We see Bruce and I believe Alfred working on it in Batman Returns.
We see Bruce and I believe Alfred working on it in Batman Returns.
Right. They presumable built the whole car themselves which is not uncommon since Batman has built his Batmobiles in other media by himself(The Batman)
But....
All of a sudden Alfred is now concerned with how to fix the Batmobile after Penguin tampered with it
"We can't take it to a Joe's body shop"
Later on the Batmobile is whole again( the sides are back on) and Bruce is fixing it. So what was the concern?
Greetings from post # 5444
The conversation about the people getting to focus on the nitty gritty of how the heroes power work, made me think of the book Anatomy of a Metahuma, which was focused entirely on the nitty gritty of how DC's characters powers work.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/160887501...MD1T5BUR&psc=1&ref_=list_c_wl_gv_ov_lig_pi_dp
There's also one for the Marvel characters
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683838696/ref=mes-dp
https://www.amazon.com/dp/160887501...MD1T5BUR&psc=1&ref_=list_c_wl_gv_ov_lig_pi_dp
There's also one for the Marvel characters
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683838696/ref=mes-dp
Sorry, but they don't get to play innocent there. That "single snide remark" was a whole rant they published themselves on their substack. And they're also not new to the internet and online Newssites. This happens all the time.
Here is said Substack article and following is the relevant part:
TV writer/producer Damon Lindelof's comments notwithstanding, the 'Green' in 'Green Lantern(s)' green is not 'stupid'. Why does a writer attach himself to this kind of narrative if he thinks it's fundamentally 'stupid'? You don't hand CSI scripts to patronising writers who condemn forensics experts and their haircuts as 'stupid', so why hire people who are ashamed and in denial about the comic book material they've been assigned to develop? Why don't they turn down jobs they're not suited for? It's not like he needs the money, and Lindelof has proven that he can come up with his own ideas. What is this jockish dismissal of superhero conventions intended to prove anyway? Does Lindelof imagine it makes him seem less nerdy? It's a bit too late for that, so what's it all about? The only people who give a fuck about the Lanterns TV series are Green Lantern fans. Why alienate them at the start? That feels more like 'stupid'.
'Green Lanterns' is a much more evocative and dramatic title than 'Lanterns', (just as 'Raise the Red Lantern' is a better movie title than 'Raise the Lantern'), and anyone who can't grasp why that is shouldn't be anywhere near superhero stories. The show might even be good, but how much better could this stuff be if studios were willing to hire the right people for the job instead of phoning their embarrassed friends to water the source material down? Hollywood will die of insularity and inbreeding.
First of all, that above goes far beyond a "snide remark".
They not only accuse Lindelof of thinking Green Lantern is "fundamentally stupid", but conclude that even if the show is good it won't be as good as it had been had the studio hired "the right people", which Lindelof is apparently not.
And it's true, Morrison is a fantastic writer who's worked in comics, film and television for four decades, so you'd think they knew what they were talking about, and you'd also think how to write to avoid certain reactions. The rant from their Substack is not only a bad take, it is not even a hot take or very thought-provoking. These kinds of comments could be found all over Social Media around the time the teaser was released and that podcast clip resurfaced.
It's a stupid take, a lazy take, and based on knowing about Morrison's skill and decades-long experience I have to assume it is also a dishonest take.
And they cannot just come out and say "Hey, what did all you guys make all that fuzz about my innocent little comment", they need to own up to their part.
TV writer/producer Damon Lindelof's comments notwithstanding, the 'Green' in 'Green Lantern(s)' green is not 'stupid'. Why does a writer attach himself to this kind of narrative if he thinks it's fundamentally 'stupid'? You don't hand CSI scripts to patronising writers who condemn forensics experts and their haircuts as 'stupid', so why hire people who are ashamed and in denial about the comic book material they've been assigned to develop? Why don't they turn down jobs they're not suited for? It's not like he needs the money, and Lindelof has proven that he can come up with his own ideas. What is this jockish dismissal of superhero conventions intended to prove anyway? Does Lindelof imagine it makes him seem less nerdy? It's a bit too late for that, so what's it all about? The only people who give a fuck about the Lanterns TV series are Green Lantern fans. Why alienate them at the start? That feels more like 'stupid'.
'Green Lanterns' is a much more evocative and dramatic title than 'Lanterns', (just as 'Raise the Red Lantern' is a better movie title than 'Raise the Lantern'), and anyone who can't grasp why that is shouldn't be anywhere near superhero stories. The show might even be good, but how much better could this stuff be if studios were willing to hire the right people for the job instead of phoning their embarrassed friends to water the source material down? Hollywood will die of insularity and inbreeding.
