Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Well I did a bit more research and Eisenberg definitely said it.  And the Fortune article, if canon, definitely says it.  Makes it seem like Lex Sr. is dead and Lex Jr. inherited the company.  No idea if Lex Sr. will play into the movie at all, or if he even survived to see Superman show up.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Cool. I wonder what they'll do with that.

In other news, I keep seeing reports all over the place about the HitFix report about Warner Bros. being unhappy and rethinking the whole plan. It is starting to irritate me, because the original report was an unconfirmed rumor, followed by supposition and wild theory. Now the entire internet is reporting it as though it is the truth. I frickin' hate the internet. This whole thing could have been caused by Disney slipping HitFix $100 for all we know.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

63 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-02-15 22:07:43)

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Well, if BvS is good, it won't matter.  If it is a bit of a mess, the rumor gets confirmed.  I can't imagine it'd affect box office numbers (in fact, with lowered expectations due to the report, it could look better - "I heard it sucked, but it was actually pretty good"), and a report wouldn't really affect the WB's plans until after the movie comes out.

And even the HitFix report really only talks about how the Justice League movie would either be pushed back or go in a different direction creatively.  Which, based on 95% of the decisions that have been made for BvS, might actually save a Justice League movie.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

It's just annoying to me. Every time a Marvel movie is released, everyone bows down to worship it. They've gotten about a billion free passes on some pretty huge mistakes. It's all fun, so everyone plays along. Same with Star Wars. Everything new is high-budget fanfic, but everyone goes along for the ride because it's all good clean fun.

Then the one time I manage to get excited about one of these things, everyone has to go on a non-stop slamming press tour, before anyone even sees the movie. It's more about my own frustration than any fear for the movie itself. Man of Steel was one of the best comic book movies I've seen. People dump all over it, but that hasn't ruined it for me. So if BvS comes near that, I'll be happy with the film. I'm just frustrated that the one time I decide to jump on the geek-joy bandwagon, everyone keeps trying to blow it up. smile

I'm allowed to be childish every now and then!

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Ha, well I'm sorry about that.  As we've chronicled here, I'm *very* worried about this movie.  I could list a dozen creative decisions that I'd label as missteps - but it's still Batman and Superman on the same screen.  It's still fun Dark Knight Returns imagery, Wonder Woman on the big screen, and a move towards the Justice League.  It's awesome.

I hope Snyder made a great movie.  I hope he can make a great Justice League movie.  But based on his prior track record (in my opinion), I'll unfortunately have to see it to believe it.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Snyder has a pretty good record, doesn't he? Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen... those were all pretty well received, right?

I think there is a disconnect in the media about comic book movies. A lot of the reports that I see talk about how these movies are for kids, or they say that comic books are funny, light, colorful stories. I think that's true... if you're talking about cartoons based on comic books. The comics themselves are not necessarily for young kids. They can be pretty dark and serious, and depending on who is writing them, they can tell some pretty complicated character stories.

I think that Snyder puts a lot of thought into how he can bring the feel of the comic books to the screen, which is not what people expect to see on the screen. The same was true for the Nolan Batman movies. And they call that "Nolan style" now, or grim, or dark... but those Batman movies were so good because they felt like the best of the comic books. People had just come to expect an over-stylized film when it came to Batman, based on the previous movies and even the animated series.

People say that Man of Steel was too washed out... I disagree. It just looked like a film, rather than a cartoon.


Anyway, I guess we'll talk about BvS more next month. But I will still say that it is sloppy, annoying, bad journalism to keep reporting on the uninformed opinion of one person, who isn't connected to the movie or the studio in any way. Nothing he said has any more substance than a random stranger on the street who is being asked their opinion on the trailer.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Regarding Snyder....I don't know.  I think 300 is visually a good film, and I enjoyed it the first time I watched it.  I tried watching it again and was sorta bored by it.  It just didn't hold my interest.

I liked Dawn of the Dead.  For some reason, I watched that movie every time it was on when they showed it on premium cable over and over again.  Like most zombie movies, the ending was clunky, but I think it was pretty good.

Watchmen was fine.  I thought he did an amazing job translating it from the book to film, but I just didn't love it.  I think the accurate translation actually exposed some of the narrative problems in the book. 

I liked Sucker Punch more than most people, but that was a movie most people didn't like.  Visually stunning and a pretty fun story, but I can see problems regarding the way it was presented.

All in all, Snyder's movies are all breathtaking from a visual standpoint.  Every one of them has a unique look that suits it, and I think he knows how to make a movie look great.  His action sequences are pretty great, and I think he does care about character.  But while I've generally enjoyed every one of his movies, I don't know how much re-watchablility they have.  I've still never really re-watched Man of Steel - only watched bits and pieces.

My main problem with BvS are the creative choices they've made.  I'm going to judge the movie based on what it is, not what it could be.  But a lot of the choices he's made are just so frustrating to me.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I can see that. I hate when things have a lot of potential, but the people making them just don't care enough to live up to that potential.

I'm just more hopeful about this one than you are. smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

http://movieweb.com/batman-v-superman-d … rner-bros/

Another article where people make up comments "from Warner Bros." and then create a huge stink about them. I don't even understand why people are so worked up about these things. But it feels like a negative press tour to me. These aren't legit reports by any stretch of the imagination.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

For the record, I've decided to write my own mega-synopsis version of Batman v Superman.  So far it's only 3 pages long (I'm through the end of act 2), but it's more along the lines of the movie I'd like to see.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Further evidence that the HitFix theory was wrong. Justice League will begin filming two weeks after the opening of BvS.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/21/ju … s-April-11


Now, one could say that there is still time for the studio to slam on the breaks there (I still argue that it would be such bad press for them at that point that they probably wouldn't recover), but I would argue that if there studio were as worried as those anonymous sources have been telling gossip sites, they would have already found a reason to push filming back by at least a month or two, so they could see how BvS is received.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Isn't that just as irresponsible, though?  What if the movie isn't a hit?  What if things don't work?  What if Snyder isn't the guy?  Is it still smart to just roll on like everything is fine?

There's nothing wrong with replacing Snyder - Marvel replaced Whedon with the Russo Brothers and just kept rolling.  Ant-Man had many different creative heads, and it still was a commercial and critical success.

I want Justice League to be successful.  But they have to do it the right way.  And if pushing it back means making sure the movie is set up to succeed, then that's what they should do.  This, to me, reeks of the studio over-compensating, showing extra confidence in BvS to combat the rumors of the contrary.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

To change directors would mean reworking the script and going through the whole pre-production process again. It would set them back months, at least. And that would have a domino effect.

The whole idea of replacing Snyder is based on the rumor that he failed with BvS. This far, the studio has shown no sign of having lost their faith in the project.

Any time you have a series of movies planned out for years, they are going to be based on the assumption that the franchise is a success. Marvel's movies are based on the same faith. As are all movie series. Marvel didn't just freak out and get rid of Joss. They parted ways at a point where it made sense for them.


Right now, I see no reason to assume that Snyder should be replaced. I see no reason to believe that BvS is already a flop. This looks like business as usual.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Yeah, and this is the part where we have to agree to disagree.  I'm worried about the movie, and you're confident that it will be done well.  If you're right, then nothing will change and the rumors will have been forgotten.  If I'm right, they're going to need to take a step back and make some changes (even if minor) to correct the ship.

Remember, Hitfix didn't say that the movie was a disaster.  This isn't Fantastic 4, which abandoned its sequel plans after a nightmare of a movie, creatively and financially.  The rumors said that Affleck was good and that Eisenberg was great.  That the move would be to a) move the solo Batman movie up and b) push back the Justice League movie.  Unless further rumors came up, I never heard anything about reboots or doing anything differently.  That BvS would still be canon and a building block, but that it might not be the launching pad that the studio was hoping for.

I really want Batman Superman to be good, but if it isn't good, I *really* want them to fix it for Justice League.  And if it's not good and they just close their eyes and pretend that it is so that they can save face in their war vs. Marvel, then they're going to be sabotaging Justice League before it gets a chance.

