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.

Gorgon, my familiarity with Superman is obviously very casual compared to yours. I'm a fan of his Reeve appearances, Lois and Clark, some cartoons that I barely watched, kingdom Come, Death of Superman and Red Son. Typically, I preferred Marvel comics when I did read comics. Super dude fits in better with them, anyway.

Long story short, I hope the Superman in the Justice League movies is a better person.

 gorgon wrote:



As someone who grew up on Bronze Age stuff, I can remember them being described as being in the northeast US and near NYC.

You're not the first person to have complained about this. But quite frankly, this is another example of a baseless gripe by fans who aren't as knowledgeable about this stuff as they think they are.

.

Im pretty sure in recent times they have changed how close the two cities are. Since they introduced the city of Bludhaven in the 90s, which is supposed to be very close to Gotham, and I might be wrong, but I thought across the bay from Gotham, like Metropolis is shown to be.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Metropolis is in Delaware? Delaware? WTF?

Well, that explains the craziness. Delware was never the sanest of states

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Metropolis is in Delaware? Delaware? WTF?

"Now we are magically wisked away to............... Delaware...... hi, I'm in Delaware"

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Metropolis is in Delaware? Delaware? WTF?

Yeah, at least in one incarnation. I think that map is post-Crisis, though. I can only assume that in the DC universe, all those corporate headquarters in Delaware for tax purposes are actual headquarters and more than small offices with phones, and Metropolis built up around them.

The funny part -- if you know Delaware -- is the nature of the central section shown there. Delaware basically consists of Philly suburbs and Wilmington in the north, shore points in the south, and Alabama in between. Metropolis it ain't. It's QUITE the opposite. It's nice though that Metropolis has easy access to the DE and MD shore points, and Gotham isn't far from Cape May, AC and other NJ shore points. Citizens can just go to the beach when disaster strikes.


Anyway, the point was that Snyder and company do have some cover and precedent for placing the two cities in proximity across a body of water. While I understand the narrative reasons why Smallville -- and maybe some other works too -- seemed to move Metropolis to the Midwest, both Metropolis and Gotham are traditionally Northeastern cities. They're both fictional versions of NYC created by NYC-based comics creators. I think we see a similar real-life situation with NYC and Newark, NJ.

Yeah, I'm a little familiar with the DelMarVA layout, hence the "WTF?".

Never expected DC to put Metropolis on the map as a low rent rest stop in the sticks between DC and NY.

I'd have accepted Metropolis as Chicago, which would have been perfectly reasonable for the vast number of Smallvilles downstate or surrounding. That city is fun and has character.

But yeah, as above, I've always figured Metropolis to be NYC , like Marvel calls out by name, where Gotham is Newark. Or Atlantic City.

It's been known as one of the biggest plot holes in comic history, e.g. why Superman doesn't just quickly flies over to the neighbor city and solves any problem Batman would need days to fix.

Personally, I have always seen them as two sides of a medal with Gotham being the dystopian version of Metropolis.

Isn't that commonly account by. "It would make Batman angry and you don't want to make Batman angry."

Or more specifically, it would potentially mess with Batman's various investigations.

It's commonly ignored by "Who cares, it's a comic?" ;D

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's been known as one of the biggest plot holes in comic history, e.g. why Superman doesn't just quickly flies over to the neighbor city and solves any problem Batman would need days to fix.

Personally, I have always seen them as two sides of a medal with Gotham being the dystopian version of Metropolis.

Once, years ago, I saw someone suggest a Superman-Batman film in which they're in the SAME city - basically NYC - which Superman views as a gleaming city of tomorrow and Batman views as a crumbling, crime-ridden hellhole. Almost certainly too conceptual for the masses, but it was a fascinating idea.

Sounds like an actually awesome idea. It would be a good idea for a Superman vs. Batman movie as it would give the characters give actual motivation and bears potential for character development with Superman seeing the dark sides of NYC he wasn't aware of and can't help with (i.e.: detective work, schemes etc.) and Batman seeing the good sides of NYC too, realizing that by only focusing on the dark side of it, he too developed a very narrow perspective of the city and slowly got dragged down into it as well. Cue in Nitzsche, abyss.

Yet...as you said, that would be far too complex for your average audience. You can't expect them to watch a movie that requires actual thinking

I always liked how their views on justice clashed, superman being the more idealistic hopeful side batman being the dark and gritty with just enough common ground in the end. Superman reminds me a lot of Lancelot where he's an embodiment of virtue and excellence, both his weakness and strength is love/passion. Where Batman is more like Arthur who is consumed with obsession and an often relentless rage.

