World LA Times is reporting that WB will announce World's Finest movie for 2015 - Part 1

Batman "humiliating" Superman sounds awful. It should be a stalemate or have Supes gain the advantage, having Bruce "win" or worse yet "humiliate" Superman is an awful idea.

Agreed, that's the one thing I hate the most in the Dark Knight Returns, not enough that Miller ****s on his character but he also has him humiliated in the ed. they handled it better in the animated film but that aspect was still there in the end unfortunately.
 
Funny how despite Batman getting a lot of help and having Superman worry more about his health than Bruce himself in TDK Returns, people still try to argue how biased against Superman that fight was.
 
Funny how despite Batman getting a lot of help and having Superman worry more about his health than Bruce himself in TDK Returns, people still try to argue how biased against Superman that fight was.

Look at the ending, remember the one man who best you crap, it's pathetic. Batman doesn't really beat Superman anyway in the fight its a weakened Superman holding back beaten by Batman, technology & his friends. It's just the way Miller treated the character having him become a government puppet just so Batman can kick him in the face at the end. I personally feel Miller did Superman a disservice in that book. I can accept it as else worlds but too many writers have used it and fans view it as the way Superman actually is nd he's not. He was written as a chump to suit Batman.
 
I would not mind at all if Batman is treated as a supporting player. Since this is a direct sequel to MOS I feel like Superman should remain the principal character, while still giving Batman enough room to develop.
Agree :up:
hmmmm......

well here, they can replace the "killing" of Metallo with Superman's killing of Zod in MOS.......

PE was definitely Superman's fight, the focus was on him as Lex tried to eliminate him by having everyone perceive him as a selfish *****ebag villain after he "killed" Metallo.

Since it's never implied who the president is, what would be cool, and very Lex Luthor-like would be to have Superman framed for the murder of the current president(of course orchestrated by Lex) and creates a power play where he moves in on the oval office and as his first act as president-elect he declares a bounty on Superman. Batman then at first is skeptical of Superman, maybe even butt heads realizes he's framed and then helps him.

What's really good is that it's essentially a Lex Luthor vs Superman story, which is what the sequel to Man of steel deserves.

Saw this posted online and that does sound like a flow up to Man of Steel, details different of course:

This idea seems pretty sensible to me. The movie practically writes itself.

Taking a page from Azzarello's LEX LUTHOR: MAN OF STEEL series, you can have a newcomer Batman appear on the scene, start his work, only to be questioned by Superman. Suspicious of Superman's unlimited power, and a bit angry that Superman has been intruding on his Gotham City turf, Wayne sides with Luthor against him, and this builds toward a giant, DARK KNIGHT RETURNS-style brawl between Superman and Batman, where Batman humiliates Superman and teaches him some humility. But it becomes clear that Luthor is up to something worse than Wayne originally realized, and so Superman and Batman join forces to take the bigger evil down, and, in the process, gain a begrudging respect for one another.

So what you get is a pick-up from MAN OF STEEL with the growing anti-Superman sentiment, you set-up Batman without rehashing the origin story, and start laying the groundwork for JUSTICE LEAGUE.

LOL That's exactly the plot JeremyJahns came up with. I like it!

[YT]zrg5w6f-JEg[/YT]

What would be an interesting twist is that Batman should be portrayed as a genuine Super-villain who sides with Luthor and eventually changes sides. They could even go as far as making the audience hate the character for a bit. If they do this I'll get behind the film. I find the prospect of an evil Batman something quite exciting. It'll show us something new and unexpected about a guy everybody thought was good.
 
Did Miller ever address the criticism of Supes portrayal in TDKR?
 
If Batman comes out on top against Supes ill be very p***ed off, infact f you look how they d their brief fight in Lex Luthor MOS then that's hw it should go down. Either that or the way it was done in the Smallvile comic.

I'd love it if the fight was ended by an interruption of some kind, especially if Superman had the slight advantage. Like Superman hears something in the distance with his superhearing that's important, and he flees, but Batman just hides. I'd like it if Batman (still hiding) overhears that it's some type of decoy by thugs patrolling the area. Then Batman ties them up and tries to interrogate them.

And they get shot or Batman gets caught in the line of fire by someone, or both.
 
Did Miller ever address the criticism of Supes portrayal in TDKR?

Yeah and to his credit he actually said he doesn't view Superman that way and it was just for the story. Although to be fair I'm not sure i think heroes t hate Superman after reading the Dark Knight Strikes Again!

He also said he had a Superman story he wanted to tell someday which is ashae he didn't get to do it back in the 80s. I'd imagine it would be beyond awful now cause the guy can't right a decent story these days.
 
I've never quite understood the criticism of Superman's portrayal in Dark Knight Returns. To me it was a tremendously mythic and powerful take on the character while examining the role he plays in human affairs. Yes Clark compromises himself in the book but within the context, where superheroism is outlawed, makes sense and I've never thought he was a character adverse to compromise. It was effectively his only way to continue protecting the world without becoming an enemy of the state.
 
I've never quite understood the criticism of Superman's portrayal in Dark Knight Returns. To me it was a tremendously mythic and powerful take on the character while examining the role he plays in human affairs. Yes Clark compromises himself in the book but within the context, where superheroism is outlawed, makes sense and I've never thought he was a character adverse to compromise. It was effectively his only way to continue protecting the world without becoming an enemy of the state.

Also, sometimes a hero compromising their morals and edging a little towards the dark side makes for a really compelling story. It isn't necessarily saying that said character sucks, just that in this story what if he became a *****ebag? How would that pan out? Really, Superman's portrayal in DKR mirrors his publication history: He started as this hotheaded, passionate, counter cultural champion of the working class, and then over the years he was neutered into a save all American good ol' boy.
 
Even if those characters were Wolverine and Spidey?

With Wolverine, that could be interesting. With Spidey, yeah...i'd still say that Batman would steal the show.

Bingo. No one steals the light unless the producers want them to. It's why that first star trek had two stars and not one was the wiser.
Batman makes for an interesting spock...

I Agree to an extent, but then you have characters, like Wolvie and Batman which for some reason would be instantly appealing to the audience.You put those two in an ensemble movie, limits their screentime, and they're still going to be the characters that the audience is going to remember most.
 
I've never quite understood the criticism of Superman's portrayal in Dark Knight Returns. To me it was a tremendously mythic and powerful take on the character while examining the role he plays in human affairs. Yes Clark compromises himself in the book but within the context, where superheroism is outlawed, makes sense and I've never thought he was a character adverse to compromise. It was effectively his only way to continue protecting the world without becoming an enemy of the state.

I don't mind it in the context of the book but its the legacy it's eft that mostly bothers me. Plenty of writers a d fas view Superman as he is portrayed in the book which he isn't at all.

The Dark Knight version of Superman for me is obviously a broken man, he wants to save lives but doesn't want to fight against the law so he chooses to become a puppet for the government. Also I don't have a problem with Superman killing when it fits with the story but to see him killing soldiers on the battlefield was hard to swallow. He's also quite arrogant in the story, Superman has always been a confident an but in this he's far too cocksure of himself. You can see how poorly that aspect is portrayed in that scene involving Clark and Bruce at the farm.

Something else I hate I show Batman blames Superman for the EMP device, the man saves billions if lives including Batman's ad all he can say us "you let them do it". That aways irked me and the ending with the whole one man who beat you line is such a I've got a bigger duck than you moment it's cringeworthy.

It just irks me that Miller felt he had to humiliate Superman to make Batman look more of a badass. Don't even bet me started on Strikes Again cause Miller did something even worse to Superman in that. But don't get me wrong I can accept it in the context of this else worlds story in the same way I can accept Batman the terrorist in Red Son but I don't want to see either in a DC Movie universe.
 
Look at the ending, remember the one man who best you crap, it's pathetic. Batman doesn't really beat Superman anyway in the fight its a weakened Superman holding back beaten by Batman, technology & his friends. It's just the way Miller treated the character having him become a government puppet just so Batman can kick him in the face at the end. I personally feel Miller did Superman a disservice in that book. I can accept it as else worlds but too many writers have used it and fans view it as the way Superman actually is nd he's not. He was written as a chump to suit Batman.

My point is that it is pointless to point out that Batman had a lot of things working to his advantage in that fight. That was the whole point of the fight. The book itself established the fact that Batman cannot beat Superman unless 1) he gets tons of help and 2) Superman is holding back. I don't see an anti-Superman message in any of that. If anything, it is the exact opposite. The general position writers an fans hold today is that Batman by himself is on par with Superman or stronger than him if he has prep time. The Dark Knight Returns tried to argue that even a solo Batman with enough prep time wasn't enough. People need to stop acting as if the book has some sort of "Look how easily Batman can beat Superman! With his fingers behind his back!" message.

