Page 118 of 489 FirstFirst ... 1868108114115116117118119120121122128168218 ... LastLast
Results 1,756 to 1,770 of 7324

Thread: DCU Movies

  1. #1756

    Default

    I was reading some of Marv Wolfman's run for the Brainiac revamp and yeah, Superman absolutely does have a temper. He trashes Vandal Savage's office (at the time Vandal owned a corporation and was basically Post Crisis Lex Luthor) purely out of the frustration that he can't bring Vandal in for his crimes and later he is very blase out his part in blowing up Lexoor; Lex's ideal dream planet which causes Lex to hate him even more ("Hate? No, I've only just begun to know what that means." Chills).

    The CBR Community Guidelines & Rules
    | Report but also PM me directly

  2. #1757
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Goblin of Sector 2814 View Post
    Okay, here's the thing: the whole idea of Superman being a rule-following yuppie in post-Crisis interpretations is really overblown and so is the idea that Golden Age/New 52 Superman was some paragon of the people whose actions were not problematic at all. In the end, there has to be a balance. Yes, Superman must and always will fight for the little guy and stand up to institutional repression. However, that in no way means that Superman should be resorting to tactics that make him seem more like a terrorist than a superhero, i.e. the dangling of people off of balconies like he did in the New 52.

    Because in the end, that's what differentiates Superman from people who take more extreme measures like Batman. He respects everyone, no matter what. And I'm not saying Batman is some horrible person with no compassion, but his method of crimefighting does dehumanize criminals to an extent. Superman, on the other hand, is always willing to give people a second chance, even if you are the criminal (except for Lex who is like on his 7th chance by now).

    And that's not saying that Superman is naive, but he's NOT the type of person who dangles people off of rooftops and balconies. He is however the type of person who will write up a tell-all exposé on corrupt and/or evil actors to run in the Daily Planet (or give that info to Lois so she can do it).
    A lot of it is down to our polarized political discourse. Golden Age/New 52 Superman is 'good' because he's a 'socialist'/left-wing Superman. Post-COIE Superman is 'bad' because he's a 'yuppie'/right-wing Superman. And so on.

    Ultimately, the Siegal/Shuster Superman was more a vigilante rather than some kind of radical political revolutionary. Like Batman, he wasn't trying to transform society - he was just helping out by taking down criminals the system failed to take down. I remember an early Superman comic (was it Action Comics # 1?) where a bunch of police and government leaders are having a meeting where they talk about how dangerous Superman is but "Thank God he appears to be on the side of law and order". So it was less that Superman was some big challenge to the socio-political status quo and more that he was a vigilante whose actions alarmed the authorities, but who was also grudgingly admired by them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Gunn included All Star in his tweet for comics which will directly inspire the movies.

    Besides Morrison, Waid disagrees with you:



    As the old song goes “don’t tug on Superman’s cape”. If you piss him off, and he has a temper he wrestles with, then yeah he absolutely is the guy would dangle someone off a balcony.
    Ah yes, forgot about that! I though All-Star was just used as an image during the announcement.

    But my point still stands...Gunn's tweet aside, maybe DC Infinite is only including stories which will have a direct plot-based impact on the new slate.

  3. #1758
    Extraordinary Member Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,687

    Default

    Considering King’s involvement and the fact he was co-writing the New Gods movie, I wonder if the New Gods will play a role in the first chapter.
    It is called Gods and Monsters after all…

  4. #1759
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Besides Morrison, Waid disagrees with you:

    As the old song goes “don’t tug on Superman’s cape”. If you piss him off, and he has a temper he wrestles with, then yeah he absolutely is the guy would dangle someone off a balcony.
    You realize that Superman stopped that bullet before it hit the guy, don't you? Because that's the thing: Superman would never ever in a million years let that bullet hit him, no matter what he'd just done. However, it seems that a certain section of the fandom wants Superman to be the type of person who shoots and maims unpowered individuals in the name of some social crusade.

    I'm a left-wing Democrat myself, but I know that that is wrong. Superman does not punch down. He does not hurt people who are, by nature, significantly weaker than himself. He knows better. He knows that if he enforces his sense of a world order onto other people because he knows that if he does that, it's not really humanity's choice. They're just following him because he's an all-powerful god that's telling him what to do.

    ck0mk5heyf8a1.jpg

    Superman doesn't enforce his will on society by punching down on people weaker than him. He knows that's not his place.
    Last edited by Green Goblin of Sector 2814; 02-05-2023 at 08:16 AM.

