Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > Upcoming Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1201  
Old 04-14-2013, 10:17 PM
Its funny how the "You Are Not Alone" viral video turned out to be the 3rd trailer for 'Man Of Steel'. This trailer was shown during the MTV MOVIE AWARDS. It funny, I thought I heard Zod announce himself as "Zod Jor-El". Did I hear this correctly? Are they trying to make Zod part of the family?
Reply With Quote
  #1202  
Old 04-16-2013, 07:27 PM
New MOS trailer

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/m...l-trailer-new/

Looks pretty incredible.
Reply With Quote
  #1203  
Old 04-16-2013, 08:01 PM
That Zimmer score gives me chills.

Looks great.
Reply With Quote
  #1204  
Old 04-16-2013, 08:27 PM
The first bit on Krypton was beautiful, and the score sounds like Zimmer hit it out of the park.
Reply With Quote
  #1205  
Old 04-16-2013, 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMazVolta View Post
New MOS trailer

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/m...l-trailer-new/

Looks pretty incredible.
In the interrogation room, was that a Superman high frequency fart???

Seriously though, this was an incredible trailer. Leading with legends like Crowe and Costner class it up and get everyone's attention. Good call! The action at the end looks incredible. This really looks like one amazing summer on deck.
Reply With Quote
  #1206  
Old 04-16-2013, 09:26 PM
Ahh good old Lexcorp makes an appearance.Looking forward to this big time.
Reply With Quote
  #1207  
Old 04-16-2013, 09:30 PM
Sounds like Zimmer's score will be amazing.
Reply With Quote
  #1208  
Old 04-16-2013, 10:39 PM
Reply With Quote
  #1209  
Old 04-17-2013, 12:40 AM
If God had an alarm to wake up in the morning he'd wake up to a Hans Zimmer score.

Last edited by creekin111; 04-17-2013 at 12:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1210  
Old 04-17-2013, 12:44 AM
Both this and Star Trek look absolutely incredible!!!
Reply With Quote
  #1211  
Old 04-17-2013, 02:01 AM

Well damn this looks pretty good. I had my doubts at first because Snyder is so hit or miss but from all the footage I've seen so far, I'd say it looks pretty epic.

Would of liked to see more of Zod but I know they are saving a lot of his screen time for the release.

Can't wait for this.
Reply With Quote
  #1212  
Old 04-17-2013, 06:30 AM
looks good. but still cant believe they arent including kryptonite.
Reply With Quote
  #1213  
Old 04-17-2013, 07:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PR0J3KT M View Post
looks good. but still cant believe they arent including kryptonite.
that is a bit odd but oh well lets hope they have it in the sequel.
Reply With Quote
  #1214  
Old 04-17-2013, 07:30 AM
Wow...incredible...amazing ...super!

Michael Shannon is going to be an amazing Zod.
Reply With Quote
  #1215  
Old 04-17-2013, 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PR0J3KT M View Post
looks good. but still cant believe they arent including kryptonite.
Because Krypton doesn't blow up in the movie. Clark is sent to earth because of war on the planet (like in the JJ Abrams script).

Kryptonite is remnants of Krypton that passed through cosmic radiation. Since Krypton didn't explode, there can not be Kryptonite.
Reply With Quote
  #1216  
Old 04-17-2013, 10:37 AM
Fuck Kryptonite , it works when a weaker enemy wants to hurt Superman . In this movie we have General Zod and Faora and they have almost equal strength to Supes...leave that kryptonite shit when Lex Luthor comes along. It's actually boring to include it.
Reply With Quote
  #1217  
Old 04-17-2013, 01:12 PM
I've never liked the appeal of kryptonite. It's one of those weakness for the heroes the villains always happen to come across. I really like the idea of an emotional weakness to Clark.
Reply With Quote
  #1218  
Old 04-17-2013, 02:22 PM
So glad they're going with General Zod here. They're really trying to hit a home run with this one.
Reply With Quote
  #1219  
Old 04-17-2013, 06:05 PM
piece of comic book history that might interest only me:

It is very, very fitting that a movie titled Man of Steel has no kryptonite. Why? Because the man who popularized that name for Superman was John Byrne. In 1986, post COIE, the DCU was rebooted, and Byrne was charged by DC with rebooting Superman. Byrne made his name at Marvel Comics, working on the classic x-men. Some of his work will make it to a theatre near you, namely, Days of Future Past, which represents the Tail end of the classic Claremont/Byrnes x-men.

John Byrnes titled his reboot "Man of Steel", and he had some very clear ideas about what Superman "should be". As you probably know, the silver age (1961 - 1985) was a more wacky time in comics, the Joker had a Jokermobile, Batman had a Bat-Sled, and so on. Marvel tended to publish more mature material, between the two companies, but there was plenty of hijinks at the house of ideas too. It was the spirit of the time. The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen changed that, and set the tone for the next fifteen years or so.

