BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - Part 1

[John-An]

found it on deviantart

 

[Lencho01]

So... what if this female role isn't for Catwoman?

 

[Tempest]

Why? (just asking)

When you look at television, how many ethnic people play a main role in a television show? When you look at movies, how many of the leading actors and actresses are ethnic?

Very few.

When you look at the roles, you see a sea of white faces.

The Asian American Performers Action Coalition (AAPAC) studied Broadway in New York to see the breakdown of actors and their ethnicities. It turns out that 80% of actors on Broadway are white. That means that only 20% of other races are represented. (http://www.aapacnyc.org/uploads/1/1/9/4/11949532/ethnic_representation_nyc.pdf )

So why is this a big deal? Well, it means there are fewer opportunities for any non-white actor to get a role. Every time we slot a white person into a role meant for an ethnic character, we are essentially scrubbing that race from social consciousness, and sending a message that white is better, more talented, and more worthy to play roles than the very people that role was meant to represent.

Some art that explains this concept very well (it does have a bit of naughty language): http://empressfunk.deviantart.com/art/Whitewashin-and-Racebendin-200316526

An article that discusses whitewashing and racebending, with lots of helpful links: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/05/1107128/-The-battle-against-whitewashing-and-racebending#

A list of 25 characters that Hollywood whitewashed: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/03/25-minority-characters-that-hollywood-whitewashed/

From Geekquality, an article describing how hurtful whitewashing is to minorities: http://www.geekquality.com/hollywood-whitewashing/

And finally, one of the most deplorable displays of idiocy on the internet: In the Hunger Games, it's well known that there was whitewashing of the main character. However, fans were not as outraged by that as they were about the fact that there was the unexpected casting of an African American girl (be ready to be embarrassed as a culture): http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

 

[Boy Scout]

No it wouldn't. Your logical pathway falls apart right around the end there.

No it doesn't.

If my response after eating a bar of ice cream is that I never want to eat another bar of ice cream again. That doesn't "imply that it's actually the wrong thing to do"

I hope you don't expect me to take that seriously.

Superman being a layered character doesn't base all his emotional responses to simply what's "right and wrong"in the world of objective morality.

EDIT: Um...okay. What matters here is strictly the emotional response. What I'm saying is if he makes the conscious decision to never again take a life, even if placed in the exact same situation, then it would imply that what he did to Zod was wrong and shouldn't be repeated. That contradicts what was presented as the right decision in MOS and doesn't really make any sense when you think about it. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that.

Pretty sure he wouldn't lie or ever punch anyone in the face if he did.

Lying or punching someone in the face aren't comparable to homicide.

And yes Killing sucks, but if it has to be done, then it has to be done. Not sure when superman has been portrayed in any other way.

Good for you.

 

[Marvin]

I hope you don't expect me to take that seriously.

In conversation about logical pathways and such, surely.

EDIT: Um...okay. What matters here is strictly the emotional response. What I'm saying is if he makes the conscious decision to never again take a life, even if placed in the exact same situation, then it would imply that what he did to Zod was wrong and shouldn't be repeated.

No, it would imply what he believes, or more accurately, what he feels.
Pretty sure him being a vigilante is "wrong" by our laws. Superman being a vigilante means he thinks/feels/believes it has to be done. Says nothing about whether he thinks it's right, says even less about whether it is right. Him stopping zod with little choices on the table(short of suicide) is no different. Implies nothing about the truth or falsities of the matter, only what he feels in that moment.

That contradicts what was presented as the right decision in MOS and doesn't really make any sense when you think about it. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that.

Not sure where the film said anything about it being the "right" decision. I wasn't aware this film was the word of god as transcribed by Goyer.
The film presented the action as the characters decision, nothing more. Superman not ending world hunger within the month is another one of his decisions. I'm guessing because the decision belongs to superman you will also believe that that is the "right" one as well...

If what matters is strictly the emotional response, then all it will ever speak on is what that singular character believes, nothing about the greater moral context. Thus all the implications you draw from his decisions say little about what's "right or wrong", just where he's at in his character development.

All it implies is what superman thinks, feels, that's not the same as what the act actually implies in the greater moral conversation. If we had the same conversation about Jon Kent's decision making, this might(might) be more clear. The only moral certainty that can be said about Jon Kent's beliefs is that he, believed them to be best, if you then think that implies that they are right, "more power to you".

Lying or punching someone in the face aren't comparable to homicide.

Never said they were. I am curious however, if superman continuing to do them(everyday) implies they are right?

..or if they imply he believes them to be best?
I'm pretty sure ghandi has an opinion on this.

 

[DChero]

I can't believe that this argument is still going on. Is it that hard to believe that one would take the life of someone attempting to immediately kill innocent people? That's how most of us are. It doesn't mean that we all go on killing sprees.

