The Official Costume Thread - - - - - - - - - - Part 19

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[EML420]

DKR is a great story but Superman in the story didnt seem wrong to me the only way he could continue to help in the world was to be at the will of the president. So has long has he could do good he would that to me is Superman. Superman almost died trying to stop a missile.

[Lencho01]

Superman wouldn't act like some child being told by his parents to do something.

[Kurosawa]

There's no way Superman would ever do any of that crap. DKR was where Superman began to fail, and Byrne's version came from it. I'm so glad Grant Morrison has brought back the original Superman in Action Comics.

[DKDetective]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

There's no way Superman would ever do any of that crap. DKR was where Superman began to fail, and Byrne's version came from it. I'm so glad Grant Morrison has brought back the original Superman in Action Comics.

I consider myself a Superman fan and I wasn't upset by The Dark Knight Returns. I accepted it for what it was an alternative future where things went all to hell and it is told from Batman's perspective anyway and an extreme interpretation of the character at that. Batman was pushed to the edge as much as Superman in the story. It's an Elseworlds story. I can understand why you dislike it and it's portrayal of Superman, but its unfair to say that any real Superman fan would be insulted and disgusted by it. To be fair, I think that portraying Bruce and Clark as friends who disagree and can be at odds is perfectly in accordance with the true spirits of the characters. I mean even pre-Crisis Batman did often tend to be darker and use more controversial means than Superman. It would natural for them to disagree and have fights while still maintaining their pre-Crisis friendship. Byrne may have taken it too far, but the basic idea is a legitimate interpretation or re-invention of their relationship in spirit with their characters and their differences.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by DKDetective

I consider myself a Superman fan and I wasn't upset by The Dark Knight Returns. I accepted it for what it was an alternative future where things went all to hell and it is told from Batman's perspective anyway and an extreme interpretation of the character at that. Batman was pushed to the edge as much as Superman in the story. It's an Elseworlds story. I can understand why you dislike it and it's portrayal of Superman, but its unfair to say that any real Superman fan would be insulted and disgusted by it. To be fair, I think that portraying Bruce and Clark as friends who disagree and can be at odds is perfectly in accordance with the true spirits of the characters. I mean even pre-Crisis Batman did often tend to be darker and use more controversial means than Superman. It would natural for them to disagree and have fights while still maintaining their pre-Crisis friendship. Byrne may have taken it too far, but the basic idea is a legitimate interpretation or re-invention of their relationship in spirit with their characters and their differences.

Had it been limited to DKR, then yes, I could dismiss it easier. Unfortunately due to DKR's incredible success, that portrayal of Superman also began to appear in the DCU proper, partially because John Byrne coordinated his Superman reboot with Miller's DKR portrayal. That is where the image of Superman as the "Big Blue Boy Scout" and government/establishment stooge came from. Superman would no more take orders from the POTUS or any leader than he would from a flea.

[moviedoors]

There's no way anyone who is a Superman fan could read it and not be pissed off by how Superman is portrayed and humiliated in it.

I'm a Superman fan and I like DKR. Deal with it.

[elgaz]

I don't agree with many of Kurosawa's points, but I have to be honest ................ Superman was handled badly by Miller in DKR.

Don't get me wrong - I own it, I still love the book, and I think it's a fantastic Batman story. But the depiction of Superman in it is very far removed from the Superman we know and love. He basically became a lap dog for the government, meekly doing what he's told, and that's just not Superman. He's still a hero, but one who takes orders from corrupt people ............... it doesn't ring true at all with what we know of Kal El.

But then I didn't expect any less from Frank Miller. He's quite a dark writer, and I imagine he 'gets' the tortured character of Batman much more easily than someone like Superman, who is essentially whiter than white and does good simply because he can. Miller has a history of creating animosity between Batman and Superman, with Batman in particular looking down upon Superman. There's plenty of other writers who also create tension between the two due to their vastly different methods of crimefighting, but usually there remains a mutual respect for each other - Miller's versions seem to lack even that.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Had it been limited to DKR, then yes, I could dismiss it easier. Unfortunately due to DKR's incredible success, that portrayal of Superman also began to appear in the DCU proper, partially because John Byrne coordinated his Superman reboot with Miller's DKR portrayal. That is where the image of Superman as the "Big Blue Boy Scout" and government/establishment stooge came from. Superman would no more take orders from the POTUS or any leader than he would from a flea.

