Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice THREAD

[The_Noble_Cause]

New X-Men sequel is masterful. Def as good as First Class. Could've used one or two more action scenes, but it's great. Prolly the best X film since Part 2.

[RedWingFan]

The new FF reboot ramping up doesn't sound too much better.

True. I have Zero interest in seeing this reboot. For as much as Fox Studios has done right with X-Men, they can't get out of their own way with FF.

[RedWingFan]

New X-Men sequel is masterful. Def as good as First Class. Could've used one or two more action scenes, but it's great. Prolly the best X film since Part 2.

Great to hear. Loved First Class and X2. I'm taking the family to the drive in to see it tomorrow. Now get your ass back to the theater and see The Winter Soldier!

[RedWingFan]

Re: "lots" of characters that can potentially bog down a movie.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (a great movie which everyone here should watch) had plenty of characters that got gobs of screen time. Cap, Black Widow, Falcon, Bucky, Fury. In fact, Fury had a bigger presence in this movie than the others.

Great point. EXCEPT I said, "too many new characters". Cap, Widow, Bucky, and Fury were all pretty much fleshed out in previous movies so we already knew and were invested in them. Falcon was the only new character. That's why the Avengers worked so well. B v S is going to introduce Bat, Ww, luthor at the least and try to get us to give a Damn about them and tell a compelling plot in 2+ hours. Unlikely at best.

We don't know how much of a backstory Luthor is going to get. We don't how large a presence Wonder Woman and Cyborg will each have (I suspect not that much for the latter).

If we get to see them all in action, it may just be that: action, and they'll get exposition later. WB/DC may be trying the reverse-Marvel Studios path. That can work, too.

So say Batman and/or Superman come across WW and they ask her, "Hey, who are you and where did you come from?" So she tells them and the storyline continues. So when do we learn about her, in a crowded Justice League movie or a stand alone WW movie? A stand alone WW movie would have to be an origin story which would make it a prequel, and it'll have to be like that with every character they introduce in JL. Sounds like more of a George Lucas formula than anything.

I know B v S is going to do crazy business when it opens because people want to see them on screen together. I was pretty geeked to see Alien vs. Predator too. I just don't see how what DC is trying to do will ever work. I can see JL doing good enough business that they'll look at doing a direct sequel rather than take a risk on the stand alone character films. JL is the money shot. Avengers was the money shot after the buildup and anticipation of the stand alone films and brilliantly linking them together. DC is going right to the payoff, the stand alones will be letdowns after that.

[YoungJRNY]

Re: "lots" of characters that can potentially bog down a movie.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (a great movie which everyone here should watch) had plenty of characters that got gobs of screen time. Cap, Black Widow, Falcon, Bucky, Fury. In fact, Fury had a bigger presence in this movie than the others.

Great point. EXCEPT I said, "too many new characters". Cap, Widow, Bucky, and Fury were all pretty much fleshed out in previous movies so we already knew and were invested in them. Falcon was the only new character. That's why the Avengers worked so well. B v S is going to introduce Bat, Ww, luthor at the least and try to get us to give a Damn about them and tell a compelling plot in 2+ hours. Unlikely at best.

We don't know how much of a backstory Luthor is going to get. We don't how large a presence Wonder Woman and Cyborg will each have (I suspect not that much for the latter).

If we get to see them all in action, it may just be that: action, and they'll get exposition later. WB/DC may be trying the reverse-Marvel Studios path. That can work, too.

Luthor is going to be the main villain as far as what connects a purpose between the conflict between Superman and Batman and everything else in between is going to determine the fate of that relationship.

As far as Wonder Woman and Cyborg's role, it's already known that Wonder Woman's role is small...it just packs a monumental impact. Cyborg is nothing but a cameo, which could only be a short scene or two to let the audience know this man exists. STAR LABS was referenced and Emil Hamilton was a intricate role in Man of Steel. Cyborg is easy to write as far as cameo's is concerned.

[YoungJRNY]

I know B v S is going to do crazy business when it opens because people want to see them on screen together. I was pretty geeked to see Alien vs. Predator too. I just don't see how what DC is trying to do will ever work. I can see JL doing good enough business that they'll look at doing a direct sequel rather than take a risk on the stand alone character films. JL is the money shot. Avengers was the money shot after the buildup and anticipation of the stand alone films and brilliantly linking them together. DC is going right to the payoff, the stand alones will be letdowns after that.

