Justice League Trailer Teaser.

[Superlad93]

It occurred to me today that I don't think Superman should talk much. Superman's most widely viewed and acceded takes are the 1940s cartoon, 90's cartoon, and first movie. In all of these there are large stretches of time where Superman isn't really talking at all. He's mainly just emoting and moving. Now most would interpret this as Superman clearly being the strong silent type. I think that's a mistake and can easily lead to a wooden take with far too much "weight of the world" on his brow. I actually think Superman, at his best, is akin to a Chuck Jones cartoon where movement, facial expression, body langue, and the ability to emote are all that matter.

It's not about if the character smiles all the time or not. That's meaningless fluff. Take a look at the 90's cartoon (or just recall it). That Superman, as Superman, didn't do much smiling at all, but you'd never in a million years call that show dark or depressing. The same is true for the 40's cartoon. The personality and character was shown through his movement and reactions. Take a look at this scene from the 90's show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAGYquZMDJg). He literally only says 6 words the whole time ("I didn't realize there were rules"). Yeah you totally get him, and a complete sense of personality from him. He's almost like Samurai Jack in a lot of ways. A small smirk is all that's needed to get across and idea or a turn of the tables.

This brings me to my next point: Clark Kent is the key. Superman is about action and reaction in the moment. He's a serialize adventure hero so he works with the idea of "live performance" planing. Basically he comes up with his moves as he goes along. However, Clark Kent is where we/him are given a reprieve, time to refocus, reflect, and air out ideas. This is where Superman gets the bulk of his lines. BUT the main idea should be that the lines are snappy, clever, and informative. The 90's show does this PERFECTLY. Remember the clip I just posted? Well, just before it, Lois and Clark and having some small talk (and we clearly see where Clark's mind is at) and Lois puts on a plastic poncho and Clark looks at her funny. Lois assumes that it's for fashion reasons. Then in the scene that I posted, Superman is covered in plastic. Nothing needed to be said or explained. The perfect amount of information was given to get the idea into our heads, and we were able to do it while adding to the character both Clark and Lois.

Then check out this scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylw46a-2MD0) to see all of the ideas I've presented played out in full.

I don't think the DCEU has the wrong idea with keeping Superman largely silent, but I do think that they don't compensate well enough with good body language, expression, and emoting direction. To be clear, I'm not saying that it's not there, but I'm saying that it's not played up to the level that he needs to be to stave off complaints of a mute Superman. I think Man of Steel was a great step in the right direction when it came to this, but it was undercut by quite a few things.

Superman isn't The Doctor who's main character defining aspect is that he doesn't shut up about how smart he is. Superman isn't Spider-Man. Superman doesn't need to explain to the bad guy how he beat him. But since he's none of those, Superman has to be very expressive in his body language and facial expressions at key moments. This goes for all media he's in, I feel. This is why I go for a Frank Quitely over a Jim Lee. Yes, Lee's art can be stunning as a still, but you detract from the dynamic nature of Superman, and in effect you detract from his overall personality. I think BVS was airing more on the side of Lee than it should've.

I think DC should really keep this sort of thing in mind when they're picking artist, animators, and directors for Superman related work. Think Chuck Jones when you think Superman.

[FishyZombie]

Lex was terribly miscast and his delivery was consitantly cringe worthy. His motivation was fine, and his appearance was similar to birthright not his insufferable overacting mannerisms though. When WB says that wasn't Jimmy, then I'll believe it's not Jimmy. The Kents have always been protective of Clark's secret identity, but they also tend to teach him to put the lives and wellbeing of others above all else. That was missing in the Snyderverse. And any Superman who willing lets anyone die, especially the guy who raised him, just to protect his secret identity, is not a worthy Superman IMO (it does help a little that he wasn't superman yet, but still). And I don't buy for one second that the world would go to shit if Clark quickly used his powers ONE time in public to save someone from a tornado. Worst case scenerio, it would get the attention of some conspiracy theorists, Clark would have to lay low for a while, start over somewhere else. More likely he could move so fast, he could push him out of the way of the tornado and go right back to where he was standing before anyone noticed he moved. And yes, having barely any lines did hurt Cavil Superman. He's Superman, let him do more than punch stuff. Would have been great if they let him give a speech defending himself at that senate hearing, let Cavill show some chops, get a better sense of the guy before he gets stabbed to death by a cave troll, but Grandma's peach tea I guess. So when he dies, you just feel meh, 2 movies and you hardly know the guy.

