BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 224

[JOE]

I'm really looking forward to the "building the robo Batsuit" montage.

 

[superboy13]

I'm really looking forward to the "building the robo Batsuit" montage.

But the question is, will there be a mechanical butt shot?

 

[matt47]

I'm really looking forward to the "building the robo Batsuit" montage.

Hell yes. Some here don't like those types of scenes but I really hope there is one like this
[YT]QPVN0bGvHVw[/YT]

 

[rogbngp]

I don't think it's necessarily so that the drama in MOS' Supes would inherently be absent from Reeve's Supes at all, especially if we are looking at Reeve's as an avatar of classic Silver Age Superman. Hard choices, the burden of his power, feelings of isolation from the rest of humanity... Sure, these were far from the focus of the Silver Age Supes but there have been many moments or stories that touched on these aspects that it could easily be argued, are part of the character's struggles and inner life. The Donner films had a Superman that was haunted by the death of his father and his inability to do anything about that. Reeve's Superman was written to want a normal life with the woman he loved so much he abdicated his role as Earth's benefactor and protector for it.

Look, it's not necessarily about "edgy darkness" it's about how much further verisimilitude has come in context of these films since 1979. It's about needing to have characterization and conflict that won't come off as somewhat inert to a younger audience. Now, I am not saying I think Reeve's Superman is those things, but this is a different time, and let's not pretend that what they did with Donner's film wasn't possibly lightning in a bottle, or at least a near impossible needle to thread. It EASILY could have gone terribly South. Reeve and Donner indeed made their Supes the good for goodness sake Boy Scout we love but they added the twinkle and the inner soul that made that work but it's not easy. In my opinion many successive Superman incarnations since 1979 have come and gone trying to be in that mold in one way or another and whether Smallville or TAS, their Superman have come off indeed as just dull and unengaging. They mostly weren't entertaining nor for that matter was there much to empathize or sympathize over where with Reeve, I feel you were with the character and his struggles:chaffing at hiding his true nature, anger at the bullies of the world, heart ache and loss of Pa, chaffing again at hiding himself as Daily Planet Clark (so much so that he had a moment he wished to reveal himself to Lois right after the interview) and of course learning that he could be wounded and as any of us by grief when he finds Lois on the highway dead. I didn't get that from the later Supermen, and I can't say it's not partially in part to the creators falling into the trap of Superman's supposed perfection.

A modern audience needs more action, more drama and conflict and the like. And I happen to believe that the character of Superman is adaptive enough to survive with the times as he always has. What some see as a "sin" against the character in MOS since it apparently doesn't contain a Superman they feel can heal the world, I see as a great antidote to black and white thinking alone, sans nuance, which is what I think is a far bigger problem in the world today than a lack of firm morality. Look around the world and is the problem really a lack of conviction, or is it that everyone and their brother, often without the strongest of evidence, thinks that they are 100% morally right and that there isn't a shade of gray at all? I like a Superman that doesn't give us some bromide but instead says that the heroes journey is about threading those needles, dealing with the world as it rather than how we wish it to be exclusively. That's not throwing away morality or goodness, that's being a mature adult in how you approach morals and the greater good. As I always say, as someone that adores the Donner film and whom has always felt a strong affinity for Superman as a moral force (it's the lapsed Catholic in me) MAN F STEEL gave me the Superman film I never even knew I wanted.

YMMV of course.

I love that way of framing it! Great essay! Here's mine:

MoS's Superman gives us a character that is simultaneously more human and complex (i.e., flawed), and more “mythic”—and in the latter sense, seemingly more tragic. It uses a more realistic approach to envision what it might actually be like for this superhero to actually exist in our world; to humanize him (i.e., make him more vulnerable and relatable); and to express this through the mythic themes of the character’s archetype. It is actually a very sophisticated and ambitious vision for developing the character.

