Movies The Batman - 2022 [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Dire_Flumph

2021-10-16, 08:31 PM

I understand people are tired of the MCU, and I'm not. I'm always eager to see what's coming down the pipe there.

But another Batman reboot? I'm going to need a better idea if there's any kind of fresh direction they're taking this in other than what this trailer is giving me. Almost all of this footage could have come from an Affleck or Bale Batman flick.

Bat-Mite shows up? I'm in. Another reboot of the core Rogues Gallery? Pass.

Eh, there hasn't been a good movie Riddler (and I still maintain that Jim Carrey would be an amazing Riddler if they actually gave him a Riddler role and not "Ace Ventura: Batman Villain").

Not a movie and I'm not sure I'd go out of my way to recommend the series, but I enjoyed Cory Michael Smith in the role on Gotham. And Jim Rash was born to play the Riddler, so I'm glad the Harley Quinn show gave him that opportunity.

Trafalgar

2021-10-17, 02:43 AM

The trailer has a nineties vibe to it. Not just the music. It feels like a cross between Tim Burton's Batman movie and The Crow.

Manga Shoggoth

2021-10-17, 04:50 AM

In the order of 90 years worth of material to mine, and we get another Batman film?

I get it - of the big three he is probably the easiest to write for since you don't have to deal with actual superpowers - but Marvel went for variety, and that I think was part of its success. With the amount of material they have to work with, surely they could come up with something new.

The trailer itself? Andy Serkis was probably the best bit. I reckon he could pull off Alfred, but I have difficulty recognising any of the other characters. I think there was supposed to be a Catwoman, a poor Heath Ledger* clone, and the only reason I know there's a Riddler in there somewhere was the ? in the coffee.

* - I give him due credit for his work, but for me there is no joker but Cesar Romero (although Mark Hamil and Jack Nicholson also pulled it off well)

GloatingSwine

2021-10-17, 07:16 AM

I get it - of the big three he is probably the easiest to write for since you don't have to deal with actual superpowers - but Marvel went for variety, and that I think was part of its success. With the amount of material they have to work with, surely they could come up with something new.
[/SIZE]

Marvel went for variety because they didn't own the movie rights to any of their most popular characters, they had to sell them off in the '90s to keep the lights on.

If they hadn't you can bet your ass they would have been the ones eternally rebooting Spider-Man and the X-Men instead of Fox and Sony.

Anyway, it's another Batman film. Looked okay. My pants remain uncreamed by it or any of the other recent DC trailers. Black Adam is a character I barely know or care about other than that he's "what if Captain Marvel (not that one) but a ****", and the Flash teaser is mostly trading on Keaton nostalgia. Which, y'know, fine but we don't care that much about Ezra Miller Flash because he was only in that one trainwreck Justice League movie they tried to sell us twice.

(The character you possibly think is the Joker is apparently Penguin, I thought it might be from the nose, but do not think there will be time for him to be interesting.)

DC movies need to stop being ashamed to be comic book movies though. There should be a rule in their production rooms that if the words "grounded" or "realistic" are ever spoken James Gunn gets to walk in and slap whoever said it with a wet starfish.

Eldan

2021-10-17, 08:09 AM

Yeah, colour me unimpressed as well. "Batman, but dark and *psychological* and with some ultraviolence" stopped being novel somewhere in the last three times they did that.

GloatingSwine

2021-10-17, 08:14 AM

Yeah, colour me unimpressed as well. "Batman, but dark and *psychological* and with some ultraviolence" stopped being novel somewhere in the last three times they did that.

That's extremely generous since that's been almost the only Batman we've had since the 1980s.

Eldan

2021-10-17, 08:41 AM

Eh, I count cartoons and outlier media. We have The Brave and the Bold and Lego Batman.

Dire_Flumph

2021-10-17, 08:59 AM

That's extremely generous since that's been almost the only Batman we've had since the 1980s.

Unless you count the LEGO Batman movie (which was surprisingly good).

Anteros

2021-10-17, 09:29 AM

Thoughts while watching the trailer: Apparently the world's greatest detective thinks punching bullet proof glass is a good way to impress someone.

Riddler, Catwoman, and Penguin in one movie? That's probably going to be a jumbled mess.

Wow, this is really edgy. Not my cup of tea at all.

Lord Raziere

2021-10-17, 09:31 AM

That's extremely generous since that's been almost the only Batman we've had since the 1980s.

I know, boring and annoying isn't it? Another Batman movie is coming! and the crowd goes mild.

Serious Batman is old hat now. its a dry well, a tapped out mine. Bruce deserves to rest a bit, give the character some downtime maybe come back later with new ideas instead of constantly oversaturating us with the dark knight. We've had enough good Batman stuff for quite a while, we don't need more.

Eldan

2021-10-17, 09:52 AM

Manga Shoggoth

2021-10-17, 10:10 AM

DC movies need to stop being ashamed to be comic book movies though. There should be a rule in their production rooms that if the words "grounded" or "realistic" are ever spoken James Gunn gets to walk in and slap whoever said it with a wet starfish.

I absolutely agree with you here. It's like they are still trying to live down the old Adam West/Burt Ward Batman, and haven't quite twigged that the (admittedly sometimes excessive) camp was why it was so popular in the first place.

Anteros

2021-10-17, 10:13 AM

And I think also what at least appear to be henchmen in grimdark clown makeup? So at least a Joker namedrop.

I could see it working as a villain ensemble movie if they don't spend too much time on any individual villain. Honestly, at this point who isn't already familiar with Batman's rogue gallery? Kinda like a Spider-man vs the Sinister Six type story.

Not that I think that's what they're doing.

It looks like Catwoman doesn't even know Batman that well in the trailer, so we're getting origin story again. At least for her if not Bruce himself.

I absolutely agree with you here. It's like they are still trying to live down the old Adam West/Burt Ward Batman, and haven't quite twigged that the (admittedly sometimes excessive) camp was why it was so popular in the first place.

I don't necessarily agree. Grounded can be fine if well done. Something like Ledger's Joker performance in the Dark Knight is going to stand the test of time a lot better than something like the jokes and memes from GotG or Ragnarok. Those movies haven't aged nearly as well despite their massive popularity at the time. It just depends on what you're trying to do.

Traab

2021-10-17, 10:15 AM

Hmmm riddler catwoman and penguin? It could work as a team up. Riddler being the brains, penguin the broker who gets the info and gear needed, catwoman for at least SOME fighting ability as well as her ability to steal just about anything not nailed down. Plus both riddler and penguin have their fun little tech toy gimmicks they work with, giving them another point of connection. But yeah, overall the movie looks dumb. And yes, batman punching bulletproof glass is SUPER intimidating. :smallsigh: Had he smashed through and dragged the guy by his collar THAT would have made an impression.

