Superman Vs. The Elite...

[Warped9]

Superman Vs. The Elite ****

Superman doesn't know what to make of a new group of superheroes.

I picked this up when it was released this week. It's one of the DC animated straight-to-video films. In this one Superman comes up against a new group of superheroes. The difference is these heroes are willing to cross the line and have no problems with killing. And they fully intend to act out what they believe by going after rogue nations and such around the world. In Metropolis they summarily execute a criminal after he had already been subdued.

At first these heroes, calling themselves The Elite, are media darlings and they win popular support by knocking off terrorists and criminals. But then the choice for the public comes down to whether The Elite are what people want for the new century. Superman orders whether he and his code of justice are relevant anymore.

Despite the generally bright setting there some pretty dark and edgy elements in this. I thought this was good Superman story and really addressed the idea of what it really means to be a super powered hero. This really addresses Clark/Superman's morals. The special features to the making of the film also really underscore this issue. What does truth and justice really mean?

I really liked this even though I had only two quibbles. Firstly I wasn't that fond of the art style. It wasn't horrible, it was serviceable, but it just looked odd to me. My other quibble is that this shouldn't have been just Superman's problem. The Elite are international and it seemed like it might have worked better as a Justice League story.

Otherwise I really enjoyed this. Not that surprising because I generally like the DC animated features. Maybe thats why I'm not that interested in the forthcoming Man Of Steel live-action film. I feel Superman is being done pretty well overall in the animated features. That goes for the other DC characters as well. Certainly I think Green Lantern has been done much better in the animated features as opposed to live-action.

Anyway, if you like Superman then I recommend this one.

 

[Brikar99]

I forgot that this one was due out this week until I saw a commercial for it earlier today. I'm hoping to check it out soon.

 

[Warped9]

My current DC animated library:

All Star Superman (2011)
Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm (1993)
Batman: Sub Zero (1998)
Batman: Mystery Of The Batwoman (2003)
Batman: Under The Red Hood (2010)
Batman: Year One (2011)
Green Lantern: Emerald Knights (2011)
Green Lantern: First Flight (2009)
Justice League: The New Frontier (2008)
Justice League: Crisis On Two Earths (2010)
Justice League: Doom (2012)
Superman: Doomsday (2008)
Superman/Batman: Public Enemies (2009)
Superman/Batman: Apocalypse (2010)
Superman Vs. The Elite (2012)
Wonder Woman (2009)

Batman (animated): Seasons 1-2
Superman (animated): Vol. 1-3

I'm also looking forward to The Dark Knight Returns coming out this fall, but I'm a little bummed they're referring to only Part 1. Wouldn't it have been better to have the entire story together?

As such I don't feel too badly about DC not having anything really decent in live-action other than Batman.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The ending?

Mel Brookes should sue.

But...

Machester Black was one pisspoor telepath to not notice how ignorant he was about his impotence.

The right tool for the job.

The Martian Manhunter or even Aquaman would have been able to make Manchester Black piss his pants and pass out and never wake up.

Should Superman lobotomise all his villains?

Knock Lex Luthor's IQ down to double digits?

Flashfry the legs off jay walkers?

Superman crossed a line, but he was so busy looking at the far off away in the distant line that Manchester Black painted, that he didn't notice all the lines inbetween where he was standing and the summery execution of all the tinpot little dictators of rouge nations like France and Finland that Clark made some serious steps towards being a super villain himself.

It's not clever to amputate someone's brain, it's evil.

How frakking different is this Clark from the Superman in the original Dark Knight who ripped off Oliver Queens arm because he wouldn''t get in line behind Ronald Regan's agenda for a Brave New World?

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

He didn't actually lobotomize Black. He simply gave that mass in his brain a serious concussion. His powers eventually returned but not before they slapped a neural neutralizer on him.

 

[Christopher]

I'm also looking forward to The Dark Knight Returns coming out this fall, but I'm a little bummed they're referring to only Part 1. Wouldn't it have been better to have the entire story together?

Warner Bros. isn't willing to allocate the budget for more than a 70-odd-minute direct-to-video movie; the profits they get from DVD sales aren't enough to make up for the cost of anything longer. So if the producers want to make a story that's twice as long, they have to do it as two separate movies.

