Second Image of Ben Affleck as Batman Released

@timelordscience: Actually i think I tagged you by mistake.. U said Batfleck looked cool... Sorry for disturbing ya man :p

@uk2897: I'm too lazy to look back at what I said, but if it was something negative about Man of Steel, Batman/Superman or Snyder, then I likely feel the same.

@timelordscience: What about now? :p

Anyone know a general age that bat fleck is supposed to be? I thought maybe 35-40 but i've heard people say he's younger and some say he is older

reminds me of the dark knight returns outfit

@zzombie13: Ah i see, haha! Zombies are always awesome, yes i've noticed how Zack Snyder tackles cult fan favorites

@thevarioty436: I was on board with Zack Snyder pretty early on. He managed the impossible for me by making a Dawn of the Dead remake that didn't suck. In fact, I really liked it. Maybe not as much as the original, but remakes in general often miss the point and especially when you're talking about THE landmark George Romero zombie film its even more impressive. And in case the name I post under didn't give it away, I'm a pretty big zombie fan. ;)

@zzombie13: The Iron man example is a perfect example, i understand where your coming from, not all changes are relevant and they shouldn't change things for the sake of change, the key things i've seen change in the mythos presented in Man of Steel was now Kal-el was truly special, he was a kryptonian who was born naturally and has freedom of choice, Lois Lane is an intelligent reporter and finds out who Clark is, Superman killed Zod in a defining way, the new suit was explained more solidly, added to that were messages which where important to the character of superman, the tone was different also but since it was a reboot where you're meant to discard the old continuity and recreate a film in a new fresh take i wasn't surprised, i actually enjoyed it more because of it.

In my opinion i really do believe that these changes were necessary in most cases and did improve upon what has come before. i honestly don't think they made any changes that were really for the worst, Zack Snyders actually a director who isn't a big fan of change, not saying he hates it but he usually sticks close to the source material, Nolan on the other hand likes a realistic take on things, i think the changes made worked well for Superman, gave us a realistic take but didn't didn't stretch the character to accommodate the changes, instead worked it in not apologizing for the character like some superman writers do.

Overall i understand where your coming from, i don't think apologies are needed, it's always good to hear opinions from the otherside of the spectrum, i see you enjoyed the film to a certain point, and it's fine not to like it wholeheartedly, movies are subjective first and foremost, i just respond to people who i believe are stating things that are in the movie which are not, and things that are not in the movie which are. Zack Snyder is a great visual director, i like and love all his movies, and it's nice to know his film is being appreciated as a spectacle if not anything else, i think you give good reasons for why that's not a bad thing. Thanks for your time again sir.

@thevarioty436: That is an interesting interpretation.

As I said above, I don't want to take anything away from someone who enjoyed Man Of Steel. I enjoyed Man Of Steel. Quite a bit in certain respects. I just think that a lot of the changes they made were not for the better, that's my real issue.

I'm all for reinterpretation. I love it, provided it adds to or improves upon what has come before. That's how these characters endure for so long. Fresh ideas, fresh approaches, that's the heart of adaptation to the new mediums like film or games. Perfect example would be taking Iron Man from a run-of-the-mill superhero with a secret identity and changing that to be an egomaniac who wants everyone to know he's a superhero. I honestly don't know if that was part of the comics proper before the movies, but I know all throughout the 80s and much of the 90s when I was collecting he was coy about "who was in the suit?". The new version simply works better in the modern world so the adaptation makes perfect sense to me. In our modern world of social media and in the globally connected information age that we live in today, it's a change that follows a logical course. It's a change for the times, not a change for changes sake. That's kind of my big issues with most of Man Of Steel's changes to the mythos. The changes just feel like they're there to accommodate Christopher Nolan or Zack Snyder rather than Kal-El of Krypton.

But rather than continue to talk about the negative, I'm just going to list a few of the things I loved about Man Of Steel. I know I'm not showing it, but I really don't like being the cynical jerk pointing out errors and stuff. I'd much rather keep things positive and I know I probably could have done a better job of that. So apologies where applicable.

