• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Superman Batman: Public Enemies

To be fair, Superman toed the line with President Lex for 4-5 years of storylines before this, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. And Lex had been juicing for awhile at this point as I understand, leading to his behavior. In the end, the power went to his head and he became corrupted and over-reached himself.
 
Personally, I loved the art direction. The muscles and fantasy female bodies are straight out of the comics and pay homage to what the business is known for.

Which is exactly the problem with modern comics. There was a time when comic-book characters actually looked like human beings. These days they're like indoctrination for body dysmorphic disorder.

These people are superheroes, not average Joes. They're supposed to look fantastic. Haven't you ever been to a gym? A bodybuilding competition?

Bad analogy. People who actually use their muscles for strength and power, whether in combat or sports or whatever, are nowhere near as overinflated as professional bodybuilders who exaggerate their muscles merely for show. Genuinely strong, athletic people are comparatively lean and wiry, not unnaturally bulked up by steroids.

Besides, Batman's supposed to be a great martial artist. You can't be a great martial artist if you're that weighted down by muscle; you'd sacrifice too much speed, flexibility, and agility. Batman should be built like Bruce Lee, not the Hulk.


Anyway, I agree that Superman shouldn't have attacked Luthor so freely. That alone was enough to make him public enemy. Luthor need not have had Metallo killed. You can't even make a suggestion of attacking the president on the web without attracting a watchful eye.

Exactly. This whole thing was total nonsense. Superman obeys the law. All Luthor had to do was, say, issue an executive order banning him from using his powers, or get the INS to deport him as an illegal alien, and Superman would've followed the law. Sure, he might have hated the idea of Luthor as the president, but he would've responded within the system the way a good American citizen would, through political activism and voting, not by beating up the US government's duly deputized enforcers. At most, I could see him engaging in civil disobedience a la Dr. King or Gandhi, refusing to follow the policies enacted by Luthor but not fighting back when they came to arrest him. I mean, it's Superman, the living symbol of truth, justice, and the American way. People would rally to him. He could build up a whole massive political movement that would tie Luthor's hands. He could stir up support for impeachment hearings in Congress.


To be fair, Superman toed the line with President Lex for 4-5 years of storylines before this, this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I don't know that. That's from the comics. All I know, all the typical viewer of this movie knows, is what's in the movie itself. This is a standalone movie and it needs to hold together under its own internal logic. Nothing in this movie gave me any impression that Luthor had been president for 4-5 years; if anything, it seemed like only a matter of months. All I know about this incarnation of Superman is how he was portrayed in this movie, and he wasn't the Superman I know.

And there was no sign of a straw breaking the camel's back. The incident with Metallo seemed totally random -- just because Luthor has a guy with kryptonite in him, that's an excuse for Superman to commit several federal crimes by shoving the President of the United States, destroying his limousine, and attacking members of his Secret Service detail? It doesn't matter what schemes Luthor was plotting; Superman broke the law, plain and simple, and then he broke more federal laws by fleeing from justice and causing immense property damage. And there was virtually no provocation for it.

What I wish Stan Berkowitz had done would be to depart more from the comic and build more on what was implied in the opening montage -- that the reason Luthor became president was because American society virtually collapsed in economic ruin and he was able to exploit the weaknesses of the system impose something of an iron fist to restore order. This story might've worked if we'd been shown an alternate America that had become a virtual police state, where Luthor had declared martial law, dissolved Congress, suspended elections, and the like and was well on the way toward making himself a dictator-for-life. There wouldn't have been any need for the random threat of the kryptonite asteroid.

And Lex had been juicing for awhile at this point as I understand, leading to his behavior.

That much was implied in the movie, but it still doesn't make it interesting. A Luthor who's a brilliant, canny, calculating mastermind is far more satisfying to watch than a Luthor who's just a raving lunatic.
 
Which is exactly the problem with modern comics. There was a time when comic-book characters actually looked like human beings. These days they're like indoctrination for body dysmorphic disorder.

The problem according to you, you mean. Fantasy isn't a problem. It's a taste.

