Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice

[Leo656]

No, it will be better. Easily. If that script is legit it will easily be the best super-hero film ever made. No question. As long as they didn't somehow leave the lens cap on, or some other disaster on the actual filming side. The story is Golden.

I like the Marvel films, but I'm burned out on super-hero movies that constantly wink at the audience, where the characters sit around having the same "geek" conversations that nerds in comic stores do. Sure, it's "Fun", but I can't take this "We're saving the world!" sh*t seriously when everyone's stopping to crack jokes every two minutes DURING the climactic battle scene.

I know it's "Just Comic Books". And sometimes it's fine. DC/WB shouldn't do those "silly" kinds of super-hero movies right now. For one thing, they're not good at it. For another, there's room for super-hero movies that are actually About Something. Every Marvel movie has almost the exact same story and execution. They make the same movie every time like AC/DC makes the same record every time. Don't get me wrong, I like that movie and that record, but I want More. There's a lot of room to tell much Bigger Stories.

It's a little mind-boggling to me how anyone can claim they're a fan of super-heroes, but not be excited by the fact that That Story Up There might be what we're getting. I mean, if it's real... come on, that's the best script any super-hero movie ever had. IF it's legit, and even if it's Not, then Some Nerd With Too Much Free Time wrote the best super-hero script ever and WB needs to hire the guy immediately. It literally doesn't get any better than that. Unless you're REALLY into "Comic book movies are goofy kids stuff full of jokes and zingers," in which case, I can't help you.

EDIT: Still possibly just rumors... but every other "Major Spoiler" that turned out to be fake was debunked almost immediately. DC/WB are apparently trying to ignore this one completely, and saying Nothing. That's interesting.

[Turo602]

Something I find interesting about the leak regarding the length of Batman's career is that it says

Spoiler:

he's been at it for 15 years whereas the reports coming from Entertainment Weekly say 20 years.

I don't know what to make of that but just thought I'd point that out.

[Leo656]

I've also heard the number 10 tossed around. I'm betting in the movie it's "a while", but purposefully vague. You never want to go sticking definitive ages on people or stick too hard to the passage of time in a fictional universe. It's bad enough they specifically said Clark became Superman at 33 in MoS; his "Year One" is always either "vague" or early/mid-20s in the books, and the "present day" always has him be "About 30" but also explaining that he's been Superman for at least 5 years by then. That was one Jesus Metaphor too many, and I'm fine with that stuff normally, but it was pointless, here. It puts his Rookie Year way too late in the game. But it's easy enough to ignore.

Those are little things, though. And EW doesn't really care how accurate they are. People buy it for the pictures.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Leo656

That was one Jesus Metaphor too many... But it's easy enough to ignore.

Any Jesus/Superman metaphor (beyond his origin story) is one too many.
It's a huge turn off to us secular folks. It doesn't need to be there, at all.

I know I'm belabouring that point, but it was a real piss-off.

[plastroncafe]

Man of Steel: No one has daddy issues like Jesus...er...we mean Superman. Yes. Totally Superman. In conclusion: Superman.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Man of Steel: No one has daddy issues like Jesus...er...we mean Superman. Yes. Totally Superman. In conclusion: Superman.

Except maybe Madonna?

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Except maybe Madonna?

Her daddy issues are inversely proportional to Superman's.
The older she gets the less they exist, where as older Superman gets, the more writers like to pile his on.

And in Man of Steel, Kal had not one...but two self-important douchecanoe dads.

[Leo656]

I'm hardly a person of faith, but people think Singer or Snyder invented the whole "Superman Is American Jesus" thing? Or that actually shining a light on it somehow betrays the source? Seriously? And they're getting annoyed with it NOW? It's always been there and it's always been various degrees of explicit.

I mean, it was more literally a Moses allegory at first, but by the time he morphed into the Savior From Above version of the character everyone knows... yeah... American Jesus. I mean yeah, the movies push it a little harder than the TV shows or cartoons do, but come ON, even in the Reeve movies (especially the Donner Cut of II) there's some seriously intense Biblical allegory that was in no way by accident.

If it takes someone framing Routh or Cavill in a literal Crucifix Pose for people to finally see stuff that's been VERY present in the source material for about 50+ years... I don't know. Laying it on thick? Perhaps. But That's The Character. He literally came from Above to Save Us. His Father sent him to us, "from the Heavens", to Save Us. He died and rose from the dead to Save Us Some More!