Psyren

2021-10-17, 11:16 AM

Ooh a gritty Batman! Thats new and fresh! :smallsigh:

Marvel went for variety because they didn't own the movie rights to any of their most popular characters, they had to sell them off in the '90s to keep the lights on.

If they hadn't you can bet your ass they would have been the ones eternally rebooting Spider-Man and the X-Men instead of Fox and Sony.

I mean, yeah you're right, but here's the thing - Marvel happened. They showed that you can do those deep dives into the rest of the catalogue and make money. So DC has a template now, and therefore no excuse. We've even seen now that you can do TV shows, and tie those shows to the movies and back again, without losing audiences. There's still a possibility in the future that the whole tapestry collapses under its own weight, but that hasn't happened yet, and in the meantime they're making money hand over fist and convincing people to brave the theaters that otherwise wouldn't have.

Hmmm riddler catwoman and penguin? It could work as a team up. Riddler being the brains, penguin the broker who gets the info and gear needed, catwoman for at least SOME fighting ability as well as her ability to steal just about anything not nailed down. Plus both riddler and penguin have their fun little tech toy gimmicks they work with, giving them another point of connection. But yeah, overall the movie looks dumb. And yes, batman punching bulletproof glass is SUPER intimidating. :smallsigh: Had he smashed through and dragged the guy by his collar THAT would have made an impression.

The thing about Catwoman is that she's firmly in antihero territory, so I expect her to pull off the triple if not quadruple-cross so she gets paid.

GloatingSwine

2021-10-17, 01:33 PM

I absolutely agree with you here. It's like they are still trying to live down the old Adam West/Burt Ward Batman, and haven't quite twigged that the (admittedly sometimes excessive) camp was why it was so popular in the first place.

Yeah, it was also an accurate reflection of the Batman of the day, mind. Comics in the '60s were goofball stuff.

Modern movies need to split the difference and find ways to have a serious tone with a reasonable amount of levity, like BTAS did.

(As for DC following Marvel's template, everyone tried to follow Marvel's template and everyone made a balls up of it. It turns out the MCU might just have been more luck than judgement)

Talakeal

2021-10-17, 02:30 PM

Looks good. Nothing terribly original, but there is nothing wrong with a back to basics Batman story if done well. I like the look of everyone, especially Cat Woman.

If the first trailer was any indication, the Court of Owls is going to be the main villain, although they seem absent from this one.

Trafalgar

2021-10-17, 03:23 PM

I would just like to point out that they tried to make a campy Batman movie in 1997 - "Batman and Robin". Which had Bat Skates, a Bat Credit card, and Bat nipples. Maybe they should stay with a dark and brooding Batman movie.

I think DC cinematic universe started out on the wrong foot because they went with a dark and brooding Superman. Superman is not normally a dark and brooding character.

Manga Shoggoth

2021-10-17, 03:33 PM

Yeah, it was also an accurate reflection of the Batman of the day, mind. Comics in the '60s were goofball stuff.

Ah yes, the 60's. I was even alive for half the decade. I fell in love with Batman as soon as they broadcast it over here in the late 70's.

(EDIT: Wikipedia says it was broadcash in the UK in 1989, but that can't be right - I used to watch it after school, and I graduated university in 1986)

Modern movies need to split the difference and find ways to have a serious tone with a reasonable amount of levity, like BTAS did.

The stupid thing is that - by all accounts (I've only seen bits of the film) - DC has managed to do the comic-book stuff well with Shazam. It's not that they can't do it, they won't.

(As for DC following Marvel's template, everyone tried to follow Marvel's template and everyone made a balls up of it. It turns out the MCU might just have been more luck than judgement)

I'm not so sure. Marvel started small (with Iron Man, as I recall) and built up the franchise and characters in stages, finally putting them together with Avengers. They took time to experiment, didn't over-reach and were always in a position where they could put the project down without looking as if they had failed.. That smacks of at least some level of planning and forethought rather than plain luck. (Although I acknowledge that a huge amount of luck is required...)

While others have been accused of following Marvel's template, I'm not really sure that anyone really has. More that they have tried to create the same endpoint, but without doing the same level of preperation. DC tried to do the same thing in the space of about three films and rushed it too much, and Universal "Dark Universe" Pictures dived straight in with the first film and crashed.

I'm not sure that the Avengers film would have worked on its own without the number of films that went before it. It was the first MCU film I saw, and it only worked for me because I have a knowledge of the comics going back to the early 80's (and most of them wer imports of older comics).

Divayth Fyr

2021-10-17, 04:15 PM

While others have been accused of following Marvel's template, I'm not really sure that anyone really has. More that they have tried to create the same endpoint, but without doing the same level of preperation. DC tried to do the same thing in the space of about three films and rushed it too much, and Universal "Dark Universe" Pictures dived straight in with the first film and crashed.
I think Justice League is considered the 5th film in the DC Universe (Man of Steel, Bat vs Supes, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman). MCU had 5 movies before the Avengers (2 Iron Mans, Hulk, Thor, Cap). The difference is that the MCU did its best to use the movies to make people know most of the cast (even though you could make it even better by switching IM2 for a Black Widow/Hawkeye movie), whereas DC spent one of the movies on side nonsense (Suicide Squad), and doubled down on Superman (and to a slightly smaller extent, Wonder Woman). Having something for Flash or Cyborg would really help - the important characters who came into the limelight in Avengers are generally regular people, which means they don't have powers, and you don't have to really explain much of their backstory. This is largely the opposite for Justice League, which doesn't help. Neither does the mess that was the production and release... Not that I really consider Snyder's version particularly great (also, I think it is irrelevant, as the original release is considered canon?).

I think DC cinematic universe started out on the wrong foot because they went with a dark and brooding Superman. Superman is not normally a dark and brooding character.
That certainly didn't help, though it is far from the only issue.

Psyren

2021-10-17, 07:26 PM

(As for DC following Marvel's template, everyone tried to follow Marvel's template and everyone made a balls up of it. It turns out the MCU might just have been more luck than judgement)

The three times they've actually followed Marvel tonally (Shazam, WW1, even TSS minus the gore) were their most successful actually. The problem is they won't commit to keeping the DCEU fun because the Dark Knight trilogy made money in the 'aughts.

Trafalgar

2021-10-17, 11:40 PM

I think DC cinematic universe started out on the wrong foot because they went with a dark and brooding Superman. Superman is not normally a dark and brooding character.

That certainly didn't help, though it is far from the only issue.

I agree its not the only issue, but for me it's the biggest one. In the DC Cinematic Universe, Superman didn't feel like Superman, Batman didn't feel like Batman, and Lex Luthor DID NOT feel like Lex Luthor. They didn't get it right until Wonder Woman.

