Batman v Superman

[daglob]

Some news you might be interested in Benton.  Word is they are planning on introducing Aquaman for his own movie--by having him go to war against the rest of the world.  Apparently they are under the impression the superhero try to kill each other every time they meet or something.

I think they have him confused with another water breathing prince of the realm.

Actually, what I think is that they believe that this is what we want; miserable, super so-called heroes that feel killing is the best solution.

[daglob]

Well of course, what could be more heroic than flat out murder?  Heroes certainly never try to find non-lethal solutions.  Even suggesting such a thing is down-right un-American.

You know, when I get some time in the next week or two, I'm going to write a blog post listing some of the many, many, MANY reasons that the DC Universe just shouldn't be a grim and gritty place, on the whole.  I think I'll start the list off with Gorilla City, because a city of technically advanced science-apes just doesn't lend itself to joyless violence and naval-gazing.

What about Paradise Island? I bet what they give us is an island of constant fighting and war.

[BentonGrey]

DG, I imagine you're entirely right on both counts. 

Yeah, given that their Amazon ambassador is almost certainly going to be a killing machine in her first movie. 

[Outcast]

Sorry. Just happened to watch this video clip and just found it funny that's all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZdcBjwrkl4

[bearded]

I want to say, thanks to you guys, I liked it. I viewed it as a fan film, with an odd perspective, and was able to really enjoy it. It's simply an elseworld. Everyone knows the real superman is Reeves.

[daglob]

Chris or George?

[BentonGrey]

Outcast, that is delightful!  Thanks for sharing it.  Ohh, if only!

[spydermann93]

 

That was great!

[bearded]

Chris or George?

Exactly!
Actually, as a young child I had some confusion about George being Chris' super father, or something like that.

[BentonGrey]

Ditto.

[Shogunn2517]

Did he seriously say he was a comic book guy?

[daglob]

Yes, but what's an "S" between friends...

I remember when "Superman: The Movie" came out, the similarity of the two names was pointed out.

[BentonGrey]

Yes, but what's an "S" between friends...

I remember when "Superman: The Movie" came out, the similarity of the two names was pointed out.

I remember because the only Superman skin I ever made was based on George Reeves.

That's more than a little awesome.

[daglob]

Yes, but what's an "S" between friends...

I remember when "Superman: The Movie" came out, the similarity of the two names was pointed out.

I remember because the only Superman skin I ever made was based on George Reeves.

I remember because I used to watch George Reeves Superman at 5:00 every afternoon. This was around 1957-58.

[bearded]

Yes, but what's an "S" between friends...

I remember when "Superman: The Movie" came out, the similarity of the two names was pointed out.

I remember because the only Superman skin I ever made was based on George Reeves.

where are your skins? I'd love to see your Reeves.

[Tomato]

Much as I'm sure we rather wouldn't, back on topic...

So I finally saw the film, at least the chunks I wanted to see. The way I saw it I was able to skim through it, which is good because I get to maintain my record of never walking out of a theater during a film. Because believe me, I likely would have

[BentonGrey]

Why would you want to return to such a painful topic? 

Yeah, 'Mato, I imagine that is probably good.  I've only walked out of one movie, though I came EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY close with Man of Steel.  I probably would have, if we weren't already at the end.  As is, I can't imagine I'd have made it through this one.

Maybe fans should start demanding their money back? 

[Tomato]

Because that's what we're technically talking about.

Speaking of funny videos involving BvS and George Reeves... I guess Ben Affleck actually played George Reeves in a documentary, so someone on youtube compiled a "Affleck Superman vs. Affleck Batman" video based on one of the trailers. Wish I had a link, but I'm at work and can't look it up.

As for the film... let's be honest Benton, you and I were NEVER going to like this movie, though admittedly for different reasons. This movie is a love letter for Batman/Superman fight from The Dark Knight Returns... and I have been pretty outspoken in how much I HATE that book and everything surrounding it. I HATE the depiction of Superman as nothing but a tool of the government, I HATE Frank Miller's Batman in all his "Gosh Darn" idiocy, I HATE the relationship between the two in that book and Frank Miller's nonsensical assertion that they could NEVER get along (because god forbid two people with different political views find things in common) and I HATE the depiction of Wonder Woman (which is admittedly more from DK2 and from All Star Batman, since she doesn't appear in TDKR) and the Superman/WW ship that I feel originated from those stories. There is very little I dislike MORE than TDKR, and the fact that this movie clearly LOVES that story was always going to turn me off to it in a big way.