[dumbduck]

For those who say Zack Snyder hates Superman, I'll leave this link right here: https://t.co/LpMKrpNUPu

Everytime I read one of these 'Zack Snyder actually, seriously, really, *really* likes Superman' articles, I start having flashbacks of 'Mars Attacks!'.

[DochaDocha]

Everytime I read one of these 'Zack Snyder actually, seriously, really, *really* likes Superman' articles, I start having flashbacks of 'Mars Attacks!'.

It's just really, really discouraging that someone has to write an article explaining that Zack Snyder doesn't hate Superman in the first place. I'm just saying...

[DochaDocha]

It occurred to me today that I don't think Superman should talk much. Superman's most widely viewed and acceded takes are the 1940s cartoon, 90's cartoon, and first movie. In all of these there are large stretches of time where Superman isn't really talking at all. He's mainly just emoting and moving. Now most would interpret this as Superman clearly being the strong silent type. I think that's a mistake and can easily lead to a wooden take with far too much "weight of the world" on his brow. I actually think Superman, at his best, is akin to a Chuck Jones cartoon where movement, facial expression, body langue, and the ability to emote are all that matter.

It's not about if the character smiles all the time or not. That's meaningless fluff. Take a look at the 90's cartoon (or just recall it). That Superman, as Superman, didn't do much smiling at all, but you'd never in a million years call that show dark or depressing. The same is true for the 40's cartoon. The personality and character was shown through his movement and reactions. Take a look at this scene from the 90's show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAGYquZMDJg). He literally only says 6 words the whole time ("I didn't realize there were rules"). Yeah you totally get him, and a complete sense of personality from him. He's almost like Samurai Jack in a lot of ways. A small smirk is all that's needed to get across and idea or a turn of the tables.

This brings me to my next point: Clark Kent is the key. Superman is about action and reaction in the moment. He's a serialize adventure hero so he works with the idea of "live performance" planing. Basically he comes up with his moves as he goes along. However, Clark Kent is where we/him are given a reprieve, time to refocus, reflect, and air out ideas. This is where Superman gets the bulk of his lines. BUT the main idea should be that the lines are snappy, clever, and informative. The 90's show does this PERFECTLY. Remember the clip I just posted? Well, just before it, Lois and Clark and having some small talk (and we clearly see where Clark's mind is at) and Lois puts on a plastic poncho and Clark looks at her funny. Lois assumes that it's for fashion reasons. Then in the scene that I posted, Superman is covered in plastic. Nothing needed to be said or explained. The perfect amount of information was given to get the idea into our heads, and we were able to do it while adding to the character both Clark and Lois.

Then check out this scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylw46a-2MD0) to see all of the ideas I've presented played out in full.

I don't think the DCEU has the wrong idea with keeping Superman largely silent, but I do think that they don't compensate well enough with good body language, expression, and emoting direction. To be clear, I'm not saying that it's not there, but I'm saying that it's not played up to the level that he needs to be to stave off complaints of a mute Superman. I think Man of Steel was a great step in the right direction when it came to this, but it was undercut by quite a few things.

Superman isn't The Doctor who's main character defining aspect is that he doesn't shut up about how smart he is. Superman isn't Spider-Man. Superman doesn't need to explain to the bad guy how he beat him. But since he's none of those, Superman has to be very expressive in his body language and facial expressions at key moments. This goes for all media he's in, I feel. This is why I go for a Frank Quitely over a Jim Lee. Yes, Lee's art can be stunning as a still, but you detract from the dynamic nature of Superman, and in effect you detract from his overall personality. I think BVS was airing more on the side of Lee than it should've.

I think DC should really keep this sort of thing in mind when they're picking artist, animators, and directors for Superman related work. Think Chuck Jones when you think Superman.

Interesting analysis.

I'm of the opinion, generally speaking, that Superman should have a fair amount of dialogue, but not so much to move the plot along. It's to show us, the audience, that this guy is always thinking. Perhaps you could say a skilled movie- or TV show-maker can do this non-verbally, but the risk is often too high that something gets lost. Superman is a man of action, for certain, but he's more appealing if you can see that he's can be just as proactive as he is reactive. Essentially every bad Superman story that leaves the audience feeling as though he's a dumb jock lucky to have his powers fails to convey the thinking process.

