Report: Superman/Batman Movie Planned

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  08 August 2013
I think the most accurate portrayal of Wolverine was his cameo in First Class.

But I think a movie about the comic book Wolverine wouldn't be the most enjoyable thing to watch. He is a pretty unpleasant character!

I was really hoping for a Gambit movie. He is one of the more charismatic, and (I think) well rounded XMen. But then Wolverine: Origins happened....
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan:
BOTH are valid.


Both may be valid but the pro Robin camp has a much much stronger case since he came from the character's creator and was there for decades in all media interpretations.
They can tinker with the costume (yellow on the inside of the cape-black on the outside-I thought that was very clever)
or choose to leave him out of it by setting the stories before he was there or after he started college, but he's the next most important character after Batman. More so than the Joker or Alfred who I believe both came after Robin.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: To wit, I have to say that allowing "all canon" and "no canon" is what has afforded us all this fantastic imagining of all these things....For better or worse. I still remember when everybody was raving about how the Batmobile in Frank Miller's books was this tank, as well as the eye-opening "all-black" Batman design under Tim Burton's direction.

I think if there was too much stressing of "stick to canon", we'd still be seeing a lot of "blue" Batman costumes, and he'd always have this sidekick gesticulating "Holy <some word>, Batman!" And there are as many people who argue of Robin's position in canon, as well as those who think he shouldn't be there.

BOTH are valid. A lot of good has come from not planting things down.

It is what it is now... the point is that WB/DC can do anything now. Affleck's contract supposedly lists more than one film for his Batman run.


Im not concerned with cars or costumes. I'm concerned with origin, career, personality, actions, and reactions of the character. That which defines the character. Its about respect for the preceding writing as much as the art. It got so bad with DC that from month to month their dysfunctional writing did not provide enough confidence that a character would still exist next month so whats the purpose in paying $2 for a comic book.

Having said that, the cars and costumes do matter to me when leap to film is made. They should reflect whats in the chronicles. i.e. The Fortress of Solitude.
 
  08 August 2013
And as for Robin they could graduate him, marry him, move him to a different city, advance his career. Thats fine and acceptable. But disfigure, decapacitate, or kill him? There is nothing positive or respectable in that, it should be permanent if you go there, and his name and uniform should be retired. Thats respect. But they've regurgitated things at DC so bad the only way to fix it is to have Superman wake up in a nefarious situation that Brainiac put him in where he's been in a coma for 25 years and none what DC wrote in that time was ever real. And thats not acceptable either.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by kelgy: the Joker or Alfred who I believe both came after Robin.

Yeah. Robin was introduced in 1940 in Detective Comics #38. Joker released in the same year, but a few months later in Batman #1. Alfred didn't come along until `43.

Quote: but he's the next most important character after Batman.

I've always been on the fence when it came to Robin.

On the one hand, he can be the equivalent to a sobering cup of coffee to Batman when he loses perspective. On the other hand, that same function can be filled by Alfred. Similarly, while he can be excellent support in combat, being a kid, he's still not on equal footing with Batman.

By design, my problem with Robin has always been that he was created to fit an ancillary role. Dick Grayson may have broken out and become a star in his own right, but the mantle of Robin is specifically that of sidekick. It would seem to me that DC, in 1940, was just taking the Jimmy Olsen idea to the next level; Jimmy premiered 2 years earlier in 1938, ftr. I'm not sure that Batman, as an issue of practicality, needs a sidekick.

Looking at the movies & TV shows, I've always found that Batman, as a character, worked a bit better without Robin. That's not to say that Robin didn't add texture to his world or reveal more about his character. However, it's hard to be a dark & brooding solitary creature of the night when you're surrounded by extended (costumed) family. It's the same problem that has always plagued Superman. It's great to have characters like Kara & Krypto, but you can't be the "Last Son of Krypton" when you're surrounded by them.

Introducing Robin into the equation, for the cinematic universe, shifts the tone - potentially. Striking that balance between dark & colorful is tough. It can be done, but you'd have to have a design & tone that's much more faithful to that of the comics. Unfortunately, imo, Nolan's vision isn't in line with that. Audiences weened on the Nolanverse might have a hard time accepting the more "comic book" stuff that exists outside of Batman's core mythos.