[baley]

That's unfair to the characterization in that book. IMHO probably the greatest story ever told in comics because it has a great deal more subtlety than you're letting on. (Better than Sandman, Watchmen, Maus ... I'm serious.) I mean, there's no accounting for taste, but there is accounting for what the story actually does, or tries to do.

BvS, on the other hand, is a love letter to that story, and a love letter that doesn't get that story other than how some of the events propel the characters from point A to point B. The comment I heard is to guess that, apparently, Zack Snyder reads comic books by staring intently at the pictures.

[Tomato]

I never said it wasn't subtle nor that it wasn't a good elseworlds Batman story. What I said was that it has many problematic elements that I do not like seeing adapted to the mainstream DC Universe, and that I *personally* did not enjoy the book as much as other people did. I am not a fan of Frank's art, his writing, or of Frank Miller in general, and I have been outspoken in that dislike many times on these boards. Thus, my point about *me* being biased against this movie from the start.

Beyond that, let's just leave the whole conversation where it is, ok?

[BentonGrey]

While I think Baley is mistaken about that book being the best ever, I don't think he's wrong in it being better than 'Mato gives it credit for.  It is, really, a good book, especially taken in context of its time.  It's amazing when you're 16, a perfect encapsulation of a growing understanding of the world that is still quite simplistic and angsty, but it doesn't hold up as well for later, more sober readings.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  Not every story is perfect for every stage of life.  I definitely understand why 'Mato has issues with it. 

Still, it has a lot of good qualities, but here's where 'Mato is correct: the Batman/Superman relationship is a sour note.  Admittedly, there's much more to their dynamic in Miller's story than in Snyder's, in part because they actually HAVE a relationship, along with years and years of history.  Yet, Superman's characterization is one of the failures of that story, though there are some great, iconic moments in their interactions.  In the end, Superman is no-one's hired thug, not even the President of the United States.  I vastly prefer the implied tale from New Frontier, in which Batman and Superman staged a fight for the same purpose, so that no one would try to pressure Superman into going after him.  It's a really wonderful moment, and it illustrates how well Cooke gets those characters, especially in comparison to Miller or, much worse, Snyder.

Baley, I think that's exactly right.  Snyder's love letter to DKR is more akin to the disturbing, rambling manifesto in magazine-letter-collage of a deranged fan than a sincere paramour.  He takes Miller's Batman, who though extreme and problematic in his own ways, is still trying to do the right thing and who, in the midst of everything, in the midst of his fascist overtones, STILL holds on to the no-kill code!  That whole glorious speech about guns being the weapons of cowards is apparently lost on Snyder, because 'guns are cool, guys!' 

http://comicsalliance.com/files/2013/01/guns01.jpg

Bruce's tortured grappling with the fate of the Joker, knowing that he has every reason to kill him, and yet knowing that this is a line he cannot cross, completely gone, replaced by a murderous sociopath willing to snuff out human lives as if they are nothing more significant than flies.  This is the man, the hero, who in every decent incarnation holds life so precious, so valuable, that he risks his own every night.  That is a failure of comprehension that makes my dullest student seem like Sherlock Freaking Holmes. 

[bearded]

In the narrative as presented, I disagree with you, Benton.

Spoiler

Most of the killing by Batman was done in a dream sequence. Later, he sort of uses other people's guns. I'm trying to see it as symbolism, but what I'm really doing is attempting to get lost in the iconography of the creator. I take Batman losing his faith as tragic, and part of the story, it is mentioned. Also, I think some of the Batman no killing stance has been watered down in most of the movies by his usage of Batmobile missiles, lasers, and wasn't there a batarang launcher? There should have been regret scenes, however.
What struck me even more than the drive by's was the fact that Superman killed Zod. Again. To me this was a breaker. It's like Snyder is snubbing the fans even more. Cause really, Batman desperately using more and more lethal force is more believable than Superman ever.

[BentonGrey]

Bearded:

Spoiler

I see your point, and I absolutely agree with you about MoS.  Yet, a Batman who loses faith is no longer Batman.  I agree that he is more likely to take more extreme measures than Superman, but his dedication to the sacredness of life is just as central to who he is as it is to Superman.  I remember, there's a moment in Batman Beyond that really nailed this, for all of that show's flaws.  The aged Dark Knight takes on a gang of criminals, but his heart begins to give out, and he is only able to protect himself by picking up a gun, an incredibly symbolic gesture tied intimately to the willingness to take a life.  He isn't willing to do that, though.  He manages to scare the thug, and that moment, that choice he faced, is enough.  He retires, because he is unwilling to face such a choice again.  If you're going to tell that story, you have to do a heck of a job, and that story has to be the focus of your efforts because it requires exceptional development since it takes the character entirely away from who he is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTmfnK6XDiA
(this and the next video)

You say most of his killing is in a dream sequence, okay, but I've heard that he's using lethal force in the car chase, and he flat out murders the fellow at the end, another one of Snyder's bogus 'no other way' scenarios that misses the entire point of the superhero, since they ALWAYS find another way.

[detourne_me]

Spoiler

Batman straight up murders people by using their car as a wrecking ball to murder even more people.  ugh. They were just dudes working for a logistics company transporting some minerals.

[bearded]

I'm pretty sure my adult moral compass owes a lot to george reeves and adam west.

Spoiler

I actually found a youtube video by googling reeves vs west that is pretty good.
http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-adam-west-george-reeves-lynda-carter/

[Shogunn2517]

You know Benton, I want to agree with you, and I do, but I look at other reasons for why Batman is who he is.

Spoiler

I point to the Nolan Duology, specifically Batman Begins, as the best reasoning for why Batman doesn't kill.  Thomas Wayne spent his life healing and making people whole and to kill someone, he would not only be repeating the same cycle that took his parent's life, but he'd be going against everything that his father was.  It's the perfect explanation why Batman would NEVER kill someone.  It counter-acts every reason why there IS a Batman to begin with.  That said, I honestly didn't put much stock into the dream sequences because they weren't reality.  However, the other kills he did, I actually took it like when Keaton Batman's killed.  Unfortunately, Batman killing was maybe like reason #389 of why this movie failed.

In regard to the Batman vs Superman, as it relates to TDKR, I agree with Frank Miller's reasoning, but to be perfectly honest, this movie doesn't really follow his logic at all.  Miller says philosophically Superman and Batman wouldn't see eye to eye, which would cause them to go about being heroes in separate ways.  Like why a Daredevil and Punisher wouldn't get along.  But ultimately, they have the same goal and to achieve that goal for 70 years now, they do get along.  But this movie actually had Superman trying to kill Batman to save his mother.  That's not Superman.  And Batman... I'm still not entirely sure why Batman wanted to kill Superman. 

In fact, strike everything I said earlier.  Batman was trying to kill Superman. For some un-Godly reason.  That's the entire crux of the movie and there's no reason for it.  At least Miller put a reason behind their fight.  The reason for this movie is baffling.

[HarryTrotter]

Since we are sharing-Kevin Conroy is THE Batman IMHO. 

[BentonGrey]

Spoiler

In fact, strike everything I said earlier.  Batman was trying to kill Superman. For some un-Godly reason.  That's the entire crux of the movie and there's no reason for it.  At least Miller put a reason behind their fight.  The reason for this movie is baffling.

I think that about sums it up, Shogunn.

Spade, that's not opinion, that's fact. 

[daglob]

The reason for the fight has been discussed, and the whole thing boils down to "'Cuz Snyder wanted them to." I've seen it remarked that the whole purpose of these first movies is to show us flawed, failed human beings (that includes Superman), who slowly become something more. The problem, is, instead of creating his own characters and giving us a story which we can see develop and grow, he uses two (or three) character that have long histories and decides to totally re-write it.

There is quite a bit of this going on in the comics, however, so we can't really blame Snyder for just going with the flow. Now, turning out a turkey like this seems to be, we can blame him for that.

We'll just chalk it up to being an Elseworlds story, taking place in the same universe as Universe of Evil or maybe Fant4stic.

Still makes me think that Snyder is one of the secondary antagonists from a Steve Ditko story. Where is the Silver Age Vic Sage when we need him?

[HarryTrotter]

Off-topic,but I have to ask.Wasn't Steve Ditkos theory that there is only good and evil,black and white and nothing in between?Isn't that kinda un-Randian?

Also,that kinda reminds me:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2011/10/20/meta-messages-the-question-thinks-rorschach-sucks/