World's Finest

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

This comment section has been very intersting.
I disagree with some of it, though. Long post incoming:

For example: DC does care what the fans think - but that's a bad thing!
Think about it: No-one here wants to see the clichee "they fight each other, they make up, they team up, they fight crime" formula. It has been done to death.
Yet, why would WB go into that direction? Because X vs. X is a traditional fan topic. When you talk to comic fans it's one of 5 topics: What superpowers would you want? How stupid/hot/impractical is X's costume? What would have been your version of X event/how could X event be improved? DC vs. Marvel - which leads you to who would win in a fight X vs. X?

So, with a fan culture like that - why would WB bet the farm on a buddy cop movie, or do anything else than what the fans obviously want to see? If they check out this comment section - we have, so far, bitched about MoS, and discussed the topic of X vs. X - even though we all agree that we have no solid indicator that they will even fight, and we all agree that the basic X fights X formula is a terrible idea.
We hate the idea - yet, everyone wants to talk about just that. Why would they make another movie?

Also Dark Knight Returns is a pretty awesome comic.
I had a class last semester, in which we read and analysed it, and there's a lot of thought behind the surface.
So I really disagree with Raika, who said that:

Raika:

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is, was when it came out, and always will be absolutely fucking terrible. Frank Miller can't write his way out of a shoebox and it's painfully apparent in that story in particular. It's infantile, nihilistic trash for teenagers who want to feel "hardcore". That's all it'll ever be, and pretty much nothing good can come of a movie taking hints from that, especially since Man of Steel completely missed the point of Superman as a character to begin with.

Well, I'll admit DKR has some real problems: Batman using guns, killing people, rolling on people with a tank ("Rubber bullets! Promise." <- rubber bullets, my ass!).
In a way, there is some fundamental misunderstanding of Batman in DKR, just as with Superman in MoS.

However, in DKR, Supes and Bats have the exactly right positions within society: Superman is working with and for the government, while Batman works from the shadows and is a thorn in the governments side.
The point is raised that Batman, by operating outside the law, and by using unsanctioned violence, while being not accountable, inspires all these crazy madmen, gives them something to work against.
It's no coincidence that they have a pro-Superman, anti-Batman psychologist running around.

Batman is so good at what he does because he does it without the whole bureaucracy - he goes where he needs to go to collect his evidence. The problem is that, because the system is faulty and the Joker is set free by some celebrity psychologist, Batman is needed. The POTUS even wants to give him a medal.
But he inspires all the crazy people, who are drawn to the unsanctioned violence Batman uses: Think of the Sons of Batman (previously Mutant gang members, who "convert" to Batman-ism after Bats beats their boss), and how they just straight up mob-murder people for stealing handbags.

Superman is not "corrupt" in DKR - he just choses to act with force (=violence) sanctioned by the official government. He works from within the system, still having faith that it ought to work. Which is, of course, why he gets hit in the face with a tactical nuclear warhead.
I'd argue that makes him see Batman's point, in the end. Superman's silence, as he discovers Batman's ultimate trick, can be read as silent approval: Supes freaking GETS IT now. The system is not perfect. Better to have a Batman around in the shadows should you ever need him.

Coming back to an earlier point: DKR would have never been made had Miller listened to the fanboys.
DKR is what is called a "revisionary narrative" - meaning that after DKR's version of Batman you couldn't go back to the old version. Adam West's Batman got overwritten by the new, gritty, grim Batman.
Example: For all of Batman's history, the yellow symbol on his chest was just .... well, because! Because superheroes have symbols on their chests. Because yellow makes the black bat symbol pop.
DKR >explains< the symbol for the first time! It's a deliberate target, painted on Batman's chest so villains will shoot his chest. The only other bright spot on the costume is Batman's lower face, which would be the first thing bad guys see and shoot at instead. So he gives them a better target. He can armor his chest. He can't armor his face.
And because DKR has this >explanatory power< it convinces us more than all earlier versions. We can never think away that explanation, so it replaces the old, inferior explanations, versions and instances.

These are not my ideas, btw, as I said: I had a class. If you're interested go look up my two main guys:
McCloud's "Understanding Comics" and Klock's "How to read Superhero comics and why".
It's theoretical stuff, literary analysis - but in the very least you're gonna get some awesome comic tipps, from literary experts, who name-drop you the industry's best as secondary sources :D
I had a ball reading those texts because some freaking phd was ratteling down a list of very good comics - and I had read them all!
Enjoy.
And sorry for the wall of text. I needed to vent information.

You know I don't understand why Batman can't be an equal opponent to Superman. Lex Luthor is supposed to be Superman's arch nemesis and he's a normal human, aided by the power of his intelligence, technology and corporation. Bruce Wayne is pretty much the same.