I agree with all this.

I still don't see how Snyder, talking about Watchmen and comics that fit into that camp and flippantly mentioning that he liked TDKR and hey he'd love to make that movie... Has any impact on THIS film.

Here's what I've picked up of Snyder's Superman 'journey' from interviews so far:

He loves Superman, but he knows Superman doesn't fit into his usual style. He thinks he wouldn't want to take Superman on because he knows it's a huge deal and perhaps too big for him, so he says he'd never do it.

Then Goyer and Nolan come along with this idea. And he's still not sure. He ums and ahs. He's worried because he thinks Superman is a broken franchise (in terms of the films) and needs a lot of work to fix.

But him and his wife come around quickly. They realise the potential in the idea and the story here, and Snyder realises it's his chance to do something different. Where he usually tries to pull the audience into a fantasy world, here he is going to pull a fantasy character into our world, in a way he's never done before and would only do for a Superman movie, cause that's what he thinks it needs.

He chooses Henry Cavill, who he says he picked because he is manly with a touch of innocence and kindness that he sees as essential for Superman. He chooses Amy Adams, who is intelligent, beautiful and embodies what they are doing with the character.

None of that, to me, sounds like he doesn't get the character or what this movie needs. It just sounds like we have a director who's humbled by handling a Superman movie (said it's like being in a rocket ship and pretending your not scared) instead of thinking he's above the genre or the character. He's excited!

Don't condemn him on the basis of one comment he made a long time ago, during a time where he was immersed in the grittier comic book style.

That's not how he's approaching this film.

[RetrogradeOrbit]

Anyone else wondering how long it will be until we see some official pictures of Superman flying around?

[Krumm]

I'm just wondering when we'll see an official shield.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

There's no way Superman would ever do any of that crap.

There is one: one writer writes Superman doing that and one illustrator draws Superman doing that.

Originally Posted by DKDetective

I consider myself a Superman fan and I wasn't upset by The Dark Knight Returns. I accepted it for what it was an alternative future where things went all to hell and it is told from Batman's perspective anyway and an extreme interpretation of the character at that. Batman was pushed to the edge as much as Superman in the story. It's an Elseworlds story. I can understand why you dislike it and it's portrayal of Superman, but its unfair to say that any real Superman fan would be insulted and disgusted by it. To be fair, I think that portraying Bruce and Clark as friends who disagree and can be at odds is perfectly in accordance with the true spirits of the characters. I mean even pre-Crisis Batman did often tend to be darker and use more controversial means than Superman. It would natural for them to disagree and have fights while still maintaining their pre-Crisis friendship. Byrne may have taken it too far, but the basic idea is a legitimate interpretation or re-invention of their relationship in spirit with their characters and their differences.

It's not only unfair but frankly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

I agree with all this.

I still don't see how Snyder, talking about Watchmen and comics that fit into that camp and flippantly mentioning that he liked TDKR and hey he'd love to make that movie... Has any impact on THIS film.

Here's what I've picked up of Snyder's Superman 'journey' from interviews so far:

He loves Superman, but he knows Superman doesn't fit into his usual style. He thinks he wouldn't want to take Superman on because he knows it's a huge deal and perhaps too big for him, so he says he'd never do it.

Then Goyer and Nolan come along with this idea. And he's still not sure. He ums and ahs. He's worried because he thinks Superman is a broken franchise (in terms of the films) and needs a lot of work to fix.

But him and his wife come around quickly. They realise the potential in the idea and the story here, and Snyder realises it's his chance to do something different. Where he usually tries to pull the audience into a fantasy world, here he is going to pull a fantasy character into our world, in a way he's never done before and would only do for a Superman movie, cause that's what he thinks it needs.

He chooses Henry Cavill, who he says he picked because he is manly with a touch of innocence and kindness that he sees as essential for Superman. He chooses Amy Adams, who is intelligent, beautiful and embodies what they are doing with the character.

None of that, to me, sounds like he doesn't get the character or what this movie needs. It just sounds like we have a director who's humbled by handling a Superman movie (said it's like being in a rocket ship and pretending your not scared) instead of thinking he's above the genre or the character. He's excited!

Don't condemn him on the basis of one comment he made a long time ago, during a time where he was immersed in the grittier comic book style.

That's not how he's approaching this film.

Nothing so far sounds like he doesn't get the character mainly because we know little to nothing about the movie. Plus, Snyder does whatever the script says, so it's Goyer and Nolan who need to get the character """"""right.""""""

[EtherMagic]

Originally Posted by Deathlok

Anyone else wondering how long it will be until we see some official pictures of Superman flying around?

No one knows, but if I had to bet some hard cash on it, i'd put my money on July 20th 2012 when TDKR hits the theaters. We will most likely being seeing MOS previews before the movie starts, makes all the sense in the world to me from WB's perspective. There is no better way to get MOS in the spotlight then hitting us with a preview before this movie.

[RetrogradeOrbit]

I'd be happy with a MOS trailer with TDKR. Still too long a wait though...
And as Batman is DC`s best comic to film superhero it also makes sense to do that to get the MOS publicity rolling with the GA

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by moviedoors

I'm a Superman fan and I like DKR. Deal with it.

Then you must like seeing Superman beaten, immoral, a sellout, and humiliated. How could you get any enjoyment from that?

[Motown Marvel]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Then you must like seeing Superman beaten, immoral, a sellout, and humiliated. How could you get any enjoyment from that?

because it worked within the confines of an elseworlds tale that took place in an unknown future.

[TruerToTheCore]

Except that that DKR wasn't an elseworld tale (because they didn't exist back then) and was seen as a legit future of the DC universe which they were building toward to. It didn't happen but there was the intention.

[Krumm]

I've actually never read DKR because I'm aware of Superman's portrayal and can't bring myself to see him that way.

That being said, I don't think that if you like it that you are not a Superman fan -- that's just ridiculous much like every "you're not a fan" arguments.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Except that that DKR wasn't an elseworld tale (because they didn't exist back then) and was seen as a legit future of the DC universe which they were building toward to. It didn't happen but there was the intention.

So what? It's an interesting take that you can pretend doesn't exist if you want. Doesn't mean it's not interesting or good, it just isn't to your liking. Out of all the mediums, this is most applicable to comics.

[Rocanrol]

Is one of those comics that is a MUST. So please do, and give us your opinion!

Personally I'm more a Batman fan, and must admit that I enjoyed reading TDKR. Set the groundbase of what I believe Batman really is. Flawed.

In the other hand, i liked this kind of Superman not invulnerable, but capable of handing a nuclear missile and survive, but not SUPER GODLIKE.

And I don't see Superman as a puppet (although he is in the TDKSA), but a really tired messiah, becoming something like... "unpersonal", getting detached from humankind. Reminds me a lil' bit to Dr. Manhattan.

[Krumm]

Originally Posted by Rocanrol

And I don't see Superman as a puppet (although he is in the TDKSA), but a really tired messiah, becoming something like... "unpersonal", getting detached from humankind. Reminds me a lil' bit to Dr. Manhattan.

Well that does sound interesting when you put it that way.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

So what? It's an interesting take that you can pretend doesn't exist if you want. Doesn't mean it's not interesting or good, it just isn't to your liking. Out of all the mediums, this is most applicable to comics.

It has poisoned the mind of thousand of fanboys and dozens of comic book writers so you can hardly pretend it doesn't exist, especially when for many people it was the first introduction to Superman and Batman.

[fanboiii]

Originally Posted by Krumm

I've actually never read DKR because I'm aware of Superman's portrayal and can't bring myself to see him that way.

You're missing out on some awesome stories thinking that way. I guess you also skipped on reading Superman: Red Son?

TDKR and DK2 aren't disrespectful to Superman. He has a daughter in it with Wonder Woman named Lara. I always wished Lara made it to canon somehow

[Motown Marvel]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Except that that DKR wasn't an elseworld tale (because they didn't exist back then) and was seen as a legit future of the DC universe which they were building toward to. It didn't happen but there was the intention.

even if this is the case: superman isnt infallible and the idea of his story arc evolving from what he is to what he became in DKR would be an interesting one. is it a future of what i want to see for superman? certainly not. could it make a good story? yes. and did it work well within the confines of the story miller was writing in DKR? yes.

but i never look at any stories that take place in the future as the definitive future of these characters. especially since there are always new stories popping up that contradict the last story. its impossible to take stories like DKR and Kingdom Come as canon. but merely, one of many potential futures.