Gal Gadot is signed on to star as Wonder Woman at the average contract of 3 films: BvS; Justice League and a solo Wonder Woman film. Her role in BvS is small, but it will introduce her as a character that will lead into Justice League where she'll take on a more important role as part of the Trinity (Superman; Batman; Wonder Woman.)

That will lead into a solo Wonder Woman film where they don't necessarily have to do a prequel or origin because #1, she is already going to be an established character in BvS and JL and #2 the audience by then will understand what purpose she serves where she won't need a full blown origin in her solo film because she's already going to be handled in two other films.

Man of Steel was a launching pad for a shared universe. BvS is going to be the launching pad for Justice League and Justice League is going to be the launching pad for well deserved solo franchise's like Flash, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman. The purpose will be served and the model can certainly work backwards from the Marvel model without a shadow of a doubt and it's the approach they're taking.

[verslibre]

New X-Men sequel is masterful. Def as good as First Class. Could've used one or two more action scenes, but it's great. Prolly the best X film since Part 2.

Saw it last night. I think First Class is overall a little better, but I prefer the new cast. Fassbender is a far better Magneto. Jennifer Lawrence is mega-foxy. She wears the Mystique makeup well. Dinklage was great. I also liked that this film wasn't "The Jackman Show."

The big problem was Quicksilver. While that sequence was pretty funny, that superspeed was maybe...too fast? I don't think even Xavier could stop somebody like that if they wanted to fuck things up. He'd have no issue outrunning Sentinels.

A very good movie, but yes, it could've used another action scene.

[verslibre]

I forgot, there was another action scene that involves Rogue, Mag, X and Icicle, and it got cut. The movie's 2hrs, 11, minutes.

[YoungJRNY]

[YoungJRNY]

Strange new photo popping up. Could be the mold to Superman's new suit in BvS. At first I thought it looks like a mold to some kind of memorial statue, maybe sitting downtown in Metropolis Central Park? Not sure. Loving the Alex Ross-esq S-Shield as it is HUGE and smooth. Could be vibrant. Pose could reflect the iconic pose of Superman #1 but as of now, it's a mysterious phot:

[Deb]

Thanks again. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

No problem! I love this stuff. v is very knowledgeable as well. I take his word into high account compared to the bums in the fanboy communities

I am personally having trouble in my head imagining some of the casting, mostly Affleck and Eisenberg. I mean, I can see it, but I hope I'm not sitting there going "oh look - it's Affleck and Eisenberg".

I can see those concerns. Others share them. The casting to this movie was so out of the box that it almost instantly got people intrigued. Once you get past Affleck's early career and Eisenberg's scrawny appearance, I believe they are going to absolutely shine in their roles and I think Affleck is going to surprise a boatload of people.

Affleck's Batman is already shaping up to be something crazy-good. Same with Eisenberg. This is a Lex we've never seen before and his intellect as an actor is sky-high..an academy award winning actor.

Plus, say what you want about Zack Snyder, but the dude is ALWAYS A+ with his casting ACROSS THE BOARD. Snyder adapts alot from the comics and Affleck and Eisenberg look their part:

Any truth to the rumours of Jason Momoa playing either Aquaman or Lobo? LOL whoever the hell they are?!

[YoungJRNY]

Any truth to the rumours of Jason Momoa playing either Aquaman or Lobo? LOL whoever the hell they are?!

Momoa has been in early talks with WB the moment BvS was announced. Many fans speculate either Aquaman as a hero or either Doomsday or Lobo as a villain. WB, for many years, have been trying to lift a solo-Lobo film off its roots so it's a character they've toyed with before.

Lobo is one of my favorite villains of all-time. He's an intergalactic, vicious, gut-slaughtering hitman and is highly badass and charismatic. He's also a funny character.

To me, though, Momoa has that villain type look, a brute so I think he'd make a great Doomsday IMO. Lobo is charismatic.... I can see the Rock play him if they were to go that route but most speculate the Rock be either a Green Lantern or possibly ShaZam or Black Adam. So many possibilities.

A recent article about Momoa's talks with WB:

Jason Momoa Tired Of Aquaman/Lobo Rumour
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/jason-momoa ... 00095.html

These actors have been sworm to secrecy and many try their damdest to throw the attention off of them regarding official annoucement but in the end, I believe he's in negotiations.