Good examples:

1) Superman II's switcheroo in which fooled the PZ criminals into thinking he stepped into the chamber to remove his powers.
2) All-Star Superman's trick of using the gravity gun to speed up Luthor's relative time
3) That video you linked (unfortunately, it's STAS, so every proactive thing Superman does eventually fails and detracts from his creativity; the most predictable thing in that show was that if Superman were to wear a protective suit, it would get destroyed somehow; Batman + Prep-time = win, but Superman + Prep-time = Superman + No Prep-time = nothing he does to prepare ever means a damn!)

[Baggie_Saiyan]

I looked at the link and I am sill unconvinced that Snyder likes Supes. Someone that likes him would not have had him killed so that Batman could lead/form the JLA.

That was not the only reason on top of his wilful acceptance of humanity it was also to show the vulnerability of the League as well, that they need a Superman. Funny how you ignore that, Snyder is going out his way to show us why the League needs a Superman.

[Vanguard-01]

It's just really, really discouraging that someone has to write an article explaining that Zack Snyder doesn't hate Superman in the first place. I'm just saying...

It's just as discouraging that some fans think the only way to show one's love for a character is to basically ghost write those fan's personal idealized story about said character.

I'm just saying.

[DochaDocha]

It's just as discouraging that some fans think the only way to show one's love for a character is to basically ghost write those fan's personal idealized story about said character.

I'm just saying.

I think you're generally on better footing if a creator's supposed love for a character is a bit more palpable. If there are people honestly wondering to themselves, "Does this guy even like the character he's writing?" then there's a good chance (though not 100% of the time) that something went off badly. Like, if you look at the DCAU, Bruce Timm honestly had to answer questions about whether or not he disliked Superman. For the record, I think his Superman is good at times, and pretty bad at times, too. He also calls Superman "corny" and "outdated," things that aren't surprising when you watch STAS.

I mean, let's look at this the other way. If the DCEU movies were getting 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, and breaking box-office records, would anyone be questioning if Snyder hates Superman? I'm guessing no, and that would be really, really encouraging.

So think of it as less of my personal judgment on Snyder and more of an unpromising indicator of the situation at hand.

[Superlad93]

Interesting analysis.

I'm of the opinion, generally speaking, that Superman should have a fair amount of dialogue, but not so much to move the plot along. It's to show us, the audience, that this guy is always thinking. Perhaps you could say a skilled movie- or TV show-maker can do this non-verbally, but the risk is often too high that something gets lost. Superman is a man of action, for certain, but he's more appealing if you can see that he's can be just as proactive as he is reactive. Essentially every bad Superman story that leaves the audience feeling as though he's a dumb jock lucky to have his powers fails to convey the thinking process.

Good examples:

1) Superman II's switcheroo in which fooled the PZ criminals into thinking he stepped into the chamber to remove his powers.
2) All-Star Superman's trick of using the gravity gun to speed up Luthor's relative time
3) That video you linked (unfortunately, it's STAS, so every proactive thing Superman does eventually fails and detracts from his creativity; the most predictable thing in that show was that if Superman were to wear a protective suit, it would get destroyed somehow; Batman + Prep-time = win, but Superman + Prep-time = Superman + No Prep-time = nothing he does to prepare ever means a damn!)

I'm not taking anything away from Superman's preparedness (or at the very least, I don't intend to). I'm just saying that a director/artist/writer doesn't have to use words to get across the idea that he's a clever guy. I sympathize with your worry that using nonverbal communication to get this idea over to the viewer can lead to mishap or misinterpretation. However, I think the final product is well worth the risk. The potency of a Superman who is so expressive in body, action, and facial emoting far outclasses that of a Superman who is quick to explain how he won the day. That's not to say I don't appreciate and encourage Superman having his fair share of explain-y victories.