First of all, that above goes far beyond a "snide remark".
They not only accuse Lindelof of thinking Green Lantern is "fundamentally stupid", but conclude that even if the show is good it won't be as good as it had been had the studio hired "the right people", which Lindelof is apparently not.
And it's true, Morrison is a fantastic writer who's worked in comics, film and television for four decades, so you'd think they knew what they were talking about, and you'd also think how to write to avoid certain reactions. The rant from their Substack is not only a bad take, it is not even a hot take or very thought-provoking. These kinds of comments could be found all over Social Media around the time the teaser was released and that podcast clip resurfaced.
It's a stupid take, a lazy take, and based on knowing about Morrison's skill and decades-long experience I have to assume it is also a dishonest take.
And they cannot just come out and say "Hey, what did all you guys make all that fuzz about my innocent little comment", they need to own up to their part.
That seems like a massive overreaction to not liking one word in the title of the comic. Just because you don't like the title doesn't mean you think the whole thing is stupid.
Fantastic trailer. It gives us a sense of the story but also of the themes of the movie. I love Kara's line about "revenge will not take the pain away" and also telling Krypto that where ever he is, that is home. The trailer really shows us that Kara is so different than Clark. She is in pain for the loss of Krypton. She has lost her people. She seems to be searching for her identity and her purpose. The trailer has great emotion to it but also shows us that the movie will have fun and comedic moments as well. Lobo also looks bad a$$. If the movie is anything like this trailer, it will be a banger. It may be better than Superman even.
Well, it certainly looks like an adaptation of Woman of Tomorrow, although it sounds like it's compressing the timeline to 3 days, when the original miniseries depicted a picaresque, episodic journey of months or more. But then, that's the difference between a movie and a series (usually).
A pretty loose one (disappointingly so, from my POV), but the book’s original characters are there in some form, and it’s clearly picking up at least some of the story’s narrative beats. The moment that came closest to feeling like the graphic novel to me was Ruthye’s line, “It’s Krem of the Yellow Hills, who murdered my innocent family.” That “innocent family” phrasing feels true to her voice.
My ongoing discontent that it’s not adapting the book more faithfully aside, this was an improvement on the teaser trailer, and has my excitement for the film significantly renewed. The more I see of Alcock as Kara, the better I like her.
Supergirl Milly Alcock Prepares to Take Flight
She rode dragons in Westeros and scammed Julianne Moore on Sirens. Now the Aussie is taking on a beloved comic book character: “I am aware that I am going to get comments,” she says. “But I can’t really stop them. I can only be myself.”
That trailer looks fantastic!
Even I, who wasn't a big fan of Krypto's hyperaggressiveness in Superman, got teary at his poisoning and Kara's mission to save him. And then we saw him as a puppy!
While I don't care about Lobo (I hadn't even heard of him before this film) or Jason Momoa, I'm eagerly looking forward to this fun adventure.
Even I, who wasn't a big fan of Krypto's hyperaggressiveness in Superman, got teary at his poisoning and Kara's mission to save him. And then we saw him as a puppy!
While I don't care about Lobo (I hadn't even heard of him before this film) or Jason Momoa, I'm eagerly looking forward to this fun adventure.
I think that if what you want is the same experience you had reading the book, the only way to actually get that is to reread the book. An adaptation can never perfectly capture the original; if it merely attempts to copy it, it won't be as good as the original or achieve everything the original did, so what's the point? The best thing an adaptation in another medium can do is to tell its own story using the source as a starting point. The goal should be to complement the original rather than merely copy it.
And as I mentioned, the comic is more episodic, a series of distinct adventures with the quest goal being little more than an excuse for their journey in most of them. If it were being adapted as a streaming TV season, I could see a more faithful adaptation making sense. But since it's a movie, it makes sense that they're telling the story more compactly.
Also, I'm not sure it really can be a faithful adaptation given what Superman (2025) established about this version of Supergirl. (I really wish they'd kept the Superman Legacy title -- it would be easier to talk about it. I hate generic titles.) The impression I got from Woman of Tomorrow was that Kara going to a red-star planet to get drunk was a one-time thing she did for her 18th birthday, a rite of passage specific to that event, rather than a continuing habit. The comic's Kara, aside from that one indulgence, was an admired, legendary hero and a paragon of goodness that Ruthye drew inspiration from. The movies' Kara doesn't seem to have a history as a hero the way Superman does, and seems more screwed up and self-pitying, which suggests the movie is going to be about her becoming a hero, a rather different character dynamic from the comic.
Similar threads