• I loved Shannon's Zod character. That isn't a job I would have wanted. Terrance Stamp's shadow loomed large, but for my money Shannon knocked it out of the park. I mean he chewed the scenery like a piranha, but in that great way that I really enjoyed. And I saw Superman 2 in it's original theatrical run, so this is pretty hard programmed nostalgia stuff for me.
• I thought Cavill was a great casting choice as well. While I liked Brandon Routh as Superman, he was a bit too "Let's make him look like Christopher Reeves" for my tastes. He's a great actor and I don't fault him for the issues with Superman Returns in the least, but I don't need to flip a coin to tell you which actor made the better Superman (It was Cavill)
• I liked the new suit quite a lot.
• And I didn't even mind the Clark roams the world thing. It made sense to live among the people he hopes to protect and emulate.
• And finally, when I say MOS works better as a spectacle, that's not as much of a criticism as it sounds like. It's actually quite difficult to "WOW" me anymore. Having seen the rise of CGI first hand, filmmakers can basically do anything they want now. Which while nice, also means that there's not much to really geek out over since there are so few practical effects. So when I say it works as a spectacle, I'm trying (and possibly failing?) to convey that even in the day when we can see anything on screen, it still stands out with it's spectacular effects. And that's impressive by any measure I can come up with.

@thevarioty436: No prob. :)

@divine_disorder: Yes i thought if i refer to your comments explanation, i may as well let you know, i guess i did end up helping you understand the scene a little bit more in process lol, but sorry for bothering you all the same.

@zzombie13: Costner dying is simply part of the mythology as we all know, so what direction they took was gonna be hard to keep fresh and bring new meaning while also reinterpreting what the original mythologies reason was for father Kent to die

If i could elaborate what i meant by that before i directly address your comment sir, when i said bring new meaning i wasn't talking about the overall concept if the world was ready for him and vise versa, that was more for a the wider scope of the movies message, the core message in that scene was "he shouldn't think twice to save someone" the old message was "for all his power he can't save everyone" well i think that message was the most clear, and one of the most powerful messages in the movie, however most misunderstood it when it really popped out, pretty much everybody whether criticizing it or giving it praise addresses this, that message wasn't lost in translation nor sidelined for a weaker message, now i keep saying this message was shown but i'm not saying when so i'll get to it.

When the world engine was destroying metropolis, why didn't superman save anyone? he was on the other side of the world destroying the world engine When zod was fighting superman in the city why didn't superman save anyone? he was dealing with the primary threat, stopping zod."Why does Clark Kent, the man of tomorrow who can do what no human can, feel so impotent to stop the destruction or even trying to lessen the impact of the Kryptonian threat to the humanity he seeks to cohabitate with?" "for all his power he can't save everyone" (and destruction in a superman fight is nothing new, comics, animation, and movies, in fact if superman 2 and 4 had the special effects of today, you would notice the large amount of destruction more), now you may say the puzzles fit but why switch such an intimate but life changing message and set it up so destructively and switch it for the other message? the other message still fits into the core essential characteristics of superman, he doesn't think twice to save someone, even a guy who shoots at him with lethal intentions, shown later in the movie he saves him, the old message was placed in a realistic destructive world where not everyone can be saved.

The fact that the old message is more universal that life is fragile and life is precious is why it was switched for a more intimate message adding to the character of Clark where he won't think twice to save someone, and this message still can be recognized universally. They haven't change or undercut the message, they just reinterpreted it in a new light from a new angle. "Why" is the most important question to ask, it's when you ask this question you try to find answers, when superman was killed for the first time in the comics, the question asked then was "why" when superman killed zod the question we asked was "why" whether we get it straight away or need some time, we do find out more about the character.

For the record i don't think of you as an old fan who doesn't accept change sir, i think i should respect you even more just knowing you knew the character for this much longer, and have enjoyed understanding glimpses of your interpretation of this rich character. Hopefully the follow up will appeal to you and do the characters justice in your opinion.

UNF O_O

Jonathan's death is a key part of Superman's development. With all his power, all his gifts, all that he was capable of, he could do nothing. But that's not the case with Man of Steel. He could have done plenty, but the "nope, don't do it son" aspect robs him of that central lesson. Every iteration of Superman has gotten that right. Made it powerful and meaningful. This person, the man who raised him, who he loved above almost all else, but even with his amazing gifts he is left powerless and small. Broken and in a state of loss.

