jut call it Batman/Superman World's Finest and be done with it.

[Operation:Mego]

On November 20, 2013, the studio has domain names for the film's sequel title which are:

Man of Steel Battle the Knight
Man of Steel Beyond Darkness
Man of Steel Black of Knight
Man of Steel Darkness Falls
Man of Steel Knight Falls
Man of Steel Shadow of the Night
Man of Steel The Blackest Hour
Man of Steel The Darkness Within

[Operation:Mego]

It's a shame DC edited Superboy out of the mix, 'cos making this a Superboy story would have given the audience an easy out: it WAS a rookie mistake 'cos he's still learning.

Don C.

Well technically, he is still a rookie because he is still learning. Reeve's Superman was taught by Jor-El for 12 years before going out as Superman. Cavill's only had a few days before Zod's forces invaded. I believe he did the best he could in a bad situation (you notice it was Zod who caused most of the destruction; whether it was by the World Engine or him bringing the fight to the city and literally throwing Superman through buildings). Snyder has also stated that we will see real consequences of what happened in Batman vs. Superman:

While Zack remained mostly tightlipped regarding the upcoming movie, when asked about Superman's uncharacteristic decision to kill Zod in "Man of Steel," the director hinted fans may see the beloved hero dealing with emotional consequences from his fateful choice in the sequel.

"Maybe we'll see the repercussions of that," he said, when asked about Zod's untimely end.

The director also answered critics who thought "Man of Steel's" final fight scene was unnecessarily long and destructive.

"That was a big thing for me… there's real consequences to this. We're used to seeing all these superhero movies – not to compare, but if you look at 'Avengers,' they trash New York City and one even mentions the fact that there's thousands of people dying," he said, adding that if he had to put a number on it, he'd estimate that "5,000 people" would have died as collateral damage during the final battle between Superman and General Zod.

"That's why I made the film heavy at the end," he continued. "There's a sadness to the end of the movie. It's not just fun to crash around into cities – there's a human price. And I think that's the thing that weighs on Superman."

http://www.accesshollywood.com/man-of-steel-sequel-zack-snyder-teases-batman-vs-superman-fight_article_86547

Plus I believe that the damage and destruction to Metropolis was a way to bring Luthor into the sequel, giving him a plausible excuse to view Superman (and possibly all super powered beings) in a negitive light.

[ctc]

>at LEAST Superman II had quite memorable moments/memorable lines regarding Superman feeling bad that innocent people were getting hurt.

I chalk that up tot he ol' "Catch-22." Superheroes have ALWAYS had problems with proerty damage; we all want to see the huge, earthshaking fight, but we want it as clean and guilt free as possible. Especially post-Wertham/post Code. So there are always attempts at workarounds. That's why you get stuff like a building going down, a woman screams.... her baby is still inside! The hero swoops in, rescues the kid, everyone's happy. It acknowledges the potential loss of life, lets the hero be a hero.... but fall apart under scrutiny 'cos it's ad-hoc. (WHY did she leave the kid inside? In a building that big only ONE person was left behind? What about the people the building fell on? The fire department people inside? What about the fact that all these folks are now homeless? The expense of repairs, the rise of insurance costs...?) But we can let it slide 'cos it's a superhero-ism. We're used to it. It's part of the genre.

But every now and then someone tries to shake things up. Which is good; otherwise you get the same stuff over and over and over. But something this deeply ingrained is difficult to work with; especially when it pertains to Superman. The prototype hero, the character we all agree is larger than life and able to twist the laws of physics and credibility to their extremes. Adding some realism (or at least plausability) feels wrong. We're so used to Superman returning the moon to it's rightful orbit without anyone dying that when someone even HINTS at legitimate consequences it seems incredulous. In order to add that sort of thing to Superman (or indeed ANY superhero story) you have to do a LOT of restructuring of the underlying infrastructure of the story, setting AND characters.

I think that's one reason why this movie is so tough for a lot of folks to let go of. It adds some real consequence, but they still sort of pay it lip service only. So we're not exactly sure how to take it. Is this status-quo for the new movie setting? Is it indeed a rookie mistake on Supes' part? Is it just bad, sensationalistic shock-value writing? Since we've all seen "The Incredibles" does this mean folks are gonna sue Superman? It's a shame DC edited Superboy out of the mix, 'cos making this a Superboy story would have given the audience an easy out: it WAS a rookie mistake 'cos he's still learning.

Don C.

[huedell]

No one is acknowledging that why the "Internet Zod criticism" has more valid resonance, is NOT because "Superman doesn't kill", it's because of the destruction he allowed to occur in Metropolis that surely caused deaths that there was no acknowledgement of from Supes (positive or negative) as it was happening, yet he was so concerned about killing Zod at the close of the film.

Don... I'll allow the whole "old people think all new stuff is bad no matter what" attitude (and I'm not the biggest fan of Superman II anyway), BUT, at LEAST Superman II had quite memorable moments/memorable lines regarding Superman feeling bad that innocent people were getting hurt.