Anyway, it's worth keeping in mind that TDKR wasn't just a single continuous story cut into fourths by length, but was structured in four distinct parts, each with its own climax and resolution. The Dark Knight Returns (originally just the name of part 1) is about Batman coming out of retirement and defeating the returned Two-Face; The Dark Knight Triumphant focuses on the Mutants and Batman's defeat of them; Hunt the Dark Knight focuses on the Joker and brings his story to a rather decisive end; and The Dark Knight Falls is the big finish. So I figure it can work pretty well as two parts as well; the defeat of the Mutants serves as an effective climax to Part 1, and the re-emergence of the Joker and Superman's intervention can serve as a good beginning to Part 2.

 

[Dream]

I have a bunch of Batman animated movies on dvd.

I only own Superman: Doomsday and All Star Superman. I thought both movies were pretty good.

How does this new Superman flick compare to those two?

 

[Guy Gardener]

He didn't actually lobotomize Black. He simply gave that mass in his brain a serious concussion. His powers eventually returned but not before they slapped a neural neutralizer on him.

I was about to leave the house.

Had to unpack my satchel with the dvd in it to rewatch the last 5 minutes.

During the play acting he says...

"I cut it out, instant lobotomy."

After the reveal

The Super robots are stripping the rest of the Elite of their powers in the fortress.

there's no reversal.

There's no neuralizer slapped onto his neck.

the super robots just carry him off into the sunset.

if anything they're taking him up tot he Fortress to make sure that Manchester Blacks powers are removed completely and forever.

While his robot slaves are preforming illegal brain surgery, what's Superman doing?

High altitude fornicating with a plucky reporter.

Are they married?
...

Was the comic book different?

I didn't get to the end of the comic because I thought it was awful.

A dull lampoon.

Seriously.

Jenny Sparks vs Superman?

Clark wouldn't stand a chance.

She had a threesome with Oppenheimer and Einstein.

She was born January 1st 1900.

You don't get to be century old with out knowing how to suckerpunch someone twice your size and leave a mark.

It's ridiculous to think that the deck had to be stacked in his favour so extraneously before Clark had a chance against the Authority that Spinal tap turned the volume down to minus 3.

 

[Warped9]

I only own Superman: Doomsday and All Star Superman. I thought both movies were pretty good.

How does this new Superman flick compare to those two?

In terms of story I think it's on par with those two. As I said in my initial post my only real quibble with this film was the animation style---it irked me a bit. Also, I know it's written as a Superman story to focus on him, but this really did seem like a job for the Justice League. But in that scenario I don't really think The Elite would have had much of a chance.

 

[Captain Qwert Jr]

It's certainly the liveliest DC straight-to-video, I've seen. And let's welcome George Newbern to the lofty heights of voice actors where it's hard to imagine anyone else doing that character.

Thematically, it's arguing about several different things and doesn't realize it. It just scratches and scratches at the surface of the nature of superhero stories, Superman stories, deconstructions, politics through fantasy, force and violence and the law, and this and that and these and those until it festers and pops sickly pus all over the place.

 

[sojourner]

So, the opening fight scene with atomic skull. WTF? why was Superman going out of his way to do damage to the city in that fight?

 

[davejames]

Haven't watched the whole thing yet, but could they have made Superman look like any more of a big dumb lug? Lol

 

[BDJ]

I own all of the DC animated films and have enjoyed them all, with the exception of that Batman anthology film whose title escapes me right now.

I really liked Superman vs The Elite. I could've enjoyed it more if the animation style had been better. (My 13 year old son kept commenting on how Superman looked like Jay Leno with that chin!) The Crimson Chin jokes abounded!

But...the story really made the point with my son. He usually gets so put out by Superman stories with bad guys like Lex Luthor whom my son thinks Superman should just "show them whose boss!".

But the story showed him exactly what I've always told him, it's not that Superman should put the "smackdown" on bad guys like Luthor - or even lesser powered villians- he has the power to do so of course.

It's Superman's strength of character that keeps him from pounding/killing these people. He lets the law handle them.