For Superman, in particular, Byrnes had some pretty dramatic changes in store. Byrnes hated the idea of Kryptonite, just hated it. The silver age was also the balliwick of kryptonite from all over the color spectrum, there was silver k, gold k, red k, blue k (which gives Bizarro Superman 12th level intellect), purple k, black k, and so on, in addition to the run of the mill green k. Byrnes got rid of all the colors, and depowered Superman (he, like a lot of people on this forum, found the silver age Superman, who had the ability to move planets, to be a trifle much) and made Superman the sold survivor of his world (convenient because Supergirl was killed in crisis anyway, this did screw up Power Girl's origins for the next two decades, but she was eye candy in those days, so no one really paid much mind).

Another of his changes was the redesign the "Superman rocket". One thing about Superman's origins being retold is that it gets a retelling every generation or so (Byrnes' reboot was canon until 2003 when Birthright came out) and one of the defining touches of each generation is the design of the Superman rocket. No two retellings have the exact same rocketship (The film Man of Steel has, for example, a decidely original rocket design) just like no two generations have the exact same take on Lex Luthor or Superman. Each generation interprets these things in its own way. Its one of the reasons why Superman has endured, and why the end seems to be nowhere in sight: his story is flexible, each generation can, and does, make the story its own.
Reply With Quote
  #1220  
Old 04-17-2013, 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw View Post
Because Krypton doesn't blow up in the movie. Clark is sent to earth because of war on the planet (like in the JJ Abrams script).

Kryptonite is remnants of Krypton that passed through cosmic radiation. Since Krypton didn't explode, there can not be Kryptonite.
i knew about the remnants of krypton, but didnt know it didnt blow up like in the comics. hmm.
Reply With Quote
  #1221  
Old 04-17-2013, 09:57 PM
Another change from other Superman stories is that it appears as though we may not see Clark Kent as a journalist for the Daily Planet. From the trailer, it appears as though Lois Lane is investigating tales of a hero from all around the country and that eventually leads her to Superman.

There will obviously still be a Clark Kent, but I don't think he'll be in disguise with the glasses working at the Daily Planet.
Reply With Quote
  #1222  
Old 04-17-2013, 10:23 PM
Yeah, the trailer certainly hints that the world knows Clark Kent is Superman.
Reply With Quote
  #1223  
Old 04-18-2013, 06:55 AM


He is not going to wear glasses...maybe they'll just use his dorky personality as his disguise. I was also thinking thet he'll probably never come into contact with Lois Lane as Clark Kent , only as Superman.
Reply With Quote
  #1224  
Old 04-18-2013, 08:31 AM
I just have to say that this image looks like a panel from the comics:


Amazing iconic imagery in this trailer.

I don't want to jump to conclusions on how accurate this film will be with the Superman mythos, but I don't see Snyder changing things too drastically. He even said that he lobbied for Superman to have the red trunks, but lost. He is a bit of a purist.
Reply With Quote
  #1225  
Old 04-18-2013, 10:34 AM
Today, April 18th, is the 75th birthday of Superman. On this day, in 1938, two Jewish kids from Cleveland got Action Comics #1 published, and the age of heroes began.



Happy Birthday!
Reply With Quote
  #1226  
Old 04-18-2013, 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
piece of comic book history that might interest only me:

It is very, very fitting that a movie titled Man of Steel has no kryptonite. Why? Because the man who popularized that name for Superman was John Byrne. In 1986, post COIE, the DCU was rebooted, and Byrne was charged by DC with rebooting Superman. Byrne made his name at Marvel Comics, working on the classic x-men. Some of his work will make it to a theatre near you, namely, Days of Future Past, which represents the Tail end of the classic Claremont/Byrnes x-men.

John Byrnes titled his reboot "Man of Steel", and he had some very clear ideas about what Superman "should be". As you probably know, the silver age (1961 - 1985) was a more wacky time in comics, the Joker had a Jokermobile, Batman had a Bat-Sled, and so on. Marvel tended to publish more mature material, between the two companies, but there was plenty of hijinks at the house of ideas too. It was the spirit of the time. The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen changed that, and set the tone for the next fifteen years or so.

For Superman, in particular, Byrnes had some pretty dramatic changes in store. Byrnes hated the idea of Kryptonite, just hated it. The silver age was also the balliwick of kryptonite from all over the color spectrum, there was silver k, gold k, red k, blue k (which gives Bizarro Superman 12th level intellect), purple k, black k, and so on, in addition to the run of the mill green k. Byrnes got rid of all the colors, and depowered Superman (he, like a lot of people on this forum, found the silver age Superman, who had the ability to move planets, to be a trifle much) and made Superman the sold survivor of his world (convenient because Supergirl was killed in crisis anyway, this did screw up Power Girl's origins for the next two decades, but she was eye candy in those days, so no one really paid much mind).