 

[Loki882]

Just because killing Zod was the right decision doesn't mean that Superman won't be torn up about it. He's a guy who doesn't want to hurt ANYONE, and he was forced to snap a man's neck with his bare hands, of course he'd fell bad.

 

[ChrisB]

Batman-News.com is 3 years old today! It feels like only yesterday we were all talking about it here on the SHH forums! Thanks for all the support over the years
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=18866375#post18866375

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

In conversation about logical pathways and such, surely.


No, it would imply what he believes, or more accurately, what he feels.
Pretty sure him being a vigilante is "wrong" by our laws. Superman being a vigilante means he thinks/feels/believes it has to be done. Says nothing about whether he thinks it's right, says even less about whether it is right. Him stopping zod with little choices on the table(short of suicide) is no different. Implies nothing about the truth or falsities of the matter, only what he feels in that moment.


Not sure where the film said anything about it being the "right" decision. I wasn't aware this film was the word of god as transcribed by Goyer.
The film presented the action as the characters decision, nothing more. Superman not ending world hunger within the month is another one of his decisions. I'm guessing because the decision belongs to superman you will also believe that that is the "right" one as well...

If what matters is strictly the emotional response, then all it will ever speak on is what that singular character believes, nothing about the greater moral context. Thus all the implications you draw from his decisions say little about what's "right or wrong", just where he's at in his character development.

All it implies is what superman thinks, feels, that's not the same as what the act actually implies in the greater moral conversation. If we had the same conversation about Jon Kent's decision making, this might(might) be more clear. The only moral certainty that can be said about Jon Kent's beliefs is that he, believed them to be best, if you then think that implies that they are right, "more power to you".


Never said they were. I am curious however, if superman continuing to do them(everyday) implies they are right?

..or if they imply he believes them to be best?
I'm pretty sure ghandi has an opinion on this.

I'm a DIEHARD Bman fan, and I believe killing the Joker would TOTALLY be the right thing to do. If someone ALWAYS escapes the justice system, and his life endangers that of others, he should be put down.

BUT, doing so takes away from the complexity of the Batman character. The question then becomes "Why DOESN'T Batman think it's right to end this madman?"

That's a lot more interesting than just seeing him resolve villainy by deadly force.

Similarly, how Superman rationalizes keeping villains alive will be very interesting to see. Will he consider his initial actions a 'mistake' of sorts?
Or will he be able to feel that it was the best choice he could make at the time?

To ignore the situations of MOS would be a missed writing opportunity.

 

[Boy Scout]

No, it would imply what he believes, or more accurately, what he feels.

Superman is the main character. If he believes that what he did was wrong, then the audience is supposed to believe it as well.

Superman snapped Zod's neck because he believed that doing so was the only way to stop him from killing everyone on Earth. He obviously believed that it was the right thing to do. And considering the fact that most people don't have a problem with it and constantly defend his actions, I'd say that's a pretty great example of the audience sympathizing and agreeing with the main character's thoughts/actions and accepting his decision as the right one.

Pretty sure him being a vigilante is "wrong" by our laws.

Technically, it is. But we overlook it because we are aware of Superman's intentions and are privy to those moments where he proves to be someone we are lucky to have around. Also...

Superman being a vigilante means he thinks/feels/believes it has to be done.

This. Since that main character believes that being a vigilante is a good thing, the audience is made to agree with and support him.

He's that Says nothing about whether he thinks it's right...

He deliberately snapped Zod's neck. He obviously thought that it was the right thing to do in that situation, regardless of how averse he was to killing in general before that moment. If he didn't believe it was the right thing to do, then he wouldn't have done it. It's that simple.

says even less about whether it is right.

I don't know how you can argue that it wasn't presented as the right thing to do, but you can go ahead and try.

Not sure where the film said anything about it being the "right" decision.

Wow. Maybe you should watch it again, then.

The film presented the action as the characters decision, nothing more. Superman not ending world hunger within the month is another one of his decisions. I'm guessing because the decision belongs to superman you will also believe that that is the "right" one as well...

I'd quit while you're ahead.

If what matters is strictly the emotional response, then all it will ever speak on is what that singular character believes, nothing about the greater moral context.

Don't take what I said out of context. What I meant was what the character bases his emotional responses off of was irreelvant to what I was saying.

And again: Superman, being the main character, is supposed to be the one we sympathize with and we are supposed to believe that the decisions he makes are the right ones. We don't have to agree, of course; but we're supposed to.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post, because it's just more of the same.

I can't believe that this argument is still going on. Is it that hard to believe that one would take the life of someone attempting to immediately kill innocent people? That's how most of us are. It doesn't mean that we all go on killing sprees.

I don't think you understand why people have a problem with it.

Just because killing Zod was the right decision doesn't mean that Superman won't be torn up about it.

Nobody said otherwise.