There was a time when physics was totally ignored in comics as well, but times change. (Example: Superman lifts a 10-story building by one corner and the building doesn't crumble from the stress.) Different generations want different things. People who don't change with the times, fade with the times. Bulky, exaggerated muscles and big boobs with thin waists are in. Alex Ross, for example, does what you seem to like. I like his work, but it's not my preference. Obviously, it isn't the public's preference either.

Todd McFarlane draws Spawn with an exaggerated cape. Should he stop, because Spawn’s cape would obviously snag onto almost everything in sight? Todd does exaggeration and people love it. It’s a taste and there’s nothing wrong with it.

A prime example is how ridiculous Venom looked in Spider-Man 3. Are you one of the "3" people in the world who actually liked that physical portrayal of Venom? Most of us suspect to a reasonable degree that a Todd McFarlane inspired Venom would have been received far better.

Bad analogy. People who actually use their muscles for strength and power, whether in combat or sports or whatever, are nowhere near as overinflated as professional bodybuilders who exaggerate their muscles merely for show. Genuinely strong, athletic people are comparatively lean and wiry, not unnaturally bulked up by steroids.

Is it? I'm talking about fantasy. Steroids maintain a fantasy. If you're arguing that real superheroes wouldn't look like that, you're making quite the flawed argument as there are no real superheroes for you to make that determination. Thus, your argument requires fantasy to work.

Besides, Batman's supposed to be a great martial artist. You can't be a great martial artist if you're that weighted down by muscle; you'd sacrifice too much speed, flexibility, and agility. Batman should be built like Bruce Lee, not the Hulk.

And you can’t be an unpowered hero and last 5 minutes into that manhunt against superpowered beings. I don’t care how much prep-time he had, in which this case he had none. You also exaggerated with the Hulk reference as Batman was nowhere near that big.

Besides, Bruce Lee in a Batman costume is in no way a scary sight. He's suppose to instill fear on sight, not uncontrollable laughter.
 
Which is exactly the problem with modern comics. There was a time when comic-book characters actually looked like human beings. These days they're like indoctrination for body dysmorphic disorder.

The problem according to you, you mean. Fantasy isn't a problem. It's a taste.

Okay, then it's my problem with modern comics. I'm expressing my opinion on the art style in this movie, and I think it's garish, ludicrous, and obnoxious.


A prime example is how ridiculous Venom looked in Spider-Man 3. Are you one of the "3" people in the world who actually liked that physical portrayal of Venom?

Absolutely. McFarlane's art style is hideous, and Venom is a dreadful character design, an embodiment of all the worst over-the-top qualities of '80s and '90s comics. Personally, I would've preferred for Venom not to be in that movie at all, but if he had to be, I'm glad his ridiculous excesses were toned down and his presence was kept to a minimum.



Is it? I'm talking about fantasy. Steroids maintain a fantasy. If you're arguing that real superheroes wouldn't look like that, you're making quite the flawed argument as there are no real superheroes for you to make that determination. Thus, your argument requires fantasy to work.

That's a totally ludicrous argument. Reasoned extrapolation is not fantasy. Obviously, superheroes would need to be physically strong and capable. They would use their muscles to do actual work, and would not have the time to develop the kind of specialized, artificial hypermusculature that professional bodybuilders have. That kind of musculature is purely for show, and requires extensive training of a very particular type -- and the use of anabolic steroids -- to develop it. Therefore, the only people who would have that kind of musculature are people who develop it for display. Superheroes would not do that, because they don't have time; they're too busy saving lives and using their muscles to do actual, practical work. Therefore the idea of a superhero being as bulked-up as a bodybuilder is ludicrous. They would be analogous to professional athletes, soldiers, firefighters, and the like, people who make practical use of their muscles rather than overdeveloping them for superficial display. And people who actually use their muscles to do work in dangerous or physically strenuous situations would have leaner, wirier muscles. That is not a fantasy, it is a physiological fact.


Besides, Bruce Lee in a Batman costume is in no way a scary sight. He's suppose to instill fear on sight, not uncontrollable laughter.

The Batman of the DC Animated Universe was big but lean and wiry. He was scary because he moved fast, because the shadows and the cape obscured his shape. He was scary because of the voice and the attitude.

