Reborn Predictions

[Sacred Knight]

Outside of the occasional gem like Guardians of the Galaxy, they all pretty much suck, and that's taking both into account.

But that's neither here nor there, I'll get back on topic now.

[darkseidpwns]

Outside of the occasional gem like Guardians of the Galaxy, they all pretty much suck, and that's taking both into account.

But that's neither here nor there, I'll get back on topic now.

They earn lots of profit, they've got good word of mouth. Me personally, I only care about the first Iron Man and Winter Soldier the rest are forgettable but MCU guys know what they're doing. They've established a juggernaut brand and they've done so with characters like Iron Man and Cap. DCEU cant even make Batman and Superman make more than barely break even.

[JAK]

Those films underperformed because audiences are used to having crap superhero movies. Marvel's movies are good divertissement, but you have to stop your brain to make their universe works or even be a little coherent. In two and a half films (hello SS); D.C. did a better job to craft a whole world, coherent with its own rules.

I'd argue that they under-performed because, while people do like the idea of darker shades in their drama, the lack of a balance is a whole other matter when the characters have a different image. Sometimes, it works (Adam West's Batman vs Tim Burton'/etc) but sometimes it doesn't. Timing is also a thing - as much as I (overall, anyway) dislike the films, if they'd come out around the time of the first X-Men movie, they probably would have had a better reception. But at this point, the X-Men "dark" take on things (something I enjoy for those characters, btw) may be overplayed... hence why Marvel is doing so well in backing away from that to a degree. But then, Marvel made the all-important first step of laying the groundwork right and taking their time to a shared universe while DC/WB sat there playing with themselves, and now they have to scramble to play catch-up before comic book movies become too saturated for the general public and they lose their chance. Not saying they can't fix things, but they're the reason for their own disadvantage. A good Superman comparison to this is the Reeve films - at the time, the first film laid the groundwork so well that it took the absolute squandering of the good-will built to break down that version of the franchise, and it still has a pretty amazing reputation today despite all the issues the last 3 films have. Granted, part of that is historical context, but it's still impressive.

It also established a far better Superman than what we had before. Yes, he killed Zod but he hadn't any other choices, he couldn't do anything else, and it was the good decision to make.

Largely this is a taste thing and that's cool, but also.. the idea of this as a "far better Superman" being debatable would be an understatement. The writing decision to kill Zod with little character growth to show for it is merely, I would posit, the most socially-visible symptom of a larger problem in the approach. And the company, judging by some of their actions, understands that they're moving forward with something of a handicap because of it - though not one they feel they can't recover from, and I'd actually agree with that. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and the Justice League all have enough social presence to allow that. WB/DC is lucky - had Marvel taken a similar misstep with the first Iron Man movie, for instance, I'd argue that there'd be no MCU.

Yes, he wasn't all rainbow and sunshine and saving cats in trees in BvS, but that's how it is, that's how he should react to a world reacting to his appearance. All the hate thrown at MoS and BvS is totally unjustified, and only comes from the fact that Snyder and Goyer chose to make great movies, which required to take comics characters out of their comfort zone.

Taking characters out of their comfort zone can be very rewarding, but also tricky. You have to stick the landing just right, especially for iconic characters with an image built largely one way for so many decades (Batman, for instance, wasn't always lighter-fare, for instance). Doing so for the sake of doing so doesn't work, and imo I can point a big finger at Dan Didio having a "big event" fetish as exhibit A for that general concept not always working if you just chase the concept without thought to the full execution.

Also, the idea that it's either Snyder's vision of "all sunshine and rainbows" is ridiculous. There's a whole lot of ground between those two extremes, and somewhere in the center of it is where the films should be, imo. I don't want a Reeve-redux, and I don't want "all happy all the time, devoid of any drama" either. Heck, I'll even go so far as to say that, at times, the Snyder movies even found that patch of road for a short while. Those moments are ones I really enjoyed. And I want them to find said road in the future, because I would love to actually be excited about a movie with Superman in it again.

And they knew that the so-called "iconic" suit of Superman is nothing but ugly and ridiculous. It is a big turnoff, to the point that reading any stories with it is physically painful to me, but I can't bring myself to take this character seriously, because he has not even a shred of charisma in his bright red and blue pajama. Getting rid of the red underwear and even the whole pajama was the best thing which could have been done both in comics and cinema.

