Michael B. Jordan as the Man Of Steel?

[TREK_GOD_1]

lol. Fans complaining! I'm shocked, SHOCKED.

Yes--here's looking at those who whined about the DCEU films.

But the 60s comic fan were correct, especially after Dozier had more influence. It would be no different (and just as justified) than fans complaining that the mind-wipe inspiring Legends of the Superheroes--

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

--was a poor representation of the character at a time when Batman in print form had been on a consistent, serious path for more than a decade at that time.

Regardless of whatever percentage actually complained, the show was successful and iconic. Snyder would be so lucky.

The series started to drop in the ratings--fast--toward the end its first season (not coincidentally, as Semple's involvement began to fade). In the summer of its debut year, the spin-off movie was a flop, with Dozier himself admitting why would anyone pay to see something they could get for free on TV. Of course, the second season struggled from the start (and gimmicks such as more celebrity guests and three-part episodes failed to restore the early glory) with ABC threatening to cancel it, hence the '67 Batgirl presentation film / eventually adding the character to that terrible third and final season.

 

[BK613]

I'm left handed, where's my representation????

At 3:54 and beyond

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[The Wormhole]

You still have the issue of being from old money rich.

There are a few ways around that. Set in the modern day "old money" could easily just mean going back a hundred years. Although, there are also reports of rich black people in America going as far back as before the Civil War, some of which actually owned slaves themselves.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Along that line, Will Smith in The Wild Wild West comes to mind when he walks into most anywhere in that film but especially that southern plantation party. That was ridiculous for the time the film was set in, pointedly after the Civil War.

I haven’t seen the film but I do remember the criticism at the time. Of course, it’s a film in which the baddie uses mechanical spiders in the 19th century so I’d probably be more tolerant of historical liberty-taking than I would in a straight-up western.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Yes--here's looking at those who whined about the DCEU films.

But the 60s comic fan were correct, especially after Dozier had more influence. It would be no different (and just as justified) than fans complaining that the mind-wipe inspiring Legends of the Superheroes--

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

--was a poor representation of the character at a time when Batman in print form had been on a consistent, serious path for more than a decade at that time.



The series started to drop in the ratings--fast--toward the end its first season (not coincidentally, as Semple's involvement began to fade). In the summer of its debut year, the spin-off movie was a flop, with Dozier himself admitting why would anyone pay to see something they could get for free on TV. Of course, the second season struggled from the start (and gimmicks such as more celebrity guests and three-part episodes failed to restore the early glory) with ABC threatening to cancel it, hence the '67 Batgirl presentation film / eventually adding the character to that terrible third and final season.

Nah. They were wrong about Batman 66. As far as Dozier’s influence, it’s not his fault it couldn’t be recreated.

It’s like Snyder trying to recreate the gravitas of Nolan. He couldn’t do it. Spoilers: he’s not a very good director, just a very good photographer.

 

[Jayson1]

There are a few ways around that. Set in the modern day "old money" could easily just mean going back a hundred years. Although, there are also reports of rich black people in America going as far back as before the Civil War, some of which actually owned slaves themselves.

Another way to do it is set it in the near future. A time when in theory society will be more diverse. Not you have to set it the present and it does allow to avoid Trumpism making any racial allegory story stuff feel more subtle while avoiding the fact that he would be endorsing Trumpism. Not to mention cops with all black deaths caused by cops. I do think this kind of movie plays better if Biden wins and people have some hope again in our future. Jason

 

[valkyrie013]

Rich black family? Can easily do that now..
For a history.. have the ansestor be a slave, and was freed by the civil war, and they got some land and done well to build up there farm, that few percent that done well, than have a history of investing, family having a can do spirit even when there slapped down by other people or even the government.. to a point where they have there own company.. just like Wayne..
"Old Money" doesn't have to go back to the mayflower landing.. it can be from early last centery.. a family doing well..

Same for a black family in Kansas.. can still be farmers.. its not like being rich or a farmer are a Whites only club.. we aint back in the 1870s..

 

[Jayson1]

Rich black family? Can easily do that now..
For a history.. have the ansestor be a slave, and was freed by the civil war, and they got some land and done well to build up there farm, that few percent that done well, than have a history of investing, family having a can do spirit even when there slapped down by other people or even the government.. to a point where they have there own company.. just like Wayne..
"Old Money" doesn't have to go back to the mayflower landing.. it can be from early last centery.. a family doing well..

Same for a black family in Kansas.. can still be farmers.. its not like being rich or a farmer are a Whites only club.. we aint back in the 1870s..

I agree this can be done. The only real issue is would white people realistic embrace a alien with God like powers within the movie in away that feels plausible. Which is tough sale when Trump is President. The other is can you make his optimism work without those on the extreme left talking about him not being black enough. Most of the background material can work with any race but can get the tone right. Something they have had issues with even with white versions where kills zod and destroys skyscrappers and nobody has been behind any of the ideas they had for Nick Cage. Superman seems to be most infexible and hard to alter comic character of all time. Jason

 

[valkyrie013]

Well I'm guessing 99% of people wouldn't give a darn if a Black, asian, hispanic or any color race, creed, gender etc. would save the from whatever happens.. as long as they get saved.. most people would't say.. I'd rather die then get saved by a black person ( there probably are some.. but there such a small minority its laughable to count..)
and the "Not Authentic" crowd can go pound sand.. they said Ruby Rose wasn't LGBTQIA++ enough.. thats stupid hell they said Obama wasn't "Black Enough.. down with the struggle" Etc.. So there is no pleaseing certain people..

and the Twits on Twitter will complain if the sky isn't there particular shade of blue they want in there fantasy world..

