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.

I think WB/DC's best hope now is to give up on the DCU and just scattershot cheaper non-interconnected one shot films, trying to play catch-up has just been a waste of time and effort

Also a Transmet or Invisibles telly show would be nice

 Easy E wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
So it looks like Steven Spielberg will be doing a Blackhawk film.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/entertainment/steven-spielberg-blackhawk-dc/index.html

That seems like a good pairing of director and material. Sure wish we could have seen a Spielberg-directed Captain America movie.

I won't lie. I am very interested in this.

Yeah, but they have this habit of announcing things that will likely be in development hell for years. So they get this short-term burst of excitement and positivity, but then it comes around on them when some of these projects fizzle out (as projects in development hell often do). Personally I think they should be more buttoned-up until projects are truly happening, but it's their studio. Supposedly WB is working a news show that will make movie announcements and try to keep the narrative from getting away from them.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If DC wants to play in the big leagues with movies, they need to pull their heads out of their butts and set up a multi-franchise story arc like Marvel did with Avengers 3. Everything has been leading up to the meeting with Thanos. Years and years of work. There have got to be some directors out there just chomping at the bit for this kind of action in DC.

Well, as we were discussing earlier in the thread, that's what got them in trouble in the first place...too much interconnectivity left them unable to change course when Snyder's vision didn't resonate. WB has always been a director's studio, and ultimately it just doesn't seem like them to go the Marvel route, with a Kevin Feige pulling all the strings from the studio. The path forward is less interconnectivity and more focus on individual character treatments from good directors with a vision for the material. It's just a much better fit for the studio's way of doing things.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Gave the thread a name change to better reflect the change in discussion - which has been organic, rather than OT nonsense!

I think DC need to delve into their C-List the way Marvel did. Audiences already know what to expect from Superman and Batman. Yes, they're cash cows, but they need a rest.

Nightwing could be of interest. I know the tiniest modicum of him - former Robin, all grown up, not necessarily taken on board all that Batman taught him? Probably wrong, but that's my understanding.

Chris McKay (Lego Batman) is attached to a Nightwing project. But it's still in the very early stages, and the scuttlebutt is that the Batman-related projects are being held up by Matt Reeves' Batman movie. Reeves is taking his time with it, which is good...but it also means that they can't go full speed ahead on the other related characters. WB is downplaying interconnectivity, but they still want shared universe lite(TM). So they want to at least avoid any major inconsistencies, such as Dick Grayson being dead in the Batman film but alive in the Nightwing film. To some extent WB is trying to have its cake and eat it too, so they also need to find directors who can be team players while pursuing their visions.

Basically, WB is never going to tell Steven Spielberg that he needs to shoot a scene with Aquaman having visions in a pond, or a scene with Bruce Wayne dropping by Barry Allen's mom's house, and that you have to shoot the movie this way, with this kind of color palette and lighting. That's the Kevin Feige approach. But they'll probably ask Spielberg to keep them posted about the story and what easter eggs or characters he's interested in using.

On the C-list front, indy director Cathy Yan is attached to a Birds of Prey project. Apparently Margot Robbie really pushed for a female director.

The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.

Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.

Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.

Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.

 Lance845 wrote:
The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.

Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.

Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.

Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.

True, but the Avengers themselves have always kind of been Marvel's C-listers. It shouldn't be, but with Spiderman and X-Men Marvel already had their strong street level solo and team angles covered. The Avengers were largely a place where characters went so they wouldn't be forgotten while someone tried to make their solo series work again. It wasn't even all that big with comic fans until New Avengers, and that's almost entirely due to throwing Spiderman and Wolverine on the team.

 Lance845 wrote:
The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.

Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.

Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.

Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.

Honestly I think this sums the difference between them up pretty well. Marvel started by setting up a foundation of movies that let people become involved with the individual characters in the MCU. Each introduction movie was distinct and relatively solid on its own (except Hulk, whose movie I can barely remember) and this foundation let Marvel create a certain level of continuity throughout the MCU. DC skipped this stage, so they’ve had to rush introductions to get ready in time for their combined movies. BvS had to introduce several protagonists and set up multiple plots for future films, and this stretched a script that was already going in a lot of directions at once. Justice League has to introduce even more characters. DC-associated spinoffs and shows that we know about also haven’t done a good job connecting with the planned DCU and generating the same level of continuity that Marvel has.

