DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[TheDarkness]

We are at "agree to disagree". "No reasonable claim" isn't accurate in my assessment, among many other things in your post I disagree with (the number and depth of associations, etc).

 

In any case, I don't see much point in continuing this back and forth as we clearly have profoundly different beliefs regarding the subject matter that are not going to be reconciled.

 

It will be interesting to see how this version works out for DC in their movie sales. If they profit I'm sure it will be the direction of the intellectual property, and if not it'll go a different direction. My hope would be that it results in a direction I would enjoy taking my kids to the theatre to watch, which isn't the case in it's current iteration.

I understand not choosing to take your kids. I wouldn't take young kids to a movie version of Miller's Batman regardless, but I think there is room for such movies.

 

I doubt it will change the direction of all the regular comics. There are markets, they will always keep marketing to young kids as well.

[Grailknight]

The core of Superman is that he is an Ideal and while he expresses that Ideal at times most of his characterization comes from how characters around him react to him. 

 

Bruce sees him as a Boy Scout that gives every one to much trust and criminals too much slack. Diana thinks he doesn't do enough to set the example and doesn't understand his need for a normal life as Clark. The rest of the JLA see him as an example of what a hero should strive for though they all have varying differences in approach. He's one of the last dots on the far right of the moral bell curve and is so far out there the rarity seems unattainable and thus inhuman at times.

 

Clark has been fairly consistent in his non Superman depiction. He's transitioned from a more timid persona(when every story had protecting his Secret ID as a plot point) to an assertive one(as the character has been fleshed out with focus on his private life). The " Zany Clark" you refer to only appears in the 70's movies and " Angst Clark" is part the last three movies. 

[Grailknight]

Batman doesn't kill. He hasn't since the days before the Comics Code. He's run the gamut from tying up, to beating unconscious, to crippling brutality but he Doesn't kill(Not even Frank Miller Batman). He knows that if he started he'd never stop.

[TheDarkness]

The core of Superman is that he is an Ideal and while he expresses that Ideal at times most of his characterization comes from how characters around him react to him. 

 

Bruce sees him as a Boy Scout that gives every one to much trust and criminals too much slack. Diana thinks he doesn't do enough to set the example and doesn't understand his need for a normal life as Clark. The rest of the JLA see him as an example of what a hero should strive for though they all have varying differences in approach. He's one of the last dots on the far right of the moral bell curve and is so far out there the rarity seems unattainable and thus inhuman at times.

 

Clark has been fairly consistent in his non Superman depiction. He's transitioned from a more timid persona(when every story had protecting his Secret ID as a plot point) to an assertive one(as the character has been fleshed out with focus on his private life). The " Zany Clark" you refer to only appears in the 70's movies and " Angst Clark" is part the last three movies. 

I think your first paragraph is spot on, and illustrates the difficulty of the character. An ideal is not a human, and so there is a conflict(not a character conflict) between making him one or the other, and the ideal always wins, usually at cost to making him human. The creators also referred to him being based off of wish fulfillment. This works well for children's comics, but adults, imo for moral reasons, should be wary of easy depictions of ideals being enforced for a character, which is why I really think there is room for different iterations of Superman. There is a reason Superman's characterizations since Miller have often included and element of 'shill for the man'.

 

I probably should have said "goofy and awkward" over zany.

 

Good post.

[TheDarkness]

Batman doesn't kill. He hasn't since the days before the Comics Code. He's run the gamut from tying up, to beating unconscious, to crippling brutality but he Doesn't kill(Not even Frank Miller Batman). He knows that if he started he'd never stop.

He hung a man, locked a man in a room and let him starve to death, attempted to kill Darkseid, apparently shot a Lord Death Man into space who would die, come back to life, and die again through eternity(?), not to mention early Batman killed people, in almost all the movies he kills someone, he killed Rhas. Batman has killed many people in the comics and movies.

 

Frank Miller Batman drove a tank through a gang while shooting them with rubber bullets. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Frank Miller Batman had no specific code, he just avoided it where possible.

[TheDarkness]

http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman.html

[TheDarkness]

And we should never let the comics code win.

 

Essentially, the comics code did not really change the behavior of Batman and Superman, only took away the consequences and painted the difference in false moral colors. The same things that killed or maimed in the earlier years continued.

 

One could argue that BvS Supes is actually less violent in intent than the original, and probably win the argument.

[TheDarkness]

http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=1406.0

 

Someone has apparently compiled a list of issues in which Batman kills.

[assault]

Incidentally, if you actually want to read Superman, try this page.

