A Sequel Or Not A Sequel

So Warner Bros officially announced the title of the upcoming Man of Steel "sequel":

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice

But is this really a sequel? Here is what I posted on ScreenRant:

I will submit that ‘Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice’ is not a Man of Steel sequel. 

It follows Man of Steel, but to be a true sequel, it should heavily be about Superman (in my opinion). 

It’s more like Avengers, it followed Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America but was a sequel to none of them.

But I may be wrong, BvSDoJ might be a Supes-centric storyline and then I will retract my submission.

Dr. Mindbender disagreed with me:

I don’t get this logic at all. It follows Man of Steel, therefore it’s the sequel. This “true sequel” stuff sounds closed minded, just my opinion.

Let me 'splain:

@Dr. Mindbender:
I think the 2nd part of my post frames why I have that opinion. 

Do you consider ‘The Avengers’ a sequel? 

For me, I don’t think Warner/DC is really following a sequel formula. Each movie is another one set in the DC universe featuring the same or different heroes. To me, this is more like a series. 

To further explain, a sequel should focus on the premise of the first movie. If BvSDoJ is mainly about Superman, then I concede. But it seems it’s more like a prequel (if you will) to Justice League (hence the ‘Dawn of Justice’ subtitle). Based on that, I can’t really consider this a “true” sequel. 

Back to my Avengers analogy, if we were to use the fact that “it follows” the movie before it, then The Avengers was really Iron Man 3 and Iron Man 3 should be Iron Man 4 right? I’m being hyperbolic here but I hope that illustrates what I’m saying.

Is it really a Man of Steel sequel? Or a Batman cash grab? :)

New Batsuit and Batmobile

So Zack Snyder gave us a sneak preview of the upcoming Batsuit and Batmobile on Twitter, ScreenRant posted a lighter version to see more details:

http://screenrant.com/batman-vs-superman-ben-affleck-costume-batmobile/

Commentor jstaggs posted a link to a color version he Photoshopped:

Looks good to me. Just wish they used the white eye lenses.

And I like the bulkier Batman... more intimidating.

Batman's Cowl

I don't know why I keep thinking about this but I do hope that in the next iteration of Batman on film, they fix his cowl. What do I mean? Well... I don't really like that open eyeholes version where the actor has to wear black makeup. I would prefer something like they did in The Dark Knight with the sonic eyes version of the cowl:

To me, that's a more realistic version of the BatCowl as the covered eyepieces do quite a few things:

1. Conceal's Bruce's identity: The eyes are actually one of best ways to figure out who someone is. It's the same reason why Spiderman uses reflective eyepieces over his mask.

2. Protects Batman's eyes: If I were a villain, I would use a 3 Stooges eyepoke to take Batman out.

3. Can provide technological functionality: Much like the sonar eyes, you can use the eyepieces as a Heads Up Display (HUD) like Iron Man. Or you can enable night vision or infrared vision.

4. Looks more menacing: For criminals, I think that white empty eye look would strike more fear than just a lispy "I'm Batman!". Think Darth Vader.

I understand that for film, people want to see the actor's face to get a better portrayal of their emotions, that's why Spidey gets his mask ripped off (like in every movie) and Iron Man always shows an internal view of Stark's face in the armor but they could do a similar thing for Bats. Heck, I would even go as far as making the cowl more of a helmet so that Bats can even seal it to prevent being exposed to gas etc etc (and even the suit more like armor but that's another time).

And this would actually also allow for the cowl to be worn by several people to throw off suspicion or in the case where Bruce is incapacitated (in the old TV show, did Alfred wear the suit one time?).

#FixTheCowl