There's no shame in reworking something to make it better.  And whether or not Justice League comes out on time or months late, I want them to be doing everything they can to make sure it's the best movie it can be.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

The question is, what would make the Batman movie a better launching pad than Justice League? JL should be a good movie with a solid script, regardless of what happens with BvS. They should have people from Warner Bros and DC going over the script to make sure that Snyder isn't going crazy, and they should be showing that script to the people making any of the related movies, just so they can make sure that everyone is on the same page. Snyder isn't working in a bubble here. He is part of a bigger machine.

So, say BvS is a flop. Everyone hates it. They hate every minute of the movie and the meeting of these characters is a disaster. What good will it do to make a Batman movie instead of a Justice League movie? What did Thor 2 or Iron Man 3 change about Marvel's plans?

I'm not really expecting BvS to be loved by everyone. I think it will probably be divisive, because I don't think that it will be the Marvel knockoff that people are expecting, just like Man of Steel wasn't the Donner movie that people expected. (I know you have other issues with the movie, but most people dislike death of Zod or the lack of bright colors and "Aw gosh" attitude)
Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy get praised for being different, because let's face it... aside from comic book fan, nobody knows who those characters are. So while they go off the rails and people love it, I doubt that people will be as forgiving with BvS. People *want* Donner's Superman. People *want* Batman from the animated series. And when they get the characters from the comic books, or something based on various elements from the comic books, those people will not be happy. Everyone thinks they know these characters, because they had the t-shirt and watched the cartoons.
So, I don't know.

I'm just open to seeing what they do with the characters. I've seen these characters range from silly cartoon versions to very layered, serious versions. I think that I'm just more open because I don't really expect them to be anything in particular.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Informant wrote:

The question is, what would make the Batman movie a better launching pad than Justice League? JL should be a good movie with a solid script, regardless of what happens with BvS. They should have people from Warner Bros and DC going over the script to make sure that Snyder isn't going crazy, and they should be showing that script to the people making any of the related movies, just so they can make sure that everyone is on the same page. Snyder isn't working in a bubble here. He is part of a bigger machine.

Well it's building on what works and fixing what doesn't.  If you'll allow me to speculate, let's say that the Hitfix rumors are correct.  Batman works, Lex works, but the rest of the movie falls flat.  That means that Wonder Woman doesn't impress, and something about Superman doesn't work.  And to continue to play devil's advocate, let's say that Superman spends the whole time being angry and doesn't do anything heroic.  And maybe they don't like how dark (lighting, not tone) the whole movie is.

WB looks at the script for Justice League, and they look at what's in there.  (speculating again).  Batman's in it fine, but Lex is either barely in it or not in it at all.  So maybe they rework it so that Lex plays a bigger part.  Wonder Woman didn't work in BvS, but her movie is coming out so they sorta have to run with whatever is established in that movie.  Perhaps they could make some slight alterations in her character.  But with Superman, there's tons they could do.  Maybe you open the movie with a fun action scene that spotlights the kind of Superman that people want (I'll get to this in a second) - sorta like how Singer would've re-written Superman Returns to open with the plane crash.  Maybe you alter his character to make him a little happier - a little less moody.  And whether or not you keep Snyder, maybe you tell him to cut back on the sepia/gray colors and throw in some color.

That's all they'd need to do.  And if you release Batman before Justice League, you give yourself time to fine-tune these kinds of things.

And it's not like they can't do stuff like that.  If you have Affleck's Batman, and that's what works, then you use that and build on it.  Make no mistake, the MCU has succeeded because of Downey's Tony Stark character.  People liked Iron Man, but look at the rest of the phase one.  Incredible Hulk bombed so much that it's barely canon.  Thor is no one's favorite movie.  Captain America: the First Avenger is a glorified trailer.  Heck, Iron Man 2 is a mess, and it's the second-best pre-Avengers movie.

Avengers worked because it a) had Iron Man and b) made the rest of the characters work, altering them if-necessary.  That's why no one gives a damn about a Hulk solo film, but they go nuts for every Hulk scene in the Avengers. 

So you apply that plan to DC.  If Superman doesn't work, make him work in some other way.  And I don't necessarily think that it's Donner.  I think pretty much every DCAU movie/show gets Superman right.  He's a great leader, he's tough, but he's fatherly/brotherly.  He lightens things up a bit when it's not time to be serious.  I think the problem with MoS Superman (that seems to be carried over into BvS) is that he doesn't really have fun being Superman at any point.  Now the second Zod shows up, the guy should be all business.  But it's just weird that the two most fun scenes in Man of Steel both happen *after* the Battle of Metropolis, literally the only time in the movie that fun shouldn't be happening (again, IMO).

Max Landis gave my favorite description of Superman in a video he did.  He said "instead of absolute power corruption (Clark) absolutely, absolute power has absolved him from fear and greed and hate and all the weaknesses that stem from human insecurity."  And I think that's brilliant, and it turns all the "boring" parts about Superman into really fun, creative things.  I can imagine a scene in a Justice League movie where they're hanging around a situation room table talking about why they became superheroes.  And Barry talks about how his mom was murdered and his dad was imprisoned and how that turned him to the law.  And Diana talks about how it's her legacy to protect mankind.  And Arthur says he wants to do right by his people.  And maybe Bruce mentions his parents or whatever.  But Superman looks around and is a little confused - he's a superhero because it's the right thing to do.  And everyone sorta laughs at the innocence of that, but it shows Clark as this guy who has all the super powers but the strongest is his belief in mankind.

And while I think Man of Steel actually captured a lot of the things right about Clark, I don't think it captured his super-optimism.  I don't think it captured his light-heartedness or his fun side.  And I think, more than just cramming Superman into the Nolanverse, I think that was my biggest issue.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Then again, the last thing I want is for them to cram someone like Lex into a movie where he wasn't supposed to be. That's the problem with reactionary writing by a studio... The goal should be to write a good script, not to hit all of the marketing goals. It's all a balancing act, but it's far too easy for the studio to get that wrong. They'll say that Lex was a hit, so the next thing you know, Justice League involves them bringing in Lex to be a reluctant part of the team. Now you have Lex Luthor on the Justice League.

It's like when they made Spike a good guy on "Buffy". It just didn't work for the character or the story, and it was done for all of the wrong reasons.

There would be no way to get Batman out before Justice League at this point. It would take a year of development on that movie, followed by production, followed by post. It would be two or three years away, which would then put Justice League at at least four years away. That would push back the introductions of every other character they have... basically, as I said before, they'd be better off just scrapping the whole plan at that point. Because it's a train wreck, compounded by the horrible PR that would be surrounding them because of it.

They can still make tweaks to the script for JL, and even reshoot some stuff if they want. They can bump up colors in post. They can do a lot of things within the structure of their schedule. None of that is really unusual though.

The thing with Man of Steel is that he isn't Superman until the end of the movie. They don't use the name, because that's not who he is. This isn't Superman being Superman. This is Clark accepting what he is, where he comes from, and who he wants to be going forward. There isn't room for optimism, because the movie's plot is about this man of steel being vulnerable and terrified. And there's no way to avoid that. He was raised to be scared of what would happen if people found out about him. The whole movie is about him living his worst nightmare, pretty much. And for a lot of it, things go the way his parents told him it would. The government doesn't trust him. They come after him. His alien heritage is a threat to the world and everyone wants him torn apart.

Iron Man is a fun movie, but it's not a good character piece. And Clark can't be Tony. There was no room in Man of Steel for him to be the light, optimistic guy that we know from the cartoons, because that's not who he is yet. The movie wasn't called "Superman".

Most people (again, not you) don't care about Clark Kent. To most people, Clark Kent is the disguise that Superman wears, and that is how the earlier movies approached the character. The story of his upbringing is glossed over. The fact that he had real human emotions is glossed over. They want the man with his hands on his hips and the cape blowing being him. But if you approach the character as a real character, you can't go there. That is the end of his development, not the beginning of it.