Including Robin might not seem like a huge stretch, but it opens a door that I'm not sure DC/WB wants to follow. For the studio, it's much safer to stick with what they know works. I mean, look at what they've done to Superman, turning him into a flying Batman. For Robin and the extended Batverse to really work, the Nolan design needs to be put aside in favor of something more faithful to the source. Nolan's vision embraces relative realism, which is fine, but seems far more afraid of the fantastic side.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to Robin. I'm not sure he's crucial, but there are certain pluses to him. He CAN work on screen, but somebody has to do what Nolan wouldn't (or couldn't). Both the writer and the studio have to be far more fearless and embrace all of what made Batman popular in the first place, not just certain aspects.


As far as Wolverine goes....

Finding a 5'3" actor who can be convincingly be a superhero is tough. Hollywood wants more guys like Jackman. Hollywood is very slow in breaking away from "safe". That's why guys like Peter Dinklage don't often get a fair shake.

The Wolverine I grew up with looked way more like this:



instead of this:



It probably happened some time before, but I think that Leinil Francis Yu was probably most responsible for bumping up his height past 6' in `97. Prior to that, he was always much shorter than the 5'11" Storm. Not that Hollywood would've cared either way, but I think that is what opened it up for the 6'2" Hugh Jackman. Yu's & then Chen's run "killed off" the shorter Wolverine. Jackman's continued involvement has kept him there thanks to the dreaded "synergy" issue. Not many artists draw him properly anymore. In fact, unless a character is unusually small or tall, they're usually drawn fairly equally - at least at Marvel.

ANYWAY.... Comics. Weird and goofy and I could geek out about them all day. Not that sort of board though.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views presented herein do not necessarily represent those of my brain.
 
  08 August 2013
No responsible producer would have made Wolverine "short"...Tom Cruise is 5'6-7", but people seem to think taller. ...he actually would have been a decent Wolverine in retrospect...

To think, that the orc killing machine Gimli, the total equal to Legolas in the book, was reduced to mostly comic relief in the movie. Yet, I know that those were the best LOTRs we were ever going to get.

Different mediums require different dynamics of all sort.


*I am not trolling to get this thread about why those were not good LOTR movies.
 
  08 August 2013
Funny enough its thanks to Tom Cruise that the original guy couldnt commit to X-men since he had to reshoot for MI 2-- Jackman was the last minute replacement.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by Stankluv: No responsible producer would have made Wolverine "short"...

Probably because audiences have unrealistic expectations regarding their heroes. I personally blame society and not producers. They're just following the money. That said and Jackman aside, had this been Marvel instead of FOX, I'm sure that they'd have cast differently. I mean, they've got a movie with a talking raccoon and tree. They're pretty fond of unconventional choices and respecting the source material.

Quote: Tom Cruise is 5'6-7", but people seem to think taller.

Hear the tabloids talk and you'd think he was a midget or something though. What do they know anyway? Michael Keaton is "too short" to be Batman at nearly 5'10". However, nobody makes an issue of the similarly sized Stallone and Van Damme taking on hordes of bad guys. Those guys might as well be superheroes with their nigh invulnerability and strength.

Quote: To think, that the orc killing machine Gimli, the total equal to Legolas in the book, was reduced to mostly comic relief in the movie.

Seeing as how they often ventured into some bleak territory, I think this had more to do with the demands of the movie. Gimli was the most obvious choice, especially since Rhys-Davies has excellent comic timing. I think that they could've gone either way, height-wise, and made the 6'1" John Rhys-Davies taller instead of smaller. They could've still derived humor from him. (Plus, I suspect that shot framing could've proved trickier in the long run had they made him too big, in relation to the rest of the cast.)

I don't think that it would've been possible to get a 5'3" Wolverine anyway. However, splitting the difference between that and Jackman's 6'2" was certainly possible. I think that one could've reasonably cast a 5'8" actor for the part. Relative to a taller cast, and with the right camera work, he might have seemed near downright small.

Jackman might be buff now, but he wasn't when he was first cast. He was all attitude. With the right actor, size wouldn't have been an issue. Look at Peter Dinklage. The man is only 4'5" and he's the bad guy in the next X-Men movie. Acting chops go a long way. (Score one point for Affleck. )

Quote: Different mediums require different dynamics of all sort.

True. Viewers expect certain things. However, if you constantly did what they expected then nobody would ever be pleasantly surprised. I think that's why Chloe Moretz's Hit-Girl worked so well in the first "Kick-Ass". Little girls are not supposed to cuss & dismember, yet here was this tiny dynamo tearing up the screen and stealing the scene. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Quote: *I am not trolling to get this thread about why those were not good LOTR movies.