It was a very minor point and glossed over it quickly but I found the cities sitting across the bay a bit odd, amusingly Superman is constantly breaking the sound barrier when he takes off yet Batman can travel between cities faster in his bat plane?

The cities made me think of this: spoiler for language

 gorgon wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's been known as one of the biggest plot holes in comic history, e.g. why Superman doesn't just quickly flies over to the neighbor city and solves any problem Batman would need days to fix.

Personally, I have always seen them as two sides of a medal with Gotham being the dystopian version of Metropolis.

Once, years ago, I saw someone suggest a Superman-Batman film in which they're in the SAME city - basically NYC - which Superman views as a gleaming city of tomorrow and Batman views as a crumbling, crime-ridden hellhole. Almost certainly too conceptual for the masses, but it was a fascinating idea.

I thought they were originally conceived as both Metropolis and Gotham being versions of NYC. One showing the futuristic glass, the other the gothic grandeur.

Cities in the DC universe have always moved around a bit.

In fact in mainstream DC continuity the actual planet is a bit bigger as there's more countries.

IIRC in the JLA/Avengers crossover Superman comments about how the Marvel earth is a a bit smaller.
Telescopic vision has its advantages t'would seem.

For me the geography is thus :






There's a few places -- Opal City and St. Roch for example -- not on there, but the map is from 1990 so ...



for you Arrow fans ...








The world circa 1990

I've read somewhere that conceptually, Metropolis is New York by day, while Gotham is New York by night.

I'm not a fan of superhero comics in general, so everything in this film to me is coloured only by previous films, not by what goes on in the comics.

Superman as the "big blue boy scout"; I understand where this film and Man of Steel were coming from, in that Superman should be a bit more nuanced than that description, and I like how he is at least trying to do the right thing. I also like how the film points out that "trying to do the right thing" doesn't always work out. I'd still like a bit more optimism in the character, though. Hopefully in the next outing.

Ben Affleck is looking awfully like George Clooney in this film. At least there were no nipples on the batsuit. I had wondered before seeing this if you could fit the Nolan films in front of this one, but sadly not. The third Batman in three decades it is, then. There's clearly a lot of backstory in there, though; I wonder how they're going to address that, or will it all be Easter eggs for the fans? There was also a decent attempt to play up the "worlds greatest detective" angle, too - not just punching goons (or machinegunning them, for that matter)

(also, my understanding is that Batman killed plenty of people in the first decade of his existence as a character. It was only the Comics Code and the suppression and censorship of comics and films in the 50s that forced the writers to make him less violent. )

Man of Steel worked well in portraying what happens when two gods decide to let loose in a human city. The opening scene of this film carried that further, I felt, by being primarily from the human point of view - right until the end of the scene, you can't even see Superman or Zod - just the city crashing to the ground.

I wasn't so keen on the final bad guy. It's not really the film's fault; I Gogled him, and that's pretty much what the comic character looks like, and I don't like that, either.

The main flaw with the film, I thought, was the scene it was named after - the fight itself. It just didn't make sense. Or rather, the way it was wound up, and the pair of them seemed to get over it all too quickly. It seemed like a lot of things happened because the plot needed them to happen, rather than arising "naturally".

Overall, not bad. Could do better, but I've sat through worse.

Off-topic: Judge Dredd. It's not so much that he's a parody character; he's played fairly straight (although the setting? parodies anything the writers can crowbar in ). It's that you're not supposed to empathise with him. It's that the world is so messed up that a horrendous set-up like the Justice Department is the only way to get any semblance off order. When people start thinking "yes, that's the way things should be run!" is when I think they've missed the point.

Oh, and one last point:

 reds8n wrote:

Cities in the DC universe have always moved around a bit.

In fact in mainstream DC continuity the actual planet is a bit bigger as there's more countries.

IIRC in the JLA/Avengers crossover Superman comments about how the Marvel earth is a a bit smaller.
Telescopic vision has its advantages t'would seem.

For me the geography is thus :

That's cool stuff. I liked the inclusion of Happy Harbor and Rutland, VT on the map of the Northeast. Weird stuff always happened to the JL in Rutland.

And hey! Looks like I'm living in Civic City! Who knew!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


Oh, and one last point:

Spoiler:

The photographer with Lois in Africa, the one who gets shot? Jimmy Olsen, apparently.

Yeah, I kinda got whipsawed on that one. At first I figured he was, then stuff was revealed and happened, and I figured not. Then later I read that he was, and the director's cut will make this clearer.

Potentially a big waste of that character...but then to be fair, they're going to be juggling a fethton of characters in the DCEU. They probably won't have the screen time to build that relationship anyway.

