David Goyer hired to write Man of Steel

[Octoberist]

Well, it's not a huge issue, more than anything it's just an example of how Hollywood has influenced the Superman comics...and how little many people actually know about them.

well, maybe it's a myth but supposedly Burton's Batman was the first to introduce Batman's grappling gun and then it became a mainstay in the comics and later incarnations. if that's the truth, then sometimes influences like that are not bad at all. sometimes it's for the better.

 

[Webhead2006]

why would living out west on a farm automatically assume they would make him a naive hick. i dont think they would do that.

 

[El Payaso]

well, maybe it's a myth but supposedly Burton's Batman was the first to introduce Batman's grappling gun and then it became a mainstay in the comics and later incarnations. if that's the truth, then sometimes influences like that are not bad at all. sometimes it's for the better.

 

[raybia]

Changing the subject for a moment. I know this movie will not be an origin story but I do hope that its early in Superman's career with maybe no more than a year since his first appearance.

Anyway, I would like if when the movie opens up Clark/Superman has not learned about his Kryptonian heritage. In fact, I would like it if he truly believes he is human, a Metahuman, but still human nevertheless. Also the people of Metropolis and the world should think he is human.

Only when Brainiac appears does Clark and the rest of the world find out the truth about his origins.

 

[Mr. Earle]

well, maybe it's a myth but supposedly Burton's Batman was the first to introduce Batman's grappling gun and then it became a mainstay in the comics and later incarnations. if that's the truth, then sometimes influences like that are not bad at all. sometimes it's for the better.

Good example. Just recently Batman and Robin got glider capes like Nolan's. Here's the pic:

 

[SpiderByte]

^
Kick. Ass.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Wait, Burton's Batman introduced the grappling gun? I could have sworn it appeared earlier.

 

[Kurosawa]

well, maybe it's a myth but supposedly Burton's Batman was the first to introduce Batman's grappling gun and then it became a mainstay in the comics and later incarnations. if that's the truth, then sometimes influences like that are not bad at all. sometimes it's for the better.

It was. Before that he would throw a rope with a batarang at the end as a grappling hook. Sandman and Sandy used grappling guns regularly in the 40's, however.

Changing the subject for a moment. I know this movie will not be an origin story but I do hope that its early in Superman's career with maybe no more than a year since his first appearance.

Anyway, I would like if when the movie opens up Clark/Superman has not learned about his Kryptonian heritage. In fact, I would like it if he truly believes he is human, a Metahuman, but still human nevertheless. Also the people of Metropolis and the world should think he is human.

Only when Brainiac appears does Clark and the rest of the world find out the truth about his origins.

That would be fine with me.

Good example. Just recently Batman and Robin got glider capes like Nolan's. Here's the pic:

Yeah, they've used glider capes and things like that for years. They even used to use one man Batgyros.

 

[Mr. Earle]

If i am not mistaken, Batman would use gliders, like the ones he used in BTAS. Those were bat themed gliders independent of his cape. I think this is the first time in the comics that the cape acts as a glider without the use of a metal skeleton for support (see Returns or some comics). In other words, Nolan's cape. And i think so not only because this is the first time we see these capes, but in the previous page Dick asks Damian: "Ready to test the paracapes?" meaning that they are a new addition to their equipment.

 

[Kurosawa]

If i am not mistaken, Batman would use gliders, like the ones he used in BTAS. Those were bat themed gliders independent of his cape. I think this is the first time in the comics that the cape acts as a glider without the use of a metal skeleton for support (see Returns or some comics). In other words, Nolan's cape. And i think so not only because this is the first time we see these capes, but in the previous page Dick asks Damian: "Ready to test the paracapes?" meaning that they are a new addition to their equipment.

Could be, although I've read tons of old Batman stories and I've seen them use all kinds of flying gadgets. It's cool they're incorporating that though. The Batcave and the thinner Alfred came from the 1943 serial...Harley came from TAS...there are good and bad things that come from outside sources.

 

[Webhead2006]

i said this a few times even with the news of NO ORIGIN. I want to see it at least start off with clark's first day at the planet, or his first public save. So we are at least starting the film at the start of his career in this new take. Then going no origins told at all and coming in on the middle of things and characters at places in story we dont know how they came to be. Cause for me i am like why bother doing a reboot. if we are not getting to see how these characters become who they are in this take. and all that.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Batman DESTROYS Superman in popularity and relevance because DC smartly kept him reasonably close to the Kane and Finger original. Straying too far from the creators intentions is how you get crap like Terminator Salvation or the 60's camp Batman TV show, or the Halle Berry Catwoman movie. If 1938-1986 Superman sucks so bad that the core elements of it need to be changed for it to get over, then all they are selling is the name.

i would hardly think that that is the reason batman is more popular than superman. nor do i agree that batman has stayed that close to his kane roots. regardless, comparing the evolution of superman to other characters is pointless in this case. nor am i saying the original superman "sucks". but it is impossible for any character to exist for so long and not evolve and develop. some characters are degraded from evolution, others thrive because of it. i believe superman is of the latter.