 

I should point out that it has existed for twenty years, apparently without getting a Cease and Desist notice. Presumably this means that DC is OK with it, and thus it's OK to link to from here.

[Hugh Neilson]

http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=1406.0

 

Someone has apparently compiled a list of issues in which Batman kills.

This shows Batman's roots as a pulp character - initially, he carried a gun and the Batplane was equipped with a machine gun. He used conventional gear, IOW. The fleshed out Batman has a serious aversion to firearms, at best.

 

Early on, he's a pulp character - there's a death in very early issue, then it becomes just a bit less frequent, then we see a gap from 1943 to 1969 (a WW II story). Then we get to the early '70s and the backlash from Campy Batman TV Show, where deaths happen because it's a violent world, although Bats does not go out of his way to kill.

 

A lot of those '70s deaths are assumed (he fell in the water - must have drowned; he was hit by a bullet - must be dead), the kind of "deaths" that plenty return from in the comics. The occasional supernatural foe shows up as well (is killing a Vampire murder?).

 

The occasional "out of character/bad writing and editing" over a history of 75+ years is inevitable, and there are some "other Batman" stories in there (all of All-Star Batman, IMO). I suspect Superman could be found to have a similar record of early brutality, followed by Comics Code sanitization, followed by the occasional accidental death and, on rare occasions, the "there was no other choice" story [Doomsday, for example].

[Nolgroth]

I'd go with:

 

Man of Steel (1986)

Superman for All Seasons (1998)

What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way (2001)

Secret Identity (2004 - technically am Elseworlds but really good)

Kingdom Come (1996)

 

All are really enjoyable. "What's so funny" is the story featuring the Elite that is essentially a response to the Authority comic series (and was in my opinion brilliant).

 

There are others, "What ever happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", "All Star Superman", etc. Lots of really interesting stories in the last thirty years or so. That isn't even getting into the Justice League or World's Finest or Batman/Superman. But I like all the ones I listed.

 

 

Well now I am going to have to start picking these up. Going to be slow though. I blew my disposable budget on other stuff. Got to build it back up.

[bigdamnhero]

One example of a good use of this in relation to Superman is in the Supergirl show, though I've only heard this second hand. Apparently, she is pressured by Superman to not go public with her identity, it would endanger people, and she points out that hiding that from those people is actually wrong.

Having actually watched the show, this is mostly incorrect. Kara arrives on Earth - as a child - to find Clark is grown up and protecting Earth. Clark thinks it's important that Kara have a normal Earth childhood like he did. He also knows that as a child, she's vulnerable and his enemies would use her against him.* So he encourages her to just be a normal child as much as possible. Once she grows up and decides to become Supergirl, Clark makes it clear he's proud of her and had hoped she would choose this, but that it had to be her choice and it had to be an informed adult choice. That's all explained in literally the first episode.

 

Frankly, much of your argument on this thread comes across just like this - you're arguing very passionately about things you haven't read/watched. Which hey, we're all geeks here, nothing wrong with arguing passionately. But at some point you need to entertain the possibility that people who've actually read Superman comics might know the character better than you do?

 

I do agree with your point that early on Marvel's heroes were more relatably human than DC heroes; that's been well discussed. But you're vastly oversimplifying everything that's happened since then.

 

 

* This part is implied but not stated outright in the show.

[Starlord]

For The Man Who Has Everything

[Nolgroth]

For The Man Who Has Everything

 

They adapted that story for Supergirl. One of my least favorite episodes of the season, though it sort of fit in with the plot.

[zslane]

It would be good, I think, to also read something that was written prior to the 1980s, to get a more thorough understanding of how the character has been portrayed. Restricting one's reading to only Crisis and post-Crisis material will certainly deliver the modern trajectory of the character, but not necessarily the core of him. There was over 40 years of material that was written prior to Crisis, and I think that has more to say about who Superman really is than all the post-modern experimentation that has struggled (and continues to struggle) to keep him popular/relevant.

 

I kind of disagree with the notion that iconic characters should be changed in fundamental ways to adapt them to the current zeitgeist. Rather, I think the creative challenge ought to be finding ways to maintain the character's core being, no matter how "old fashioned", despite the changing times. None of the attempts I've seen to turn Superman or Capt. America into douchebag anti-heroes have ever worked, no matter how much that characterization may resonate with a contemporary readership.

[Old Man]

I sort of agree, but the reality is that core characters are going to get tweaked however it takes to keep sales up. That said, I don't think BvS Superman is a successful attempt--in fact it's probably counterproductive.