Yeah, Sony took the characters they did because those were the ones considered to be Marvel's A-list properties.

What happened with Iron Man is pretty incredible. IM was absolutely C-list at Marvel Comics, but just add some RDJ and you get what is probably more accurately called the Iron Man Cinematic Universe. Star power is real.

The 'public knowledge' of DC characters is a bit of a curse for WB. Look at how many people can't get past a Superman movie made 40 years ago. It's not like it even had great sequels.

They finally got Batman back into a true-to-the comics suit and out of black rubber after seven movies made by three directors over 23 years. Baggage is real too.

Confession time; I didn't even know Iron Man existed until the first rumors of the movie surfaced.

Also, I couldn't help but think about ways DC should have started their movies. LunarSol I think you were really onto something with your suggestion for how the Green Lantern movie should have went and how the second one should have went down. Wonder Woman is actually a decent flick so that holds up, but I would have been sure to keep its release after GL (on account of mentioning GLs in the beginning). I would have also released a stand alone Flash movie that basically follows the story of the show (partical accellerator explosion creates The Flash and other metahumans). That can be Flash's place in the universe, dealing with all the metahumans popping up in Central City (leading up to Reverse Flash by the third movie).

What I would have avoided (at least to begin with) was a Batman movie. Everyone knows the story of Batman, and assuming this was all occurring at the start of the decade, we would have 2 separate movies detailing it all produced within 20 years of this one. Batman should be a background influence, saved for very minor mentions and post credit scenes in other characters movies (example; Diana thanking Mr Wayne for acquiring those records and photos for her in WW), only coming into serious play in the first JL movie, which would be several years down the line after the other characters have been established. His backstory could be told in the form of nightmares and flashbacks he's still having. And Superman and Aquaman...actually, I don't know.

Due to the nature of GL and him being away from Earth, I think he would definitely need two movies before the first JL one (first one establishing his character and having him getting the ring and taking down Atrocious on Earth, second one Training Day in Space leading up to the Sinestro Corps Wars). Everyone else could probably get by with one movie before JL.

Sorry for my rambling. I just like playing out hypothetical situations.

 gorgon wrote:
Yeah, Sony took the characters they did because those were the ones considered to be Marvel's A-list properties.

What happened with Iron Man is pretty incredible. IM was absolutely C-list at Marvel Comics, but just add some RDJ and you get what is probably more accurately called the Iron Man Cinematic Universe. Star power is real.

The 'public knowledge' of DC characters is a bit of a curse for WB. Look at how many people can't get past a Superman movie made 40 years ago. It's not like it even had great sequels.

They finally got Batman back into a true-to-the comics suit and out of black rubber after seven movies made by three directors over 23 years. Baggage is real too.

The more interesting thing about Iron Man is how the production of the film coincided with Marvel figuring out the character's appeal on all fronts. We've seen countless attempts at comics adapting to try and be more like a popular film, but most of Iron Man's comic revamp and surge in popularity happened before the movie even started production. The whole Extremis revamp was basically laying tracks for the film as it was driving down them culminating in Civil War giving the character a definitive characterization and world view in the comics that showed writers how to use him. The movie threw him to the top of mainstream appeal, but his A list standing in the comics was built up without much reliance on the movie's success.

 LunarSol wrote:

The more interesting thing about Iron Man is how the production of the film coincided with Marvel figuring out the character's appeal on all fronts. We've seen countless attempts at comics adapting to try and be more like a popular film, but most of Iron Man's comic revamp and surge in popularity happened before the movie even started production. The whole Extremis revamp was basically laying tracks for the film as it was driving down them culminating in Civil War giving the character a definitive characterization and world view in the comics that showed writers how to use him. The movie threw him to the top of mainstream appeal, but his A list standing in the comics was built up without much reliance on the movie's success.