These are the lessons upon which we build our understanding of the world. And the way they handled it in Man of Steel was just silly. Superman, the man of steel, just standing there watching it happen adds nothing to his mythos, accept to make him seem powerless when in fact he was not. He was just told to chill. Jonathan wasn't taken from him despite his powers, he was given away freely. You could just as easily have him tell Clark not to save him but have Clark try and fail anyway or you could have made it seem like things would be OK then a second tornado funnel takes Jonathan leaving Clark feeling powerless. About a dozen ways you could have made that scene without robbing it of it's central meaning, without robbing it of it's humanity. But instead it's "nope boy, just stand there". In short, I get what they were going for. I just think they failed miserably at the core idea. "Is the world ready?" is just a poor substitute for the most powerful being in DC comics learning what is essentially the basis for all that he one day becomes. And even if that's what they were trying to drive home, having Clark try and fail would have made it infinitely more meaningful and even built upon the idea of "Is the world ready".

I like Zack Snyder. More than most people I'd wager. And I get that a director want's to add their own voice to a piece they create. But shaking up a core lesson like this is akin to having Bruce Wayne accidentally shoot his parents himself instead of having Joe Chill do it. What does the character gain from the change? In Man of Steel, I'd argue that it gains very little and takes away far more. It's fine to shake things up if you're replacing it with something interesting instead of a former flaw, but replacing a simple and powerful lesson with an ambiguous non-event is not a shake up I want to happen in characters I have literally been enjoying for nearly 40 years. And before you say it, no I am not an "old fan who hates change". As an example, I love the conceit that Kryptonians have lost the ability to birth their own young. That adds something interesting to an otherwise cohesive story. That builds upon the ideas at play. But the Jonathan Kent "shake-up" adds nothing.

If you think these things work, that's your purview. I'm not going to try and take that from you. But it's not like I'm the only one pointing out problems in Man of Steel. I liked the movie, but so many of the changes undercut the simple concepts that define the character without replacing them with anything new. And I would argue that a huge part of that is undercutting the main story beat of "life is fragile, life is precious" that should come from him losing his Earth father in a cohesive way.

You say it's "thought provoking", but the only thoughts provoked in me was "WHY?" WHY have they changed these core elements of a character who has literally stood the test of time? Why are they making Jonathan Kent's death so meaningless? Why does Clark Kent, the man of tomorrow who can do what no human can, feel so impotent to stop the destruction or even trying to lessen the impact of the Kryptonian threat to the humanity he seeks to cohabitate with?

More power to you if you feel differently. I, honest to God, wish I did too.

@thevarioty436: Ah yes. I was wondering how old Clark was in that scene. I was like, "Dude, shouldn't you be making your own decisions by now?" But if he's still a kid in that scene, then it makes more sense that he was doing what his dad told him to do and trusted his judgment. As for the rest of your comment, I assume you meant it for @zzombie13.

@divine_disorder: Costner dying is simply part of the mythology as we all know, so what direction they took was gonna be hard to keep fresh and bring new meaning while also reinterpreting what the original mythologies reason was for father Kent to die, that being said, if you understood the scene you would know Clark was in his teens at that time, he was portrayed as a child listening to his dad, not understanding the full scope when he didn't take action, the message was that he won't make that mistake again, and he won't hesitate to save another human being again, in Kent's perspective, he was protective of Clark, emotionally, physically, which was a key part of his character, all he knows is that it's too early for his son to be revealed and is not ready for his son to handle the intense scrutiny under once his existence is known. The key message surrounding Jonathen kent in this movie was balancing the messages of when willClark be ready for the world? and when will the world be ready for Superman?

as for the powers part, @divine_disorder rounded up most the points above.

Characters like Zod and company they are more personal to superman, and the story would be mainly focused on him, the other characters fans wouldn't be happy, i really disagree that this should be considered a league level event just because of the scope of the story, Thor just saved potentially the universe in the dark world, GOTG just saved the galaxy from what I've heard (still need to see that) and the films don't necessarily need to raise the bar with scope but can do by the story itself, just look at the winter soldier, still big in scope but the story is what got to people, not because of depth necessarily but you get the concept, the rest of your pressing questions, just aren't that pressing, the absence of the league, green lantern could be off in space, flash could be streaking in photos saving people in flashbacks in the metropolis event, or maybe still hasn't been established, the rest such as Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Cyborg seem to be getting addressed in the sequel, and these are just problems you have that you personally have brought up for yourself, if you thought through them, you would see these aren't really plot holes nor problems for the DCCU...yet, i agree with the rest of your opinions to a degree.

Overall i would like to say, this was the best superman origin story put on screen, and one of the most thought provoking superhero movies, and one thing you can't deny is that Man of steel did shake things up, whether good or bad with the messages in the movie. So i disagree it's just a dumb blockbuster full of spectacle and nothing else. And using your words there are thousands of things that work consistently "if you put it under a microscope" ignorant to use that sentence and not know how to 'walk the walk.' and i'm not trying to use the word 'ignorant' in a attacking way just saying.

is it just me, or does he look sadder in this picture than the last?