Having not read the books, I can only say that we could've gotten a far worse trilogy. My only complaints were the the meandering 2nd act and the drawn out 3rd act epilogues. It's not a series I could watch over and over, but I don't regret my ticket purchase either.


Back to Affleck...

Not going to put much faith in the rumor mill, but word has it that Affleck wasn't only approached because of his acting skills. The current rumor is that WB was also deeply interested in his writing and directing talents. It might make sense since he was once offered the Justice League movie to direct. They didn't offer him a role then, but I think that a multi-picture deal might have sweetened the pot.

Once Superman/Batman is done, his involvement with Snyder & Nolan will likely be over. With maybe 2 more pictures in his queue, it might be possible that they'd hand him the Batman franchise and possibly help craft a unified DC movieverse.

Not sure if any of that is real or realistic, but it's certainly something to think about.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views presented herein do not necessarily represent those of my brain.

Last edited by cookepuss : 08 August 2013 at 06:08 PM.
 
  08 August 2013
So is this supposed to be Superman VS. Batman, or Superman AND Batman? I can't take another 2 hour long punch fest that was Man of Steel (and DKR). I hope they help each other out because whenever Batman has to fight Superman in the comics is just ridiculous to me. And now that Superman apparently doesn't care about killing hundreds of thousands of humans as he fights bad guys, Batman has no chance against the no-longer "morally superior" Superman. I wanted to like Man of Steel, and I really enjoyed the first half with him discovering his powers and Costner telling him he had to make a choice about what kind of man he wanted to be. However Supes had quite the disregard for people as he threw Zod around the city and it just wore me out to watch it. So....we'll see.
__________________
Personal: www.japetusproductions.com
Work:Straightface Studios

 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by cookepuss:

ANYWAY.... Comics. Weird and goofy and I could geek out about them all day. Not that sort of board though.


But it is relevant to this industry.CGI was practically made to bring comics to the screen. But Hollywood needs to start thinking past comic book translations. They've about exhausted the Batman franchise. They need to start making their own superheroes.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by japetus: So is this supposed to be Superman VS. Batman, or Superman AND Batman?


Its hard to say.With Lex Luthor apparently being part of the narrative for the next movie its not clear what the "vs" defines.
 
  08 August 2013
interesting fan made trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4U4he3GgC4

helped Afflecks cause a bit
__________________
http://www.wrathcomic.com/ - my 3D Horror Comic Book
https://www.facebook.com/WrathComic - likes are appreciated
https://twitter.com/wrathcomic
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by kelgy: Both may be valid but the pro Robin camp has a much much stronger case since he came from the character's creator and was there for decades in all media interpretations.
They can tinker with the costume (yellow on the inside of the cape-black on the outside-I thought that was very clever)
or choose to leave him out of it by setting the stories before he was there or after he started college, but he's the next most important character after Batman. More so than the Joker or Alfred who I believe both came after Robin.


Look, again, comics and sense don't work. Robin can be important, but that didn't stop 5,000 or so Batman readers from voting to have him beaten to death by the Joker. And even after that we continued to have stories with Robin, stories without Robin, stories with other characters pretending to be Robin.

Originally Posted by JoeyP88: Its hard to say.With Lex Luthor apparently being part of the narrative for the next movie its not clear what the "vs" defines.


Maybe it'll be like this contest about who can stop Lex Luthor first!

Originally Posted by japetus: And now that Superman apparently doesn't care about killing hundreds of thousands of humans as he fights bad guys, Batman has no chance against the no-longer "morally superior" Superman.


Superman cried mantears after twisting Zod's neck 180 degrees. That crying scene is movie language for: "OH NOES! WHAT A TERRIBLE FEELING! I AM NEVER EVER GOING TO DO THAT EVER AGAIN!"
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: Robin can be important, but that didn't stop 5,000 or so Batman readers from voting to have him beaten to death by the Joker.


A Robin, not the Robin.
And since the comics are ongoing-no matter what-the characters always come back.
Wait long enough and they come back.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by kelgy: A Robin, not the Robin.
And since the comics are ongoing-no matter what-the characters always come back.
Wait long enough and they come back.


That's another point: Comic Book Death is Meaningless.

My personal view is you look at it the way you'd look at old Greek myths, or the way some people even look at history. It's all just material. It's all there to be used.

That's how you make "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". Sure, you get it wrong sometimes, like with... well... "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter"... But that's really the only usable way to look at it.

Things like Batman, Superman, Spider-Man.. they are too many things to too many people.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.