‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Whoever did that I'm sure Superman will throw him through an inhabited skyscraper - that'll teach him!
(and anyone unfortunate enough to be inside)
Looks like Doomsday stepped on all those cars.
Same here. Especially after years of people complaining that there was no Superman movie that had big, comic book style action. This kind of thing is a monthly occurrence in the comics.
And buildings were regularly toppled during superhero battles on the Animated Series as well (with no sign of an evacuation beforehand there either).
I certainly think the destruction went a bit overboard towards the end of MOS, but it also seemed clear that this was a war between superbeings and the future of the entire planet was being decided (and not just one city). So obviously there has to be a bit of allowance for that, I think.
I certainly think the destruction went a bit overboard towards the end of MOS, but it also seemed clear that this was a war between superbeings and the future of the entire planet was being decided (and not just one city). So obviously there has to be a bit of allowance for that, I think.
One--it's a comic book story. Destruction (and vast, unmentioned, loss of life) abounds.
Two--Superman was on his FIRST DAY ON THE JOB. Against something a bit more powerful than some bank robbers fleeing the scene in a 1938 Ford with tommy guns as weapons.
Three--It appears that much (not all) of the complaining directed at MoS over the "destruction" stems from the fact that these particular filmmakers chose not to portray Superman in a Silver Age/Christopher Reeve style. I like Silver Age comics. I have a bunch of them and I read them with my 8 year old son. I also like the Reeve Superman films (well, the first two, anyway) and have watched them with my 8 year old son (who also likes them). But I can appreciate a different take on the character--one I will not watch with my son until he's a lot older than 8 years old. Much rather that than simply "lather, rinse, repeat" of Silver Age/Reeve Superman. But, different strokes for different folks.
I don't care that some people were disappointed with MoS. Taste in film is subjective. But I do object to arguments that state or imply there's only one "right way" to portray Superman. A lot (again, not all) of the complaints about MoS seem to have that perspective. Such people should probably just skip the movies made by filmmakers who diverge from that approach. Probably better for their blood pressure.
Two--Superman was on his FIRST DAY ON THE JOB. Against something a bit more powerful than some bank robbers fleeing the scene in a 1938 Ford with tommy guns as weapons.
Three--It appears that much (not all) of the complaining directed at MoS over the "destruction" stems from the fact that these particular filmmakers chose not to portray Superman in a Silver Age/Christopher Reeve style. I like Silver Age comics. I have a bunch of them and I read them with my 8 year old son. I also like the Reeve Superman films (well, the first two, anyway) and have watched them with my 8 year old son (who also likes them). But I can appreciate a different take on the character--one I will not watch with my son until he's a lot older than 8 years old. Much rather that than simply "lather, rinse, repeat" of Silver Age/Reeve Superman. But, different strokes for different folks.
I don't care that some people were disappointed with MoS. Taste in film is subjective. But I do object to arguments that state or imply there's only one "right way" to portray Superman. A lot (again, not all) of the complaints about MoS seem to have that perspective. Such people should probably just skip the movies made by filmmakers who diverge from that approach. Probably better for their blood pressure.
You've likely hit upon something there with me, anyway. I looked forward to taking my kids to see MoS. I wanted them to enjoy it as much, or more, as they had Superman Returns - particularly sequences like the airplane rescue.
After watching MoS I realized they probably wouldn't enjoy it but for a few minutes here and there. It wasn't what I expected and that certainly colored my reaction.
Personally it seemed to me the battle at the end was reaching disaster porn levels rather than being grittier or some new take - but that's my opinion.
It's similar to the way I've watched the Batman (1966) movie with my son but will not show him the Nolan films for a few more years yet (though all his friends seem to have seen them--not sure what the parents are thinking, but as I tell my kids, I'm parenting them, not everyone else and they have to live with it 
).
I get that not everyone likes the MoS take on Superman. My approach to comic films is to watch them without my kids first and then deciding if I think they're ready for them. They've watched Superman and Superman II, Superman Returns and Batman (1966). My daughter is probably ready for the Spider-Man films (Raimi and Webb) but has shown no interest. My son is a couple of years away from those and a bit more away from the Iron Man/Capt. America/Thor/Hulk/Avengers saga. Lately we've focused on animated stuff (Green Lantern is his current favourite there) but even that, we watch together. I don't leave him alone with anything I think might be too dark and violent for a kid whose age is counted in single digits. But that's me.
).I get that not everyone likes the MoS take on Superman. My approach to comic films is to watch them without my kids first and then deciding if I think they're ready for them. They've watched Superman and Superman II, Superman Returns and Batman (1966). My daughter is probably ready for the Spider-Man films (Raimi and Webb) but has shown no interest. My son is a couple of years away from those and a bit more away from the Iron Man/Capt. America/Thor/Hulk/Avengers saga. Lately we've focused on animated stuff (Green Lantern is his current favourite there) but even that, we watch together. I don't leave him alone with anything I think might be too dark and violent for a kid whose age is counted in single digits. But that's me.
Yeah, as much as I love the harder edge of MOS, I do think it's a shame that it probably also makes the movie too intense for younger kids to watch. And I imagine BvS won't be much different in that regard.
Although as you say, I probably wouldn't want my 6 year old watching the Nolan Batman films either.
Although as you say, I probably wouldn't want my 6 year old watching the Nolan Batman films either.
Eh, a few smashed cars are chump change compared to what happened in the last movie.
Maybe the Chitauri from the Avengers have made it to the MOS verse. You know they only cared about blowing up cars.
Heh. No one claims Whedon is in the same class as Michael Bay when it comes to blowing up stuff.
Well, in the tv show Angel, Whedon did sentence all of Los Angeles to be overrun by demons with no way for civilians to escape. At the same time, he basically killed off the few people that could save them, without any real way for the remaining heroes to survive. According to wikipedia's numbers on the population of Los Angeles, that's about 4 million people dead. Sure, the later tie in comics BS'd their way out of that idiotic ending, but based strictly on what's shown on screen, he killed everyone in Los Angeles, which beats MoS's death count. It may not have been explosions, but I'm pretty sure Whedon killed off more civilians than people like Bay or Snyder have, so...he wins, I guess.
Well, in the tv show Angel, Whedon did sentence all of Los Angeles to be overrun by demons with no way for civilians to escape. At the same time, he basically killed off the few people that could save them, without any real way for the remaining heroes to survive. According to wikipedia's numbers on the population of Los Angeles, that's about 4 million people dead. Sure, the later tie in comics BS'd their way out of that idiotic ending, but based strictly on what's shown on screen, he killed everyone in Los Angeles, which beats MoS's death count. It may not have been explosions, but I'm pretty sure Whedon killed off more civilians than people like Bay or Snyder have, so...he wins, I guess.
That's mainly fan-fantasy which was later 'confirmed' (and then promptly retconned) by the comics continuation. The episode itself doesn't show LA destroyed at all. It shows 1 mass of demons attacking the heroes in an alleyway, and it ends before the fight even begins (so, technically, you can't even say he killed the people who could stop it). The only serious civilian casualties I can think of on Buffy or Angel was the fight in Graduation Day where a few dozen people died, at most. Maybe the chaos following the unmasking of Jasmine, but that was mostly people running around in confusion, not attacking each other.
Of course, Dollhouse eventually turned into an apocalyptic world war.
One hand-waving explanation for kryptonite is that it occurs in small amounts in the Kryptonian atmosphere and Bats is able to extract it.
In the comics, is Wayne generally treated these days as roughly the same age as Clark or older? Seems that in the last thirty years Clark's lost most of a decade but Wayne's career and life suggests a more mature guy.
In the comics, is Wayne generally treated these days as roughly the same age as Clark or older? Seems that in the last thirty years Clark's lost most of a decade but Wayne's career and life suggests a more mature guy.
The Comic generally treat them as peers but year they seem to have put a gap between them.
Of the 'Then and now' pics posted by All Star Enterprise, the 1989 Batman outfit has (IMHO) aged the best and seems to have proven most influential on other big screen comic adaptations.
I'm sure they now use lighter and more flexible materials etc. and in some ways it's dated. However, by-and-large, it's proven to be something of a template for superhero costumes in films. It's a decade younger than Reeve's or Carter's costumes but it seems to have more in common with the modern day Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman costumes from 25 years later than it has with the two alongside it.
I'm sure they now use lighter and more flexible materials etc. and in some ways it's dated. However, by-and-large, it's proven to be something of a template for superhero costumes in films. It's a decade younger than Reeve's or Carter's costumes but it seems to have more in common with the modern day Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman costumes from 25 years later than it has with the two alongside it.