But the MCU generally gets the characters right, even if the backstory is substantially different. Hulk, in my opinion, is off but the rest are recognizably similar to the comic book.

Traab

2021-10-18, 07:18 AM

I agree its not the only issue, but for me it's the biggest one. In the DC Cinematic Universe, Superman didn't feel like Superman, Batman didn't feel like Batman, and Lex Luthor DID NOT feel like Lex Luthor. They didn't get it right until Wonder Woman.

But the MCU generally gets the characters right, even if the backstory is substantially different. Hulk, in my opinion, is off but the rest are recognizably similar to the comic book.

I really think the biggest flaw in the dceu was the rush to the big payoff without the foundation work. Altering superman was stupid, but the entire set of films all felt like "Omg you guys, justice league! Its going to be great! Hold on, here it comes!" Meanwhile the mcu had excellent self contained storylines for each hero. Ones where the film itself was the payoff, not the assurance that down the line the big team up was going to roxxor yor boxxorz. I do think a decent part of it was also that the mcu films were just BETTER. Better written, better filmed, better acted. They didnt take the characters and substantially change them from what they are, so didnt tick off the comic fans, and they didnt have two tentpole characters that are so overdone you just want them to go away for a couple decades and try again in 2040. Speaking of which, I just heard they are going to reboot the fantastic four yet again due to desperately wanting to hold onto the rights despite every film they make tanking harder than the last.

GloatingSwine

2021-10-18, 07:41 AM

I mean they also tried to build it on a foundation of people who hated comic books and people who read them, so that wasn't a good start either.

Anteros

2021-10-18, 08:15 AM

Most of the DC heroes don't really lend themselves very well to MCU type movies anyway. Some heroes do like Flash or Cyborg, but the big 3? No. Batman is basically the poster child for grim and broody while Superman is the blandest thing since water. WW's typical presentation is "female Superman"

DC's big heroes have always been more icons than humans, while Marvel tends to focus on the human aspect of the character first. You don't get stories about the big 3 struggling to pay rent, or with alcoholism, or whatever. It's hard to even imagine Superman telling a quip.

It doesn't help that WB doesn't understand the things that do make the characters interesting. Superman's inherent goodness, and the message that people can choose to be good despite having every opportunity. Batman's struggling against adversity and drive to never give up, even when the odds seem literally impossible. WW's....well I never cared for WW. Maybe someone else can tell me what her appeal is. :smallbiggrin:

GloatingSwine

2021-10-18, 09:35 AM

DC's big heroes have always been more icons than humans, while Marvel tends to focus on the human aspect of the character first. You don't get stories about the big 3 struggling to pay rent, or with alcoholism, or whatever. It's hard to even imagine Superman telling a quip.

Of course not. But you do get stories about Superman being conflicted over his desire to live as a human and connect with humanity with the fact that the world needs a Superman and he's the only one who can be that.

That's the core of the really good Superman stories. He desperately wants to not have to be Superman but his moral convictions won't allow him not to be.

So how you do Superman is, largely, what Richard Donner did. Start by establishing the value of being Clark Kent. That doesn't necessarily mean redoing the origin story but does mean you need to show Clark having a loving relationship with Jonathan and Martha Kent, and that they knew all along that he wasn't human. You need to show why Superman values being human, and not being the last of his people. (This is a good place to use Lex and his resentment of Superman's power. Lex resents Superman because he sees an alien with overwhelming power and wants to prove the superiority of a human, but Clark wins by being more human)

Then once that's well established by your first story, you give him the temptation. What if he could be human all the time. What if he could tear down the barrier between himself and the people around him, to let the weight of being Superman pass from his shoulders. Couple of different ways you could do that, Superman II did it by removing his powers, For The Man who Has Everything trapped him in a dream, but you do a story where he faces the temptation of giving it all up to be Human and eventually overcomes it.

Then you introduce the Justice League because now that's the healthy solution to the problem, Superman doesn't need to carry the weight alone any more.

hungrycrow

2021-10-18, 10:22 AM

Anteros

2021-10-18, 10:36 AM

Peelee

2021-10-18, 11:25 AM

Tony Stark is a snarky playboy who struggles with personal relations, responsibility, and alcoholism. There's plenty there for an audience to relate to. He's basically a perfect protagonist for a Whedon film.

Compare to Superman who's biggest issue is that he's just so perfect and powerful that he has trouble relating to the people he protects, but chooses to be human anyway. You might enjoy his story, but you don't relate to it the way a former alcoholic or partier will with Tony. Or the way a broke college kid relates to Spidey.

Superman is a foreigner in America who was raised in the Midwest by blue collar people and has a working-class job, while his greatest foe is a billionaire who wishes to consolidate as much wealth and power as possible.

Yeah. Totally unrelatable for most Americans. The billionaire genius who is also drunk a lot is so much more like us!

The Glyphstone

2021-10-18, 11:32 AM

hungrycrow

2021-10-18, 11:33 AM

Tony Stark is a snarky playboy who struggles with personal relations, responsibility, and alcoholism. There's plenty there for an audience to relate to. He's basically a perfect protagonist for a Whedon film.

Compare to Superman who's biggest issue is that he's just so perfect and powerful that he has trouble relating to the people he protects, but chooses to be human anyway. You might enjoy his story, but you don't relate to it the way a former alcoholic or partier will with Tony. Or the way a broke college kid relates to Spidey.

My point is the snarky playboy who struggles with personal relations, responsibility, and alcoholism isn't the core of Tony Stark. The core of Tony Stark is just the invincible Iron Man. The other bits were added later to flesh him out into an interesting character.

Superman as his core is a powerful hero that fights for truth, justice, and the american way. He doesn't have to be a perfect god; he can still be a person with struggles underneath all that and still ring true as Superman.

Psyren

2021-10-18, 11:33 AM

Tony Stark was a super smart, super rich playboy in an invincible robot suit. On paper he is completely unrelatable to a general audience, but the MCU still made him work. There's nothing stopping WB from doing the same with the big 3; they just have to care about doing so.

I'd argue Tony Stark is a lot easier to make sympathetic than Bruce Wayne. Tony pretty exclusively fights in his weight class (aliens, metahumans, mad scientists, PMCs etc). Batman meanwhile - as shown in this very trailer - seems incapable of being separated from the street level crime that made him famous. They have a similar ceiling, especially these days with Tony having broken into the A-List, but Batman's much lower floor results in multiple portrayals where he's at least perceived by audiences and thinkpieces to be quite literally punching down.