Another of his changes was the redesign the "Superman rocket". One thing about Superman's origins being retold is that it gets a retelling every generation or so (Byrnes' reboot was canon until 2003 when Birthright came out) and one of the defining touches of each generation is the design of the Superman rocket. No two retellings have the exact same rocketship (The film Man of Steel has, for example, a decidely original rocket design) just like no two generations have the exact same take on Lex Luthor or Superman. Each generation interprets these things in its own way. Its one of the reasons why Superman has endured, and why the end seems to be nowhere in sight: his story is flexible, each generation can, and does, make the story its own.
"John Byrnes titled his reboot 'Man of Steel', and he had some very clear ideas about what Superman should be."

It's funny you mention this because one reason I loved that trailer is because it gave off a Byrne Superman vibe to me. I adored his reboot and still think it's the best the character has ever been written. The shot in the trailer of him truly struggling with the rig shows me that maybe Superman's power is toned down the way Byrne envisioned it. There'll be no lifting Kryponite islands or turning back time by spinning the globe in this film! Massive power levels yes but not silly over-the-top and Supes will be in real danger. That's a key that Byrne drove home back in the day. He gave the character more depth and then added more emotion, flaws and vulnerability. It looks like the film has followed suit!
Reply With Quote
  #1227  
Old 04-18-2013, 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChar4321 View Post
"John Byrnes titled his reboot 'Man of Steel', and he had some very clear ideas about what Superman should be."

It's funny you mention this because one reason I loved that trailer is because it gave off a Byrne Superman vibe to me. I adored his reboot and still think it's the best the character has ever been written. The shot in the trailer of him truly struggling with the rig shows me that maybe Superman's power is toned down the way Byrne envisioned it. There'll be no lifting Kryponite islands or turning back time by spinning the globe in this film! Massive power levels yes but not silly over-the-top and Supes will be in real danger. That's a key that Byrne drove home back in the day. He gave the character more depth and then added more emotion, flaws and vulnerability. It looks like the film has followed suit!
As someone who has never read a Superman comic in his life but always felt Superman to be boring because he's overpowered, this is the kind of thing that gets me hopeful for the movie.

Also soda, that was a really interesting write-up so thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #1228  
Old 04-18-2013, 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
piece of comic book history that might interest only me:

It is very, very fitting that a movie titled Man of Steel has no kryptonite. Why? Because the man who popularized that name for Superman was John Byrne. In 1986, post COIE, the DCU was rebooted, and Byrne was charged by DC with rebooting Superman. Byrne made his name at Marvel Comics, working on the classic x-men. Some of his work will make it to a theatre near you, namely, Days of Future Past, which represents the Tail end of the classic Claremont/Byrnes x-men.

John Byrnes titled his reboot "Man of Steel", and he had some very clear ideas about what Superman "should be". As you probably know, the silver age (1961 - 1985) was a more wacky time in comics, the Joker had a Jokermobile, Batman had a Bat-Sled, and so on. Marvel tended to publish more mature material, between the two companies, but there was plenty of hijinks at the house of ideas too. It was the spirit of the time. The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen changed that, and set the tone for the next fifteen years or so.

For Superman, in particular, Byrnes had some pretty dramatic changes in store. Byrnes hated the idea of Kryptonite, just hated it. The silver age was also the balliwick of kryptonite from all over the color spectrum, there was silver k, gold k, red k, blue k (which gives Bizarro Superman 12th level intellect), purple k, black k, and so on, in addition to the run of the mill green k. Byrnes got rid of all the colors, and depowered Superman (he, like a lot of people on this forum, found the silver age Superman, who had the ability to move planets, to be a trifle much) and made Superman the sold survivor of his world (convenient because Supergirl was killed in crisis anyway, this did screw up Power Girl's origins for the next two decades, but she was eye candy in those days, so no one really paid much mind).

Another of his changes was the redesign the "Superman rocket". One thing about Superman's origins being retold is that it gets a retelling every generation or so (Byrnes' reboot was canon until 2003 when Birthright came out) and one of the defining touches of each generation is the design of the Superman rocket. No two retellings have the exact same rocketship (The film Man of Steel has, for example, a decidely original rocket design) just like no two generations have the exact same take on Lex Luthor or Superman. Each generation interprets these things in its own way. Its one of the reasons why Superman has endured, and why the end seems to be nowhere in sight: his story is flexible, each generation can, and does, make the story its own.
Who is this Byrnes guy and what books of his should I read?