[zslane]

I feel rather strongly that if they are going to "tweak" a character's core essence to a really substantial degree, then they should just make it a new character (with a new name). Yes, that means they wouldn't be able to exploit name recognition in order to facilitate their creatively hollow cash grab, but I believe integrity ought to be more important than short-term profit.

[massey]

I don't remember comic book Superman punching too many normal people through walls.

[massey]

As far as MoS goes, I didn't have too much of a problem with Supes killing Zod. He killed the 3 Kryptonian super-criminals post-Crisis. He had no choice.

 

The problem he faced in MoS is simple. What do you do with Zod? There's no super-prison to send him to. The phantom zone projector is gone. As soon as you let him out of the headlock, he's going to murder as many people as he can. He's just as strong as you, there's no guarantee you can get the advantage on him again.

 

The fight in the city, he's got very little choice there. The city-smasher thing is there, if you run off elsewhere the bad guys will just keep wrecking Metropolis. He got a little carried away during the fight, but that's more bad direction by Snyder than a decision on Superman's part.

 

The biggest problem I had with the movie was Pa Kent being a horrible role model.

 

I liked the film okay, but it's definitely an Elseworlds story.

[TheDarkness]

I think the distinction here is often intent. It doesn't matter if the bullet killed the man, Batman pulled the man into it.

 

I would totally say Batman avoids killing as much as possible. I would also say anyone who followed his comic saw him kill. That appears to have always been the case, so the Batman who never kills is more exposition than reality. And, coincidentally, something hoisted on ALL the major characters by censorship in the form of the Comics Code. Coincidentally, most super heroes and their cast of characters, friends, etc., were white, because of the attitudes of the day. This is not now viewed by most people as central to the characters, even though it was usually more consistently enforced than Batman's code against killing.

 

I really think there's room for both the Batman who absolutely doesn't kill and the Batman who does under circumstances where it is either unavoidable or where accident occurs. This is part of the reality of having lifelong comic book fans, we have adults who grew up with the comics, who perhaps won't as often be collecting the children's titles, but will focus on runs with strong storytelling. Especially with Batman, this is quite readily feasible, and almost all the more recent Batman movies have diverged from the comics as a natural part of this trend. Superman, that one's had less success, because the backlash of die hard fans and the tendency of the comic to default to the exposition of the character(example, Man of Steel, the comic, was awesome. Once it was done, it took almost no time for almost every little bit of it to have little influence, and Superman went right back up to Godly status).

 

It's really no coincidence that, starting with the Michael Keaton Batman, the most successful batman movies have all taken heavily from themes established by Miller and Moore, and occasionally Batman: Year One. Miller returned Batman to pulp(although visually he almost always was already there in the comics, if not always thematically). And both writers established themes that are now clearly canon. The fact that Miller's Batman, while not being canon, is now the go-to canon for Batman's characterization further illustrates the allure. It is not because he is more violent, but because it is hard to suspend disbelief for someone on a lifelong crusade against crime for having seen his parents shot to death in an alley as a boy to not, at some level, be bat guano crazy.

 

Ironically, Superman's crusade is less difficult to buy, it is in the perfection of his character's execution of morality that it feels more like a continuation of the Comics Code telling the reader what goodness is. The character can and has been done better, but originally within the narrow limits set by the code and the publishers, and later, by the preferences of those who prefer those limits and the nostalgia of those who, like most of us, read them in ignorance of what kind of political shenanigans went into interlopers deciding what we should read and how goodness should be defined.

 

On a related note, I always have been a big fan of Alfred Hitchcock presents. Especially the end. The stories were often a bit noir, and would often end with some questionable people on the loose. Hitchcock always ended by saying, "Of course, they were caught the next day, now back to our morally questionable advertisers who remain, as yet, undetained." To my knowledge, he never actually changed the end of any of those stories, but was known to find the demand for such in American TV annoying and small minded, and so never gave it more than lip service.

[Old Man]

I feel rather strongly that if they are going to "tweak" a character's core essence to a really substantial degree, then they should just make it a new character (with a new name). Yes, that means they wouldn't be able to exploit name recognition in order to facilitate their creatively hollow cash grab, but I believe integrity ought to be more important than short-term profit.

 

Again, I agree, but most comic/movie execs will jump at the short term profit every single time.

[TheDarkness]

It would be good, I think, to also read something that was written prior to the 1980s, to get a more thorough understanding of how the character has been portrayed. Restricting one's reading to only Crisis and post-Crisis material will certainly deliver the modern trajectory of the character, but not necessarily the core of him. There was over 40 years of material that was written prior to Crisis, and I think that has more to say about who Superman really is than all the post-modern experimentation that has struggled (and continues to struggle) to keep him popular/relevant.

