Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[TeeKay]

For some reason, on this site unless you say IMO people don't realize it's just your opinion

Is that your opinion or you're stating a fact?

 

[Erzengel]

Then is nothing good or bad?

TDK vs. Catwoman? TWS vs. Thor: Dark World? DOFP or X-2 vs. Wolverine Origins?

Not trying to start an argument but there usually is a general consensus of what's good or bad or which side it more leans to.

 

[BH/HHH]

Then is nothing good or bad?

TDK vs. Catwoman? TWS vs. Thor: Dark World? DOFP or X-2 vs. Wolverine Origins?

Not trying to start an argument but there usually is a general consensus of what's good or bad or which side it more leans to.

You can say the consensus says a film is bad but films like all media are subjective. Like what's a good song or a TV show. It's all down to how the viewer perceives it.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Obviously the movies are not obligated to follow the comics. The movie studios can do what they want with their own movies. But creatively they should be tied to the comics. Otherwise what's the point of even adapting these characters if they're not going to use any of the comic book material. Its what you call in name only. For example would anyone be happy getting a movie version of Superman that doesn't fly and accept that just because the movies are not tied to the comics?

As they have been, which is why I brought up Byrne's Man of Steel. I hope you didn't miss that.

 

[MbJ]

There are scattered examples of Superman killing people, sure. In a comic that's been going on for decades you can find scattered instances of just about anything. There are old issues of Fantastic Four where Reed Richards hits his wife and says misogynistic things to her, and there are old issues of Batman and Wonder Woman where they use racial slurs aimed at Asians.

That doesn't mean those are things people would be happy with in a movie adaptation or that they in any way would fit with most people's perception of the characters.

 

[The Joker]

Fidelity to the source material is not one of the DCEU's biggest problems. Joe Schmoe movie goer doesn't care that Superman isn't smiling or that Batman kills.

It also depends on what you class as fidelity. I mean we could say Bane in Batman and Robin had some comic book fidelity because he was a masked super strong brute from South America who was experimented on and pumped up on venom.

As they have been, which is why I brought up Byrne's Man of Steel. I hope you didn't miss that.

Sorry to disappoint, but I did miss it. What's Byrne's Man of Steel got to do with anything?

 

[BH/HHH]

There are scattered examples of Superman killing people, sure. In a comic that's been going on for decades you can find scattered instances of just about anything. There are old issues of Fantastic Four where Reed Richards hits his wife and says misogynistic things to her, and there are old issues of Batman and Wonder Woman where they use racial slurs aimed at Asians.

That doesn't mean those are things people would be happy with in a movie adaptation or that they in any way would fit with most people's perception of the characters.

Scattered on not they were high profile, the Doomsdsy one was practically the biggest comic book event ever and WBs have been trying to adapt a movie version of that since it happened.

In any case it's subjective.

 

[misslane38]

The campy 60's Batman show got a comic book series that was positively recieved, lasted several years and is still on going, and there's even an animated movie based on the show coming out this year. That doesn't mean people want to see Batman go camp for the movies just because a campy version of the character is popular.

The 60s Batman comic was always presented as a nostalgic throwback. It is set in the 1960s. The Grant Morrison was a modern comic, set in today's world, and was not an alternate universe title. It was the opening of Action Comics, which is as mainstream as you can get. The New 52 comics often revisted t-shirt and jeans Superman who couldn't fly. Every time Superman was characterized the way Grant Morrison characterized him, readers loved it. They loved it more than the Kryptonian armor wearing and overpowered Superman who could fly.

I haven't read the book in a while, but from what I remember it was basically Superman Year One. Proto-Superman, including the suit, which was basically which was work boots, jeans, a blue shirt with the shield, and a cape.

And that context is important, because it helps people accept the idea. We know he will be Superman proper eventually, so watching him grown into that is a big aspect.

True, but when preaders eventually got their traditional Superman (flights and tights), they still preferred the Grant Morrison version. Furthermore, following your own reasoning here, Grant Morrison's Action Comics Superman would have been acceptable within the context of both DCEU films, since Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice essentially represent a Year One story.