Don't forget that RDJ's redemption was a significant story in Hollywood media. That his whole personal arc dovetailed into Tony Stark's character arc was a pretty nice confluence for Marvel.

 gorgon wrote:

The 'public knowledge' of DC characters is a bit of a curse for WB. Look at how many people can't get past a Superman movie made 40 years ago. It's not like it even had great sequels.

At the moment their curse is being owned by TimeWarner.

I wouldn't say any of them are individually bad either. Mainly because they stick to relatively predictable and safe plot recipes, and are somewhat repetitive. Which is what has half killed my interest in them. And they're fairly spammed -I lost interest in Spiderman when they rebooted it before the original film was even 10 years old. Now its been rebooted AGAIN? It's gotten beyond a joke.

There is still the occasional gem -Guardians was very entertaining, Thor got a good few laughs and Logan blew me away, one of my all time favourite films

 Hulksmash wrote:
Gotta say, love musicals and musical theatre and couldn't get thru LaLa Land. But Greatest Showman on the other hand I've already watched twice since we bought it last week and watched all the extras.

On topic though I still stick with what I said earlier and add in just no movies that I came out of going "Christ, that could have been 30 minutes shorters".

Oh man saw Showman last week. Now that was awesome.

 dogma wrote:
Don't forget that RDJ's redemption was a significant story in Hollywood media. That his whole personal arc dovetailed into Tony Stark's character arc was a pretty nice confluence for Marvel.

Well, his redemption was more the reason he was chosen for the part than anything. Favarau was very much "recovering alcoholic, you say?" when casting him.

 dogma wrote:

At the moment their curse is being owned by TimeWarner.

I think its easy to understate how much of a problem this really is. It's not like they haven't tried. Justice League wasn't forced out the door from nothing. It happened after WB failed to get a hit out of Man of Steel or Green Lantern and weren't sure how many more tries they would get. Looking at their history, you have to ask yourself just how many good super hero films have they made? How many without Batman? Maybe 1 and 2 halves?

At the core of things, DC needs to look into its characters are see what really makes them work. They get Batman, mostly, but Man of Steel showed they have absolutely no idea what's appealing about Superman. He doesn't need to be reimagined; he needs to be explored. Much of what made him work for Donner is just that Donner understood that Clark doesn't see himself as an alien, his parents certainly don't see him as an alien, and he really doesn't want the world to see him as an alien either. That's what makes him interesting and vulnerable in a way that's far more interesting than Kryptonite.

They largely "got" Wonder Woman. The flaws in the film are largely towards the end and generally are more in the form of missed opportunities than mistakes. Green Lantern mostly suffered from excess. It tried to do too much and didn't end up with a story that could properly build relationships with the cast. It's also tonally off, but that's in no small part to WB not having a clue what kind of tone they should be looking for.

Flash definitely suffers from a TV series that told the best story they could probably make an origin story out of. On that note, I think one of DC's biggest problems is that most of the Justice League characters don't make for very good rookie hero origin stories. None of those eras of those characters have aged well and the times when DC returns to them have never clicked. I think seasoned versions of DC heroes makes the shared universe really work and are a big reason Gal and Ben are so appealing despite being launched in a downright terrible film.

Um Man of Steel made $668mm. That's serious bank.

 Frazzled wrote:
Um Man of Steel made $668mm. That's serious bank.

And became the cornerstone of a wildly successful franchise? I'm not sure what your point is.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Um Man of Steel made $668mm. That's serious bank.

And became the cornerstone of a wildly successful franchise? I'm not sure what your point is.

And this comes to one of the bigger issues.

Superman turned 80 years old as a property this Wednesday. That is a long time for him to be in the public's consciousness--especially when you talk about things like the Donner film and Reeves' father having played the characters back in the 1950s where he's been portrayed as nothing but a "big boy scout".

In any case, it says a lot that most of the complaints about "Man of Steel" could be reconciled with more recent turns with the character--even those prior to "Man of Steel" premiering.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Um Man of Steel made $668mm. That's serious bank.

