That failed JLA pilot was indeed awful, but if I squint at it, I can sort of appreciate David Ogden Stiers as Martian Manhunter.
DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Hm. Killing the original Robin would have given Affleck to room to take a deep dive into Wayne's trauma while being conflicted over taking on another partner at the same time. I would have loved to see Tim Drake or Carrie Kelley (over Jason Todd) take on the Nightwing role.
One of the interesting things about Superman: The Movie is that time appears kind of malleable. At least on an aesthetic level.
First off, of course, we have the child narrator who seems to be framing the opening shot as happening circa the Great Depression -- a reference, of course, to the original publication date of Action Comics #1 in 1938.
After the credits, we see Krypton.. and it's unclear how far in the past the scenes set in Krypton take place, or how long Baby Clark is in transit from Krypton to Earth. Ghost Jor-El says, "By [Earth] reckoning, I will have been dead for many thousands of your years" when Clark discovers him. So apparently Baby Clark was in something approaching suspended animation for thousands of years in transit? (He appears to have aged at least a year between his infancy on Krypton and his emergence on Earth though.) But then later in the film, Lex Luthor says that Superman reported Krypton to have exploded in 1948 in his interview with Lois.
The "present-day" scenes all appear to be set in 1978 and make use of then-contemporary aesthetic techniques such as flat lighting, overlapping dialogue, etc. It has a very "70s movie" vibe to it. They come after the Jor-El Ghost says that Clark has seemingly spent 12 years learning from him (it?) after his discovery/construction of the Fortress of Solitude at age 18.
So if you do the math, the scenes of 18-year-old Clark in Smallville would presumably be set in 1966, and Clark himself would have landed in either 1948 or 1949... But of course, those scenes in Smallville don't aesthetically match up at all. From the clothing to the cars to the music heard playing on the radio, everything about 18-year-old Clark's scenes scream 1950s. And the scenes with Baby Clark just after his spaceship has landed all seem to scream 1940s or 1930s. The filmmaking techniques are different, too -- dynamic lighting, stylized dialogue. These scenes have a strong John Ford vibe.
So, the nominal timeline would be:
1978: Clark arrives in Metropolis and assumes the identity of Superman, defeats Lex Luthor
1966-1978: Clark in training under Ghost Jor-El
1966: Jonathan dies; Clark graduates from Smallville High School, learns of his true origins, discovers/constructs the Fortress of Solitude
1948 or 1949 (depending on age of baby): Baby Clark lands in Smallville, is discovered by Jonathan and Martha
Thousands of years in the past OR 1948, whichever: Baby Kal-El escapes the destruction of Krypton
But... yeah, nothing about that meshes with how we see the denizens of Smallville actually living.
But, as Bob Chipman points out in his Superman: The Movie entry for Really That Good -- that's okay, because the cumulative impact of these slightly-anachronistic elements is to reinforce an important thematic element of Superman's personality: he embodies an idealized vision of American culture. He didn't just grow up in a small Kansas town -- "he grew up in a Norman Rockwell painting."
Last edited:
A mildly amusing game would be to try to find alternate dates for the present-day scenes.
If we assume that those scenes are set the same year "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley and His Comets was released, since it's playing on the radio, then that puts 18-year-old Clark in 1954.
That would put Clark's landing in 1936 or 1937, and the destruction of Krypton at 1936 or "thousands of years ago." (It would require conclusively ignoring Superman's claim that Krypton was destroyed in 1948.)
From there, Clark's twelve years of training would have occurred between 1954 and 1966... and Superman: The Movie's present day scenes would be set in 1966. Which, I just can't buy. Nothing about Superman: The Movie works on a subtextual level if it's set before Watergate, frankly. Absolute earliest I could buy placing it is in 1973.
Maybe that works -- maybe you set the present-day sequences in 1973, the Smallville sequences in 1961, and Baby Clark's landing in 1943. That just might barely make the seemingly anachronistic aesthetic elements work.