And if Bruce Lee came after you, in any costume, and you weren't initially scared, I'm sure you would be once he caught up with you. You do not want to laugh at Bruce Lee, man.
 
That's a totally ludicrous argument. Reasoned extrapolation is not fantasy. Obviously, superheroes would need to be physically strong and capable. They would use their muscles to do actual work, and would not have the time to develop the kind of specialized, artificial hypermusculature that professional bodybuilders have. That kind of musculature is purely for show, and requires extensive training of a very particular type -- and the use of anabolic steroids -- to develop it. Therefore, the only people who would have that kind of musculature are people who develop it for display. Superheroes would not do that, because they don't have time; they're too busy saving lives and using their muscles to do actual, practical work. Therefore the idea of a superhero being as bulked-up as a bodybuilder is ludicrous. They would be analogous to professional athletes, soldiers, firefighters, and the like, people who make practical use of their muscles rather than overdeveloping them for superficial display. And people who actually use their muscles to do work in dangerous or physically strenuous situations would have leaner, wirier muscles. That is not a fantasy, it is a physiological fact.

Again, we're talking about fantasy. Superheroes couldn't possibly exist for long, if you want to deal with physiological facts. That kind of bodily abuse on a daily basis would cripple anyone. Most of what these Superheroes do is ridiculous, so your argument doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Anyone wearing a cape who isn't super strong is already dead, the first week they go out to fight the kind of crime they deal with. Likewise, anyone wearing high heels won't have a useful ankle to stand on, after day one. It's just a fantasy and in fantasy, illogical is the style of the day.


The Batman of the DC Animated Universe was big but lean and wiry. He was scary because he moved fast, because the shadows and the cape obscured his shape. He was scary because of the voice and the attitude.

No, he was scary specifically because he was wearing a bat costume. Bat's are scary. You think Batman would be scary, if he was wearing a frog costume? Frogman doesn't look scary at all to me, and he's got muscles.

And if Bruce Lee came after you, in any costume, and you weren't initially scared, I'm sure you would be once he caught up with you. You do not want to laugh at Bruce Lee, man.

Well, I'd have to know it was Bruce Lee first, before I got scared.;)
 
I liked it. I liked the comic version more, but, eh, I still enjoyed it.

Regarding Superman behaving somewhat out of character, I have to agree, but I also think it was plausible for Superman to behave this way. As much as Luthor has been obsessed with Superman, I think it's only naturally that the Man of Steel might find himself slipping into the same habit. I think the problem here was that they did not treat it as a "holy crap, I'm losing because I'm becoming like my enemy situation;" here, Superman behaved like Luthor and at the end of the movie, well, turns out he was right. So it validates his out of character behavior and seems karmicly out of whack.

Ideally, the story should have explored the fact that Superman's history with Luthor was affecting his judgment. Batman should have really been the one who had to point out to Superman that he was losing perspective. Overall, I think the JLU episode "Clash" handled and explored this concept much better.

Also, I did enjoy the art direction, but I also have to echo what Christopher referenced about having superheroes look like actual people. At some point, the trends in stylized physiology will surely have to implode and cause a reverse hyper-realism reaction.
 
It's just a fantasy and in fantasy, illogical is the style of the day.

And I'm entitled to dislike and criticize the style of the day. I'm not saying they don't have the right to do it, I'm saying I don't find the results enjoyable.


The Batman of the DC Animated Universe was big but lean and wiry. He was scary because he moved fast, because the shadows and the cape obscured his shape. He was scary because of the voice and the attitude.

No, he was scary specifically because he was wearing a bat costume. Bat's are scary.

If Adam West came up to you in the costume he wore, would you be scared? Or Val Kilmer with the Bat-nipples? Yes, of course the costume is part of it, but only as part of the whole overall process of disguising his true nature, being hard for the bad guys to see so that they aren't sure if he's even human and they never know from where he'll strike. He's not just scary in the way a bouncer is scary, he's scary in the way a monster striking from the shadows is scary. And part of that is speed and stealth, qualities to which overdeveloped muscular bulk is not conducive.
 
