Batman vs Superman vs My Wary Expectations

Slated for a summer 2016 (originally 2015) release, Batman vs Superman, or Superman vs Batman, or Man of Steel 2: Oh Cool, Batman's Here Too (title unconfirmed) is shaping up to be the biggest superhero movie since the Avenger's assembled two years ago (Age of Ultron not withstanding). With the majority of the main cast (the ones still alive), and director and now co-writer Zack Snyder returning, as well as superhero movie powerhouse Christopher Nolan executive-producing, excitement and expectations are high.

I was initially surprised that Man of Steel (2013) was receiving a sequel. The summer blockbuster was (comparatively) one of the least well received superhero/comic book movies since the boom of the genre in the mid 00's. Even commercially, its almost $670 million dollar box office haul pales in comparison to both its competition (Marvel) and the original 1978 Superman (adjusted for inflation, that version grossed almost $1.5 billion). An argument does exist which points towards the first instalment in any franchise being the least successful; the first Iron Man made less than half ($585 million) the gross of the third ($1.2 billion), Thor: The Dark World (2013) is currently $200 million better off than Thor (2011) , and  Batman Begins (2005, $374 million) is dwarfed by both of its billion dollar sequels. This argument begins to fall down, however, once you look into both the budgets, and critical reception's of those movies when compared to Man of Steel.

This may explain why the sequel will bring in Bruce Wayne/ Batman, a proven box office draw, no matter the quality of the movie he's in. The first big update following the announcement of the sequel was the casting of Ben Affleck as the caped crusader. This casting brought a ton of press to the sequel, as many (myself included) questioned the casting of someone unproven as a character actor to a part so full of character. After a few weeks of buzz, talk once again died down as many realised that no concrete assessment of Affleck's competency for the role could be made until he'd actually done it. Recently, talk started back up as two further casting choices were revealed; namely Jeremy Irons as Bruce Wayne's long suffering butler Alfred, and the surprise choice of Jesse Eisenberg as Superman's human nemesis Lex Luthor. These choices were much better received, probably because Irons is a British actor of similar pedigree to Christopher Nolan's Alfred, Michael Caine, and Eisenberg, though young compared to previous movie Luthors Spacey and Hackman, has built quite a reputation in leading performances, notably The Social Network (2010) and Now You See Me (2013).

It was this recent announcement that led me to thinking about Batman vs Superman (or whatever the final title is) and come to the conclusion that I don't believe, from a critical standpoint at least, will be the Marvel monopoly-busting success that the folks at DC are hoping. I'm not saying it won't make money; as previously noted, the Batman character is a proven draw, but as to whether the movie holds up as a piece of character driven cinema, I'm just not convinced.

If I could sum up my reasoning in one word, it would be 'character'. Namely, the two characters who will lead this film. Firstly, Superman. Personally, though I have very limited knowledge of the comic book back story, I've never put as much stock into the Superman/ Clark Kent character as other comic book superheroes. While his origin story is classically appealing; orphaned and burdened with questions about his past, great power and the resulting great responsibility, there is something about him that has never made him as heroic, inspiring or tragic as I assume he is supposed to be. Where Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark (no matter how wealthy they are) had to use their intellect, work hard, train and educate themselves; where Thor had to prove that he was worthy, Superman is born with his super powers. And what powers they are. In short, Superman is too powerful to ever seem like he's in peril. Man of Steel tried to deal with this by having his body adapt to earth, and then be weak back on Krypton, but this brief moment of peril quickly passes as the ultra-powerful Supes' and Zod decide to battle it out on earth, much to the detriment of every human living in Metropolis and Smallville. With the sequel bringing in Mr Luthor, one would assume Superman's only weakness, Kryptonite, will make an appearance, but with the alien material very difficult to obtain for humans, one has to wonder how much Clarky-boy need worry.

One review of Man of Steel suggested that the film broke no new ground on the Superman character, an I'm inclined to agree. On top of that, it strips the film of one of its best gimmicks, namely Clark Kent's real identity being kept secret from Lois Lane. With nothing new being brought to the character, and what is present not being that compelling, I have to question whether there's much left to say.

It's entirely possible that the addition of Batman will negate some of these issues, but on that matter I have some reservations also. I've already stated that the Batman character is a ripe and fruitful one, as the Nolan trilogy proved, and so I'm wondering whether adding him to a Superman-centred movie will have a negative effect on either, or both characters. In M.O.S. Superman gets the Nolan back-story-driven treatment, and the movie ended up being almost two and a half hours long. Unless this Batman continues the story from The Dark Knight Trilogy, the character will require at least a little development too; development he's not likely to get unless Batman vs Superman is going to be a four-hour epic. Superhero/comic book movies have been getting longer and longer, and one could argue that the extra minutes haven't improved the films in any meaningful way. In fact, I'd suggest that Thor: The Dark World's tighter run-time (1 hour, 52 minutes approx.) benefited the sequel.

