World's Finest: Is it time?

They are not basing it off of DKR. Its just a quote they used.

MrCritic "LOL, NO! That is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard regarding the material."

LOL! I know, right! Because establishing characters and their worlds individually before combining them totally didn't work for Marvel! Avengers was such a flop, bro!

"There would also no doubt be some amount of confusion about said reboot, concerning whether or not it is tied to TDKR"

Given the fact that Man of Steel went for a very Nolan-like tone and made sure audiences knew that Nolan was the producer so the movie could associate itself with The Dark Knight Trilogy, how exactly would a solo reboot lead to more confusion than introducing the character in a sequel to what many of these "stupid" people think is the Nolan Superman movie? Putting Batman in the Superman sequel lessens the likelihood that we'll see the new Batman supporting cast and the new Gotham (including Wayne Manor, and the Batcave), both of which would help to establish this as a new story by creating a Batman world that felt entirely different.

Idk how this approach establishes legitimacy. "Hey! Here's another character that we won't develop properly before jumping into our conflict!"

"Marvel got the head start on their MCU while Warner Brothers was putting out Harry Potter and The Dark Knight. Warner Brothers now has a disadvantage."

You seem to be looking at this as a race. If it were a race, DC would have already lost since two Avengers movies would have come out by the time DC gets the first Justice League movie out. It's not a race though. At this point, I don't really see any disadvantage of taking their time.

"The tactics that Marvel uses cannot, and for the sake of the audience, should not be repeated. The last time DC tried to copy Marvel what we got was a shit film with no set tone: 'Green Lantern.'"

Green Lantern was just an awful movie. The Marvel approach of starting off a solo franchise and planting the seeds of a larger universe didn't cause them to write a terrible script.

Also, this isn't that far from a Marvel strategy since Iron Man 2 (the sequel to the movie that kicked off the MCU) featured Black Widow. Obviously, there's a big difference in the prominence of the characters, but if Green Lantern was copying the basic approach of starting the MCU, introducing another Justice League member in the Man of Steel sequel is taking a page from how they expanded the MCU.

"I have no idea what you said, or what your point is"

It was kind of a mess of a sentence. I'll break it down.

- Man of Steel's marketing emphasized the fact that Christopher Nolan was the producer

- They did this in order to capitalize on the respect Nolan has as a filmmaker and associate Man of Steel with the Dark Knight Trilogy

- Man of Steel also takes a very serious tone and places the character in a world that feels similar to Nolan's Batman world

- Given all this, if people are as "stupid" as you say, it's safe to assume that many think of Man of Steel as the Nolan-verse Superman movie.

- If the "stupid" people do have this association between Man of Steel and Christopher Nolan's DC world, introducing Batman into this world through the Superman sequel would leave room for ambiguity about if this is just a different actor playing the Bale version of the character (like what Kilmer was to Keaton).

"rebooting him in the MoS sequel will allow the writers to point out and highlight the differences in character firmly and definitively "

I don't see how rebooting him within the sequel allows them to highlight the differences better than if they had an entire movie focused specifically on this character. Anything you can do in a Man of Steel sequel to show this is a new Bruce Wayne, you can do in a Batman reboot. Without the split in focus, you can spend more time on Bruce, his supporting cast, and his world.

@Soto, "Sorry but that would be lame to spend another 150-200 million on a Batman reboot, when you can just spend 150-200 million on having Batman & Superman in one movie."

So we're all about penny-pinching now? Heck. By that logic, why not just skip to Justice League? I thought we all just wanted to see good movies. Silly me for hoping I could get a good Batman movie AND a good World's Finest movie.


"Your jumping the gun on negative criticisms like I said since you know nothing."

Please point out how I've jumped the gun.

"I don't believe Man of Steel laid a great foundation for this movie"

Opinion based on where the first movie left things.

"I'm curious to see how they will make this new Batman work."

Not really making any assessment of how they will do this.

"The film versions of these characters have no history with each other right now"

Pretty safe assumption, unless we're jumping ahead several years or Clark and Bruce have some history prior to Clark becoming Superman.

"I hope for their first meeting they steer it more towards an uneasy partnership in which their personalities clash and they butt heads a lot before earning each other's respect."

Expressing belief in the possibility that this is the filmmaker's intent and that I would be please with this direction.