  5. #1760
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    A lot of it is down to our polarized political discourse. Golden Age/New 52 Superman is 'good' because he's a 'socialist'/left-wing Superman. Post-COIE Superman is 'bad' because he's a 'yuppie'/right-wing Superman. And so on.
    Things also get a little twisted up due to the time between then and now, and the changes in the socio-political climate. What we'd consider "left" or "right" today, or excessive force, or any manner of things, weren't necessarily seen the same way in 1938. And a lot of newer stories about that kind of Superman, they lean into what the original stories look like by today's standards, not necessarily the social norms those OG tales came from.

    In Clark's first appearance he breaks into the governor's house in the middle of the night to save some poor person wrongfully put on death row. Today, such a story would likely be spun by the talking heads to serve their narrative; Fox would sound the alarm about the dangers of a powerful vigilante threatening good, god fearing Americans like the governor. MSNBC would cheer the man for taking protest to the next level and saving a innocent life, without *actually* hurting the inept governor who tried to execute an innocent woman. But Seigel and Shuster don't even mention which party that governor belongs to, their stories were socio-political because they were about Clark helping those who fell through the cracks in society or stopping those who abused their power, but it wasn't "politics" like we think of now, where it's all about party affiliation and culture wars.

    Clark absolutely *is* someone to dangle people off a building. Or shoot a gun at someone point blank. Or force a weapons manufacturer to fight on the front lines of the war they're funding. Or break into the governor's house in the middle of the night. He's rarely shied away from using his strength to bully the bullies, and he can be an utter ass about it when he wants to. And there's countless examples of that. The man has never been afraid to draw a line in the sand, then dare someone to be dumb enough to cross it. Sure, Clark won't let those people actually get hurt...but he's not above scaring the hell out of them. *That* is the difference between him and Bruce; they'll both use intimidation when they have to (Clark far less often, obviously) but Bruce will drop a guy off the building, knowing the fall is short enough to only result in a broken leg. If Clark drops the guy, he'll catch him at the last nanosecond so he walks away with nothing more than bruises and the piss drying on his pants leg.

    Superman is a nice guy. That doesn't mean he isn't a bit of a dick at times, or that he doesn't sometimes have a cruel sense of humor or justice. And his temper is something everyone in the DCU should be wary of; Clark keeps a tight rein on it but when it slips? Literally everything burns.

    That's all I'm looking for from Gunn. Give me the Superman who does the right thing no matter who it pisses off, or how many laws are broken, and I'll be satisfied. I don't want some perfect, flawlessly nice guy who just wants to show us how great we can be if we try hard and follow the rules, I want the guy who is fucking sick of corruption and corrupt institutions and is gonna tear it all out by the roots no matter where he finds it. And that's not a wild request, that's pretty standard for who Superman is. DC has sometimes forgotten that, or ignored it in favor of a Superman who puts more importance on "peace" than "freedom" but I doubt Gunn is going to make that mistake. I doubt we'll get the full OG rebel, but we should still get someone who is willing to ruffle some feathers in the halls of power.
    Last edited by Ascended; 02-05-2023 at 08:31 AM.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  6. #1761
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Goblin of Sector 2814 View Post
    You realize that Superman stopped that bullet before it hit the guy, don't you? Because that's the thing: Superman would never ever in a million years let that bullet hit him, no matter what he'd just done. However, it seems that a certain section of the fandom wants Superman to be the type of person who shoots and maims unpowered individuals in the name of some social crusade.

    I'm a left-wing Democrat myself, but I know that that is wrong. Superman does not punch down. He does not hurt people who are, by nature, significantly weaker than himself. He knows better. That is what makes him Superman.
    In Morrison's New 52, he may have dangled some bad people off of rooftops. But much like how Waid wrote him as catching the bullet, he didn't actually let the crime boss hit the ground. He did it to scare the **** out of him, just like in that scan from Waid. I'd argue firing the gun is just as bad, if not worse.

    Fact of the matter is, Superman used to punch downward, and even after he mellowed out he still wrestles occasionally with having a temper. And in the New 52 run, learning that his methods were counterproductive and even scaring the people he wanted to help was part of his character arc. So he stopped doing that.

    Expressing interest in this type of arc and seeing a Superman with convictions is not the same as saying we want to see him shoot up and maim people. C'mon.

  7. #1762
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Things also get a little twisted up due to the time between then and now, and the changes in the socio-political climate. What we'd consider "left" or "right" today, or excessive force, or any manner of things, weren't necessarily seen the same way in 1938. And a lot of newer stories about that kind of Superman, they lean into what the original stories look like by today's standards, not necessarily the social norms those OG tales came from.