Here's a quote from Zack Snyder that for me sums up a central goal of MoS:

All the Superman movies that have been made exist in some weird stylized world where everyone's, like, apple pie and Chevrolet and it's... like the American Dream in a weird way... [T]he thing I find interesting is... being able to release the character from that world, where he's been stuck and shackled, and bring him to our world and see what he does.

In this sense Man of Steel’s Superman may be viewed as struggling to break free from the simpler, more one dimensional mold of the character from previous sources. For example, I associate Kal's first flight scene in MoS with the character breaking free not just from earth’s gravity but also in terms of who he can be to us, the film audience as well.

It is a story of Kal/Clark to struggle in finding his place as a god-like powerful alien in the human world, which Jonathan Kent cautions his son will dramatically alter the course of human civilization. In order to humanize this story Snyder seems to have rendered it more in the form a Greek hero's odyssey with tragic undertones. Our first glimpse of the grown Superman is a lost and wandering soul, apparently lacking confidence despite his extraordinary abilities, and trying to discover who he really is, on an journey of self-exploration. He is burdened with a confusing double-bind that his two fathers have created for him. The dilemma has to do with how the two fathers define choice for who Kal/Clark can potentially be. He is connected to a Kryptonian heritage that essentially uses a genetically engineered caste-sysem the dictates social roles and identities. But it seems that with respect to personal developmental needs Jor-El supports individual choice for society's members—and with it the process of growing and learning from inevitable mistakes—as ultimately healthy and adaptive for the species. It is ironic then that Jonathan Kent has raised Clark with no real choice at all for who he can be! According to Jonathan, Clark must at all cost hide his true identity—at least until he is truly ready to reveal himself and bear the great responsibility of that new role. And Jonathan also instills in Clark the notion that he has a great destiny to fulfill that he cannot shirk. Interestingly, though, Jor-El is in agreement with the concept of Kal having an inescapable destiny: 1) Kal houses Krypton’s collective reservoir of DNA, and 2) he will provide humanity “an ideal to strive for,” as a “symbol of hope,” and a “force for good.” In fact Jor-El literally tells Kal that his mission is to “save” humanity when Zod attempts to terraform Earth and annihilate the human species.

The American Myth is based in the themes of immigration to a land of opportunities (initially a primitive and wild frontier), rugged individualism, and risk-taking. And classical Superman is champion of “truth justice, and the American Way.” There is a struggle embedded in the American myth of an enduring tension between the needs of the collective by coming together as a society through social law and order, on the one hand, and the human need for creative individualism and the pursuit of personal happiness, on the other. Those features of Superman’s classical mythic identity are maintained through the conundrum of Superman’s role and purpose as externally imposed, and the human need to authentically be who wishes for himself.

Critics of MoS often complain of its "joyless-ness." They note that the emotional feel of the film is hard, cold, and anxious. But we may understand the film as being rendered mythically akin a tragic Greek hero embarked on an odyssey of self-discovery. The hero is learning what his origin is; what his powers, abilities, strengths, and most valuable traits are (both to others and to himself); how he is to identify and relate to himself, his adopted world, the past conditions that created him and his Kryptonian heritage; who he wishes to be versus the person others tell him he be must be, etc.). If we are able to travel along with that journey, the Superman character at this stage of his development need not be cheerful and sanguine. In fact some viewers may enjoy seeing him worked with more creatively and dramatically in this way.

I also think Snyder may be evoking parallels with Superman being akin to a Greek demigod, with a powerful sense of tragedy tied to that, but I'll leave that out for now.

Anyway, when I view the film that way, I can forgive that MoS's Superman doesn't feel as warm and relatable a character as the one that Donner and Reeve gave us. Snyder truly did give me a Superman I never expected. But I am enthralled with how sophisticated the character is from a literary standpoint. I'm powerfully drawn to want to learn more about him, I'm fully engaged with the story that unfolds for him, and I care tremendously what happens to him. And it's okay with me that this Superman vulnerably struggles along with the rest of us!

 

[Tensor]

I'll chime in.

MoS turned me from a Superman hater/neutral to a full-blown Superman fanatic. That is all.