MrCritic

"DC daring to put out ANOTHER origin tale, for a superhero that everyone already knows the origins of WOULD be both forced and repetitive, and would deserve every ounce of cynicism it got."

I never said they should do another Batman origin movie.

"you only prove my points further when you even contradict yourself"

I don't see how I'm proving your points or contradicting myself. You were the one saying they should avoid Marvel strategy. I pointed out how this isn't far from Marvel strategy in a way. That doesn't negate any of the issues I have with using this movie as Batman's intro.

"this means that introducing Batman in the sequel, will allow for clarification." I wasn't arguing that it could not be made clear that this is a new version of Batman. I was arguing against your statement that introducing Batman within a Superman movie is an easier way of communicating to audiences that this is a new version of the character than a Batman reboot.

"I meant differences like Style and tone of the character (such as the gadgets used, detective skills, tone of voice, speech patterns). People will recognize the change in tone from TDK trilogy and realize that the character has been rebooted"

I don't dispute that this could be done in a Superman movie. I do however believe all of this and more could be done in a NON-ORIGIN reboot. People just always assume rebooting means doing the origin again. Look at The Incredible Hulk. You could argue that it didn't make very much money, but it was following up a flop, so it had to fight against the world's perception of what a Hulk movie was like. A Batman reboot has the benefit of carrying on the legacy of a successful franchise. People enjoy Batman movies. If the movie looked good, they'd see it even with a new actor as Batman. Batman Forever turned out to be pretty bad, but it made even more money than Batman Returns. The world continues to watch James Bond movies through actor transitions and style changes.

Everyone realizes that WB was working on this movie back in 2002 right? Originally they planed to release this in 2004. So we are all applauding them for taking 11 years to give us this movie?

WB, FYH!

Thanks for reading and commenting, RobGrizzly! To add to that, crossovers are usually the convergence of two stories. This Batman story hasn't even started so there's not really that excitement of wondering what meeting Clark will mean to Bruce's story.

@MrCritic115, I didn't say all crossover have to have a lead up like Avengers. What I mean is that usually, when there is a crossover, there is something you can look to from both as the backstory of that character.

@gmoney0505, As I told MrCritic, a reboot doesn't have to be an origin story.(As a side note, the origin story should be done again once enough time has passed. 20 years maybe)

@Forthas, While there were already stand alone Batman films, we have not been introduced to THIS version of the character. Whether or not there is a stand alone movie to do it, the character is getting rebooted. I understand that it can work without introducing the new actor in a stand alone movie. However, wouldn't you be more excited for the crossover if you were watching Cavill interact with a Batman actor who you already had some attachment to? Wouldn't the experience of watching the characters meet and interact be more fulfilling?

Maybe I was unclear with what I was saying about Batman fitting into the world of Superman. I'm saying the ideal Batman for a DC Cinematic Universe has abilities closer to what we saw from Captain America in The Avengers. Showing that kind of thing feels more natural in a world that doesn't feel as grounded/serious as what we saw in MoS. Obviously, MoS has heavy sci-fi elements with the Kryptonians, but it places them in a world that is supposed to feel very natural aside from the alien element. When the world of a film is presented more stylistically, its easier to get on board with a human doing things that push the limits of what is believably possible.

To address your question, Arkham's Batman doesn't really do anything super different from Nolan's Batman. It's just clear that he's physically better all-around (stronger, faster, more agile, better at fighting). Playing those games, the feel of the character is almost super-human. I believe the Batman we need for this universe needs to have that feel when we watch him. So impressive, it's borderline ridiculous.

"The Christian Bale Batman is a known quantity. It is like when I watched Batman Forever for the first time. It was a distraction looking at a new Batman and took away from the movie and I found myself comparing the new actor the the previous one."

Isn't that how it will be when you watch the new Batman in this movie? You're transitioning either way. With the transition from Keaton to Kilmer, I'd say it was odd partially because you had a new Batman in the same world hanging out with the same Alfred. You say your answer to my questions is no, but your explanation seems more to be an answer to the question "Would you enjoy seeing a Batman reboot with a new actor?"

Any way you do it, there's some difficulty of transition. However, in the current situation, they're inserting a new actor into a world that feels somewhat Nolan-like, which will probably enhance the feeling that we should be watching Christian Bale. If he's in Metropolis the whole time, the unseen Gotham most of us will imagine while watching this movie will be the Nolan Gotham with Michael Caine waiting in the mansion as Alfred and Gary Oldman in the police department as Gordon.