 

[SpiderByte]

I'd say Batman and Superman are pretty much even, IMHO. They're DC's two biggest heroes. Populartiry wise, though, it varies. Dark Knight really boosted it, but Superman, being, well, Superman, is still big.

 

[Kurosawa]

i would hardly think that that is the reason batman is more popular than superman. nor do i agree that batman has stayed that close to his kane roots. regardless, comparing the evolution of superman to other characters is pointless in this case. nor am i saying the original superman "sucks". but it is impossible for any character to exist for so long and not evolve and develop. some characters are degraded from evolution, others thrive because of it. i believe superman is of the latter.

There's no doubt that Batman has been true to his roots for years, starting with how O'Neil took him back there in the 70's. They've deviated some at times, but they've always taken him back and that is why the character has thrived.

Superman on the other hand, has been constantly tampered with to the characters detriment. From junk like Byrne's revisions, to electric Superman, to dying and being revived, to Birthright, some good some bad but the point is in the past 20 years Superman has changed directions about as often as a hooker changes partners.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I'd say Batman and Superman are pretty much even, IMHO. They're DC's two biggest heroes. Populartiry wise, though, it varies. Dark Knight really boosted it, but Superman, being, well, Superman, is still big.

Batman seems to be winning now:

Batman Beats Superman in the Marketplace

By GEORGE GENE GUSTINES; Compiled by DAVE ITZKOFF
Published: February 26, 2010

Despite their long history as super-friends, comic book fans have been known to debate: Who would win in a fight? The all-powerful Superman or the ever-ingenious Batman? This week we may have gotten the answer. On Monday the $1 million sale of a copy of Action Comics No. 1, which features the first appearance of Superman, set a record for the sale of a comic book. But it was short-lived. On Thursday a copy of Detective Comics No. 27, the first appearance of Batman from 1939, sold for $1,075,500. Take that, Man of Steel! Heritage Auctions, which sold the Batman comic, has a video presentation on this copy of Detective Comics No. 27, that includes a closer look at its cover, above, and some of the interior panels. Like the buyer of Action Comics No. 1 — and Superman and Batman — the new owner of Detective Comics No. 27 would like to keep his identity secret.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/books/27arts-BATMANBEATSS_BRF.html

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

I guess the key is to define what the character roots are to see if that is what attributes batmans popularity over superman. Batman I dont think is as close to its roots at it has been mentioned and i think our current society is more sophisticated that its easier to accept a character of batmans nature than a character of supermans age old nature.

For every superman revision, there has been an equal batman revision. byrnes revision could be an equivalent to frank millers year one, electric superman can be compared to knightfall batman, death and revival can be compared to the breaking of the bat and prodigal, etc etc.

I personally think batman has grown as a character more than superman. Writers and fans have been sensitive to any type of change to superman and now we are faced with a character that the current culture doesnt seem to want to identify with maybe because its dull? not sure. any help sorting this out would be apreciated

 

[Octoberist]

i think Batman is a more versatile character in the long run. I think Superman's main attraction is his simplicity but it can be easily screwed up if given to the wrong writer

 

[Motown Marvel]

There's no doubt that Batman has been true to his roots for years, starting with how O'Neil took him back there in the 70's. They've deviated some at times, but they've always taken him back and that is why the character has thrived.

Superman on the other hand, has been constantly tampered with to the characters detriment. From junk like Byrne's revisions, to electric Superman, to dying and being revived, to Birthright, some good some bad but the point is in the past 20 years Superman has changed directions about as often as a hooker changes partners.

all of that is debatable. but like i said, im not interested in such a pointless debate, as im speaking of superman on his own merits, because thats all that matters here.