But, really, my inclination is just to embrace the anachronism. Hell yeah, everyone dressed like it was 1954 in 1966 in Smallville. Hell yeah Clark Kent grew up in a Norman Rockwell painting.
If we assume that those scenes are set the same year "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley and His Comets was released, since it's playing on the radio, then that puts 18-year-old Clark in 1954.
That would put Clark's landing in 1936 or 1937, and the destruction of Krypton at 1936 or "thousands of years ago." (It would require conclusively ignoring Superman's claim that Krypton was destroyed in 1948.)
From there, Clark's twelve years of training would have occurred between 1954 and 1966... and Superman: The Movie's present day scenes would be set in 1966. Which, I just can't buy. Nothing about Superman: The Movie works on a subtextual level if it's set before Watergate, frankly. Absolute earliest I could buy placing it is in 1973.
Maybe that works -- maybe you set the present-day sequences in 1973, the Smallville sequences in 1961, and Baby Clark's landing in 1943. That just might barely make the seemingly anachronistic aesthetic elements work.
But, really, my inclination is just to embrace the anachronism. Hell yeah, everyone dressed like it was 1954 in 1966 in Smallville. Hell yeah Clark Kent grew up in a Norman Rockwell painting.
Doesn’t Luthor also state that Krypton exploded in 1948, when he deduced the nature of its radioactive remains?
I like that the take that Clark grew up in a Norman Rockwell painting. I wish that Donner had utilized a ‘timeless’ look for the Metropolis scenes rather than a contemporary 1970s New York style.
I like that the take that Clark grew up in a Norman Rockwell painting. I wish that Donner had utilized a ‘timeless’ look for the Metropolis scenes rather than a contemporary 1970s New York style.
Yeah, I included that above -- he was quoting Superman in his interview with Lois.
I think it was kind of necessary. Subtextually, Superman: The Movie is about a character who embodies that idealized vision of American culture landing in cynical post-Watergate America. He needed it to use contemporary 1970s aesthetics to illustrate that subtext.
IIRC, I thought it wasn't great, but wasn't quite as bad as its reputation. I really liked Michelle Hurd as Fire.
But Donner's whole goal was to make it feel like it was happening in the real world -- "You will believe a man can fly." The idea was to contrast with the fancifulness of superhero comics by grounding it in everyday reality. Clark's alien origin was pure fantasy, his upbringing by the Kents was idealized nostalgia, but then that idealized figure was dropped into a realistic present-day world, and the contrast was the point.
This is a very good point that recognizes the cultural landscape of the time in which the movie was made. My desire for the Metropolis scenes to look more timeless is more of a wish those visuals were more compatible with the art deco Gotham that appears years later, which is just a superficial preference.
Completely different approaches. Donner wanted to ground Superman in realism, Burton stylized the hell out of Batman like he did with everything else. Even though Batman in the late '80s was one of the most grounded comics heroes, in a way the movies wouldn't catch up with until Nolan.
Come to think of it, a Batman movie set in a gritty 1970s New York City atmosphere would've been a really great fit. That's sort of what Reeves was going for, I think, but a more contemporary version would've been interesting to see.
In the vast expanse of the multiverse, there must exist a world in which the success of the verisimilitude of Superman in 1978 led to a Batman movie inspired by O’Neal and Adams set in the gritty mean streets of New York, er, Gotham.
I thought of that, but I'd want it to be in the same alternate world where they used Elliott S! Maggin's script for the Superman movie instead of Mario Puzo's.
Great analysis.
A potential explanation for the "1948 vs. thousands of years" thing might possibly be found in the recorded lessons baby Clark hears during his interstellar transit. At one point, Jor-El's voice says, "Each of the six galaxies which you will pass through contain their own individual law of space and time." I'm not sure how scientifically plausible that is, if at all (I expect Christopher could elucidate), but if the laws of spacetime in Krypton's galaxy are somehow radically different from Earth's, maybe thousands of years by one galaxy's reckoning are only a few decades by the other's?