In the situation of a reboot (in which we jump to the middle of Batman's career) we get to see the new actor play a different kind of Bruce/Batman in a Gotham that looks/feels different surrounded by a supporting cast playing significantly different interpretations of familiar characters (grisly, white-haired Gordon; skinny, mustached, prim and proper Alfred). If Bruce is in a world that feels completely different, there's less of a feeling that Christian Bale should be playing the character because he would feel out of place.

Right now we don't know if we will see Gotham or any of the Batman supporting cast. Hopefully we will, but since this is a Man of Steel follow-up I'm inclined to suspect that we're going to lean more heavily into Superman's world.

I'm not saying you power up Batman so he can fight Superman. (A Batman/Superman fight is kind of dumb if you ask me.) You power him up so when you go into crazy, world threatening situations, Batman doesn't feel out of place in the action. Cap was powered up to the point where he could fight by Thor's side and not look pathetic by comparison. That's what I want for Batman. Nothing ridiculous.

I don't think Superman Returns fits this situation either. That skipped past the origin when the Superman origin story hadn't been depicted on screen for about 28 years. A whole generation of people hadn't connected with a film version of the character through that story. (you'd be surprised how many people don't know who Kal-el is) They also tried to make it a semi-sequel to the Donner films, so it was really playing to a niche audience.

A Batman reboot would have the benefit of a successful origin movie that has come out relatively recently, so the audience has seen that story and has enough of an entry point. Like The Incredible Hulk and Burton's first Batman, you can touch on the origin without spending much time on it. From there, it's just about telling a good story. People can always jump on board a new James Bond movie with the basic knowledge that he's a secret agent. I see no reason why it would be difficult for people to jump into a new Batman story with a basic understanding of his backstory.

I'm not saying an ordinary person can't fight aliens.
With Avengers, Cap was one of 3 heroes on a significantly lower power tier. That's half the team. With JL, most likely Batman will be the only non-powered hero. When you've got Superman, The Flash, Wonder Woman, and Green Lantern kicking the @sses of a bunch of aliens or whatever, Batman is going to look kind of lame if he's struggling to defeat a few. Somehow, when I watch Justice League/Unlimited, Batman never feels like a weak link. He's good enough that he feels like he deserves to be on a team with super powered heroes. The new Batman doesn't necessarily have to be exactly like Cap, but he should seem extraordinary. Maybe even just amazingly skilled and graceful.

For now, I'll drop the Batman abilities argument, because it's really the least important thing here.

"So you admit the audience needs to connect to the character in order to accept them?"

I've never argued against that! I'm saying that throwing a new Batman into a team-up with Superman will make it difficult to accept the character because the audience has not had a chance to connect with him prior to this movie.

"they cannot rely on the just finished origin story because as you keep stating this is a different Batman."

Once again, I really don't understand how you believe a Batman/Superman movie makes this less of an issue than a Batman reboot. If anything, the split in focus and possible allegiance to Cavill's Superman, the character/actor we've seen already, will make it more difficult for the audience to connect to Batman.

You keep speaking as if an origin story is the only way to connect to a character. Origin movies do provide the best opportunity to introduce a character and have the audience connect to and understand him. However, context is very important. You need to tell the audience a story that feels new and worthwhile. Coming off of Nolan's triolgy, very few people would be excited to see a Begins/Year One type Batman movie. However, if you present a new Batman adventure with a story that seems like something the audience hasn't seen yet, people will be interested. So while a reboot cannot rely on the origin story of Batman Begins in the sense that it still needs to figure out its own way to get the audience to connect to the character, it can rely on Begins in the sense that the movie told the origin story already so the audience no longer has a desire/need to see that extensively explored. Lots of franchise starters begin once the character is established in what they're doing (Raiders of The Lost Ark, Dr. No, Batman (1989), Blade, Mission Impossible) It's perfectly possible to give a character an interesting narrative arc even if it's not the beginning of his career.

Even if you don't think you would be ready for/interested in a Batman reboot, imagine that it came out and you loved it. How can you argue that you would not then be more excited and fulfilled by a Batman/Superman movie that was released after you'd had a chance to connect with both characters and form an attachment to the actors playing them?