Taking Superman's flight away or him being "too young" to fly isn't a new aspect. It is actually a well worn trope. I see your point, but using the flight just seems weird considering this aspect of the character is explored a lot. And the point is he can't fly, which emphasizes the notion that he flies. And it always ends with him flying. It is no different then taking the Flash's speed, or Lantern's ring, Spider-Man's powers, etc.

While a flightless Superman does eventually fly, your reasoning here does not account for the fact that fans of the New 52 Superman preferred the flightless Superman to the more grown up one who could fly. The flightless Superman concept was so successful that readers were not always anxious to see him flying again. In other words, it's not something readers tolerated or loved because it was a way to tease something better. Readers loved flightless Superman they loved the concept.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Exactly. Each entry into the DCEU thus far has failed as a movie.

I'll be more inclined to listen to the "DC bias" arguments once they make a movie that isn't fatally flawed, with properly dramatized characters and conflicts.

I'm confidently predicting Wonder Woman to be that movie.

I'm really not hopeful for Wonder Woman. I think they were too deep in production to really learn their lesson from BVS and SS.

We're going to start to feel the changes in JL and Flash and anything after

I really think they will get their **** together

 

[Zarex]

The 60s Batman comic was always presented as a nostalgic throwback. It is set in the 1960s. The Grant Morrison was a modern comic, set in today's world, and was not an alternate universe title. It was the opening of Action Comics, which is as mainstream as you can get. The New 52 comics often revisted t-shirt and jeans Superman who couldn't fly. Every time Superman was characterized the way Grant Morrison characterized him, readers loved it. They loved it more than the Kryptonian armor wearing and overpowered Superman who could fly.



True, but when preaders eventually got their traditional Superman (flights and tights), they still preferred the Grant Morrison version. Furthermore, following your own reasoning here, Grant Morrison's Action Comics Superman would have been acceptable within the context of both DCEU films, since Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice essentially represent a Year One story.



While a flightless Superman does eventually fly, your reasoning here does not account for the fact that fans of the New 52 Superman preferred the flightless Superman to the more grown up one who could fly. The flightless Superman concept was so successful that readers were not always anxious to see him flying again. In other words, it's not something readers tolerated or loved because it was a way to tease something better. Readers loved flightless Superman they loved the concept.

I can believe that fans of DC comics second most recent reboot really love non-flying Superman in the jeans and the t-shirt. But for a character like Supes, who has had an enormous presence in TV, film, animation and merchandise going back three quarters of a century, the current comic book reader represents a teeny, tiny sliver of those who call themselves Superman fans. The point being, a movie about a Superman that jumps really high would be DOA.

 

[misslane38]

I can believe that fans of DC comics second most recent reboot really love non-flying Superman in the jeans and the t-shirt. But for a character like Supes, who has had an enormous presence in TV, film, animation and merchandise going back three quarters of a century, the current comic book reader represents a teeny, tiny sliver of those who call themselves Superman fans. The point being, a movie about a Superman that jumps really high would be DOA.

The whole point of the New 52 initiative was to get your non-traditional readers to give Superman a try. The new fans who showed up were not all hardcore comics or DC Comics fans. The New 52 was advertised as a jumping on point for comic book newbies. As someone who posted on CBR at the time, I can tell you that new fans did love and embrace a flightless Superman. I have no doubt a general audience would love a Superman who couldn't fly.

All that matters is creating a story that works for that interpretation of the character. For Grant Morrison, that meant bringing Superman back to his muckraking and social justice roots. He was a street level hero who battled robots, gangsters, and child abusers. When Greg Pak wrote his well-liked Superman run on Action Comics, he also often returned to a depowered, flightless Superman who wore the t-shirt and jeans. It was his way of making Superman a true people's hero. I have no problem believing that non-comic book fans would be equally willing to give that kind of Superman a chance.

 

[Zarex]

The whole point of the New 52 initiative was to get your non-traditional readers to give Superman a try. The new fans who showed up were not all hardcore comics or DC Comics fans. The New 52 was advertised as a jumping on point for comic book newbies. As someone who posted on CBR at the time, I can tell you that new fans did love and embrace a flightless Superman. I have no doubt a general audience would love a Superman who couldn't fly.