And there's a reason for this: Not everyone believes in Jesus. But Everyone can believe in Superman. He's actually MORE of a symbol for people who DON'T believe in Christian symbols or religious symbols of any kind. At least, that's the idea behind it. Two Jewish guys created a secular symbol of Hope and Faith for people who don't buy into religion but still want to believe in the basic concepts of Goodness and Decency.

....There's a PROBLEM with that? I seriously don't think so. THAT, I think is people looking specifically for things to be Mad At.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I mean yeah, the movies push it a little harder than the TV shows or cartoons do, but come ON, even in the Reeve movies (especially the Donner Cut of II) there's some seriously intense Biblical allegory that was in no way by accident.

Where? Point it out? There's one line, as I've said, after he saves the kid at Niagra falls. Saying he's Jewish. A throw away line, and off hand joke.

There are no overt Christian themes in the Donner films.

Originally Posted by Leo656

If it takes someone framing Routh or Cavill in a literal Crucifix Pose for people to finally see stuff that's been VERY present in the source material for about 50+ years... I don't know. Laying it on thick?

You know as well as I, Superman wasn't conceived as a Moses allegory in the very beginning. That was added later.

Superman's identity and characterization has always been a moving target. Like so many modern myths, they adapt with the times, mirroring the values of the people telling it. Maybe that's my real beef with Snyders version, I don't know.

The heavy handed Jesus allegory is relatively recent, but again, Superman goes with the flow, I guess. It's the only way anyone can explain the mullet.

Singer's thesis could be read as, "a world without Jesus" sure, but It may also be an meditation on faith in a post 911 society, and if there is still a place for it. The question was have we become too cynical? It's a tough idea, and maybe a little self sabotaging in the end.

Snyder's Storey was on the other hand, straight Christian myth, no chaser. It hammered us with a black and white world, (literally and figuratively). Two messages; First - Zod=Science and Science is bad. Krypton was destroyed by Science. Evolution is evil!
Secondly, the world revolves around you. Supercavil had to learn to shut everyone out, and make the world small. He was taught to exclude everything, and only focus on his own needs, by his Mother. He was told to let the kids on the bus drown, even though he could easily save them, by his Father. Contrast this to Reeve's Parents, and the contrast is as stark as Snyders 300.

Then the rest of the movie happens, where he completes his arc, and becomes the bad-ass city-wrecking murderer fanboys have been screaming for.

This is an Old Testament/Christian Warrior/fundamentalist Superman. Vengeful, egocentric, moody.

These are not the traits of a good person. They're hardly even the traits of a Man, least of all a super one.

Snyders Superman is a mental midget. He can't problem solve, or even think for himself. He's full of incredible power, but can't reason out his dilemmas.

Snyder is shaming the thinking man, and arguing might is right. WTF? When did society turn this corner?

And that's what I find so repulsive. He's not the do onto others Jesus, he's the love me and do what I say or I'll whoop your ass Jesus.

[sdp]

I don't understand the people who say the Nolan universe was "too realistic" for other superheroes to exist in it. It's far from realistic and you can totally have other superheroes in that "universe". Heck Arrow was inspired by the Nolan trilogy and was arguably even more realistic and yet and they introduced superheroes in that universe.

[Bry]

Batman armour on display at Comic-Con:



A bunch more images are here: http://heroichollywood.com/home-1/20...potted-at-sdcc

Okay. I really didn't like Man of Steel, and I'm really sick of the overwhelming Dark Knight Returns influence on basically everything Batman-related these days... but I've gotta admit, that looks pretty damn cool. It's a bit more "basic" in design than I would have expected, which is refreshing these days, and bonus points for it being an actual, physical costume.

[Leo656]

Siegel and Shuster both said more than once that Moses being sent down the river in a basket was the exact parallel they were making when they decided the specifics of Kal-El's origin. They created the guy, I defer to them. I'm not going to skim every single book, article and interview I have on the subject of Superman, his creators, and what their influences were. Rest assured, it was every bit intentional on their part.

The rest of it, you're not exactly off base but you're looking at it from about one step left of the center.

