Injustice: Gods Among Us To Be Adapted For Animation

[CyberCubed]

Considering the source material of the backstory, Lois dying while pregnant and Superman killing Joker and then him and Wonder Woman going evil and practically enslaving the Earth, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out mediocre.

[ZariusTwo]

Yeah, reactions to those movie are not going down well...and all from the edgelords who actually support the Injustice franchise. There are crucial character omissions and ridiculous deaths...one character who is vital to the comic book version is killed off pretty early too and the death isn't even acknowledged.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

and all from the edgelords who actually support the Injustice franchise.

See, what kills me is that some people are so vehemently against the entire premise that in the end they cut themselves off from playing two of the best and most fun fighting games ever made.

Yes, the storyline of the entire thing is pretty cringe and only "works" by making every single character act completely out-of-character. But the games are good. REALLY good, and packed with fanservice. Yet I'm constantly reading comments from people who are like, "I'll never play it. Evil Superman, no sale." It's a game!

Lots of us don't care about the storyline and just think the games are great in and of themselves.

Don't much care about the movie. Less because I hate the storyline - although I don't love it - and more because all the DC animated movies are pretty much junk and have been for a long time.

[CyberCubed]

Injustice 2 had a great story mode. Injustice 1's story was ok as a "bad universe" type of story, but I just hate the backstory with the way Lois dies while pregnant. Thankfully none of that is even shown in the game (the first cutscene is Superman trying to kill Joker with Batman trying to stop him), so you don't have to see it playing the game, it's only in a tie-in comic.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yet I'm constantly reading comments from people who are like, "I'll never play it. Evil Superman, no sale." It's a game!

I hate the ending they have for Bat/Cat actually. No way am I playing something all the way through to see a divorce

Bat/Cat is also the best thing about the comics and the best thing about the movie.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yet I'm constantly reading comments from people who are like, "I'll never play it. Evil Superman, no sale." It's a game!

And Fred Wolf TMNT is just a cartoon!

[Leo656]

That kind of leans into my point a bit.

FW TMNT is very far from my ideal TMNT iteration, even though I don't hate it as much as some folks do. But I'll play the games based on that series anytime, even though the source material isn't my favorite. But they're great games and tons of fun. To not play them just because I don't care for some of the trappings of the cartoon, well... that'd be silly.

Same with the Injustice games. The storyline is... actually pretty ass, even by Elseworlds standards. Primarily because the story relies on outright "breaking" every character except Batman, making them either an idiot or a tyrant- everybody screams about Evil Superman, but fewer people point out that Wonder Woman in those games is basically freakin' Hitler. If anybody acted the way their characters are supposed to, then the whole story couldn't happen. From what little I've seen of the comics that fill in the gaps between games, they're really, really bad.

BUT, it ultimately doesn't matter much to me, because in either game's case I only play through the Story once or twice apiece and the rest of the time I'm just playing a really slick fighting game with some of my favorite fictional characters, and that's all. The fact that the story is bad does not in any way preclude me enjoying the actual point of the games, which is the gameplay experience. Which is excellent.

But man, SO many Superman fans online openly bragging or boasting about how "I've never played those games and I never will." It's like, okay, you definitely can cut off your nose to spite your face if you choose, that's entirely one's own prerogative. But I don't find it especially noble or brag-worthy; all it tells me is that these people take up frivolous "causes" for nebulous reasons, and cheat only themselves in doing so.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Considering the source material of the backstory, Lois dying while pregnant and Superman killing Joker and then him and Wonder Woman going evil and practically enslaving the Earth, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out mediocre.

Is that all that did it in the comic, Joker gassing Superman and causing him to kill Lois and their unborn kid who he is hallucinating is Doomsday?

Spoiler:

because in the movie Joker steals nukes and wires a dead-man switch to Lois so when Supes kills her it detonates the nukes in Metropolis and completely destroying the city as well.

[Leo656]

https://www.cbr.com/dc-injustice-every-death-explained/

Man, I guess they didn't plan on doing an adaptation of "Injustice 2", seeing how many of the important characters from the second game are killed off in short order in this movie.

Eh, might see it one day. I'd honestly rather just play the games. The "story" of Injustice isn't especially great or even good to begin with, so I can't honestly imagine why this one needed to be made.

I GUESS there's a really tiny audience of people out there somewhere who would say, "I really love the idea of my favorite DC heroes acting completely out-of-character and killing each other, but I refuse to play video games." Or otherwise can't be bothered to even watch a YouTube video of the story bits of the games. And in turn those people would be the audience for this movie. But man, for the life of me I can't imagine who those people might be, and I can't imagine they're a particularly large group of people.