But honestly, and I outline this a bit in my first post, I think Clark Kent is where you get the "prep." Clark is inherently a time for the character to express more trepidation, and verbalize more of what's behind that confidently puffed out chest. Clark is literally a writer so his command of language should never be in question, and he should remain a platform for the character to get stuff off his chest. Believe it or not, Clark Kent is integral to Superman beating a foe. I again present this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAGYquZMDJg Superman lost to the combination of Live Wire and Parasite. But a few scenes of Clark Kent and Lois talking about seemingly nothing spark an idea in Clark's mind, and it gives him edge for a time. The later half of the fight is an example of Superman's adaptability. He seems to be just grasping at straws as he runs from Parasites attack, but in reality he used his the power that Parasite stole against the villain. All of this was done with Superman only saying 6 words during the fight. The show does a fantastic job of communicating the ingredients to Superman's victory. 1) You understand that Rudy has Live Wire's power, and thus you understand that he has her weakness, AND you understand that he's been coveting power. 2) because you understand all of the facets of 1 you get why Superman throwing water at Rudy works the way it does, but you also get that it's not enough water. 3) again because you understand 1 you get that Rudy will not kill Clark right away because he covets power. The viewer and Clark learn and understand all of this in real time, and it all comes to a satisfying and simple end with Clark's victory by using 1, 2, and 3.

I used to be all about the "dumb lunkhead" argument. For me, once i discovered comics, I immediately thumbed my nose at the likes of the 90's cartoon. I mistakenly thought that Superman's lack of "well Lex I'd already reprogrammed your robots between eye blinks during our first conversation" was an indication of an inferior, in quality, Superman. I thought that I didn't get that Clark was smart because he didn't tell me how smart he was every other episode. But this is wrong. in reality the Clark from the 90's show is a clever and observant character who wins the day by keeping his wits about him and optimizing opportunities.

In reality, Superman can be largely silent during action, yet still be a thinker. He can even get in his small small moments of speechifying after the action (like in the case of All Star), but that has to be done after action and ingredients are shown and made known to the viewer, I feel. I don't want Superman flexing his "nerd macho" (as I call it) just for the sake of hitting the viewer/reader over the head saying "SEEEEEE he's smart!" All Star Superman is a case where that bit of speechifying is more or less earned. Most of the ingredients a peppered in a literal and metaphorical manner throughout the story. I myself am not an expert on the laws of physics, but as they were presented and alluded to in the story, I was able to grasp the idea of Lex's downfall fairly quickly.

So to summarize: yes I think Superman should have a fair amount of dialogue to him, but only in the sense that Clark Kent is a way into Superman's head. Clark is the planing period where you can let it all hangout, so to speak. Superman is the execution of the ideas brought up by Kent, and he is the reactionary safety net if/when his plans have to change. This bring such utility to the idea of Clark past the lip service of just "he needs Clark." In the episode "The Late Mr. Kent" Clark says that "I'd go crazy without being Clark Kent." If Kent's story utility is to give a voice to the more movement and action based Superman, then yes, he would go crazy, and I as the viewer have a strong understanding of that. And this isn't to say Superman himself doesn't talk at all, but what he says is largely to the point, and the result of Kent first working it out for him, imo.

[DochaDocha]

I'm not taking anything away from Superman's preparedness (or at the very least, I don't intend to). I'm just saying that a director/artist/writer doesn't have to use words to get across the idea that he's a clever guy. I sympathize with your worry that using nonverbal communication to get this idea over to the viewer can lead to mishap or misinterpretation. However, I think the final product is well worth the risk. The potency of a Superman who is so expressive in body, action, and facial emoting far outclasses that of a Superman who is quick to explain how he won the day. That's not to say I don't appreciate and encourage Superman having his fair share of explain-y victories.

But honestly, and I outline this a bit in my first post, I think Clark Kent is where you get the "prep." Clark is inherently a time for the character to express more trepidation, and verbalize more of what's behind that confidently puffed out chest. Clark is literally a writer so his command of language should never be in question, and he should remain a platform for the character to get stuff off his chest. Believe it or not, Clark Kent is integral to Superman beating a foe. I again present this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAGYquZMDJg Superman lost to the combination of Live Wire and Parasite. But a few scenes of Clark Kent and Lois talking about seemingly nothing spark an idea in Clark's mind, and it gives him edge for a time. The later half of the fight is an example of Superman's adaptability. He seems to be just grasping at straws as he runs from Parasites attack, but in reality he used his the power that Parasite stole against the villain. All of this was done with Superman only saying 6 words during the fight. The show does a fantastic job of communicating the ingredients to Superman's victory. 1) You understand that Rudy has Live Wire's power, and thus you understand that he has her weakness, AND you understand that he's been coveting power. 2) because you understand all of the facets of 1 you get why Superman throwing water at Rudy works the way it does, but you also get that it's not enough water. 3) again because you understand 1 you get that Rudy will not kill Clark right away because he covets power. The viewer and Clark learn and understand all of this in real time, and it all comes to a satisfying and simple end with Clark's victory by using 1, 2, and 3.

