Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you're less interested in reading the comic books, you should also check out the DC Animated Original Movies, The Dark Knight Returns (Parts I and II).

The Dark Knight Returns looks to be a *major* inspiration for the film.

And The Dark Knight Returns (Ninja'd by Compel!!! - Go watch those movies, they're great!). I mean, any fight between something less than Darkseid/Doomsday level bad guys, or actual omnipotent beings, Superman wins. It's academic.

But in TDKR there is a fight between Batman and Superman, and Batman holds his own for quite a while... because he has an armoured suit (very similar to the one in this film), and is using every trick in the book ("cheating", as Kan put it), and Supes is seriously drained from taking a Soviet Nuke to the face not long ago, a Nuke that caused a nuclear winter, stopping the sun's rays from healing him properly.

And even then Bats still only comes out on top because Green Arrow hits Superman with a dust-cloud of kryptonite.

Basically what I'm saying is that it can be done, but it requires a whole lot of extra conditions for it to work.


And as far as Batman taking out the Justice League, that was the plot of Justice League: Doom. Has a wonderful ending. The entire JL wants to banish Batman for having plans to take them out, and they ask him to apologise. Batman flatout refuses and just says "Nope. And I'd do it again. You people are too dangerous to go unchecked!" and when confronted with the "How can you be so arrogant? What about keeping you in check?" question his reply is "The Justice League is there to keep me in check.".

Basically Batman is a complete badass in that film.

 Compel wrote:
That was the plotline for Justice League: Doom I believe.

Bad guys get access to Batman's secret files, ends up taking everyone down, except The Flash.

Because The Flash was the one person Batman nominated to be the backup plan of Batman's backup plan...

Cyborg, actually. Flash got a bomb inserted into his wrist.

And Kryptonite (and Wonder Woman) have been his strategies to deal with Supes in the past. Might be where she fits in in this version too.

My guess is the armor we see Batman wearing in the movie is customized version of the Kryptonian armor that Zod drops in Man of Steel. Bruce Wayne has the money and the connections to get ahold of it.

 Ahtman wrote:
My guess is the armor we see Batman wearing in the movie is customized version of the Kryptonian armor that Zod drops in Man of Steel. Bruce Wayne has the money and the connections to get ahold of it.

Didn't Zod shed the armor at a construction site belonging to a certain someone's company?

Which could point towards the "he is nlaying one or both of them against each other" theory.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
What can batman do to Superman?

Honestly not much, but plot armor makes more than a difference though. Really they shouldn't be in each others comics as one is essentially a crime noir series and the other is sci-fi adventurism but popularity makes strange bedfellows. People like Batman so the writers invent all sorts of total crap to make it work, and I say this as a Batman fan. This is guy who fought Darkseid in melee and won because he is so popular.

Don't get me wrong, I think batman is a pretty cool character but that side of him always just annoyed the crap out of me. Be a great human fighter, sure. Be a great detective, why not it's completely reasonable. Have awesome tech because of unlimited funds OK. Win in a one on one with something like Darkseid? Uhm, no. No. No. No. Never ever, no matter how long he has to plan. No.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And The Dark Knight Returns (Ninja'd by Compel!!! - Go watch those movies, they're great!).

It's not great.

The worst part of the movie is the Joker's last scene in the movie and the events surrounding it, but the whole thing has a strong Bat-Fascist vibe to it.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Compel wrote:
That was the plotline for Justice League: Doom I believe.

Bad guys get access to Batman's secret files, ends up taking everyone down, except The Flash.

Because The Flash was the one person Batman nominated to be the backup plan of Batman's backup plan...

Cyborg, actually. Flash got a bomb inserted into his wrist.

And Kryptonite (and Wonder Woman) have been his strategies to deal with Supes in the past. Might be where she fits in in this version too.

Actually, in the New 52, Bats revealed to Supes that his only plan for taking WW down was Supes himself. She has no real weaknesses, you just have to be strong enough to stop her. That had something to do with his initial disapproval of Supes' and WW's relationship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
My guess is the armor we see Batman wearing in the movie is customized version of the Kryptonian armor that Zod drops in Man of Steel. Bruce Wayne has the money and the connections to get ahold of it.

