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.
No comments:
Post a Comment