 

[Kane52630]

Batman-News.com is 3 years old today! It feels like only yesterday we were all talking about it here on the SHH forums! Thanks for all the support over the years
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=18866375#post18866375

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Batman-News.com is 3 years old today! It feels like only yesterday we were all talking about it here on the SHH forums! Thanks for all the support over the years
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=18866375#post18866375

The only Batman-related website I visit and will continue to do so. t:

 

[DChero]

I don't think you understand why people have a problem with it.

Because they saw a different movie than I did?

The situation wasn't about saving everyone on Earth, he would have much earlier if that were the case. It was specifically about saving the people that Zod tried to cook. I get that some people don't like the idea of Superman being written to kill, but what I don't understand is so many take it to the point of considering it murder or assuming that Superman will be drawn to kill again. This isn't about learning that killing is bad. We all know that. It's about saving lives.

 

[Boy Scout]

Because they saw a different movie than I did?

No.

The situation wasn't about saving everyone on Earth, he would have much earlier if that were the case.

Yes it was. The original plan was to send all of them back to the Phantom Zone. When that didn't work out, he was then forced to take alternative measures.

I get that some people don't like the idea of Superman being written to kill, but what I don't understand is so many take it to the point of considering it murder or assuming that Superman will be drawn to kill again.

It certainly wasn't murder and I seriously doubt we'll ever see Superman kill anyone ever again. I just don't buy the logic of Superman having to kill someone to establish a policy against killing, for reasons I've already explained (among others).

 

[DChero]

Yes it was. The original plan was to send all of them back to the Phantom Zone. When that didn't work out, he was then forced to take alternative measures.

It certainly wasn't murder and I seriously doubt we'll ever see Superman kill anyone ever again. I just don't buy the logic of Superman having to kill someone to establish a policy against killing, for reasons I've already explained (among others).

The first comment was just tongue in cheek, sir.

I agree that people saying that he needed to kill to learn that it's wrong is not an accurate way of looking at it. I'm not sure why that would be considered as a reason.

There's more to the finale than just Superman's perspective. It showed what a force Zod was. He isn't the type to admit defeat. This isn't like the old Lex interpretations or Loki from the Avengers. Zod will fight until his last breath for what he believes.

EDIT: I didn't really address your second point. I feel like it was obvious that Superman wasn't trying to kill Zod until he was forced to. He could have snapped him neck as soon as he had a hold of him, but he didn't. He continued trying to reason with him. That's what I was referencing earlier when I had mentioned that Superman prolonged making that decision.

To me, Superman doing what needed to be done was a great way to express how difficult that fight was on him because of his heritage, keep the audience guessing in the future, give Zod's character a proper send-off and show how much Superman really does care for humanity.

 

[TeeKay]

So what's up guys? Excited for the movie yeah?

 

[TheNextNolan22]

So what's up guys? Excited for the movie yeah?

Eh. Affleck might torpedo this franchise completely. I'm basing this off stuff he did 10 years ago.

 

[DChero]

So what's up guys? Excited for the movie yeah?

Fo-sho! Lex just needs to be announced!!!

 

[TeeKay]

Eh. Affleck might torpedo this franchise completely. I'm basing this off stuff he did 10 years ago.

Calm down man. I'm sure Affleck had grown as an actor in the past 10 years. Don't judge him until you see the movie for yourself.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Calm down man. I'm sure Affleck had grown as an actor in the past 10 years. Don't judge him until you see the movie for yourself.

I was being sarcastic, man. I was probably one of the biggest pro-Affleck members the night he was announced. t:

 

[TeeKay]

I was being sarcastic, man. I was probably one of the biggest pro-Affleck members the night he was announced. t:

lol xD I was just preparing to defend myself from a flame war How do you feel about this movie being a follow up to MOS??

 

[DChero]

I was being sarcastic, man. I was probably one of the biggest pro-Affleck members the night he was announced. t:

The night that Twitter cried!

I'm an Affleck fan too. I even saw Phantoms. I'm really excited to see the direction he takes Bats in.

This is so much easier than the build-up to Man of Steel. I was one of the people that wanted to see a sequel to Superman Returns happen because I didn't think that a reboot would come that soon. Seven years later we finally got the next Superman movie. It's nice only having to wait two years this time.

 

[TeeKay]

The night that Twitter cried!

I'm an Affleck fan too. I even saw Phantoms. I'm really excited to see the direction he takes Bats in.

This is so much easier than the build-up to Man of Steel. I was one of the people that wanted to see a sequel to Superman Returns happen because I didn't think that a reboot would come that soon. Seven years later we finally got the next Superman movie. It's nice only having to wait two years this time.

Dc fanboys went apes@*t hahahaha Most of them were like....

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

So what's up guys? Excited for the movie yeah?

No, it's not possible to have a good DC film without Nolan's input

 

[TeeKay]

No, it's not possible to have a good DC film without Nolan's input

I thought Nolan is an Executive producer on the movie, isn't he?t: