More actors added to new Batman pool; who should be Batman in Man of Steel 2?
Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Gerard Butler are now under consideration, in addition to the six previously mentioned names.
Who would you pick?
Horrid choices for the role. I'll go with Matthew Goode just because I can picture him under the mask.
I hope Joe M. gets it, because another bout of whining if he doesn't would be unbearable.
How about no one cares? Is that a choice?
Joe Manganiello would be a terrible pick. Everyone except Joe Manganiello can easily see that.
Richard Armitage would do great. I'd actually put money on him getting the role.
Whose face do I least want to see (because it will be hidden by a mask most of the time)? Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Uggo.
Should be Jim Caviezel. He's basically playing "Batman in a suit" on Person of Interest.
I think Joe might be too tall. Isn't Superman supposed to be taller than Batman?
Who the fuck is Max Martini?
Technically Clark is listed as 6'3" and Bruce is listed as 6'2" but it doesn't matter at all. Joe is not the cunning detective type and him and Cavill would be the most wooden duo to ever hit the screen...and not in the good way.
Max Martini has been a featured player in films and TV for over 3 decades (since he was a kid) and is just now breaking through at age 43 with roles in the recent "Pacific Rim" and the upcoming "Captain Phillips" opposite Tom Hanks:
I think they really do need Bale or someone with similar acting chops. Cavill can't carry it on his own unless you're watching just to stare at his beauty.
It will be Jensen Ackles. Henry needs a strong and sexy actor to work opposite. Anyone else and I won't watch it.
Agree, very poor pool to choose from.
If I had to choose one, I'd say Matthew Goode because he is an intense actor who could do the brooding well.
Second choice would be Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who has an incredible range.
Worst choice in the bunch is Joe M. He may have a fantastic body, but his acting is very limited. Putting him in a costume like the Batsuit would eliminate 75 percent of his acting ability which is based on the exhibitionism of showing off his body. Giving it to Joe just so he doesn't whine about not getting it is ridiculous.
Of course, if he's not too busy playing Jack Sparrow or Tonto or Willie Wonka or Barnabus Collins or the Mad Hatter, Johnny Depp might be available to give her mannered interpretation of the Dark Night.
Armitage. He and Cavill would make for the gayest movie ever.
Love Ryan Gosling, but I don't want to see him as Batman.
Max Martini is a ginger. Batman can't be a ginger.
None of the above^^^. Karl Urban would be great. He's handsome in an off kilter way and his looks compliment Cavill's. He's the right age. He possesses the gravitas to pull off the role but he can also do comedy. He would look fucking fanatastic in that cowl. What is it with Zach Snyder and his uninspired casting choices? Christ man, give Marion Dougherty or Lynn Stalmaster a call! I love Mathew Goode but he is too young and too flip to play that role. Morgan, Brolin and Butler are boring choices and won't put asses in the seats. I have no idea who Armitage is and I don't really care to find out. Gosling would make a better Joker or Harvey. Martini is lightweight, and after Pacific Rim, fans will have a hard time seeing him as anyone other than Herc. As for Manganiello. will someone please cast this Motherfucker in something, and soon? It makes me stabby every time I hear or read his cunting name. Rant over. Peace. Out.
What about Matthew Rhys?
For the love of Pete, can't they give this tired ass, dull as dirt franchise a fucking rest?
From that list Max Martini gets my vote.
I love the Karl Urban suggestion too.
None of these guys are acceptable (especially G. Butler) unless they really want to kill the franchise.
Why don't they at least TRY and start a new Wonder Woman franchise?
Karl Urban has a very round head and would look weird in the mask.
They can work movie magic with CGI, r26:) Not a problem.
How many fucking Batman/Superman threads to people need to make???
R22, it's extremely easy for you to not click on threads about things that don't interest you.
Clearly, not everyone finds Batman "dull," given that Nolan's trilogy stands as one of the highest-grossing, most critically successful franchises in movie history.
If they ever want to go the other way and portray Batman as a Bossy Bottom, r28 is their man?
Checking my schedule DL Homosexuals!!
R22/28 = the failed duo of Hammer and Depp.
Needs to be Jake G.
Jude Law or whathisface from "Homeland", Damian...? Brolin's too thuggish and doesn't open films. It needs a young/middle age Eastwood.
James Badge Dale, ideally. Actually, Mark Wahlberg might work
How about none?
Unless they seriously consider filming Darren Aronofsky's script (soft R, so good luck), the superhero craze will be gone by the time they develop this past the preliminary stages.