Edit: Live-action Superman hater. I grew up with Superman:TAS, Batman:TAS and the JL series. Loved those.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

There's several things I've pondered after watching both trailers, teasers and viewing the shots we were given by WB. Let me know what you think:

1. Even though we know Doomsday is in the movie, do you think there still might be an appearance by Bizarro?
2. We know the Zach Snyder is taking a lot of BvS from the comics, do you think this means Superman might die at the end of the movie at the hands of Doomsday?
3. Since we've seen Bruce and Diana share a dance, and now Batman getting saved by Wonder Woman, do you think there will be a romance... or at least a hinted one, running between Bruce and Diana for the next few movies, just like in the animated series?
4. Do you think Bruce's "knightmare" sequence is a natural one or induced by someone who might've seen the future, or possible future?
5. Realistically (fanboyish-ness aside), how well do you think BvS is going to do against Civil War?

Appreciate your replies...

1. I think the possibility of a gloss on Bizarro, a duplicate of any kind has been lowered to the point of nil... But you never know.

2. I think this is a fifty/fifty thing. Could be he dies, could be they defeat Doomsday and this just leads into JL with Superman alive and well. I am open to either. We do know Henry is in the cast for JL1&2 so...

3. Nah... Diana will have some flirtatious interaction I think and not much else. Trevor is in her film and word is Pine has signed for multiple films.

4. I guess my issue with the dream being just a dream is that it won't make sense in terms of the type of character Batman is. I thought for a long time that it makes more sense for Diana to have a vision of an alt future. It fits more with her being from a magical island and having a connection with the Olympians, plus that would've explained her injecting herself into the conflict between Superman and Batman. Now... If it's more vision than just dream and Bruce is getting a glimpse of the future then it stands to reason that it could be induced by some outside force allowing Batman to see the future.

5. Both are going to do big business. CW has 8 years of build up going for it with a cast the audience is attached to and the film portends a big shake up in some way to the status quo of the MCU. BvS is the first live action meeting of the two most well known super hero characters in the world. It's going to do fine.

 

[JOE]

But the question is, will there be a mechanical butt shot?

You bet your arse there will be!

 

[TheDailyPigMan]

Clark Kent: "Who's that?"
Photographer: "SHE must be new." (**editors changed from it from she to he for the trailer)
Cut to both of them checking her (Diana) out.
Photographer: "And that...is Bruce Wayne."
Clark Kent: "I know." (dramatic zoom into Clark's pissed off face)

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

There's several things I've pondered after watching both trailers, teasers and viewing the shots we were given by WB. Let me know what you think:

1. Even though we know Doomsday is in the movie, do you think there still might be an appearance by Bizarro?
2. We know the Zach Snyder is taking a lot of BvS from the comics, do you think this means Superman might die at the end of the movie at the hands of Doomsday?
3. Since we've seen Bruce and Diana share a dance, and now Batman getting saved by Wonder Woman, do you think there will be a romance... or at least a hinted one, running between Bruce and Diana for the next few movies, just like in the animated series?
4. Do you think Bruce's "knightmare" sequence is a natural one or induced by someone who might've seen the future, or possible future?
5. Realistically (fanboyish-ness aside), how well do you think BvS is going to do against Civil War?

Appreciate your replies...

1. No. The film already features three separate antagonists, respectively Eisenberg's Luthor, Shannon's Doomsday and, arguably, Affleck's Batman. We also see what appear to be Parademons in Bruce's vision/nightmare, possibly hinting of future things to come in the form of Darkseid. As such, Bizarro's involvement would, in my opinion, be overkill.

2. It's certainly a possibility. Leaked set pics have shown Affleck's Wayne, Lane's Martha Kent, and others in attendance at Smallville Cemetery. Notably absent was Cavill's Clark Kent. Now that we have confirmation on Doomsday, it seems likely that Superman will incur the behemoth's wrath at some point during the film. Will he die as a result of this encounter? It's too early to tell. Some have speculated that he'll feign his death similar to what Batman does toward the end of Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Others suggest that Superman may be left in a comatose state, causing loved ones to believe he has perished, and also simultaneously galvanizing remaining heroes to form the Justice League. The consensus among those who espouse this theory feel that he'll make his return in the upcoming film of the same name.

