They are going ahead with a Justice League movie

[JoeZhang]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

I threw up on my keyboard once. It was never quite the same afterwards . . ..

But can you really run a keyboard through a dishwasher?

Yep - however if you write for a living like you do (and I do but academic rather than fiction) then spending the money on a decent keyboard is a must - a decent mechanical one will last for years and are so much nicer to type on - something like a DAS.

[Guy Gardener]

By "drying it", they mean take the bugger to pieces and leave it alone for a week in view of the sun.

Far easier to buy a new keyboard.

[Greg Cox]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

Yep - however if you write for a living like you do (and I do but academic rather than fiction) then spending the money on a decent keyboard is a must - a decent mechanical one will last for years and are so much nicer to type on - something like a DAS.

When I flew out to L.A. to work on the Batman book, I actually packed a full-sized keyboard in my luggage rather than have to deal with the dinky little keyboard on my laptop.

[Set Harth]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

It's not like Batman had to get out of there as soon as he could to save his own life

Actually, it is like that.

You're redefining "not killing" as "saving everyone in danger of death" and thus rendering it essentially meaningless.

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Batman didn't "not save" him in order to save other lives

Because Ra's would just give up his evil ways, I take it?

[Lapis Exilis]

Christopher wrote:

---

I have to disagree. Batman saving the Joker is no different from the duty of any police officer, rescue worker, or doctor to save every life placed in their care. It's not any of those people's job to play judge, jury, and executioner. It's their job to save an endangered life. It's one thing to use deadly force against someone who presents an immediate, active threat to another person's life. But if that person is injured or unconscious and poses no immediate danger, then there's no justification for killing them, or for letting them die. Your duty is to rescue the person in danger.

There's a Canadian-made show called Flashpoint which is based very authentically in the real procedures of a Toronto special tactics/rescue squad, and the issue of "priority of life" comes up sometimes. There have been a couple of episodes where an ally of the team, a fellow law-enforcement officer, tried to take revenge on someone who killed their partner or fiance or whoever, and the team's duties required them to protect the killer even if it meant shooting the cop, because priority of life means that you save the one who's in danger and target the one who's threatening them, period, regardless of their respective motives or morality. Only the immediate situation dictates your choices. If you have to kill a friend and colleague to stop her from shooting a murderer, that's what you do, because your duty is to uphold the law.

My mom's second husband was a cop, and I have to say, the idea that cops in general behave this way is, um, not true. I personally met at least 3 people who either killed the guy who killed their partner, or stood by while a fellow cop killed the guy who killed another cop. All were judged "good shootings" by the department and the public never heard a word about them.

My point is, all this morality makes for good stories (and, as I said before, conveniently keeps all the interesting villains around for more and more stories in the comics) - none of it is particularly realistic. Yes, I'm sure police departments have policies in place that say you take out a fellow law enforcement officer before you let them shoot an untried suspect, but in reality, a lot of the time, if a cop has some guy cornered in an alley that they think murdered another cop - that guy's more than likely taking a bullet and there's not much further discussion of the matter.

Though I will say one of the cops I knew quit the force after murdering the man who killed his partner - it haunted him for the rest of his life.

That said, you could make a case that "I don't have to save you" is an acceptable response in some cases. If you asked a doctor to operate on Adolf Hitler to save his life (in some alternate world where Hitler was taken alive and imprisoned, say), he could refuse and insist you get someone else to do it. And since Batman is technically a private citizen, you could argue that he can define his duties however he wishes and doesn't have to follow a formal set of rules of engagement. But there is precedent for a code of conduct in which one's duty is to protect everyone, good or evil, with equal diligence.

I agree - I don't have to save you makes fine sense, especially in the case of Ra's. He created the situation of the barreling train that couldn't be stopped. He fully intended to die in the pursuit of his goals.

[Christopher]

^Maybe some cops would do that in real life, but then they've compromised what they stand for. That's not what I want to see my fictional heroes do. Being a superhero means holding yourself to an exceptional standard. And there's reason for that. Superheroes have more power than ordinary people, whether it's because they're Kryptonians or mutants or just multigazillionaires with infinite resources and inventive genius. And with great power comes... you know. That level of power combined with a willingness to compromise one's principles is a dangerous combination. So it's more important for superheroes not to compromise their principles, no matter the provocation. (Personally I think it's just as important for cops. They of all people should not be allowed to get away with breaking the law.)

And let me make this perfectly clear: I never said that "I don't have to save you" makes "fine sense." I think it's an atrocious attitude. So you absolutely do not agree with me on that. I was simply saying that the argument can be made that there is technically not an absolute duty of care in that situation. But that doesn't mean I think it's right to refuse to help.

[the G-man]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

They will both avoid killing if they can but both have killed when needed - hell in the last update of Stark's origin (which I think is the Ellis version) he uses a flamethrower to kill people while escaping.