To put it another way, Tony usually isn't patrolling alleys at night in the Mark V looking for muggers and henchmen so he can break all their arms and legs, nor is he repeatedly throwing the Joker in prison only for him to break out next week and kill more bystanders. Marvel made the very savvy decision of splitting out that specific fantasy into their grittier heroes like Daredevil and Moon Knight and Punisher, people for whom you don't need to contrive various excuses for why clobbering goons makes more sense than effecting social change.

Lord Raziere

2021-10-18, 11:46 AM

I think people harp on/overrate relatability in this kind of thing.

after all, we are discussing this in a BATMAN thread. the guy who makes Tony Stark look relatively tame in terms of how freaking ridiculous and far from the common man he is:
*insert billionaire playboy philanthropist list difference joke here*

you can't discount charisma/style in this kind of thing. sure a stand up guy with relatable common man backstory is safe, but they can also be plain. Batman? has that dark mysterious brooding charisma he can stoically do the quiet badass thing of being this inevitable doom for the villains but also can have his moments of caring for his bat-family or friends, Tony Stark has this egotistical Vegeta-like attitude of "hold my beer I'm going to do something awesome" which is always fun because its always a coin flip whether he actually succeeds and proves that he is not all talk or fails and is taken down a peg and you enjoy it either way.

escapism can also be a factor: sure not everyone is rich, but people sure do want to BE rich and if you tie in that wealth fantasy with a bunch of spy gadgets and cool tech to fight badguys that can lead to a wealth fantasy of using the money for good in cool way rather than a boring one.

while Superman? can't really feed into the fun part of being a superhero because he is too busy being responsible with it. sure he is a good guy for being so responsible, but it can also make him come across as stiff because if your in his position you can't really have any fun with said powers if your held to such high standards. not really feeding into the escapist fantasy.

Traab

2021-10-18, 12:28 PM

The Glyphstone

2021-10-18, 12:33 PM

Get a solid character actor and you could make it work. Joaquin Phoenix made Joker a billion dollar smash hit without Batman or Harley Quinn on the strength of drama.

Anteros

2021-10-18, 12:39 PM

Superman is a foreigner in America who was raised in the Midwest by blue collar people and has a working-class job, while his greatest foe is a billionaire who wishes to consolidate as much wealth and power as possible.

Yeah. Totally unrelatable for most Americans. The billionaire genius who is also drunk a lot is so much more like us!

His best friend is also a billionaire, and his home is a giant ice castle filled with alien luxuries, robot butlers, and super weapons. He spends the other part of his free time on a literal space station. It's comics so if you want to cherry pick nonsense we'll be here all day.

I actually read Superman comics fairly regularly, and I can't begin to tell you the last time one was actually about his human side. The last one I can think of was American Alien which was 5 years ago and in an alternate timeline. Now, I don't read every issue ever released or anything, but those stories are rare. And yes. Tony acts like an actual human. Superman does not. It's all him flying around, punching things, and lamenting how powerful he is. Everyone always says the best Superman stories focus on his humanity, but in reality those stories are extremely rare. He has small town roots, but his actual story is about leaving those and moving on to bigger things.

Peelee

2021-10-18, 01:20 PM

I wonder how people would react to a superman flick where there is no zod, no braniac, no doomsday, no darkseid. Its just clark kent trying to live his life as clark kent while not being able to ignore all the pain he can hear all the time in metropolis alone. Where its not an action film, its a dramatic one with character growth being the primary focus. Maybe put it so its right after he gets to metropolis and starts to experience how different it is from smallville. Living on the farm he isnt being exposed to literally millions of people with dozens to hundreds of crimes going on every day that he can hear taking place. He gets to experience the difficulty in being clark kent when superman is needed so often. A different version of tobys spiderman 2 where everyone sees him as unreliable because his time in the suit keeps getting in the way of time as himself. He is trying to be a reporter, trying to make friends, but he keeps getting called away to save lives and stop crimes and doesnt know what to do.

I would love it. No small part of my complete lack of interest in the MCU currently is that every single story revolves around huge, world-affecting problems. Smaller stakes can still be interesting and matter a lot.

ETA:
His best friend is also a billionaire, and his home is a giant ice castle filled with alien luxuries, robot butlers, and super weapons. He spends the other part of his free time on a literal space station. It's comics so if you want to cherry pick nonsense we'll be here all day.
Yeah, but the more down-to-earth aspects of superman are more relatable for more people, was my point.

I actually read Superman comics fairly regularly, and I can't begin to tell you the last time one was actually about his human side.
And this is totally the problem (well, a problem). They can, and should, tell more stories focusing on the Clark Kent side. More human stories with problems that can be solved by being Superman but can be solved by being a good man. I agree that his superpowers can easily make him boring, and a good way to captlitalize on who he is would be to focus on who he is instead of what he is.

Fyraltari

2021-10-18, 01:50 PM

His best friend is also a billionaire

Do you mean Batman or did Jimmy Olsen make a billion bucks without me knowing (which wouldn't be surprising)?

Psyren

2021-10-18, 01:57 PM

I wonder how people would react to a superman flick where there is no zod, no braniac, no doomsday, no darkseid. Its just clark kent trying to live his life as clark kent while not being able to ignore all the pain he can hear all the time in metropolis alone. Where its not an action film, its a dramatic one with character growth being the primary focus. Maybe put it so its right after he gets to metropolis and starts to experience how different it is from smallville. Living on the farm he isnt being exposed to literally millions of people with dozens to hundreds of crimes going on every day that he can hear taking place. He gets to experience the difficulty in being clark kent when superman is needed so often. A different version of tobys spiderman 2 where everyone sees him as unreliable because his time in the suit keeps getting in the way of time as himself. He is trying to be a reporter, trying to make friends, but he keeps getting called away to save lives and stop crimes and doesnt know what to do.

Sounds incredibly dull for a blockbuster, but might work as a slice-of-life tv show.

And didn't Spiderman 2 have a literal doomsday device plot?

Get a solid character actor and you could make it work. Joaquin Phoenix made Joker a billion dollar smash hit without Batman or Harley Quinn on the strength of drama.

That was a Start of Darkness though, and a mystery besides. How/why does Clark Kent become Superman is a lot less narratively interesting, especially since Man of Steel and '78 Superman already answered that question in detail, and still had half the movie left that they needed to fill with Big Bad stuff.

Do you mean Batman or did Jimmy Olsen make a billion bucks without me knowing (which wouldn't be surprising)?

Jimmy Olsen is just his pal IIRC :smalltongue:

hungrycrow

2021-10-18, 02:06 PM

Back to Batman, I think a batman that rampages around in a tank and beats thirty armed thugs simultaneously could still have meaningful physical and emotional conflict; it's been done well before. The problem is: it's been done well before. Nothing in this trailer makes me want to watch a new batman movie instead of just rewatching the Dark Knight again.