As for how Superman is written, I don't see it as a problem. Superheroism is outlawed and since Superman has always done things by the book, he doesn't want to break the law or start a dispute between him and the government. That is not something that the man of all morals would do. As for Batman's attitude towards the book, the whole point of the book is that this is Batman at the end of his career completely going crazy on a level he has never reached before. Superman is still the same Superman we know him to be but Batman has completely lost it. That is why he acts so militant, refers to Robin as "soldier", treats Clark like crap, etc.

I don't mind it in the context of the book but its the legacy it's eft that mostly bothers me. Plenty of writers a d fas view Superman as he is portrayed in the book which he isn't at all.

Don't blame the book itself then. Miller did not write the book intending to leave a "Batman can easily destroy Superman" legacy for decades to come. He didn't even know the book would have been anywhere as successful and iconic today as it turned out to be. He just wrote a story with events that worked in the context of the story.
 
The 'Batman can beat anybody' trend began when the writers trying to find some justification for him being the only human in the Justice league i think.

It became his gimmick as much as his bat themed gadgetry.Miller may have started the ball rolling, but it's the other writers after him that took it further.
 
Honestly, in the case of Dark Knight Returns it was justifed. He threw everything he had at Superman, who at that point was not at full strength, and even then he only barely won.
 
Before or after Ollie's addition. :o
 
My point is that it is pointless to point out that Batman had a lot of things working to his advantage in that fight. That was the whole point of the fight. The book itself established the fact that Batman cannot beat Superman unless 1) he gets tons of help and 2) Superman is holding back. I don't see an anti-Superman message in any of that. If anything, it is the exact opposite. The general position writers an fans hold today is that Batman by himself is on par with Superman or stronger than him if he has prep time. The Dark Knight Returns tried to argue that even a solo Batman with enough prep time wasn't enough. People need to stop acting as if the book has some sort of "Look how easily Batman can beat Superman! With his fingers behind his back!" message.

As for how Superman is written, I don't see it as a problem. Superheroism is outlawed and since Superman has always done things by the book, he doesn't want to break the law or start a dispute between him and the government. That is not something that the man of all morals would do. As for Batman's attitude towards the book, the whole point of the book is that this is Batman at the end of his career completely going crazy on a level he has never reached before. Superman is still the same Superman we know him to be but Batman has completely lost it. That is why he acts so militant, refers to Robin as "soldier", treats Clark like crap, etc.

Don't blame the book itself then. Miller did not write the book intending to leave a "Batman can easily destroy Superman" legacy for decades to come. He didn't even know the book would have been anywhere as successful and iconic today as it turned out to be. He just wrote a story with events that worked in the context of the story.

I don't think Superman is the same as we've known him in the book at all. Superman dies abide by the law but we've seen plenty if times in the books when he doesn't agree with the law he'll fight against it.

I'm not entirely blaming the book or Miller like I said its else worlds not canon and I can accept him for the way he is in that story. I just don't want to see that version of Superman or Batman on the big screen cause I don't think at the fire if it that's who these characters are.
 
I gotta say...for some reason, I thought the CBR boards were the only place where Superman fans were so insecure regarding Batman.
 
^ Yes. I feel like TDKR's Batman is "grumpy old man Bruce" and Superman is "government puppet." One feels like an extreme version of the character late in life, and the other barely feels like the character at all.
 
It just irks me that Miller felt he had to humiliate Superman to make Batman look more of a badass.

I don't think that's the case. It was a clash of ideology and Miller seems to side with Bruce, but the audience doesn't necessarily have to. You can and, in my opinion, should sympathize with Clark while understanding why Batman acts as he does and defeats Superman. It wasn't some kind of proof that Batman is a better character than Superman for the Batman fanboys to feel vindicated but a parable of sorts to explore where these characters would go.
 
I gotta say...for some reason, I thought the CBR boards were the only place where Superman fans were so insecure regarding Batman.
Where have you been? :o

If Bats were really smart he should just get JL: D to take on Supes. That's right I said it. :argh:
 
Honestly, in the case of Dark Knight Returns it was justifed. He threw everything he had at Superman, who at that point was not at full strength, and even then he only barely won.

I don't even think Batman does win tbh,can t be called a victory when you've cheated and cheated using help from others and Kryptonite? but also could it have ever been a fair fight when weakened or not its a super powered alien vs a human being? If we look at the book if Superman had been willing too he could have killed Batman if he'd wanted too or even done what he'd done to Ollie which shows for me he really cared for Bruce.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"