Maybe, but also Snyder said in the panel that the purpose of the armor is to buy time, not actually win the fight. Which might point to it simply being Wayne tech? Also, two possibilities there regarding 'buying time' IMO -- he's waiting for some kind of cavalry to arrive (Diana?), or there's more going on with that fight than it seems.

Here's a line from Snyder about how Batman will fare: “He’s going to get pummeled like a piñata.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
What can batman do to Superman?

Honestly not much, but plot armor makes more than a difference though. Really they shouldn't be in each others comics as one is essentially a crime noir series and the other is sci-fi adventurism but popularity makes strange bedfellows. People like Batman so the writers invent all sorts of total crap to make it work, and I say this as a Batman fan. This is guy who fought Darkseid in melee and won because he is so popular.

Huh. I actually don't remember that one. I remember him shooting a weak Darkseid with a radion bullet. I DO remember Green Arrow and the Atom (!) killing Darkseid in that JLA story by Morrison.

Captain America has done a lot of stuff like that on the Marvel side too.

 plastictrees wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like Watchmen or something. Interesting.

It's pretty heavy handed honestly, there's a smugness to Miller's work that spoils repeated readings IMO.

That, and being able to see the seeds of the preoccupations and quirks that would eventually eat Frank Miller's work whole. Culminating in (shudder) Holy Terror....

I stopped reading Miller that much after The Dark Knight Returns and Year One so I'm still pretty happy with those. I haven't heard anything really all that good about the rest and the further you get from those it seems the worse I hear.

They're doing a Dark Knight Returns 3. Interesting to see where that goes (or where it can go).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're doing a Dark Knight Returns 3. Interesting to see where that goes (or where it can go).

Is Miller writing it?

 Breotan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're doing a Dark Knight Returns 3. Interesting to see where that goes (or where it can go).

Is Miller writing it?

You want the bad news or the good news? The bad news is that Miller is co-writing it. The good news is that Brian Azzarello is the co-writer.

TDKR2 was...not good.

Saw the trailer and it gave me a little hope. I just still dislike what they chose for the characterisation of Kents and Superman. Superman was always suppose to be about "nurture" and how good American values shaped him. I see no hope or idealism in this superman. The directors love Jesus/Angel imaginary but have not made the character worthy of it yet. I see nothing inspiring about him. It feels like the world has every reason not to trust him.

Batman looks appropriate, though. Affleck may pull this off.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Superman was always suppose to be about "nurture" and how good American values shaped him.

You are confusing "nurture" with "what I want out of Superman".

 AdeptSister wrote:
I see no hope or idealism in this superman.

Then you weren't paying close enough attention.

 AdeptSister wrote:
The directors love Jesus/Angel imaginary but have not made the character worthy of it yet. I see nothing inspiring about him.

It is almost like he is a neophyte who is just learning how to be Superman. Wait. That is exactly what he was. He wasn't even Superman for 24 hours yet in MoS.

 AdeptSister wrote:
It feels like the world has every reason not to trust him.

Gosh, do you think that could be a plot point? How dare they make people learn to respect him instead of respecting him right off the bat!

 Ahtman wrote:


You are confusing "nurture" with "what I want out of Superman".

Sure, what people want out of Superman varies.

I see no hope or idealism in this superman.

Then you weren't paying close enough attention.

About as much hope as batman got in the Christian Bale series, IMO. There should not be grounds for an argument that Batman's story has more hope in it than Superman. Most of this impression is, IMO, colored by the Man of Steel debacle

 AdeptSister wrote:
The directors love Jesus/Angel imaginary but have not made the character worthy of it yet. I see nothing inspiring about him.

It is almost like he is a neophyte who is just learning how to be Superman. Wait. That is exactly what he was. He wasn't even Superman for 24 hours yet in MoS.

Now this is where I agree completely with the good sister adept. "Superman" (really Clark Kent) has had his whole life to decide what his values are.

 AdeptSister wrote:
It feels like the world has every reason not to trust him.

Gosh, do you think that could be a plot point? How dare they make people learn to respect him instead of respecting him right off the bat!

That's a nice, friendly, conversational tone you've got there. Just because some people like a different portrayal of Superman doesn't mean they're wrong.

...You know that people can disagree politely, right? While you don't have to, it usually makes a dialog easier.

