Superman Batman: Public Enemies

[Christopher]

Well, I just happened to come across a copy of the Public Enemies trade paperback in the bookstore today, so I read it out of curiosity. And it gives me a little more respect for the movie.

There are some ways in which the comic is better. I quite liked the opening pages telling Superman's and Batman's origin stories in parallel from their own POVs, both visually and in narration. The ongoing dual narration throughout is fairly interesting. And I owe Ed McGuinness a bit of an apology, since his Power Girl isn't quite as top-heavy as the movie's version.

In many respects, though, the movie handles things better. It drops the random tangents like the older Superman coming back from the future to kill his past self (huh?) and Luthor trying to distract Batman by planting evidence that Corben killed the Waynes (even though he doesn't know Batman is Bruce Wayne, so there's no possible reason why he'd think that would preoccupy Batman unduly). And it makes the Metallo fight more integral to the story rather than just a random incident.

While the movie does a poor job setting up the events that lead to the bounty on Superman, the comic does even worse. Luthor just claims out of nowhere that the meteor is something Superman brought down deliberately to wipe out Earth? As if anyone would possibly believe that? Okay, it's an obvious pastiche of Bush and the alleged Iraqi WMDs, but it doesn't wash. Lying that a known dictator has WMDs is at least credible, but claiming that Superman is out to destroy the world? Why would anyone believe that for a second? It made much more sense in the movie -- Luthor frames Superman for murder and even explains the change in his behavior by invoking kryptonite-induced insanity. And since it didn't really make a lot of sense in the movie, that makes the comic's version look even more arbitrary and absurd.

And while I found the movie's Power Girl to be a relatively passive character, she's given a much more substantial and active role in the movie than in the comic. The same with Waller, who in the comic was merely a minor player in Luthor's administration and ended up under arrest at the end, but who in the movie was a stronger counterbalance to Luthor and ended up turning on him, IIRC. So while I felt the movie was lacking in a strong female presence, the comic was far worse.

The movie also made better use of the gimmick of Superman and Batman disguising themselves as Captain Marvel and Hawkman. In the movie, they actually use those disguises to let them infiltrate Luthor's base of operations. In the comic, there's a passing reference that they were going to use the costumes that way, but then they just end up storming the White House by force, so the costume switch is totally without purpose.

As for the ending,

Spoiler: both versions of the ending

I kind of liked the comic's ending with Captain Atom redeeming himself by destroying the asteroid and absorbing the radiation. I can certainly understand why they made Batman the rocket pilot in the movie; if you're going to make a standalone movie (as opposed to an ongoing series) and call it Superman/Batman, the climactic act of heroism really should be performed by either Superman or Batman. Still, having Batman go on a suicide mission was a little too reminiscent of the finale of Justice League: "Star-crossed."

Still, there's plenty of stuff that's equally stupid in both versions. The rocket, for one thing. And the whole "billion-dollar bounty" thing. Does the President even have the legal authority to issue such a bounty? Even if he does, unless Luthor's drawing from his own fortune, I doubt he could get Congress to allocate tacking a billion dollars onto the federal budget. And would convicted or escaped criminals be eligible to collect such a bounty?

 

[Luminus]

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.

*Puts on the heavy debater's hat...*

The reason Power Girl is being looked at in a negative way is because she has big breasts. It's the same exact issue Meghan McCain is dealing with right now. It's the same reason Jeri Ryan caught so much flak for her 7 of 9 character (Kira wore a bodysuit on DS9 and no one complained). It's ridiculous and very transparent. Sexuality and desire are very natural things and I wish people would stop trying to vilify it.

Does Zena look like a slut? She's half naked, mind you. How about Red Sonja (also half-naked)? Wonder Woman (another half-naked superhero)? Uhura (whose panties[?] were visible on several occasions and danced stark naked on a mound as a distraction)? Michelle Phiefer's Catwoman (Wearing a catsuit seems to qualify as being a slut as well.)?

Here's the kicker: Does Dr. Manhattan look like a slut? How about Wolverine (who's out of his shirt so many times it's ridiculous) Of course not, right? Men can't be sluts, no matter how provocative they look, even when they're naked the entire time with muscles bulging from everywhere. T R A N S P A R E N T.

If you prefer the '60's drawing of Supergirl, that's your personal taste. But don't say you enjoy it because Power Girl looks like a slut. I think you need to qualify a statement like that, as Power Girl looks pretty much like any other female superhero out there (in terms of outfit).