What I see when I watch Man of Steel is a story that I can relate to. It's a story about a guy who has skills that aren't going to make his life easy. He's not going to have the normal life that his parents had. He doesn't know how to make those skills work for him. He doesn't feel comfortable in his body. He doesn't feel comfortable in the world around him. Every time his powers have shown themselves to people around him, they made him look like a fool or an outcast. Even when he saved the bus full of kids, he was smacked down because of it (not literally).
But throughout the movie, he comes to understand who he is as a person. He comes to understand where he comes from. He comes to term with what he wants to be, and he overcomes the fears that he has been living with his entire life. That's the beauty of the scene where he steps out of the fortress and learns how to fly.

He does have a sense of humor, and he does have the warmth that we have come to expect from Clark, but he is presented as a real person. The animated shows don't make him a real person. They show him as someone who is so powerful that there is always a way for him to get out of a situation with his hands clean and the perfect curl on his head. People complained about him killing Zod, because "that's not Superman". But if you put characters into live action, the bar is raised. There was no convenient place for Superman to put Zod, where he could eventually escape and destroy even more buildings later. There was only the sloppy answer. And the thing that made him a hero in that moment was that he was willing to sacrifice his cartoonish ideal version of that outcome for the sake of the innocents. It hurt him, but it had to happen. People keep saying "Just put your hand over Zod's eyes", but he will have to take his hand away at some point.

Going forward, I do expect to see a different version of the character. I'd like to see him lighter and more like what we know, but I don't want them to use the humanity, and I don't want these movies to be a live-action cartoon, like the Marvel movies. If I want a cartoon, there are plenty of them out there. In live action, I want them to take these characters and explore them in a real world, full of flesh and blood people.

I love the arc of Man of Steel. I do see it as extremely optimistic. I just think that it's a more grounded version of that optimism, and it makes the optimism more earned.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I really wish I could talk more about Man of Steel, but I've only seen it the one time all the way through.  And it's a movie that I remember liking a lot until the ending.  And I found myself sorta amazed by the actual Battle of Metropolis - which is why I think I had such a problem with how casual the ending was.  If you're going to make *that* much of an impact with your climax, I need that to be respected.  And, yeah, BvS is going to be the payoff, but if that's the case, I almost needed a tip to that *more* in the end of MoS.  Because, otherwise, it seems more reactionary than what the plan was.  And, as you said, that's when problems happen.

I'd really have to go back to see the optimism.  From my memory, it wasn't there, but I might just be revising history.  I rewatched the "What if Man of Steel was in color" video by Videolab (side note: I like the colored version better), and I was surprised to see Clark having as much fun flying as he did.  So that's good - there needs to be a scene like that in BvS, but I'm afraid there won't be (has Clark smiled in any of the promo materials because I know for sure Bruce has).

I guess my primary problem with the characterization of Clark is Jonathan Kent.  I hated him.  And it wasn't Costner's fault - I just never really agreed with his character.  Yes, Clark needed to be careful.  But I found myself wishing that John Schneider's Jonathan (from Smallville) would show up and punch him in the face.  When he tells Clark that maybe he should've let the bus full of kids drown?  I don't believe he'd say that.  Clark is a good person because he does the right thing, and he does the right thing because Jonathan and Martha Kent taught him to do that.  I believe, on a level, Clark is Superman because one of his powers is simply being better at making the right choice - super-humanity if you will.  But his moral compass is midwestern America - and you're the one who taught me that. 

Jonathan believing so hard that Clark can *never* reveal his powers, even if it means letting people die, was nonsense to me.  I don't buy it.  It's selfish, and it's wrong.  Now maybe comics Jonathan said that, but I prefer the Smallville origin where Jonathan is proud that his son wants to do the right thing.  And where, instead of teaching him to be afraid of his powers, they teach him that he just better not get caught.  So it forces Clark to use his powers in secret, which actually forces him to fine-tune things like his speed so that no one can see him.

The tornado scene.....ugh......what a mess.  I don't buy it.  Not for a second.  And not any of it, honestly.  Let's assume for a second that everyone under that bridge noticed Clark and was staring at Clark the entire time.  So if he speeds away, everyone notices and understands there's no other explanation.  These are Clark's neighbors - they aren't going to scream "ALIEN" and immediately call in the black helicopters. 

But, first of all, there's a ton of chaos in that scene.  Clark could've slipped into the crowd where no one would notice him, speed to save Jonathan, and be back before anyone noticed.  He could've even waited until the last second so that it *looked* like he was killed in the storm, then he shows up X time later with some bruises as some kind of "miracle." 

Second, I don't like a Clark that would allow that to happen.  And, yeah, I know that's what he was taught.  I don't like a Clark that allows that lesson to seep in.  And I don't like that the moral center of Man of Steel is a moral argument between Jonathan and Jor-El where *Jonathan* is wrong.  It's so backwards in my mind, and it poisons Clark's character for me.  Because Clark's upbringing is supposed to be pure, but Man of Steel paints it like Jor-El has to come in and re-raise him so that he can be the hero he was supposed to be. 

I would've liked a version of the story where Smallville just knows that Clark is an alien.  He saves Jonathan in front of enough people, and they just understand.  He saved the bus of kids.  He saved his father.  He's a good guy.  Just like Metropolis will see this god flying around and just *know* that he's a hero.  And they protect him just like he protects them.  He doesn't go full Superboy or even full Smallville.  Even if it's just those two things, it works.

And if they have to do the "my father was convinced that if people found out who I really was, they'd reject me" storyline, give it to Clark instead of Jonathan.  Have Jonathan tell Clark that he needs to be himself, and Clark is so afraid of hurting anyone that he won't do it.  When the bus starts to sink, for a second, he considers letting it fall but can't.  Jonathan later scolds him for how selfish that would've been.  When the tornado happens, he looks around at all the people before he speeds in.  He later breaks down because he almost let his father die to protect himself.  So it's about dismantling his own fear and embracing the hero that was there all along.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I get your criticism... but a lot of it is based on information from other films, shows and comic books, and not the movie itself.

Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WuvMy2c70g

It's true. Clark doesn't explore his powers until he is pushed into it. He doesn't know how to fly or super speed until he explores those powers in the film. He doesn't super speed to save the guy on the boat in the beginning of the movie, or to save the men from the oil rig. He shows no sign of being able to fly. So, assume that he knows that he is really strong when the tornado comes for Jonathan... what is he supposed to do with that? He can run into the tornado and get swept away with his father, but how will that actually save Jonathan if they both still end up crashing down?

I don't think you're remembering all of Jonathan's scenes. Jonathan knew that Clark was going to grow up to be something special. He knew that Clark was going to change the world, but he didn't know how to help Clark do that. With the kids on the bus, Jonathan didn't believe that Clark should have let them die. He just didn't know what he believed Clark should have done. He says "maybe" Clark should have let them die, but when you watch him say it, you know that he isn't saying it because he believes that Clark should have let them. He's saying it because those kids are safe and in that moment, his son is not. He is scared.

Man of Steel shows Clark just starting to explore his powers, and just starting to understand them after years of trying to ignore them. We're used to seeing the scene with him learning to fly in the corn field, but that never happened here. We're used to seeing Clark speed over to school because he missed the bus, but that never happened here. And that's the problem with the criticism that I see of this movie. People are judging this movie and all of its characters based on what we know from everywhere else. That is a burden that none of the Marvel movies (except maybe Spider-Man) have had. Nobody knew Iron Man before RDJ put on the suit. We knew what Cap looked like, but he wasn't/isn't something that is a part of American culture. Thor... to this day, nobody cares about Thor (part of me felt a cold stare from HunterD_Raven when I typed that, but he hasn't posted on a Sliders board in years, so I don't care!!!).
Batman and Superman don't have the luxury of being introduced to the audience, and people can't put aside what they know about Superman and just watch the movie for what it is. They expect him to do this or that, because it happened on Smallville or in a movie from 1978. Not to sound petty, but that's not fair.