Hmm..."nothing but ugly and ridiculous"... is that why it lasted so long? Is that why I actually see it on more merchandise now than I did when New52 was "going strong", even action figures, and kids' toys again (plush and otherwise)? If you have a personal dislike for it, no problem - we all have our things, but to say that it was holding the characters back is kinda bull. I don't remember people complaining about Batman's "blue-black armor panties" in the first two "Batman: Arkham" games, or saying that they "just couldn't take it seriously" because of that.

I'm not saying the classic suit is coming back.. I do think it will, eventually, but doubt it'll be soon (even if I'd like that). But there's a reason it holds the place it does. It set the tone and the bar for decades upon decades of superhero comics design (even if it really wasn't the very first like it) and still does so to a large degree.



But getting back to Reborn - it was a great first issue, and I'm looking forward to the next issue! I'm still hoping they stay split, but here's hoping the merge doesn't cause more problems than it solves.

[Atomic Man]

Those films underperformed because audiences are used to having crap superhero movies. Marvel's movies are good divertissement, but you have to stop your brain to make their universe works or even be a little coherent. In two and a half films (hello SS); D.C. did a better job to craft a whole world, coherent with its own rules. It also established a far better Superman than what we had before. Yes, he killed Zod but he hadn't any other choices, he couldn't do anything else, and it was the good decision to make. Yes, he wasn't all rainbow and sunshine and saving cats in trees in BvS, but that's how it is, that's how he should react to a world reacting to his appearance. All the hate thrown at MoS and BvS is totally unjustified, and only comes from the fact that Snyder and Goyer chose to make great movies, which required to take comics characters out of their comfort zone. And they knew that the so-called "iconic" suit of Superman is nothing but ugly and ridiculous. It is a big turnoff, to the point that reading any stories with it is physically painful to me, but I can't bring myself to take this character seriously, because he has not even a shred of charisma in his bright red and blue pyjama. Getting ride of the red underwear and even the whole pyjama was the best thing which could have been done both in comics and cinema.

I'm working very hard to restrain myself from writing what I really want to here. I'll just say a few things. Let's be clear: there's no "turning off your brain" required for Marvel movies. They have a consistent and proven formula that is faithful to what Marvel Comics are about: an exciting, action-packed story that has as its heart the journey of a broken person who learns a lesson about themselves in the course of the narrative. That formula is all about heart and human emotion, and if that means the brain has to be "turned off," then so be it. I'm an extremely intelligent person (honesty, not braggadocio) and I love the Marvel films as a whole. None of them are perfect, but the tapestry being woven with each new film outshines any weak spots, at least to me.

Let's talk about your "great movies" for a second. Am I to assume you consider them "high art" or "important films?" This was the folly of the previous head of WB, who is now gone thanks to the underperformance of Batfleck V NotSoSuperman. Murderer of Steel took the appearance of Superman, stripped it of all that made it unique, then did the same to the character itself. Goyer might not apologize for his hatred of Superman and like characters, but he still knows him very well. He knew the key to deconstructing Superman (Goyer admits to this being his goal in a number of pre-MoS interviews, look them up) was to weaken the Kents. Thus, his Jonathan Kent is a fear-mongering coward and his mother a barely-existent cipher. This gives us a morally ambiguous, emo, and directionless hobo who doesn't do anything of his own volition. "Earth Dad told me people would fear me, I'll go hid my light under a bushel while working in bars and occasionally saving people. Space Dad told me I'm special and a symbol of hope, I'll take that to mean I need to beat the shit out of my kinsmen with nary a concern for the fragile Earthlings in their paper world."

This dullard is given a free pass by "fans" like yourself for his murderous ways. "He's only just learning to be Superman." Negligent homicide is still homicide. Granted, he was written into a place where he could only kill Zod (if you lack imagination and heart like Goyer), but he did NOTHING prior to putting on his space pajamas that showed off his obscene bulge to deserve the name Superman. People that know the iconic Superman know that the powers don't make him super or a hero. It's the Kents who made him Superman. Take them away, and you have Goyer and Snyder's NotSoSuperman, a pale deconstruction of a glorious character whose legacy stretched 75 years before being dragged through the post-modern, cynical morass that is style over substance. These are the hallmarks of the works of Snyder and Goyer. Their mangum opus was Batfleck V NotSoSuperman, a dreadful, awful, ugly, and yes, STUPID collection of "kewl" and "badass" scenes intended to keep the ADD general audience occupied so they forget they're not playing the 80th iteration of Call of Duty and are instead watching a movie.