People will have moved on, & the suits will be wary of hanging a tentpole on a single fanbase, however rabid.
The lack of old school creative execs also means the next wave of actors will be undiscovered. This is a huge deal for these types of movies.
People like R36 know less than shit. The superhero craze NEVER goes away. I never watch those films in theaters, but I sure as hell know they're always popular.
The Avengers: $1.5B
Iron Man 3: $1.2B
Dark Knight Rise: $1.08B
Man of Steel: $650M.
Get used to it. People love these types of movies. Always have and always will.
Superman/Batman comes out in 2015 and people will inevitably flock to it.
There are few things more enjoyable than a well-made superhero movie. That's why these things make so much money. They might not be art, but they're fucking fun.
r37, what made the Avengers a blockbuster was not the superhero element per se, but the dialogue and character interaction. Special effects helped too, but I'd argue they are also key to more grounded adventure franchises like Bond.
Superman is an "old fashioned" hero the studios haven't been fully able to modernize.
Also, I'd question a) the profitability, with murky P&A costs, and b)the lack of new, strong male leads to carry these movies.
The storylines tend to get convoluted the farther away you are from the origin story.
[quote]For the love of Pete, can't they give this tired ass, dull as dirt franchise a fucking rest?
I agree. And what's with the manchild mentality that's rampant today? There's something strange about grown men still obsessed with superheroes and comic books as adults.
R39, the fact that they're even making a Superman/Batman film tells you that the studio was at least satisfied with MoS' profits. They wouldn't go and put another $200M+ into a second film unless they were confident that it will make money.
These movies are only about the "storylines" for purists, not the average moviegoer who is just looking to watch some popcorn flick. It's the perfect movie for dates because guys like to watch things blow up and the girls get to watch a hot guy in a cape.
r40, it's the indirect result of the lowering of Western educational and cultural standards.
The same things that saw American 20th century pulp novels rebranded as a literary genre (noir) are allowing this comi...excuse me, graphic novel trend to be considered mature.
Publishing in general is driven by money now. Many of these properties have repro and movie rights or are sold with them attached.
Still think Jensen Ackles was born to play this role (he has a deep speaking voice, too) but if it has to be anyone of the above, I'll take Karl Urban. Everyone else is just wrong.
DC is just determined to destroy their characters, aren't they?
richard armitage. his voice would be perfect.
Ackles because he's American. Tired of fer'ners.
Why do you say that, R45?
r41, wasn't there a rights reversion issue with that property that put a time deadline on the studio? I thought it meant the studio had to commit to future movies in order to have them considered their property.
I don't trust movie industry accounting to determine whether or not a movie is profitable. They need a certain amount of product in development for their future balance sheets.
I don't pretend to understand all the economics behind it, but I suspect the studios are being carried by other parts of their conglomerates, much like Disney is carried by ESPN.
r41 has fun wrong.
R50 Time Warner owns Warner Bros and DC Comics.
You are probably thinking about Marvel's properties whose film rights are owned by other studios like X-Men and Fantastic Four (Fox) and Spiderman (Sony). Those studios must keep making a movie featuring those characters every few years or the rights revert to Disney.
Studio is obviously happy with "Man of Steel" and they can't lie to shareholders when it comes to the accounting:
[quote]Time Warner Powers Profits on Cable, ‘Man of Steel’ Reboot
[quote]Time Warner Inc. posted 87% gain in net income for the second quarter of 2013, citing strong performance of Warner Bros.’s “Man of Steel” reboot and record quarterly revenue for cablers.
r52, thank you. Although, I was thinking of Superman. Maybe I'm getting my lawsuits confused.
Max Martini sounds like the name of a completely made-up actor. Like he would be playing opposite Lora Meredith in "No More Laughter."
Jeffrey Dean Morgan is so damn hot. I pick him.
Sounds like the name of a character in a Danielle Steel novel. I just looked him up - I've never seen him before now.
They'll need a name that's well-known. It'll have to be someone who's at least B+ list.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan is just one of Javier Bardem's multiple personalities.
r53, that article is ambiguous about the actual % rise from MoS itself.
I've no doubt it helped their bottom line, but it wouldn't be the first time the books were corrected to favour a studio. Usually, it's to declare a loss in order to avoid paying creatives.
The studio wasn't entirely happy with the profits, it was well below their projections. But it made enough money to keep it viable as a franchise, and that's what they're hoping to do. Eventually they'll kill off the popularity of these characters because they're not being careful to preserve the aspects of them that most people love. Sure, they can fill theater seats with teen boys who'll go multiple times. But the real money from these characters comes from merchandising, and if their popularity wanes those sales will take a hit. The success of Marvel is that their movies are popular and they've managed to preserve the integrity of the characters. Not with the X-Men franchises, however, but that's out of their hands.
[quote]The studio wasn't entirely happy with the profits, it was well below their projections
How do you know this?
I love how fucking smart R60 thinks he is.
You really think Superman and Batman are going to go away? After 75 years of popularity?
Luke Evans, yes!!
R62...what a brilliant retort! Why, you really showed me! What a fabulous in-depth analysis of my post that simply blew my points away!
Oh wait...you're just a moronic jerk who has the brains of an avocado pit. With no opinion at all, other than to disparage mine. Go back to reading comics, Bluto, it's all you've got.
R64, you truly don't know what you are talking about. Again, after 75 years, do you really think it's possible to kill the public's interest in Superman and Batman?
R61, for various reasons. One was that they were out there suggesting that this movie was going to turn a billion dollar profit...first movie to do so! And that certainly did not happen.
This movie was supposed to lead into the Justice League franchise, but then Cavill started giving interviews suggesting that needed to be worked on, and that it was quite a ways off.
Also, they then went back to their old "Superman vs Batman" idea, one that's been floating around for a decade. Why not just go to the MOS sequel? Because they lacked confidence in it, and wanted Batman included to try to hedge their bets.
They went backwards..."Superman vs Batman" is an old idea. If they thought MOS had legs they would have just gone with the sequel, then started working on JLA. JLA had been rumored to be next. But, instead, they fell back on Batman. And that says a lot.
R64, insults aside, it's a valid question: Why on earth would you think that characters that have been around for almost a century are suddenly going to go away and how do you know the studio wasn't happy with profits and projected higher profits? They just celebrated 75 years of Superman. The character isn't going anywhere.
The onus is on you to cite your source(s).
[quote]One was that they were out there suggesting that this movie was going to turn a billion dollar profit...first movie to do so!
r66, Superman in particular is vulnerable because of the old fashioned narrative and a lack of cool, CGI-created effects.
There are no gadgets, cool cars, body mod based powers, etc. Even "x-ray vision" sounds old fashioned.
Batman is more psychologically advanced, with some cool stuff (batmobile, enhanced suit, etc.)and a wonderful cast of smaller characters, particularly in Arkham Asylum plotlines.
The problem is the studios want Batman to be family friendly, away from the Alan Moore and Frank Miller visions.
What about Wonder Woman? Is her story pretty much unfilmable?
I don't know shit about this stuff, but what I've heard from some who are huge superman fans is that they're thrilled about this Superman/Batman concept because the Superman origin story has been done to death.
I mean they did "Zod." Were they they supposed to go to Lex Luther, then Chris Rock as Richard Pryor? I would think Superman fans would be pleased that they're trying to compete with Marvel. No?
Darling, the comic book industry is virtually dead, and it has been for decades. Most comic book stores have closed their doors, and the big two companies only continues to publish because of the deep pockets of the huge corporations that own them. Marvel started its movie division specifically to save their comics publishing company.
Superman and Batman were just fundamentally changed in New 52. The movies are now following suit, turning Superman into a killer. That's NOT the character that survived for 75 years, ASSHOLE. If WB continues to take a right-wing turn with these characters, YES, they will soon lose their appeal.
I see more excitement from comics fans that the Batman TV show is finally getting merchandise released, than about anything the current incarnation of the character can generate. It's all a nostalgia market now. The kids who want Superman and Batman turned into right-wing murdering fascists won't keep these characters alive. There are lots of options for THOSE kinds of characters.
You're a complete idiot if you think that the character in MOS is the Superman of the last 75 years. He's not.
[quote]The problem is the studios want Batman to be family friendly, away from the Alan Moore and Frank Miller visions.
Again, not a comicbook person, so what does the above mean?
The Nolan movies were dark, so was that based on the people you've mentioned and does the studio want to get away from that? Isn't Nolan involved with the current Superman movie and I imagine with the next one, too?
The general rule is the lower (more family friendly) the rating, the more merchandise revenue the film will generate.
If it is geared toward kids, the writers will be made to write in products in endorsement deals, more gadgets/cars that can be toys, etc.
The actors will be sold the role as a way to open up a new audience, like Dwayne Johnson did when he did kids' movies.
Fuck me, just realized my David Gandy link @R65 didn't even work. Let me try again:
The movie did well above this Wall Street analyst's projections; he said "Man of Steel" would be successful with $220 million.
MoS will do $290 domestically and probably $665-670 internationally (the movie has yet to open in Japan). It is far from a disappointment for a series-launcher; of all the recent comic book origin films, only Iron Man has done better domestically.
The unlikelyhood of a Justice League movie was evident with the failure of "Green Lantern"; additionally, the themes explored in Man of Steel of mankind's first contact with extraterrestrials gives me the impression that Christopher Nolan did not want his Superman films to turn into a Justice League movie, the Justice League of course featuring various supernatural beings like Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter.
r77, Nolan doesn't have the final say, though.
He was noticeably absent from the press and promotion of MoS. What I did read on Deadline and other industry geared sites said he was distancing himself from the project.
Why is he distancing himself? Why get involved in the first place if only to quit on it?
You're fooling yourself if you don't think Christopher Nolan is running this bitch. Nolan is the most powerful director/producer in Hollywood and his influence at Warner Bros is unmatched since the days of Spielberg at Universal. Nolan probably didn't participate in the MoS junkets because he was prepping Interstellar.
If they are not going to continue with Nolan's Bat history and have JGL as Batman, then I hope they hire Ezra Miller as a younger Batman.
I don't see how they could just immediately jump into a JLA movie. They only have 2.5 super heroes at the moment. There would be too many new characters to work effectively.
R77, it's hardly a disappointment to YOU. A film like MOS has to make an extraordinary amount of money because the studio banks on their few big franchises to finance their yearly expenditures. MOS cost an enormous amount of money, and though it's made a lot of money, it also generated a fair amount of negative criticism.
Green Lantern had nothing to do with the backtracking on the JLA movie. The studio said that MOS was the FIRST movie in its new plan to bring DC's characters to the big screen, and it was hinted that JLA would be next. Then they went back to "Superman vs Batman". Green Lantern had nothing to do with that, because they'd already decided to reboot the GL character. Carol Ferris appears in MOS as a completely different character.
Nolan has nothing to do with JLA, he is only in charge of the Bats and Supes franchises. WB got nervous after MOS and decided to play it safer. Instead of greenlighting MOS 2 or JLA, they decided to revive an old idea that would combine the Superman and Batman franchises. That's not an act of confidence, it's one of nervousness. They've been nervous and timid all along. But the reaction to MOS didn't help. The studio even hinted, through Nolan, that the Superman sequel would offer a corrective to some of the stuff people were critical of in MOS. They even released the info that Nolan had opposed Superman's killing of the villain. Again, they're nervous.
Matthew Goode is an interesting choice. I think he could do it.
The studio did greenlight Man of Steel 2. Man of Steel 2 is the movie we are talking about. Batman will be a character in Man of Steel 2.
But the working title is "Superman vs. Batman," not MoS 2.
No one knows what the working title is. "Superman Vs. Batman" has just been thrown out to the press. The movie is still a Man of Steel sequel. Here is the Hollywood Reporter article from a few days ago.
R82, JLA was supposed to start the franchises. WB is going in the opposite direction of Marvel. They were planning to go with JLA so they could then spin off GL, Wonder Woman, and Flash into their own franchises.
Oh my God, can we please get back to discussing the MEAT? Everyone is DYING to be cast in this thang!
R87..no, it's not the MOS sequel. It's an old idea that they've revived so they can combine the 2 franchises. The working title IS Superman vs Batman. Snyder has said that they've started having meetings with Frank Miller to pick his (crazy) brain about the Dark Knight. Snyder quoted DKR, from the passage about Batman putting Superman down. Batman will be the primary star...it's NOT the MOS sequel at all.
They will probably end up with Armie Hammer. I don't know why they're bothering to pretend otherwise.
Most of the suggestions are idiotic. Josh Brolin??? 20 years ago, maybe. Although Brolin would fit Miller's Dark Knight Batman, and maybe that's what they're going for. Why they're bringing Miller in on this is anyone's guess. He's a walking disaster area at this point.
If it was a MoS sequel merely featuring Batman, they wouldn't have presented it like this:
The rights legislation has to do with a shark attorney who has Siegel or Shuster's second wife and relatives thinking they have rights at least to the classic Superboy character, and to a bite of Superman.
Marvel didn't go into film to save the floppies/ paper comics business. They're in the content business - Marvel gives Disney young male properties to match the Disney Mickey and Princesses cash cows.
It's not just film. "Arrow" has been good for the CW, and is portable worldwide. "Agents Of SHIELD" will be even more successful.
These properties fit the times, and CGI makes them feasible. If junk like "Avatar" and ancient properties like "Doctor Who" are global hits, the Marvel and DC properties are bargains.
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" was an indie parody of Frank Miller's "Ronin", and look at how profitable THAT has been. "300" was from a Miller work - so's "The Wolverine".
If they smell money from SuperBats, it ain't pie in the sky. "Dark Knight Returns" was electric in its time, but dreary. Ushered in the grim&gritty flood that helped kill comics.
Are you guys aware of Apollo & Midnighter, riffs on S&B who are gay lovers?
R92= can't understand basic information.
It's NOT the MOS sequel. Both characters will get top billing because it's a combining of the two franchises. BUT Batman will be preeminent, as has already been signaled by Snyder.
Basic comprehension skills. Some folks just don;t have them.
That was promotional artwork for Comic Con.
This is the a Man of Steel sequel. This is not the Batman Vs. Superman movie that Akiva Goldsman wrote a decade ago. It is a Man of Steel movie, with Batman. You pulled the idea that Batman will be the primary star straight out of your ass, because there's no indication that that's going to happen.
David Gandy would be the PERFECT Bruce Wayne... except he has absolutely no presence.
I wonder if he has teh Asperger's.
I never saw MoS, but people keep talking about Cavill being wooden. I don't know if it's true, but if it is, wouldn't the next film need to feature a good actor as Batman to counter Cavill's weak performance? And wouldn't it also need that actor to have as much of a screen presence as Cavill to help carry it?
r100 = Joe Manganiello, still desperate
Why exactly won't they go with Bale again, since its now clear they're having an "older" Batman in his late 30s/early 40s? Bale is 38 or 39. Is it b/c he just really won't do it, or Nolan etc don't want to work with him again? I thought Bale said a few weeks ago that no one had even contacted him or discussed it with him.
Someone didn't see The Dark Knight Rises.
Very funny, R101.
You're right, I do sound like Joe.
Who is going to play Superman? Where is the list for the role?
I actually did see TDKR. What does that have to do with Bale doing the role again. Because the Dark Knight Gotham-world is different from the MOS world and they don't fit together well? How will getting a different actor so soon (jarring given TDKR was only last year) make smoothing over that difference any easier?
I thought Bale wasn't interested in doing a 4th film?
to clarify I'm not just referring to the Batman role, which could theoretically be played by multiple people - I'm thinking more of Bruce Wayne. Bale is Bruce to many fans - why not just bring him back than take a risk with someone else.
[quote]Who is going to play Superman? Where is the list for the role?
From my cold, dead hands!
I like Michael C. Hall for it.
Bale said he's done.
[quote]Basic comprehension skills. Some folks just don;t have them.
R95, your spittle is all over this thread. You still don't know what you are talking about. You are just making shit up.
Bale told the trades last month that no one had called him about it so from that it didnt look like he was in. he never said hed never do it again only that more than three films was a bit excessive and would only be back if Nolan was involved.
Of course thats before the Brinks truck backs into his driveway.
That's odd that he hasn't said no, but they haven't asked him. Maybe they think he'll ask for too much money.
Would be odd if the supporting actor (Bale) got more $ than the star of the movie, don't you think?
How much is Henry Cavill making?
[quote]Would be odd if the supporting actor (Bale) got more $ than the star of the movie, don't you think?
Happens all the time in superhero movies.
Bea Arthur would've been perfect.
Logan Lerman should play Robin.
There's no Robin in this and if there were, it would be JGL.
Jason Bateman, obviously.
If it was as Michael Bluth, I'd actually go see it.
r122 Thankfully, no one knows who the fuck that is.
Well that was quite moronic.
Most Americans wouldn't know who that character is because they're idiots who know what a "Snooki" is, R122.
R123 = idiot.
why not cast Matt Bomer?
PR Dream: One is in the closet, the other actor is out
I don't think Batman would let his husband hit him.
Matt Bomer would be a great choice but there's absolutely no way they're going to cast an openly gay actor as Batman.
Matt Bomer looks too much like Cavill.
I'd veto everyone on that list but I don't really have a good alternative.
Although the producers probably wish otherwise, they're not going to get Gosling. One, he won't do it. Two, his small, close-set eyes would really fuck up the mask.
Bring back Michael Keaton - still the best Batman.
[quote]Bring back Michael Keaton - still the best Batman.
He's 61. Maybe he could play Alfred the Butler.
I like Jon Hamm and I think he'd be perfect. Plus, he's American.
More names added to the pool: Wes Bentley, Ben Affleck, and DL faves Jake Gyllenhaal and Luke Evans!