BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - Part 46

[InJustice]

While Superman had some neat character moments in the JL/JLU series (speech vs. Darkseid), I can't help but notice that his character is bland compared to STAS.

 

[InJustice]

They had so many characters, kinda' tough to just focus on one. Bt i could see ow he had to be rather even-keeled in his position.

I kinda' have a tough time seeing this movie Supes rising to that leadership/veteran position just yet, though. But this may just be a meeting of characters, rather than that kind of team structure so to speak.

Yeah, I don't think MOS2 is going to showcase Superman as a leader just yet (or at the very least, I hope that Snyder/Goyer/Terrio are not aiming for that direction). I want this film to be more of Superman proving himself to the public in light of events in Smallville and Metropolis, which of course, would harken back to Zod's concerns that humans are not too pleased to co-exist with aliens. Maybe the third film can have Superman rise up to the role of a leader as it starts to focus on how the Justice League will be founded?

 

[Marvin]

They had so many characters, kinda' tough to just focus on one. Bt i could see ow he had to be rather even-keeled in his position.

I kinda' have a tough time seeing this movie Supes rising to that leadership/veteran position just yet, though. But this may just be a meeting of characters, rather than that kind of team structure so to speak.

As much sense as that may or may not make, I have little faith that it will be received(by everyone) fairly vs what people want/expect. There isn't enough room for circumstance...

 

[MrsKent26]

Yeah, I don't think MOS2 is going to showcase Superman as a leader just yet (or at the very least, I hope that Snyder/Goyer/Terrio are not aiming for that direction). I want this film to be more of Superman proving himself to the public in light of events in Smallville and Metropolis, which of course, would harken back to Zod's concerns that humans are not too pleased to co-exist with aliens. Maybe the third film can have Superman rise up to the role of a leader as it starts to focus on how the Justice League will be founded?

That would be ideal. I wanted at least a supes trilogy to show him progress from kind-hearted rookie to proven badass/somewhat trusted public figure to leader of the JL/mythic hero. I hope we can still have that even though other heroes have been added to the mix already.

 

[Marvin]

^I've lost faith in the fan masses personally.

That would be ideal. I wanted at least a supes trilogy to show him progress from kind-hearted rookie to proven badass/somewhat trusted public figure to leader of the JL/mythic hero. I hope we can still have that even though other heroes have been added to the mix already.

The perfect way to sidestep what wasn't working about superman whilst still conveying and perhaps even earning that very thing in the grander scheme. Sadly, they couldn't have prepared for the storm that awaited them.

The no kill rule.

 

[STARMAN]

Flawed or not, MOS laid a good foundation to build upon. It's on them to take what they established and take it to the next level.

 

[bluerayer]

More disaster! t:

Save that for the JL movie.

 

[MrsKent26]

^I've lost faith in the fan masses personally.

The perfect way to sidestep what wasn't working about superman whilst still conveying and perhaps even earning that very thing in the grander scheme. Sadly, they couldn't have prepared for the storm that awaited them.

The no kill rule.

The no-kill rule is an issue because some people have such rigid ideas about it. The no-kill rule really only works perfectly in a very controlled fantasy world that always allows Superman an "out" to avoid killing. If the next films follow what MOS put forward, this Superman won't be allowed these "outs." So, I am really curious to see what they do with this no-kill rule. Will they go with the realistic route (that coincides with their universe) and have Superman refrain from killing unless absolutely necessary or will the give him an "out" and write situations in which he has another choice from now on.

 

[113]

The no-kill rule is an issue because some people have such rigid ideas about it. The no-kill rule really only works perfectly in a very controlled fantasy world that always allows Superman an "out" to avoid killing. If the next films follow what MOS put forward, this Superman won't be allowed these "outs." So, I am really curious to see what they do with this no-kill rule. Will they go with the realistic route (that coincides with their universe) and have Superman refrain from killing unless absolutely necessary or will the give him an "out" and write situations in which he has another choice from now on.

Well said! Most of us wanted a "realistic" take on Supes and we got it. I never saw Supes as having a "no kill" rule but instead a "no human kill" rule.

There's never any reason for Supes to kill a human because he's just more powerful than all of us, there is always an out when it comes to confronting a human being. But for beings that are just as powerful as him that "out" doesn't exist. It's like the difference between fighting someone your height, weight, and build vs fighting a toddler.