I agree that the point of New 52 was to bring in non-traditional readers. Which didn't happen. So DC went back to their core with "Rebirth"

All that matters is creating a story that works for that interpretation of the character. For Grant Morrison, that meant bringing Superman back to his muckraking and social justice roots. He was a street level hero who battled robots, gangsters, and child abusers. When Greg Pak wrote his well-liked Superman run on Action Comics, he also often returned to a depowered, flightless Superman who wore the t-shirt and jeans. It was his way of making Superman a true people's hero. I have no problem believing that non-comic book fans would be equally willing to give that kind of Superman a chance.

I get a kick out of reading old timey social justice warrior - I mean that as a compliment - Superman, but that's a tough sell to an audience. That might be a job for Superboy.

 

[The Joker]

The 60s Batman comic was always presented as a nostalgic throwback. It is set in the 1960s. The Grant Morrison was a modern comic, set in today's world, and was not an alternate universe title. It was the opening of Action Comics, which is as mainstream as you can get. The New 52 comics often revisted t-shirt and jeans Superman who couldn't fly. Every time Superman was characterized the way Grant Morrison characterized him, readers loved it. They loved it more than the Kryptonian armor wearing and overpowered Superman who could fly.

The era its set in is irrelevant. Camp is camp whether its in the 60's or the present. The comic and the upcoming animated movie are a throwback to the show, which happened to be made in the 60's. But the decade it was made in has no bearing on this. James Bond fans don't regard Sean Connery as the best because his movies were in the 60's.

 

[misslane38]

The era its set in is irrelevant. Camp is camp whether its in the 60's or the present. The comic and the upcoming animated movie are a throwback to the show, which happened to be made in the 60's. But the decade it was made in has no bearing on this. James Bond fans don't regard Sean Connery as the best because his movies were in the 60's.

It wasn't camp. There was not a single thing that was campy, nostalgic, or throwback-like about it. Zero. It was a modern, hipster, SJW Superman set in our real world. Old and new fans loved it.

I agree that the point of New 52 was to bring in non-traditional readers. Which didn't happen. So DC went back to their core with "Rebirth"

It did happen. Morrisons's Action Comics sold very well. The New 52 line fell apart in subsequent years that were defined by the classic suit wearing Superman who could fly.

I get a kick out of reading old timey social justice warrior - I mean that as a compliment - Superman, but that's a tough sell to an audience. That might be a job for Superboy.

What leads you to believe it would be a tough sell? I don't think this would be a tough sell.

 

[The Joker]

It wasn't camp. There was not a single thing that was campy, nostalgic, or throwback-like about it. Zero. It was a modern, hipster, SJW Superman set in our real world. Old and new fans loved it.

I'm not talking about Superman.....

 

[misslane38]

I'm not talking about Superman.....

Well, that's the only thing that I've been talking about. I already responded to your 60s Batman comments. Grant Morrison's Action Comics run is not analogous to the campy, nostalgic, 60s Batman comic, so it is an irrelevant comparison.

 

[The Joker]

I can believe that fans of DC comics second most recent reboot really love non-flying Superman in the jeans and the t-shirt. But for a character like Supes, who has had an enormous presence in TV, film, animation and merchandise going back three quarters of a century, the current comic book reader represents a teeny, tiny sliver of those who call themselves Superman fans. The point being, a movie about a Superman that jumps really high would be DOA.

Exactly.

Well, that's the only thing that I've been talking about. I already responded to your 60s Batman comments. Grant Morrison's Action Comics run is not analogous to the campy, nostalgic, 60s Batman comic, so it is an irrelevant comparison.

My post was in response to your 60's Batman comments. I wasn't born in the 60's, and neither were many fans of that show. So we have no nostalgia for the 60's, same as how many Bond fans whom regard Sean Connery as the best James Bond were not born in the 60's. I sure wasn't and he's still my fav Bond. People like these things for their quality. But just because fans love a campy version of Batman doesn't mean that's what they want for the movies. Same as how you've been arguing that some comic that did a flightless Superman was popular means it would be embraced in a movie is a bogus argument.

 

[Flint Marko]

Green Lantern didn't have lot of jokes or funny moments to be considered as light and fluffy.

I'll quote you here because I don't want to clutter that thread, and it's on topic.