 

I kind of disagree with the notion that iconic characters should be changed in fundamental ways to adapt them to the current zeitgeist. Rather, I think the creative challenge ought to be finding ways to maintain the character's core being, no matter how "old fashioned", despite the changing times. None of the attempts I've seen to turn Superman or Capt. America into douchebag anti-heroes have ever worked, no matter how much that characterization may resonate with a contemporary readership.

Man of Steel is not my favorite movie, but the characterization of Superman in that does not qualify as anti-hero. Killing someone does not qualify as anti-hero, though I understand the complaint.

 

In BvS, he is about the furthest thing from it. His entire story arc, as I recall it, is 1)Saving Lois Lane(and punching a guy through a wall, which is not a new feature of Superman stories, but yes, that is the most questionable act he has), 2) Being the only person worrying about Batman violating people's rights, 3) Struggling with the political ramifications of saving people who sometimes don't want him around, 4) Trying to meet with people to deal with that, only to have it be a trap to make him look worse, 5) saving a girl from a fire, pulling a ship out of ice sheets, saving people montage, 6) Being told to kill Batman or Martha dies, 7) Trying to convince Batman to work together, when Batman is about to kill him, settling for asking Batman to save Martha, 8) Sacrificing himself(in cheesy movie fashion) to save 'his world'.

 

BvS Supes is mind numbingly close to being a stock canon Superman.

[TheDarkness]

Having actually watched the show, this is mostly incorrect. Kara arrives on Earth - as a child - to find Clark is grown up and protecting Earth. Clark thinks it's important that Kara have a normal Earth childhood like he did. He also knows that as a child, she's vulnerable and his enemies would use her against him.* So he encourages her to just be a normal child as much as possible. Once she grows up and decides to become Supergirl, Clark makes it clear he's proud of her and had hoped she would choose this, but that it had to be her choice and it had to be an informed adult choice. That's all explained in literally the first episode.

 

Frankly, much of your argument on this thread comes across just like this - you're arguing very passionately about things you haven't read/watched. Which hey, we're all geeks here, nothing wrong with arguing passionately. But at some point you need to entertain the possibility that people who've actually read Superman comics might know the character better than you do?

 

I do agree with your point that early on Marvel's heroes were more relatably human than DC heroes; that's been well discussed. But you're vastly oversimplifying everything that's happened since then.

 

 

* This part is implied but not stated outright in the show

While the details I had were wrong, the actual point apparently was right, if he stated it to me correctly(and I clearly stated I hadn't seen the show). Superman wanted her to remain unknown to those around her, like him, which is actually morally wrong and dishonest. She makes the right decision. He does not. He ends up humanized more that exposition in this case. If that is not what happened, then that is one less humanizing characterization, having her make the more moral decision of letting people around her and close to her know there is danger in that closeness, and Kal El being, in one field, the lesser good.

 

This is a point where Batman also is more moral than Superman. He forces himself not to let anyone who isn't part of his war that close.

 

As for reading the comics, on the last page, one member shared a list of what they felt were important Superman comics to read. I had read all but one. AND made the point a few times that it becomes irrelevant to this argument(aside from the joy of reading a good Superman comic) because most of the best writing has no bearing on canon, or very little, in the case of Superman. Perez's Superman is gone, no matter how good it was. I am certain that there are probably good stories that I've missed. This does not mean that those stories are canon.

 

This very page, another member refers to how in the last decade, some stories post-deconstruction are different, but that those stories are less canon because they don't understand the core of the character. I'm sure there were some early fans who got annoyed once the Code meant Superman couldn't punch crooked landlords out of buildings. I'm sure they felt that those pushing the code didn't understand the character as well as they did. In a sense, they were right. But the character became a different character because of the code, became another character post-deconstruction, and will become other characters forever.

 

Heck, he routinely becomes a different character in single issues because of the actions of a good or a bad writer.

 

The complaints about collateral damage, about punching people through walls, are two ends of the same complaint, the complaint about post-deconstruction. Superheroes have always been sending people through buildings, it's been over thirty years since the subject of collateral damage was first brought up, and even in FF, when it was brought up, it wasn't avoided, it wasn't made sanitary. And the only reason that people who, as kids, enjoyed the violence sans repercussions, can now complain about Superman doing something superheroes with the exact same code did all along, is because post-deconstruction, this became important. Because, from a certain point on, comics began employing actual writers with actual experience in the field, and this brought more literary techniques into the field, and they worked with the elements that would produce good stories.

 

No one, no one is writing or asking for a pre-eighties X-men story, or Superman story, or Batman story. Not even the comics fans. Every one of the successful and popular movies, even with comic fans, is an homage to the period beginning in the seventies, largely utilizing plotlines and stories made in the eighties and into the nineties. The problem is, during that time every one of the other titles saw far more change in their canon than Superman. Almost all superheroes during the code HAD TO BE moral paragons who never made the wrong choice in their crime fighting and never killed. The bad guys had to lose. Consequently, Dragnet and shows like that had to work under similar censorship of their writers. Everyone else found a way to shake this and tell more nuanced moral tales that became canon, but Superman, in many ways, never could.

 

For Superman, the changes don't stick. And the human touches are generally not actually appreciated by the fans. He cannot brood over things, he cannot have moral failings. How is he human again? I haven't really heard a specific example of his failings.

 

This is a critique of the stories, not the character. The character frankly has too much exposition that does not play out clearly, and generally is deferred to as reality while avoiding the pitfalls where the exposition might meet the characterization.

 

Christopher Reeve had a talent for having a bit of a subtle cheeky undertone that made it work, but that was not Superman's writers' contributions, it was Reeve's. Most of the complaints about other Superman movies, with the single exception of Zod's neck break, are things that one can find a hundred examples of in Superman comics.

 

Always chooses the right choice(in context to the writing, as chosen by the writers)+All American+One True Love+effectively infinite plot armor+effectively infinite plot armor for other established characters+explosions and fights=Superman=every Michael Bay hero

 

The above is the default equation for Superman, and, like a Michael Bay hero, it is the reason that people tire of him, not that they don't understand the character, but that they've seen him a thousand times. Good writers do interesting things with him in between him defaulting back to the above.

 

I find it a truer homage to a beloved character to eschew the work of hacks and laud the stories that make him or her live. There is no Batman or Superman, except when and where he is done well. I can only imagine how angry fans would be over a film version of Moore's Superman annual, which was, for a Superman story, dense with characterization.

 

Whether they do it well or not, movie makers have to put a lot of money into a special effects heavy film, so they will tend to pursue stories from the comics that have better writing. For Superman, if you aren't doing a reduced power Superman, Perez's story makes no sense to choose. Miller, however, does, and they went with it. Frankly, they made Superman far more Superman than Miller did, and eschewed 'political tool of the government Superman'. They're not going to wholesale make new stories for the films, neither Marvel nor DC are doing this. And they're going to choose the most influential ones. Superman as a comic book character is hugely famous, but famous and popular are two different things. He has been far less a box office draw than Batman. Fans can claim this is because other people don't understand the character to no effect, the fact is, the strongest writing during the era that is being mined from in all these movies didn't often occur in the pages of a Superman comic, and when it did(Perez, or Moore), it was in a form even the fans wouldn't appreciate.(Neither Perez nor Moore's Superman was exactly short on brooding).

 

What fans don't seem to get is that people cannot write a character who is an ideal. Ayn Rand is a good example of all the pitfalls of this: you inevitably shape the plot to justify this character as all good, and so, with very little examination, it becomes clear that this character only appears good given the circumstances, and, lacking them, would appear entirely different.

 

Fans who want an ideal over a character are perfectly free to stick to the children's version of a character, and will likely see an action version. One could say they understand what Superman is supposed to be, but they cannot, unless they themselves claim to be ideal people, ever claim to understand what the character is, because ideals are not characters in the first place.

 

There is a stark difference between writing a very good PERSON and writing a character that is supposed to be an ideal. The former has moral content, the latter is exposition and plot armor for that exposition, posing as a character. I enjoy Superman stories where he is the former. The latter, well, let's just say I consider the attempt to make an ideal a character almost always devolves into morally questionable grounds.

[zslane]

Man of Steel is not my favorite movie, but the characterization of Superman in that does not qualify as anti-hero.

I wasn't strictly speaking of his characterization in MoS, but the various temperments he (or some variant of him) has shown in recent years in the comics. The thing is, this tendency to keep messing with the Superman recipe in the comics leads to a distinct lack of consistent vision for him in the movies as well.

[TheDarkness]

I wasn't strictly speaking of his characterization in MoS, but the various temperments he (or some variant of him) has shown in recent years in the comics. The thing is, this tendency to keep messing with the Superman recipe in the comics leads to a distinct lack of consistent vision for him in the movies as well.

I getcha. I just tend to think that if there's a character that it is important to examine and advance in a freer way, it's Superman. Thematically, he's quite interesting. I think consistent vision, in this case, would be too early for a character that, for a myriad of reasons, entered into the eighties in the mid nineties.

 

Any character standing in for our ideals sometimes should definitely be reexamined.