I used to be all about the "dumb lunkhead" argument. For me, once i discovered comics, I immediately thumbed my nose at the likes of the 90's cartoon. I mistakenly thought that Superman's lack of "well Lex I'd already reprogrammed your robots between eye blinks during our first conversation" was an indication of an inferior, in quality, Superman. I thought that I didn't get that Clark was smart because he didn't tell me how smart he was every other episode. But this is wrong. in reality the Clark from the 90's show is a clever and observant character who wins the day by keeping his wits about him and optimizing opportunities.

In reality, Superman can be largely silent during action, yet still be a thinker. He can even get in his small small moments of speechifying after the action (like in the case of All Star), but that has to be done after action and ingredients are shown and made known to the viewer, I feel. I don't want Superman flexing his "nerd macho" (as I call it) just for the sake of hitting the viewer/reader over the head saying "SEEEEEE he's smart!" All Star Superman is a case where that bit of speechifying is more or less earned. Most of the ingredients a peppered in a literal and metaphorical manner throughout the story. I myself am not an expert on the laws of physics, but as they were presented and alluded to in the story, I was able to grasp the idea of Lex's downfall fairly quickly.

So to summarize: yes I think Superman should have a fair amount of dialogue to him, but only in the sense that Clark Kent is a way into Superman's head. Clark is the planing period where you can let it all hangout, so to speak. Superman is the execution of the ideas brought up by Kent, and he is the reactionary safety net if/when his plans have to change. This bring such utility to the idea of Clark past the lip service of just "he needs Clark." In the episode "The Late Mr. Kent" Clark says that "I'd go crazy without being Clark Kent." If Kent's story utility is to give a voice to the more movement and action based Superman, then yes, he would go crazy, and I as the viewer have a strong understanding of that. And this isn't to say Superman himself doesn't talk at all, but what he says is largely to the point, and the result of Kent first working it out for him, imo.

I agree with you in various parts, though I would say I wouldn't make it mandatory that the prep and thinking-through phases has to come through the Clark persona. That said, I think it's a good way to integrate Mr. Kent into an action-packed Superman story.

STAS Clark is certainly a lot of things. As a non-fan of the show, I still think there are some really great moments, and occasional great episodes, too. But to be as diplomatic as possible, I think too often, they make Clark as smart or as dull, as powerful or impotent, as the story requires. So an episode such as "Mxyzptlk" gives us a really clever Clark. "World's Finest" makes him a bit duller. Etc.

Certainly we don't need Prof. Superman to show up in movies and TV, and certain glances, facial expressions, mannerisms, etc. should often be enough to get your point across. But if you're too passive in demonstrating that this is a clever guy coming up with ways to solve problems, you end up with the Last Neanderthal of Krypton-type commentary.

[Superlad93]

I agree with you in various parts, though I would say I wouldn't make it mandatory that the prep and thinking-through phases has to come through the Clark persona. That said, I think it's a good way to integrate Mr. Kent into an action-packed Superman story.

Agreed. Like virtually any idea, one wouldn't want it to become so formulaic that all tension is cut because of it. So, Superman is just as capable of coming up with ideas as Clark, but I'd just give Clark the lion's share of the work. That said, I also firmly believe that Clark and Superman can work in tandem from time to time. This is on full display in the climax to Morrison's Vyn story in Action Comics. There Superman beings the bad guy because he interviewed a nice older woman, and then made use of the rules she set up. In there speechifying won the day because words were given power. I think that's a clever way to integrate Clark, the bookish writer, and Superman, the action ace.

And of course, it also comes down to, like most things, how well it's presented and implemented.

STAS Clark is certainly a lot of things. As a non-fan of the show, I still think there are some really great moments, and occasional great episodes, too. But to be as diplomatic as possible, I think too often, they make Clark as smart or as dull, as powerful or impotent, as the story requires. So an episode such as "Mxyzptlk" gives us a really clever Clark. "World's Finest" makes him a bit duller. Etc.