The Batman, whose nobility and HUMANITY is beautifully represented by the likes of the best comic book stories and Batman: The Animated Series and the Arkham games, is turned into Batfleck, a ripoff of the also terminally-cynical Frank Miller's vastly overrated take on the character. He's a murdering asshole who is ready to murder NotSoSuperman until he finds out, whoops, their mothers have the same name! Wow, have to make sure my brain's not turned off to get that one!

Superman and The Batman, perhaps the two greatest fictional characters of all time, deconstructed and reduced to ugly, thuggish, grimy, shitty caricatures that fight and fight and fight like the digital ciphers in video games instead of representing the mythical themes that inspired them. Both are set against the backdrops of impossibly dark movies with narrative atrocities like codexes and patricidal tornadoes and jars filled with piss and an adopted mother telling her son he doesn't owe the world jack shit. THESE are your "great movies?"

Finally, there is a rich history of mythological symbolism attached to the concept of girding the loins. You see it in all the major world mythologies and belief systems when the strength of men are embodied and addressed. Siegel and Shuster didn't just go with trunks because circus strongmen wore them or because they broke up the color of Superman's uniform, making it a beautifully-balanced and designed outfit, complete with a cape worn in a fashion never before seen in literature. They also had Superman wear trunks as a symbol of his masculine power and virility, a callback to the heroes of myth with which they were familiar and which inspired their true Man of Steel.

It's evident you only hate the Superman you think you know, and I'd bet a good portion of my collection you've only ever read Superman in The Dark Knight Returns or perhaps a few other books that misrepresent and malign the character. Your ignorance of the character's importance, iconic nature, and ability to inspire may very well be the result of taste, but it's poor taste just the same.

[Korath]

SNIP.

What a lot of rubbish.

Firstly because I disagree with you completely on what is and is not Superman. Secondly because clearly, you haven't understood what Batman is : a madman wearing a batsuit to fight other madmen, a demented citizen whose madness drive him to do good but which will destroy him if left unchecked, which is what happened in BoS : 20 years of war for almost no effects, then the coming of Superman and the Bat is eating away the Man. Hence why the branding and killing are new things; hence why he is saved by Superman, who reminds him that there is still good in this world. But it also explains why he hates Superman at first : the guy is an alien, Batman doesn't even conceive the idea that he could have a family, peoples he cares about here on Earth (that's the point of the Martha scene, to make the Bat understand that Clark has people he cares about and Snyder and Goyer use the fact that both their moms have the same name to play on Bruce's trauma and force him to listen).

As for the rest, clearly you don't understand anything to MoS and BvS, and possibly both the comics characters beyond your very narrow and twisted vision of them. So don't bother trying to justify your unenlightened hatred for those movies, because I clearly don't care one bit about your "take" on them.

As for the loins, I'm just laughing. You may try all your bullshit about mythology and all that, it doesn't change the fact that Superman's pyjama is ugly as hell and that getting ride of those ugly things was the best thing which could have been done. Bright red on deep blue in this area of the body is plain ugly and ridiculous, just like Batman's yellow encasing of his logo.

[Netherman14]

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.

I'm now certain of this, only one person would pawn so much over Superman's "trunks". hello there Dietz.

[manofsteel1979]

When did this thread become the proverbial" DCEU Superman rulz/sucks" thread? Geez. Can we move all that chatter to one of the numerous DCEU threads?

[Maxi]

Firstly because I disagree with you completely on what is and is not Superman. Secondly because clearly, you haven't understood what Batman is : a madman wearing a batsuit to fight other madmen, a demented citizen whose madness drive him to do good but which will destroy him if left unchecked

Oh my goodness, do you like superheroes? More mind-boggling is the fact that after you said this, you proceed to say others have a "twisted" vision of the characters!

Superheroes have a inherent silliness on them. Better trying to accept that or move on to other things instead of trying to force them into something they're not just because some people are ashamed of them or they think that "darker" equates "cooler".

[gwangung]

Oh my goodness, do you like superheroes? More mind-boggling is the fact that after you said this, you proceed to say others have a "twisted" vision of the characters!

Superheroes have a inherent silliness on them. Better trying to accept that or move on to other things instead of trying to force them into something they're not just because some people are ashamed of them or they think that "darker" equates "cooler".

Seriously.

And deconstruction is not inherently a problem; it's doing it POORLY that's a problem. You still have to preserve the material that makes it work, particularly in a serial storytelling format, or you'll self destruct.