As for coloring... I thought Man of Steel was beautiful. I loved the way it looked, and I didn't like the brighter version online. Look around you right now. The light, the shadows, the colors that you're wearing (if you're anything like me) are not comic book bright. My jeans are muted blue. My skin isn't glowing. My shirt is an earth tone.

Man of Steel reminded me of when I was a kid. The cool breeze that blows through the laundry in the late afternoon, while little Clark is running around in his towel-cape. Maybe it's because the colors remind me of movies from that era too... Field of Dreams, Groundhog Day, even up to Twister and stuff like that. The movie looks like a *film*, not a comic book movie. The visuals in Man of Steel, namely the coloring, instantly brings me back to a hundred spring nights when tornado watches were in effect around my home in Texas, or a cool summer night in New Jersey. I don't know how to explain it, but it was a very evocative film for me. It made me relate to Superman's upbringing more than the overly warm coloring of Smallville did, and far more than I could have if everything was in primary colors.  He would have looked silly wearing his "normal" colors in this movie.

Sorry to ramble. It's one of the few movies that I've seen over and over again, within a short length of time.

I do hope that Superman isn't all grim and menacing in the new movie. The trailers have been all from Batman's point of view, and in Batman's style. So unless this is a Batman movie that features Superman as a side character, I would hope to get more balance from the finished movie.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Yeah, like I said, I'm using several-years-old memories to attack a movie I liked for the most part.  I'm probably making Clark more dreary and Jonathan less loving.  I'm absolutely willing to admit that.

My problem, I guess, is how there's any chance Clark wouldn't know some of the limits of his powers unless there was some sort of "unlocking" that we didn't see.  In Smallville, Clark starts out with speed, strength, and invulnerability (with stuff like super-athleticism like jumping grouped in).  Clark knows these three things because they're the ones that can be generally assumed.

(All of this is based on the idea that Clark has his powers, even if just a percentage of them, from birth.  That they aren't "activated" at some point in his life.  I don't remember if MoS said this or not, but I'm assuming Clark was always stronger/faster/more invulnerable than a human child his age.)

Clark is a "normal" male child.  All of his play is going to involve those three powers as soon as he's able.  He's going to try and lift stuff.  He's going to try and break stuff.  He's going to fall and hit his head.  He's going to try to run as fast as he can.  As he gets older, those games are just going to continue.  Whether or not Clark is too nerdy for sports, he's going to play them at recess.  So I don't buy that Clark knows he has super-speed.  I don't even buy that he doesn't know the limits of his super-speed.  Because I think any person, human or not, isn't going to be curious.  If he finds out that he can run faster than the other kids (say, in kindergarten), then he's going to test himself at some point before he's an adult.  Is he going to try and break the sound barrier?  Probably not, but I could see him exerting himself.  I know, even know, I'll sometimes try to sprint as fast as I can.  I've done it all my life.  And unless using super-speed involves some sort of extra muscles or extra exertion, then Clark would know well before the tornado scene.

Heat vision, flight, freeze breath, x-ray vision....these are things that would both be unnatural and unintuitive.  Those are things that he wouldn't learn on his own - it'd happen the same way they happened on Smallville.  But speed, strength, and invulnerability are things he would know really early, I'd think.

Now the video makes two great points.  The best is the violence of the speed - there's a great chance that Clark tries to save him and kills him (kinda like Spider-Man "killing" Gwen Stacy) by hitting him with too much force.  But Jonathan is dead either way in that instance, and I don't like the idea that Clark didn't try.  I almost like that better - and it even parallels with him "killing" all those people in an attempt to save Metropolis.

The other point is why he bothers walking/climbing/etc when he can do other stuff.  And I'm guessing super-speed takes more out of him than anything else.  So if there's a chance to do things at "normal speed" I'm guessing he would.  And maybe running at super-speed is exhausting and flying takes less effort - it'd explain why there isn't much super-running in the movie and a lot more super-flying.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

What we see of Clark's childhood is a lot of him being scared to see what he can do. As a small child, x-ray vision terrified him. As a young teenager, the idea of accidentally killing someone terrified him. He was living in a nightmare world, and there was no waking up. His powers were like an abusive relative for him, so I don't think that he would be trying to see how fast he could go or how strong he was. He would be trying to see how normal he could be, because this wasn't a kid who fantasized about being The Flash. This is a kid who wanted people to *stop* looking at him. I think that he probably had a lonely childhood and didn't play with other kids very much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4teJPCcJSQ0

In that scene, we see Clark being bullied. He was in the truck, reading a book until he was pulled out by the other kids. Then he didn't say a word to them. They wanted a reaction from him. They wanted the weird loner kid to do something, but he didn't.

While we saw Martha coaching him on how to pull back on the x-ray vision and the super hearing, we know that he didn't discover flying until later. He could control his heat vision as a child (he burned a door knob without blowing it up and burning down his school) We saw him jump, and we know that he was strong, but flying is an extension of his jumping power. Speed is an extension of his strength. From this, we can know that these are two areas where he didn't push himself. He didn't want to know, because the extent of his power scared him since he was a child.

I really don't think that he knows how to super speed at the beginning of the movie. I don't think it just takes more out of him, I think that he is unaware of those elements until he starts to embrace his powers. I think that the oil rig was probably the first time he'd done anything on that scale. The first time he pushes himself is when he learns how to fly. He jumps, and then pushes just that much harder in order to fly.


On another note, I kinda did feel like Clark's secret was a sort of open secret in Smallville. Pete Ross didn't seem like a close friend, but he seemed to know things. The priest didn't seem completely floored by Clark talking to him about being an alien. He swallowed kinda hard, but then moved on.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I mean I guess if his childhood was that traumatic, maybe he would be afraid of pushing himself.  But unless I'm understanding the general idea of "powers" incorrectly, I don't see how there's any way he wouldn't have known he has super-speed.

(Since "powers" are fictional, it's entirely possible that I'm looking at it wrongly.  But since Superman established the whole "yellow sun" thing to try and explain it scientifically, I'm going to use whatever scientific knowledge I have to rationalize how it'd work in my head.)

I imagine heat vision/x-ray vision/flight all working as if I was trying to wag a tail.  I can imagine what wagging a tail would feel like, but since I don't have a tail, I wouldn't exactly know how to do it.  But strength/super breath/super-hearing//speed are all, in my mind, just extensions of things I can do.  For example, if I were to line up for a race with Barry Allen, mind-wiped him from knowing he's the Flash, and shot the starting gun, we'd both run as fast as we can.  It's just he'd end up in Mexico before I ended up at the end of the finish line.  Barry could run "slowly" so that it looks like he's running "normal" speed, but he'd be doing an act.  He's an adult shaking a toddler's hand and pretending that it's being crushed by this super-strong toddler.

(Case in point - Smallville season one.  Clark loses his powers and tries to super-speed.  It just looks like he's starting to run fast.)

If that's the way powers work, Clark would have to actively work to appear human.  If he exerted himself in any way,  his strength/speed would show up.  So to say that Clark doesn't know he has super-speed would imply that he's never run.  Or even started to run.  And it wouldn't have had to have been something where he even knew he needed to run.  Maybe he tries to sneak a cookie as a four year old and speeds off when he heard a noise.  I mean, again, kids run around all the time.  My nephew learned how to walk a month ago, and he's already "running"

So I don't buy that he didn't know.  Not unless powers work completely differently than I think they do and it's a completely different motion to run and super-run.

Two things I can accept regarding the super-speed and the tornado is 1) that he thought he'd kill Jonathan if he ran to save him and 2) he was absolutely terrified of using his powers in front of anyone.  And those are both fine things.  But I hate that lesson for Clark, and I guess my problem is more there than anything.  Not a problem with the movie or a problem with the character - just a disagreement with how to raise a super-powered child.  Again assuming powers work the way I think they do, I'd have Clark using his powers all the time on the farm because I'd need him to be in complete control of them all the time.  Like the JLU episode, Clark has to live in a world that's made of paper, not losing control even for a second, or people could die.  Terrifying him just seems counterproductive.