Possible characters:



=

Aquaman:



Doomsday:




Lobo:

[Deb]

Quickly glancing at the pics of the characters first and then reading your description.........my first thought was Lobo to a T. Description and his look is a mix of Ronan in Stargate and Conan.

[verslibre]

Momoa would make a good Lobo.

Aquaman? Hell, no.

[YoungJRNY]

Aquaman? Hell, no.

Say it with me, say it with me:

M
a
t
t

D
a
m
o
n.

Lmao

[verslibre]

Aquaman? Hell, no.

Say it with me, say it with me:

M
a
t
t

D
a
m
o
n.

Lmao

How about that dude that plays Alex Summers (Havok)? He looks just like Matt Damon.

[verslibre]

Looks like we've got a new (tiny) photo of the front view of the new Batmobile:

[Frontiers65]

Batman is a much better character than Superman will ever be. Superman is just too cookie cutter predictable, while Batman is unpredictable, and actually uses his brains to figure most things out on a whim.

Yes! X-Men DOFP is an excellent movie! I really was impressed with James McAvoy's performance! It was moving at times, and he seemed more comfortable as Xavier this time around. Jennifer Lawrence made Mystique as great as Rebecca Romijn did this time around! This is a must see movie if you are an X-fan!

[YoungJRNY]

So you're talking about a dude that gets owned by a clown...consistently...right? But, you're right and there's reasoning for that. Since Superman was the first Batman ever created, I'll forgive you for that statement.

Superman, when written by the right people, can be one of the most interesting characters (as shown in All-Star Superman.) and the best stories in comic books came at the hands at the right Superman writer.

Unfortunately, most writers over the years are scared to death to write Superman and do anything with him in fear of how iconic and the set of rules people expect Supes to live up to. He's still the holy grail.

Your statement is one of the MANY reasons why I loved MoS. Zack Snyder on the matter:

Man of Steel: Christopher Nolan Opposed the Ending, DC Comics Advised on It

He also said that in potential sequels, Superman having killed Zod will keep the audience from becoming complacent and thinking they know Superman’s limitations.
“I think that when you really put in stone the notion that he won’t kill, it erases an option in the viewer’s mind,” Snyder said. “That doesn't mean that he doesn't now have a code that ‘I just won’t do that; I have to find another way.’”

http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/06/17/ma ... sed-on-it/

I applaud Snyder/Goyer for having the balls to write this MoS Superman.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/iconic- ... psU045f.99

There is a trend in comic book movies to take all of our classic superheroes and turn them into darker versions of themselves. We have seen it happen to pretty much everything from Marvel Cinematic Universe movies as well as the recent AMAZING SPIDER-MAN reboot, but DC seems to be the biggest culprit of doing this. While it seemed to work wonders for Christopher Nolan's trilogy, many didn't click the same way with GREEN LANTERN or last year's MAN OF STEEL.

While fans can cry all they want about it, when those in the industry begin to speak up you know it is becoming a huge issue. One such person is iconic comics writer Mark Waid. Waid is a veteran of writing characters like Superman, Daredevil, The Fantastic Four, and many more and he is not pleased with the way comic heroes have been portrayed in recent years.

"But this relentless cynicism of, 'Oh, I’m a superhero, what a tortured tragic figure I am.' Bite me, you can fly. Shut up. You know? This is the, 'Oh, my diamond shoes are too tight' problem. (Laughs)

"You’re a superhero. Shut up and enjoy having superpowers. This makes me crazy. This is why the Marvel movies kick DC movies’ asses right and left. Because, I’m not paying $15 for a movie to go watch people being morose about lives that are much more interesting and exciting than mine and they hate them. I’m paying my money to see people sort of revel in doing things that I can’t do."

While I may disagree regarding that being the reason Marvel has been beating DC, it is definitely a factor. But, in my opinion, Marvel has been doing it way too much themselves. ANT-MAN was slated to be a much funnier and lighter superhero movie from Edgar Wright and look what happened there. Waid elaborates on what the issue is with the studios.

"I would simplify it to say that, Batman made a ton of money for Warner Bros, and if you are a major motion picture studio, you know what works and you’re not terribly interested in trying another formula when this one makes a billion dollars. So, I understand it. I don’t agree with it, but I understand the rationale of, everybody’s going to have Batman’s origin, because look how much money Batman made us.