No, the reason most people scoff at comics is the same reason most people scoff at soap opera's: they're ridiculous. But fun.

And, by the way, I don't believe you for a second. If you knew that Power Girl wasn't a slut and was a nice woman and you had a choice between her and 60's nice woman Supergirl, I'm willing to bet that you'd take Power Girl.

*shields to max; rerouting power from transwarp coil*

 

[Christopher]

I've got nothing against big breasts (so long as they're natural), but I like small and medium ones too. Beauty comes in many forms, and I'd rather see comic-book artists portray them all rather than limit themselves to a single body type over and over again. My tastes in fantasy are not that narrow.

Besides, sometimes big breasts are given to characters that shouldn't credibly have them. Like Catwoman and her Marvel counterpart the Black Cat. An effective catburglar would ideally have a lithe, compact, slender form suitable for sneaking through narrow spaces. An ample bust would be an impediment for moving through air vents and could cause balance problems while walking along a tightrope or the top of a wall. Look at acrobats, dancers, high-wire artists, contortionists, and you don't see a lot of double-D cups.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I generally don't like art styles that centre on overly exaggerated muscles and enormous gravity-defying breasts (and there are a lot of very good artists who offer alternatives to that style these days - it's a style less prevalent now than it was in the 90s), but McGuinness's cartoony version of that style is a lot more pleasing than some of its other purveyors.

And the design team did a very good job in translating McGuinness's style into animation. It's not something I'd like to see become the norm in animation designs for the DCU line, but it was a fun, pleasing change of pace. Although Sam Liu, the co-director of the movie, said in an interview that the extra line work of the designs placed a big burden on the overseas animators and was one of the main reasons for the movie being 8-10 minutes shorter than the previous DTVs.

 

[Takeru]

*Puts on the heavy debater's hat...*

The reason Power Girl is being looked at in a negative way is because she has big breasts. It's the same exact issue Meghan McCain is dealing with right now. It's the same reason Jeri Ryan caught so much flak for her 7 of 9 character (Kira wore a bodysuit on DS9 and no one complained). It's ridiculous and very transparent. Sexuality and desire are very natural things and I wish people would stop trying to vilify it.

It really isn't the exact same thing, you cannot compare real women to a fictional character, whose breast size can change on an artist's whim.
Another thing is, I don't have a problem with big breasts and I never said Power Girl looks like a slut because she has big breasts, I said Power Girl in that picture looks like a slut. When I look at the picture I don't see a strong, intelligent character, I just see a pair of breasts and a butt, attached to a woman who's peeking under an uncomfortable girl's skirt. The problem is the pose, the presentation ... the complete picture. It basically says "Look at my boobs while I look at that ass ... you may now start fapping!", it's cheap.

Does Zena look like a slut? She's half naked, mind you. How about Red Sonja (also half-naked)? Wonder Woman (another half-naked superhero)? Uhura (whose panties[?] were visible on several occasions and danced stark naked on a mound as a distraction)? Michelle Phiefer's Catwoman (Wearing a catsuit seems to qualify as being a slut as well.)?

You really missed my point, I wasn't talinkg about a character, I was talking about one picture of a character.
To answer your question, I don't think one of these characters looks like slut because of nudity, panties or catsuits, all of these thing are perfectly fine. However, they could look like sluts, if they're drawn/photographed in a way that reduces them to some physical attributes. There's a line between sexy and slutty and the Power Girl picture, at least in my opinion, crossed it.

Here's the kicker: Does Dr. Manhattan look like a slut? How about Wolverine (who's out of his shirt so many times it's ridiculous) Of course not, right? Men can't be sluts, no matter how provocative they look, even when they're naked the entire time with muscles bulging from everywhere. T R A N S P A R E N T.

Of course men can look like sluts, they're just not drawn that way. Dr. Manhatten being nude is not provocative, it's just part of the picture, not the whole reason the pictures in question were drawn to begin with.
Now imagine a picture of Superman in costume, where his gigantic bulge is front and center, while he's pulling down Superboy's pants to get a better look at his equipment. Would that picture be a good representation of one of these characters and their roles in the DCU? Of course not, you would probably hate it.

If you prefer the '60's drawing of Supergirl, that's your personal taste. But don't say you enjoy it because Power Girl looks like a slut.

But that's the reason I prefer the drawing of Supergirl. Seriously, did you forget your own question?
"I ask you, who here doesn't prefer that picture of Powergirl over 60's Supergirl?"
Don't ask question about drawings if you don't want answers based on these drawings.