    In Clark's first appearance he breaks into the governor's house in the middle of the night to save some poor person wrongfully put on death row. Today, such a story would likely be spun by the talking heads to serve their narrative; Fox would sound the alarm about the dangers of a powerful vigilante threatening good, god fearing Americans like the governor. MSNBC would cheer the man for taking protest to the next level and saving a innocent life, without *actually* hurting the inept governor who tried to execute an innocent woman. But Seigel and Shuster don't even mention which party that governor belongs to, their stories were socio-political because they were about Clark helping those who fell through the cracks in society or stopping those who abused their power, but it wasn't "politics" like we think of now, where it's all about party affiliation and culture wars.
    Not trying to make this into a political debate, but...pretty sure MSNBC would not be okay with someone breaking into a government official's house for protest purposes. Like, look at the fallout from the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband.

  8. #1763
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Goblin of Sector 2814 View Post
    Not trying to make this into a political debate, but...pretty sure MSNBC would not be okay with someone breaking into a government official's house for protest purposes. Like, look at the fallout from the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband.
    I don't actually watch MSNBC so I can't actually say. I was just picking the most left-leaning news outlet I could think of to balance out using fox "news." I would've said CNN but I hear they've gone further to right lately.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  9. #1764
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    In Morrison's New 52, he may have dangled some bad people off of rooftops. But much like how Waid wrote him as catching the bullet, he didn't actually let the crime boss hit the ground. He did it to scare the **** out of him, just like in that scan from Waid. I'd argue firing the gun is just as bad, if not worse.

    Fact of the matter is, Superman used to punch downward, and even after he mellowed out he still wrestles occasionally with having a temper. And in the New 52 run, learning that his methods were counterproductive and even scaring the people he wanted to help was part of his character arc. So he stopped doing that.

    Expressing interest in this type of arc and seeing a Superman with convictions is not the same as saying we want to see him shoot up and maim people. C'mon.
    Ehhhhhh, from what I've seen, there is a significantly vocal sector that, yes, would be okay with Superman hurting people they saw as "corrupt" even when they're powerless. And again, that's wrong no matter who they are.

    And here's the thing: yes, Superman does wrestle with having a temper and the constant monitoring of his own abilities to make sure he doesn't go too far is what makes him a fascinating character.

    BUT, to be completely honest, the idea that Superman shouldn't hurt people and punch down isn't really something he should have to have an arc and development that takes years for adult Clark to learn. Um, it's very much common sense. If anything, he should have learned to modulate his abilities during childhood and adolescence and wrestle with the notion of how much is too much during that time in his life, before even becoming Superman.

    And yeah, it would be interesting to see that side of his development but again, it's likely something he would have learned back in Smallville since that is when he's actually coming into his own and has his parents' influence and guidance to help him come to the right conclusion of how he should use his powers. That's what a lot of people forget sometimes: Clark was raised by good people. The Kents are not the type of people who would champion Clark to use violence against people that he knows are weaker than himself. It's a lesson that even Spider-Man (who is a child when he starts) learns in his very first appearance.
    Last edited by Green Goblin of Sector 2814; 02-05-2023 at 08:42 AM.

  10. #1765
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I don't actually watch MSNBC so I can't actually say. I was just picking the most left-leaning news outlet I could think of to balance out using fox "news." I would've said CNN but I hear they've gone further to right lately.
    What I'm saying is that no "left-leaning" outlet actually would champion someone breaking into a politician's house to make a point.

  11. #1766
    Ultimate Member Holt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,054

    Default

    The issue some seem to have (not even here specifically, but in the broader "Should Superman be dArK" debate that's been going on for years now) is that a lot of people tend to think entirely in extremes. A kind, optimistic Superman who cares about people doesn't prevent him from also being assertive and willing to **** **** up. Morrison themselves took a dig at the idea of Superman being a pushover because he's nice.



    I'd very much be down with some of that Golden Age energy in the new movie.

  12. #1767
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    That's the problem,the comics refuses acknowledge that fact.They don't have a by the book getting a some "like him some don't treatment".There is no sometimes he might be right other times not.They treat the guy even as by book guy without any nuance and beloved dad of metropolis who could do no wrong.There is no question to be asked..

    Clark..he has helped orphans,workers,boxers..etc.heck!even babysat a baby in a superway..

    You know how there is that scene in man of steel where a clark with torn dirty clothes helps out a bunch guys at an oil rig?yeah!imagine that to be the whole movie.Witg corruption,worker safety, environment and whole lot of other issues being involved and touched up on.And most importantly a giant mechanical tar monster kaiju to fight for reasons...

    This is what it meant to be superman..talking to the guy is easy as pie..No high and mighty crap.

    It's not just compassion either.. it's empathy.
    Sounds very budget conscious .
    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    I assume they're just including the comics that are potentially direct story inspirations for the upcoming films? In which case All-Star Superman might not count.

