1938 Superman. The One To Adapt?

[Catman]

Originally Posted by GhostPoet

Do the more modern Superman comics route. The one that is much more sci-fi oriented.

Superman has been very sci-fi oriented since the `50s. And while it'll be nice to see Superman punch an alien or monster they also need to ground the picture. Even Star Wars had its human moments.

[NotFadeAway]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Ok, so I loved your dialogue, now I can disagree full time with you on this one. Thanks to trying to be a sitcom set in space I do not think of watching Abrams' Star Trek ever again. That's what I call the joke for the sake of forcing a joke in, it added nothing to the movie but a desperate attempt of likeability.

To each his own. As a die hard Trekkie, I love Abrams Trek.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Off Topic, but that's one of the cases when I have to agree with El Payaso.

Originally Posted by 04nbod

What we really need from Golden Age Superman is his opinions. Superman has been stripped of all his stands for out of fear certain readers might disagree. Its like he's not allowed to voice anything but sacharrine or inane comments that barely touch on any issues. Superman can say he's against racism, for example, because its a mainstream ethical consensus but he can't say anything specific about how it should be done even though he has experience of how social isolation feels. (unless he's in the future and the writer uses sci fi allegory) I don't have to agree with him but it would give him character to have a point of view. While he doesn't he's a blank canvas. At the same time I don't want a Superman whose stoies are led by social issues primarily.

Yes. The 'iconism' of Superman has very much made him a bidimensional character many times. As you say, many times he merely throws safe and proven pre-fabricated messages.

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

Yes because Tim Burton , who by his own admission didn't read the comics,

"I loved THE KILLING JOKE... It's my favorite. It's the first comic I'0ve ever loved." - Tim Burton

As printed in the Deluxe Edition.

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

and only took the surface elements of the character from the few sources he chose to.

Wouldn't the Studabaker and autogyro you mentioned to bash Burton actually be the "surface elements" instead of his personality?

[JamalYIgle]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Yes. The 'iconism' of Superman has very much made him a bidimensional character many times. As you say, many times he merely throws safe and proven pre-fabricated messages.



"I loved THE KILLING JOKE... It's my favorite. It's the first comic I'0ve ever loved." - Tim Burton

As printed in the Deluxe Edition.





Wouldn't the Studabaker and autogyro you mentioned to bash Burton actually be the "surface elements" instead of his personality?

He didn't read the Killing joke when he filmed Batman, he didn't read any comics. He may have read it afterward but putting a blurb in the deluxe edition 20 years later is not the same thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rujArU3il8
At the 6:02 mark, Burton says "I wasn't a comic book fan but I was a fan of the image". He doesn't mention a single comic book from that time as influencing the look, or his take of the movie.
Also no, The weapons and vehicles are a touchstone of their time but part of Batman's image comes down to the gadgets, the weapons. Burton's Bruce Wayne was not the suave debonair millionaire playboy of the comics, his Batman wasn't the controlled methodical, ready for anything hero. He was a neurotic mess that walked , blanked eyed through a hail of bullets, and then instead of slipping off into the shadows and chasing the Joker's gang, he stared doe-eyed at Vicki Vale and ran off.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

He didn't read the Killing joke when he filmed Batman, he didn't read any comics. He may have read it afterward but putting a blurb in the deluxe edition 20 years later is not the same thing.

Fact or theory?

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

At the 6:02 mark, Burton says "I wasn't a comic book fan but I was a fan of the image". He doesn't mention a single comic book from that time as influencing the look, or his take of the movie.

I see:

not fan of comic books = you haven't read one single comic book ever in your entire life.
no mention of a single comic book from the time = you haven't read one single comic book ever in your entire life.

But he doesn't mention that he didn't read Batman comic books for the movie right?

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

Also no, The weapons and vehicles are a touchstone of their time but part of Batman's image comes down to the gadgets, the weapons. Burton's Bruce Wayne was not the suave debonair millionaire playboy of the comics,

Bat-gadgets and weapons are clearly based on the comics. Sometimes they're even better in Burton's movie. Bruce Wayne is the way a real life kid could grow up after such a traumatic experience. That doesn't prove he didn't read Batman comics for the movie.

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

his Batman wasn't the controlled methodical, ready for anything hero. He was a neurotic mess that walked , blanked eyed through a hail of bullets, and then instead of slipping off into the shadows and chasing the Joker's gang, he stared doe-eyed at Vicki Vale and ran off.

He was certainly prepared for everything and he was far from coming, shooting at everybody and running. When he meets the thugs at the beginning or Jack napier at Axis he was quite controlled. It was when innocent people's lives were at stake that he didn't hesitate in killing and shooting.

In the first sequence and in Axis he pretty much slipped off into the shadows.

[afan]

Originally Posted by The Question

That's one reason, besides his own personal needs and desires, why his personal life and dayjob as a reporter is so necessary. A super powered alien who inflicts his will and his justice on the world is a tyrant. A jorunalist who uses his writing and his mind to expose evil acts and bring the people who commited those acts to justice is a hero. Not that the two should bleed into each other, because it's all his life, and he should certainly use his powers to dig up information for his stories, but that seems like a very good and practical way to address the characters' social concience.

Amen.
The battle for truth and justice doesn't cease when he puts on his glasses!
This scenario illustrates the point.....
Superman saves the lives of a small village from heavily armed attackers/terrorists. The weaponry is cutting edge and of American manufacture, as Clark Kent he investigates and discovers a weapons black market that benefits the profits of said manufacturer and reveals that information via the power of the press.

Superman is powerless against the company, obviously if he trashed the company he would be public enemy #1, but as Clark he is free to act.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by afan

Amen.
The battle for truth and justice doesn't cease when he puts on his glasses!
This scenario illustrates the point.....
Superman saves the lives of a small village from heavily armed attackers/terrorists. The weaponry is cutting edge and of American manufacture, as Clark Kent he investigates and discovers a weapons black market that benefits the profits of said manufacturer and reveals that information via the power of the press.

Superman is powerless against the company, obviously if he trashed the company he would be public enemy #1, but as Clark he is free to act.

Precisely. Clark has often been described as a crusading reporter in the classic lore. What he can't do directly as Superman, he often does in the press as Clark. It's one of the reasons why people think there is more to Clark than meets the eye-the quiet, awkward man that they know writes fiery news articles that do not shy away from confronting powerful enemies.

[JamalYIgle]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Fact or theory?



I see:

not fan of comic books = you haven't read one single comic book ever in your entire life.
no mention of a single comic book from the time = you haven't read one single comic book ever in your entire life.

hbe didn't read comics by his own admission. I'm not making these things up. I don't need to do it when the proof is coming from the man's own words.

But he doesn't mention that he didn't read Batman comic books for the movie right?

Not in that interview but he does in this one http://www.popentertainment.com/timburton.htm
Besides Harryhausen, were there any other pop culture references that influenced your recent movies like comic books?

Those kinds of things that you grow up watching like the Rankin and Bass "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer", they stay with you. They just kind of form what you like to do. I wasn't a big comic book fan, really. I don't know if I was dyslexic, but I always had trouble knowing which box to read first. I kept reading the wrong box and thought this is a comic book that doesn't make any sense. Do I read the one up here or the one down here? I couldn't quite deal with it.

Bat-gadgets and weapons are clearly based on the comics. Sometimes they're even better in Burton's movie. Bruce Wayne is the way a real life kid could grow up after such a traumatic experience. That doesn't prove he didn't read Batman comics for the movie.

no it proves he was going off the script that Sam Hamm wrote and Michael Uslan approved. I know Mike Uslan.

He was certainly prepared for everything and he was far from coming, shooting at everybody and running. When he meets the thugs at the beginning or Jack napier at Axis he was quite controlled. It was when innocent people's lives were at stake that he didn't hesitate in killing and shooting.

In the first sequence and in Axis he pretty much slipped off into the shadows.

No he lumbered through like a freight train, walked around opening and closing his cape and was about as stealthy as John Candy in "Who is Harry Crumb?". I liked the movies but they are a product of their time, from a pair of producers who wanted Bill Murray to play Batman and Nicholas Cage to play Superman.
However I feel like we're getting off track. I stand by my statement, People will want to see a version of Superman they recognize from Television and films inn the new movie. No radical changes just upgrades.

[Alex_Spider]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Not to mention that it's a completely legitimate way to get away from Superman's Boy Scout image.

And the Big Blue Boy Scout was a Post-Crisis addition, since all John Byrne knew about Superman was 1) The TV Series, 2) The Donner/Reeve Movies and 3) What Stan preached about him. Silver/Bronze Age Supes wasn't as rough as the original, but he was in no way the naive fool he degraded into.

They can have some scenes of Superman dealing with street-level stuff and show that he has a strong, common man populist social activist streak. A populist Supes VS a Corporate Luthor is very fitting for today's world situation, one that is similar to the time of his creation.

Superman should be the champion of the less fortunate and the oppressed. It's a great message-that the most powerful man in the world lives to help those least able to help themselves. Superman's altruistic nature is a huge part of his appeal. It's also part of why he chooses to humble himself by being Clark Kent. You can learn a lot about people just from how they treat a person like Clark. To Superman, even though he is literally a SUPER MAN, humility is a virtue and that's where Clark comes in.