It is, of course, possible for BvsS to avoid a longer runtime by not delving so deeply into its comic book characters, but this approach is not without its own risk. One of the main reasons Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy succeeded where previous incarnations of the character were not so successful was because it treated Bruce Wayne as the main character, and Batman as a gimmick. Previous 'Batman's' used the Bruce Wayne side of the character as a tool to assist the Batman side, who took centre stage. This meant audiences were left with essentially a cartoon character gallivanting around Gotham, without much insight into the human mental processes that went into that character motivations and decisions. In the DKT, we get to fully know and understand Bruce Wayne first, after which seeing Batman running around in a costume (especially one sans nipples) makes a little more sense. If BvsS decides not to take a closer look at Bruce Wayne, it runs the risk of turning him into a parody of the character, which will strip at least some of the gravitas of the movie away.

For these reasons, I'm tempering my expectations for the M.O.S. sequel. I'll certainly try to go and see it; just the spectacle of seeing Batman and Superman, two juggernauts of the comic book world, on screen at the same time, interacting and hopefully having a bit of a battle, will provide some enjoyment, even if the film itself falls short. But I won't go into it expecting the ultimate comic book action movie.

So there you have it. I've shared my thoughts, what do you think? Who knows, I could be completely off the mark, Affleck could hit a home run, and the movie could surpass Avengers Assemble. Leave your comments, thoughts and feelings, and as always, a very good day to you, Sir's and Madam's, until we meet again.

May this serve as an apology. I'm sure there aren't that many people who read these tomes of gibberish unless they've stumbled upon them or have a passing curiosity, but to those few who do, I firstly thank you with all the grace I can muster, and secondly apologise effusively for the unforgivable lack of any kind of content on this page. It's not for lack of ideas, believe me.

At least 40% of it is being busy with other commitments, projects, people and such; although in reality that is no excuse, since anyone who calls themselves a writer should be able to knock out a few paragraphs without it biting a major chunk out of their day. I do like to think of myself as a writer, if only because its one of the very few useful 'talents' I possess that doesn't necessarily require a job title or pay check to justify. I've been told I'm funny enough to be a comedian, but if I tell the funniest joke ever in the middle of the woods, and no one is around to laugh or offer me my own sitcom week-nights on BBC 2, am I really a funny person?

I don't know why I'd be telling a joke when I'm in the middle of the woods, even if it is the funniest one ever. Even if I could speak the language of the woodland creatures, surely my first move would be to enquire about the availability of temporary accommodation, not engage in revelry. That would have to wait until we were gathered around the camp fire in the town centre, discussing the finer points of woodland politics while Mr. Fox played a lilting tune on his guitar. 

By the way, and not to defer even further from the subject, but Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) is a brilliant movie. I fully recommend watching it. You should also read the Roald Dahl novel. Do that first in fact. Wes Anderson bring his own beautiful brand of quirky joy to the story, its voiced brilliantly by some A-list talent (including Anderson regular Billy f'n Murray) and who doesn't love an old-fashioned stop motion movie? Both Anderson and Dahl are masters of their respective crafts.

Anyway, the real reason I don't write and post as regularly as I should is a combination of several terrible characteristics that have developed over many years off ill discipline, which in itself is a bad characteristic to have. I'm not the kind of person who can say to himself, "You're going to sit down at your laptop and write for one hour, or however long it takes (or whatever) to do some meaningful work, and nothing is going to distract you, or take precedence over this piece of writing." 

I try to, but my brain answers back, "Why can't I? The internet is right there. Right there. LOOK! Don't try to ignore it, there's plenty other things you could while you're doing this oh so important piece of writing. No, I don't think it'll distract you. Not that much. Just load up Youtube, snap it right, snap the word document left and write away. You clearly think you're the second coming of Shakespeare, it shouldn't be that hard to shit out some paragraphs. I'm sorry, that was mean. You're a good guy. I like when we imagine stuff, like your lecture turning into a huge paint ball battle." By the time I've had that conversation, time's gone and the world's turned.

If that wasn't enough, I also hate planning, and rely way too much on inspiration and sudden jolts of creativity to come up with ideas. I'd love to be the kind of person who can draw up detailed plans and frameworks for pieces of writing, but the most I can call up is a hastily scrawled note on whatever scrap of paper is nearby, a note which barely makes sense and is more often than not illegible.

My third, but most likely not final, reason for not being any good at being a blogger is quite simple procrastination. This is a word that pervades many areas of my life. I seem incapable of writing, or even starting essay more than 36 hours before the essay deadline, and even then I won't be able to finish until there is, at most, half an hour to go. I guess this links back to the distraction thing, but I seem to be in possession of a sickening lack of focus. I have things I want to do, sometimes more than anything, but my mind is constantly going "Look at that! Never mind! Hey, you think people would keep bumblebees as pets if they were bigger? They're fluffy, and they don't really want to hurt you. You could ride it around town. By the way, you need to go to town later, we're out of bread. Who says 'go to town' any more? I guess people just say 'going shopping' nowadays. Hey, what were you meant to be doing?"

In short, I'm a kinda hazy guy! Sorry, bad joke. Won't be telling that one in the woods. Regardless, I hope this serves as some kind of apology for the big load of nothing I've produced since December. I've said it before and I'll most likely say it again, but I'll try to be more regular in the future. For what that declaration is worth. And seriously, watch and read Fantastic Mr. Fox. And everything Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson make. Roald Dahl has sadly passed away but Anderson's next movie , The Grand Budapest Hotel, comes out in March I think.

As always, a very good day to you, Sir's and Madam's, until we meet again.