    Batman & Son is definitely at least partially the basis for the Brave and the Bold film. Woman of Tomorrow is a direct adaptation of the same story. The Authority film will probably borrow heavily from the Ellis run (or at any rate, it'll introduce the characters like that run did). Presumably the Lanterns TV show will take some direct inspiration from Hal Jordan and the GLC, and the Waller TV show will take some inspiration from the Suicide Squad book shared.
    Honestly I feel like the Lanterns show will be more in-line with some of the stuff Morrison did in their run.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Gunn included All Star in his tweet for comics which will directly inspire the movies.

    Besides Morrison, Waid disagrees with you:



    As the old song goes “don’t tug on Superman’s cape”. If you piss him off, and he has a temper he wrestles with, then yeah he absolutely is the guy would dangle someone off a balcony.
    Even Johns' Superman was one you don't screw around with.

  13. #1768
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Goblin of Sector 2814 View Post
    What I'm saying is that no "left-leaning" outlet actually would champion someone breaking into a politician's house to make a point.
    I don't suppose any would be openly gleeful about it like some on the right were with Pelosi, no. Cruelty isn't a marketing/campaign tactic for the left in quite the same way it is for the right. And I mostly read the news rather than watch it so I only got so much to base my opinion on. But when trump had covid, or when he was hiding in a bunker, I did see some left leaning casters who, despite trying to maintain professionalism, where straight up giddy.

    Either way, it was just a made-up comparison and even if my metaphor wasn't great I feel like the meaning was still clear enough, right? I'm not attacking the left, just saying that culture has changed a lot since Clark's debut, and how we see those stories now isn't always the way they were meant to be seen, and the partisan political climate, which has become toxic on all fronts, has turned non-political issues into full blown culture war and that further charges how we interpret those original "S" tales.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  14. #1769
    Mighty Member Maestro 216's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,634

    Default

    Can't even do a "black Superman film" without the woke = broke response.

  15. #1770
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Goblin of Sector 2814 View Post
    Ehhhhhh, from what I've seen, there is a significantly vocal sector that, yes, would be okay with Superman hurting people they saw as "corrupt" even when they're powerless. And again, that's wrong no matter who they are.
    Scaring them/roughing people up a bit (in a way that doesn't seriously/permanently hurt them) is what I typically see people want out of social justice Superman. That's not the same as saying people want him to maim and shoot them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Goblin of Sector 2814 View Post
    BUT, to be completely honest, the idea that Superman shouldn't hurt people and punch down isn't really something he should have to have an arc and development that takes years for adult Clark to learn. Um, it's very much common sense. If anything, he should have learned to modulate his abilities during childhood and adolescence and wrestle with the notion of how much is too much during that time in his life, before even becoming Superman.
    Well in the New 52, it didn't take him years. Just a few months, and it was while he was at a lower power scale. And since people complain that Superman is too bland and powerful, suh a character arc does a lot to humanize him as long as it isn't dragged out too much (which it wasn't).

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Goblin of Sector 2814 View Post
    And yeah, it would be interesting to see that side of his development but again, it's likely something he would have learned back in Smallville since that is when he's actually coming into his own and has his parents' influence and guidance to help him come to the right conclusion of how he should use his powers. That's what a lot of people forget sometimes: Clark was raised by good people. The Kents are not the type of people who would champion Clark to use violence against people that he knows are weaker than himself. It's a lesson that even Spider-Man (who is a child when he starts) learns in his very first appearance.
    Smallville is a close knit community, he's not likely to run into the same gritty corruption he would in the big city. As Superboy, when he wasn't in Smallville, he was with the Legion in the 30th Century, which is even further removed from gritty real world problems. He was raised by the Kents in the Golden Age too, and evidently Pa Kent probably said "**** 'em up, son" right before kicking the bucket. Even in All Star, where Superman is more the boy scout, he said his father told him to stand up to bullies by bullying them back.

    The Kents raised him to have conviction in helping people, and his "punching downward" on criminals not extending to dispensing permanent injury is down to their influence. As is his learning to restrain himself when he gets more powerful out of necessity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I don't suppose any would be openly gleeful about it like some on the right were with Pelosi, no. Cruelty isn't a marketing/campaign tactic for the left in quite the same way it is for the right. And I mostly read the news rather than watch it so I only got so much to base my opinion on. But when trump had covid, or when he was hiding in a bunker, I did see some left leaning casters who, despite trying to maintain professionalism, where straight up giddy.
    Lmao at the idea of Fox news screaming "Superman was that politician's gay lover" over the airwaves.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •