Well, I've seen the movie, and while I really dig the return of Keaton's Batman and he was fantastic in it, he was definitely a supporting character. It was definitely Barry's film. Twice, actually.
DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Nonsense. No one launches a character not knowing what they are doing. There is intent in how a character acts--that is the selling point, or "hook" for potential readers. Superman was not some loose creation with the expectation (nonexistent) of others contributing to it years or decades later. No one at that time forecasted the life or needs of a character in that manner. Early Superman was consciously based on the feeling Americans had toward crime of the era, and it was not grabbing them by the collar and dropping them off at the local jail.
But I find your comment rather self-defeating, because you're only writing that to steer Superman adaptations away from the original version, arguing that other creators made it different over time, yet you cannot accept that very same approach when a certain director took Superman on a different (welcome) path not adhering to the approach found in--you guessed it--earlier versions, such as the Salkinds, Super Friends, or Weisinger's.
You can argue what the earliest version of Superman was or was not, but that is irrelevant to what audiences today think of as Superman. It is certainly possible to make a version of Superman that subverts or upends expectations, but unless that version also connects with audiences it will be for naught. Snyder's problem was not that he didn't make a Superman who was similar to Donner's, etc., but rather that his Superman simply did not connect with a large enough audience. Hopefully Gunn will do better.
Exactly. It's utterly bizarre to argue that the early, rough-draft version of a character is the only valid version. That's like arguing that an adult should only act like they did when they were six months old.
Fictional characters often times are treated as static beings, things that should never, ever, change. If I were in a analytical mood I would say it reflects a deep need of the person who doesn't want them to change.
Which is why I never understand how people complain about, for example, Picard being a somewhat different character in Picard compared to TNG and the movies. Hell, he was already a different person at the end of TNG compared to its first season. I'm different now than I was 10 years ago. Why shouldn't a fictional character chance? I even appreciate it when that happens.
Someone should do a study. I think the results could be interesting. I have some thoughts but I'm beyond and exhausted and won't get into that right now.
It's also just a misunderstanding of how creativity works. Every creation is the result of a long process of trial, error, revision, and growth, as you revise, polish, and improve on your original idea, or throw out what doesn't work and replace it entirely. In a singular work like a novel or movie, the audience only sees the end result of that process, which can create the illusion that the story only ever had one version; but in an ongoing series produced with deadlines, that process of testing and refinement happens in front of the audience.
I mean, I can somewhat understand not wanting a character to change from the version you first became attached to in childhood. It's narrow-minded, but at least there's a sincere emotion behind it. But I doubt very many comics or movie fans around today were children in 1938-9, so insisting that Superman or Batman must be reverted to the way they were decades before one was born, ignoring all of their development and growth as characters since then, seems like nothing more than an affectation.
In many cases, I think it's just that people who like violent, amoral characters latch onto the fact that Superman and Batman were initially, very briefly consistent with their own biases before maturing into more heroic and non-lethal characters for the vast majority of their existence, and they don't want to admit they're on the side that already lost that debate 80 years ago, so they embrace the absurd notion that it was correct because it came first and everything since then was a corruption of its original "pure" form. (Which is the part that gets the creative process absolutely backward; generally, the first draft is the worst and it's the revisions that make it good.) And many of them outright falsify the facts, knowingly or not; they claim that Batman was consistently a violent, deadly character until the Adam West series, when in fact the Adam West series is in many ways a strikingly faithful recreation of the general format and tone of Batman comics from the 1940s and early '50s (except the '40s Batman and Robin were even more lighthearted than the West/Ward versions, constantly trading bad puns and wisecracks as they beat up bad guys).
"A superhero movie without any consequences is not a good movie "
https://comicbook.com/dc/news/batman-v-superman-reason-zack-snyder-kill-general-zod/
All very interesting and again I would be incredibly curious to see what emotional need this is fulfilling for people. They might not even be aware of it themselves, which is all the more fascinating.
That...does not appear to be a lack of understanding of superheroes.
There is a big difference between 'not realistic' and 'delusional'. You're twisting words to fit your views, not reading them objectively.
Any writer who creates a character for an ongoing series is going go in aware that the character is going to change and grow as the series goes on.
And this is my whole point right here, the early Superman was written to match the attitudes and expections of the 1940s, and I don't know if you've looked at a calendar lately, but it's not actually the 2020s now, and those kind of attitudes and expectations have changed a lot in almost 90 years. So if you're writing a Superman movie or TV series for today's audience, you are going to write it for a 2020s audience, not a 1940s audience.
Yes I am writing to steer it away from the original version, because when people watch an adaptation, they're going to want to see the most popular version that they're familiar with and that is not the original versions, it's probably going to be the version from the last 40-30 years, which is very different from the original version. They're going to want something as least close to what they would have read in comics or seen on movies or TV, and for most people that's going to be stuff that was released in their lifetime. This is why the Kirk we got in the Kelvinverse movies was a cocky, reckless, womanizer, and not the walking stack of books he was described as in Where No Man Has Gone Before, because that is the most popular version, and that is what most people are going to go into the movies expecting to see.
Last edited:
Don't want to get too deep into the conversation but I rewatched all of Snyder's DC films in the run up to watching the Flash today. I had big issues with MOS and BVS which have been tempered by time. I think Zack's Justice League is a really good movie and feels like a breath of fresh air compared to the marvel formula of today. Maybe his vision and style came too soon, I think audiences would be more accepting of his movies today. I rewatched the josstice league also and man what a mess that is. After seeing what Zack actually did and what we actually got, it's a total farce.
Okay, that's wrong. Early Superman was an anti-authority figure fighting for progressive values and human rights. The early storylines were generally about Superman fighting against the powerful and wealthy on behalf of the little guy. In his very first issue, he saved a wrongfully convicted man from being executed. He brought war profiteers to justice, exposed corrupt politicians, tore down a slum so the city would be forced to build better housing for the poor, threatened corrupt, corner-cutting auto makers into prioritizing safety over profit, etc. Siegel & Shuster were the children of Jewish immigrants, after all, well-acquainted with poverty, prejudice, and marginalization. Superman's driving mindset wasn't "tough on crime," but tough on the powerful who hurt and exploited the powerless. He was basically a wish-fulfillment character who leveled the playing field. For his first several years, Superman was himself an outlaw wanted by the police and the corruption-riddled city government. Contrary to modern perceptions of the characters, Batman was actually embraced as an ally of the police before Superman was.
It's true that people in the '30s and '40s were concerned about crime, but if you look at the fiction of the era, their main concern was about organized crime and racketeering -- the mob and its influence over government, industry, and the like. Often it was the people in power, the rich and influential, who were the criminals the public feared, or at least were in their pocket. Which is why fiction about extralegal vigilantes like Superman and the Green Hornet was popular.
QFT.
So with 'The Flash' cratering at the box office can someone remind me of the last DCU film ('Joker' /'The Batman' aside) that actually made a profit. Was it 'Wonder Woman'?
Last edited:
How badly is it doing?
Aquaman, probably.
Just slightly better than 'Black Adam'.
https://deadline.com/2023/06/box-office-the-flash-elemental-ezra-miller-1235418741/
Pixar's new movie is doing even worse, though.
You're right. I got the release order mixed up. And 'The Batman' too, but that was it's own thing, like 'Joker'.
The movie's been out less than 24 hours. It's a bit premature to call it a failure.