And, frankly, just snipping a long statementand dismissing it just means you have no counter to it.

[Atomic Man]

What a lot of rubbish.

Firstly because I disagree with you completely on what is and is not Superman. Secondly because clearly, you haven't understood what Batman is : a madman wearing a batsuit to fight other madmen, a demented citizen whose madness drive him to do good but which will destroy him if left unchecked, which is what happened in BoS : 20 years of war for almost no effects, then the coming of Superman and the Bat is eating away the Man. Hence why the branding and killing are new things; hence why he is saved by Superman, who reminds him that there is still good in this world. But it also explains why he hates Superman at first : the guy is an alien, Batman doesn't even conceive the idea that he could have a family, peoples he cares about here on Earth (that's the point of the Martha scene, to make the Bat understand that Clark has people he cares about and Snyder and Goyer use the fact that both their moms have the same name to play on Bruce's trauma and force him to listen).

As for the rest, clearly you don't understand anything to MoS and BvS, and possibly both the comics characters beyond your very narrow and twisted vision of them. So don't bother trying to justify your unenlightened hatred for those movies, because I clearly don't care one bit about your "take" on them.

As for the loins, I'm just laughing. You may try all your bullshit about mythology and all that, it doesn't change the fact that Superman's pyjama is ugly as hell and that getting ride of those ugly things was the best thing which could have been done. Bright red on deep blue in this area of the body is plain ugly and ridiculous, just like Batman's yellow encasing of his logo.

Let me guess: your knowledge of The Batman comes from TDKR and the Nolan films and now, BvS. The truth is, Bruce Wayne is NOT a madman; that's a Miller invention that was latched on to by other untalented writers of the era who didn't have the imagination to do anything else with the character. I've been reading comics for upwards of 30 years. Look at the O'Neil, Dixon, and Grant runs as well as B:TAS. Batman is, as Morrison saw him, "super sane." He's a Dark Knight, yes, but the dark has been interpreted as crazy. Bruce Wayne is a noble human being who is, yes, driven and determined. He's not crazy and wasn't seen as such until your pal Miller unimaginatively portrayed him as such.

Finally, anyone so idiotic as to dismiss mythology as "bullshit and all of that" is unworthy of my time and incapable of intelligent and serious discussion. Goodbye.

Oh my goodness, do you like superheroes? More mind-boggling is the fact that after you said this, you proceed to say others have a "twisted" vision of the characters!

Superheroes have a inherent silliness on them. Better trying to accept that or move on to other things instead of trying to force them into something they're not just because some people are ashamed of them or they think that "darker" equates "cooler".

Indeed. The characters in the Snyderverse are not superheroes, they're dark caricatures made in the images of Snyder, Goyer, and to some extent, Chris Nolan. Each of these men have, along with WB execs, publicly made their disdain for comic books and Superman in particular quite clear. They don't like the characters as they truly are, only as they wish to recreate them in some dark, "adult" image. Grant Morrison said it best when he answered a fan who asked about reality in comics by asking the fan "you realize they aren't real, right?"

Seriously.

And deconstruction is not inherently a problem; it's doing it POORLY that's a problem. You still have to preserve the material that makes it work, particularly in a serial storytelling format, or you'll self destruct.

And, frankly, just snipping a long statementand dismissing it just means you have no counter to it.

Absolutely. I'd argue that deconstruction is only really successful when a character has been well-established for a long period of time in its most faithful and accurate state. This wasn't true of Superman, who hadn't been successfully adapted in a comic book movie in decades, and even those films were lacking in preserving certain elements of the character. Compare Superman's movies to Batman and Spider-Man's, and you see that Superman has only had one movie that's gotten it almost completely right, a movie that was released in 1977. Though I'm not a fan of deconstructing comic book heroes in movies, it would have been more relevant and successful in light of a faithful adaptation that had lived in the zeitgeist for a few decades but which was also made in the last five to ten years.

[Maxi]

Grant Morrison said it best when he answered a fan who asked about reality in comics by asking the fan "you realize they aren't real, right?"

I didn't know about this. When did it happen? Do you have a source?

[Maxi]

The truth is, Bruce Wayne is NOT a madman; that's a Miller invention that was latched on to by other untalented writers of the era who didn't have the imagination to do anything else with the character. .

And even him, as much as some people don't like that particular interpretation, has said that he doesn't thinks at all that Batman is crazy. Because if he were, he wouldn't be effectual. A crazy Batman is not a Batman that is worth reading.