‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’

[Goaty]

Looks like Total Film think it too about Karl Urban as Batman...

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/15-actors-for-batman-vs-superman/karl-urban-batman

[radiator]

Karl would make an excellent Bats, but I suspect they'll be aiming for a younger actor - someone in their late twenties/early thirties - as they'll be looking to pin the role down for at least the next 8-10 years and God knows how many films.

[Montynero]

Karl would be great. I dont think his age is a problem. Downey's 48, so Karl's a couple of years younger than Downey was when he became Iron Man. And Bats suits a more mature actor. Josh Brolin would be cool too.

Not that I particularly want any more batman films. Let's have some new heroes.

[Professor Bear]

Younger actors are really only if you're going for across the range (ie: gay) appeal, and Bats needs to be a bit weathered and craggy anyway unless you're doing him a bit goofy.

[von Boom]

But isn't the idea of a billionaire playboy faffing about in a bat costume solving crimes inherently goofy?

[Charlie boy]

Bats needs to be a bit weathered and craggy anyway unless you're doing him a bit goofy.

I'm with the Bear on this (pretty much as per, actually!). I wouldn't say Karl Urban looks particularly old, even if you compare him with Cavill. And there's always the aspect there that he can look a little older than he is for all the different conditions he's lived in during his years travelling the world to learn his skills.

[dracula1]

Urban as Dredd /Batman for Judgement on Gotham:-)

[Recrewt]

Urban as Dredd /Batman for Judgement on Gotham:-)

^ This.  That's one way to keep the costs down!

[dracula1]

Yep ! And keeping costs down will be the overriding factor when Dredd2 gets the go ahead. It was mentioned some where that the director of Drive might be a choice to make it and on a tight budget.
8-)-

[Richard]

"Superman and Batman: Brokeback Mountain 2"

[Professor Bear]

I intend to boycott the film unless it has the subtitle "Batman of Kleenex".

[JOE SOAP]

You are describing the Asylum/SyFy business model there, Joe, and that's for small-timers who can't play in the big leagues. Cinema movies are events and cultural phenomena, otherwise why bother putting them in cinemas?

Because they're being priced out of the market and less films with bigger budgets are a greater risk for those involved; there is only one way to go on that graph and they've well reached the plateau. If they keep on the same track- there won't be any big-leagues left. Much like the property-bubble, this is the blockbuster-bubble.

As for why Marvel's movies have been more coherent as a shared universe despite being made by many hands, I would have thought that it was obvious: the crawl back from bankruptcy has trained those working there to get fucking good at what they do or it's back to eating from bins.

Yep but it's also to do with Marvel studios being built from the ground, up- as a studio made for one purpose and with one goal: make Marvel films in-perpetuity, therefore doesn't suffer the same structural complications and vested interests/agendas that exist in older corporations like Warner or FOX. Disney don't seem to interfere creatively in their subsidary as long as it's making money.

[Professor Bear]

Marvel Studios actually spent a great deal of their first decade producing shite, and it was only when they started licencing their characters to other studios and Avi Arad started claiming credit for what was produced (Blade, X-Men, Spider-Man) despite an increasingly marginal role as a producer that they began to be taken seriously enough for people to throw money at them to make real movies on their own.  It was a learning process which DC can't replicate because - if Jim Shooter is to be believed - they haven't made an actual profit from comics for over a decade, but it's hidden by creative accountancy like paying a licencing fee to themselves through parent company WB to make Smallville, Watchmen, V For Vendetta and Arrow, so there's not only no push to restructure, in order to keep the illusion of success in place the influence of the company has actually been expanded beyond their ailing print endeavors to the film studio end of things just to keep up with the perceived synergy of arch-rival Marvel/Disney.
Marvel Studios didn't learn to do what it does overnight, but it did learn, primarily from making the kind of mistakes that DC don't seem to want to cop to.

[JOE SOAP]

Marvel Studios actually spent a great deal of their first decade producing shite, and it was only when they started licencing their characters to other studios and Avi Arad started claiming credit for what was produced (Blade, X-Men, Spider-Man) despite an increasingly marginal role as a producer that they began to be taken seriously enough for people to throw money at them to make real movies on their own.

Well Marvel could never have financed or guaranteed a loan large enough to fund the types of productions their properties needed so the funding partners/studios were always the real producers. 'Marvel Studios' or 'Marvel  Productions' really only began with Iron Man and the 'shared universe' so the first 10 years were a licensing binge which caused a hangover- the after-effects of which are still felt due to half the Marvel Universe now scattered to the four corners. Having said that, for all the X-Mens, Fantastic Fours and Ghost Riders- 2 Blades and the first 2 Spideys aren't what I'd call too bad a start and The Punisher has its moments. 10 years is not long in studio years. How many has Warner had?

It was a learning process which DC can't replicate because - if Jim Shooter is to be believed - they haven't made an actual profit from comics for over a decade, but it's hidden by creative accountancy like paying a licencing fee to themselves through parent company WB to make Smallville, Watchmen, V For Vendetta and Arrow, so there's not only no push to restructure, in order to keep the illusion of success in place the influence of the company has actually been expanded beyond their ailing print endeavors to the film studio end of things just to keep up with the perceived synergy of arch-rival Marvel/Disney.

That's pretty much it. It won't change because it doesn't think there's anything wrong with the way things are. Warner would be better off out-sourcing their properties to a bunch of talent and giving them enough money to fail and succeed; in some ways they did that and are doing it with the Nolan/Snyder two-back beast but if the Batman Vs Superman intervention clanger is any indication, any story plans they had can be over-ruled if Warner feels they're not earning enough.

[Professor Bear]

What gets me about their expanded influence on the movie and tv adaptations is that DC is staffed by a lot of people who have already failed miserably in movies and television and moved into comics because of it, with Dan DiDio's most notable achievement before working at DC being bankrupting a successful entertainment company overnight after he was made creative director and insisted that more sex and violence be added to ReBoot, a cartoon sold worldwide to television companies who used it in children's programming blocks on the basis that it didn't have any sex or violence in it.  The common sales model was based on selling 6-10 episodes to a channel and then if they performed well, the channel could buy more, so the self-destructive short-sightedness of the S&V approach arguably borders on hilarity.
Still, at least he learned his lesson, eh Nu52 fans?

Me, I just want a Batman franchise like the last couple of Fast and Furious movies.  I don't think I'm being unreasonable.