The arguement for Man of Steel that I keep hearing is "wait, he is still learning to be a hero." Why is the fact that the writer decided that Superman needs to learn how to be a good person alright? Superman is suppose to be a good person at the start. His parents raised him right.

In Man of Steel his father does not believe in the goodness of man. He fears humanity. He chastised Superman when he saved lives. Heck, he allowed himself to die rather than allow his son to do something heroic. What type of teaching is that? That is not the Jonathan Kent from the comic.

Lets talk about the Superman from the film. What did the scene about him destroying the bar jerk's truck established? Other than he being petty? Was that a reasonable response?

Also, during all the fights he never tried to draw the battle away from civilian areas. Millions died. Heck, he was the cause of all the destruction as he drew Zod here in the first place. This artistic decision changes the motivation of Superman: He is not a hero because he is a good man, he is a hero because he feels guilt. Superman, IMHO, should be about hope, not guilt.

And the constant Angel/Jesus visuals. And he is 33! Jeepers! We get it.

You are conflating Johnathan and Martha Kent being living avatars of virtue with that of being flesh and blood humans. The movie made them the latter, which in no way kept them from being good, it just meant they worried about their son just as much as raising him right. I thought it was an nice way of doing it. Most parents aren't perfect and try to raise their kids the best they can while also worrying about them. This was no different. Again your argument essentially breaks down to believing in one specific idea of what and who these people should be when there is no specific version.

Also movies didn't create the Superman as religious allegory thing either. If you aren't even aware of that you might not know the character as well as you think you do.

 AdeptSister wrote:
It feels like the world has every reason not to trust him.

Gosh, do you think that could be a plot point? How dare they make people learn to respect him instead of respecting him right off the bat!

Unfortunately, I think the Marvel films -- while entertaining -- have coached people that comic book films should make you turn your brain off for 2 hours. MoS -- and BvS from the look of things -- is asking people to turn their brain ON just 10% and think about what it would really be like if beings like these existed. *I* think it's an interesting question and something worth exploring, whether or not someone agrees with the execution.

It's fascinating to me how the DC and Marvel films play opposite to the way people usually view their comic books. Usually people think of DC as owning the 4-color, kid-friendly, "comic-booky" smash-em-ups, while Marvel books are a little more grounded, aimed at slightly older audiences (I'd say adolescents rather than adults) and have heroes with real problems.

So why is your argument that the movie decided to make the Kents "flesh and blood" more valid than the decision to keep them true to how the comics and cartoons have portrayed them? You have your view that the Kents were fine in this version. I disagree based on what has been portrayed in most of their other appearances.

And come on, we all know the history of Superman and how he has changed over time. But you don't think that the film had the subtlety of a brick with the jesus references?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
It feels like the world has every reason not to trust him.

Gosh, do you think that could be a plot point? How dare they make people learn to respect him instead of respecting him right off the bat!

Unfortunately, I think the Marvel films -- while entertaining -- have coached people that comic book films should make you turn your brain off for 2 hours. MoS -- and BvS from the look of things -- is asking people to turn their brain ON just 10% and think about what it would really be like if beings like these existed. *I* think it's an interesting question and something worth exploring, whether or not someone agrees with the execution.

It's fascinating to me how the DC and Marvel films play opposite to the way people usually view their comic books. Usually people think of DC as owning the 4-color, kid-friendly, "comic-booky" smash-em-ups, while Marvel books are a little more grounded, aimed at slightly older audiences (I'd say adolescents rather than adults) and have heroes with real problems.

While agree that there is a different take on "superheroes" between the two movie universes, I do not agree that one "takes more brain power". I would say Captain America: The Winter Soldier explored more than Man of Steel. Gritty /= mature and nuance

 AdeptSister wrote:
...You know that people can disagree politely, right? While you don't have to, it usually makes a dialog easier.

The arguement for Man of Steel that I keep hearing is "wait, he is still learning to be a hero." Why is the fact that the writer decided that Superman needs to learn how to be a good person alright? Superman is suppose to be a good person at the start. His parents raised him right.

In Man of Steel his father does not believe in the goodness of man. He fears humanity. He chastised Superman when he saved lives. Heck, he allowed himself to die rather than allow his son to do something heroic. What type of teaching is that? That is not the Jonathan Kent from the comic.