...and looks like Detroit doesn't exist at all...?

... Man, they really wanted to forget that era huh ?

 gorgon wrote:


Potentially a big waste of that character...but then to be fair, they're going to be juggling a fethton of characters in the DCEU. They probably won't have the screen time to build that relationship anyway.

I was going to disagree with you, but then I stopped and thought about how many compelling supporting characters Marvel has managed to maintain in its films. Even major love interests like Jane Foster and Pepper Potts have struggled for sufficient screen time, especially in the team-up movies, and DC might well have made the judgement that their Superman will be mainly seen in conjunction with other characters, rather than alone with his own friends.

 Charles Rampant wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


Potentially a big waste of that character...but then to be fair, they're going to be juggling a fethton of characters in the DCEU. They probably won't have the screen time to build that relationship anyway.

I was going to disagree with you, but then I stopped and thought about how many compelling supporting characters Marvel has managed to maintain in its films. Even major love interests like Jane Foster and Pepper Potts have struggled for sufficient screen time, especially in the team-up movies, and DC might well have made the judgement that their Superman will be mainly seen in conjunction with other characters, rather than alone with his own friends.

Spoiler:

I'm still sad that we will not really see Clark Kent any more. I mean, I don't know Superman that much - always more of a Green Lantern and Batman chap myself, as far as DC goes - but I like the basic idea, and it seems like an important dichotomy to build on when displaying his personality. One of the main lackings in BvS is arguably how little time Superman gets on screen.

Trust me, as a long-time Cap fan, I didn't like them wasting Sharon Carter in Winter Soldier even as he flirted with Widow all film. Sharon is his Lois Lane. Meanwhile, Civil War has umpteen existing heroes, universe stuff to build, and a new hero to introduce, so it's unlikely there'll be any room in that one to actually explore that relationship. Most won't care, but I think it's kind of a shame and a waste.

Ultimately these characters probably are much better off in old-style solo films that aren't about universe-building, easter eggs, team-ups, etc.

Your point about Clark is a great one, and one I've been meaning to bring up.

The romance is in there for the women, not the guys. I don't think most guys give a crap.

But the studios have realized that in order to increase ticket sales, you have to make these movies appealing to both sexes. The guys like the fight scenes, the women, tend to sit up when there is a little romance going on.

Its a formula, and one thats going to stay. :/

Friendships and romance show that these characters are capable of having normal, human relationships. This is important for an alien god like Superman because it grounds him. But it helps round out even the less powerful characters like Batman or Captain America. It's through their relationships that we get to know and learn more about them.

It's actually kinda funny that the MCEU has turned Tony Stark into a staunch monogamist, and Steve Rogers into a guy who can't get the girl.

Well, sort of, but I can assure you that Hollywood knows that in order to attract both men and women to go to the same movie (especially those dating or married), that have to incorporate elements that both sexes generally prefer. Men gravitate towards action, women towards emotion.

Part of the cheesy romance nonsense incorporated into the LOTR movies is just for that. 99% of guys can do without the staring into each other's eyes crap, but, as you are probably aware, there arent a lot of women lining up to watch movies with dragons, wizards, and mass combat. But seed it with some romance, and now the girl will go along and watch it with her guy. Doubles ticket sales, and now the bag of popcorn and drink become larges. Win-Win for everyone.

That's why you have studios swinging so far over and creating such atrocities like Pearl Harbor. You just cant do many 100% war movies anymore without incorporating some emotional pull for the ladies.

Scenario 1:

Woman: "What are you doing?"

Me: "Playing a wargame"

Woman: "Dork."

Scenario 2:

Woman: "What are you doing?"

Me: "Playing Fast Times at Istvaan III. This chic cheated on her husband with this younger guy, and the husband is pissed and invaded with his army of Space Marines. The wife doesnt know the younger guy has another girlfirend, and even her husband has a mistress, who is also banging the younger guy."

Woman: "wow. . ."

Then I go into a 45min discussion about logistics, space travel through the warp, the various weapons and technology, threatening alien species, tanks, drop ships, etc, and watch those eyes glaze over.

And then, there's Game of Thrones which covers both bases. When there's boring expository talky stuff, they're kind enough to have "sexy" women as scenery to keep they guys paying attention to the TV. When there's nice action, it's always tied to some personal political drama.

Exactly. Game of Thrones does it better than anyone. It's like a soap opera (for the women) with lots of nudity (for the guys) and the excitement of violence (for the guys) with the emotional loss of the deaths (for the women).