I can agree with that. My main example being the "father's day" episode. No joke, Superman spends 22 minutes finding new ways to bunch Kalibak in the face. I skip it almost every time. So, i promise you that I know where you're coming from. I'm more so talking about when the show is really on it's game (The Late Mr. Kent, The Prometheon, Speed Demons, Mxyzpixilated, Two's a Crowd, Action Figures, Double Dose, Ghost in the Machine and a few more). In episodes like those the show has such clarity and focus on what it wants to accomplish and impart.

Certainly we don't need Prof. Superman to show up in movies and TV, and certain glances, facial expressions, mannerisms, etc. should often be enough to get your point across. But if you're too passive in demonstrating that this is a clever guy coming up with ways to solve problems, you end up with the Last Neanderthal of Krypton-type commentary.

So long as you've done the work around Superman's climatic expression of action in the 3rd act, then I don't really fear that issue. The Live Wire and Parasite episode I mentioned is completely devoted to the idea of giving you and Superman the set up for the punchline. It usually seems to me that not much is wrong with Superman, but more so the story they've constructed around him, and the information they've imparted/set up. Superman doesn't need to tell Parasite that with enough water his power will backfire. That bit of exposition is always for the viewer/reader. If that exposition is given via Superman being in a room and noticing the visualization of that exposition, then later when he acts on it, it's natural and clever all at once. This is a stronger narrative than simply adding in a new ass-pull-fly-around-it-real-fast idea to win the day.

And can I just say how very pleasant this exchange has been. Different opinions, but still respect and some form of common ground acknowledged.

[DochaDocha]

And can I just say how very pleasant this exchange has been. Different opinions, but still respect and some form of common ground acknowledged.

Pleasant conversing with you, as well. Take it easy, fellow Super-fan.

[Hope Returns]

Honestly I think Dc and WB is making superman too much like Batman. Honestly I have always thought of Superman as the guy who always saves the day with a smile and with a sense of humanity. Now he always faces morality and the like. Honestly theirs people in life who just do good without all the morality.

Doing good is doing good. haters gonna hate Someone who just helps out of kindness because they can't believe their is someone so nice. Superman should just be a kind and awsome hero, that's what makes him strong as a character. if he faces so many Morales questions it really breaks the character overtime. Batman was the one with all the morality questions I believe when did it spread to superman comics?

Superman has always been a symbol for hope, family, protector, and what we aspire as humans. however now we have added too many additional symbols, from my childhood to now even though I never followed comics but superman has always been a symbol and everyone who ever wares the shirt and stuff it's always to symbolized being what every guy aspires to be.

Superman movies should be more feel good. Not a Batman in superman suit. it's hard to look at a Superman who doesn't smile looks kind or inspires people to be better. the actor for superman really really makes a fake superman. I would never want to be that superman who doesn't Inspire anything. I would never wear his symbol.

[kurenai24]

1st official trailer for the new Batman & Friends movie... err, I mean Justice League movie...

Mom: *goes on google with her phone*

Google feature: *brings up articles and videos she may be interested in*

Mom: *Sees Justice League trailer video* *Hasn't pressed play* "Have you seen this yet?"

Me: No *starts naming the heroes in the movie*

Mom: *interrupts me* "Is he burnt?"

Me: "Who?"

Mom: "The one in the middle."

Me: *looks* "That's Cyborg" *laughs at the genuineness of her comment*

Mom: "Why's his arms so small?*

Me: *laughs*

Mom: "It's not funny, I'm serious, it's like you know Terminator when his arm gets burnt and it reveals the small metal arm. Is he burnt?"

Me: "No, he's not burnt, DC should have gone with his Teen Titans (referring to the cartoon) design." *stops self from ranting*

Mom: He reminds me of... *doesn't watch the trailer video*

[JAK]

Hey, another Folding Ideas fan.

Yep, lots of great stuff from that channel.

Cool!

And yep, big time - the man's a freakin' genius. And watching his videos makes me want to get serious about making movies.

I also enjoyed the Rant + Bollocks channel, and "Batman V Superman: A Beautiful Lie" video by Steve Baxi.