Hammartroll:
You know I don't understand why Batman can't be an equal opponent to Superman. Lex Luthor is supposed to be Superman's arch nemesis and he's a normal human, aided by the power of his intelligence, technology and corporation. Bruce Wayne is pretty much the same.

Superman doesn't know any hideouts of Lex Luthor's. He knows where the Batcave is.
Lex Luthor invents all kinds of super-heavy weaponry. Batman doesn't. Why?
Because Batman doesn't kill, he doesn't use guns. All his equipement is non-lethal and therefore less powerful.
Batman always acts alone (yeah, Robin, Watchtower, etc. but Batman is always in the front line with them).
Lex Luthor works from the backround. He manipulates everyone. He sends other, more powerful people to do his work for him.

That is why Luthor is more dangerous than Batman: He is a villain that plans everything and would sacrifice people to further his cause.
Batman has a destinct handicap here.

captcha: most interesting man :D

That last couple of paragraphs is why I'd take the first three Burton/Shumaker Batman films over the Nolan trilogy any day (although the fourth one is another story; I'd take at least the third Nolan movie over that one, since the third one had lightened up a bit on the "realism.") I will never understand why our popular media got so grimdark after 9/11. We went from good guys saving the day in movies and TV shows that can best be described as /fun/, to watching "heroes" torture "terrorists" and being expected to root for the guy doing the torturing. I don't know about anyone else, but I was less interested in how "realistic" a happy ending was, and more interested in a temporary escape from all the horrible stuff in the real world. If I want to see a world where the good guys aren't all that good and they don't always win, I'll turn on the friggin' news, you know?

Fortunately, over 10 years on, we're finally moving away from that crap and into some more hopeful fare. It's a shame Warner Brothers still isn't understanding that with their DC comics based movies.

Sadly Zack Snyder wouldn't do a wacky,campy overthetop Batman vs. Superman...=[

that's a great mistake of movies...taking themselves too seriously.
because that leads to put-on pseudo depth...

like in man-of-steel...
-would have been an awesome movie if they didn't force the origin story and philosophy into the film...
they wanted to make a movie about Superman beating Zod through buildings...
they could have left it at that and it would've worked.

you can't make a movie profound on purpose.
but if you have something to say and try to illustrate that - the movie gets "deep" on it's self.
(that's why Watchmen works - because Alan Moore has something to say)

so alternatively:
embrace the stupidity!

(FarCry:BloodDragon; Dredd 3D; Batman(1966))

so ultimately it's about honesty...i guess.

OtherSideofSky:
You know what? I hope they don't fight. At all. I know it's a losing bet, but I'm not interested in seeing 'the whole "who would win?" thing settled up onscreen,' and I don't think a fight between these two would be fun to watch. It only semi-worked in The Dark Knight Returns because Batman went to elaborate lengths to cheat (including calling in outside help) and then apparently died. Besides, they still don't have a Batman suit anyone can move in. Who wants to see another fight with the shit choreography all that stupid rubber forced on everyone?

I want to see a buddy cop movie with super heroes. Superman and Batman going all over the world to try and stop some ambiguous threat, Batman doing actual detective work (something that both movie and comic book writers seem to have completely forgotten the meaning of) and Superman flying in to lift and punch things when shit gets real. The closest I want them to get to fighting is trading jokes at each others' expense or arguing over what to do next. I don't even really need to see a scene where they first meet. I am perfectly happy to watch a movie that begins with Superman and Batman showing up together to stop a robbery or something.

I'm sorry, but the 'unrelentingly dark with a washed-out color palette' thing just doesn't work as the primary mode for telling superhero stories. It's great in small doses, when it's confined to a miniseries or a single film, but it gets dull real fast when it's more than that. What it comes down to is that these stories are inherently not only ridiculous, but fairly simplistic (yes, even everyone's precious Batman), and they can never be grim as well as Dostoevsky, or Lampedusa, or even Dick can be.

total approval.

"I don't even really need to see a scene where they first meet."
YES!
in most of the cases in which we have seen a origin-story it wasn't crucial to the basic premise of the film.
-did we see how John McClane became a policeman in Die Hard? Did we see flashbacks of James Bond growing up? Did we see montage of Rambo learning how to use a gun?
not as far as i remember...

everything happening in a movie should be relevant. You don't watch a Superman movie to gain information about Superman do you?

You know if they would just muzzle Nolan and put him in a closet this might actually work.

Sure this was the Most Unnecessarily Dark Superman movie ever but that could be a lesson to learn from. Basically it was Superman's first outing. His first try at attempting to be the god among men he tries to avoid permanently becoming because he is Clark Kent before he is Superman. With Batman it is the exact opposite. Bruce Wayne is simply a method for Batman to continue being Batman.