It wasn't the first, but Games of Thrones did perfect having a show for both sexes. My ex was more into it than I was (I was always complaining about the unrealistic sizes of the armies for the size and economics for the areas we were seeing lol). But she was sucked in on who was banging who and how her favorite characters navigated the BS.

The same could be said for Walking Dead. I would be fine with a whole hour of zombie slashing, but my gf focuses on the hints of flirtation and relationship building.

And what do you know? Both are a couple of the most popular shows on TV. So everyone has taken notice, and is mimicking.

 gorgon wrote:
Kind of a tangent, but power vs. powerlessness was an important theme in the film. Both Bruce and Lex are enormously powerful people by any normal definition, yet both developed the "fever" that Alfred talked about in the face of Clark's power. Of course, Lex's fever was a selfish thing -- I'm brilliant and rich, and it's not fair that I'm so powerless compared to that. Bruce's fever was obviously more of external concern -- humanity is powerless and at risk because of that. Still, both men turned cruel as Alfred stated.

I don’t know if it’s a tangent but it’s a good point That speech to me felt to me very much like a continuation of the structure of Nolan’s Batman franchise – where one character will outright state the theme of the movie, and then each major character will represent a different answer to it. It was, I think, a really good question to, and in many places it was very well explored. The early scenes of Bruce Wayne shown from the ground, able to help only a few amidst the carnage of the fight against the Kryptonians, that was great.

But I don’t think the theme was satisfactorily explored. Lex’s motivation of selfish ego has to be assumed, in the script there’s no real motivation for his actions. And there was so much other stuff happening the theme didn’t quite get the focus it deserved. Not really a complaint, just an acknowledgement that things didn’t quite come together as they should have.

EDIT
And I really have to get around to watching the deleted scenes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
Anyway, the point was that Snyder and company do have some cover and precedent for placing the two cities in proximity across a body of water. While I understand the narrative reasons why Smallville -- and maybe some other works too -- seemed to move Metropolis to the Midwest, both Metropolis and Gotham are traditionally Northeastern cities. They're both fictional versions of NYC created by NYC-based comics creators. I think we see a similar real-life situation with NYC and Newark, NJ.

From the Batman comics I've read, and while it wasn't a lot it was also more than a few, I always got more of a Chicago vibe from Gotham. And that's what Nolan used in his movies... well in TDK it was Chicago, TDKR was more of NY, with the blocked off bridges. Is there anything in the comics to give the Chicago theory any kind of substance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
The romance is in there for the women, not the guys. I don't think most guys give a crap.

But the studios have realized that in order to increase ticket sales, you have to make these movies appealing to both sexes. The guys like the fight scenes, the women, tend to sit up when there is a little romance going on.

Its a formula, and one thats going to stay. :/

I feel like you're posting from 1973 or something. Quite the technological marvel.


Anyhow, not even the worst of the worst of the old studio numpties thinks in the terms you've described above. That kind of crap; "throw in a romance for the ladies and we'll double our demographics!"... that stuff disappeared in the 90s.

KTG17 wrote:
I was always complaining about the unrealistic sizes of the armies for the size and economics for the areas we were seeing lol

I don't think there's really a single sci-fi / fantasy / supers / magic thing that gets economies right. And "armies" are more like what you'd expect among Italian fiefdoms than anything else.

 sebster wrote:

I feel like you're posting from 1973 or something. Quite the technological marvel.

Anyhow, not even the worst of the worst of the old studio numpties thinks in the terms you've described above. That kind of crap; "throw in a romance for the ladies and we'll double our demographics!"... that stuff disappeared in the 90s.

Lol what? Have you ever met a woman before? You can't tell when movies are written to encompass as much of an audience as possible?

There is no question that there is a whole slew of movies made with women in mind (aka chic flicks), just as you have movies that are geared towards guys (action movies), just as you have movies geared towards teens, African Americans, mature audiences, and so on. So if you want as many of those groups as possible to watch a movie, you have to entice them with something that appeals to them.

Your stereotypical summer blockbuster will have: lots of action, some humor, easy story to follow, and some element of romance. That's a formula.

Inserting an African American, a woman, and a Hispanic as the main characters for Star Wars - A Force Awakens for example was not accidental, it was strategic. If you believe otherwise you are clueless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
I was always complaining about the unrealistic sizes of the armies for the size and economics for the areas we were seeing lol

I don't think there's really a single sci-fi / fantasy / supers / magic thing that gets economies right. And "armies" are more like what you'd expect among Italian fiefdoms than anything else.

Yeah I figured, it's just when Rob Stark or someone said, 'with his 30,000 troops and our 40,000 troops we'll win!!' That's when I rolled my eyes.