I was never a fan of this suit, and the small ears bother me just the same that the super long ones in Long Halloween don't work. Nolanverse has the best Batsuit so far.

I think the way they explained it in MoS was that Zod and the others were harvested warrior babies, trained from birth to master their senses, which was why they were able to hone their powers much faster than Clark, who was born the natural way. As for the tornado scene, I have no idea, lol.

That's a good point, though. Where was everyone when all this sh*t was going down? Maybe BvS will explain what everyone else was doing when Zod attacked Earth. Maybe in the DC cinematic universe, the Green Lantern Corps is established as a response to Zod's attack. So many maybes. All I know at this point is, the filmmakers have a lot of explaining to do. Best of luck to them.

I hear ya on that WW pic. Gave me goosebumps just seeing a live-action movie Diana for the first time ever. And then I saw that leaked little BvS teaser and I just about lost it. The more I see, the higher my expectations become and the more nervous I get that the movie might turn out to be a disappointment. God, I hope not.

Well that's where Man of Steel falls down. If you analyze it then everything all comes apart at the seams. From the idiotic decision to have Costner refuse to let Clark save him during the tornado scene to the discordance of the other Kryptonians gaining mastery of their powers that took Clark decades to master, there's just a thousand things that don't work if you put it under a microscope. But still, I liked the movie. Even though a lot of it doesn't work it was still a fun movie to just enjoy as a spectacle.

The biggest problem though, is that with that huge fight between the Kryptonians and Superman and the terraforming machine... if the Justice League characters already exist in that world then what can possibly be bigger than that? That was a League level event. Having them all show up after the fact in a second movie is going to be a tough pill to swallow. "Oh, so there is a Green Lantern in the MoS universe? Well where the hell was he when Kal was getting his ass kicked by Zod?". If Batman is powerful enough to take on Supes as the title would suggest, where was he to offer help when the entire planet was in danger of being squashed beneath the oppressive heel of the Kryptonian menace? Where was Arthur when his seas were under assault? Where was Diana, isn't Themyscira part of Earth in this universe?

Thing is, I think they should have started with Justice League first, then built individual films once the characters had been introduced. Marvel needed to tell mainstream moviegoers who Tony Stark was, they needed to introduce Asgard the way they did and have Steve's movie set up SHIELD. Avengers needed the lead up. But Justice League doesn't. That's DC's strength. All their characters are archetypes to begin with, painted with broad strokes that can be explained easily and quickly and then you can dive into the character after the fact. That is the strength they have over Marvel but I don't know if they are going to utilize it well enough to make it fly.

I really hope it surprises me though. Even if it's just fun as a spectacle, that's kind of enough for me at this point. I've already seen (what I consider to be) the best version of Batman, Superman, and the Justice League in the animated universe. I don't think they'll ever top that for me so if they can pull off a fun movie, even if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, I'm alright with that. And seeing Diana's costume this week makes me more hopeful than I could have imagined. They really nailed the armor look and I'm thankful that's where they went with her character.

@justthatkid: Exactley. I cant wait to see this.

Same here. I want the movie to be successful (because what kind of fan prays for failure anyway). I'm a bit more hopeful since they pushed back the release date and brought in that Oscar-winning screenwriter to polish Goyer's script. You're right, though. Time will tell.

And yeah, with all the violent hatred for MoS out there, I expected the movie to be this giant crapfest, but I was pleasantly surprised. I mean, it was far from a cinematic masterpiece and it did have its duh and WTF moments, but I thought it was entertaining. Or maybe it's because my expectations were just so low. I dunno. Of course, I'm not very familiar with comics Superman, so I can't comment on the accuracy of his portrayal. (From what I've seen, the biggest MoS haters are Superman fans themselves who think the movie ruined his character.) But it's like The Dark Knight Trilogy. That wasn't comics Batman either, but I loved it for what it was anyway. You know, just another interpretation.

