They are going ahead with a Justice League movie

Well considering Corporate Luthor is the only one who counts.

Besides if we want to look at Superman and how he would appear in a Justice League movie pretty much everything prior to the reboot is probably out.

So what examples of Superman's supposedly being intelligent are in the New 52.

 

In what sense? Luthor was an evil scientist/inventor for the first 45 years of his existence as a character; the corporate persona is only 26 years old to date. And of course screen adaptations are free to reinterpret the character however they wish, drawing on multiple prior influences; the Luthor of Superman: TAS was initially just the corporate version, but he was later revealed to have the scientific brilliance of the pre-Crisis version, and in Justice League his corporate empire was brought down and he reverted to his overtly villainous evil-inventor persona, subsequently taking a season-long swerve into his politician persona from the comics before ending up back in full-on Legion of Doom mode. (And of course the Superman Returns version was a wholesale resurrection of the lame version from the Reeve movies, the aspiring land mogul with idiot henchmen.) So if we're talking about the possibility of Luthor's appearance in a JL film, there's no guarantee that the film would favor only the corporate interpretation; indeed, I think if you want Luthor to be a JL antagonist, you'd pretty much have to make him a more direct physical threat rather than just a corrupt businessman.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that. Again, adaptations are always free to draw on elements of whatever interpretations they want. They've never been required to conform slavishly to whatever is currently going on in the comics -- since, after all, the number of people who actually read the comics is tiny compared to the moviegoing audience, or even the TV audience. Usually, screen adaptations of comics borrow from many eras, not just the current one. Batman: TAS was required to draw some stylistic cues from the Burton movies, but storywise and character-wise it drew on Batman comics from the '70s, '80s, and '90s alike. Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes has been drawing on story elements from throughout the decades-long history of the Avengers, mixing them together freely. And the live-action Marvel movies are freely mixing elements of the original and Ultimate universes.

 

All has has to do is turn on that patented Bruce Wayne charm and you'll see star-spangled panties drop like the 1929 stock market. As for the Flash, all Batman has to do is whip out his Gotham PD official Deputy badge and yell "Halt!" and old Barry "Law and Order" Allen will freeze.

 

Or MAYBE, Bruce turns his charm on the Flash, and those golden boots are on the floor...

 

Not even 26 years old when you consider that DC more or less abandoned "corporate Lex" after Lex lost the presidency in 2004. After that he was pretty much back to being an evil scientist (though he did attempt to rebuild LexCorp once or twice)

I think Hartzilla was referring to the belief that the latest reboot was intended as a way to make the comics more like the upcoming movie in the name of "synergy."

 

You actually believe the New 52 was even planned when MoS started production?!

 

Movies have a vastly larger audience and bring in vastly larger profits than comics, so of course it would be the comics trying to emulate the movie, not the other way around. Just as comics have always tried to follow the lead of their mass-media adaptations -- from Superman comics incorporating characters, ideas, and phrases from the radio series (including Jimmy, Perry, the Planet, and kryptonite) to Batman comics adopting Harley Quinn and Renee Montoya, and so on.

 

Or it could you know be the other way around where MoS may have inspired the New 52 Superman.

 

^The lawsuit inspired both of them.

 

As I just said, that's overwhelmingly more likely. The movie was already in the works when the New 52 version came along, and the movie will be far more lucrative for DC/Time Warner than the comics could ever be. So of course the comics would be following the lead of the mass-media version, the same as they've been doing since the 1940s.

Although I have to ask, what evidence of commonalities between the movies and the current comics do we actually have? The only thing I can think of is that both Superman costumes have ditched the red trunks. But that just seems to be a product of modern fashion sense; the trunks-over-tights look of classic superheroes, based on the outfits of '40s circus strongmen and acrobats, are widely ridiculed today as "underwear on the outside." Since it's generally fallen out of fashion, it could just be that both the movie and comics versions are reflecting contemporary tastes, rather than one deliberately copying the other. So is there any other evidence of commonality?

 

And most recently Chloe appeared in the comics, after being created for Smallville.

 

Besides the suit I'm pretty sure one of the MoS trailer hinted at Superman not being trusted by people like he usually is which is also happening in the new comics. There was also the whole being captured by the military thing I believe is in one trailer which happened at the end of NuAction #1 and carried on in NuAction #2.

 

But that's not unprecedented in earlier Superman tales. There was a subplot in season 1 of Lois and Clark about a government agent investigating Superman as a possibly hostile alien. There was General Hardcastle in an episode of Superman: The Animated Series, the whole Cadmus arc on Justice League Unlimited, the vigilante-registration/Civil War knockoff storyline that Smallville did in its last season, etc. It's got enough of a pedigree, and is enough a part of the modern zeitgeist for alien-on-Earth stories and superhero stories, that the movie and comics could be building on it independently rather than one being directly inspired by the other.

 

First Marvel hires Joss Whedon to oversee their movies, then FOX does the same with Mark Millar for their Marvel projects, and now comes the completely unsubstantiated rumor that WB is gauging fan interest in a Justice League movie with Frank Miller's name attached.

Former Justice League artist Kevin Maguire tweeted...

and...

I'm with Kevin.

 

I don't think Maguire was using the same substitution cipher for the different profanities.

And I don't think any movie -- or comic, or anything else -- from Frank Miller would be worthwhile. Whatever talent he may have had in the past, he's become a self-caricature now.

 

Are you saying that as a writer or a fan? Is that your professional opinion?

 

I'm not sure I understand the question. I have no professional involvement with anything he does, so of course I can only comment as a spectator.

 

Well, in terms of the suit, this is something that Jim Lee came up with ten years ago.