Do you have kids?

I do, and I can tell you this -- if I had a child like Clark, my wife and I would be absolutely terrified that people would come some day and take him away to perform experiments on him. Why wouldn't anyone? What could you do? Do you really think that the laws and rules apply to an alien and a first contact situation, especially when the alien has godlike abilities? J & M's fears and protective behavior on this point are *VERY* realistic, whether you find that "inspiring" or not.

Really...what would you do? What would you tell your SON to do? Would it really be like the old Silver Age Jon and Martha? "Here son, your mom is going to knit you a brightly-colored outfit out of these blankets so that you can publicly display your alien nature and abilities that could wipe out our civilization if you have so much as a tantrum. I'm sure the government and public will embrace and fully trust you so long as you do some nice things."

There was nothing related to real-world human nature in in any of that.

Me? I'd say pretty much what Jonathan did. "There'll be a time as an adult when you get to decide what to do with those abilities. Until then, you conceal that gak. And you learn not to retaliate when people give you gak. You get upset, you bury it deep inside. It sucks and it's not fair, but the world can't afford to have you lash out even once, and bad things will happen to you and all of us if you do."

Cripes, people actually complain about Clark's mannerisms in MoS. The guy *IS* tremendously repressed -- that's the POINT! Realistically, he'd have to be!

I guess it's ultimately just different strokes for different folks. Personally, I think you can do a lot with these character beyond just brain candy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AdeptSister wrote:
So why is your argument that the movie decided to make the Kents "flesh and blood" more valid than the decision to keep them true to how the comics and cartoons have portrayed them? You have your view that the Kents were fine in this version. I disagree based on what has been portrayed in most of their other appearances.

And come on, we all know the history of Superman and how he has changed over time. But you don't think that the film had the subtlety of a brick with the jesus references?

I guess you hated Superman '78, because it was all over that one too. Jor-El sending his son...his only son...to Earth to teach the way. "Lois...come forth." Okay, he didn't say that, but he did resurrect her, huh?

The savior angle has been there for a very long time. Best route IMO is work hard to avoid it, or just embrace that sucker and roll with it. They chose the latter. *shrug*

While agree that there is a different take on "superheroes" between the two movie universes, I do not agree that one "takes more brain power". I would say Captain America: The Winter Soldier explored more than Man of Steel. Gritty /= mature and nuance

LOL. What 'nuance' was there in Winter Soldier? Name one thing that was a real dilemma or made you think.

 gorgon wrote:
Unfortunately, I think the Marvel films -- while entertaining -- have coached people that comic book films should make you turn your brain off for 2 hours. MoS -- and BvS from the look of things -- is asking people to turn their brain ON just 10% and think about what it would really be like if beings like these existed.

No, it isn't. Man of Steel isn't "what it would really be like," it's "what the worst sort of Batman fanboy thinks it would really be like." Young Clark Kent saves a bus full of schoolchildren and the way Snyder directs the following scene you'd think they caught him masturbating. If that's not incompetence, it's at least pushing a misanthropic worldview where personal heroism like saving dozens of children from drowning is something to be ashamed of, for fear the big bad government will come and piss in your Weeties for no good reason.

For Winter Soldier, the major theme was about finding a balance between security and personal freedom. While Captain America remained true, Fury was originally fine with violating America‘s ideals for security. SHIELD tore itself apart. While Hydra pushed an agenda, good people allowed it to come to fruition. Its a constant part in the Age of Ultron as well: How far should we go for security? For peace? Heck, this will come to a head in Civil War.

Captain America came off more of a hero than Superman. That seems wrong. Why is being "heroic" less realistic? I think that portrayal is not accurate to how superman should be.

One of the great things about the idea of Batman versus Superman is how they are different aspects: fear versus hope. Superman in Man of Steel is not hope.

Yeah, Gorgon, I have no qualms at all saying I wouldn't coach my boy to watch people die, knowing that he could save them as easy as taking out the trash.

THAT would mess up someone's life.


Oh, and what about the "let me die son. There is no possible way to save me without showing your powers (a normal human had a chance to save Pa Kent given the amount of time they spent soul gazing into each other's eyes as A SON ALLOWED HIS FATHER TO DIE!)