I liked how MOS approached it. Superman won, but still failed. Going forward, how does this shape him? Will being forced to kill Zod help him develop the no-kill rule or will This Superman find it a sometimes acceptable but regrettable action like with the police? To me, that's a more interesting approach than him already have made the decision not to kill before he confronts Zod.

He was not planning to be a hero when the Kryptonians invaded. He had very little time to consider super hero ethics before being confronted with the situation that caused him to act.

This is a rookie Superman who doesn't have all the answers which again is a more interesting storytelling choice than having Superman emerge as nearly perfect with all the answers after Jor-El's tutelage in Superman: The Movie, imo

Anybody that knows anything about writing strategy realizes that what madmarva said above is cool and all... but that doesn't seem to excuse what I pointed out in the first part of my post.

UNLESS, that (AGAIN) was a "rookie mistake".

How many is he allowed to make?

And, more importantly, how many can an audience tolerate.... especially when it's topped of by a close range killing of Zod.

Personally, I don't have much of an issue with the above stuff (I was just curious why no one brought that stuff up in this thread)... I just think MOS was kinda "blah" in an overall sense. I hope... like BATMAN BEGINS, that the MOS sequel is a step UP from MOS. I certainly see that potential there.

[Hector]

The world is just different today than it was in 1981. The Internet gives everyone a voice and exposes everyone who uses it to more opinions and criticism than one could ever have been exposed to in the 1980s, which only leads to more opinion and criticism.

In 1981, I had minor gripes and quibbles about Supeman II, but none of my friends were into comics or movies like I was so I had no one to discuss the finer points of the movie with.

Today, I still don't know anyone locally who would discuss all the crap we discuss on this board, but at least there is an outlet. But the discussion also makes you think about and deconstruct the movies in a way only critics and scholars and a relatively few others did 3 decades ago.

This is seen in sports even to a greater degree. Because of the access TV provides with nearly every game being televised in some form or fashion, HD reception and DVRs, ESPN's 24 hour coverage with knowledgable analysts, who in describing the game teach everyday fans aspects of the game they just weren't privy to 30 years ago, every fan is now a critic and to a great degree they are armed with much of the same information columnists and journalists are. In some cases more. It may not be first hand, but it's there.

There are things discussed today as big sports stories that never would have made TV news or a paper 30 years ago. I'm thinking directly about the Martin-Incognito story down in Miami.

As for the Zod thing, it's kind of gotcha journalism to a degree. What can I complain about that will have the most resonance? Superman doesn't kill in the comics so he shouldn't in the film. It's a good argument.

I liked how MOS approached it. Superman won, but still failed. Going forward, how does this shape him? Will being forced to kill Zod help him develop the no-kill rule or will This Superman find it a sometimes acceptable but regrettable action like with the police? To me, that's a more interesting approach than him already have made the decision not to kill before he confronts Zod.

He was not planning to be a hero when the Kryptonians invaded. He had very little time to consider super hero ethics before being confronted with the situation that caused him to act.

This is a rookie Superman who doesn't have all the answers which again is a more interesting storytelling choice than having Superman emerge as nearly perfect with all the answers after Jor-El's tutelage in Superman: The Movie, imo.

Excellent post...

[ctc]

>In Superman 2 with Chris Reeve, Superman crushed his hand (After Zod was human and 0 threat), threw him into a wall and into a nearly bottomless pit, and Superman was smiling about it.

Yeah, but that was old, and everything old is awesome, and MOS is new and new sucks....

>This is a rookie Superman who doesn't have all the answers which again is a more interesting storytelling

I think that hits the big problem with Superman in general: it's hard to make him interesting. He's got ALL the powers, he's super-smart, has access to super-technology, and he's the most noble, upright person ever. There's no challenge for this guy. He's so awesome he can even keep his identity secret with just a pair of specs and super-acting. It's tough to find a challenge for him. I think that's what we've seen in the last few movies; attempts to somehow make him vulnerable to something other than the oddly plentiful Kryptonite. This movie hilights that he can't be everywhere and save everyone. The last movie had him as a deadbeat dad.

Don C.

[Operation:Mego]

I liked how MOS approached it. Superman won, but still failed. Going forward, how does this shape him? Will being forced to kill Zod help him develop the no-kill rule or will This Superman find it a sometimes acceptable but regrettable action like with the police? To me, that's a more interesting approach than him already have made the decision not to kill before he confronts Zod.

He was not planning to be a hero when the Kryptonians invaded. He had very little time to consider super hero ethics before being confronted with the situation that caused him to act.

This is a rookie Superman who doesn't have all the answers which again is a more interesting storytelling choice than having Superman emerge as nearly perfect with all the answers after Jor-El's tutelage in Superman: The Movie, imo.

This.

[madmarva]

The world is just different today than it was in 1981. The Internet gives everyone a voice and exposes everyone who uses it to more opinions and criticism than one could ever have been exposed to in the 1980s, which only leads to more opinion and criticism.

In 1981, I had minor gripes and quibbles about Supeman II, but none of my friends were into comics or movies like I was so I had no one to discuss the finer points of the movie with.

Today, I still don't know anyone locally who would discuss all the crap we discuss on this board, but at least there is an outlet. But the discussion also makes you think about and deconstruct the movies in a way only critics and scholars and a relatively few others did 3 decades ago.