 

[Venomfan]

Yeah, they've used glider capes and things like that for years. They even used to use one man Batgyros.

ya i used to play with my bat toys as a kid and tried to get the cape in his hands so it would look like he's gliding. i've only seen the burton film once, but i'm pretty sure in that big epic breaking through the glass scene he glides down too??? anyway i knew about him gliding i think from TAS, usually he had some lame bat glider, but once in awhile he would use his cape, i just recently watched him do it in the first part of Worlds Finest episode of superman

edit: why can't i find that scene from Baatman 89 where he glides down on youtube, from what i remember that was the coolest scene in the movie. hard to believe its not on there

 

[Kurosawa]

I guess the key is to define what the character roots are to see if that is what attributes batmans popularity over superman. Batman I dont think is as close to its roots at it has been mentioned and i think our current society is more sophisticated that its easier to accept a character of batmans nature than a character of supermans age old nature.

For every superman revision, there has been an equal batman revision. byrnes revision could be an equivalent to frank millers year one, electric superman can be compared to knightfall batman, death and revival can be compared to the breaking of the bat and prodigal, etc etc.

I personally think batman has grown as a character more than superman. Writers and fans have been sensitive to any type of change to superman and now we are faced with a character that the current culture doesnt seem to want to identify with maybe because its dull? not sure. any help sorting this out would be apreciated

Here's what I feel are Batman's roots and core attributes:

The tragic origin
Bruce Wayne nothing but a disguise
Grim character with gothic overtones
Master Detective
Operates mostly at night
Has a harsh and uncompromising out look
Rogues gallery of bizarre and twisted villains
Also portrayed as a father figure
Uses hi-tech equipment
Uses wealth to further his crime fighting
Master escape artist

All of those were developed between 39-43, and all of them still exist today, some emphasized more than others. Batman may have grown, but he hasn't gone completely off his original core...in fact he retains all of it.

Here are what I feel Superman's roots and core attributes are:

Origin with a Utopian world failing to save it's people due to it's own arrogance
True alter-ego with Superman as the reality, Clark as the disguise, the transformation to Supes representing wish fulfillment.
Orphaned twice, no parental or mentor figures
Strong social conscience and dedication to helping the oppressed
A certain amount of cockiness, close to arrogance
A somewhat lonely existence; Supes was the only major superhero without some sort of sidekick or romantic interest who shared his secrets; this would have changed early on if DC hadn't killed the K-Metal story, however. But 1938-1986 Superman was ALL about pathos. Even his friends were kept at a distance from him.
The entire newspaper angle and how it played into Superman's quest

Of those elements, they kept...the newspaper. The Modern version is a character with no pathos, no real suffering. His parents get to see him grow up, he has friends to share his secrets with, he doesn't have the burdens of Ma and Pa Kent dying or memories of Krypton's destruction or Lex's fall from grace or Kandor's perpetual shrunken state that he cannot solve...modern Superman has it so easy. He has Lois. If he fails, it's not the end of the world. There's just...nothing...there to grab onto.

Modern society could embrace Pre-Crisis Supes if his power level was lower much easier than modern Supes, imo. A character with depth and a good degree of quiet personal pain that he deals with because he puts the needs of others first is way more interesting to me that a super clean Big Blue Boy Scout with no suffering or pain. Superman should be about helping people and the incredible responsibility he feels. Now he is supposed to represent "hope" or some such Kumbaya crap.

 

[raybia]

Here's what I feel are Batman's roots and core attributes:

The tragic origin
Bruce Wayne nothing but a disguise
Grim character with gothic overtones
Master Detective
Operates mostly at night
Has a harsh and uncompromising out look
Rogues gallery of bizarre and twisted villains
Also portrayed as a father figure
Uses hi-tech equipment
Uses wealth to further his crime fighting
Master escape artist

All of those were developed between 39-43, and all of them still exist today, some emphasized more than others. Batman may have grown, but he hasn't gone completely off his original core...in fact he retains all of it.

Here are what I feel Superman's roots and core attributes are:

Origin with a Utopian world failing to save it's people due to it's own arrogance
True alter-ego with Superman as the reality, Clark as the disguise, the transformation to Supes representing wish fulfillment.
Orphaned twice, no parental or mentor figures
Strong social conscience and dedication to helping the oppressed
A certain amount of cockiness, close to arrogance
A somewhat lonely existence; Supes was the only major superhero without some sort of sidekick or romantic interest who shared his secrets; this would have changed early on if DC hadn't killed the K-Metal story, however. But 1938-1986 Superman was ALL about pathos. Even his friends were kept at a distance from him.
The entire newspaper angle and how it played into Superman's quest

Of those elements, they kept...the newspaper. The Modern version is a character with no pathos, no real suffering. His parents get to see him grow up, he has friends to share his secrets with, he doesn't have the burdens of Ma and Pa Kent dying or memories of Krypton's destruction or Lex's fall from grace or Kandor's perpetual shrunken state that he cannot solve...modern Superman has it so easy. He has Lois. If he fails, it's not the end of the world. There's just...nothing...there to grab onto.