If Adam West came up to you in the costume he wore, would you be scared? Or Val Kilmer with the Bat-nipples? Yes, of course the costume is part of it, but only as part of the whole overall process of disguising his true nature, being hard for the bad guys to see so that they aren't sure if he's even human and they never know from where he'll strike. He's not just scary in the way a bouncer is scary, he's scary in the way a monster striking from the shadows is scary. And part of that is speed and stealth, qualities to which overdeveloped muscular bulk is not conducive.

Bats are black. Adam west wore a blue costume that showed he had no muscles. Come on, now. You can't expect that argument to hold.:lol: In fact, there's a scene in that series where Batman tries to use the shadow of his costume on the wall to scare the criminals.

And Val Kilmer's Batman was insanely ripped, so yes, he'd be intimidating. Most notably, there's a scene in that movie where Val Kilmer's Batman looks positively frightening. It's when Batman is walking through a fire and he has the most pissed-off look on his face.
 
I see what Christopher is saying. While the art style didn't bother me, I can see where it could. It over the top-ness of superhero muscles can get to a point where it looks too silly. Rob Liefeld is a big abuser of this.

Sometimes, I would argue, that it becomes so associated with a character, such as Spawn or Venom, that it is difficult to see the character without the over the top muscles.

Personally, I love Ed McGuinness's art style. I think it works for me because his style is a little more cartoony than his peers, which kinda allows me to suspend my disbelief for the bigger muscles.
 
In fact, all the character designs were pretty unappealing. Everything about them was taken to ridiculous excess -- excessively huge muscles, excessively huge bosoms, excessive obesity, excessively spiky anime hair, whatever. It didn't look very good.

You look at any modern day comic book and almost everyone looks like that. Look at the women in anime for example. It's just the artists drawing out their fantasies.

Big breasted woman and overly muscular guys who can do amazing feats.

For example the "HUSH" storyline(which I hope can be made into a direct to dvd movie)

brucewaynebatman.jpg
 
I see what Christopher is saying. While the art style didn't bother me, I can see where it could. It over the top-ness of superhero muscles can get to a point where it looks too silly. Rob Liefeld is a big abuser of this.

Sometimes, I would argue, that it becomes so associated with a character, such as Spawn or Venom, that it is difficult to see the character without the over the top muscles.

Personally, I love Ed McGuinness's art style. I think it works for me because his style is a little more cartoony than his peers, which kinda allows me to suspend my disbelief for the bigger muscles.

I agree, on all counts, with this.
 
Do you guys even buy comicbooks? I ask you, who here doesn't prefer that picture of Powergirl over 60's Supergirl? Who? Whoooooo?

Wow, Chris. You're kinda my hero with your delusions coming true and all. I just visited your site. I'm a writer, too, and my "delusions" haven't come true, yet... Well, except for that one time.
 
Maybe they'll do the next volume of Superman / Batman, which introduces the new Supergirl and has Darkseid as the baddie. That'd be pretty cool. I didn't enjoy the 3rd volume though, and the 4th one was too weird and confusing.
 
It wasn't the art style that bothered me, but I felt the quality of the animation was lacking. It didn't seem nearly as fluid or well-drawn as the previous movies, or even a lot of the TV episodes we've seen before.

I didn't care much for the script, either, which is too bad because I love this cast. I wish they'd had some better material to work with.

Maybe they'll do the next volume of Superman / Batman, which introduces the new Supergirl and has Darkseid as the baddie. That'd be pretty cool. I didn't enjoy the 3rd volume though, and the 4th one was too weird and confusing.

Good god I hope they bring back Michael Ironside. That guy has such a badass frickin' voice...
 
Do you guys even buy comicbooks? I ask you, who here doesn't prefer that picture of Powergirl over 60's Supergirl? Who? Whoooooo?
Power Girl in that picture looks like a slut, 60's Supergirl is cute, I'll take her over Power Girl any day.

Pictures like the one of Power Girl are the reason most people scoff at comics, it's like they are intentionally drawn to invoke the cliche of the horny nerd in his parent's basement, who hasn't grabbed a boob since his mom stopped breastfeeding him.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top