 

[Marvin]

I think what goyer said in that interview, was very keen; everyone knows that he doesn't kill but not everyone can explain why in a responsible way. Delivering upon such a thing with another property might have been met with more open mindedness but with this you have a rigidness in working though that. No doubt due to how litter diversity exists in the cinematic material.

They were really interested in explaining the why's of the batman mythology, I'm not surprised they seem to be doing the same here. How well they do it remains to be seen imo. But I do know it's a far tougher sell. Especially from people that don't read the comics imo.

 

[Lencho01]

What's unreasonable about thinking life is precious and holding one's self to that standard?

 

[Eggyman]

Snapping a neck is brutal, but I'm pretty sure throwing your enemy into an icy abyss has the same result: death. Just playing devil's advocate because I like both iterations.

 

[Lencho01]

Snapping a neck is brutal, but I'm pretty sure throwing your enemy into an icy abyss has the same result: death. Just playing devil's advocate because I like both iterations.

True, but that ended up not being the case. Why they edited the film to play out like that rather than showing Zod and co. being arrested, I have no idea. It is weird to think that Superman and Lois would kill people with smiles on their faces too. That's just cold blooded.

 

[Lencho01]

Anyone know if there's an MOS color correction comparison like this?

[YT]3DeABpBPCAU[/YT]

 

[MrsKent26]

Well said! Most of us wanted a "realistic" take on Supes and we got it. I never saw Supes as having a "no kill" rule but instead a "no human kill" rule.

There's never any reason for Supes to kill a human because he's just more powerful than all of us, there is always an out when it comes to confronting a human being. But for beings that are just as powerful as him that "out" doesn't exist. It's like the difference between fighting someone your height, weight, and build vs fighting a toddler.

I agree about the distinction between a true no-kill rule and a "no killing humans" rule.

I made a post about Superman's no-kill rule a week or so back and I thought I'd repost it here because it applies to this perfectly:

They didn't need to introduce the no-kill rule in this movie. The issue is that even though this movie is a reboot and doesn't including anything but what was shown, people have preconceptions of who Superman is. They assume he has a no-kill rule because he's had one in the comics before. But the movie never told us he had one because he didn't. He had no reason to. This isn't a seasoned superman who fights super villains regularly and has had to decide whether or not to kill. This is a rookie who would never have encountered a situation where he would need to kill. He can subdue any earthly enemy. He would not even need to consider the idea of killing because it would be irrelevant to him until his fight with Zod. His reaction to killing was visceral and fresh. He had done something without knowing exactly how it would make him feel. That scene didn't feature superman "breaking his one rule." It featured a desperate rookie making a decision that he would never have fathomed before and feeling the consequences.

They were really interested in explaining the why's of the batman mythology, I'm not surprised they seem to be doing the same here. How well they do it remains to be seen imo. But I do know it's a far tougher sell. Especially from people that don't read the comics imo.

This part is intriguing. The most peculiar type of Superman fan, IMO, is the kind that bases their idea of who Superman is solely on the Reeve films. They tend to think that Reeve/Donner=Superman. Although, some people tend to think this even though they have read some comics because these live-action versions stick out prominently in their minds, like a sweet childhood memory. There's nothing wrong with this, but it does breed some limited views in some folks. I've had arguments with folks like this. I say: "Look guys, the Reeve Superman killed people." They just look at me. I've even seen it on these forums. People will remind folks that Reeve Supes killed and they'll have no response. They'll just ignore it like they can't process it. I've seen internet memes and rants by folks who draw or mention Reeves Supes in contrast to Cavill Supes with statements like "the REAL Superman doesn't kill." But their "real" Supes did kill. Where do people think Zod and his cronies went after that fall? Are they picking wild flowers down there?

This leads me to two interesting phenomena that I think contribute to people viewing these two "killer Supes!" incidences differently:

1) Overtness of the killing: The Donner movies had a pretty light tone overall and there was a lot of comedy and what people like to call "whimsy." They had Supes kill in a pretty water-down, "sweep them off the screen like cartoon villans" sort of way. In contrast, MOS Supes just broke the guy's neck. Just...crack! And it's done. People couldn't sweep that one away or pretend it didn't happen because it was highlighted and brutal.