BTW, I've been thinking about how the movie would handle the first meeting between Superman and Batman and it got me wondering, if Batman's a veteran at this point, then wouldn't it make sense for Clark to have sought Batman out while he was wandering around as an itinerant worker? Surely news of Batman's exploits in Gotham would have reached him somehow and wouldn't it occur to Clark, "Wait a minute, what if this Bat character is like me? What if there's a chance that I'm not alone in this secret superhero gig? What if he's an alien, too?" And if Clark did in fact reach out and they already have a history together or a prior encounter going into this movie, then it makes even less sense for them to fight now and put "versus" in the title. But, if none of that ever happened, then why the heck not? It would be understandable if Batman were a rookie, too, and he and Clark were unaware of the other's existence. But that's not the case. I wonder how the filmmakers are going to explain that.

I concur. The whole name is a trainwreck. But, the movie looks like it will be a trainwreck too, so perhaps it's appropriate.

Don't misunderstand, I don't want it to be a trainwreck. Honestly, I liked Man Of Steel. It wasn't the best Superman movie ever, but it was fun in a blockbuster "lets-blow-shit-up" kinda way. And I really liked Cavill as Kal-El. I'd love for BvS:DoJ to defy it's stupid name and actually be a fun cool movie. I just think they're trying to do too much, to go too big. Hopefully it's the right move.

Time will tell I suppose. :)

@divine_disorder: there's another added layer of ridiculousness, with how they opted for v over vs. Is the movie going to be Batman filing a lawsuit against Superman?

@zzombie13 said:

My biggest problem with the title is the 'versus' part. They're clearly pandering to the bloodthirsty fanboys who want to see a fight. I really don't get it. I mean, I know Batman and Superman won't be instant best bros the first time they meet, but why would anyone want to see them fight? They're both good guys. And unless one or both of them is mind-controlled or something, I see no reason for them to butt heads literally. It just feels like a meaningless super-pi$$ing contest.

As for the pic, I'm liking what I've seen of this Batman so far. But wouldn't someone be bound to notice that Bruce Wayne's chin looks exactly like Batman's? It's a very distinctive chin. Anyway, still waiting for a pic of him and Superman together. Hopefully with no rain.

I thought that too but then I thought about it. Arrow incrorporated many Batman villains already. Harley Quinn, Cyrus Gold and the League of Assasins. Plus at the end of the Flash pilot when it said that Wayne Enterprises/Queen Industries merged. Smallville took a while to even introduce characters while Arrow is dropping them left and right. My prediction is when and if Arrow gets to seasons 5 and beyond.

I agree. I also love Arrow. Can't wait for season 3! I'm really excited to see how they do Flash and how he fits in. I don't think Batman or Superman will ever show up on either of those shows. We can dream though.

@tximinoman: Thank you! haha

You are right we are a minority here. I'm not saying im not gonna watch BvS. Of course I will. I'm just saying I hate the entire direction it is going in lol

Ohhh Ackbar....never gets old!!!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Ben kind of looks uncomfortable or stiff. Like a guy who buttons his collar all the way up.

It looks cool but I hope Ben's acting doesn't ruin it. He did an ok Daredevil

Looks good to me. I think Ben will do well enough in this role. I actually liked him in Daredevil. The movie's script wasn't the best ever written, but his acting was fine. He can play the part.

@black_arrow: Looked to me like they had gone for the usual black on black. But hey, if not then I am damn pleased!

lol.Kinda reminds me of Bruce's dad in Flashpoint Paradox.

Rubber Suits again? isnt that a step backwards?

Looks good to me.

@jeepeh said:

Only when I'm using someone else's computer. XD

Schh, Catman is sleeping. Don’t wake him up…

Mate, your avatar simply implies that you’re crazy lol.

It is based on the design of TDKR suit.

Man what are those samll ears???? It looks like the Bats from the Frank Miller comics....

Works for me.

Their TV universe only consists of Arrow so far. Flash, Gotham, and Constantine haven't even come out yet and only Flash and Arrow will be connected because of different networks. The DC Cinematic Universe is just as small with only one example. I loved Man of Steel. Perfectly cast and executed. I am worried about "Dawn of Justice". The name alone.....if that's the best they could come up with you know hahaha.

I like it. Looks very DKR with those short ears.

Leagues ahead as my favorite live-action cowl. It's a little Dark Knight Returns and a little Capullo.

Whenever I see a suit that has molded parts to it, like the pecs and abs, I giggle. The lines between the eyebrows on the mask is something added to the mix, I guess.

I do think the texture of this mask is awesome. It's shaping up to be a great costume.

@sergiobarajas said:

Here is my quick edit

Brilliant job dude, it looks perfect.

Holy Sh!t!!! This is the best live action cowl yet, I wish it had white lenses, then it would be perfect.

Thanks for the tag Parker