3. It's hinted that Bruce and Diana will share a brief romance in the film. Expect to see new/different love interests in their own respective solo films, however.

4. Had I not seen the Parademons in the latest trailer, my view on this right now would likely be different. Having seen them, though, my sense is that mystical forces are definitely at play to some extent here. Adding a little more weight to that is costume designer Michael Wilkinson's recent comments, where he describes the sequence as "like a dream." Perhaps I'm reading into his words too much, but I think they suggest that Bruce experiences something closer to an otherworldly vision.

5. I haven't given it much thought.

Good questions, btw!

 

[Angel0fDeath]

Clark Kent: "Who's that?"
Photographer: "SHE must be new." (**editors changed from it from she to he for the trailer)
Cut to both of them checking her (Diana) out.
Photographer: "And that...is Bruce Wayne."
Clark Kent: "I know." (dramatic zoom into Clark's pissed off face)

 

[DChero]

Ugh... I really hope that I don't have to sit through another Bruce/Diana romance. That was one of the things that really irked me in the Timmverse.

 

[rogbngp]

There's several things I've pondered after watching both trailers, teasers and viewing the shots we were given by WB. Let me know what you think:

1. Even though we know Doomsday is in the movie, do you think there still might be an appearance by Bizarro?
2. We know the Zach Snyder is taking a lot of BvS from the comics, do you think this means Superman might die at the end of the movie at the hands of Doomsday?
3. Since we've seen Bruce and Diana share a dance, and now Batman getting saved by Wonder Woman, do you think there will be a romance... or at least a hinted one, running between Bruce and Diana for the next few movies, just like in the animated series?
4. Do you think Bruce's "knightmare" sequence is a natural one or induced by someone who might've seen the future, or possible future?
5. Realistically (fanboyish-ness aside), how well do you think BvS is going to do against Civil War?

Appreciate your replies...

1) My guess is that Lex will conduct cloning/Kryptonian birthing tech experimentation that involves Zod's corpse and, it seems, the DNA for Doomsday as well--whether that is strictly in code form (via Bertron's data) or via finding some sort of substance in the ocean that is both mineral and organic spawned by the World Engine. I think we'll see a Franken-Zod Doomsday. No Bizarro in the classical sense. Lex creating an identical clone of Superman that does his evil bidding does provide a good explanation for Batman's fear of Superman. But that is then presenting not one but two 'big bads', and Doomsday is more than enough of an epic foe. I think the film will present a satisfying motivation for Batman to go after Superman, both emotionally and intellectually, that does not require an evil doppelganger. (I have my own theories about that.)

2) I'll be very surprised if Superman is killed off from the battle with Doomsday. I suspect they'll have Doomsday live also to possibly fight Superman again later on down the road.

3) Bruce and Diana may flirt a bit but I'm not seeing a romance there.

4) It feels so much more like a prophetic vision than just a dream. With contents like (Darkseid's) parademons and the Flash appearing? That is too specific for my taste to be an ordinary nightmare. If it is Batman's "dream," I'm expecting it to be imparted by an external force.

5) I think BvS has to be a grand slam homerun to top CW at the box office. If BvS delivers big and CW feels slightly underwhelming by comparison, BvS might just eke out slightly better box office. If BvS turns out a very troubled mess of a film then of course CW will clobber it. Right now judging from the trailers I would guess BvS will do 1 to 1.5 billion and CW will make over 1.5 billion.

 

[souperman]

Never forget:

...that;s just all kinds of WRONG !

Libby...


...line shoulda been,

" I wont quit you" !

 

[Steyin]

The simplest summary of MoS for me and why I like it so much is that it is essentially about finding one's self and their place in the world (what kind of man do you want to be?, as Pa Kent asks). It kind of reflects my own struggles at this point in my life and hit home quite a bit.