 

[Luminus]

I've got nothing against big breasts (so long as they're natural), but I like small and medium ones too. Beauty comes in many forms, and I'd rather see comic-book artists portray them all rather than limit themselves to a single body type over and over again. My tastes in fantasy are not that narrow.

Besides, sometimes big breasts are given to characters that shouldn't credibly have them. Like Catwoman and her Marvel counterpart the Black Cat. An effective catburglar would ideally have a lithe, compact, slender form suitable for sneaking through narrow spaces. An ample bust would be an impediment for moving through air vents and could cause balance problems while walking along a tightrope or the top of a wall. Look at acrobats, dancers, high-wire artists, contortionists, and you don't see a lot of double-D cups.

And they do. I’ve seen rogue portrayed with both big and small boobs. Different strokes for different folks.

Example Small
Example Big

But, again, it’s just fantasy. You’re applying real world issues to a fantasy world. Catburgulars don’t wear cat suits and they certainly don’t jump around rooftops. They don’t carry whips and they don’t swing from building to building, either. The breasts are there for asthetics, just like the muscles. Case in point, Mr. Fantastic is just as ripped as Nightwing. I mean, really, when was the last time you saw a scientist with that kind of body?

It really isn't the exact same thing, you cannot compare real women to a fictional character, whose breast size can change on an artist's whim.

A picture of a woman with big breasts is a picture of a woman with big breasts. It doesn’t matter if the picture is real or not; especially with all the fake things on display nowadays. Therefore, I can make the comparison.

Another thing is, I don't have a problem with big breasts and I never said Power Girl looks like a slut because she has big breasts, I said Power Girl in that picture looks like a slut. When I look at the picture I don't see a strong, intelligent character, I just see a pair of breasts and a butt, attached to a woman who's peeking under an uncomfortable girl's skirt. The problem is the pose, the presentation ... the complete picture. It basically says "Look at my boobs while I look at that ass ... you may now start fapping!", it's cheap.

How, exactly can you see an intelligent character? That’s why I said people have a problem with the big breasts. You can’t tell anything at all from that picture, other than the reaction your personal physical attraction is giving you and that Power Girl might be a little gay. You know who Power Girl is, yet you still labeled her a slut for that pose. That’s why I said it was transparent.

Her pose is provocative. It’s supposed to be. I don’t see how that’s a problem. Even still, there’s no pose that Power Girl could possibly stand in, wearing that outfit with that cup size that would make her not sexy. I’ve checked.

Here’s a picture of Power Girl simply having a conversation, and still, I find her to be outrageously sexy.
Power Girl

Here’s her in a simple Superman like pose:
Power Girl 2

Still ridiculously sexy. And, finally, here’s what looks like her Kingdom Come version:

Power Girl 3

Still jaw-dropping

Yes, some poses are more provocative. But, that all depends on taste. Not everyone likes the same thing and not everyone sees it the same way. I think there are some Afghanistans that would kill their wives for going out in public with that Kingdom Come outfit.

You really missed my point, I wasn't talinkg about a character, I was talking about one picture of a character.
To answer your question, I don't think one of these characters looks like slut because of nudity, panties or catsuits. However, they could look like sluts, if they're drawn/photographed in a way that reduces them to some physical attributes. There's a line between sexy and slutty and the Power Girl picture crossed it.

I know you was referring to that picture. You have a problem with her pose, but I still believe the problem is with her breasts size. Had her breasts been smaller, I doubt you would have said she looked like a slut. You didn’t mention Supergirl in that same picture, I noticed—the one with the smaller breasts, by the way. They’re both depicted in the same provocative manner. The picture is meant to be visually appealing (as are they all), not mentally. That’s what text only books are for. And, speaking of that picture, all Power Girl is doing is resting her hand on her hip while pulling up Supergirl’s skirt. I’ve seen far worse in Dragonball Z manga and that’s specifically made for children.

Of course men can look like sluts, they're just not drawn that way. Dr. Manhatten being nude is not provocative, it's just part of the picture, not the whole reason the pictures in question were drawn to begin with.
Now imagine a picture of Superman in costume, where his gigantic bulge is front and center, while he's pulling down Superboy's pants to get a better look at his equipment. Would that picture be a good representation of one of these characters and their roles in the DCU? Of course not, you would probably hate it.