And became the cornerstone of a wildly successful franchise? I'm not sure what your point is.

And this comes to one of the bigger issues.

Superman turned 80 years old as a property this Wednesday. That is a long time for him to be in the public's consciousness--especially when you talk about things like the Donner film and Reeves' father having played the characters back in the 1950s where he's been portrayed as nothing but a "big boy scout".

In any case, it says a lot that most of the complaints about "Man of Steel" could be reconciled with more recent turns with the character--even those prior to "Man of Steel" premiering.

Christopher Reeve isn't related to George Reeves.

I think the MoS thing is complicated. There are two beats that some fans just can't accept -- Jon Kent's comment about the bus, and Clark killing Zod. I'm somewhat sympathetic to those, but think I understand the latter. More on that in a bit. Then there are other elements that are really just representative of a post-Crisis Superman, who has been around for over 3 decades. But the Donner Superman -- rooted in the Silver and Bronze Age tradition -- is just seared into some people's minds. If we'd gotten Superman Reborn in the '90s, then that egg would have been broken there, and the *next* take on the character would have had less baggage. Superman Returns never broke the egg, for obvious reasons.

Because I'm old and was weaned on the Bronze Age character, I really don't need to see more of that kind of Superman. I like a fallable Clark -- who sees Clark as his real identity, not Kal-El of Krypton -- and makes mistakes and sometimes doubts himself. It just seems a lot more grounded and human to me. The post-Crisis Superman also killed a General Zod by exposing him to kryptonite and watching him die horribly. Somewhat like the MoS situation, he decided that Zod was just too powerful to contain or even let live.

The situation is to me very much a commentary on the character up through the Bronze Age. A Silver or Bronze Age Superman would have solved the problem by some ridiculous application of his super-powers. They wrote the character such that he was never faced with a difficult decision or problem that couldn't be powered away. Superman: The Movie goes right to that same place at the climax -- with the ability to change the past without repercussions (Jor-El's warning was wrong), there's nothing he can't undo, and nothing bad really has to happen ever again. It's a classic movie, but the ending is fairly stupid. (It also doesn't make a lick of sense that he has the speed to break the time barrier yet isn't fast enough to down two missiles, but whatever.) So to me, the Zod scene was about putting the character in a no-win situation and forcing him to choose. Desire not to kill vs. need to protect. Krypton vs. Earth. Etcetera.

The problem with this is that while I think I get what Snyder, Goyer and Nolan were going for, it's just too *much* and too jarring for general audiences to sort through. *shrug* But I still say a MoS 2 without such controversial beats would have done very well, just like how Batman Begins' box office was good-not-great but set up TDK for success.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.

Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.

Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.

Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.

True, but the Avengers themselves have always kind of been Marvel's C-listers. It shouldn't be, but with Spiderman and X-Men Marvel already had their strong street level solo and team angles covered. The Avengers were largely a place where characters went so they wouldn't be forgotten while someone tried to make their solo series work again. It wasn't even all that big with comic fans until New Avengers, and that's almost entirely due to throwing Spiderman and Wolverine on the team.

This isn't accurate. The Avengers book ran from the early 60's continuously until the moment they did the Heroes Reborn fiasco. Kurt Busiek's Avengers relaunch after that event was constantly in the top 10 comics per Wizard at the time it was released. The creative team from that book was used to do the JLA/Avengers crossover 4 parter based on the popularity of the writer and artist. There've been Avengers cartoons AND video games that predate New Avengers. Hell, there were even spinoff books from Avengers. Remember West Coast Avengers? That ran for over a decade, if memory serves.

 Just Tony wrote:
And how, pray tell, do you figure Lex Luthor was portrayed wrong? Ego? Check. Resources? Check. Intelligence? Check. Network of convoluted schemes? Check. Honestly the only thing they did "wrong" would be not making him bald from the start, and that wasn't a dealbreaker. I don't get a Joker vibe from his performance at all, I get a splash of frenetic mixed in with a traditional Luthor.