It's about how Supes has to fight the temptation to really stomp on those that he knows deserves it. It's not that he doesn't want to, it's that he knows he can't go down that path or it'll end with the destruction of everything he's stood for and he could lose his very own soul in the process.

That's why Superman, to me, is not only the greatest of the comic book hero characters but he should be respected and not ridiculed for his refusal to squash the bad guys skulls into dust. Once he starts...he might start to like it! Then when he's done with all of them....who might be next?? Purse snatchers, speeders, Jay walkers?

In todays world filled with movies and tv shows showing gruesome murders. Cops and such exacting gun blasting revenge. Video games with higher body counts that WWII, I've seen that young children get the message that you can just "blow them away" with no thought about it.

Y'know when you indoctrinate your young like that it could become a scary thing....for us all. So speaking for myself, I'm glad this little cartoon gave me the opportunity to drive the point home to my video game loving son. (I don't let him have many shooter games. Never anything that has him actually shooting other humans. Halo is about it.)

And now, because of Superman vs The Elite, I think I won't have to answer any more questions about why Superman, Batman, Spiderman etc don't just "take out" their bad guys.

But next time...please don't make the animation so...chunky.

 

[Warped9]

I really liked Superman vs The Elite. I could've enjoyed it more if the animation style had been better.

Exactly what I thought.

 

[hyzmarca]

I own all of the DC animated films and have enjoyed them all, with the exception of that Batman anthology film whose title escapes me right now.

I really liked Superman vs The Elite. I could've enjoyed it more if the animation style had been better. (My 13 year old son kept commenting on how Superman looked like Jay Leno with that chin!) The Crimson Chin jokes abounded!

But...the story really made the point with my son. He usually gets so put out by Superman stories with bad guys like Lex Luthor whom my son thinks Superman should just "show them whose boss!".

But the story showed him exactly what I've always told him, it's not that Superman should put the "smackdown" on bad guys like Luthor - or even lesser powered villians- he has the power to do so of course.

It's Superman's strength of character that keeps him from pounding/killing these people. He lets the law handle them.

It's about how Supes has to fight the temptation to really stomp on those that he knows deserves it. It's not that he doesn't want to, it's that he knows he can't go down that path or it'll end with the destruction of everything he's stood for and he could lose his very own soul in the process.

That's why Superman, to me, is not only the greatest of the comic book hero characters but he should be respected and not ridiculed for his refusal to squash the bad guys skulls into dust. Once he starts...he might start to like it! Then when he's done with all of them....who might be next?? Purse snatchers, speeders, Jay walkers?

In todays world filled with movies and tv shows showing gruesome murders. Cops and such exacting gun blasting revenge. Video games with higher body counts that WWII, I've seen that young children get the message that you can just "blow them away" with no thought about it.

Y'know when you indoctrinate your young like that it could become a scary thing....for us all. So speaking for myself, I'm glad this little cartoon gave me the opportunity to drive the point home to my video game loving son. (I don't let him have many shooter games. Never anything that has him actually shooting other humans. Halo is about it.)

And now, because of Superman vs The Elite, I think I won't have to answer any more questions about why Superman, Batman, Spiderman etc don't just "take out" their bad guys.

But next time...please don't make the animation so...chunky.

I'm glad that you were able to have a useful discussion with your son about that, though it would have been nice if the movie made a distinction between self-defense and revenge and didn't totally strawman the Elite in the end.

There is, after all, a difference between a cop who kills a deranged gunman in the middle of a shooting spree and some who kills a defenseless person who can't fight back. The concept of justified homicide exits for a reason. Given the choice between letting innocent people be murdered or killing the gunman, most people would make the latter choice.

In this particular film, Superman chose the former. He chose to let innocent people be murdered rather than use lethal force in defense of them, and that's kind of screwed up.

The film could have done without the second fight with Atomic Skull, or it could have avoided turning the Elite into giant duchebags and let the arguments of both sides stand on their own merits.

 

[sonak]

I own all of the DC animated films and have enjoyed them all, with the exception of that Batman anthology film whose title escapes me right now.