As far as the 80s references were made to Stark being willing to kill if need be, most notably a sequence involving the Molecule Man (where, interestingly enough, Cap was the one trying to talk Iron Man out of it). And, I could be wrong but I seem to recall a conversation in the Infinity Gauntlet where Iron Man, along with Wolverine and Hulk were approached by Warlock precisely because they were willing to kill Thanos if need be while the other heroes generally had "the code."

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

My mom's second husband was a cop, and I have to say, the idea that cops in general behave this way is, um, not true. I personally met at least 3 people who either killed the guy who killed their partner, or stood by while a fellow cop killed the guy who killed another cop....

As Christopher points out, just because some cops broke the rule doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist.

Batman not killing except in a 'self defense' situation makes sense. Similarly, Batman not rescuing Ras when it would have been unreasonable for him to do so due to circumstances is largely consistent with common law/common sense versions of the "justification" doctrine.

Oh, and what happened to discussions about a JL movie?

[Christopher]

the G-man wrote:

---

Oh, and what happened to discussions about a JL movie?

Is there anything more to discuss at the moment? I read that the Affleck rumors didn't pan out, that he turned them down. I haven't heard any other news since.

I had a thought the other day that a good way to make a JL movie distinct from The Avengers is to do just the opposite of an origin story -- treat it more like an office drama with the team already in place and let the audience get to know them through their interactions and their work. Maybe use the common formula of having a character who's new to the team and serves as the audience surrogate for exposition -- Cyborg, maybe? I can see it having a West Wing flavor -- a story about coworkers dealing with their clashing personalities and outlooks and engaging in witty interplay, yet also having to deal on a daily basis with crises of worldshaking importance and deep ethical dilemmas.

[Captaindemotion]

^ The Incredibles and X-Men both worked well as ensemble superhero movies without giving either team origin stories.

Though I'm still not convinced that it's a good idea for DC/WB to put all of their tentpole superheroes in one movie without some groundwork being laid down, the way Marvel did with their solo outings.

[Christopher]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

^ The Incredibles and X-Men both worked well as ensemble superhero movies without giving either team origin stories.

Although X-Men didn't quite pull it off, because it mainly introduced the team by having Charles give Logan a really long, stilted expository speech. I'd rather see something that's truer to the "show, don't tell" rule.

Though I'm still not convinced that it's a good idea for DC/WB to put all of their tentpole superheroes in one movie without some groundwork being laid down, the way Marvel did with their solo outings.

I'm not entirely convinced it would work myself, but I certainly think it would be interesting to try.

[Captaindemotion]

^To be fair to X-Men, Bryan Singer was working within the constraints of a limited budget and a short running time, so I suppose they were limited in what they could show; telling was quicker and cheaper.

And yes, I agree that it will be, if nothing else, an interesting comparison with the Marvelverse/ Avengers in how they go about with JLA. I certainly hope it works anyway.

[JoeZhang]

Let's say they go for five members - three are going to be Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman - how much exposition do those three need?

[Captaindemotion]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

Let's say they go for five members - three are going to be Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman - how much exposition do those three need?

That's a good point. Man of Steel will be out next year - even if this JLA is set in a different continuity and doesn't have Henry Cavill (though I think it will), audiences will still know that he's the last son of Krypton, blah blah blah. Batman Begins will still be recent enough for most people to know why Batman does what he does, even though this incarnation will definitely not be in the same continuity.

WW may need a little more exposition but will she need any more individual time than say Storm in the first X-Men movie? And Black Widow and Hawkeye got a fair bit of screen time in Avengers without an awful lot of time being spent on either of their backgrounds (albeit that neither is a super-powered being).

Who else will be in this movie? Flash? Martin Manhunter? Green Lantern or Arrow? They can probably be summed up fairly quickly by either flashback or narrative.

[JarodRussell]

It's not so much about exposition as about the audience liking the character versions in that particular approach. They didn't do an Avengers film and then Iron Man, Thor, Captain America... they did those individual standalone films first and then after the audience liked these films they did the crossover.

[Captaindemotion]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

It's not so much about exposition as about the audience liking the character versions in that particular approach. They didn't do an Avengers film and then Iron Man, Thor, Captain America... they did those individual standalone films first and then after the audience liked these films they did the crossover.

True. But then again, you could say that audiences might like the depiction of the JLA characters in this movie without seeing their standalone movies. Assuming the movie handles them well - makes them well written and has them cast as well as the Marvel movies did.

And indeed, it should be remembered that Mark Ruffalo's Hulk/ Banner was by-and-large much more positively received than Ed Norton's take and The Incredible Hulk movie.

I can see both sides of the argument and I can see how the movie could go either way. We won't know until we see it - right now, I just want to hope for the best.