The idea of a more unhinged Luthor was pretty interesting, I think. The problem was they took it so far, and did it in a movie where the other drama (the titular Batman v Superman) was completely flubbed, so Luthor's scenery chewing really stood out.

One thing they touched on which might have worked much better is if Luthor began the film entirely sane. An absolute genius, and supremely arrogant and sociopathic, but sane. Then have him continue his digging in to weapon to kill Superman, but he delves too deep, sees what's out there in the dark of space, and starts to go nuts building stuff to kill Superman and kill all the rest. It'd be a more interesting arc for Luthor, and it would have done more to build towards the latter movies.

Which would have been wasted when the first of those vast, mind breaking evils turns up and its just Steppenwolf who wanders about punching things, but whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Iron Man is the first film in the MCU, and they nailed that origin story because Tony Stark comes off as an arrogant prick throughout the film.

He goes through the whole hero's journey in that movie, and still comes out of it being an arrogant prick at the end.

One of the strengths of Iron Man is they didn't take Tony from sinner to saint in a single movie. At the beginning he was an arrogant, rude prick with little sense of responsibility and no concern about the effects of his inventions. By the end he was an arrogant, rude, prick with little sense of responsibility who was now concerned about the effects of his inventions.

It gave them places to go in the follow on movies. They mostly screwed up those further developments, but not entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bran Dawri wrote:
It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.

The problem with this argument is that Marvel's much bigger level of success is only true for its MCU series of films. Before then comic book sales were largely even and only DC had shown any box office success.

So whatever the success of Marvel might be, I really don't think its due to it having any kind of inherently better set of characters.

Good post Sebster......

Its also worth noting that Marvels TV shows are hit (Agent Carter), Average (Agens of Shield) and huge miss (Inhumans) - not sure about Runaways but enjoyed first episode.

I don;t like Arrow but its done very well as have the others - enjoyed Legends of Tomorrow however,

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bran Dawri wrote:
It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.

The problem with this argument is that Marvel's much bigger level of success is only true for its MCU series of films. Before then comic book sales were largely even and only DC had shown any box office success.

So whatever the success of Marvel might be, I really don't think its due to it having any kind of inherently better set of characters.

Weren't the X-men and Spider Man movies pretty successful?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bran Dawri wrote:
It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.

The problem with this argument is that Marvel's much bigger level of success is only true for its MCU series of films. Before then comic book sales were largely even and only DC had shown any box office success.

So whatever the success of Marvel might be, I really don't think its due to it having any kind of inherently better set of characters.

Weren't the X-men and Spider Man movies pretty successful?

Yes indeed.

Its amazing how much criticism goes into how people spend an hour and a half or so of their time. I am guilty of it too. Disappointed that a particular movie didn't end the way that I wanted, or not executed a certain way.

But what sets Marvel from most others is two things, I am regularly surprised by the stories and where they go, and how often I am happy with leaving the re-runs on my TV playing in the background. Even the Iron Man sequels, I am more than happy to have that on than most of the other crap on TV.

Marvel has exceeded Star Wars for me. I just don't think Star Wars lives up to the hype anymore. But Marvel does. Even when doing the same things (feminism, diversity, etc). It doesn't feel forced or PC. They are just fun movies, and that's all I ask for.

 Just Tony wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.

Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.

Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.

Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.

True, but the Avengers themselves have always kind of been Marvel's C-listers. It shouldn't be, but with Spiderman and X-Men Marvel already had their strong street level solo and team angles covered. The Avengers were largely a place where characters went so they wouldn't be forgotten while someone tried to make their solo series work again. It wasn't even all that big with comic fans until New Avengers, and that's almost entirely due to throwing Spiderman and Wolverine on the team.

This isn't accurate. The Avengers book ran from the early 60's continuously until the moment they did the Heroes Reborn fiasco. Kurt Busiek's Avengers relaunch after that event was constantly in the top 10 comics per Wizard at the time it was released. The creative team from that book was used to do the JLA/Avengers crossover 4 parter based on the popularity of the writer and artist. There've been Avengers cartoons AND video games that predate New Avengers. Hell, there were even spinoff books from Avengers. Remember West Coast Avengers? That ran for over a decade, if memory serves.

In rereading that, my last sentence definitely is overly dismissive of the comic itself. I'm mostly thinking from the standpoint of Marvel's high profile events through the mid-80's early 90's which outside of the Infinity stuff (which is universal enough that I never considered it solely an Avengers thing) pretty much everything was X-Men or Spiderman. Even Heroes Reborn was in a lot of ways rooted in X-Men's popularity more than the Avengers itself (and is also one of those.... things.... that happened in the 90's) I guess I mostly just mean that it didn't feel like the Avengers were in any way the face of the brand until Disassembled, which was the point where the Avengers seemed to take the same kind of prominence in Marvel that the Justice League has for DC.

A thought occurs involving Superman.

As a species, Mankind is known to respect strength, and authority.

Whilst it’s seen us do truly despicable things, it’s also seen out potential harnessed to improve our lives.

So why is there the general lack of drive to see Superman actually rule us? I mean, I get the man himself may not be keen on that role, but where’s his cult?

Consider some of the more beneficial figures in history, those that have dedicated their lives to causes, and those they’ve attracted.

Gandhi particularly springs to mind. He preached non-violent resistance, as did Martin Luther-King and a great many others.

I would genuinely like to see how Superman or any other superhero would deal with that.

We’ve seen glimmers of it in The Dark Knight, and the aftermath of Avengers Assemble, people either apeing their idol, or eventually becoming disillusioned.

I would love to read such a comic. I’m not saying such a thing doesn’t exist, just that my knowledge there is woeful (recommendations are of course welcome!). But I’d love to see that on the big screen, though it may be better explored in a TV series. A proper, sober, apolitical deconstruction of how people of all political bents would embrace or rail against such a figurehead.

While that would be interesting, it's not something I'd want to see them tackle right at this moment in time because, lets be real, it would almost certainly descend into the kind of petty "hurr durr Trump an' Pepe an' poors are the dumb and also lefties are just as bad for having standards and basically hate women or something shut up Berniebro" mudslinging that's going around right now, and I'd rather not see a good idea wasted on that kind of snide, smarter-than-thou fnar fnar our villain said Trump's catchphrase aren't we clever drek.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A thought occurs involving Superman.

As a species, Mankind is known to respect strength, and authority.

Whilst it’s seen us do truly despicable things, it’s also seen out potential harnessed to improve our lives.

So why is there the general lack of drive to see Superman actually rule us? I mean, I get the man himself may not be keen on that role, but where’s his cult?

Consider some of the more beneficial figures in history, those that have dedicated their lives to causes, and those they’ve attracted.

Gandhi particularly springs to mind. He preached non-violent resistance, as did Martin Luther-King and a great many others.

I would genuinely like to see how Superman or any other superhero would deal with that.

We’ve seen glimmers of it in The Dark Knight, and the aftermath of Avengers Assemble, people either apeing their idol, or eventually becoming disillusioned.

I would love to read such a comic. I’m not saying such a thing doesn’t exist, just that my knowledge there is woeful (recommendations are of course welcome!). But I’d love to see that on the big screen, though it may be better explored in a TV series. A proper, sober, apolitical deconstruction of how people of all political bents would embrace or rail against such a figurehead.

Hasn't the Supergirl telly show touched on this ?

 Yodhrin wrote:
While that would be interesting, it's not something I'd want to see them tackle right at this moment in time because, lets be real, it would almost certainly descend into the kind of petty "hurr durr Trump an' Pepe an' poors are the dumb and also lefties are just as bad for having standards and basically hate women or something shut up Berniebro" mudslinging that's going around right now, and I'd rather not see a good idea wasted on that kind of snide, smarter-than-thou fnar fnar our villain said Trump's catchphrase aren't we clever drek.

For those genuinely in the middle political ground, I’d say it’s near essential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A thought occurs involving Superman.

As a species, Mankind is known to respect strength, and authority.