- For starters, as we've gone over before, this is Superman who doesn't have it all figured out yet. You don't particularly like or want to see that version. That's fine. But other than the films, which always glossed over it, those "early years" Superman stories where he ISN'T perfect, where he DOES have to learn as he goes, and DOES have to make mistakes, have been consistently among the most popular Superman stories. I was among the first to rail against how over-the-top the destruction and violence and city-wrecking was in MoS. But then I considered, this guy just found out most of his powers, like, ten minutes ago, he's had a lifetime of practicing restraint, and now he's getting gang-punched by a bunch of bad guys with All of his Power and None of his restraint, and I calmed down about that. Were I he, in that situation, I don't know how much of that I could've avoided, either. Now, you don't love the idea of Year One Superman, and I get that. Meanwhile, that's no longer relevant going forward, as in BvS he's been Superman for a few years and by all accounts has grown as a character.

- Nobody can forgive or explain how badly Jon Kent was written in MoS and I won't even try. All I can say is, "Birthright" sold a ton so they most likely felt obligated to borrow at least something from it, in this case, the awful portrayal of Jon Kent (Thanks, Mark Waid... NEVER write Superman again, ok?). Ignoring that, though, the broader theme of, "should I keep my powers a secret or reveal them to the world?" has been long accepted as one of the early struggles of Clark. And they're not wrong to go there. Because again, if this DID really happen, if suddenly the world knew there was a guy who could fly and shoot lasers out his eyes, we would be terrified. So they're Right to explore that. I have no problem with a Superman who's self-aware.

Spoiler:

And by the end of BvS, he's left that all behind and been embraced by the whole world which no longer hates OR fears him. So again, it's all just part of the backstory, which means it's pretty silly to stay mad about it NOW. It was all part of the Journey and finding his place in the world, and getting them to trust him.

I've always had a huge problem how in most versions of the story, he just shows up with his cape, pulls a cat out of a tree, and the whole world bends over to kiss his ass. That wouldn't happen.

- As for the more "angry", imperfect version of Clark, again, what you're missing or ignoring is, they are doing a very literal, broad-strokes translation of his evolution in the comic books. In his literal earliest days, from 1938-1940, Superman WAS "an eye for an eye", "punch first ask questions later", cocky, arrogant, a show-off, not too concerned about all the damage he caused in his wake... that thing at the end where he trashes the satellite and laughs about it? That is SO much a thing he does, like, allll the time... it was just VERY poorly wedged into the movie (seriously, I do like the movie but the pacing and editing were WAY off) so it was really quite jarring. Regardless, even whenever they revamp him in the comics, though, they make it a POINT to show that Year One Superman is always kind of a dick, until he gets a little more mature and figures out his real place in the Big Picture. He ALWAYS goes through his "wrapping trucks around phone poles because he's annoyed" phase, and then gradually grows out of it. EXCEPT in the Reeve films, which again, are Entirely Their Own Thing. And they are a Good Thing. But they are NOT the Definitive Superman by a long shot.
Other, more subtle touches from the film(s) which illustrate how Snyder is trying to make Superman's movie evolution parallel his comic book version:
- The 1940 version of the S-Shield.
- The police, military and gov't don't trust him, viewing him as a loose cannon or a public menace.
- Superman originally could not fly, he could leap about 1/8th of a mile at first, then as far as necessary to suit the story, until finally he flew to match the Fleischer cartoons. The scene in MoS where he's learning to fly was a very blatant and deliberate reference to this. Not quite as on-the-nose as Superman pressing a green car in Returns, but same basic idea.

Spoiler:

- This one, I think is kind of silly, but it's apparently on purpose, so I'll note it. A lot of people pointed out how Cavill didn't have the spit-curl in MoS, and Snyder and Co. countered with how he didn't have it in the early comics, either. Meanwhile, more than a few people have pointed out that he doesn't have it in BvS, either... UNTIL the fight scene with Batman, where he suddenly has a smaller than usual but Very Much On Purpose S-shaped lock of hair. Real-Life Reason? Because it was around the time Superman and Batman started appearing together on the cover of World's Finest in the '40s that Superman finally had the S-curl permanently. You can't make this stuff up. But it's actually a thing and there's actually a reason they're doing it.

My point being, they're using the movies to be a direct parallel to the comics, in a much broader sense. He is STARTING as the Superman from 1938, and BECOMING the Superman we know now. me? I think that's neat.