Keep in mind, I'm not "against" this project's entire existence, as many people vocally are. I just for the life of me can't imagine who it's actually FOR, is all. The games are great GAMES, but most people who like the games openly admit that the story is complete nonsense. Why anyone would ever think it was a great idea to strip everything good away - the gameplay - and leave nothing but the junk parts - the story - and try to sell THAT to people as a product is far beyond me.

[Jester]

Not sure either. I sought it out only because it was the newest DC animated movie and I've seen most of them. It was...ok...I guess. I've never liked "And then Superman turned evil..." stories anyway because it'd take quite a bit for Jonathan and Martha's boy to go full dictator....though I guess losing his wife, kid, and city might be a big enough catalyst...maybe...

[Leo656]

I mean, I generally ascribe to the Joker's "One Bad Day" theory myself, but yeah, in Superman's case it seems like it would take a LOT.

The Adventures of Superman 1991 Annual that tied into the "Armageddon 2001" crossover was probably the best example of a "Superman Goes 'Bad'" story, or at least the best one where he wasn't being manipulated by external forces. Like the "King of the World" storyline in the comics was really good, but Dominus was screwing with his brain so it kind of doesn't count since he only "turned bad" because he was manipulated into doing so.

For the benefit of those who didn't read the Armageddon 2001 AoS Annual, it starts off a little bit similar to the Injustice story, but doesn't go so completely off the rails with it. Intergang sets off a nuke, all of Metropolis (including Lois) gets wiped out, and Superman doesn't take it well.

But instead of immediately doing a 180 and becoming an evil dictator, Superman just gradually adopts a bit of a rougher edge, and specifically decides after Metropolis that mankind can't be trusted with nuclear weapons of any kind. So he starts unilaterally dismantling every country's nuclear arsenal, when he isn't holed up on the Kent farm with his new wife Lana, and a rapidly-deteriorating Ma Kent. MOST people support him and think he's doing the right thing by getting rid of all the nukes, but other people - including those high-up in the U.S. Government - decide that he's too much of a wild card. So they call in Batman to try and assassinate him. Batman refuses, because he too thinks Superman is doing the right thing, and in a moment of self-awareness comments that he'd be the last one to go after someone for taking things into their own hands.

Unfortunately, Superman accidentally sinks a submarine carrying nukes without knowing there were still U.S. soldiers onboard - he checked it with his X-Ray vision before sinking it, but all the lead lining prevented him from seeing the soldiers who were trapped - so the U.S. government brands him a murderer, and Batman now feels that he has no choice but to stop Superman before things get any worse. He HOPES it can be ended without bloodshed, but Clark isn't inclined to just give up quietly.

Ultimately, the story ends in a really neat subversion of the ending of "The Dark Knight Returns", with Battle Armor Batman and Dictator Superman fighting at Crime Alley. During the fracas, Superman almost accidentally injures Robin through his recklessness, and Batman confronts Clark with this and the incident with the dead soldiers as proof that Clark has gone off the deep end, becoming too reckless to go unchecked any longer. Batman ultimately overtakes Superman - using the Kryptonite ring which Clark had given him for specifically such a scenario. Realizing that he's gone too far to find his way back, Clark gives up and peacefully dies, whispering Lois's name, as Bruce promises to see that Lana and Martha are taken care of.

It's a really great single-issue story that deals with "Rogue Superman" in a far more believable and satisfying way than anything since then, in my opinion. And even then, he never really "goes bad" or acts insanely out-of-character, he simply starts slowly losing himself in his "The Ends Justify The Means" approach to saving the world, and then only goes "too far" by accident.

He never "snaps", acts wildly out of character, or knowingly kills anyone. He still becomes a "tyrant", while remaining wholly recognizable as the Clark/Superman we know. At every step, you can see where he THINKS he's doing the right thing, and in most cases agree with him. The act which ultimately damns him - the killing of the soldiers - is an accident he's immediately regretful for, rather than an explicit act of violence or a "Can't make an omelette..." moment. He doesn't try to justify it in any way; he at first denies it could have happened, and then when confronted with proof of it, he falls apart, finally admitting that he's gone way too far, even if by accident.

I mean, if you MUST have a "Tyrant Superman" in your story, I can't really see a "better" way to get there than how that story did it, unless you full on just have him be brainwashed or something. Injustice starts in the same basic place, but the way he immediately turns all bloodthirsty and "LoL People Died, Oh Well... but hey, I kinda like killing people now!" just really doesn't seem organic at all.

And Good Lord, Wonder Woman in the Injustice games is even worse than Superman. I'unno what crack they were smoking when they came up with HER characterization in those games. Superman's portrayal is bad but hers is arguably even worse. I'm honestly surprised how little that gets brought up.