"Conversely, look at how badly the Green Lantern did as a movie. Because they tried to make it a little less dark and onerous and tragic and tortured. They didn’t succeed, but that wasn’t the tone of the movie. That and a million other factors. I don’t think the tone was the problem. But if I’m a Warner Bros. executive, I can understand why I would think that the tone would be the problem. In other words, major motion picture studios like Disney or Warner Bros, they know what works for them, so they’re gonna keep doing more of that."

I have been vocal on this site in favor of the more light-hearted comic book movies like Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN and Tim Story's FANTASTIC FOUR because they were able to balance a level of darkness while still making a fun movie that felt like a comic book. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY looks like it strikes this balance as well and Disney's BIG HERO 6 even has an element of that. One of the best superhero movies of all time, THE INCREDIBLES, was able to strike a good line between being outright funny and dark without sacrificing what makes the genre so great.

Until superhero movie begin to bomb, I doubt that we will see an overhaul of the genre. We can expect darkness and tortured heroes to pervade our cineplexes until the movies stop grossing hundreds of millions of dollars. But, at least someone is starting to speak up about it.


Read more at http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/iconic- ... Eb0EEr4.99

[verslibre]

It doesn't work for all characters, and it shouldn't be mandatory for all characters. Cinema Tony Stark is not the same as comics Tony Stark, who took a very dark turn in the '70s/80s when he battled alcoholism. I had hoped the movies would focus on that but they played it too safe: the first movie was a balanced one, the second and third were uneven. It would've been great to depict the fallout between Stark and Rhodes properly, and have Rhodes steal one of the suits towards the end of IM2, build/modify his own suit between films, and have IM3 be the culmination of Stark's alcohol-fuelled tribulation. The final act: a mindblowing showdown between Iron Man and War Machine, whose suit in the comics was larger and much more intimidating (please, no jokes ).

They obviously didn't do that.

Green Lantern wasn't "dark." Not at all.

Man of Steel is the logical evolution of the character and they had balls to have Kal kill Zod. There was no way to contain him. If he'd escaped, he likely would have begun killing humans out of spite.

Now the writer of the Fantastic Four reboot is comparing the new treatment to Nolan's Batman and Iron Man, which is the wrong thing to do. FF aren't those types of characters. Reed won't even stretch in the new movie. He may be just a normal guy. I think The Thing will just be Ben. That's not FF.

Mark's a great writer, but the reason "Marvel's movies kicks DC's asses right and left" is simply because right now there are more of them. But there are only four movies which have earned more than 1 Billion worldwide, and two are Disney/Marvel's, Avengers and Iron Man 3, and two are Warner/DC's, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. So they're really 2:2 since the Almighty Dollar rules over all.

[YoungJRNY]

Green Lantern wasn't "dark." Not at all.

Green Lantern wasn't a Green Lantern movie. It was a Ryan Reynolds movie What Ryan Reynolds movie was ever dark? Seriously, GL was as cheesiest of cheese when it came to any other cheesy Marvel film with forced humor they've put out. Dark? Please.

Man of Steel is the logical evolution of the character and they had balls to have Kal kill Zod. There was no way to contain him. If he'd escaped, he likely would have begun killing humans out of spite.

But if Zod would have just been sucked back into the Phantom Zone, like always, it would of been cookie cutter predictable

Seriously, every superhero movie shouldn't be made the exact same way. DC is the alternative to Marvel and shouldn't make the same exact style or tone of the same genre. If so, then where's the competition? Where's the creativity and sense of doing things differently to appeal to opposite, but the same audiences? I don't want to see superhero movies always cracking jokes and playing the safe hand in every installment. Thanks to DC/WB, we aren't getting that over and over again up until what? 2029?

In many ways, characters like Thor, Cap and IM are the Christopher Reeve, the Michael Keaton, and now, Christian Bale of those cinematic characters. Wait until they re-boot those characters after this Marvel-Universe is over. "But, but, but it's not MY Wolverine! Hugh Jackman is MY Wolverine! Wolverine doesn't do that!" "Terrible casting! Why did they make Iron Man do this? That's not my IM! RDJR is the only Iron Man!"

Look at what already happened to Spidey. We'll see the dilemma once this Marvel Universe is ending and they need to reboot these characters that can't stay the same and need to do something completely different in order to keep them refreshing and then you'll see why a character like Superman always walks a fine line with its fanbase.