Don't want to sound like I am knocking GoT too much, it's well done. But I even criticize Walking Dead all the time too. Like after all these years still finding food, cars still running, or even forgetting that there are only about 5,000 people in the US who know how to run a nuclear power plant, and when those guys are more interested in eating people, there's going to be a lot of problems. But even still I can't wait for Sundays.

 sebster wrote:


From the Batman comics I've read, and while it wasn't a lot it was also more than a few, I always got more of a Chicago vibe from Gotham. And that's what Nolan used in his movies... well in TDK it was Chicago, TDKR was more of NY, with the blocked off bridges. Is there anything in the comics to give the Chicago theory any kind of substance?

Gotham is an Eastern seaboard city, while Chicago has a number of the stylistic elements it's on a lake and Gotham is always depicted as being next to the ocean. The buildings and gargoyles usually resemble old New York from the Empire State period. Also Wayne Mansion & Estate is very at home with east coast buildings, we don't tend to have too many estates around Chicago.

I could see Chicago being some of the inspiration but I think overall New York is the more direct source and Gotham was depicted as being a neighboring city just to the south and had lapsed into decay. (almost sounds like Philly in some ways)

KTG17 wrote:
Lol what? Have you ever met a woman before? You can't tell when movies are written to encompass as much of an audience as possible?

Yes, films are written to meet specific demographics, and are often re-written to expand appeal to other demographics. You’re not wrong about that. You’re just wrong in how crudely you understand how it actually works, there is so much more to it than ‘guys like action’, and ‘girls like romance’.

The nature of the romance, the appeal of the actors involved, and most importantly what that romance says about each character is really important. And once you understand those factors you start to understand how a different romance might appeal to different characters. A story where a main character meets a girl, she falls for him, and then he rescues her in the last act is much more likely to play better with male viewers than female viewers, for obvious reasons.

Understand that, and you start to understand how, shockingly, even media primarily for boys has romantic plots through them. The audience for DC and Marvel comics are overwhelmingly male, even today, and yet the stories through them often read awfully close to Days of Our Lives. There are significant differences, of course, romantic stories written for men are typically challenged or disrupted by outside events (catastrophes, attacks by third parties), while romances for woman are typically challenged by the choices of the characters themselves (cheating etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 paulson games wrote:
Gotham is an Eastern seaboard city, while Chicago has a number of the stylistic elements it's on a lake and Gotham is always depicted as being next to the ocean. The buildings and gargoyles usually resemble old New York from the Empire State period. Also Wayne Mansion & Estate is very at home with east coast buildings, we don't tend to have too many estates around Chicago.

I could see Chicago being some of the inspiration but I think overall New York is the more direct source and Gotham was depicted as being a neighboring city just to the south and had lapsed into decay. (almost sounds like Philly in some ways)

Hmmm, you type that out and it becomes so obvious and I don't know why I thought otherwise.

 gorgon wrote:


Trust me, as a long-time Cap fan, I didn't like them wasting Sharon Carter in Winter Soldier even as he flirted with Widow all film. Sharon is his Lois Lane. Meanwhile, Civil War has umpteen existing heroes, universe stuff to build, and a new hero to introduce, so it's unlikely there'll be any room in that one to actually explore that relationship. Most won't care, but I think it's kind of a shame and a waste.

Ultimately these characters probably are much better off in old-style solo films that aren't about universe-building, easter eggs, team-ups, etc.

Your point about Clark is a great one, and one I've been meaning to bring up.

Spoiler:

When Doomsday killed him in the comics, they only declared Clark missing, albeit presumed dead. Very different thing than him being in a box for all Smallville to see. I like him being buried as Clark and the Superman casket being empty (I've always preferred the modern idea that Clark is his true self and Superman is the "mask").

But yeah...it's really hard to see how Clark can be Clark again after he returns. From stuff I've read, I get the impression that JL will pick up right after BvS and be at least in part about Bruce going around and assembling the team, and that Clark may not be "back" at first. So there's undoubtedly a plan of some kind in place, and who knows what that involves. Guess we'll see.

Sharon Carter is Agent 13, right? She is in Civil War, so you might have a chance, but then half of Hollywood is in Civil War... And I suspect that her role, if they lean towards that angle, might be to act as the bridge that calms things down at the end. IDK; I've only ever read Chris Claremont X-Men (and 1 tpb of FF) from Marvel, so I've got a really limited understanding of how the different things played out in the comics. Trying to get into comics is a fairly mind-boggling affair, what with the decades of stories for essentially limitless numbers of characters!

As for Justice League:


On a side note, I was going to link Cinema Blend for that article, but then its website made my laptop freeze with the sheer weight of its ads. So screw those guys.