I would hate it, simply because it immediately triggers a gay-sex-yuck reaction. Straight men just don’t respond well to gay scenes. It’s just the way it is. But, if DC wanted to appeal to a certain group of female readers that were large enough to warrant it, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Unless, of course, they changed the sexual preference of Superman spontaneously. That would be a problem for me, just like changing the sexual preference of the Black Cat spontaneously was a disappointment to me.

By the way, there’s a lot of people who would disagree with you over that Dr. Manhattan fiasco. Believe me, people were offended by that movie character’s nudeness. Nudity is provocative. There’s just no way around that.

Now you picture Power Girl standing naked on a comicbook cover, hands out to the side like the Vertruvian Man. Are you gonna tell me that’s not provocative?

You’re saying that there’s intent to be provocative and I agree. But that’s the point. It’s supposed to be. Every single time someone comes out with a sexualized cover, someone complains. Can’t these people once in their lives just say, “Hey, it’s a provocative cover. I’ve never seen Power Girl in that pose before. Hmm.”

But that's the reason I prefer the drawing of Supergirl. Seriously, did you forget your own question?
"I ask you, who here doesn't prefer that picture of Powergirl over 60's Supergirl?"
Don't ask question about drawings if you don't want answers based on these drawings.

Again, based on me qualifying that question later, I don’t believe you. That’s fair.

 

[Christopher]

But, again, it’s just fantasy.

You keep tossing that line out as a defense, but I reject it. Just because something is fantasy doesn't mean it's all right for it to be stupid or demeaning. Good fantasy is believable. It makes it easy for the audience to willingly suspend their disbelief. It respects their intelligence rather than demanding that they lower their intellectual standards to its level. And it respects its characters rather than objectifying them.

The kind of fantasy you're talking about is something base, lowbrow, and self-absorbed. If it's a private fantasy within your own mind or your own bedroom, that's one thing; it can be as crude, shallow, idiotic, and demeaning as you want, as long as you understand the distinction between fantasy and reality. But professionally published fantasy fiction is a different matter, something where higher standards should be applied. You don't have to sink to base titillation and sophomoric depictions of women in order to tell a sexy story. You don't have to abandon every standard of believability in order to stimulate the audience's sense of fun. You're saying that "fantasy" is all the justification you need to be as crude and stupid as you want, and that's just plain wrong. Fantasy can be smart, believable, classy, and subtle without being any less a fantasy

 

[Broccoli]

Power Girl is just one walking boob joke. I don't mean that as snarky. Every comic I have seen her in, regardless of how "serious" the comic is, there is always some throwaway reference to how hot or how big Power Girl's boobs are. It's kinda cute once, but serious, it get juvenile after a while.

 

[Luminus]

But, again, it’s just fantasy.

You keep tossing that line out as a defense, but I reject it. Just because something is fantasy doesn't mean it's all right for it to be stupid or demeaning. Good fantasy is believable. It makes it easy for the audience to willingly suspend their disbelief. It respects their intelligence rather than demanding that they lower their intellectual standards to its level. And it respects its characters rather than objectifying them.

The kind of fantasy you're talking about is something base, lowbrow, and self-absorbed. If it's a private fantasy within your own mind or your own bedroom, that's one thing; it can be as crude, shallow, idiotic, and demeaning as you want, as long as you understand the distinction between fantasy and reality. But professionally published fantasy fiction is a different matter, something where higher standards should be applied. You don't have to sink to base titillation and sophomoric depictions of women in order to tell a sexy story. You don't have to abandon every standard of believability in order to stimulate the audience's sense of fun. You're saying that "fantasy" is all the justification you need to be as crude and stupid as you want, and that's just plain wrong. Fantasy can be smart, believable, classy, and subtle without being any less a fantasy

Different strokes for different folks. You see I was willing to allow for a ridiculous portrayal of Superman. Why is that so hard for you to do?

And, by the way, there's not a single fantasy story that's believable. That's why it's a fantasy (hardcore drama's don't count as fantasy, because they're actually trying really hard to be real). Comicbooks aren't made specifically for boujie-fi-fi people in Beverly Hills. They're made for everyone. You want classy comics, you can go read Kingdom Come or Rising Stars. You want violent comics, you can read Wolverine and the Punisher. You want raunchy, you can read Heavy Metal and Manga. And, if you want outrageous boobs, you can read Power Girl (JSA/JLA/JLE) and Lady Death.

I understand why you don't like it. I just don't understand this need to put it down and suggest it should go away. That's quite selfish.