‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
And in a lot of other cases...
I am glad this debate has exposed something I have never liked.
The only reason these moral codes of Superman and Batman of NEVER killing was created was to appease parents and authority figures. Avoid the issue that ultimately in every single incarnation of Superman and Batman, they work outside the law. To not encourage kids to ignore the rules. Obviously killing is the most serious one. But superheroes suggest that our law enforcement is ineffective.
But the problem is they have before and after those codes were self imposed both have killed. A more accurate description of their moral codes is they TRY to avoid killing people. They do not want to and only do so if they feel like they have no other option.
Of course that is a a little more complicated than most superhero stories and it seems the readers want to deal with.
The only reason these moral codes of Superman and Batman of NEVER killing was created was to appease parents and authority figures. Avoid the issue that ultimately in every single incarnation of Superman and Batman, they work outside the law. To not encourage kids to ignore the rules. Obviously killing is the most serious one. But superheroes suggest that our law enforcement is ineffective.
But the problem is they have before and after those codes were self imposed both have killed. A more accurate description of their moral codes is they TRY to avoid killing people. They do not want to and only do so if they feel like they have no other option.
Of course that is a a little more complicated than most superhero stories and it seems the readers want to deal with.
Yes, but I very much doubt any of those series went on hiatus because the studios decided "Okay, we need to impose an arbitrary 'rest' on the franchise for a decade or so and then bring it back." They stopped making movies only because the movies stopped making money, because audiences lost interest. They came back because a later generation was nostalgic for the franchise or because a new production company acquired the rights and wanted to do something with them or whatever.
This idea that there's some sort of rule about franchises needing to "rest" for a while before returning is most likely an invention of fans, particularly fans who feel that a given franchise has gotten stale. Or maybe it's an excuse made by producers whose last couple of films haven't been profitable or well-received -- rather than just admit that they made disappointing movies, they say, "Well, audiences are burned out and we need to give it a rest for a while until their interest returns." But we have hard evidence that that's bogus. After Star Trek: Nemesis and Enterprise got disappointing reactions, fans and producers alike were saying that ST probably needed to lie fallow for a decade or so -- but then the Paramount/CBS corporate split happened, Paramount needed to get a Trek movie into production within 18 months to retain the movie rights, and so they rebooted the franchise and got a movie into theaters just four years after ENT went off the air, well before this imagined "rest" period had run its course... and it was one of the most financially and critically successful Trek movies of all time.
Franchises don't need to "rest." They just need good movies. If you reboot or revive a franchise by making a good movie -- or at least a popular one, and it can be debated whether those are equivalent -- then audiences will respond to it no matter how much or how little time has passed since the last film.
There's zero chance, to my mind, that the Batman in the upcoming MoS sequel will have any resemblance to the Nolan Batman. He will be completely rebooted and the previous continuity will be ignored. Just as well, I'd prefer the excellent Nolan trilogy to be untainted by the shitty MoS and its inevitably shitty sequel.
No (at least IIRC), we only saw Superman delivering Lex into custody in the first movie. In the second, we see him and Lois flying away from the Fortress while listening to Lex ramble on as they leave. But, as I said, I never believed that Superman left him there to freeze. Besides, the basic rule of thumb in comics is, "If we don't see a body, then they are not dead."
And I know about the comics you mention. I own them, and indeed bought them off the shelf the day they were released. That issue was also the issue that I dropped Superman with becdause, yes, as a reader, I was disturbed by the story.
And as I understand it, his actions in those comics with Zod led to an ongoing series of psychological issues with Clark, rather than the breif "boo-hoo-hoo" we saw in MoS.
This is only a little off-topic, but not much.
And in a lot of other cases...
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6881592/batman-vs-the-penguin-with-patton-oswalt
And how do you know there won't be any further repercussions explored in a future film?
I always found it ridiculous that studios have to race the clock to make film lest they lose the rights to a franchise. It's a perfect reason/ excuse to pump out shabby films.
I think the "no killing" rules are somewhat shoddy myself. Certainly a hero would be above that if they have a choice, but some situations they might not have a choice. I just hate the way, like in TDK trilogy, they establish it like a rule. To me, it's more common sense.
I think the "no killing" rules are somewhat shoddy myself. Certainly a hero would be above that if they have a choice, but some situations they might not have a choice. I just hate the way, like in TDK trilogy, they establish it like a rule. To me, it's more common sense.
^ I still hope it's Lex.
A rule which gets broken in each film of said trilogy.
Yes, but the basic rule of thumb in film and TV is, when the villain plummets down a bottomless pit, he's dead. "The Emperor" in RoTJ, for instance. Several Disney villains. Gul Dukat in DS9. In film it's used to evoke the concept of the villain plummeting to hell, and it's pretty universally-understood that when it happens, the villain is dead. http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Bottomless_Pit
That cry of agony was more than a "brief boo-hoo-hoo," and it was MUCH more than Reeves' smirk in Superman II. As someone posted on another forum, "it's like people wanted them to spend 20 minutes at the end of the film showing Superman crying in a corner." He was clearly devastated. And the scene that followed was clearly a time-jump to some point in the future, probably days or weeks later. It was a brief scene and we have no way of knowing what he was thinking during that scene. For all you know, his actions will still be haunting him in 2015's Superman/Batman film. It may haunt him, and it may worry Batman, and that may influence the way they interact.
Agree.
I just hope that the Batman established in the Man Of Steel 2 is done right.
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but "World's Finest" just sounds too "Silver Age" . . .
It seems both old-fashioned and overly fannish.
Well, we actually SAW the Emperor hit the reactor, so that can't count as a bottomless pit, and even THAT didn't stop the EU from bringing him back. As for Dukat, they specifically said that he wasn't dead, but rather "With them, where he belongs". How many bottomless pits have the Joker and the Red Skull fallen into?
And I sincerely do hope that future MoS installments pick up on Clark's feelings about Zod's death, but I also sincerely doubt that it will be too heavily dwelt upon.