I mean what.. 18% of people don't think we landed on the moon.. so there are plenty of idiots out there..

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Nah. They were wrong about Batman 66.

The comic fans understood the source. Dozier did not, and his bulldozing of the concept, especially as Semple divorced himself from the show, proved comic fans were correct. Like Legends of the Superheroes, or the Super Friends, Dozier's show had a character that was Batman in name only, which is why it rapidly lost its audience, and all of the celebrity guest appearances and new characters could not save it.

As far as Dozier’s influence, it’s not his fault it couldn’t be recreated.

No one wanted to recreate it, other than Hanna-Barbera's bottom-scraping Legends from '79. That says it all.

It’s like Snyder trying to recreate the gravitas of Nolan. He couldn’t do it.

Snyder had his own realism-leaning vision (but not trying to rip off Nolan's) and the actors all served that vision to the degree that they surpassed most actors who ever put on a superhero costume for the big screen.

 

[Jayson1]

But I man love Batman 66. Adam West was Baman much in the same way Pheonix was Joker. A almost complety different tone from the source material that works on it's merrits. Jason

 

[USS Firefly]

Ik would prefer Hancock 2 or another original character

 

[JD]

Besides, as they no longer set 007 films in that era and I don’t think that Eon ever will make a retro one, it’s all academic anyway.

Exactly. I keep seeing people talk about the '50 and '70s when a Black actor playing Bond comes up, but every single Bond movie, or at least official Eon Bond movie, has been set in what was at the time the present day, and I don't see why casting Idris Elba or John Boyega would suddenly make them feel that they have to do it as a period piece.

 

[Professor Zoom]

The comic fans understood the source.

So?
Dozier was making a TV show, not a comic book.
And, again, the fans were wrong. It was successful and became iconic.
Who cares if it wasn't faithful to the comic?

Dozier did not, and his bulldozing of the concept, especially as Semple divorced himself from the show, proved comic fans were correct. Like Legends of the Superheroes, or the Super Friends, Dozier's show had a character that was Batman in name only, which is why it rapidly lost its audience, and all of the celebrity guest appearances and new characters could not save it.

Batman in name only, Joker in name only, blah blah blah.

If only comic books were as successful as their TV and movie adaptations.

Snyder had his own realism-leaning vision (but not trying to rip off Nolan's) and the actors all served that vision to the degree that they surpassed most actors who ever put on a superhero costume for the big screen.

Snyder makes crap movies. And Gal Gadot was better in her own movie with a better director, and I think it's funny you don't call out Dude-bro Aquaman as Aquaman in Name Only, the Flash was... ugh. And Batman was fine... but, Affleck is just in a long line of dudes who has put on the cape. He's not iconic, he was there and now he's not. He was fine.

 

[theenglish]

I haven’t seen the film but I do remember the criticism at the time. Of course, it’s a film in which the baddie uses mechanical spiders in the 19th century so I’d probably be more tolerant of historical liberty-taking than I would in a straight-up western.

Yes, the mechanical spider that was previously proposed for Kevin Smith's Superman script! I give WWW a pass on real world issues because it is clearly meant to be a simple fantasy-action movie.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Yes, the mechanical spider that was previously proposed for Kevin Smith's Superman script! I give WWW a pass on real world issues because it is clearly meant to be a simple fantasy-action movie.

When watching the recent Magnificent Seven remake, I did wonder if Denzel’s character’s race should be more of an issue. But f*ck it, it’s Denzel, I’ll give anything he’s in a bye-ball.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Rich black family? Can easily do that now..
For a history.. have the ansestor be a slave, and was freed by the civil war, and they got some land and done well to build up there farm, that few percent that done well, than have a history of investing, family having a can do spirit even when there slapped down by other people or even the government.. to a point where they have there own company.. just like Wayne..
"Old Money" doesn't have to go back to the mayflower landing.. it can be from early last centery.. a family doing well..

Same for a black family in Kansas.. can still be farmers.. its not like being rich or a farmer are a Whites only club.. we aint back in the 1870s..

There were a handful of actual Black millionaires in America in the late 19th and early 20th Century. So the Wayne's having a history of money dating back generations isn't a stretch.

 

[Captaindemotion]

The makers of Batman and Robin cast the wrong ER star as Batman - should’ve gone for Eriq LaSalle. But it’s a good thing he wasn’t associated with it, because then people would blame that film’s awfulness on having a black Batman as oppose to the fact that it was dreadful.

 

[HugeLobes]

The makers of Batman and Robin cast the wrong ER star as Batman - should’ve gone for Eriq LaSalle. But it’s a good thing he wasn’t associated with it, because then people would blame that film’s awfulness on having a black Batman as oppose to the fact that it was dreadful.

Off topic, but I never get why those movies attract so much hate. They're very clearly aimed at kids. I loved them as a kid, and so did most of my friends. Even now they have some silly appeal, even though I can tell as an adult they aren't very good.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Off topic, but I never get why those movies attract so much hate. They're very clearly aimed at kids. I loved them as a kid, and so did most of my friends. Even now they have some silly appeal, even though I can tell as an adult they aren't very good.

I don’t mind Batman Forever. And I love 1966 Batman and the tv show. But Batman and Robin is just not a good film, IMHO.