This is seen in sports even to a greater degree. Because of the access TV provides with nearly every game being televised in some form or fashion, HD reception and DVRs, ESPN's 24 hour coverage with knowledgable analysts, who in describing the game teach everyday fans aspects of the game they just weren't privy to 30 years ago, every fan is now a critic and to a great degree they are armed with much of the same information columnists and journalists are. In some cases more. It may not be first hand, but it's there.

There are things discussed today as big sports stories that never would have made TV news or a paper 30 years ago. I'm thinking directly about the Martin-Incognito story down in Miami.

As for the Zod thing, it's kind of gotcha journalism to a degree. What can I complain about that will have the most resonance? Superman doesn't kill in the comics so he shouldn't in the film. It's a good argument.

I liked how MOS approached it. Superman won, but still failed. Going forward, how does this shape him? Will being forced to kill Zod help him develop the no-kill rule or will This Superman find it a sometimes acceptable but regrettable action like with the police? To me, that's a more interesting approach than him already have made the decision not to kill before he confronts Zod.

He was not planning to be a hero when the Kryptonians invaded. He had very little time to consider super hero ethics before being confronted with the situation that caused him to act.

This is a rookie Superman who doesn't have all the answers which again is a more interesting storytelling choice than having Superman emerge as nearly perfect with all the answers after Jor-El's tutelage in Superman: The Movie, imo.

[Hector]

Interesting read on Man of Steel and his controversial climatic scene with General Zod (and other tidbits)...

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/11-super-things-learned-man-steel-live-fan-220800093.html

I like one of the talkbackers' responses:

"It's weird people are making such a big deal about Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel. In Superman 2 with Chris Reeve, Superman crushed his hand (After Zod was human and 0 threat), threw him into a wall and into a nearly bottomless pit, and Superman was smiling about it."


Exactly, lol.

[MIB41]

If the heroes appear in small cameo roles as you describe, then I think the film can still stand on it's own with a good story. I agree whole-hardheartedly with you. But doing a compare with the Avengers is not apples to apples. The Avengers, by design, is an ensemble piece. So having cameos is icing on the cake. Plus the Avenger's core players all had individual movies and the Black Widow appeared in many of them. We're going into a Man of Steel sequel with ONE hero rebooted and Batman coming from nowhere re-imagined (which I want). We certainly don't need another origin tale for the Dark Knight. But my hope is the core of the story involves those two and doesn't get diluted down by trying to introduce other heroes as much as just give them quick cameos (as you described). Too many and it begins to feel like Batman & Robin where characters are thrown in just to build the merchandise line. I want this to be a good movie, not a toy commercial. I think we agree on most things in principle here.

[madmarva]

Not if the movie is good. What are Hawkeye and Black Widow's motivations in the films they appeared in?

The whole crew in Thor was introduced in one film from Odin to Loki to Sif and the Warriors Three, Heimdal, and the Jane Foster crew on Earth, Ice Giants and so on.

If characters beyond Superman and Batman are in the film, they will carry only supporting or even cameo roles like the above-mentioned characters.

These films are being produced as ultra-expensive serials to a degree, the whole story of every character doesn't have to be revealed at one time to make use of the character.

I look at this film sorta like Frankenstein meets Wolfman. The movie was a sequel to the Wolfman although it did carry over kernels of storylines from the Frankenstein films. I'm guessing Batman v Superman will be a similar setup, sequel to MOS, but Batman plays a major role.

I personally have doubts about Flash appearing in the film. same with Wonder Woman.

We fundamentally disagree on the subject.

I probably shouldn't have even responded this morning, lol. But I had just read about the guy whom DC is rumored to be considering for Nightwing. Man is he ugly and unfit for the role based on looks. He looks like Rondo Hatton's love child.

I'm not saying The WB will be successful whatever pattern or formula they use. Their track record isn't great. Some feel the DC characters just arent't as good as the Marvel characters. I think all characters have their pluses and minuses, but you know some concepts and characters just don't transfer as well from one medium to the next as well as another.

With a concept like Green Lantern that might be the case. I love Green Lantern. He's my favorite character, but I readily admit Spider-man is a better more durable and iconic character. Daredevil might fall into a similar category as Green Lantern. There have been some great DareDevil comics, but he's basically a lesser version of Batman.

[MIB41]

^^^ True. But as you stated Marvel did the leg work here with movies for each of the main characters before the Avengers. Plus lets keep in mind this is a sequel to Man of Steel. If the mindset in the industry suggests these are now just costume films that only need five minutes of back story the general public, who are not as well versed in these characters, will begin to think these films are abandoning good story telling for a cartoon plot. That's what happen with B&R when the studios felt the public was so accepting of Batman Forever, they could abandon any real sense of story and just sell spectacle with mindless one-liners. You still have to do the work to make these characters real on some level. People connect to some degree with the motivations of the Marvel characters based on their origins from previous films. Someone just showing up in a costume might be a leap that doesn't fool anyone, especially critics who will view it as a shortcut to catch Marvel. This will cause many people to start making B&R references especially with Nightwing.