I would love to write for Superman, as I have some pretty strong feelings on a few things. (Really, I'd love to write comics in general.) And this matches pretty closely with what Ive said for a long time.
Reply With Quote
  #1229  
Old 04-18-2013, 12:43 PM
What's funny is that the Superman: TAS from the 90's depowered Superman. Bruce Timm thought that was the best way to handle the character. But Fans were pissed off over this, and bashed the show because of it. Even several people behind DC wrote him strongly worded letters condemning his depowering of Superman. So over the course of the series Superman slowly became insanely powerful again.

Ten+ years later, fans now demand the exact opposite. They want a depowered Superman. Go figure. Fans can be very fickle.

At one point fans killed JJ Abrams Superman film. They rallied together, and got a petition with over 100,000 signatures against the film. A few weeks later WB canceled production of the film. Now, those same fans would kill for Abrams to write a Superman movie.

Oddly enough, it looks like traces of Abrams script made it into The Man of Steel (the Krytonian War & Zod). Lets just hope Lex Luther isn't Kryptonian, that Superman's powers doesn't come from his suit, that Superman doesn't learn kung-fu by reading martial arts books super fast, and it doesn't end with a cliff hanger of Superman going back to Krypton to try and save his biological parents & stop the war.
Reply With Quote
  #1230  
Old 04-18-2013, 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
What's funny is that the Superman: TAS from the 90's depowered Superman. Bruce Timm thought that was the best way to handle the character. But Fans were pissed off over this, and bashed the show because of it. Even several people behind DC wrote him strongly worded letters condemning his depowering of Superman. So over the course of the series Superman slowly became insanely powerful again.

Ten+ years later, fans now demand the exact opposite. They want a depowered Superman. Go figure. Fans can be very fickle.

At one point fans killed JJ Abrams Superman film. They rallied together, and got a petition with over 100,000 signatures against the film. A few weeks later WB canceled production of the film. Now, those same fans would kill for Abrams to write a Superman movie.

Oddly enough, it looks like traces of Abrams script made it into The Man of Steel (the Krytonian War & Zod). Lets just hope Lex Luther isn't Kryptonian, that Superman's powers doesn't come from his suit, that Superman doesn't learn kung-fu by reading martial arts books super fast, and it doesn't end with a cliff hanger of Superman going back to Krypton to try and save his biological parents & stop the war.
The first two at least have been confirmed. Though *something* does happen to Lex.
Reply With Quote
  #1231  
Old 04-18-2013, 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuatroDiablos View Post
Fuck Kryptonite , it works when a weaker enemy wants to hurt Superman . In this movie we have General Zod and Faora and they have almost equal strength to Supes...leave that kryptonite shit when Lex Luthor comes along. It's actually boring to include it.
thats actually a very good point.
Reply With Quote
  #1232  
Old 04-18-2013, 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Who is this Byrnes guy and what books of his should I read?

I would love to write for Superman, as I have some pretty strong feelings on a few things. (Really, I'd love to write comics in general.) And this matches pretty closely with what Ive said for a long time.
You and me, both man. Superman probably isn't my favorite superhero (that's probably Batman) but he might be the one I'd be most interested in writing myself, because the possibilities are endless.

As for comics, John Byrnes is famous for two things: his x-men run, with Chris Claremont, and Man of Steel. Back in the 1970s, Marvel Comics was a ship run largely by four men: John Byrnes and Chris Claremont doing x-men (all the classic stories are from this pair, including Days of Future Past, and The Phoenix and Dark Phoenix saga, Claremont/Byrnes made the x-men) and Stan Lee and Jack Kirby doing everything else.

His work on Superman is the 1986 reboot. Crisis on Infinite Earth, the twelve issue event book that, for all intents and purposes, destroyed the silver age DC multiverse and collapsed reality into one earth, with a single continuity, had just finished. The old multi-verse was gone (hence, crisis on infinite earths, and, in a strange twist of fate, comic book physics was about forty years ahead of actual physics, as many theoritical physicts today are thinking that the nature of our actual reality is a multi-verse. On the strangeness scale, truth really is > fiction) and was replaced with a single, unified earth. Man of Steel re-introduced Superman into this new reality, this new status quo (that would be the status quo for nearly twenty years).