[YoungJRNY]

[Monker]

One of the best superhero movies of all time, THE INCREDIBLES, was able to strike a good line between being outright funny and dark without sacrificing what makes the genre so great.

If you are going to go into animation, then I would put Megamind on top. It took the genre, turned it upside down and spun it on it's head, took all the stereotypical cliches and laughed at them....and still managed to tell an awesome story.

Marvel vs DC....I think Marvel is kicking DC's ass for a couple simple reasons. Marvel had an awesome long term vision and a plan...and executed it almost flawlessly. And, it SEEMS to me that Marvel's characters are written for a team environment. So, you can get an X-Men movie, or an Avengers movie...and it works because the characters are written to play off of each other. DC did not have much of a plan, just random movies...and some of those were not executed well. "Justice League" seems like a thrown together idea to compete...and the characters do not seem written to be a team anyway. Batman doesn't want to work with anybody. Superman doesn't need to work with anybody. So, what's the point?

And, Green Lantern...I liked the movie. It seemed no better or worse then the Thor movies. However, if it was written to be the first step to Justice League...then it was a misstep because it did NOTHING to set up a future. Marvel always hinted at what was coming up and created a continual buzz. People knew five years ahead that Avengers was being planned...and were continually dreaming on how they were going to get there.

[YoungJRNY]

"Justice League" seems like a thrown together idea to compete...and the characters do not seem written to be a team anyway. Batman doesn't want to work with anybody.

The Justice League actually are a group of hero's that work quite well together and compliment each other very well. Batman doesn't want to work with anybody? Then what's the purpose of Alfred or Commissioner Gordon? He seemed to worked in cohesion with Selina Kyle quite well in TDKR.

What an ironic statement for a character that has an entire Bat-family working under him and known as coming together with one of the worlds most FAMOUS sidekicks in Robin. I don't understand that comment.

Superman doesn't need to work with anybody. So, what's the point?

In Man of Steel, Superman wasn't the only one to save the day and couldn't save the day on his own. He worked very closely with our U.S Military to complete the plan to defeat Zod with the World Engine.

Superman was the only one capable to fly across the Indian Ocean and defeat the World Engine while our military was waiting on the job to drop Supes's aircraft to create the cohesion of opening up the Phantom Zone.

It's why Man of Steel was nicely crafted because it showed him working close with others and relying close with others to signify trust in one another rather than doing it all by himself. It was a nice message.

Marvel vs DC....I think Marvel is kicking DC's ass for a couple simple reasons. Marvel had an awesome long term vision and a plan...and executed it almost flawlessly

Here's the thing. Marvel Studios banks on nothing but Marvel characters and can focus on 10 movies a year because all of their success's hinges on NOTHING but Marvel movies. Hence "MARVEL STUDIOS."

WB is a much wider business that doesn't need to sorely rely on superhero movies to gain their profit. They do all types of movies and don't need to put all their bread and butter into one genre. They were always the ones tiptoeing over their properties, true, and seemed hesitant to expand on the properties of their DC licensed characters.

Since the late 90's/early 2000's, WB ALWAYS wanted to put out a Batman Vs Superman movie AND had a few projects fall through with the Justice League.

Both franchise's were greenlights at one point but due to all kinds of things like lawsuits and what-not, it never came to fruition.

Before Marvel, WB ALWAYS had the idea first to do a shared cinematic universe with Justice League, but Marvel Studios beat them to the punch with a more clear path on the issue without having to worry about baggage. And hey, kudos to them but things are finally changing with WB with their vision.

Now, all of WB's shyness is coming to an end and they finally have a plan with their cinematic universe, committing to directors, casts and longterm contracts with their actors/actress's.

They are going about it in a completely different way than Marvel Studios, obviously, but finally have that dedication to commit to their properties and map out their universe with high hopes instead of treading water. It started with Man of Steel; is continuing with BvS and then branching off after that.

We'll see how it goes but as of now, I'm proud of WB/DC for finally stepping up into the face of their competitors and following through with their highly praised catalog of heroes and giving them their chance.

[Monker]

I don't think I did a very good explaining my opinion here. I'll try again.

The Justice League actually are a group of hero's that work quite well together and compliment each other very well. Batman doesn't want to work with anybody? Then what's the purpose of Alfred or Commissioner Gordon? He seemed to worked in cohesion with Selina Kyle quite well in TDKR.