 

[Nemeres]

I don't think people hate Superman, they just lean towards the roguish anti-heroes like Batman, Wolverine and Bond.

The Raimi Spider-Man, as played by Maguire, was a mega vanilla main character, yet it trumped all other superhero franchises during the 00s... which was interesting, and always seemed to refute, for me, the assertion that Superman wouldn't appeal as much as other heroes just because he had Wolverine and Batman to compete with. I think if they had struck at the right time, and intelligently, (circa the Superman Returns period, and before that, even) they could have easily made it into a popular, self-sustaining franchise, without having to wait all the way until 2013 and beyond or having to Trojan Horse the promise of a shared universe into it.

 

[souperman]

the thing is, you don't need to be a classic "bad boy" to be cool...

The idea that Superman is vanilla stems from our (the audience) idea of what HIS morality should be. Clark's stems from his heart bread upbringing - BUT it is also an act for Clark.

MOS portrays "them" as a complicated, conflicted being. Not to say STM didn't. Just a different time.

The viewer brings the bag of expectations and is either gratified or disappointed by what they see.

People rarely "see" the real person. They see what they want to see.
For many, if you expect to love-you love. If you expect to hate - you hate.

An OPEN mind really helps to enjoy and be surprised by the unexpected.

...what was the question?

Is that a graham cracker on the balcony.?

 

[X Knight]

I don't think it's necessarily so that the drama in MOS' Supes would inherently be absent from Reeve's Supes at all, especially if we are looking at Reeve's as an avatar of classic Silver Age Superman. Hard choices, the burden of his power, feelings of isolation from the rest of humanity... Sure, these were far from the focus of the Silver Age Supes but there have been many moments or stories that touched on these aspects that it could easily be argued, are part of the character's struggles and inner life. The Donner films had a Superman that was haunted by the death of his father and his inability to do anything about that. Reeve's Superman was written to want a normal life with the woman he loved so much he abdicated his role as Earth's benefactor and protector for it.

Look, it's not necessarily about "edgy darkness" it's about how much further verisimilitude has come in context of these films since 1979. It's about needing to have characterization and conflict that won't come off as somewhat inert to a younger audience. Now, I am not saying I think Reeve's Superman is those things, but this is a different time, and let's not pretend that what they did with Donner's film wasn't possibly lightning in a bottle, or at least a near impossible needle to thread. It EASILY could have gone terribly South. Reeve and Donner indeed made their Supes the good for goodness sake Boy Scout we love but they added the twinkle and the inner soul that made that work but it's not easy. In my opinion many successive Superman incarnations since 1979 have come and gone trying to be in that mold in one way or another and whether Smallville or TAS, their Superman have come off indeed as just dull and unengaging. They mostly weren't entertaining nor for that matter was there much to empathize or sympathize over where with Reeve, I feel you were with the character and his struggles:chaffing at hiding his true nature, anger at the bullies of the world, heart ache and loss of Pa, chaffing again at hiding himself as Daily Planet Clark (so much so that he had a moment he wished to reveal himself to Lois right after the interview) and of course learning that he could be wounded and as any of us by grief when he finds Lois on the highway dead. I didn't get that from the later Supermen, and I can't say it's not partially in part to the creators falling into the trap of Superman's supposed perfection.


A modern audience needs more action, more drama and conflict and the like. And I happen to believe that the character of Superman is adaptive enough to survive with the times as he always has. What some see as a "sin" against the character in MOS since it apparently doesn't contain a Superman they feel can heal the world, I see as a great antidote to black and white thinking alone, sans nuance, which is what I think is a far bigger problem in the world today than a lack of firm morality. Look around the world and is the problem really a lack of conviction, or is it that everyone and their brother, often without the strongest of evidence, thinks that they are 100% morally right and that there isn't a shade of gray at all? I like a Superman that doesn't give us some bromide but instead says that the heroes journey is about threading those needles, dealing with the world as it rather than how we wish it to be exclusively. That's not throwing away morality or goodness, that's being a mature adult in how you approach morals and the greater good. As I always say, as someone that adores the Donner film and whom has always felt a strong affinity for Superman as a moral force (it's the lapsed Catholic in me) MAN F STEEL gave me the Superman film I never even knew I wanted.