83 (edited by Informant 2016-02-24 23:23:07)

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I look at it this way... If I'm racing my brother down the street, my goal is to run as fast as I need to in order to beat him. Just like when I pick up a phone... Even if I forgot that I can lift 100 pounds or whatever, the amount of strength that I use to life that object is determined by the result I'm getting, not the limit of my ability. You don't usually start off at 100% of anything you do. Running starts at 0mph and works up to whatever you need to get the job done. Technically, most of us are capable of lifting more than our perceived limit. Our brain limits us, but in extreme situations, people have lifted hundreds or thousands of pounds more than they thought they could.

When Clark was learning to fly in MoS, it was an extension of jumping. He jumped, and fell. Then he had to learn how to put that next boost into that jump, which became flight.

Maybe part of his body has a "normal" mode that would allow him to live in a normal world without crushing people and busting down walls, and super strength or speed would require a learned ability to break down the blocks that his brain has in place.

We see him as a boy without control of his hearing or vision,  which makes sense. I mean, you can't normally shut down your ears. The way we use them is different than our arms and legs.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Informant wrote:

Maybe part of his body has a "normal" mode that would allow him to live in a normal world without crushing people and busting down walls, and super strength or speed would require a learned ability to break down the blocks that his brain has in place.

It's possible.  And it doesn't seem like anything in the movie confirms or denies this so it's just our own (fun) speculation.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Another interesting article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/ … a1847970bb

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Well, let's talk a little about what "success" means.  And not just necessarily talking about BvS but to the DCCU as a whole.  I know you want it to succeed so let's talk about what that would really mean.

(And I know you're not a DC fanboy who loves DC and hates Marvel.  You've been as critical as anyone about stuff in Gotham, Supergirl, and even the Arrowverse that you originally loved.  For the sake of the argument, I simply would like to characterize you as someone who wants the DCCU to survive)

So you liked Man of Steel.  Man of Steel spawned Dawn of Justice and the plans that currently include Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, Green Lantern Corps, Shazam, and at least one Affleck Batman solo film.  Now is the DCCU a success if it can pull off a "phase one" like the MCU did?  Is it a success if it gets to Justice League and maybe some of those smaller films don't get made?  Is success based on critics?  Money?  Accurate representations of comics?

Because I'm not really sure what to make of this.  I want BvS to succeed, but I'm also very worried about how it's being handled.  In my head, would I rather have BvS be a success (regardless of whether I like it) if it means that we'll get a lot of the same in future projects?  Or would I rather have BvS be a bit of a flop so that Justice League won't fall prey to a lot of the creative issues I have with BvS?

Is the DCCU a success if we get a Zack Snyder helmed Justice League movie on time?  Would it be a success if the Hitfix rumors are true and we get a Batman movie before Justice League and someone else directs it?  Can it be a failure if Justice League still happens, or does it need to be a bigger success?  If BvS and Justice League are a critical/financial success but the other movies (Cyborg, Aquaman, Flash, Green Lantern Corps) are failures, is the DCCU a success?  If the movies start looking like Marvel movies (no character development, big explosions, fun but forgettable movies) is that a problem?

And, Info, this is for you primarily but anyone could answer - if you don't like BvS, should the plan be changed?  Or is it important that the plan not be changed, regardless of the reason?

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

That's a big question to answer. I guess it depends on which perspective we're approaching this from.

As a viewer (and as a storyteller myself), success to me means that it's a good movie. Good characters, good acting, good script, good directing. If I walk away from it psyched, that is a successful movie.

I imagine that the studio's view of success would be more about dollars and cents, and what the movie can bring to their future plans. But I do think it would be incredibly hard for this movie to not serve a useful purpose, in terms of setting up future movies.

Let's flash back to before Man of Steel came out. I was not super thrilled with what I was hearing about the movie. We had a British actor playing Clark Kent, which is like an American playing James Bond, I think. We had a script written by someone who had written a comic book in which Superman declares that he's not American, he is a citizen of the world (a phrase that I hate, by the way). We had Zod, who I felt was too familiar and had already been done twice before (on film and on television). Lois Lane not only didn't look like Lois Lane, but she was being played by someone who I didn't feel too excited about. And on top of that, we knew that Jor-El was going to be playing a large role, which looked like another story where Clark is more alien than he is human. The trailers looked beautiful, but I wasn't sure where they were going with the movie.

Obviously, my opinion has changed. The things that I thought they were going to do wrong were creations of my own imagination and in the press. I think that in the end, Man of Steel was a great movie. I think it's a successful movie (in terms of quality and also profit, though it didn't blow people away in terms of money)

Then again, it's also a movie that isn't universally loved. It's sparked a lot of debate and conversation. Does that make it better or worse? I don't know. I think that most good movies are the ones that you can talk for hours about, just like a book. If you're universally loved, you're not taking chances.

I really can't speak about what success means to the studio. So for me, it will mean a good, high quality movie. Something that excites me, both as the kid who grew up with these characters, and as a writer who gets stupid excited over great characters. If I walk out of the movie depressed that I wasn't involved in making the movie, it's a success.

I do expect a Batman movie (and probably another Superman movie at some point), though it's not on the schedule right now. I expect that Affleck will produce/write that, but probably won't direct it (a huge action movie is hard to direct and star in at the same time). I'm open to the idea of messing around with the schedule of releases (if The Flash should disappear, I'd understand that). But I don't think that they will cut way back and go back to square one. Aside from the Justice League movies, Snyder isn't directing the upcoming movies. He's not responsible for Suicide Squad or Wonder Woman, aside from serving as a producer and keeping things from going off the rails in terms of the universe that's been established. I think that the success of those movies will fall on the shoulders of the people who are writing/directing/starring in them. I imagine some will be better than others, but the best they can do is keep going, trying to make each movie the best it can be, and learn whatever lessons they can for whatever sequels are down the road.

One thing that they haven't done, that I know of, is commit to three Aquaman movies, three Cyborg movies, etc., which Marvel has done. It would probably be smarter to see how people respond to characters before doing anything like that. It might be best to explore different characters, like the rumored Booster Gold/Blue Beetle movie. DC/Warner has always kept the door open for other movies along the way, whether they be Batman/Superman sequels, or things like Justice League Dark. I think it's smart to keep their options open and not just make movies with characters that they might want to use in a Crisis movie fifteen years from now.


Did any of that answer any of your questions?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Ummm...sorta?

I could be reading more into this than I should (and I apologize if I am), but you've been concerned about the Hitfix rumors, the success of BvS commercially, and the start of filming for Justice League.  You've, several times, compared the DC strategy to the Marvel strategy. 

So some of that doesn't really sync with what you just said.  If your main concern about BvS is whether or not it's a good movie, then the Hitfix rumors have no bearing on that.  The movie is done.  The Hitfix rumors don't have anything about last-minute reshoots or constant script editing.  Again, this wasn't like Fantastic Four, and the rumors even compliment Batman and Luthor (nothing about FF was positive in similar rumors).  You're going to see BvS as it was meant to be seen by the creator, regardless of what the studio does or does not think.

Also, you seemed concerned about the start of the Justice League filming being on time.  Is this simply tied to the idea that BvS is a mess?  Like if BvS is great and everyone loves it and it makes 2 billion dollars but the studio still wants to delay filming, would that be fine?  Because I'm not sure how to read that from your perspective - is it worrying because of how it affects BvS or how it makes the DCCU look vs. the MCU?

Do you view the success of the DCCU as connected to the success of the MCU?  Or are they so different to you that it doesn't really matter?

Because I'm like you - I just want the movies to be good.  And if BvS is bad (and I fear that it is), then I at least want to salvage Justice League.  And if that means Justice League comes out months or even years after it's supposed to, that's fine.  Because I worry that it's just not in the right hands.  I worry we're going to get Batman with brooding/angry Superman (which seems to be, from the trailers, where his character arc is going), brooding/angry Aquaman, brooding/angry Cyborg, brooding/angry Wonder Woman, etc, and that's not what I want.  I'd rather wait for the Nolan stuff to die down and get a movie that has character development but is fun and exciting.