I do not know much about the history of the Avengers...but it SEEMS like those characters were created together, to be a team...they play off each others weaknesses. Iron Man is a egotistical narcissist...he NEEDS somebody like Captain America to bring him down to Earth. Thor is a "god"...what a tool to have Iron Man put that idea into line. Then Hulk shows them all what can happen if they do not find a way to keep themselves under control and work together. They all have flaws and compliment each other...as if they were created for each other.

You can break X-Men (and Fantastic Four, and hopefully Gaurdians of the Galaxy) down in the same way. They were created for each other and play off of each other's strengths and flaws. This seems to be a huge strength at Marvel...and it seems to go back to the original ideas for the comics.

Superman does not have a true character flaw. He's practically invincible. And, BTW, Megamind played off this incredibly well...making sarcastic fun of it, and wrapping a story around it, but have the "Superman" be the invincible bad guy.

Batman is a loner who avoids attention. That's an obvious character flaw that has been picked apart in all of the Batman movies. But, what does Superman need him for? His "experience"? That really, really, sounds lame to me...

What an ironic statement for a character that has an entire Bat-family working under him and known as coming together with one of the worlds most FAMOUS sidekicks in Robin. I don't understand that comment.

That is really to my point...in the movie anyway, Robin was a counter to Batman's flaw of wanting to do it all himself...because Robin was a team player. Robin, on the other hand, had the flaw of no self control and shooting from the hip. So, the two could play off each other and complimented each other.

It's why Man of Steel was nicely crafted because it showed him working close with others and relying close with others to signify trust in one another rather than doing it all by himself. It was a nice message.

this is basic story telling.

In that article that was posted it complained about back story...and, "Hey, you can fly and have super powers...get to it! I don't need all this other crap."

WRONG. The story needs it. The story needs you to relate to the hero as an ordinary dude. It's why Superman grows up on a farm as an ordinary human in disguise. It's why Thor loses his powers and hammer and is cast out. It's why Captain America is a scrawny kid who gets beat up. It's why Luke Skywalker grows up on a farm. It's why Odysseus is married and has a family and doesn't want to go off to war ...so you can relate to and care about the hero.

To your point, yeah, the story will require the hero to need help of others. He meets people, has relationships...and those relationships help save the day. All of the stories above do the EXACT SAME THING. All good stories follow this pattern. Google "The heroes journey" and Joseph Campbell and read about it...but, beware, it's going to show you how cookie cutter many stories are...and you will be able to predict how a movie progresses as you watch it. It really is that universal.

Before Marvel, WB ALWAYS had the idea first to do a shared cinematic universe with Justice League, but Marvel Studios beat them to the punch with a more clear path on the issue without having to worry about baggage. And hey, kudos to them but things are finally changing with WB with their vision.

Now, all of WB's shyness is coming to an end and they finally have a plan with their cinematic universe, committing to directors, casts and longterm contracts with their actors/actress's.

My point is, they could have small hints. If Green Lantern was supposed to be the launch, they could have had a quick short of Superman, even as Clark Kent, in a quick scene to generate attention. They could have done something in Man Of Steel to give a cameo to Batman or Bruce Wayne. They could have done extra bits at the end of the credits, to rip of Marvel's idea. Instead, they left them as stand alone movies.

So, really, I doubt many people know or suspect Justice League is coming in the future. I do expect many people WANT it to happen...

They are going about it in a completely different way than Marvel Studios, obviously, but finally have that dedication to commit to their properties and map out their universe with high hopes instead of treading water. It started with Man of Steel; is continuing with BvS and then branching off after that.

Then, I would expect B v S to do something to set up Justice League, other than introduce Batman and Superman to each other.

[verslibre]

Then, I would expect B v S to do something to set up Justice League, other than introduce Batman and Superman to each other.

Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) have been cast and will appear in the film.

[YoungJRNY]

I do not know much about the history of the Avengers...but it SEEMS like those characters were created together, to be a team...they play off each others weaknesses. Iron Man is a egotistical narcissist...he NEEDS somebody like Captain America to bring him down to Earth. Thor is a "god"...what a tool to have Iron Man put that idea into line. Then Hulk shows them all what can happen if they do not find a way to keep themselves under control and work together. They all have flaws and compliment each other...as if they were created for each other.