Whilst it’s seen us do truly despicable things, it’s also seen out potential harnessed to improve our lives.

So why is there the general lack of drive to see Superman actually rule us? I mean, I get the man himself may not be keen on that role, but where’s his cult?

Consider some of the more beneficial figures in history, those that have dedicated their lives to causes, and those they’ve attracted.

Gandhi particularly springs to mind. He preached non-violent resistance, as did Martin Luther-King and a great many others.

I would genuinely like to see how Superman or any other superhero would deal with that.

We’ve seen glimmers of it in The Dark Knight, and the aftermath of Avengers Assemble, people either apeing their idol, or eventually becoming disillusioned.

I would love to read such a comic. I’m not saying such a thing doesn’t exist, just that my knowledge there is woeful (recommendations are of course welcome!). But I’d love to see that on the big screen, though it may be better explored in a TV series. A proper, sober, apolitical deconstruction of how people of all political bents would embrace or rail against such a figurehead.

Hasn't the Supergirl telly show touched on this ?

That I genuinely do not know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The other end.....Dredd.

No, not the Stallone ‘random but fun SciFi which is only branded so’ film, but the frankly amazing Karl Urban take.

That my friends? That is how you realise a character. I’m a long, long time Dredd fan, and that film absolutely nailed the character.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
While that would be interesting, it's not something I'd want to see them tackle right at this moment in time because, lets be real, it would almost certainly descend into the kind of petty "hurr durr Trump an' Pepe an' poors are the dumb and also lefties are just as bad for having standards and basically hate women or something shut up Berniebro" mudslinging that's going around right now, and I'd rather not see a good idea wasted on that kind of snide, smarter-than-thou fnar fnar our villain said Trump's catchphrase aren't we clever drek.

For those genuinely in the middle political ground, I’d say it’s near essential.

It's the people in the middle political ground who're typically responsible for the kind of nonsense I'm referring to, so I'd rather we leave it until they've managed to gather up a touch of perspective.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.

Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.

Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.

Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.

True, but the Avengers themselves have always kind of been Marvel's C-listers. It shouldn't be, but with Spiderman and X-Men Marvel already had their strong street level solo and team angles covered. The Avengers were largely a place where characters went so they wouldn't be forgotten while someone tried to make their solo series work again. It wasn't even all that big with comic fans until New Avengers, and that's almost entirely due to throwing Spiderman and Wolverine on the team.

This isn't accurate. The Avengers book ran from the early 60's continuously until the moment they did the Heroes Reborn fiasco. Kurt Busiek's Avengers relaunch after that event was constantly in the top 10 comics per Wizard at the time it was released. The creative team from that book was used to do the JLA/Avengers crossover 4 parter based on the popularity of the writer and artist. There've been Avengers cartoons AND video games that predate New Avengers. Hell, there were even spinoff books from Avengers. Remember West Coast Avengers? That ran for over a decade, if memory serves.

In rereading that, my last sentence definitely is overly dismissive of the comic itself. I'm mostly thinking from the standpoint of Marvel's high profile events through the mid-80's early 90's which outside of the Infinity stuff (which is universal enough that I never considered it solely an Avengers thing) pretty much everything was X-Men or Spiderman. Even Heroes Reborn was in a lot of ways rooted in X-Men's popularity more than the Avengers itself (and is also one of those.... things.... that happened in the 90's) I guess I mostly just mean that it didn't feel like the Avengers were in any way the face of the brand until Disassembled, which was the point where the Avengers seemed to take the same kind of prominence in Marvel that the Justice League has for DC.

90s was, in my opinion, a really bad time for comics. Everything got Xtreme for nonsense reasons. I think avengers disassembled is when it really picked back up.

90s was, in my opinion, a really bad time for comics. Everything got Xtreme for nonsense reasons. I think avengers disassembled is when it really picked back up.

Whilst I agree about the fupwitted xtreme grim gritty xtreme swing in the superbooks, the 90's also had Vertigo, the rise of Dark Horse and a lot of decent books only a short distance from the main stream,