If you want to read it, I think its available as a trade. Its a limited series (I think it was six issues) and the title was Man of Steel, by John Byrnes. Your local LCS can almost certainly help you find a copy, as its still a pretty common run. I'm sure DC collected it as a trade at some point, but I've never seen a copy of that.
Reply With Quote
  #1233  
Old 04-18-2013, 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
As for comics, John Byrnes is famous for two things: his x-men run, with Chris Claremont, and Man of Steel. Back in the 1970s, Marvel Comics was a ship run largely by four men: John Byrnes and Chris Claremont doing x-men (all the classic stories are from this pair, including Days of Future Past, and The Phoenix and Dark Phoenix saga, Claremont/Byrnes made the x-men) and Stan Lee and Jack Kirby doing everything else.
Kirby was long gone by the Byrne era. Also, Byrne's Fantastic Four run is still the best FF run of all-time by far. It's also feels strange that Supes is 75 because I remember this Time Magazine Issue:



Anyway, anyone that cares anything for Superman should read this...

Reply With Quote
  #1234  
Old 04-18-2013, 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChar4321 View Post
Kirby was long gone by the Byrne era. Also, Byrne's Fantastic Four run is still the best FF run of all-time by far.
Thanks for the fix, Joe, much appreciated. I have to be careful when discussing the silver age, because I'm not old enough to have actually lived through it, so most of what I'm saying is stuff I've heard from people who have, and the facts, as they say, tend to vary. I do know that Kirby and Byrnes worked at Marvel, at the same time, briefly (sometime in the late 70s), but I also know that Kirby was early silver age, and Byrnes was late. Different parts of the same era, but those are the most well known names of marvel's silver age.

BTW, I also tend to be much more knowlidgable about DC's silver age work (hence I know that Kirby worked for DC in the 1970s, not Marvel, and created Darkseid and the new gods while he was there, which was one of the crowing achievements in a career full of them) mostly because one of my good friends is the single most authoritative source on everything DC silver age. Some of it rubbed off, although, not as much as I would like.

I haven't read any of Byrnes Fantastic Four run, any good place to start that you know of? Sometimes, it stinks to hear people say "this or that was the greatest of all time" and to not know whether or not you would think it is too. Thanks.

Last edited by soda; 04-18-2013 at 09:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1235  
Old 04-18-2013, 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
Thanks for the fix, Joe, much appreciated. I have to be careful when discussing the silver age, because I'm not old enough to have actually lived through it, so most of what I'm saying is stuff I've heard from people who have, and the facts, as they say, tend to vary. I do know that Kirby and Byrnes worked at Marvel, at the same time, briefly (sometime in the late 70s), but I also know that Kirby was early silver age, and Byrnes was late. Different parts of the same era, but those are the most well known names of marvel's silver age.

BTW, I also tend to be much more knowlidgable about DC's silver age work (hence I know that Kirby worked for DC in the 1970s, not Marvel, and created Darkseid and the new gods while he was there, which was one of the crowing achievements in a career full of them) mostly because one of my good friends is the single most authoritative source on everything DC silver age. Some of it rubbed off, although, not as much as I would like.

I haven't read any of Byrnes Fantastic Four run, any good place to start that you know of? Sometimes, it stinks to hear people say "this or that was the greatest of all time" and to not know whether or not you would think it is too. Thanks.
There's just something about other heroes that makes them so adaptable to current times that Superman simply doesnt have. A suit change has NEVER stuck. I mean, even minor ones to Batman have stuck, like the colors of his suit or the belt or the bat-symbol, even moreso, his entire character has changed, really with Frank Miller's work as the starting point.

But Superman - nd really all of DC - just doesnt have that. Nothing about him has ever changed, not just in appearance but in ideals. Do I think he should be "darker" I dont know not really. But we should at least try to re-think him for modern times.

He needs a new standard suit, man. One that doesnt include the color yellow or the "S". Oh, it stands for "hope". That's ... convenient.

Or undies on the outside. And dont just gimme a red belt and call it even.

I mean what's wrong with a new symbol? Some wonky Kyrptonian symbol? Or NO symbol? Why not just a suit that doesnt draw attention to yourself? Iron Man doesnt have a symbol. He IS the symbol. Thor doesn't. Hawkeye. Hulk. Black Widow. Nothing on their costumes has a "symbol." Just sayin'

But every goddamn DC hero just has to have something. Green Lantern's ring. Wonder Woman's boob-WW's. Flash's bolt. Like WTF.

DC is livin' in the past, man. They need to catch up. (Batman has one, obviously, but I'd say he doesnt even need one. He's a bat-man. He IS the symbol, like Iron Man. Even without the bat on his chest (and belt, etc) people would still say GIANT BAT)

I dont know. I just can never see Superman in the real world.

Last edited by adamjohnson; 04-18-2013 at 09:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1236  
Old 04-18-2013, 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
I haven't read any of Byrnes Fantastic Four run, any good place to start that you know of? Sometimes, it stinks to hear people say "this or that was the greatest of all time" and to not know whether or not you would think it is too. Thanks.
His early work on FF is superb. Not so much after he added She-Hulk in place of The Thing but it's not bad either.

