Why 'Man of Steel' is Going to be a Huge Mistake for Warner Brothers

Why ‘Man of Steel’ is Going to be a Huge Mistake for Warner Brothers

SupesEditAs of the time of this writing it is still January, 2013 and all we have seen from Zack Snyder’s Superman film is a couple of teasers and a couple of posters. Why then, you ponder, am I already dismissing the film as a misstep from the Brothers Warner?

I am ready to cast off hopeful anticipation of this film because yesterday the final nail in the coffin was resoundingly hammered in. David S. Goyer spoke to Empire Magazine and had this to say:

“We’re approaching Superman as if it weren’t a comic book movie as if it were real…  I adore the Donner films. Absolutely adore them. It just struck me that there was an idealist quality to them that may or may not work with today’s audience. It just struck me that if Superman really existed in the world, first of all this story would be a story about first contact. He’s an alien. You can easily imagine a scenario in which we’d be doing a film like E.T., as opposed to him running around in tights. If the world found out he existed, it would be the biggest thing that ever happened in human history.”

Soak that in boys and girls, the most iconic comic book character of all time is going to be presented (once again) as if he were not a comic book character starring in a comic book movie.

Of course there was an idealistic quality to the Donner films, that is like saying there is a tragic quality to ANY Batman film. Superman exists on the polar opposite end of the spectrum from Batman, and it is that balance of light and dark that makes the whole damn DC universe make sense.

If the Marvel universe is about real people thrust into extraordinary circumstances, than the DC universe is about Gods inhabiting the world of men. What makes DC characters work together despite the vast inequity of power from hero to hero to regular man is the moral barometer of the universe. On one end you have Batman who represents the deepest, darkest, most tragic corners of a hero’s psyche. He is the line where good starts to become grey and move towards evil.

Way on the other end you have Superman, who represents Truth, Justice, and the American Way. That means something, even if that meaning has moved away from the blind patriotism of its original intent. The credo of Superman represents all of the most pure ideals that the every man,  no matter where you come from, no matter what your history, can make an impact on the world.

What does this comic book over-analyzation have to do with the singular Man of Steel movie that features no DC Superhero except Superman? Unfortunately everything.  Man of Steel is the seed from which all of the future DC ‘shared universe’ films must grow. Even if the plan is to start 100% fresh in three years, the aftertaste of Superman is going to dictate much of how Justice League will turn out.

Since getting into the game, Marvel Studios has been turning the old school comic book film-making philosophy on its head. Showcasing that the world will embrace a film that does not shy away from its comic book roots. That ‘all in’ comic book style story telling has ushered in a whole new age for event cinema. The once taboo concept of a shared universe that requires people to see multiple, seemingly unrelated, films to understand the full tapestry is now the hottest Hollywood trend.

Warner Bros. was perfectly set up to capitalize on this new level of audience sophistication. WB owns Marvel’s rival DC and has more than enough iconic characters to compete at every step. Warner’s also had the added benefit of maintaining ownership of all of its character’s film rights. Once Nolan’s Batman trilogy was in the can, the sky was the limit for what DC could bring to the bad-ass table.

That was when things starting going horribly wrong. Much like in the late ’90s, Warner Bros. got cold feet with their most iconic character. Would people except an indestructible boy scout in a world where violence and darkness is increasingly popular? The answer is yes, one thousand times yes, but alas both times WB answered no.

Back then, in the attempt to make a Superman that people will accept, Warner’s tried to give the director of a dark, but popular, Batman movie the reigns to Superman. Everyone agrees that was a terrible move. Now faced with the same choice, WB has made the same mistake again.

Even though Christopher Nolan is not directing Man of Steel, the film will have a distinct Nolan edge. The character will be brooding, spend much of his time not being a superhero, and ultimately end up a shallow husk of his comic book counterpart. The Nolan approach worked for Batman because of where the Dark Knight sits on the super hero spectrum, the same style will not work on the polar opposite.

Ultimately this would not matter as much if Man of Steel was a tangent on the character, an elseworlds variant on the story that exists in a vacuum. But we all know this is not meant to be a one-off. This film is supposed to be the lynch pin in the entire cinematic DC universe for at least the next decade. If you start on a weak foundation, the whole thing will crumble into a depressing mess.

I am not upset because Man of Steel might suck, I am upset because Man of Steel might only be the tip of the suck iceberg.

Every risk Marvel took, every pre-convinced Hollywood notion they broke down, laid the groundwork a generation of fans to enjoy quality comic book cinema for the next decade. DC has seen this new path of success and decided to give it another go down the same sad road they already tried.

We are going to make it more real, because that worked for Batman and you nerds love Batman’ – Fictional WB exec whom I made up, but probably really exists.

Every frame of Man of Steel reeks of that fictional quote, and it is a shame. The most iconic comic book character of all time once again finds himself unable to star in a film that respects his fans or his origins.

I hope I am dead wrong, I hope Zack Snyder knocks it out of the park. I just can’t see it right now, what we are getting reminds me of the age old adage: Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Let us know what you think about the direction the upcoming Superman film is taking. We would love to hear how right (or more likely how wrong) you think I am on twitter, @TheFlickcast, or in the reply section below!

  • Frankie
    April 17, 2013 at 8:18 am

    In fact, I’m kind-of wondering what kind of Superman movie you DO want to see. Let’s examine the last trailer.

    1) Well, his planet blows up. Uh… yeah. That’s how the story goes.

    2) He finds out he’s an alien. There’s anger and confusion. But if you remember in the first movie, Clark talks to Jonathan about how he’s tired of hiding his powers and he wants to smack the school bully. Then… yeah… Pa Kent dies. Just out of the blue. “All these things I can do, all these powers… and I couldn’t even save him.” Heck, even in the ’50s TV show, there was some moping about “why am I different from everyone else?” in the origin episode.

    3) Clark hitchhikes and finds himself working on an oil rig, and a commercial fishing boat. But how is this any worse than the scene in Birthright where he’s covering stories in Africa and things go awry there? I mean, it’s not my favorite version of the origin, but many people would disagree with me.

    4) General Zod is angry at Jor-El, and wants to take Kal-El back when he finds out about him on Earth. This is… more-or-less what happened in Superman II. No, I’m sorry: in Superman II, it was a standard revenge scheme and he just wanted to kill him.

    5) Finally, the military takes him in. Not only has this idea of the military not trusting Superman been creeping in since the ’90s (especially after Sam Lane was reintroduced) but in some of Siegel & Shuster’s early stories, Superman WAS chased by the police.

    In fact, since you insist on defining him in terms of “he’s different from Batman” I love pointing out that Batman had a code against killing first. He used to go around with a gun, blah blah blah, but when they introduced Robin, they decided that wasn’t so Kosher, and Superman later followed suit, as he’d killed a few bad guys here and there.

    Heck, the whole “Batman kills Two-Face and goes into hiding” actually mirrors the end of The Supergirl Saga where Superman kills Zod and, well, feels guilty and goes into exile.

    I’m just saying, calling this movie “too dark for Superman” is like telling the Beatles they can’t record an album like Revolver or the White Album.

  • Frankie
    April 17, 2013 at 8:04 am

    As a Superman fan, this is a LOAD of crap.

    1) The idea of Superman & Batman as this “spectrum” is an invention of the ’80s and it hurt Superman. And it hurt Superman because everyone takes that it means a Superman movie has to be a friggin’ Full House marathon (besides, as far as anti-heroes go, Batman’s not exactly the most ruthless anyway).

    2) Did you not SEE the latest trailer? There’s still an “idealistic quality.” Maybe you missed the “you will give the people an ideal to strive for,” line.

    3) Meanwhile, you’ve FAILED to point out ANYTHING the guy does fails to represent “truth, justice and the American way.” You DO remember that in the last movie, he knocked up his chick and didn’t know cuz he was dicking around in space for five years. Yeah. That’s not Superman. I’ll let you know if he does anything like that in Man of Steel, I’ll let you know. But you sound upset that as a teenager, he was upset to learn he was an alien.

    Again, you bloated “fans” are the opposite side of the coin that the haters occupy. You guys view Superman only in terms of what he’s supposed to represent compared to other superheroes. Batman represents darkness, so Superman can’t be in a “dark” movie (and if this is your idea of “dark,” TDK must have been like a slasher movie for you) and because Marvel’s bread & butter is that their characters are everyday people, that can’t be true of Superman, EVEN THOUGH the whole point of Clark Kent is that he’s this nebbish who’s secretly a superhero.

    You said you hope you’re dead wrong.

    Good news: you are.

  • John A.
    February 1, 2013 at 11:08 am

    The trouble is that many Superman fans want a “Superman-Begins” type of movie. I personally would think that it would be optimal in some ways to not do an origin again. HOWEVER, I would say that there is plenty of material to borrow from to make this the strongest origin.

    I think the film will eventually make him the hero we know and love, but it’s about the journey getting there. Sure he might not smile a lot, but KalEl from Superman TAS didn’t either. The emphasis on realism hasn’t really been explored in film since the Fleischer cartoons (with rotoscoping and believable physics involved. Everything had weight, people moved realistically etc. In many ways, I think that it’s the best Superman adaptation, even if a bit simplistic.)

    While I’ll admit that Batman was diluted for a general audience, I don’t think Superman needs to be, simply because he isn’t as dark and potentially unappealing (they made him less disturbing than Frank Miller Batman, and more emotional than most comic versions). It all comes down to if Goyer respects the source material, and if Zack can restrain his overblown tendencies. Say what you want about Nolan, but he knows how to tell a story, even if his adaptations go against the character of Batman at times.

    But have you seen anything unheroic about Clark in the trailer? He saved the kids on the bus. He saved a kid from a tornado. He’s fighting his Kryptonian opponents tooth and nail. He’s been willing to sacrifice his reputation to earn trust from the government because he cares about humanity. He appears to be flying near a ship that could demolish him. Sure there has been a bit of broodiness on pre-supes Clark, but pretty much all he’s done so far has been out of self-sacrifice and compassion. That’s who Superman is, someone who chooses to care about people who are weaker and more flawed than himself.

    I am cautiously optimistic about Man of Steel. When Nolan barred all superpowers from appearing in his Batman trilogy, elements that make the comics so spectacular were removed. This time around, the superpowered elements will still be here, but in a way that impacts a world not unlike ours. Therefore, it will feel MORE spectacular because it doesn’t feel like a “normal” superhero movie.

    That being said, if the Nolan influence forces Supes to retire or act out of character, I will be mad.

  • hopefuldreamer
    February 1, 2013 at 5:28 am

    May I suggest the writer of this article actually has a look at the many other interviews with Goyer, Nolan and various others concerning the film, in which it is quite clear they are not handling Superman in the same way they did Batman.

    For example: “I mean, I’m happy that the movie is coming out this summer, because I think it’s the kind of movie that the world needs right now. He’s an unabashed hero.” – David Goyer

    It’s a bit silly to make such sweeping statements based on a personal interpretation of one tidbit of information, without considering any of the other facts.

  • James Long
    February 1, 2013 at 12:07 am

    I don’t think that saying the Marvel films lack substance is an indictment of comic book storytelling and I don’t think that it labels the Marvel films as bad movies either.

    I love The Avengers and Iron Man. I’d put Thor up there too as one of my favorites. But, they left me wanting more. I wanted more from the characters. I feel like all the different versions and interpretations in the comic books themselves offer more in terms of character exploration than what I see in the Marvel movies.

    What I see in them too often feels similar to a caricature. Case in point is Thor. Despite the fact that the movie is supposed to be about Thor maturing as a person, it doesn’t really happen. His time on Earth is often bogged down by moments of comedy, leaving little room for character development. And Thor’s moment of redemption ends up being watered down in emotionless melodrama. This doesn’t mean Thor is a bad movie, as I said already, it is one of my favorite comic book movies.

    What I want to see is the same as if a new writer and/or artist were brought on board a comic book series. I want to see their interpretation of the character from the comics, an interpretation that has no limits. For me, I’d put parts of Batman: TAS in this area, number one on the list that being Mr. Freeze.

    I think that is also why I really love RDJ’s take on Tony Stark/Iron Man, but again my problem is that I feel like he is being limited in that role from greater potential. That is why I mentioned Iron Man 2 and the Demon in the Bottle storyline. Iron Man 2 disappointed me the most because I saw the potential in that film the most, but the film was bloated with way too much. Look at how rushed War Machine was…

    The thing I love about Nolan’s Batman trilogy is that they went with their own interpretations of the characters based off the source material, and they allowed time for those characters to develop. Look at The Dark Knight; the strength of that film is the evolution of The Joker, Bruce, and Harvey Dent. Dent being the most important as he is essentially the heart and soul of the film. For me, there has never been a more powerful scene in a comic book film than that final confrontation with Dent. I think it is the best interpretation of Dent/Two-Face yet.

    My biggest problem for all movies in general is when people try to justify limitations because of a perception of a genre or type of movie it is. I believe there can be a best of both worlds, and when you have that, a movie does transcend a genre. And that doesn’t mean that the genre was bad or it needed to be transcended, it just showed that a movie of that genre can be considered not just great among its peers, but great among all films in general.

    That is what I see in movies like Comic Book: The Dark Knight, Sci-Fi: The Empire Strikes Back, Horror: Silence of the Lambs, and Gangster: The Godfather. And that is what I want to see in Man of Steel.

    • Jonathan 'WallE' Weilbaecher
      February 1, 2013 at 12:25 am

      I am going to reply in full later, when I can nerd out and point by point take you one… but right now I wanted to say you rock! I disagree with a lot of what you said, but only because of interpretation.

      Thank you for validating my writing of this article because even on this one to one interaction, it spawned this awesome conversation and one that comes for an honest place on both sides.

      Tomorrow (when I am less tired) I will give you a, probably unhealthily long, rebuttal. But now I cheers you because (unlike some I have encountered since writing this article) your perspective is honest… no matter how misguided I think it may be 😉

  • jonboy
    January 31, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    I’m sorry to tell you this, but comic books really don’t have much substance. This is the reason why movies about comic book characters aren’t truly thought-provoking and meaningful unless they strive to be more than a straightforward adaptation of the source material. The only thing that becomes clear to me in your article is that you are a fanboy of Marvel comics and much prefer the escapist nature of popcorn movies over cinema with substance (i.e. films that actually make you think, or provoke emotions besides giddiness and nerdgasms). Yeah, that’s what the traditional comicbook movie is, just pure escapism; but a good chunk of the population is tired of seeing the same crap over and over again, so sometimes change, even if controversial, is welcome.

    The little elitist “subculture” of comicbook geekery you are so proud to be a part of is little more than a group of overly-vocal, stubborn man-children who refuse to grow up and accept the world as it is. Instead, they like to shelter themselves in the fantasy worlds of their comic-book pages. This is all you and your kin have left, so you feel the need to defend the “sanctity” of the comic-book gods and their faithful adaptations to the big-screen. Let’s face it you are ultimately afraid of change, of facing reality, and the stark consequences lying beyond your front door.

    • Jonathan 'WallE' Weilbaecher
      February 1, 2013 at 12:13 am

      “I’m sorry to tell you this, but comic books really don’t have much substance.”
      -Every Film Exec who held their post before the 21st century

      Lemme guess, you don’t think video games can be art either.

      Seriously though, if you don’t think a comic book story can have substance with out being filtered through the mind of some visionary ‘artiste’ you missed the boat on an entire art form. There is nothing I can say in a comment reply box on the internet to fix the clouded, elitist mindset you are probably very proud of.

      You don’t ‘get’ comic book story telling… that is fine, minimalize it if you want. It doesn’t change the fact that super hero stories are not devoid of artistic merit, and the films based on them don’t need to compromise in order to be examples of quality film-making.

      • jonboy
        February 1, 2013 at 1:11 am

        There’s nothing to “get” really. Perhaps that was an over-generalization on my part.. MOST comic books lack substance. I am sure there is the odd “comic” that does push the boundaries and actually stimulate thought. Same with video games (don’t purport to know what I’m thinking by the way), most popular video-games are simply mindless entertainment while the rare videogame actually dares to make the player think. Most comics, like the ones you refer to, are full of empty story-lines.. the same straight-forward formulaic tales. Perhaps I’ll sum it up in one phrase: “style over substance”. That seems to be what you’re all about. If wanting some substance in my arts/entertainment makes me an elitist, then yes, I’m proud of it.

  • Spamgristle
    January 31, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    I’m not sure I can understand this article’s perspective: “Even though Christopher Nolan is not directing Man of Steel, the film will have a distinct Nolan edge. The character will be brooding, spend much of his time not being a superhero, and ultimately end up a shallow husk of his comic book counterpart.” Where in the heck is he getting that idea? From what I can tell, the Man of Steel isn’t portraying Superman differently. The movie is portraying the REST OF THE WORLD differently. Instead of unthinking acceptance, the world will initially perceive him as a threat. Presumably, the contrast between Superman’s motives and the world’s suspicion will make his nobility even more acute.

    • Jonathan Weilbaecher
      January 31, 2013 at 1:40 pm

      The movie is absolutely portraying Superman differently… Superman was who he was because of his upbringing. It was simple, and kinda corny, but the farm boy naivete mixed in with the parenting of Ma and Pa Kent were what made Superman who he was.

      The film is clearly going to have a Superman who leaves the farm to ‘find himself’ before he goes to Metropolis… that isn’t Superman… that is actually 100% Batman. Hence my point.

      • jonboy
        January 31, 2013 at 11:33 pm

        And what a great story that would be… one void of all consequence and conflict. Without a struggle how is the heroe’s journey to be taken seriously? It’s pretty clear that you want the same “threat” used in every mundane comic book movie ever made… “oh no the new baddie in town is threatening to destroy/enslave the world.. heroes to the rescue… roll credits”. I for one am glad we aren’t getting the same old Superman story you seem to want ad nauseum, just so you can have your nerdgasm in the theaters seeing a live-action “cartoon”.

      • Jonathan 'WallE' Weilbaecher
        January 31, 2013 at 11:50 pm

        The best Superman stories are ones where the struggle is not internal on the part of Kal-El… but external on the part of his challenges.

        He is a god, you can either make him human or give him a larger than life foe that challenges his power. We finally exist in a time where the latter story can be told well on film, and once again we are getting the former

      • Jonathan 'WallE' Weilbaecher
        January 31, 2013 at 11:53 pm

        Also, there has not been a Superman film like the one I crave… and the notion that a film can not have a core of unfaltering idealism without being being minimalized as ‘mundane’ or tossed off as a ‘cartoon’ shows more narrow view than any of my ‘fanboy-isms’

      • LunarMoon
        February 2, 2013 at 3:38 pm

        A Superman who travels around the world to find himself is Superman. More specifically, it’s Superman from his comic book origin in Superman: Birthright.

      • Frankie
        April 17, 2013 at 9:04 am

        Oh, then you should also be upset at Superman: the Movie. Superman wasn’t who he was because of his upbringing, but because Jor-El preprogrammed a bunch of stuff, he went in there and meditated, on Jor-El’s holograms.

        Also, you seem to have forgotten that in Man of Steel, the miniseries, he doesn’t just waltz into town right after he graduates from high school, with his cape on his back, publicly rescuing people. Nope. At first, he’s doing his mighty deeds in secret, as the trailer alludes to.

  • Stephen Mitchell
    January 31, 2013 at 5:56 am

    I can understand your apprehension but I feel that you’ll be wrong. While some of the movie may be spent with Kal-El seemingly ‘brooding’, I don’t necessarily feel that will be the overall theme of the movie. If you’re reading today’s comics you’ll know that Kal-El feels ‘alone’ in this world because there’s no one for him to relate to. If the movie follows that line where he starts to cut himself off from people and becomes a loner, I’m okay with that.

    But let’s put some pieces together. We have young Clark on the farm with Ma and Pa Kent where he learns his values. We’ve seen scenes of Clark wandering about, with no place to call home, working a fishing boat. Then we get him within the halls of the fortress of solitude, we see him don the cape and almost smile as the sun shines down upon him. Then he flies. We know there is more than one villain in this movie which will require a lot of action and action means danger and danger usually has some dark overtones. I think, in the end, we’ll see the beacon of light and symbol of hope that Superman is. This movie will be about the journey that delivers that hero to us. This Superman can have a realistic vibe to it and still have the character remain optimistic that a brighter day is just around the corner.

    If he remained a dark and brooding character, why in the world would he even put on the suit to save people? He certainly doesn’t need the suit to defend himself from these villains if that’s all he cares about. This movie will show us that he cares about all of mankind, he will discover that he can make a difference. This movie will be about the creation of the world’s greatest hero as well as how he will be perceived by mankind as the world’s first alien. It will be a journey from seclusion to finding his place in the sun. I have a hard time believing it’ll be anything but awesome.

  • Ciaran Rabbitte
    January 30, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    “Am I right? Am I wrong? I do wanna know what you guys think!”

    Honestly, You are wrong. A different direction is exactly what the superman films need. We can expect a solid story from goyer, amazing visual scenes straight from the mind of snyder and just to oversee that that whole things goes swimmingly, Mr. Nolan is there. If Nolan says what snyder has done is extraordinary, I will take his word for it. Everyone entitled to their own opinion clearly, but I expect once the film comes out…you will be proven extremely wrong (which i am sure is what u want).

    • Jonathan Weilbaecher
      January 30, 2013 at 11:44 pm

      Nothing would be happier than writing the article “Why My Dismissal of ‘Man of Steel’ Was a Huge Mistake”

      Nolan also thought it would be a good idea to make the longest Batman movie ever and only feature actual Batman for three extended sequences.

      I actually think the film on its own will probably be OK, but this film does not exist in a vacuum. The bar this film sets it going to be important for all of the DC films moving forward.

      • James Long
        January 31, 2013 at 9:27 pm

        The thing that bugs me the most about this reply is that you pointed out the amount of time Bruce was in costume. I always think that such a thought is very close minded when it comes to the character of Batman. For me, Bruce is Batman, whether he is in costume or not.

        And also, I think the last thing that DC should be doing is going down the path that Marvel is. That is why I don’t even want to hear about a Justice League movie until I’ve seen a Wonder Woman movie and a Flash movie. Marvel can have their fun action movies, but with DC I’d like to see something that has more substance.

        Movies that embrace their genre can be fine, but I really enjoy it when movies try to transcend their genre.

        I’d love to see Marvel try a complete serious take on the Demon in a Bottle storyline for Iron Man, instead of the half assed knock off take they tried in Iron Man 2, which made for a bad movie.

      • Jonathan 'WallE' Weilbaecher
        January 31, 2013 at 9:47 pm

        The Batman presented in The Dark Knight Rises is FAR from the Batman I have enjoyed in the many forms of entertainment he has appeared. I think The Dark Knight Rises is a good film, but it is a horrible Batman film.

        Gong back to The Dark Knight, I said at the time TDK was a masterpiece, but Iron Man was a much more important comic book film, because it proved the concept of a comic book film didn’t need to be forced through the lens of another genre to work on the big screen.

        Saying the Marvel films lack substance is saying comic books lack substance. A story does not have to be The Killing Joke to be profound or moving. Iron Man and The Avengers (the gold standard for Marvel’s films) both illustrated that a comic book movie can be very good if it is just a comic book movie.

        I think as a comic book fan I feel apprehension for Man of Steel because ‘make it more real’ and ‘give it more substance’ have long been the rallying cry of the people who don’t respect the story telling in comic books.

        Also you can’t really transcend your genre if you never embrace it in the first place. The comic book film is young in the grand scheme of things, and it was only with the recent Marvel Studios shared universe that the genre has really begun to define itself.

        We are not talking one film here, and Man of Steel could be a very good movie… but everything about this movie feels dated and wrong for a world that is finally ready to see a big screen adaptation of the DC universe in all of its glory.

  • Jason Inman
    January 30, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    How about waiting until the movie is released to judge it as a fail rather than judging it off of generalizations based on a vague interview the writer gave?

    • Jonathan 'WallE' Weilbaecher
      January 30, 2013 at 2:56 pm

      It is not based on a single vague interview… the writing has been on the wall from the get go. This film has ‘Nolanized Superman’ written all over it, and if you thought the mild backlash against The Dark Knight Rises was bad, wait to you see how people will react to a neutered ‘real’ Superman.

      This is all just very frustrating as a fan of these characters because WB has continued to show a deep lack of respect for the source material… and if a Nolan approach is going to be the foundation for the Justice League than clearly WB continues to miss the point.

      • Jason Inman
        January 30, 2013 at 3:25 pm

        The writing has been on the wall that it will be an epic fail? Ok. That’s definitely an opinion.
        And the mild backlash against the Dark Knight can plainly be described as very mild since it has an 87% score on Rotten Tomatoes. Avengers has a 92% for comparison.

        I respect your writing, sir. But this editorial/article reads as if it was written by the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, who likes to hate things just for haters sake.

      • Jonathan 'WallE' Weilbaecher
        January 30, 2013 at 3:36 pm

        I am not hating for hating sake… in fact I was one of the few who were ecstatic about Zack Snyder being brought on as Director. Just slowly the news bits and interview quotes started to pile up, and now there is no escaping it… Superman will not be the bright, bombastic, hopeful and iconic character that he needs to be, and that is frustrating.

        Also the backlash I was referring to was more about the fan reaction. The Dark Knight rises was a divisive film among fans, with many, myself included, considering it to be a pretty terrible Batman film (even though it is still a good movie)

  • Jonathan 'WallE' Weilbaecher
    January 30, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    Am I right? Am I wrong? I do wanna know what you guys think!