Superman vs Batman Movie: 3 Reasons It Could Succeed & 3 Reasons It Could Fail

2. This Solves The "What Do We Do Now?" Conundrum In Regards To A Superman Sequel

In the Reeve "Superman" films, Lex Luthor showed up to make trouble on Superman's watch THREE times over the course of four films (I,II, and IV). And in the third one....well, it may as well have been Luthor, but I'm sure even Gene Hackman said, "Again? Doesn't villainy take a day off? Aren't I in jail?" Luthor graced the reboot with Brandon Routh (and was even supposed to be the SAME Luthor from Superman I -II) and had a spectral presence in "Man of Steel" (All those "Lexcorp" logos are gonna add up, y'know). So, was a "Man of Steel" sequel going to be Lex Luthor-oriented? I'm pleasantly surprised that now, even if it is, there'll be more meat to the film than just "A vs. B, with an inevitable Lois Lane love story on the side". We've done that movie; It's called "Superman", it came out in 1979 and still plays well today. Again, the perfect thing about Batman and Superman in the same film is (theoretically) that you need to show their personal meeting, conflicts, and resolution to the good they can do together despite differing philosophies. This means that (done right) the film will have a great personal conflict that has a more traditional "hero vs. villain" struggle as the backdrop it plays out against. We've seen this done by Nolan and Goyer - It's called "The Dark Knight", and it's generally recognized as one of the best superhero films ever. And why is that relevant? Because "The Dark Knight" had Bruce Wayne grappling with his life choices and identity, all while tousling with this madman called The Joker. It's a solid case to be made that the Joker isn't the driving force against Batman in the film, he's just a catalyst to disorder (and he pretty much says exactly that onscreen) - the real conflict happening against Batman is that driven by... Bruce Wayne, Harvey Dent, and Rachel Dawes. And yes, Dent eventually gets all Two-Facey on us, but it's way before any villainous coin-flipping that the lines are drawn in that film. So, now, a chunk of the same team that made "The Dark Knight" is going to do a movie that also finds a human conflict playing out while a villainous one is an ongoing concern too. The credentials line up very nicely, don't they? Certainly even critics who felt they kinda missed the point storywise with "Man of Steel" must admit that this could be better territory for all parties involved to come together on. It only helps that the character they need to reintroduce to create this conflict and resolution....is the same one they succeeded with before. And as to the villains? Well, opportunity knocks there too. Luthor can be saved for the inevitable "Justice League", or be seen manipulating events in the background - As a human villain with only his intellect, resources, and cunning, it might be better to build him up against these two - Make him someone it'd take multiple films to take down, and he'll be seen as more of a threat and mastermind than any film portrayal has ever given him. OR, have him as a puppetmaster driving a lesser Superman/Batman foe. Utilizing a villain doing the hands-on work for an unseen and far greater threat is something else Nolan and Goyer excelled at from the start with "Batman Begins". And there, the possibilities really come into play - Could Brainiac be working directly with Clayface (and justifying his abilities existing with alien tech)? Could Luthor utilize the Riddler to present a distracting conspiracy that needs Superman to turn to Batman's detective skills? It makes for a very rich palette this movie could draw from, it almost defies ever being simply "Batman and Superman show up and punch bad people". Well, until the last reel, anyway....