The Kents are more messed up in MoS than lots of supervillians in other movies.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Unfortunately, I think the Marvel films -- while entertaining -- have coached people that comic book films should make you turn your brain off for 2 hours. MoS -- and BvS from the look of things -- is asking people to turn their brain ON just 10% and think about what it would really be like if beings like these existed.

No, it isn't. Man of Steel isn't "what it would really be like," it's "what the worst sort of Batman fanboy thinks it would really be like." Young Clark Kent saves a bus full of schoolchildren and the way Snyder directs the following scene you'd think they caught him masturbating. If that's not incompetence, it's at least pushing a misanthropic worldview where personal heroism like saving dozens of children from drowning is something to be ashamed of, for fear the big bad government will come and piss in your Weeties for no good reason.

The fanboyism comes from the critics who are to unable let go of their personal views of a character long enough to see that character explored a little differently.

Marvel panders well to fanboys. Their stuff is mostly in line with comics, and certainly safe. It's safe above all else. It doesn't step on any toes or force anyone to think. Hell, they've even whitewashed stuff from the comics like Tony Stark's alcoholism.

Note Jonathan's words in that scene. "I don't know. Maybe." He's conflicted, and that's what drives him to show Clark the ship at that moment -- to show Clark what his existence means to the world.

Again, if that's me talking to my kid, I'm happy that he saved the kids, but absolutely terrified that he showed his alien nature publicly.

I must say I find it quite funny that people don't like the idea of a young Clark Kent hiding his powers for fear of persecution, but no one bats an eyelid when the X-men universe is founded on the same idea.

In a world where no one has seen superheroes or anything like them yet, Clark would be met with as much hostility as Xavier/Magneto get in First Class when mutantkind is first revealed. In other words, lots of distrust, hatred and guns pointed in his general direction.

Like the X-men, yes he could deal with that without breaking a sweat, but in doing so would prove them right.

With that in mind, the choice makes perfect sense.

 gorgon wrote:
Note Jonathan's words in that scene. "I don't know. Maybe." He's conflicted, and that's what drives him to show Clark the ship at that moment -- to show Clark what his existence means to the world.

Again, if that's me talking to my kid, I'm happy that he saved the kids, but absolutely terrified that he showed his alien nature publicly.

If it was me talking to my kid, I'd go for something more along the lines of "You just saved a bus full of people? I'm proud of you, son! Let's all go out for icecream!"

 Paradigm wrote:
I must say I find it quite funny that people don't like the idea of a young Clark Kent hiding his powers for fear of persecution, but no one bats an eyelid when the X-men universe is founded on the same idea.

In a world where no one has seen superheroes or anything like them yet, Clark would be met with as much hostility as Xavier/Magneto get in First Class when mutantkind is first revealed. In other words, lots of distrust, hatred and guns pointed in his general direction.

Like the X-men, yes he could deal with that without breaking a sweat, but in doing so would prove them right.

With that in mind, the choice makes perfect sense.

Which is why they exists in different worlds. Forcing the idea of Superman into that world would not work thematically, like in MoS. Would the concept of X-men work in Superman's world? No, a world where X-men were not hated and feared would change the entire concept of X-Men.

 AdeptSister wrote:

Also, during all the fights he never tried to draw the battle away from civilian areas. Millions died. Heck, he was the cause of all the destruction as he drew Zod here in the first place.

I don't think they ever established a 'death toll' in MoS, but I don't think it was...millions?

I guess you *could* argue that Zod and Company came to Earth because Clark was there, but...that seems a fairly slender reed to lean upon if you're making the case that it was all "Superman's Fault".

And calling it "fanboyish" to wish for the core part of the character to be the same as the source is pretty insulting. This was not about "having an interesting take on the character" in was about shoehorning him into the Nolanverse.

This a quote captures my feeling about Superman:
"Superman’s morality isn’t divine or innate, either. It’s not something that he was born with, and it’s not something that sets him apart from humanity. Morally speaking, anyone can be as Good as Superman; the only advantage he has is that he was brought up by a couple of really nice farmers. He’s an aspirational figure rather than a redemptive one, who shows us that we all have the ability to use our talents for good, we just have to choose to do so."