Like you and MoS I could be wrong.  And I'll be there opening night regardless of what I think of the movie.  Where it feels like the collision of these two different worlds - BvS and the Snyderverse just doesn't feel right to me.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Yeah, my thoughts are layered here. smile

In regards to HitFix's comments, I just don't believe what they're saying. And I disagree with what they were saying will happen, based on their unsubstantiated rumor/wild theorizing. I have been known to theorize, but their crazy rambling was then picked up by several other websites and reported as a legitimate story about the movie being a failure and Warner Bros. being in the process of major damage control. This hit on some of my issues with the media and how news is reported these days. It's irresponsible.
The sudden surge of negative articles, based on "inside reports" and unsubstantiated rumors feels like the campaign ads we have been seeing on TV. It feels more like Marvel is running a negative press campaign than it does an actual, legitimate story. Marvel may have nothing to do with it, but it feels like a negative ad campaign, rather than legitimate reporting.
So, my frustration with HitFix was on a few levels. First, I strongly disagree with what they said. I don't believe that BvS is going to be a massive flop, and I don't believe that Warner is going to clear their slate because of it. I don't believe that even if BvS was a flop they would overhaul their whole slate, because it would look reactionary, like damage control. After a huge event on the CW, outlining their plan in detail, it would be disastrous for them to rework the slate. And for that reason alone (the CW special, that is), I do not believe that they are as worried about BvS as HitFix made them out to be.
And my other issues have just been about crappy journalism around the internet, resulting from HitFix's (wrong) theorizing. I pointed out that JL is filming on time, just to highlight how wrong I thought HitFix was. They said that JL would be reworked and pushed back to allow for a Batman movie. I disagreed with that. If Warner/DC was as worried about BvS as they say, they wouldn't have scheduled production on JL to start before they know how the BvS dust is going to settle. Bringing production to a screeching halt midway through would be another disaster in terms of publicity.


I don't view the DCU's success as being as connected to the MCU as other people seem to. I think they're different animals, and if you go to the theater to see BvS and expect it to look and feel like a Marvel movie, you will be in for a horrible surprise. People will make that comparison. People will be upset that the movie doesn't look like a cartoon. People will think that it's too dark, if only because it's not all primary colors. I think that until DC establishes what it is and people know what to expect when seeing their movies, and stop seeing them as some sort of slip-up in the coloring department, the movies will be pretty divisive among the general audience. I don't know that these will be the sort of movie that you take your kids to see a hundred times, but it might be the type of movie that a comic book fan goes to see a hundred times. I think that the movies will be judged against the Marvel movies by the press, because they view all comic book stories as being the same (and as being children's stories on top of that), but I personally think that it's a mistake to compare the two worlds.

I really am hoping that the trailers have just been a reaction to the positive feedback about Batman, because they seem to be very Batman-centric. Even Superman in the trailers is only seen from Batman's point of view most of the time. I don't want Superman to be angry and brooding all the time, but I do think that if he is depicted as a person with real human issues, people will probably read that as broody no matter what. I don't know that they will ever win with Superman, because so many people (especially aging critics) really want the Donner version back. That would just be such a huge mistake though.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I just want to point out a funny part to this whole discussion...

I'm still not sure of Affleck as Batman! Everyone says he is great in the role, but I am generally not a fan of his acting. He has about two expressions, and that's it. I know he is an Oscar winner, but that means nothing to me. Argo was okay... But that was a movie written for him, by him, directed by him.

So I'm not without my reservations. I'm just trying to push them aside and hope for the best. If the movie sucks, you know I will be relentlessly critical. smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I confess to a certain distaste towards Ben Affleck as Batman -- because, like Slider_Quinn21, I really hate old people. No, not really. It's just -- I think that only certain types of people should play superheroes. Ben Affleck has a *lot* of skeletons in his closet and it's the sort of thing that really distracts from just seeing a character -- I don't want to look at Bruce Wayne and see a gambling philanderer who passes out in casinos, I don't want to look at Captain America and see a jailbait chasing cokehead. That said, it's not terribly fair in that everyone has lives and dark sides and I find myself giving Robert Downey Jr. and Christian Bale a free pass because their various mental shortcomings are in keeping with the characters they play. For superheroes -- I prefer Tom Welling types, people with extremely low key personal lives that don't get in the way of seeing their character and only their character.

A friend of mine went to high school with Erik Knudsen (Alec from CONTINUUM) and was at a loss to describe anything significant about him whatsoever; he was polite and reportedly liked to sit quietly thinking.

For an older Batman -- I think I would choose someone like Adrian Paul (who is 56). I know nothing about him and never will. :-)

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Y'know, as I was reading your post, I was more or less in agreement. But then I realized that when we look at Bruce Wayne, we *are* supposed to see the drinking, womanizing, gambling, spoiled rich guy. I'm not defending Affleck as an actor. Just talking about the thought that came into my head.

But I agree, even beyond superhero actors. Matt Damon, Leo DiCaprio, George Clooney, Brad Pitt... The list goes on. And these are all the "Oscar Actors" who make movies because they're trying to teach us how great they are. And their real life personalities get in the way of ever seeing them as a character.
It is sad to see actors fall into that community of actors who are always out to get an Oscar, acting like it is morally important for us to see their movies. And they always end up making the most shallow, boring crap out there... But they win Oscars.

Sorry. I'm venting an old peeve here.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

ireactions wrote:

I confess to a certain distaste towards Ben Affleck as Batman -- because, like Slider_Quinn21, I really hate old people. No, not really.

Hahaha, I don't hate old people!  I'm becoming an old person myself.

What drives me crazy is this disjointed mess where Batman and Superman aren't contemporaries.  I just can't get passed that.  I actually think it's an interesting story for an elseworld, in the same sense that I think Red Son Superman and Thomas Wayne Batman are cool concepts.  But we're talking about the main DC cinematic universe, and changing a fundamental part about it. 

Now trust me, I get it.  I know why they're doing it.  When you make Batman older, you give him the wisdom to make the moral argument against Superman.  You let yourself do a cool Dark Knight Returns bit.  You give yourself the ability to do Bat-Family stories that you can't do with a young/new Batman.  And, most importantly, you find a way to deal with a problem that Justice League stories face: how can a man in a bat costume fight alongside gods?  What enemy can fight both Superman and Batman?

In a realistic sense, it sidelines Batman.  He can be the mentor, calling plays from behind a radio.  Because a young Batman would want to fight - an old Batman might understand that he serves the team better if he doesn't..

So I get it.

And in a standalone Batman/Superman movie, I think it'd be okay.  Lex Luthor Jr. (with a mysteriously absent Lex Luthor Sr.) might be okay.  The problem is that this isn't standalone.  We're going to get "official movie versions" of all the heroes we love, and Batman is going to be this mentor character who will be yelling for the rest of the Justice League to get off his lawn.  They're going to see him as this weird old man with no powers who is going to be telling them how to hero properly.

It's just weird to me.  It's weird that Dick Grayson will be Superman's age or younger.  That Clark might be Tim Drake's age.  That characters that are older than Batman already (like Penguin) might be dead from old age. 

Batman already had all his adventures.  It looks like Bruce is coming out of retirement to be Batman.  And yet there's going to be Batman solo films.  Is he going to come out of retirement several times?  How many times is Bruce going to look at Alfred and say "one more time?" 

It's just weird.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Is Batman being 43 much weirder than Iron Man being played than a 50 year old?