I really liked Superman vs The Elite. I could've enjoyed it more if the animation style had been better. (My 13 year old son kept commenting on how Superman looked like Jay Leno with that chin!) The Crimson Chin jokes abounded!

But...the story really made the point with my son. He usually gets so put out by Superman stories with bad guys like Lex Luthor whom my son thinks Superman should just "show them whose boss!".

But the story showed him exactly what I've always told him, it's not that Superman should put the "smackdown" on bad guys like Luthor - or even lesser powered villians- he has the power to do so of course.

It's Superman's strength of character that keeps him from pounding/killing these people. He lets the law handle them.

It's about how Supes has to fight the temptation to really stomp on those that he knows deserves it. It's not that he doesn't want to, it's that he knows he can't go down that path or it'll end with the destruction of everything he's stood for and he could lose his very own soul in the process.

That's why Superman, to me, is not only the greatest of the comic book hero characters but he should be respected and not ridiculed for his refusal to squash the bad guys skulls into dust. Once he starts...he might start to like it! Then when he's done with all of them....who might be next?? Purse snatchers, speeders, Jay walkers?

In todays world filled with movies and tv shows showing gruesome murders. Cops and such exacting gun blasting revenge. Video games with higher body counts that WWII, I've seen that young children get the message that you can just "blow them away" with no thought about it.

Y'know when you indoctrinate your young like that it could become a scary thing....for us all. So speaking for myself, I'm glad this little cartoon gave me the opportunity to drive the point home to my video game loving son. (I don't let him have many shooter games. Never anything that has him actually shooting other humans. Halo is about it.)

And now, because of Superman vs The Elite, I think I won't have to answer any more questions about why Superman, Batman, Spiderman etc don't just "take out" their bad guys.

But next time...please don't make the animation so...chunky.

though I agree with the overall sentiment, I disagree that the situation with Superman is analagous to that of Batman or Spider-Man. Superman is incredibly powerful, a demigod with few weaknesses. When criminals are shooting at him, his life is not in danger so he doesn't have to respond with deadly force.

Spider-Man and Batman are vulnerable when fighting criminals. It would make a lot more sense if they had to be more violent and extreme in their methods to protect themselves.

 

[BDJ]

Hey Sonak,

I agree with your thoughts there, I just kinda lumped those guys in together with Supes because those are my sons favorites.

Also because those characters have decided to be "non-lethal".

It would make more sense for them to use lethal force but they choose not to. That is a great character statement for comic characters these days!

 

[Guy Gardener]

If a hero uses lethal force constantly, that hero immediately becomes a hunted criminal like our friend Frank Castle.

 

[Christopher]

As I've mentioned in another thread, there's actually a good self-serving legal argument for superheroes not to use lethal force if they can possibly avoid it, even aside from what should be the obvious moral reasons. If they're vigilantes rather than police or military, then they don't have the aegis of the state to support them in a case of lethal force, so they're exposed to the risk of homicide charges or wrongful death lawsuits. And while it's barely credible that a nonlethal vigilante could earn the support and cooperation of the police and authorities, a superbeing who killed people would be seen as a threat to public safety and be hunted by the authorities for sure. So the consequences of taking a life would make it a lot harder for a superhero to do his or her job or maintain a secret identity.

We actually saw this in classic Spider-Man comics. He was initially tolerated by the police, and even when they were nominally after him due to Jameson stirring up the city against him, a lot of rank-and-file cops respected what he did and didn't try very hard to arrest him. But once he was suspected of killing Gwen Stacy, it became a much more active manhunt and it got harder for him to function as a superhero until he was cleared. And that was when he didn't actually kill anybody.

And of course, Superman is so much more powerful than everyone else, so potentially destructive if he ever let his power get out of hand, that he has to maintain an absolute line against killing so as to reassure the public that he's not a threat to them. I'm sure the government keeps a stockpile of kryptonite on hand just in case, and if it ever became evident that Superman had decided human life was expendable, they'd declare him a threat to global security and take him down -- if Batman didn't do it first.

 

[davejames]

Man, what a good story... that was almost ruined by some distractingly bad character design. This really called for the kind of sophisticated design we saw in Batman Year One, not the simplistic, cartoony stuff we got here.