- It's MISUSE of science and technology that the movies are railing against. Clunky dialog aside, I think you're reading too much into that one thing. It's NOT literally "all science is bad" or "all technology is bad", or "thinking and reason is Bad". I can definitely see how you can get that from it but I'm positive that was Not their intention. It's the misuse or perversion of technology that was demonized. Which is also the Why behind Krypton exploding, like, 75% of the time when they tell the origin story. Sometimes it's civil war. This time it was squandering their natural resources and ruining their own environment. But it's almost always, "Oops, we done f*cked up," and it's always part of the reason why Kal-El is here, to prevent the same folly on Earth that happened on Krypton.

Spoiler:

And that idea, that the PERVERSION of science and technology is Bad, is more fully explored in BvS, through Luthor's manipulation of the gov't, his experiments with Kryptonian weapons and tech, and harvesting the DNA from Zod's corpse to create the abomination known as Doomsday. Literally, the ghosts of Superman's past coming back to haunt him, and it's up to him to see that Earth doesn't see the same fate as Krypton. Again... that's swell.

- Again, I don't have the time to reference all the Biblical allegories in the Donner films. But dude, you're wrong on this one. It's in there, and it was done on purpose, and I genuinely think you're letting your distaste for Christianity or religion color your view of it. It has nothing to do with that line about being Jewish. It has everything to do with the fact that a Father sent his Only Son from the Heavens to lead by example and Save Us from ourselves. Someone who has the powers of a God but lives as a meek and humble mortal man. And don't even get me started on all the "Son becomes the Father and the Father the Son" stuff. Again, don't get me wrong, it's *mostly* Just A Super-Hero movie, but in countless interviews I've read with the people who made the movies, every bit of Biblical allegory was entirely on purpose. They just didn't feel the need to beat anyone over the head with it as Singer and Snyder did. It was done broadly on purpose, as was the style of the time. But to say it's not in there at all is plainly false.

I'm not sure why it's worth getting so hung up on, anyway. I'm not a fan of religion, but we're talking about symbols. And as far as what they represent, Superman and Jesus may as WELL be the same guy. What's the prob? It's about the Message, not about taking things Too Literally.

Either way, it definitely seems, to me - and correct me if I'm wrong - that more than anything, your view of Superman is colored by the Reeve movies. And you're not alone in that. But as much as they got right, they ain't perfect, either, and other than Reeve's face, costume, and flying pose, they're in no way "definitive".

It's a rather unique phenomenon, that's frustrating to me, because it ONLY happens with Superman. With other comics characters, it's ALWAYS, "They screwed up by deviating from the comic books. If only they stayed true to the source, the movie would be great." Meanwhile, the newer Superman films ARE being very literally adapted from the comic books - which nobody f*cking reads because he's not Batman - and everyone complains that they're not taking more from a movie series that went out of its way to disregard the source material on everything but the costume? That's... something. This is the ONLY time I've ever seen a movie series be told they're "getting it all wrong" by FOLLOWING the comics instead of ignoring 'em. I don't get that, like, at all. I'm personally overjoyed they're doing the books. But whatever, I'll gladly be the only one on the island. Only further reinforces my long-held opinion that most people don't really "get" the character, or that they cherry-pick the little bit they like from one or two movies and disregard the rest. I'unno.

The fact that it ONLY happens with my favorite character, though, is insanely frustrating.

[Leo656]

Meanwhile:
Bry: Yeah, I just caught that myself. I like it. I'm fine with it being inspired by DKR because it's only a VISUAL inspiration. The movie is NOT anything like DKR.

Spoiler:

In fact, if sources are to believed, in this one it's BATMAN who's the "villain" of the two of them, in his paranoid over-reaction to Superman's very existence. Meanwhile, early in the film Superman makes enemies inside the U.S. gov't by stating plain and in public that he will NOT be their puppet. COMPLETELY contradictory to DKR, where he was literally a pawn of the President.

They're using visuals people remember and react to in an effort to maximize attention. Pretty smart move.

If they were literally adapting DKR I'd be pissed. I do not like that story. And as a Superman fan I REALLY do not like that story. I am not a fan of "Batman automatically wins because he's Batman", generally.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Meanwhile:
Bry: Yeah, I just caught that myself. I like it. I'm fine with it being inspired by DKR because it's only a VISUAL inspiration. The movie is NOT anything like DKR.

Spoiler:

In fact, if sources are to believed, in this one it's BATMAN who's the "villain" of the two of them, in his paranoid over-reaction to Superman's very existence. Meanwhile, early in the film Superman makes enemies inside the U.S. gov't by stating plain and in public that he will NOT be their puppet. COMPLETELY contradictory to DKR, where he was literally a pawn of the President.