Peelee

2021-10-18, 03:38 PM

Sounds incredibly dull for a blockbuster

Not a Jaws fan, I take it?

Psyren

2021-10-18, 04:27 PM

Not a Jaws fan, I take it?

Jaws had three pirimary antagonists, only one of which was the shark :smalltongue:

Peelee

2021-10-18, 05:00 PM

Jaws had three pirimary antagonists, only one of which was the shark :smalltongue:

The mayor was barely even a character, he was more of a wall in human form, and I can't think of who the their would be (Quint would be my best guess but I'd disagree with that if so).

But regardless, my point was that Jaws, which practically invented the summer blockbuster, was "not an action film, its a dramatic one with character growth being the primary focus", which was what I figured was what made you say it'd be dull for a blockbuster. I hadn't imagined that the number of antagonists might be what you were looking for.

Psyren

2021-10-18, 06:06 PM

The mayor was barely even a character, he was more of a wall in human form, and I can't think of who the their would be (Quint would be my best guess but I'd disagree with that if so).

But regardless, my point was that Jaws, which practically invented the summer blockbuster, was "not an action film, its a dramatic one with character growth being the primary focus", which was what I figured was what made you say it'd be dull for a blockbuster. I hadn't imagined that the number of antagonists might be what you were looking for.

And my point is that Jaws is nothing like the quiet villain-less character meditation being described.

Peelee

2021-10-18, 06:13 PM

And my point is that Jaws is nothing like the quiet villain-less character meditation being described.

"No person in a brightly colored costume or intent on global or universal devastation" does not equate to "no antagonist".

Movies can be low key without world-changing stakes and still be good, was my point.

Traab

2021-10-18, 07:55 PM

I mean, he is still fighting crime, its just not anybody that a movie revolves around. He isnt trying to stop the world from ending, but he is still stopping crimes. You could even toss in some of his C listers. No real threat but they keep showing up and he has to put them down again because they are too dangerous for the cops to handle and would destroy innocent lives if he didnt step in. He feels resentment for losing his time as clark kent, but that also makes him feel selfish because he is literally saving lives and is annoyed that he cant hang out in the employee break room shooting the breeze with lois and jimmy. The film is him coming to terms with all of this and setting up who he wants to be in the real world. And yes, im aware spiderman 2 had a doomsday device plot, I DID say a variation after all. :p I was more talking about how his personal life fell apart in that film because of what being a responsible hero was doing to his friends and family.

Grim Portent

2021-10-18, 08:09 PM

I honestly wonder if Batman wouldn't be better off being set in the past. Set him in the 20s or thereabouts, don't give him anything more than a few Bond style spy gadgets and so on. Let a goon with a tommygun be a realistic threat to him and have him face off with a member of his rogues gallery that's taken control of one of Gotham's mobs as part of a scheme.

Peelee

2021-10-18, 08:14 PM

Lord Raziere

2021-10-18, 08:19 PM

Psyren

2021-10-18, 09:49 PM

Batman is supposed to be the world's greatest detective, so I'd really like a movie that leaned into that.

I wouldn't hold your breath - judging by his yelling and punching the crazy-guy glass at 1:04, I think we're just going to get more memes (https://www.reddit.com/r/batman/comments/xkl7y/watching_the_trilogy_in_quick_succession_i/) :smalltongue:

"No person in a brightly colored costume or intent on global or universal devastation" does not equate to "no antagonist".

Movies can be low key without world-changing stakes and still be good, was my point.

I fully agree, but your original question was asking whether I didn't like Jaws. Of course I like Jaws, because Jaws has way more stakes than the boring Clark Kent character meditation that was being floated earlier, even if they weren't "world-changing" ones. (And I'd further argue that the people whose livelihoods depend on that town staying open would consider those stakes to be fairly world-changing for them.)

I mean, he is still fighting crime, its just not anybody that a movie revolves around. He isnt trying to stop the world from ending, but he is still stopping crimes. You could even toss in some of his C listers. No real threat but they keep showing up and he has to put them down again because they are too dangerous for the cops to handle and would destroy innocent lives if he didnt step in. He feels resentment for losing his time as clark kent, but that also makes him feel selfish because he is literally saving lives and is annoyed that he cant hang out in the employee break room shooting the breeze with lois and jimmy. The film is him coming to terms with all of this and setting up who he wants to be in the real world. And yes, im aware spiderman 2 had a doomsday device plot, I DID say a variation after all. :p I was more talking about how his personal life fell apart in that film because of what being a responsible hero was doing to his friends and family.

"How can I choose between being Spiderman and being Peter Parker?" was the undercurrent for a reason. It's an interesting question, but what makes it interesting are the stakes that surround the question "what happens if I stop being Spiderman right this minute?" Removing Ock and his ticking clock from the equation would have hurt that dilemma, not strengthened it.

Lord Raziere

2021-10-18, 10:02 PM

"How can I choose between being Spiderman and being Peter Parker?" was the undercurrent for a reason. It's an interesting question, but what makes it interesting are the stakes that surround the question "what happens if I stop being Spiderman right this minute?" Removing Ock and his ticking clock from the equation would have hurt that dilemma, not strengthened it.

Yeah for Superman, you don't make some big superthreat that is going to kill the world RIGHT NOW. for him that is no question, he'd just save the world then go be normal afterwards.

for Superman you want Lex Luthor to go "okay Supermans great, but behold! I've invented this super-robot model that replicates supermans feats which I can legally produce and sell to more widely protect the world!" because then Superman has to furrow his brow and go "I know Lex Luthor is always up to no good but this is completely legal and I can't just go off the handle to attack him when these robots could actually protect people, but those robots could also be used to fight wars which would cause more suffering, so its not as if the robots are a 100% good thing for the world even if Lex has turned a new leaf for real and he didn't say what these things are powered by to make sure they can achieve great power, how can I sure if they are ethically....." that makes it so even if he is presented with an opportunity to just hang up the cape because Lex supposedly got it, its Lex Luthor so its like how can he be sure?

and then you can play the suspicion from drama where everyone else goes "maybe he has finally turned over a leaf" and Superman insists on figuring out whether Lex actually has and when Superman turns out to be right and Lex is still evil, he just sighs and goes "I was hoping I was wrong and that you had redeemed yourself" instead of anything triumphant.

Peelee

2021-10-18, 10:29 PM

I wouldn't hold your breath - judging by his yelling and punching the crazy-guy glass at 1:04, I think we're just going to get more memes (https://www.reddit.com/r/batman/comments/xkl7y/watching_the_trilogy_in_quick_succession_i/) :smalltongue:
Oh, I'm not expecting it out of this one. Or anytime soon. I'm just wishlisting.