And Affleck could even be playing him a few years younger than he really is... Or a few older, for that matter.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

95 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-02-28 00:24:06)

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

43 isn't old for Bruce Wayne.  But it is old for Batman.  He's the same age he was in Dark Knight Rises (or several years older)....his body wouldn't be able to keep up with it.  Unless Affleck is playing Batman at 32, Batman is passed his prime.  Every other hero will be in their prime, but Bruce will be passed his.  Which either makes Batman the mentor figure for the Justice League, he's going to need to wear that powered suit in every fight (which is why a 50-year-old Tony Stark is believable - the tech is doing all the work), or Batman fighting alongside the Justice League is even more ridiculous.

I actually really like the idea that Batman can exist on the same battlefield as the Justice League.  It's silly, but it's cool.  But when you make Batman already-retired, you're taking most/all of that away.  Now he's older than everyone in addition to having no powers.  You've handicapped the only hero who was already severely handicapped.

I just feel like they're sacrificing a lot just so they can make a Dark Knight Returns parallel.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

It wasn't as obvious in animation, but it's really following the 90's animated series format.  If you look at Batman Beyond, Batman was presently operating in our frame during 1999; he had his heart attack in 2019; and old Bruce was discovered by Terry in 2039.  Now it depends on how you want to extrapolate things - do you believe Bruce was in his mid to late 50's when he had the heart attack?  Mid to late 70's as old Bruce?  If so, then that means he was in his mid to late 30's when Batman Beyond debuted (and aging more as Justice League progressed).

To further back up how old Bruce would be in 1999, look at the main Batman animated series.  Bruce had been operating as Batman for a long time before Superman showed up.   Mask of the Phantasm showed us when he began; the Robin two parter showed us when he found the younger Robin while not wearing the yellow oval.

The only part that doesn't make sense to me, and never has, is the part where Bruce retires early.  The animated series got it right with him going on into true old age.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I get the concern. It is valid. But I think we have to see if they can sell the idea. In the comics, Batman's age is questionable. Dick is in his mid-20's at least, but Bruce isn't played as an old man. It is all iffy, so any translation to screen will be weird.

But yeah, if they can't sell Affleck as a functional Batman, then the next Batman movie will have to be someone else taking over for him. Fortunately, that concept wouldn't be outside the boundaries of the source material.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Haha, guys, guys, guys....I used "it's just weird" twice in my argument.  I'm clearly not arguing from a position of strength here.  No need to gang up smile

I thought about the DCAU and came to a similar conclusion about his age.  And I get that Bruce can be Batman into his 50s.  But, as it took on the show, he'd need more tech.  He'd be converting himself from Batman to Iron Man.  Which is fine, but now you have Iron Man in the Justice League instead of Batman.

I also just wonder if a mature/older Bruce would go rushing to Gotham to fight this guy.  If the idea is that Bruce is legitimately worried that Superman is a threat, I think an older Bruce does the detective thing.  He finds out who Clark is, sees his personal life, looks up the whole Kent Farm thing, and he realizes that Clark is a good dude.  He'd watch footage of the Clark/Zod fight and realize that one guy was trying to kill people and the other guy was trying to kill that guy.  I don't think he'd go in guns blazing without doing any legwork.  Because, presumably, this is a guy who's fought Bane.  Maybe he's dealt with Arkham City or No Man's Land Gotham.  He's gotta know that there's better/more strategic ways of fighting a guy like Superman.  And he'd probably be more likely to listen to Alfred's advice (which probably saved his life a couple dozen times at least)

Now a young Batman?  Who's presumably never fought anyone like Clark but also presumably never lost a fight?  Who's young and strong and less mature and fool-hearty?  That dude is going to ignore Alfred and go and fight this big blue idiot.

Like I said, I'm writing my own version of how I'd do the story.  It's probably bad and probably not even correct versions of the characters, but it's what I'd do if I was just "correcting" Zack Snyder's version.  So I'm trying to keep a lot of the same story elements while fixing some of the stuff that I find questionable.  I'll post it soon enough so you guys can laugh at it smile

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I didn't mean to gang up. This is a worthy discussion, not something that I think you're entirely wrong about. I was just providing a counter point.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Haha, no I wasn't really upset.  But whenever TF shows up on the other side of an argument, I generally assume I'm wrong smile

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I like the back and forth here. It lets me explore both sides of the issue without having to do all of the thinking for myself. I won't have a final opinion until the movie actually comes out and I see it (which will probably not be right away)

Now I'm actually wondering about the age of Batman in the comics. Say he was 25 when he started... which assumes that he dropped out of college and spent several years training. Say he worked alone for at least three years before Dick came to live with him. At that point, Dick would have still been a young teenager (too young for emancipation and still needing a guardian). So say Dick was 14 or 15 when that happened. Bruce and Dick work together for a few years at least... Dick is shown as still being Robin in college, right? So maybe four or five years there? So he'd be at least 32-ish by now (if not older).

Factor in time for Jason Todd, Tim Drake and Damian Wayne as Robin, and I would think that he'd have to be pushing 40 in the comics. It's hard to say how much time actually passes, since the characters don't age normally. Jason was Robin from 1983 to 1988. Tim's first appearance was something like 1989, and he was Robin until well into the 2000's. Bruce would have to be in his 40's right?

Meanwhile, Superman doesn't really age at all... but neither does Lois. They both still look like they're in their earl 30's.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I have always seen THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and its bitter, miserable, joyless, solitary Bruce Wayne as a total failure to understand the character. BATMAN BEYOND, in contrast, struck me as the right approach. What would Bruce do if he couldn't be Batman anymore? He would pass the mantle onto a trained successor and serve as mission control at home base.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I mean, I always just sorta assumed that Batman and Superman were the same age.  Is Superman really supposed to be Dick's age?  Because that just seems bizarre.  Also, is there any continuity where the two of them are friends because if they're the same age, I could see that.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

It suddenly struck me today... They're releasing Batman v Superman on Easter weekend!

Will that help the movie or hurt it? And while I'm asking questions, does Ben Affleck look a little botox-y to anyone else lately?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Ugh.
http://collider.com/best-superman-movie … superman-1


Seriously, the Donner movie was not good. It was horribly written, horribly directed and horribly cast. The only reason for its popularity is that there weren't a lot of superhero movies at the time. For the past few decades, it's been riding on nostalgia, and the fact that this is the only Superman that a lot of critics know, and therefore any Superman that isn't cartoonishly, stupidly bright and sunny becomes "grim".

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

The Weekly Planet, one of my favorite comic podcasts, did an entire episode about the Donner Superman.  I've never had any fondness towards those movies, and I don't really want the movies to be like them.  I group them in with not really seeing my version of superman on film yet.  I still say Smallville is the closest they've gotten yet.

In other news, they cast JK Simmons as Commissioner Gordon.  I really like him as an actor, but I think that's a really bad fit.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

The Weekly Planet, one of my favorite comic podcasts, did an entire episode about the Donner Superman.

Okay I listened to the first half of the podcast, and it's actually about all the Christopher Reeve Superman movies.  I've only listened to the first part of the Superman stuff (most of the first part of the podcast is recent comic movie news), but one of the guys definitely hates all the movies.  But one thing he didn't hate, necessarily, was Reeve in the role.

So, Informant, this is for you.  If Christopher Reeve was cast in Man of Steel, do you think he would've done a good job with that script?  Same question, I suppose, with Brandon Routh....who, again, I thought was a pretty decent Superman in the boring Superman Returns (which they lumped in and review apparently).

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

No. Christopher Reeve was a bad Superman. He was physically wrong for the part, and his instincts about the character were wrong. The only reason that anyone gives him a pass is because he fits the role when it is written/drawn by people who based the character on his portrayal. It is a cycle of suck.

Routh... That is harder. I like him, but I don't know if he is Superman. Of course, he would have to bulk up more than he did for Superman Returns. I think he has some Clark Kent quality, but... I don't know. It would be interesting to see him try it with a good script.

Welling did a good job with him. And despite my early reservations, I really like what Cavill brought to the role. It was a quieter take, which was interesting. George Reeves was a whole different ball game... And of course, there was Affleck.

http://images.fashionnstyle.com/data/images/full/41228/ben-affleck.jpg?w=600

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Ha, I'd forgotten that Affleck played Superman.