They're using visuals people remember and react to in an effort to maximize attention. Pretty smart move.

If they were literally adapting DKR I'd be pissed. I do not like that story. And as a Superman fan I REALLY do not like that story. I am not a fan of "Batman automatically wins because he's Batman", generally.

You're right that the Superman I want is Reeve, no question.
But Reeve's Sup had all sorts of issues as well. I suppose what I missed the most in MOS was heart. It had none. You're also dead on that I prefer Superman learn how to Superman off screen, because that's just not interesting. I don't care to watch teams practice, or actors rehearse. I don't much love watching a film leaked with missing vfx and green screen.
Guess I'm funny that way.

Yes, I am fully aware of all the info you've laid out. I've watched all the Fleischer cartoons, read many of the early comics, and a smattering of stuff from the 80's, 90's etc. I'm not as well versed as you, as far as I can tell, so you have me at a bit of a disadvantage.
No, I didn't read Hush, or much of the late 2000's stuff...and no new 52...

And for all of my rage, I sort of thought the smashing of the drone was funny, and in character.

I'm going to brush up on my John Bryne, because while I'd love to think Snyder has been as thorough as you say, and it's some mis-understood masterwork we've all some how missed, I gotta say, you're stepping over all kinds of garbage to admire some supposed gems.

That said, the comics you think I must read to get the character are?

Oh yeah, and you're quite correct in reading me as a very left of center thinker. Some people don't get it, but that's fine. It's entertaining me at the moment.

[Leo656]

To be fair, Byrne's version was much more light-hearted than Cavill, but he still was rather reckless and smug for a while. Cavill is like an amalgam of Jerry Siegel's Superman with the Byrne/Jurgens version.

As to your question... that's complicated. My entire perspective on Superman is complicated. So I understand why few people can see it from the same angle. Few people, if anyone, see the character the way I do for the simple reason of, few people CAN. I've seen, heard, listened to, watched, and read, literally EVERYTHING, in some form or fashion. Every movie, every episode of every cartoon show, every storybook record album, the novels, to the earliest or most obscure stories in the comics... I've in some form or fashion absorbed every bit of Superman that's ever been created. I am Most Familiar with the comics, owning several thousand issues from the most recent to reprints of the earliest volumes, and have over a lifetime managed to read versions of every story from 1938 through 2010 through either originals, trades, or reprints. I am Least Familiar with the radio show and newspaper strips, although I have heard/read a few episodes of each, but I'm more familiar with the making of and history behind them than I am their specific content. I haven't managed to get my hands on much from those, sadly, but I hope to. But as far as Superman goes, I've Experienced all of it, and beyond that, I've studied it, every bit of lore, every "behind the scenes", every "Why did they do that?", every creators' "unique interpretation" and the reasoning behind.

Put simply... Superman is, for all intents and purposes, my Religion. I study it the way some people study Scripture. And I genuinely do not expect anyone to be able to approach it the same way, nor to apply literally thousands of stories and oft-contradictory interpretations into one's own unique, personalized Ideal of the character, based on a little piece of Everything that's ever been done. I genuinely Don't Know if anyone even Can see the character from the same angle I do. Because when I see any version of the character, I'm processing ALL of that information when I'm deciding how I feel about it. And it's seriously complicated.

In a way I kind of envy people who have a "cleaner", less cluttered, "smaller" picture of the character in their heads. But they're usually missing a lot of small, but vital information. Like, I love Reeve's Superman... mostly. But Superman would never WILLINGLY sacrifice his powers for poontang. If he had to make the best of a situation that ended that way... that's different. "I want to hump, Earth can take care of itself" is not an accurate portrayal of Superman, and thus, even the Donner Cut of Superman II is pretty far off.