Modern society could embrace Pre-Crisis Supes if his power level was lower much easier than modern Supes, imo. A character with depth and a good degree of quiet personal pain that he deals with because he puts the needs of others first is way more interesting to me that a super clean Big Blue Boy Scout with no suffering or pain. Superman should be about helping people and the incredible responsibility he feels. Now he is supposed to represent "hope" or some such Kumbaya crap.

Wow dude, that is one serious analysis. So what elements of the core and root attributes would you bring back to the new movie that at the same time would not undermine the iconic status that the character has developed into?

 

[Webhead2006]

for me personally characters have to change to fit the times/eras they are in. alot of the stuff from early ages of characters(most) just wouldnt kick it today with how society has changed alot, and what kids are into today.

 

[Kurosawa]

Wow dude, that is one serious analysis. So what elements of the core and root attributes would you bring back to the new movie that at the same time would not undermine the iconic status that the character has developed into?

I'd bring back the Clark/Superman duality, I'd have Ma and Pa Kent pass away and him unable to find a cure for them, I would use a beautiful and Utopian Krypton, and I would make Superman have a social conscience, maybe not as rowdy as the early Golden Age stories but I'd make it clear that he was in no way establishment. And I'd make it clear that Superman does have something of a lonely life, and that's a lot of why he needs to be Clark so much.

The more modern ideas I would use is the idea of them passing him off as their own son, and also of the many failed attempts they had went through with trying to have children. In fact, if it was an origin movie (which unfortunately due to legal issues, it won't be), I would even consider starting the movie not with Jor-El on Krypton, but with the Kents receiving bad news at their Fertility Doctor that she just cannot get Pregnant or carry, and she had already lost several babies, then switching to the scenes on Krypton, paralleling Jonathan and Martha's heartbreak over not having children to Jor-El and Lara's heartbreak over the loss of their world and their selfless sacrifice to save their child, then back to the Kents, until finally, as Maggin wrote, "Then, as happened with Abraham's aged wife Sarah, the Heavens gave her a son." Corporate Lex is an idea that I'm willing to use as long as it's clear he is a brilliant scientist first. I think a Corporate Luthor vs. a populist Superman is valuable. I'd use a lower power level and more action based fight scenes like the more modern comics. And I'd make it clear that Clark, Lois, Jimmy and Perry were all very serious and dedicated newspeople and they take their jobs and responsibility seriously.

 

[Mr. Earle]

There's no doubt that Batman has been true to his roots for years, starting with how O'Neil took him back there in the 70's. They've deviated some at times, but they've always taken him back and that is why the character has thrived.

Superman on the other hand, has been constantly tampered with to the characters detriment. From junk like Byrne's revisions, to electric Superman, to dying and being revived, to Birthright, some good some bad but the point is in the past 20 years Superman has changed directions about as often as a hooker changes partners.

You make it sound like the original writers of these characters built the perfect car and 70 years from then, nobody should change, upgrade, or refine it because the original guys did it best even if it was 70 years ago. You want to apply 21st century aerodynamics and a modern engine with double the power? You stray from the core, the car will be slower.

It doesnt work like that. Just because those guys came up with those characters it doesnt mean that their version is the best, or that the heroes will fail if they are written in another fashion.

"Superman fails today because he isnt like he was back in the 1930ies"
No. The truth is that Superman doesnt sell so well because they arent writing good stories about him and they re always retelling the ones we've already read. While Superman gets another origin book, or Supergil's arrival, or Brainiac's invasion, Batman moves forward with new adventures, new villains, new Robins, Dick succeeding him, etc.

You want to be purist? Fine, its your choice, but dont defend your purism by saying "Batman is successful because he is true to his core".

- Because he isnt. You say modern Clark isnt true to his core? Dick is nothing like Bruce, and yet he is now Batman and "Batman & Robin" is the best selling DC book right now.
- Because the general audience/reader doesnt care about his core, it cares if the story it reads is any good.
- Because the guys in the 30ies who came up with Batman/Superman/WW cant have known what would work in our time. If you were to come up with a superhero wouldnt he be tailored to appease the audience of 2010? You cant predict how society will work in 2100 and thus your character could work, or might need updates to go with the times. Just because you came up with a successful superhero in 2010 it doesnt mean that people in 2100 will be amazed by him.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Don`t even argue with Kurosawa. He is a tough one. Hee is the "i`m right everyone is wrong kind of person".

"A certain amount of cockiness, close to arrogance"

LMFAO. This shows how WELL you know and VIEW Superman.