YMMV of course.

I love that way of framing it! Great essay! Here's mine:

MoS's Superman gives us a character that is simultaneously more human and complex (i.e., flawed), and more “mythic”—and in the latter sense, seemingly more tragic. It uses a more realistic approach to envision what it might actually be like for this superhero to actually exist in our world; to humanize him (i.e., make him more vulnerable and relatable); and to express this through the mythic themes of the character’s archetype. It is actually a very sophisticated and ambitious vision for developing the character.

Here's a quote from Zack Snyder that for me sums up a central goal of MoS:

In this sense Man of Steel’s Superman may be viewed as struggling to break free from the simpler, more one dimensional mold of the character from previous sources. For example, I associate Kal's first flight scene in MoS with the character breaking free not just from earth’s gravity but also in terms of who he can be to us, the film audience as well.

It is a story of Kal/Clark to struggle in finding his place as a god-like powerful alien in the human world, which Jonathan Kent cautions his son will dramatically alter the course of human civilization. In order to humanize this story Snyder seems to have rendered it more in the form a Greek hero's odyssey with tragic undertones. Our first glimpse of the grown Superman is a lost and wandering soul, apparently lacking confidence despite his extraordinary abilities, and trying to discover who he really is, on an journey of self-exploration. He is burdened with a confusing double-bind that his two fathers have created for him. The dilemma has to do with how the two fathers define choice for who Kal/Clark can potentially be. He is connected to a Kryptonian heritage that essentially uses a genetically engineered caste-sysem the dictates social roles and identities. But it seems that with respect to personal developmental needs Jor-El supports individual choice for society's members—and with it the process of growing and learning from inevitable mistakes—as ultimately healthy and adaptive for the species. It is ironic then that Jonathan Kent has raised Clark with no real choice at all for who he can be! According to Jonathan, Clark must at all cost hide his true identity—at least until he is truly ready to reveal himself and bear the great responsibility of that new role. And Jonathan also instills in Clark the notion that he has a great destiny to fulfill that he cannot shirk. Interestingly, though, Jor-El is in agreement with the concept of Kal having an inescapable destiny: 1) Kal houses Krypton’s collective reservoir of DNA, and 2) he will provide humanity “an ideal to strive for,” as a “symbol of hope,” and a “force for good.” In fact Jor-El literally tells Kal that his mission is to “save” humanity when Zod attempts to terraform Earth and annihilate the human species.

The American Myth is based in the themes of immigration to a land of opportunities (initially a primitive and wild frontier), rugged individualism, and risk-taking. And classical Superman is champion of “truth justice, and the American Way.” There is a struggle embedded in the American myth of an enduring tension between the needs of the collective by coming together as a society through social law and order, on the one hand, and the human need for creative individualism and the pursuit of personal happiness, on the other. Those features of Superman’s classical mythic identity are maintained through the conundrum of Superman’s role and purpose as externally imposed, and the human need to authentically be who wishes for himself.

Critics of MoS often complain of its "joyless-ness." They note that the emotional feel of the film is hard, cold, and anxious. But we may understand the film as being rendered mythically akin a tragic Greek hero embarked on an odyssey of self-discovery. The hero is learning what his origin is; what his powers, abilities, strengths, and most valuable traits are (both to others and to himself); how he is to identify and relate to himself, his adopted world, the past conditions that created him and his Kryptonian heritage; who he wishes to be versus the person others tell him he be must be, etc.). If we are able to travel along with that journey, the Superman character at this stage of his development need not be cheerful and sanguine. In fact some viewers may enjoy seeing him worked with more creatively and dramatically in this way.

I also think Snyder may be evoking parallels with Superman being akin to a Greek demigod, with a powerful sense of tragedy tied to that, but I'll leave that out for now.

Anyway, when I view the film that way, I can forgive that MoS's Superman doesn't feel as warm and relatable a character as the one that Donner and Reeve gave us. Snyder truly did give me a Superman I never expected. But I am enthralled with how sophisticated the character is from a literary standpoint. I'm powerfully drawn to want to learn more about him, I'm fully engaged with the story that unfolds for him, and I care tremendously what happens to him. And it's okay with me that this Superman vulnerably struggles along with the rest of us!

both fantastic write ups!!

 

[Rowsdower!]

Okay, so I just watched that new TMNT trailer. Not THAT is some bad CGI. Doomsday may not look perfect, but no way in hell does he look that fake. Good Lord.

 

[Tensor]

Okay, so I just watched that new TMNT trailer. Not THAT is some bad CGI. Doomsday may not look perfect, but no way in hell does he look that fake. Good Lord.

Yea, the turtles did look fake as ****. Bebop and Rocksteady looked good though.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yea, the turtles did look fake as ****. Bebop and Rocksteady looked good though.

I actually thought Bebob and Rocksteady looked worse. There was a scene where Rocksteady was running down a freeway and he looked like he was made of rubber.


But they both look more believable than Stephen Amell and Megan Fox.

 

[Guts]

Agreed, I really hate when people say they can't relate to him as an excuse for not liking him. I truly think that's a modern day lame excuse to justify not liking him.

I like Grant Morrison's explantion for why Superman is relatable.

In the end, I saw Superman not as a superhero or even a science fiction character, but as a story of Everyman. We’re all Superman in our own adventures. We have our own Fortresses of Solitude we retreat to, with our own special collections of valued stuff, our own super–pets, our own “Bottle Cities” that we feel guilty for neglecting. We have our own peers and rivals and bizarre emotional or moral tangles to deal with.

I felt I’d really grasped the concept when I saw him as Everyman, or rather as the dreamself of Everyman. That “S” is the radiant emblem of divinity we reveal when we rip off our stuffy shirts, our social masks, our neuroses, our constructed selves, and become who we truly are. Batman is obviously much cooler, but that’s because he’s a very energetic and adolescent fantasy character: a handsome billionaire playboy in black leather with a butler at this beck and call, better cars and gadgetry than James Bond, a horde of fetish femme fatales baying around his heels and no boss. That guy’s Superman day and night.

Superman grew up baling hay on a farm. He goes to work, for a boss, in an office. He pines after a hard–working gal. Only when he tears off his shirt does that heroic, ideal inner self come to life. That’s actually a much more adult fantasy than the one Batman’s peddling but it also makes Superman a little harder to sell. He’s much more of a working class superhero.

American writers often say they find it difficult to write Superman. They say he’s too powerful; you can’t give him problems. But Superman is a metaphor. For me, Superman has the same problems we do, but on a Paul Bunyan scale. If Superman walks the dog, he walks it around the asteroid belt because it can fly in space. When Superman’s relatives visit, they come from the 31st century and bring some hellish monster conqueror from the future. But it’s still a story about your relatives visiting.

 

[Tensor]

I actually thought Bebob and Rocksteady looked worse. There was a scene where Rocksteady was running down a freeway and he looked like he was made of rubber.


But they both look more believable than Stephen Amell and Megan Fox.

Hey man I love me some Megan Fox.

 

[X Knight]

The simplest summary of MoS for me and why I like it so much is that it is essentially about finding one's self and their place in the world (what kind of man do you want to be?, as Pa Kent asks). It kind of reflects my own struggles at this point in my life and hit home quite a bit.

same here.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

both fantastic write ups!!

Thanks for the kind words. Truth be told though I've just done waaaaay too much thinking about super heroes most of my life.

 

[X Knight]

Thanks for the kind words. Truth be told though I've just done waaaaay too much thinking about super heroes most of my life.

you're welcome!

and nothing wrong with thinking about superheroes.