Now, Singer's movie had a lot of the same problems, insofar as, Superman would never abandon Earth for 5 years to go look for a planet he knew full well was DEAD, either... BUT, there was a whole subplot cut for time that explained Luthor had faked evidence of Krypton's existence that justified that otherwise silly reason for Kal-El's absence, and secondly, Singer's Superman was based on Donner's Superman, who was already a somewhat-flawed version. Broad point being, in a lot of the Superman movies, which are most people's Preferred Version, they have Superman acting, at times, wildly out of character... but it makes sense, to them, being it's the version they're Most Familiar With. Meanwhile, Snyder's version acts in ways that fans of the older movies find questionable, yet is consistent with most other versions of Superman, from the comics to the George Reeve show to Dean Cain's portrayal, etc. etc. So... in what way have they sinned? By deviating from One Version most people lean on despite it not being, itself, "The True Version", simply the Most Familiar? Or have they simply taken and applied material from More Than Just Those Movies in an attempt to provide a portrayal that's ultimately more accurate to the source? And why is THAT a bad thing?

Again... it's complicated. When I look at MoS... no, I do not see the Reeve movies. I DO see things from Every Other Version of Superman that's ever been important, and to me, that's terrific. My mental Superman is not Chris Reeve, nor George Reeve, nor Brandon Routh, nor Dean Cain, etc. etc. No ONE version trumps all, to me. But All have merit. And "a little dark" it may be, THIS version of Superman, quite simply, has it All. There are pieces of Every Bit of the mythology sewn into it. It's so much, I didn't see it all at first. There's more to it every time I watch it, I'm serious. "That was from that one story where...", and, "That's the guy from that Phantom Zone mini-series back in...", and so on. I'm not married to Reeve, so I'm not hurt they aren't bowing to Reeve. I'm awe-struck at how they've crafted a literal Valentine to the entire Superman mythos, even if it's not quite as upbeat and breezy as I'd have done it.

Again, I can't expect anyone to share that perspective, it's just always been the thing I was most into and have put a frankly unreasonable amount of my life into. So my perspective on it is... complicated.

Thus, as far as which comics, specifically... I'll think on it and get back to you. I definitely have my personal favorites and there are a few self-contained stories I think are "close enough" to a perfect portrayal as any single story can be. But again, it's not like the comics always get it right either, in fact a lot of times they're horribly wrong like the present time. But just as Reeve is Your Version as it is your most familiar, the comics are My Version in equal measure. Anyways, I'll get back to you.

I will tell you, if only one person were to write Superman forever, it should be Dan Jurgens. No one in any media have ever gotten the character more Right, more consistently. Works in Cavill's favor that he strongly resembles the way Jurgens draws him, as well. So if you wanted a specific place to start, I'd say start with anything Jurgens ever wrote between 1989 through 2010. MoS leans very heavily on the Byrne/Jurgens era, which was incidentally my favorite era of the books as well. It's not just personal bias, though, that era is widely recognized as being the single most popular run on the books of the entire modern age. Everything they did from '86 to '93 with the character was just terrific and hasn't ever been as good since, and definitely never was before that.

[Slade]

Leo..damnit, you always beat me to everything. So, now I don't really have much else to say.

Except, ehh, I thought Waid did really good with Kingdom Come, though Ross helped write it too.

[Leo656]

Yeah, I think Ross's stuff kind of helped keep it on track. Waid's entire idea of, "The world called Superman an old fuddy-duddy, so he went to go cry about it on his Holodeck Farm for like 10 years" thing... that's terrible. That is absolutely awful. He wouldn't do that. I completely understand that they needed to have a world where there was no Superman, the "new breed" of super-humans have wrecked everything, and thus Superman makes a triumphant return to try and set things right. I get that. But the way they took him off the board for Act 1 was awful. "People don't like me anymore? Okay, forget Truth & Justice, the Never-Ending Battle... I'm gonna go sulk." I never bought that. They could have come up with an angle where everyone thought he was dead, or somethin'.

I mean, I guess you could argue his tether to the world was severed, when Lois and everyone else he knew was killed, so it would be more easy to abandon his mission. It makes sense, but I still think his obligation and sense of duty would win out over depression and hurt feelings. I'unno. Kingdom Come is really good but you can tell Waid and Ross were each kind of playing tug-of-war with "their" version of Superman. Neither of them fully agreed on a lot of things that story was trying to say. That was shown further when Waid went ahead and wrote "The Kingdom" series even after Ross refused to have anything to do with it, and it was a very different piece of work.