Green Lantern was light and fluffy. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. It completely fits within the aforementioned parameters of movies that are supposedly "bulletproof from criticism". This dismantles the notion that a movie just has to be light-hearted and comedic to get a pass. I think there's something to be sad for pacifying audiences and giving them mindless entertainment if nothing else (hello Transformers and the Fast and Furious movies), but if the argument as presented in the original quote were true, we'd be gearing up for Green Lantern 3.

I'm really not hopeful for Wonder Woman. I think they were too deep in production to really learn their lesson from BVS and SS.

We're going to start to feel the changes in JL and Flash and anything after

I really think they will get their **** together

You may be right, but everything I've seen and heard from that movie has me feeling hopeful that WW will be the first step in the right direction for the DCEU.

 

[C. Lee]

I'm old....read lots of Superman comics from multiple eras.....A Superman that can't fly and doesn't wear the suit (wears bluejeans instead) might be a fun read.....but I wouldn't pay to see a movie of that. I want my Superman to be SUPERMAN.

 

[misslane38]

My post was in response to your 60's Batman comments. I wasn't born in the 60's, and neither were many fans of that show. So we have no nostalgia for the 60's, same as how many Bond fans whom regard Sean Connery as the best James Bond were not born in the 60's. I sure wasn't and he's still my fav Bond. People like these things for their quality. But just because fans love a campy version of Batman doesn't mean that's what they want for the movies. Same as how you've been arguing that some comic that did a flightless Superman was popular means it would be embraced in a movie is a bogus argument.

What's bogus is claiming that you know for a fact that the general audience would not accept a flightless Superman. You have presented no evidence or rationale to back up that claim. You argue here that what matters is quality writing, and I agree. I think as long as the story is good, audiences will have an open mind. I don't buy your assertion that there are these rigid canonical guidelines that must be followed in order to assure pop culture success. All that ultimately matters is that a superhero adaptation stray true to the core elements of the character. And, if the core elements of the character are not part of the story, the story itself should be a vehicle to move the character towards a more iconic representation. With that in mind, I have no doubt a well-made 60s Batman film would be a hit with audiences.

I object to using traditional elemements of iconic superhero canon as a measure of quality. A superhero film does not, or should not, be deemed a failure in any part because it does not line up with expectations associated with prior adaptations or pop culture perceptions. Superheroes like Batman and Superman wouldn't be the characters they are today without being part of a history of experimentation and reinvention. It sounds like what you are proposing is an approach to adapting iconic superheroes to screen that does not allow much deviation from established pop culture perceptions.

While I agree that there are some elements of a superhero's mythology that are untouchable, there are still lots of ways to play around with new ideas. I happen to think that flight is one of those more flexible elements because I don't think Superman needs to fly in order to do and be all the things most people love about Superman. Plus, I believe audiences are more open to new ideas that you seem to think they are. General audiences, for example, have largely accepted the Sherlock Holmes adaptation, Elementary, despite the fact that Watson is an Asian-American woman and the show is set in New York City. Once Upon a Time experiments and deconstructs classic fairy tales and Disney princess stories, and it hasn't been cancelled or criticized for it.

All audiences care about is whether or not the story is good and the spirit of the character and mythology remains in tact in some way. Within those guidelines, I believe, there is room for deconstruction and experimentation.

 

[misslane38]

I'm old....read lots of Superman comics from multiple eras.....A Superman that can't fly and doesn't wear the suit (wears bluejeans instead) might be a fun read.....but I wouldn't pay to see a movie of that. I want my Superman to be SUPERMAN.

Why, though? What is it about Superman flying and wearing that iconic costume that would make or break a story for you? If, let's say, DC/WB chose to adapt elements of Grant Morrison's Action Comics for its Man of Steel sequel, would you really sit that one out? It is a story that has charming businessman, Lex Luthor, Clark as a real journalist, Jimmy Olsen as Clark's pal, General Sam Lane as Luthor's lackey, Lois Lane breaking into government facilities, John Henry Irons a.k.a. Steel, Superman fighting robots, stopping runaway trains, and restoring impoverished inner-city communities. It all ends in a final battle that involves Metropolis as a bottled city and Superman saving everyone from the Coluan version of Brainiac. A story like this would get a pass from you just because Superman can't fly and wears blue jeans?

 

[The Joker]

I'm old....read lots of Superman comics from multiple eras.....A Superman that can't fly and doesn't wear the suit (wears bluejeans instead) might be a fun read.....but I wouldn't pay to see a movie of that. I want my Superman to be SUPERMAN.

I think most people feel the same way.

What's bogus is claiming that you know for a fact that the general audience would not accept a flightless Superman. You have presented no evidence or rationale to back up that claim. You argue here that what matters is quality writing, and I agree. I think as long as the story is good, audiences will have an open mind. I don't buy your assertion that there are these rigid canonical guidelines that must be followed in order to assure pop culture success. All that ultimately matters is that a superhero adaptation stray true to the core elements of the character. And, if the core elements of the character are not part of the story, the story itself should be a vehicle to move the character towards a more iconic representation. With that in mind, I have no doubt a well-made 60s Batman film would be a hit with audiences.

I object to using traditional elemements of iconic superhero canon as a measure of quality. A superhero film does not, or should not, be deemed a failure in any part because it does not line up with expectations associated with prior adaptations or pop culture perceptions. Superheroes like Batman and Superman wouldn't be the characters they are today without being part of a history of experimentation and reinvention. It sounds like what you are proposing is an approach to adapting iconic superheroes to screen that does not allow much deviation from established pop culture perceptions.

While I agree that there are some elements of a superhero's mythology that are untouchable, there are still lots of ways to play around with new ideas. I happen to think that flight is one of those more flexible elements because I don't think Superman needs to fly in order to do and be all the things most people love about Superman. Plus, I believe audiences are more open to new ideas that you seem to think they are. General audiences, for example, have largely accepted the Sherlock Holmes adaptation, Elementary, despite the fact that Watson is an Asian-American woman and the show is set in New York City. Once Upon a Time experiments and deconstructs classic fairy tales and Disney princess stories, and it hasn't been cancelled or criticized for it.

All audiences care about is whether or not the story is good and the spirit of the character and mythology remains in tact in some way. Within those guidelines, I believe, there is room for deconstruction and experimentation.

I have presented as much evidence of my belief as you have. Only mine is more grounded in logic because we know a campy Batman is not what audiences want as evidenced by Schumacher's Batman movies. People want dark serious Batman in the movies. Your whole rationale is because some comic which temporarily had Superman without his flight powers was popular, that a flightless Superman would be embraced with audiences. Then you say you have no doubt a well made campy Batman movie would be a hit, yet you have no basis to believe that with "no doubt". I don't get the logic behind these beliefs.

The most successful and popular adaptions of these characters have kept their core essential elements intact. Obviously these characters evolved over the years, but by adding things to the mythology not by removing things that were very popular and strongly associated with the characters.

I agree that elements can be toyed around with and experimented, within reason, but removing a key character trait of what makes Superman super like his flight ability, which is such an iconic part of his character, is one thing I do not believe would be a popular change.

With regards to your Sherlock Holmes TV show example, they didn't change the main character, which is Holmes. The side kick is not nearly as important as the main character, which is probably why they have been more accepting of Watson being female. After all one of the most popular Batman stories ever, DKR, had Batman working with a female Robin.

 

[BH/HHH]

I'm old....read lots of Superman comics from multiple eras.....A Superman that can't fly and doesn't wear the suit (wears bluejeans instead) might be a fun read.....but I wouldn't pay to see a movie of that. I want my Superman to be SUPERMAN.

I would but I'd fully be expecting him to be in his full suit about an hour or maybe hour & a quarter in.

Tbh if they ever did a reboot based off Grant Morrison's Action Comics story arc with Brainiac I'd be all over it.

 

[The Joker]

I would but I'd fully be expecting him to be in his full suit about an hour or maybe hour & a quarter in.

Yeah I think if it was temporary as part of an origin then it would be ok. After all the likes of Spider-Man and Batman in Spider-Man and Batman Begins didn't get their iconic costumes and start doing their hero thing until about half way through the movies. Same with Stark in Iron Man.

 

[BH/HHH]

Yeah I think if it was temporary as part of an origin then it would be ok. After all the likes of Spider-Man and Batman in Spider-Man and Batman Begins did get their iconic costumes and start doing their hero thing until about half way through the movies.

Yeah that's what I mean, no way could they get away with a full film of it though.