2) Goyer and Nolan: I think people had some preconcieved ideas about these two because their most prominent work was on batman. People here these names and automatically think "Dark! Gritty!" Combine these preconceptions with stylistic choices like a dark palette and people are going to expect "dark" things from this supes. They're going to label him before seeing him and I think some people see what they want to see/expect to see with a certain creative team. There are so many complaints to the effect of "They've made Superman into Batman!" But yet...this Superman smiles at his Ma, drinks beer while watching football, rides a bike to his first day at work, calms Lois's freak out when he meets her after her injury in a cave, admits that the WE might make him weak but he's still going to try attacking it, talks firmly and politely to the military, lets them cuff him, etc. Essentially, he is still somewhat of a boy scout.

 

[Lencho01]

Man of Steel 2: Save the Last Dance

http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/4679306.html

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Superman prett much is his silver age characterisation with a few modern elements thrown in. I feel that largely from how we don't get any motivation as to why he chooses to save people, he just does, which is very silver age.

 

[jonathancrane]

I seriously hope they don't hook WW and Supes up.

 

[Marvin]

Superman prett much is his silver age characterisation with a few modern elements thrown in. I feel that largely from how we don't get any motivation as to why he chooses to save people, he just does, which is very silver age.

Yea they could only go so far with the external logic. They had to stop at the killing rule probably because it's very it separates a functional hero(see all marvel studios) that does good for obvious reasons and something held to a higher standard even when it's make no sense.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Stephen Amell said they needed Nolan's permission for some developments on Arrow.

What the heck has got to do with Green Arrow and why did they have to get his permission and not the head of DC Comics or the Co publisher's DiDio and Jim Lee?.

 

[Lencho01]

I seriously hope they don't hook WW and Supes up.

I just got this feeling we're going to see a love triangle somewhere. It could be Supes/Wondy/Bats, Wondy/Supes/Lois, Supes/Lois/Bats or even...

[BLACKOUT]Lois/Bats/Wondy/Jenny/Alltheotherwomeninthefilmbecausehe'sBatman[/BLACKOUT]

 

[MrsKent26]

I hate love triangles.

 

[luis4u]

What the heck has got to do with Green Arrow and why did they have to get his permission and not the head of DC Comics or the Co publisher's DiDio and Jim Lee?.

idk how Warner works


Also DC show creators have to ask DC for the right to use their characters. In JLU the episode where the team travels to another parallel earth where the Justice Guild lived. Originally this was suppose to be the Justice Society of Earth-2. The shows creators were denied access to these creators so they made an analog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6wlCj-PqSk

 

[luis4u]

It's difficult to get the license to do a Wonder Woman movie in the first place. There have been licensing problems with Superman, but nothing like trying make Wonder Woman. While details are shrouded in secrecy we know two things: it's expensive and complicated. When Kelly was making his expensive Wonder Woman pilot, most of the cost came from "the studio requiring a rich license fee." Paul Dini, who produced Batman Beyond and other DC cartoons, said, "There's kind of a licensing problem: if we wanted to do Wonder Woman as a series, we could do that, [but] if it was a guest-shot, it was a little more problematic. I don't really understand it, it just turned out to be easier all the way around [to use Big Barda in the Batman Beyond episode 'The Call']." Is Wonder Woman stuck in legal red tape?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-VNfl3wBM

 

[Lencho01]

It's difficult to get the license to do a Wonder Woman movie in the first place. There have been licensing problems with Superman, but nothing like trying make Wonder Woman. While details are shrouded in secrecy we know two things: it's expensive and complicated. When Kelly was making his expensive Wonder Woman pilot, most of the cost came from "the studio requiring a rich license fee." Paul Dini, who produced Batman Beyond and other DC cartoons, said, "There's kind of a licensing problem: if we wanted to do Wonder Woman as a series, we could do that, [but] if it was a guest-shot, it was a little more problematic. I don't really understand it, it just turned out to be easier all the way around [to use Big Barda in the Batman Beyond episode 'The Call']." Is Wonder Woman stuck in legal red tape?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-VNfl3wBM

I think that might have changed since I remember it being an issue with the Brave & the Bold toon. Then, the producers later saying Geoff Johns really helped out with having her appear on the show for real. That might have helped with Young Justice too, but I'm not sure.