An interesting collaboration, to be sure. But Ross has always "gotten" Superman much better than Waid. Now, you wanna talk Flash, then that's different. NOBODY writes Flash like Mark Waid and nobody ever will. That's "His" super-hero and I love it. I don't want him anywhere near Superman, he's not good at it.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, I think Ross's stuff kind of helped keep it on track. Waid's entire idea of, "The world called Superman an old fuddy-duddy, so he went to go cry about it on his Holodeck Farm for like 10 years" thing... that's terrible. That is absolutely awful. He wouldn't do that. I completely understand that they needed to have a world where there was no Superman, the "new breed" of super-humans have wrecked everything, and thus Superman makes a triumphant return to try and set things right. I get that. But the way they took him off the board for Act 1 was awful. "People don't like me anymore? Okay, forget Truth & Justice, the Never-Ending Battle... I'm gonna go sulk." I never bought that. They could have come up with an angle where everyone thought he was dead, or somethin'.

I mean, I guess you could argue his tether to the world was severed, when Lois and everyone else he knew was killed, so it would be more easy to abandon his mission. It makes sense, but I still think his obligation and sense of duty would win out over depression and hurt feelings. I'unno. Kingdom Come is really good but you can tell Waid and Ross were each kind of playing tug-of-war with "their" version of Superman. Neither of them fully agreed on a lot of things that story was trying to say. That was shown further when Waid went ahead and wrote "The Kingdom" series even after Ross refused to have anything to do with it, and it was a very different piece of work.

An interesting collaboration, to be sure. But Ross has always "gotten" Superman much better than Waid. Now, you wanna talk Flash, then that's different. NOBODY writes Flash like Mark Waid and nobody ever will. That's "His" super-hero and I love it. I don't want him anywhere near Superman, he's not good at it.

Ok, now I know you're picking and choosing. Look, I'll concede that you have likely read far more comics than I, but man, you can't decide to have it both ways, and deam your constructed head cannon as the only version possible, where you eschew some stories over others, simply because you think the idea is stupid. I mean, you can, as an opinion, but to try and state it as fact, hmmmm, seriously.

"He wouldn't do that" is essentially the same argument as I've made, only, your asserting that you are the suprem all knowing arbiter of all things Super.

The superman who wraps a truck around a telephone pole, or engages in super dickey, is the same superman who gives up on Humanity, and rides the pine for a while.

Personally, Kingdom Come is one of the better stories, if your interested in a cinematic Superman.

[TigerClaw]

Here are some of Batman's Gadgets in Batman v Superman from SDCC 2015.
http://www.slashfilm.com/comic-con-2...an-v-superman/

[NinjaPug]

Ben Affleck To Team With DC’s Geoff Johns On Standalone ‘Batman’ Film: Comic Con

Here’s one for the Comic Con crowd to gnaw on. I’m told that Ben Affleck is teaming up with Geoff Johnsto co-write a standalone Batman movie that Affleck will direct and star in after he completes his longstanding plan to helm his scripted adaptation of the Dennis Lehane novel Live By Night. Johns has about as much comic cred as anybody around. He’s DC Comics’ chief creative officer and has written some of its best remembered comic book series including Green Lantern, Aquaman, Batman, Justice League Unlimited, The Flashand Superman. He has also written TV series superhero transfers Smallville, Arrowand The Flash, as well as the Supergirl project with Greg Berlanti for CBS.

My studio sources tell me that Affleck and Johns are well in synch and have more than found their rhythm. In fact, they are likely to turn in a script before the end of the summer, prior to Affleck going off to direct Live By Night in November. Affleck postponed that pic to star in Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. The Batman movie would shoot after he finishes Live By Night, and the plot would reflect the Batman character that emerges after Batman V Superman andJustice League, the latter of which comes out November 17, 2017. DC and Warner Bros have set a long list of superhero movies that take the Marvel formula of interspersing characters from one film to the next, so it’s unclear when Affleck’s Batfilm will be slotted.

But it will clearly take priority and other movies might have to move to get out of its way. While Marvel’s Kevin Feige has defied the odds and turned one Marvel character after another into hit films, I have been somewhat skeptical about the DC films that Warner Bros has made a top priority. This is a confidence booster. The bestBatman blockbusters had a real sense of visual authorship, originated by Tim Burton, with the latest arc by Christopher Nolan. Now it falls to Affleck, who’ll creatively steer the Batman franchise after directing the Best Picture-winnerArgo, and co-scripting and directing the gems The Town and Gone Baby Gone. Helped by the collaboration with DC savvy Johns, this might be the most exciting news to hit the Con this weekend.

http://deadline.com/2015/07/ben-affl...on-1201472921/