FANTASTIC FOUR VISIONARIES: JOHN BYRNE volumes 1 through 4



I also thought this pic is funny...

When Lois couldn't get answers
Reply With Quote
  #1237  
Old 04-18-2013, 10:51 PM
Its interesting that you bring up Frank Miller, AJ, because a lot of the stuff that you posted actually has its roots in Miller. One of the reasons why The Dark Knight Returns is such a landmark work is that Miller had a very, very poor opinion of Superman. In TDKR, Superman is a government lacky, who made a deal with the government so that he could remain a hero, so that he could help people. Miller points out something very interesting in his story: Superman is an aid to obvious corruption and evil (in the form of the caricatured President Reagan) and turns, more or less, a blind eye to it in the name of saving people.

The Dark Knight Returns implicitly (implicitly because its never actually stated, but its clearly there) asks what generations of fans always asked: if Superman can't stop widespread, systemic evil that harms millions, but he can save a few dozen who would have died on a sinking ship, what good did he really do, in the long run? Superman's single greatest weakness, more the green k, more than anything else, is that he's a hero of the people, but more than that, he geniunely wants to be liked by the people, and not just some of the people, all of the people. Superman doesn't have a keen sense of the idea that every good politician must have: it doesn't matter what you say or what you do, some of the people are always going to hate you no matter what, and that's not worth worrying about, you can't change that.

Superman doesn't accept that. He sees himself as a unifier of humanity, a man who brings humanity along its path in the big scheme of things. However, what he doesn't do is get involved in "big issues". in the 1940s, Superman fought in WW2, he punched Hitler in the face (they all did in those days). There hasn't been anything like that from big blue since. Superman doesn't think that politics, and solving big problems is the balliwick of the superhero. His portrayal by Miller as Reagan's lap dog is down right insulting, and is meant to prove a point: Bruce was right when he laughed in their faces and hung up the cape.

To me, the last panel of the dark knight returns is one of the most poignant and one of the most potential filled last panels in comics. Its actually uplifting, in a weird sort of way. Its what Batman should actually be, and at the end, Clark even understands that, and respects that. I've actually mentioned this last panel many times, but here it is:



What's poingnant to me about it is that Bruce finally "gets it". He sees that being shut up in his mansion, and getting himself drunk is no way to solve the word's scary problems. The way to solve them is to do something. The one thing I always found incongruous about Batman was the whole loner thing. Yeah, I know the death of the parents gave Bruce trust issues, but a man that smart would eventually realize the obvious truth: no one man, not even Superman, can do it alone. People are going to hate you for it along the way, that's okay. And yes, you can organize and force change without being the tyrant you're trying to defeat.

To me, that was always the central conflict of Batman, his lack of trust and unwillingness to put his faith in others, with his intelligence which had to tell him he needed more than himself, more than one symbol. In the last panel of Dark Knight Returns, Bruce finally overcomes his lifelong trust issues and does what should have always been done: he starts to build his army.

The thing about Superman, in miller's work, is that he doesn't recognize this as an issue. Superman's job is to rescue kittens in trees and to fight Supervillians and to thwart attempts by Darksied to conquer the earth and by Brainiac to destroy it. His powers don't include the ability to fight the real world problems that people face every day, even though he is uniquely positioned to do so. That's part of what makes Superman somewhat unrelatable to some: he doesn't face real world problems, the world he lives in doesn't really exist anywhere. What Superman's greatest weakness is is on full display in the Dark Knight Returns: he's wishy-washy, he could straighten out the Russian and American nuclear problem all by himself, if he wanted, including telling President Reagan a thing or two about diplomacy, but he doesn't, Reagan knows it, and takes full advantage.

So, yes, others have felt as you do. Frank Miller said that his first act in office was to end the Superman-Batman friendship from the Silver Age, as he was sure of one thing: these two people would not like each other. Clark sees Bruce as a man who doesn't get it, who will turn public opinion against himself and the other heroes and doesn't see the bigger picture, that saving people is more important than their personal pride. Bruce Sees Clark as someone who doesn't get it, as someone who is willing to sacrifice the larger battle for a smaller, short term goal, and who is possessed of a naivete that can easily be taken advantage of, and manipulated, by the powerful. At the very end of Dark Knight Returns, Clark signifies, by his wink to Carrie Kelley, that he's willing to let Bruce go, keep the secret that he's still alive and let Bruce operate his own way. Its a big step, because the boy scout, for once, won't do what authority tells him to.

These are amongst the many reasons why the Dark Knight Returns is widely considered one of the three to five best graphic novels ever published. I disagree with Miller's view of Superman, but I can't say it isn't interesting. Miller sees Clark's weaknesses through a fun house mirror, and distorts them wildly, while glossing over and minimizing what his strengths actually are. Its obvious that with Miller, it actually is personal. I find that to be a bit disingenous, but I cannot say that Miller is entirely incorrect. I just tend to take a different view is all, and it takes all types to make the world.
Reply With Quote
  #1238  
Old 04-18-2013, 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
Its interesting that you bring up Frank Miller, AJ, because a lot of the stuff that you posted actually has its roots in Miller. One of the reasons why The Dark Knight Returns is such a landmark work is that Miller had a very, very poor opinion of Superman. In TDKR, Superman is a government lacky, who made a deal with the government so that he could remain a hero, so that he could help people. Miller points out something very interesting in his story: Superman is an aid to obvious corruption and evil (in the form of the caricatured President Reagan) and turns, more or less, a blind eye to it in the name of saving people.

The Dark Knight Returns implicitly (implicitly because its never actually stated, but its clearly there) asks what generations of fans always asked: if Superman can't stop widespread, systemic evil that harms millions, but he can save a few dozen who would have died on a sinking ship, what good did he really do, in the long run? Superman's single greatest weakness, more the green k, more than anything else, is that he's a hero of the people, but more than that, he geniunely wants to be liked by the people, and not just some of the people, all of the people. Superman doesn't have a keen sense of the idea that every good politician must have: it doesn't matter what you say or what you do, some of the people are always going to hate you no matter what, and that's not worth worrying about, you can't change that.

Superman doesn't accept that. He sees himself as a unifier of humanity, a man who brings humanity along its path in the big scheme of things. However, what he doesn't do is get involved in "big issues". in the 1940s, Superman fought in WW2, he punched Hitler in the face (they all did in those days). There hasn't been anything like that from big blue since. Superman doesn't think that politics, and solving big problems is the balliwick of the superhero. His portrayal by Miller as Reagan's lap dog is down right insulting, and is meant to prove a point: Bruce was right when he laughed in their faces and hung up the cape.

To me, the last panel of the dark knight returns is one of the most poignant and one of the most potential filled last panels in comics. Its actually uplifting, in a weird sort of way. Its what Batman should actually be, and at the end, Clark even understands that, and respects that. I've actually mentioned this last panel many times, but here it is:



What's poingnant to me about it is that Bruce finally "gets it". He sees that being shut up in his mansion, and getting himself drunk is no way to solve the word's scary problems. The way to solve them is to do something. The one thing I always found incongruous about Batman was the whole loner thing. Yeah, I know the death of the parents gave Bruce trust issues, but a man that smart would eventually realize the obvious truth: no one man, not even Superman, can do it alone. People are going to hate you for it along the way, that's okay. And yes, you can organize and force change without being the tyrant you're trying to defeat.

To me, that was always the central conflict of Batman, his lack of trust and unwillingness to put his faith in others, with his intelligence which had to tell him he needed more than himself, more than one symbol. In the last panel of Dark Knight Returns, Bruce finally overcomes his lifelong trust issues and does what should have always been done: he starts to build his army.

The thing about Superman, in miller's work, is that he doesn't recognize this as an issue. Superman's job is to rescue kittens in trees and to fight Supervillians and to thwart attempts by Darksied to conquer the earth and by Brainiac to destroy it. His powers don't include the ability to fight the real world problems that people face every day, even though he is uniquely positioned to do so. That's part of what makes Superman somewhat unrelatable to some: he doesn't face real world problems, the world he lives in doesn't really exist anywhere. What Superman's greatest weakness is is on full display in the Dark Knight Returns: he's wishy-washy, he could straighten out the Russian and American nuclear problem all by himself, if he wanted, including telling President Reagan a thing or two about diplomacy, but he doesn't, Reagan knows it, and takes full advantage.

So, yes, others have felt as you do. Frank Miller said that his first act in office was to end the Superman-Batman friendship from the Silver Age, as he was sure of one thing: these two people would not like each other. Clark sees Bruce as a man who doesn't get it, who will turn public opinion against himself and the other heroes and doesn't see the bigger picture, that saving people is more important than their personal pride. Bruce Sees Clark as someone who doesn't get it, as someone who is willing to sacrifice the larger battle for a smaller, short term goal, and who is possessed of a naivete that can easily be taken advantage of, and manipulated, by the powerful. At the very end of Dark Knight Returns, Clark signifies, by his wink to Carrie Kelley, that he's willing to let Bruce go, keep the secret that he's still alive and let Bruce operate his own way. Its a big step, because the boy scout, for once, won't do what authority tells him to.

These are amongst the many reasons why the Dark Knight Returns is widely considered one of the three to five best graphic novels ever published. I disagree with Miller's view of Superman, but I can't say it isn't interesting. Miller sees Clark's weaknesses through a fun house mirror, and distorts them wildly, while glossing over and minimizing what his strengths actually are. Its obvious that with Miller, it actually is personal. I find that to be a bit disingenous, but I cannot say that Miller is entirely incorrect. I just tend to take a different view is all, and it takes all types to make the world.
Awesome write-up. I've often wondered if Frank and I are father and son. I've written ALOT of stuff that is ALOT like his stuff, before I ever even heard of him.
Reply With Quote
  #1239  
Old 04-19-2013, 10:30 AM
What's incredible about Superman is how his iconography is totally acceptable in the mainstream regardless of the modern day fashion current. Adamjohnson pointed out the issue of Superman being visually antiquated, but it seems that once these heroes lock into the mainstream they don't tend to change because there's only so much more streamlining to do. River analogy. The Burton Batman approach hasn't really been updated much in over two decades. Each new helm shows up a redesigned texture and material and slightly adjusted color scheme, but it's no more radical than Man of Steel's redesign for Superman's outfit. The Hulk, obviously, hasn't been updated in ever. Spider Man hasn't been drastically updated, as far as I can tell, even going so far back as the old television show and cartoons. Whether or not a superhero sees a radical visual retooling probably has more to do with how popular that superhero is at the time when the retooling is being considered. Nobody needs a transformation unless the current version left a bad taste that can't be cleaned out with some fluffy new serving.

Speaking as someone who only interacts with these superheroes through the mainstream - television or big budget movies, it seems like the greatest benefit for superheroes is the saturation of the iconography associated with them. It's a rare thing that's above and beyond storytelling. It's one of the few cases where a character is actually embedded in the cultural consciousness. The only other characters that offer a similar dynamic with audiences are biopics dealing with universal heroes and fairy tails dealing with universal myths, but there are distinctions even among those. It's amazing to me that somebody who looks like Superman is acceptable to begin with. That's a huge novelty. We will never see the likes of Superman, Spiderman and Batman in an original property because that kitsch would not even occur to people in this day and age; that comic books have been constantly sophisticating window dressing from the 40s is part of why these superheroes are unlike any other characters in popular media. I can't fathom a series of unfortunate events that would lead Nolan and co to invent somebody called Batman who dresses like a bat - to then sophisticate that into the trilogy they did.

The writers of these adaptions don't need to transform the origin oddities because then they lose the iconography. They only have to smooth these wrinkles into being palatable. That's the whole wonder of these comic adaptations. Super hero comic books are still probably wrestling the process of adapting hijinks from half a century ago into the modern world for modern audiences, whether that comes into play with the latest Batman issue or a new property altogether that's trying to adhere to prominent superhero foundations. It's really interesting stuff, and I think filmmakers should go only as far as they have to go in distancing their property from that foundation. I don't want a sci fi drama about an invincible alien wandering among us, trying to figure out how to lead us on a better path, weighing our attention spans, morality and ambitions, unable to martyr himself because we haven't the power to hurt him. I want Superman, and part of my mainstream recognition associates Superman's outfit with him because an aspect of my mainstream relationship with Superman is superficial. But it's an important superficiality. For recognition's sake.

If audiences already accept the way Spider Man dresses, there's little incentive. People accept Superman the same way they accept Batman. It's less important to focus on the fact of the suit than it is the miraculous dynamic between a story so out of fashion that its hero dresses up in a costume. Audiences who are able to accept that because it has penetrated that deeply into culture without the culture having to give it a second thought beyond some cursory lines explaining the thinking behind the Bat, the Spidey Outfit, the S on Superman, and that's an amazing opportunity for storytellers. You could not get this chance in an original property. It absolutely gives storytellers a unique opportunity, and I would hope nobody has ever considered leveling the playing field and transforming the opportunity of iconography into a blank slate where Batman steps that much closer into a cop drama with an eccentric lead, and Superman becomes an out and out science fiction drama with only the name attached.

You might have had people like me talking up a storm in anticipation for Batman Begins, or maybe even after the fact. There are people who complain about that movie's level of distance from bygone Batmans. But I liked it. I like watching the process of adapting between mediums and across centuries. But I still want to see similarities so that I can track the breadth of the adaption. Batman still needs the outfit, the name, and Bruce Wayne to be Batman, and it's important to be Batman. If only because it's continuing this incredibly random phenomenon that resulted in the mainstream accepting a guy named Batman to begin with.

Last edited by Shinigami; 04-19-2013 at 10:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1240  
Old 04-22-2013, 07:03 AM
New MOS Photos







Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump