[Ghost of V]

I really don't understand why there is a young Lex Luthor yet Batman is supposed to be older (late 30s, 40s?). That really shits on the lore.

No. Superman and Batman will be meeting for the first time and Lex Luthor is a Superman enemy, so his age in contrast to Bruce's is irrelevant. It'll probably be the rise of Lex Luthor, and Batman will likely be an established hero whereas Superman is new. Superman is already ~30 in Man of Steel, so Batman will likely be in his very late 30s or somewhere in his 40s. They don't have any frequently-established constant age difference, so saying it "really shits on the lore" is pretty wrong. Anyway, Jesse Eisenberg (who's playing Lex Luthor) is the same age as Henry Cavill (Superman), so that's all that really matters (though it wouldn't really matter if he wasn't, because changes are fine as long as they work out).

This is one of the reasons I dislike superhero comics and their movie adaptions. Why don't they follow any sort of canon? It's like each issue is in it's own universe. It's fucking retarted. I guess it actually takes skilled writers to follow a loose timeline and not write a bunch of crap with plot holes and continuity errors. Is that why they're always retconning things in comics? Also, how is Lex's age irrelevant because he's a Superman villain? They live in the same universe.....

Like I said earlier though, the movie adaption is just that. The director will do whatever the hell he wants with the source material, even if it shits on the lore (which it does even if you deny it). Snyder has stated that this movie will show Clark and Lex as friends (and probably when they become enemies as well), which is supported by the comics, but they were not 30 years old when that happened, they were younger... teens & 20s. Lore. Shit on. But of course, due to the nature of comics, anything is possible. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. A good story doesn't need to be changed every iteration.

I could see Eisenberg playing a young Lex Luthor with hair in flashbacks. I would like to see that.

[Vindictus]

Who gives a fuck about canon? Every time something is adapted people moan about how true it is to the source material when it makes nearly 0 difference, especially with these superheroes that have often been around for 40+ years in all sorts of weird states. He can't fuck up like Shyamalan did with TLA, so who cares?

[Ghost of V]

He can't fuck up like Shyamalan did with TLA, so who cares?

How do you know that?

[Vindictus]

He can't fuck up like Shyamalan did with TLA, so who cares?

How do you know that?

Because to do that he'd have to change actors nationalities, change character's names, write a shit screenplay and make the whole movie delivered in exposition with 1 big fight scene. Man of Steel was a weak movie but it wasn't anywhere near as soul crushingly shit as TLA.

[Ghost of V]

He can't fuck up like Shyamalan did with TLA, so who cares?

How do you know that?

Because to do that he'd have to change actors nationalities, change character's names, write a shit screenplay and make the whole movie delivered in exposition with 1 big fight scene. Man of Steel was a weak movie but it wasn't anywhere near as soul crushingly shit as TLA.

At least we agree on something. 

[Rama Set]

Like I said earlier though, the movie adaption is just that. The director will do whatever the hell he wants with the source material, even if it shits on the lore (which it does even if you deny it). Snyder has stated that this movie will show Clark and Lex as friends (and probably when they become enemies as well), which is supported by the comics, but they were not 30 years old when that happened, they were younger... teens & 20s. Lore. Shit on. But of course, due to the nature of comics, anything is possible. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. A good story doesn't need to be changed every iteration.

I could see Eisenberg playing a young Lex Luthor with hair in flashbacks. I would like to see that.

I doubt Snyder has much control over the script. It is likely heavily controlled by WB and DC. If the script betrays the characters then it is mostly DCs fault.

Anyone else concerned they cast a heroine-chic supermodel as a sex-foot Amazonian?

[rooster]

He can't fuck up like Shyamalan did with TLA, so who cares?

How do you know that?

Because to do that he'd have to change actors nationalities, change character's names, write a shit screenplay and make the whole movie delivered in exposition with 1 big fight scene. Man of Steel was a weak movie but it wasn't anywhere near as soul crushingly shit as TLA.

Totally forgot about that piece of shit. Way worse than The First Avenger.

[Saddam Hussein]

He can't fuck up like Shyamalan did with TLA, so who cares?

How do you know that?

Because to do that he'd have to change actors nationalities, change character's names, write a shit screenplay and make the whole movie delivered in exposition with 1 big fight scene. Man of Steel was a weak movie but it wasn't anywhere near as soul crushingly shit as TLA.

Totally forgot about that piece of shit. Way worse than The First Avenger.

WHAT HOW DARE YOU USE THE FIRST AVENGER AS A NEGATIVE COMPARISON

This thread is now about bashing rooster for disliking TFA.

[rooster]

I don't think this movie will be as bad as some people think it will. I think the actors are fine (I'm a little dubious about Eisenberg though) and I like Snyder.

[Vindictus]

He can't fuck up like Shyamalan did with TLA, so who cares?

How do you know that?

Because to do that he'd have to change actors nationalities, change character's names, write a shit screenplay and make the whole movie delivered in exposition with 1 big fight scene. Man of Steel was a weak movie but it wasn't anywhere near as soul crushingly shit as TLA.

Totally forgot about that piece of shit. Way worse than The First Avenger.

WHAT HOW DARE YOU USE THE FIRST AVENGER AS A NEGATIVE COMPARISON

This thread is now about bashing rooster for disliking TFA.

I wasn't even going to say anything because we've been over it ad nauseum. You're the one stirring the pot, Saddam.

[Ghost of V]

The First Avenger? How dare you bring that up. That movie is the worst film ever made. Anyone who disagrees with me is a fucking moron.

[Vindictus]

God damn it.

[beardo]

The First Avenger? How dare you bring that up. That movie is the worst film ever made. Anyone who disagrees with me is a fucking moron.

Shit taest.

[Fortuna]

People only watch Batman for the villains. Batman himself is pretty boring.

[beardo]

Incorrect.

[rooster]

So so incorrect.

[Saddam Hussein]

If they don't bother properly establishing Batman as a character, or his motivations as a superhero, then he can be pretty boring.  Same as any other superhero, really, but the media seems to care a lot less when it comes to Batman.  Is Batman Begins the only film/television version where they bothered to actually explain his origins?

[rooster]

If they don't bother properly establishing Batman as a character, or his motivations as a superhero, then he can be pretty boring.  Same as any other superhero, really, but the media seems to care a lot less when it comes to Batman.  Is Batman Begins the only film/television version where they bothered to actually explain his origins?

Origins in regards to his training with Ra's al Ghul? Cause I'm pretty sure almost all Batman shows/movies cover the fear of bats/parents dying part.

[beardo]

Batman Begins is the most detailed one I know of. I've seen all the movies, and his parents murder were covered in both the Burton and Schumacher series, although the Burton murder scene is pretty unique because it has Jack Napier/Joker to be the murderer. The murderer in the Schumacher series was never named and was only seen in silhouette. Nolan took from the comic book canon by identifying the murderer as Joe Chill, as it was in the comics.

[Saddam Hussein]

The Burton and Schumacher movies are one series.  But in any case, just saying "His parents were killed, therefore Batman" isn't enough to establish an origin.  Lots of people lose their parents as kids.