I think a modern audience raised on the canard that Superman is a naive child would be impacted strongly by a Superman who actually takes no crap and does and says what he thinks. Like the story in Action #12 where he goes to a factory that makes cheap cars that cause wrecks, and tears the place apart, threatening the owner, etc. Imagine how people who feel helpless against the corporate control of life would react to seeing a Superman who puts those people in their place. It's a Superman that people have forgotten, but maybe it needs to be brought back.

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Has it been an evolution, or has it been a sell-out? A scared need to offend no one, which has made Superman degrade to the point where he stands for nothing? He was created by working class guys who knew first hand the pain of poverty. If they want to kill the perception of Superman as an establishment stooge who is too scared to offend anyone to ever do the right thing (and God forbid, bend a rule or law or two in the process), then this is their big chance. It's a young Superman at the beginning of his career, full of fire and ideals. And it's not like these tactics aren't in his resume.



True, but the Silver Age version was nowhere near the naive child that the later, Post-Crisis version was often shown to be. Not to mention he would have never endured the sneering disrespect paid to him by other superheroes, particularly Batman, who replaced him as DC's #1 character and main earning point.



But it was the Post-Crisis version-who was trapped forever in being an immature Superboy by the bad decisions to remove that from his career and also to leave the Kents alive-who also made the emotional decision to execute the Phantom Zone villains, something his more adult Silver/Bronze Age counterpart would have never had considered or had to resort to.

The current version of the character is of course, a compromise between the classic version that worked and the failed Byrne experiments that have reduced Superman to a point of near-irrelevance. If DC ever rids themselves of the wrongheaded school of thought started by Byrne and continued by Mike Carlin (who also doesn't understand the character), then they can just put those elements out to pasture where they deserve to go, and bring back a Superman who actually believes in things and stands for something, and acts like a man, not a boy.

Until DC themselves decide that Stan and the entire Marvel way of thinking is completely wrong for Superman, until they decide to embrace Superman with pride instead of shunning him in shame, the character will fail and fail hard.

Always glad to read some nice posts..And the one thing i don't get is, why are some people afraid if Superman breaks a law or two in the process. Are all laws fair and based on liberty? Um, i don't think so. The Law system on all countries doesn't care what the right is. If you are a drug dealer and can provide yourself a high paid lawyer then you can get away with it or get released by bail. Oh, and Private Banks and big Corporations are literally untouchable. But that's another story.

[afan]

Originally Posted by Alex_Spider

Always glad to read some nice posts..And the one thing i don't get is, why are some people afraid if Superman breaks a law or two in the process. Are all laws fair and based on liberty? Um, i don't think so. The Law system on all countries doesn't care what the right is. If you are a drug dealer and can provide yourself a high paid lawyer then you can get away with it or get released by bail. Oh, and Private Banks and big Corporations are literally untouchable. But that's another story.

Because, he doesn't break the law.

[JamalYIgle]

Originally Posted by Alex_Spider

Always glad to read some nice posts..And the one thing i don't get is, why are some people afraid if Superman breaks a law or two in the process. Are all laws fair and based on liberty? Um, i don't think so. The Law system on all countries doesn't care what the right is. If you are a drug dealer and can provide yourself a high paid lawyer then you can get away with it or get released by bail. Oh, and Private Banks and big Corporations are literally untouchable. But that's another story.

Because Superman is suppose above the baser instincts that we fall prey to. He's the one hero who above all others can see the good in others but find ways to solve problems with as little damage as possible unless absolutely necessary. Truth and justice aren't platitudes to him. It was the way he was raised, the man he is believes in the greater good in all things.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Alex_Spider

If you are a drug dealer and can provide yourself a high paid lawyer then you can get away with it or get released by bail.

Criminals getting released on bail isn't a bad thing. It not like they're paying to not go to prison, they're paying to not sit in jail until the court case is over. There's still going to be a trial where there could be a conviction. And the bail money helps pay for the trial.

[Alex_Spider]

Originally Posted by afan

Because, he doesn't break the law.

So, essentially Superman is the Super "Obeyer" Man, who doesn't care who person has a right, only what the law dictates. It's like saying if he was raised by the Taliban, he shouldn't break the laws they have come up with, because he simply doesn't break them. Meanwhile many women would get beaten the s** out of them. Um, that doesn't seem very logic to me. And don't tell me that Americas laws are another thing than the Taliban ones. In both worlds laws do not treat equal people. And that's a fact.

[Alex_Spider]

Originally Posted by The Question

Criminals getting released on bail isn't a bad thing. It not like they're paying to not go to prison, they're paying to not sit in jail until the court case is over. There's still going to be a trial where there could be a conviction. And the bail money helps pay for the trial.

That doesn't change the fact that laws are not equal for all people and it's distribution isn't fair. Just look at the bigger criminals that are out there, besides small crooks and thieves. The big corrupted corporations. They commit bigger crimes than all muggers in the world and they stay out of prison. And the fact remains, that the more money you have the better lawyer you get, so the better chances to get free.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Alex_Spider

That doesn't change the fact that laws are not equal for all people and it's distribution isn't fair. Just look at the bigger criminals that are out there, besides small crooks and thieves. The big corrupted corporations. They commit bigger crimes than all muggers in the world and they stay out of prison. And the fact remains, that the more money you have the better lawyer you get, so the better chances to get free.

Well, with corporations, yeah, that's true. But bringing up bail is a bad example, because most crimes get a bail set.

And as for the lawyer thing, yeah, that's true, but it' not that simple. The amount of evidence against the defendant is also a factor.

And that also has nothing to do with the law. It's not the fault of the legislature that the best defense attourneys charge huge fees for their services.

[Alex_Spider]

Originally Posted by The Question

Well, with corporations, yeah, that's true. But bringing up bail is a bad example, because most crimes get a bail set.

And as for the lawyer thing, yeah, that's true, but it' not that simple. The amount of evidence against the defendant is also a factor.

And that also has nothing to do with the law. It's not the fault of the legislature that the best defense attourneys charge huge fees for their services.

If you read again my post i said, "the more money you have the better lawyer you get, so the better chances to get free."

[KyleDW2]

Originally Posted by Alex_Spider

So, essentially Superman is the Super "Obeyer" Man, who doesn't care who person has a right, only what the law dictates. It's like saying if he was raised by the Taliban, he shouldn't break the laws they have come up with, because he simply doesn't break them. Meanwhile many women would get beaten the s** out of them. Um, that doesn't seem very logic to me. And don't tell me that Americas laws are another thing than the Taliban ones. In both worlds laws do not treat equal people. And that's a fact.

Superman has to obey the law because if he doesn't what is the point of the law? Say he breaks the law and blows up the LexCorp. building. He clears it of people but completely demolishes it. Then he does it to every other LexCorp. building in the world. All of this is done despite the fact that Superman can't prove Lex did anything wrong to prompt him into doing what he did. Congratulations, you do not have Superman anymore. You have Ultraman, the Earth Three version of Superman that just did whatever he wanted because nobody could stop him. There was no law other than his law. But, you would say, Ultraman was a criminal and Superman is a hero. Well, true, but does that mean that he should impose his own personal will upon people simply because he can? Is his invincibility reason enough to have his morality supersede everyone else's?

And where does it stop? Lex is a legit villain, but would Superman go after other corrupt companies? And what does it mean to be corrupt? Better hope your answer falls in line with Superman's. What does Superman do about other laws he might find unjust? What if he were anti abortion? Would he send all abortion doctors to the Phantom Zone? What about illegal immigration? I hope he is feeling kinder towards all those illegals. And if he is, he doesn't think about "dealing" with anyone who thinks contrary to him. Because he can get away with it. He's Superman. He's above the law. He's not Super "Obeyer" Man.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

hbe didn't read comics by his own admission. I'm not making these things up. I don't need to do it when the proof is coming from the man's own words.



Not in that interview but he does in this one http://www.popentertainment.com/timburton.htm
Besides Harryhausen, were there any other pop culture references that influenced your recent movies like comic books?

Those kinds of things that you grow up watching like the Rankin and Bass "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer", they stay with you. They just kind of form what you like to do. I wasn't a big comic book fan, really. I don't know if I was dyslexic, but I always had trouble knowing which box to read first. I kept reading the wrong box and thought this is a comic book that doesn't make any sense. Do I read the one up here or the one down here? I couldn't quite deal with it.

You should post the part where he admits he didn't read Batman comics for the movie, not the ones where he says he had troubles reading comics as a kid. This is no proof.

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

no it proves he was going off the script that Sam Hamm wrote and Michael Uslan approved. I know Mike Uslan.

Well that's why directors have people around. It was Goyer who insisted in getting a mask for Scarecrow and it was Burton insisting Hamm that Batman should keep his cape.

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

No he lumbered through like a freight train, walked around opening and closing his cape and was about as stealthy as John Candy in "Who is Harry Crumb?"

Ah yes, ridiculous descriptions. They should make look the movie bad. Buty no.

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

I liked the movies but they are a product of their time, from a pair of producers who wanted Bill Murray to play Batman and Nicholas Cage to play Superman.

And Michael Keaton, a comedian, for Batman, and it worked.

Originally Posted by JamalYIgle

However I feel like we're getting off track. I stand by my statement, People will want to see a version of Superman they recognize from Television and films inn the new movie. No radical changes just upgrades.

No radical changes. But let's put some meat into this Superman and no just shallow speeches as usually.

Originally Posted by afan

Because, he doesn't break the law.

So he doesn't defend "justice" but just "laws." I know the subjecxt is noit easy but it's time for it to be addressed.

[Alex_Spider]

Originally Posted by KyleDW2

Superman has to obey the law because if he doesn't what is the point of the law? Say he breaks the law and blows up the LexCorp. building. He clears it of people but completely demolishes it. Then he does it to every other LexCorp. building in the world. All of this is done despite the fact that Superman can't prove Lex did anything wrong to prompt him into doing what he did. Congratulations, you do not have Superman anymore. You have Ultraman, the Earth Three version of Superman that just did whatever he wanted because nobody could stop him. There was no law other than his law. But, you would say, Ultraman was a criminal and Superman is a hero. Well, true, but does that mean that he should impose his own personal will upon people simply because he can? Is his invincibility reason enough to have his morality supersede everyone else's?

And where does it stop? Lex is a legit villain, but would Superman go after other corrupt companies? And what does it mean to be corrupt? Better hope your answer falls in line with Superman's. What does Superman do about other laws he might find unjust? What if he were anti abortion? Would he send all abortion doctors to the Phantom Zone? What about illegal immigration? I hope he is feeling kinder towards all those illegals. And if he is, he doesn't think about "dealing" with anyone who thinks contrary to him. Because he can get away with it. He's Superman. He's above the law. He's not Super "Obeyer" Man.

No, not to people, only to the corrupted forces of the world and the unfairness behind some laws. I think you took it too far with the demolition and all that. I don't think everyone of us implied this. After all if he took totally the law in his own hands, there would be no stories to tell, lol. We 're talking about little things which i am not going to analyze now obviously. But i believe that the things you mentioned are an extreme example just as the Boy Scout's one. There can be a middle ground.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Alex_Spider

If you read again my post i said, "the more money you have the better lawyer you get, so the better chances to get free."

But again, that's not the fault of the law, that's the fault of capitalism. The Justice Department has no control over how indipendant lawyers want to market their services.

[Alex_Spider]

Originally Posted by The Question

But again, that's not the fault of the law, that's the fault of capitalism. The Justice Department has no control over how indipendant lawyers want to market their services.

And that's exactly the flaw of the system my friend. You just said it. If there was true justice, the legal system wouldn't allow capitalism to interfere with the laws, so that poor people wouldn't have a strong defense. But that's the nature of how things are. Justice and corruption will always be connected. And that's where the S comes in. lol

[KyleDW2]

Originally Posted by Alex_Spider

No, not to people, only to the corrupted forces of the world and the unfairness behind some laws. I think you took it too far with the demolition and all that. I don't think everyone of us implied this. After all if he took totally the law in his own hands, there would be no stories to tell, lol. We 're talking about little things which i am not going to analyze now obviously. But i believe that the things you mentioned are an extreme example just as the Boy Scout's one. There can be a middle ground.

And who gets to decide what is fair? Fair is not a definite sum. There is not an index of fair. Which is what makes this line of thinking dangerous. For some people fair means survival of the fittest, for others fair means everyone must be equal in absolutely every way. Should Superman physically enforce the viewpoint that he shares? After all, he'd only be doing what is "fair."

And there really isn't a middle ground. Either Superman enforces the law or he doesn't. He doesn't get to pick and choose due to inconvenience.

[KyleDW2]

Originally Posted by Alex_Spider

And that's exactly the flaw of the system my friend. You just said it. If there was true justice, the legal system wouldn't allow capitalism to interfere with the laws, so that poor people wouldn't have a strong defense. But that's the nature of how things are. Justice and corruption will always be connected. And that's where the S comes in. lol

Your right. The system is completely broken.

So, how would Superman fix this? When he breaks the bad ol' law in order to do justice, how will he make people trust the God like being who can't be stopped by anyone who also doesn't give a damn about the laws the people set up for themselves?

[Alex_Spider]

I don't know, I just hate the portrayal of the good puppy, who poses as a tool next to flags and presidents who most of them are corrupted. I like him the most when he stands next to less fortunate people.

[The Batman]

All I know is that if we see the same old caricature that we've seen since post crisis, this movie will have definetely failed in one area, and all the action and snyder special effects wont be able to change that.