So we can work with that. Have Superman move back gradually towards his arch-typical persona by learning from the events in Man of Steel. He was outmatched, outgunned and inexperienced. Use that to reshape him into the actual Man of Steel, the one that stands for truth, justice and the International way to ensure we don't alienate foreign fans and seeing as the American way has recently turned into crony capitalism and corruption across several layers of government becoming almost institutionalized as the only way into politics and EXHALE!

Damn the world has become a bleak place in reality.

Anyway like I was saying have Man of Steel NOT just be an origin. Have it become the formation of the character. Now you have two ideologies that clash. Superman wanting at all costs to prevent another Man of Steel debacle where he was forced to kill to protect civilians we never saw (hint show some civilians in this movie guys) and Batman who lacks the capacity to even start thinking about the criminals seeing as he is just a man with a utility belt and not the kind of man who would put saving lives over the lives of criminals (see animated universe where he tricks a guy into what amounts to suicide to save the world).

After all this IS going to be a new Batman, Nolan Batman is drinking wine in some South American country probably being about 60 by now, so have fun with the character. Create a younger more inexperienced Batman to contrast with the now more experienced Superman. Do something fresh and new and have Superman take the lead in this movie. Superman has been pushed to his limits early on in his theatrical story line. Have that impact him and have that be the central focus of the initial conflict between the two. It is after all supposed to be his movie sequel.

Starik20X6:
Someone suggested somewhere (I can't remember where) that the movie should go like this:

Superman is called in to help deal with this mysterious vigilante problem that's turned up in Gotham City. When Supes does track this guy down, surprise surprise it's Batman, who is following a lead on some kind of criminal conspiracy. There's a scuffle, but Bats ninjas his way out of there after planting a seed of doubt in Supes' mind about his employers. Batman's explosive attack on whatever villain factory/hideout they go with naturally draws the attention of Superman, who realises he's been conned by whatever crooked cops/officials asked him to take out Batman, then the two team up for the final showdown with the big bad.

Post credits scene where it's revealed Lex was pulling the strings on the whole thing, and the whole "they won't best me again" thing, setting up Justice League.

i love such new originals!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.820297-Super-Dark?page=2#19814910

Raika:
I'm going to go ahead and play devil's advocate here.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is, was when it came out, and always will be absolutely fucking terrible. Frank Miller can't write his way out of a shoebox and it's painfully apparent in that story in particular. It's infantile, nihilistic trash for teenagers who want to feel "hardcore". That's all it'll ever be, and pretty much nothing good can come of a movie taking hints from that, especially since Man of Steel completely missed the point of Superman as a character to begin with.

*slow clap*

I thought I was the only one who NEVER liked any of Miller's work. His writing is right-wing macho posturing and his art can't even touch Giffen, much less Kirby.

Rellik San:
You never know, it could be that in an interesting reversal, Batman comes in to teach a young and full of bluster Superman that even the smallest of crimes is worth his attention, not just the earth shattering stuff.

I thought this seemed the obvious conclusion. Before the Batman involvement was announced, most people seemed to be assuming the sequel would be about Superman adopting his normal moral code about helping everyone and not killing, using the killing of Zod as the catalyst. Now we're told that the film will include a guy who, as Bob says, often tackles regular criminals and also has a strict moral code about not killing. Of course there will be some conflict between the two, rather than simply having Batman play Obi-Wan Kenobi, but I don't see why this would change the basic plot at all.

Sorry if this was already mentioned, but if I was Warner and I wanted to play it specially risky, I would make superman the villain in the upcoming movie. He's immortal, unstoppable, and all in all a monster truck who given the slightest motivation, could lift Australia and place it on the moon just for laughs EXCEPT for that one weakness he has. And now he's shown the willingness to kill, putting him in the perfect position for a fallen angel trope. Batman and Superman fighting for different ideologies? That's milking it. Batman overcoming Superman's clearly superior power with his wits and saving the world from the one guy who should be everyone's hero? That's something I'd watch.

Then again, if I was really in charge of DC, I'd start rolling out the B listers. Mashing terribly iconic characters together isn't the way to go, it just causes too much friction.

Smokescreen:
I would vastly prefer a 'buddy cop' story, a little like Lethal Weapon, rather than a story where they are deliberate antagonists to each other.

There are very good reasons why Batman and Superman have become so iconic and important. Utilize them!

Fuck it, just take all the great stuff from the animated universe and roll with it. They don't always see eye to eye there- but they don't hate each other or even fight each other, at least not in the TDKR manner.

And you know what: Frank Miller's work does have some issues, not the least of them being how he turned Superman into a stooge; a crime that we are still paying for today, in some ways.

That doesn't mean it isn't a brilliant story: it is and it's well executed. But the fact that it's become THE BIBLE of Batman stories and it's impact on Superman, isn't a great thing.

This. superman is the ninny, the nancy, the square, to the hip too gritty to be kiddy batman and its stuck like stink to Superman for some time.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here