See, I didn't love Reeve either.  Although he did something that is still sorta amazing to me - I think he played Clark and Superman very differently.  I sorta see his Clark Kent as the sort of bumbling oaf that couldn't possibly be Superman.  I don't know what kind of cinematic tricks they used, but his Clark seemed lanky and unable to control his body.  He reminded me of a friend of mine who is physically imposing but just a complete klutz.  But his Superman didn't seem that way at all.  Most other versions of Clark (Welling, Routh, and Cavill) just look like Superman in glasses.  To the point where they didn't really even bother with the Clark Kent persona for most of Man of Steel.

But, yeah, those movies are so bad.

I'd like to have seen Routh work with the Man of Steel script.  I'm not sure he has the acting chops, though.  I haven't seen him really do anything serious.  Even his work on Arrow/Legends is done with this boyish fun.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I thought Reeve was good even if the movies were mostly bad.  He was a better actor than the Supermen who have come after him.

As for being physically wrong, Superman shouldn't be huge and muscular.  His strength doesn't come from his muscles.  Having essentially unlimited strength means there's no real way for him to work out and make his muscles bigger.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

The problem with Reeve's portrayal was that there was no real character. He was playing a character as Clark Kent, and he was playing a character as Superman. There is a definite line between the two, because he played them as two separate people. I equate that movie with the old Batman TV series. It was just too much.

Superman is very muscular in the comic books. That is what the character is supposed to be. Reeve was a fairly average build, obviously sucking in his gut. And his movements weren't strong enough either. He practically pranced through some scenes. I would probably put him down as the worst actor to play the role.


I don't think it's fair to say that they didn't bother with the Clark Kent character in Man of Steel. The entire movie was Clark Kent figuring out how to become Superman. I don't think that Clark should be bumbling and lanky. That guy would be drawing way more attention to himself than Clark probably should. I think the difference between Clark and Superman should be far more subtle than that. Man of Steel and Smallville had similar takes on the character.

I agree that Routh is probably better off playing less serious roles. I don't know that he has the authority for Superman, but he does roles like Ray Palmer well. Plus, he has brown eyes. Superman shouldn't have brown eyes, and the contact lenses were obvious and weird.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Informant wrote:

I don't think it's fair to say that they didn't bother with the Clark Kent character in Man of Steel. The entire movie was Clark Kent figuring out how to become Superman. I don't think that Clark should be bumbling and lanky. That guy would be drawing way more attention to himself than Clark probably should. I think the difference between Clark and Superman should be far more subtle than that. Man of Steel and Smallville had similar takes on the character.

When I say "Clark Kent" - I'm distinguishing between the Clark Kent persona and the Clark Kent character that the world sees.  And what I mean is that Lois meets Clark before she meets Superman - so she's never fooled.  Just like Lois from Smallville wouldn't be fooled - she knew him without the glasses. 

And I know that the glasses have just become a part of the character that we're supposed to accept.  People just don't know.  But I think in today's society more than ever, it just doesn't make any sense.  I mean, Clark is a reporter - these guys show up on TV all the time now to talk about stories.  Clark probably has a facebook page.  At least a LinkedIn with his picture on it.  His picture is on the Daily Planet web site in the staff page and probably a hundred times by his byline.  There'd be a million posts on Reddit about him being Superman a week after his first story. It's just the way the world works.

So, yeah, the bumbling part is cheesy and works well for the 1970s.  But I think it's the only thing that really works in modern society.  And he'd have to be on 24/7 for it to work.  Because there are cameras everywhere.  There'd be people who would dedicate their lives to creating websites/networks to find out who this guy is.  Papparazzi, etc.  I bet even the Fortress of Solitude would have people camped out at it, waiting to see a glimpse of him.

So Clark would have to give off this pathetic look or people would know immediately.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I think Man of Steel managed to play this issue well. It's impossible to believe that Lois would't know that Clark was Superman, so they didn't even pretend to make it work. In doing this, they made the story more believable (to me anyway). They have Clark wearing glasses, but Superman is never clearly seen by most of the people in the movie. He wouldn't be easily recognizable. Especially since his outfit would draw more attention than his face.

There are celebrities who can walk around without being recognized all the time. People whose faces are all over the place, all the time. They change their hair or their clothes, and you wouldn't even notice them on the street. With women, it's easier because of hair and makeup. But guys too. I think it's more possible to blend than people suspect. And while people might think that Clark Kent looks a lot like Superman, the same way Keira Knightly looked like Natalie Portman when they were younger, nobody would really think that these two famous people are actually the same person.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

And it worked in Man of Steel.  But in BvS, that's going to be a problem.  Clark is standing before the Senate.  He's standing around looking crestfallen in front of protesters and papparazzi.  He'd have his picture taken, and it'd be on every newspaper, TV station, and website on Earth.

I actually think the solution to the Clark Kent problem is to have him live a low-key life.  Maybe leave him in Smallville to either work on the farm or run the local general store or something.  I like the idea that the town sorta protects him.  Especially if Smallville and Metropolis are next door like in Smallville - he could be in Metropolis as fast as it would take any of us to be down the block.  So in that way, he isn't even hiding.  He's Clark Kent and then speeds off to be Superman.

Because, thanks to social media, there isn't really any need for Clark to need to work at a newspaper to be close to the action.  He could just have an RSS feed or something alert him whenever something goes wrong. smile

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

That would work. I'd even like to see Clark happily live a quiet, normal life. I'm just not sure that the larger audience would go for it. They already complain about him not being true to the comic books in Man of Steel.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Well there's a twitter feed called "Overheard in the Newsroom" and there was one a while back where someone said "since there aren't any more phone booths, where does Superman change?" and one of the other reporters said "change?  where would he work?" since print journalism isn't exactly the best line of work right now.  So I think re-doing Clark's day-to-day life would make a lot of sense now.  I don't think he'd do something like civil service (definitely not a cop.  maybe something like a firefighter but I doubt that too).  Journalism does seem to fit him, but I still say something like running a store would be something that would interest him.

Now it's cool that he leaves his hometown and goes to the big city, but I just think there's no realistic way he'd be able to live in the big city.  There's the bit in the Batman/Superman animated movie where Superman just flies in a window into his apartment and then looks out to see that Batman has tracked him - and they just sorta stare at each other through his window.  And that scene has always sorta stuck with me because I just don't think it could work like that.  Someone would definitely see him and be able to put 2 and 2 together.

I think, honestly, the best way for Clark to protect his identity would be to live at the Fortress of Solitude in his Superman persona and super-speed to Metropolis to live as Clark Kent.  And he'd have to be Smallville-fast where he could be there and back before anyone would even notice.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I don't see the Fortress as any kind of home really. It has always just seemed like a resource to me. A library/storage area. His living there would separate him from humanity.

There are a few ways that I could take the character.

1. He takes over the farm and provides produce for Metropolis-based restaurants.

2. He works as an independent journalist/blogger. Nobody probably cares to listen to Superman's opinions on anything. And voicing an opinion as Superman could be taken the wrong away anyway. Maybe running his own site would allow him to be Clark Kent to the world.

3. He could work at a normal, boring desk job in Smallville.


Things have changed a lot over the past few decades. Now, he wouldn't have to be in the city to make a living or to have his ear to the ground. Clark doesn't seem like someone who has always dreamed of living in the city either. So, why would he?

The problem is that while his life may need an update, I don't know how do do that without doing away with a lot of great, iconic supporting characters, or alienating the audience who expect certain things from Superman.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Why would he need a job at all?

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

He still needs a home, food, internet, Netflix, etc. Being super wouldn't solve everything unless he stole money.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Informant wrote:

He still needs a home, food, internet, Netflix, etc. Being super wouldn't solve everything unless he stole money.

He doesn't need to eat or sleep, so he doesn't really need a home.  I'm sure phone companies would be all over themselves to give him a phone with whatever internet service he needs, just so they can advertise that he uses their service.