You can break X-Men (and Fantastic Four, and hopefully Gaurdians of the Galaxy) down in the same way. They were created for each other and play off of each other's strengths and flaws. This seems to be a huge strength at Marvel...and it seems to go back to the original ideas for the comics.

Tony Stark is never going to be humbled. That defeats the purpose of what he actually brings to the table within' the team. His character literally is stubborn enough to where he'll never come down to Earth and is always doing something dangerous and would laugh at Cap if Cap ever taught him to bring himself back to a humble level.

Thor's a God that has no relation to anything human that absolutely nobody within' that group can teach him. He's the most unrelatable character out of the bunch that comes from a world of magic. Superman has more weakness's than Thor believe it or not and Captain America is a soldier from a different era that is programmed to his duty.

Hulk gets mad. That's it and once he gets mad, forget about it. There's nothing or nobody there to tame him at that point. "We have a Hulk." You think Stark said that to let Hulk know to tune himself down and work under control? Nope. That was a threat and a promise. Hulk doesn't work under control. His entire purpose is to fuck shit up because of how pissed off he gets.

I see what you're saying, but the assemble of Avengers have nothing in common nor possess anything different than say, a character like Thor can't handle. The dude is a God...like Supes but without weakness but as you say, The Avengers were written to fit together and the same can EASILY be done, if not EASIER, with Justice League.

Clark Kent, unlike Thor, grew up on Earth, learned what it was to be human with honest relationships and has a high morale of family value.

In many ways, Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent have a lot more in common as men within the dynamic to that relationship than any of the Marvel characters have shown between each other.

Supes and Bats are both orphans in their own mind and have felt distant from society but from two entirely different circumstances in origin. There's a KILLER dynamic between the two. They are complete opposites in theory, but practically the same in philosophy.

Superman does not have a true character flaw.

Supes has a huge character flaw and it's, ironically, his human nature. Clark Kent was raised human first and was taught by the Kents to feel human emotion to always be held to a higher standard and to always throttle his ability. He's an emotional and level-minded leader who always gives those the benefit of the doubt with his last line of defense being his action plan.

Because of this mindset, the Superman and Batman dynamic and relationship works well because Bruce is more cutthroat and more edgier, always going for the jugular and is more combatant and reactionary but at the same time, always 10 steps ahead in always the right course of action with superior detective plans.

The middle ground here is Wonder Woman. She's kind of the Thor in this scenario. No human relation and is a Princess Warrior from a Paradise Island only programmed to do one thing: WAR and battle.

She's totally ruthless in that regard and will not hesitate to overstep the boundary in combat. Supes and Bats still live by that human justice system and have that affection to those beliefs and said-life. Wondy does not posses such traits and is bred to do nothing but reap war and fight.

He's practically invincible.

Supes is not 100% invincible. He has weakness's. Kryptonite is deadly to him and magic weakens him. Thor is more invincible than Superman in this regard.

Batman is a loner who avoids attention. That's an obvious character flaw that has been picked apart in all of the Batman movies. But, what does Superman need him for? His "experience"? That really, really, sounds lame to me...

The existence of Superman brings Bruce out of his shell. With a man of his power, Kal opens up Bruce's eyes to put more trust in relationships and take that leap of faith and trust in one another. Superman actually needs Bruce in the league in many ways. To basically make the brash and rash decisions that Clark simply can't judging by his morality and to be the voice of others. Supes does most of the heavy lifting. Bats keeps things in lockdown and is the decision-maker.

Bruce is always in Kal's ear to give him the low-down on being prepared in detective work and keeps things honest and grounded in every situation no matter the elements. Bats allows Supes to be more reactionary when need be. Just like how you say Cap could ground, say, Iron Man, Bruce is always there to ground Kal.

Then, I would expect B v S to do something to set up Justice League, other than introduce Batman and Superman to each other.

There will be both. Hence, the BvS: DAWN OF JUSTICE.

[RedWingFan]

I have a bad feeling about Wonder Woman. I see another possible debacle like Catwoman. ugh.
In fact, throw Elektra in there too. If WW is any good it may be the first female lead SuperHero movie that is.

[YoungJRNY]

It's time for Wonder Woman. Her role won't be significant in BvS but it will be big in impact. Justice League is Wondy's time to shine IMO. We shall see. It's exciting to finally know we'll be getting these characters on the big screen together. The world is ready for Wondy.