Nahh, that stuff was pure gibberish. I figure the contradiction in stated timing between different scenes is the result of someone not catching a change between script drafts.
Although one possible fix is that we tend to talk about astronomical events happening in the year their light reaches us, rather than whenever they originally happened, since relativity means you can't really define absolute time in an interstellar context. So, for instance, we say that Eta Carinae's Great Eruption that created the Homunculus Nebula "happened" in the 1830s, because that's when astronomers saw Eta Carinae become the second-brightest star in the sky for several years. But since it's some 7600 light years away, that means it would really have happened some 7800 years ago.
So it's plausible that Krypton could've exploded thousands of years ago with the light only reaching Earth in 1948, slightly ahead of Kal-El's capsule, and that astronomers would've then said the explosion "happened" in 1948. But there's no way the explosion of a planet rather than a star would be visible from thousands of light-years away. Also, that's within our own galaxy, not six galaxies away.
Plus there's the part where Jor-El says if circumstances were different, he could be holding his son in his arms right now -- which contradicts his earlier line about being dead for thousands of years, unless Kryptonians were extremely long-lived. So I'm sticking with an oversight in rewrites.
Wow, that's... really bad. Interesting to see Michelle as Fire though.
I
've seen a few references to the end of The Flash being a set up for the new DCU, so would that mean that George Clooney is going to be the new DCU's Batman? He was the Batman in the universe Barry ended up in at the end, and if that universe is the new DCU, then he would have to be it's Batman.
Well, sure. I was just proposing an in-universe explanation for the obvious inconsistency. It's what we do here.
Gunn has already gone on record that (spoiler from the end of The Flash) is not going to be Batman in the new DCU.
Last edited:
That might make sense, but that's not what's going to happen. Clooney was a one-off "joke," replacing versions of that concluding scene already filmed that would have brought back Calle's Kara and Keaton's Bruce (one version of which also featured Henry Cavill and Gal Gadot). Apparently Gunn/Safran ordered the scene replaced because Calle/Keaton/Cavill/Gadot weren't going to be going forward in their new DCU, but as you point out, that makes zero sense, because Clooney isn't going to continue, either. So instead of the much better and more appropriate alternate endings already shot, we're left with Calle and Keaton defeated and dead in the dirt. 
More details here:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...side-george-clooney-return-batman-1235517975/
More details here:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...side-george-clooney-return-batman-1235517975/
I don't know how many Superman stories you've read, but this is something we see quite often in the comics--and we've seen it for decades. Superman does get angry, and does want to lash out--in modern times this is often shown visually by having his eyes glow as he tries to hold his heat vision in--but then he chooses not to. That's the aspirational nature of his character.
Batman stories have the same thing, where Batman gets angry and wants to kill someone, but he chooses not to. Same with Aquaman and Wonder Woman.
In Green Lantern stories, the modern version shows that GLs to feel fear but have the ability to overcome it through the sheer force of their willpower.
Wrestling with violent emotions is a well established trope in many comics, including Superman stories.
The alternate Injustice universe, explores what happens if Superman does lose control. He kills the Joker out of a burst of anger and this sends him down a very dark path eventually turning the world into a fascist police state while still believing he is on the side of good. It's not my favorite story, but it has some interesting moments.
The recent Warworld storyline shows the opposite. Kal-El is given every reason to turn to the dark side while he is imprisoned in Warworld, but he chooses not to because he knows that Warworld history has demonstrated that violence on leads to more violence. By choosing not to kill in Mongel's gladiatorial arenas, he becomes a symbol of an alternative path for the enslaved people of Warworld and inspires not only a revolution but a desire amongst its people for an alternative way of living.
Superman is rarely written as being good without effort. His struggle to be a beacon of hope is often an integral part to his stories.