I fully agree, but your original question was asking whether I didn't like Jaws. Of course I like Jaws, because Jaws has way more stakes than the boring Clark Kent character meditation that was being floated earlier, even if they weren't "world-changing" ones. (And I'd further argue that the people whose livelihoods depend on that town staying open would consider those stakes to be fairly world-changing for them.)
Jaws is low stakes as opposed to space farmer getting magic pebbles to genocide the galaxy, is what I mean. Not every story needs a Death Star or super hotshot pilot (looking at you, entire Sequel Trilogy). "Low stakes" doesn't mean "practically irrelevant". It just means that the world doesn't need to be in danger because the evil secret organization took over the good secret organization and will blow up half the country because like 90% of the heroes are doing macramè or something.

You could make an awesome story about Superman coming to grips with the fact that despite being effectively a god, he can't save all the people all the time, and he even has to find out where to draw the line and how to emotionally deal with that. That maybe sometimes, Clark Kent can help people in ways that Superman can't. You could have an absolutely fantastic story based on that, because not every superhero movie needs a bad guy to just be punched in just the right way. You can hit dramatic and emotional notes on superheroes just like you can with regular people. Hell, a superhero grappling with dealing with the real world out of their element is dang near what First Blood was, and it was near universally critically acclaimed, dominated the box office in the third quarter, and took until just thee years ago to be toppled in ticket sales in China, for example. It not only works, it works globally. But punching someone in a silly costume sells right now, and that's all that's really important, apparently.

Anteros

2021-10-18, 10:57 PM

Batman is supposed to be the world's greatest detective, so I'd really like a movie that leaned into that. Riddle is a great villain for going that route too. And as long as there's Riddler, there's me rooting for Jim Carrey to knock it out of the park....

Yes. I would love a Batman movie that focuses on his detective skills, intelligence, and ability to prepare for any scenario. Instead, we just get him brooding and beating up thugs in alleys over and over and over and over and over.

Psyren

2021-10-18, 11:07 PM

Jaws is low stakes as opposed to space farmer getting magic pebbles to genocide the galaxy, is what I mean. Not every story needs a Death Star or super hotshot pilot (looking at you, entire Sequel Trilogy). "Low stakes" doesn't mean "practically irrelevant". It just means that the world doesn't need to be in danger because the evil secret organization took over the good secret organization and will blow up half the country because like 90% of the heroes are doing macramè or something.

I think we're talking past each other a bit; I certainly don't want every movie villain to be Thanos or Palpatine either, and furthermore I think "smaller stakes than Thanos" is readily achievable for a blockbuster.

You could make an awesome story about Superman coming to grips with the fact that despite being effectively a god, he can't save all the people all the time, and he even has to find out where to draw the line and how to emotionally deal with that. That maybe sometimes, Clark Kent can help people in ways that Superman can't. You could have an absolutely fantastic story based on that, because not every superhero movie needs a bad guy to just be punched in just the right way. You can hit dramatic and emotional notes on superheroes just like you can with regular people. Hell, a superhero grappling with dealing with the real world out of their element is dang near what First Blood was, and it was near universally critically acclaimed, dominated the box office in the third quarter, and took until just thee years ago to be toppled in ticket sales in China, for example. It not only works, it works globally. But punching someone in a silly costume sells right now, and that's all that's really important, apparently.

I... honestly don't know how much I can safely say about First Blood and its surrounding context here, but while it was certainly a character study, it was also very much about specific events and themes that I don't know would translate to a Superman story very well. (Not that a superhero property couldn't incorporate them at all - while it didn't do nearly as good a job as First Blood did, the better parts of Falcon and the Winter Soldier did visit some of these themes.)

Yeah for Superman, you don't make some big superthreat that is going to kill the world RIGHT NOW. for him that is no question, he'd just save the world then go be normal afterwards.

for Superman you want Lex Luthor to go "okay Supermans great, but behold! I've invented this super-robot model that replicates supermans feats which I can legally produce and sell to more widely protect the world!" because then Superman has to furrow his brow and go "I know Lex Luthor is always up to no good but this is completely legal and I can't just go off the handle to attack him when these robots could actually protect people, but those robots could also be used to fight wars which would cause more suffering, so its not as if the robots are a 100% good thing for the world even if Lex has turned a new leaf for real and he didn't say what these things are powered by to make sure they can achieve great power, how can I sure if they are ethically....." that makes it so even if he is presented with an opportunity to just hang up the cape because Lex supposedly got it, its Lex Luthor so its like how can he be sure?

and then you can play the suspicion from drama where everyone else goes "maybe he has finally turned over a leaf" and Superman insists on figuring out whether Lex actually has and when Superman turns out to be right and Lex is still evil, he just sighs and goes "I was hoping I was wrong and that you had redeemed yourself" instead of anything triumphant.

Yeah okay, I could see that - but no matter how slow a boil you put it on, do you see how Lex having an army of superbots still ends with a pretty big stakes third act? Maybe not global, but still. Not to mention that Far From Home among others followed fairly similar beats.

Lord Raziere

2021-10-19, 12:20 AM

Yeah okay, I could see that - but no matter how slow a boil you put it on, do you see how Lex having an army of superbots still ends with a pretty big stakes third act? Maybe not global, but still. Not to mention that Far From Home among others followed fairly similar beats.

I mean sure yeah, this is supers and this is movies. in my experience, its an inevitability of both the genre and medium. small stake superhero comics are rare, and a movie like Joker is even rarer. I wouldn't hold my breath about another one coming.

Peelee

2021-10-19, 12:38 AM

I... honestly don't know how much I can safely say about First Blood and its surrounding context here, but while it was certainly a character study, it was also very much about specific events and themes that I don't know would translate to a Superman story very well. (Not that a superhero property couldn't incorporate them at all - while it didn't do nearly as good a job as First Blood did, the better parts of Falcon and the Winter Soldier did visit some of these themes.)

I'm not saying the specific themes of "soldier who fought in war has difficulties acclimating" (and, having actually seen Winter Soldier, I would argue that it handled that theme cartoonishly, but that's neither here nor there). I was more referring to the general theme of a highly competent person whose skills are not suited to the world they now occupy. It's not a perfectly straight 1:1 analogy, but just as Rambo was in charge of million dollar equipment over there and over here can't even get a job parking cars, so too is Superman capable of fighting off galactic threats but can't treat depression or fix world hunger. He can stop murders, but he lives in Metropolis - even though it's no Gotham, crime is still abundant enough in a city of 11 million people. He can't stop every mugging, every assault, every extortion. And hey, he can even stop a mugging, but he can't stop the underlying cause (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-09-26). He's one of the most powerful beings in the universe, and he dedicates himself to helping mankind, but there are some problems that he cannot solve as Superman. And that can be interesting. There could absolutely be a character study done about that, about how Clark Kent could help in ways that Superman can't (just as an example, not as a mandate that must be touched on). Hell, Joker grossed a billion dollars, and was nominated for gobloads of Oscars, so it's not even like an idea like this is completely out of left field. And Superman is way more interesting than the Joker as a base character to build on.

Seriously. If SMBC can come up with interesting moral (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13) and logistical (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/super-efficient) issues for Superman (albeit veering sharply into the absurd with its outcomes, because it's a humor-based format), then Hollywood with all its resources sure as hell can.

Psyren

2021-10-19, 01:08 AM

I mean sure yeah, this is supers and this is movies. in my experience, its an inevitability of both the genre and medium. small stake superhero comics are rare, and a movie like Joker is even rarer. I wouldn't hold my breath about another one coming.

He's one of the most powerful beings in the universe, and he dedicates himself to helping mankind, but there are some problems that he cannot solve as Superman. And that can be interesting. There could absolutely be a character study done about that, about how Clark Kent could help in ways that Superman can't (just as an example, not as a mandate that must be touched on). Hell, Joker grossed a billion dollars, and was nominated for gobloads of Oscars, so it's not even like an idea like this is completely out of left field. And Superman is way more interesting than the Joker as a base character to build on.

I just don't see a Superman movie working the way a Joker one could. I can't quite put my finger on why, but "rise of villain" where he spends the entire movie not being the icon until the very end, just seems to end up more satisfying than an origin story where the hero does the same.

The closest I can think of is season 1 of Daredevil, where he doesn't get the outfit or name until the finale... but even without those things, by the hallway fight he IS definitely Daredevil (whether they know to call him that or not), and that happens in episode 2.

I'm not saying the specific themes of "soldier who fought in war has difficulties acclimating" (and, having actually seen Winter Soldier, I would argue that it handled that theme cartoonishly, but that's neither here nor there). I was more referring to the general theme of a highly competent person whose skills are not suited to the world they now occupy. It's not a perfectly straight 1:1 analogy, but just as Rambo was in charge of million dollar equipment over there and over here can't even get a job parking cars, so too is Superman capable of fighting off galactic threats but can't treat depression or fix world hunger. He can stop murders, but he lives in Metropolis - even though it's no Gotham, crime is still abundant enough in a city of 11 million people. He can't stop every mugging, every assault, every extortion. And hey, he can even stop a mugging, but he can't stop the underlying cause (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-09-26).
...
Seriously. If SMBC can come up with interesting moral (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13) and logistical (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/super-efficient) issues for Superman (albeit veering sharply into the absurd with its outcomes, because it's a humor-based format), then Hollywood with all its resources sure as hell can.

I wouldn't call anything relating to Isaiah Bradley "cartoonish" myself. I agree the Flagsmashers were undercooked though.

As for SMBC - I'd say the last thing DC wants is anyone applying their levels of fridge-logic to anything Superman related in an official property. Some kind of parody maybe. (Also, I think you're vastly overestimating the degree to which general audiences would want a SMBC-style story of Superman's obsolescence played straight on-screen, but that's neither here nor there.)

Peelee

2021-10-19, 01:12 AM

I just don't see a Superman movie working the way a Joker one could. I can't quite put my finger on why, but "rise of villain" where he spends the entire movie not being the icon until the very end, just seems to end up more satisfying than an origin story where the hero does the same.
Again, not a perfectly straight 1:1 analogy.

I wouldn't call anything relating to Isaiah Bradley "cartoonish" myself. I agree the Flagsmashers were undercooked though.
Wait, you meant the TV show? My bad, I misread that and thought it was the movie. Only saw part of the first episode and my interest waned quickly.

As for SMBC - I'd say the last thing DC wants is anyone applying their levels of fridge-logic to anything Superman related in an official property. Some kind of parody maybe. (Also, I think you're vastly overestimating the degree to which general audiences would want a SMBC-style story of Superman's obsolescence played straight on-screen, but that's neither here nor there.)
Again, not a perfectly straight 1:1 analogy.

Lord Raziere

2021-10-19, 04:08 AM

Traab

2021-10-19, 08:24 AM

The real hilarity of SMBC is that it assumes that Superman would actually be affected by any of these factors though. Its DC universe, everyone is so overpowered that its makes no sense, Superman can literally run faster than the speed of light. many many times faster. the statistics that they spit out are nothing compared to what Superman could do. thirty times the crime? thats nothing compared to be millions of times the speed of light.

while Superman could probably do more to solve energy problems by just......sharing kryptonian tech or finding an alien civilization and taking what powers them to solve it. he doesn't need to become a living power generator, he is friends with Green Lanterns who could probably point him to a civilization willing to share their tech. and even if he did, the guy can punch multiverses. generating power for all of Earth? thats peanuts.

like the parody can't even comprehend how powerful he really is. the only reason he hasn't solved these problems is because the writers can't let him. same problem as reed richards: the world must remain familiar on some level or it just becomes unrelatable.

Superman honestly works on bugs bunny physics. He cant travel light speed, let alone thousands of times light speed in atmosphere. That would ignite the earth into a second sun. And even if he COULD it wouldnt matter because he still has to hear the crimes taking place to do anything about them which means he can only react at the speed of sound. Realistically, he couldnt even keep metropolis crime free entirely. I mean, maybe he could if you take into account the fear effect keeping criminals from being criminals because superman is stopping crimes at a rate of hundreds per day. Of course, that ignores comics where he is literally an entire star system away, in space, and able to not only hear jimmy olsens "save me superman" watch, but able to respond in 10 minutes. Somehow the sound reached him from light years away through the vacuum of space which is impossible on several levels, and he got back that fast. So yeah, superman is bugs bunny level physics. I mean at least with the flash you can go "Speed Force" and shut up any questions about how he violates physics so badly. Superman doesnt have that excuse.

Psyren

2021-10-19, 10:32 AM

Again, not a perfectly straight 1:1 analogy.
...
Again, not a perfectly straight 1:1 analogy.

"This analogy works except for all the ways it doesn't" is kind of tough to meaningfully discuss.

like the parody can't even comprehend how powerful he really is. the only reason he hasn't solved these problems is because the writers can't let him. same problem as reed richards: the world must remain familiar on some level or it just becomes unrelatable.

This goes back to the post I made earlier about the secret to Marvel's success (well, one of the secrets). They don't have to worry about Reed Richards or Tony Stark curing cancer or solving energy because being benevolent or stopping crime aren't things they care about. At best they'll be focused on stopping space wars, and even then they often do as much damage trying.

And that's before you get into the "bugs bunny physics" problem above of having multiple gods with only theoretical upper limits running around on Earth in your core cast. Marvel has folks like Sentry or even Carol than can potentially punch in Supes' or Diana's weight class, but they keep most of them up in space where these questions don't arise.

hungrycrow

2021-10-19, 10:53 AM

"This analogy works except for all the ways it doesn't" is kind of tough to meaningfully discuss.

This goes back to the post I made earlier about the secret to Marvel's success (well, one of the secrets). They don't have to worry about Reed Richards or Tony Stark curing cancer or solving energy because being benevolent or stopping crime aren't things they care about. At best they'll be focused on stopping space wars, and even then they often do as much damage trying.

And that's before you get into the "bugs bunny physics" problem above of having multiple gods with only theoretical upper limits running around on Earth in your core cast. Marvel has folks like Sentry or even Carol than can potentially punch in Supes' or Diana's weight class, but they keep most of them up in space where these questions don't arise.

Doesn't Tony try to build public use arc reactors in the MCU?

Peelee

2021-10-19, 10:59 AM

"This analogy works except for all the ways it doesn't" is kind of tough to meaningfully discuss.

Yes, but "not literally every single facet needs to be an absolute perfect match and we can discuss the spirit of the analogy" is still a valid concept.

Fyraltari

2021-10-19, 11:21 AM

Yes, but "not literally every single facet needs to be an absolute perfect match
It woouldn't be an analogy if they did. You'd just be discussing the thing.

Psyren

2021-10-19, 11:24 AM

Doesn't Tony try to build public use arc reactors in the MCU?

I only know of the prototype large-scale reactor that he used to remove Avengers Tower from the city's grid. He was moving a bunch of reactors in Homecoming but that plane crashed thanks to Vulture, and then IW happened.

Yes, but "not literally every single facet needs to be an absolute perfect match and we can discuss the spirit of the analogy" is still a valid concept.

In that case I think I made my objections with the spirit known.

Peelee

2021-10-19, 11:48 AM

In that case I think I made my objections with the spirit known.

My understanding of those objections is that you think to would be boring for a blockbuster. Which precludes that similarly "boring" movies have been blockbusters - eg Jaws. The simplest solution to this, of course, is to not simply dismiss a purely hypothetical movie that hasn't materialized as "absolutely must be boring".

Psyren

2021-10-19, 12:23 PM

My understanding of those objections is that you think to would be boring for a blockbuster. Which precludes that similarly "boring" movies have been blockbusters - eg Jaws. The simplest solution to this, of course, is to not simply dismiss a purely hypothetical movie that hasn't materialized as "absolutely must be boring".

I don't think Jaws is anywhere near as similar to the premise above as you think it is. But we're going in circles at this point.

Peelee

2021-10-19, 12:35 PM

I don't think Jaws is anywhere near as similar to the premise above as you think it is. But we're going in circles at this point.

No, because you've seen Jaws and not simply read a brief synopsis of it. If it was 1970 and someone said "hey, what do you think about making a movie about three guys who go shark hunting? Also, the shark will be on screen for less than five minutes and won't even appear until like 90 minutes into the 120 minute movie, most of it will just be talking. One guy will even talk about the historical sinking of the USS Indianapolis. We're thinking it'll invent the summer blockbuster." Sounds pretty boring, doesn't it?

If you can't be bothered to imagine that a superhero movie not revolving around punching the bad guy may not be boring, I'm hardly responsible for doing it for you.

Psyren

2021-10-19, 12:39 PM

No, because you've seen Jaws and not simply read a brief synopsis of it. If it was 1970 and someone said "hey, what do you think about making a movie about three guys who go shark hunting? Also, the shark will be on screen for less than five minutes and won't even appear until like 90 minutes into the 120 minute movie, most of it will just be talking. One guy will even talk about the historical sinking of the USS Indianapolis. We're thinking it'll invent the summer blockbuster." Sounds pretty boring, doesn't it?

A bad pitch can be written about anything. I already highlighted what made Jaws work, such as having actual antagonists and big (if not Thanos-level) stakes.

If you can't be bothered to imagine that a superhero movie not revolving around punching the bad guy may not be boring, I'm hardly responsible for doing it for you.

I don't even necessarily need "punching" - having a bad guy would be a nice start.

Peelee

2021-10-19, 12:45 PM

A bad pitch can be written about anything. I already highlighted what made Jaws work, such as having actual antagonists and big (if not Thanos-level) stakes.

Antagonists nor stakes are needed (and again, Jaws barely had any of those, despite your claims). You want a movie with even fewer antagonists and stakes? How about one of my favorites, The Full Monty? Best Picture fodder, that. No antagonists whatsoever. The stakes were a pittance. It's a silly comedy on its face but packed to the gills with social commentary.

Your take on what made Jaws work is wrong. Nobody packed into he theaters because of the mayor or because they absolutely needed to see the town's tourism business be saved. If those r were the big takeaways you got from Jaws, I gotta say, you're the first ive ever heard to espouse those views. And, again, your failure of imagination to declare that a superhero not punching someone for the magical mcguffin absolutely must be boring is hardly something that is my responsibility to correct.

Psyren

2021-10-19, 01:12 PM

Superman joining an all-male revue would certainly pack the theater - consider my objection rescinded :smallbiggrin:

"Audiences didn't come to see the mayor" is missing the point - yes of course they came for the shark, but what makes the narrative question "can they stop the shark and save the town's economy" dramatic and interesting is the fact that other humans are getting in the way - whether that's Vaughn initially minimizing the threat or Quint letting his Ahab-esque hubris/obsession ultimately destroy him. And while "will the town make it" may not seem like stakes to you and me, what matters to the audience is that those are credibly big stakes for the people who live in that town - especially our protagonist, Brody. A lot of us grew up in and in many cases even still live in small towns that could not weather a shock like this, especially in 1975, so the stakes connect and resonate.

Peelee

2021-10-19, 01:55 PM

"Audiences didn't come to see the mayor" is missing the point - yes of course they came for the shark, but what makes the narrative question "can they stop the shark and save the town's economy" dramatic and interesting

It's not. Nobody cares about the town's economy. If you did... well, again, bully for you but that's a completely novel take I've never heard anyone espouse before.

ETA: Or, put another way:
Likewise, the setting is not the protagonist. What happens to the world is only important because the protagonists are the sort of people who care about what happens to the world. If Team Evil or the Linear Guild kills the entire Order of the Stick and then takes the Gate only to find that it does not do what they thought it did...how does that help the Order of the Stick? They will still be dead, and the story is about them. The Linear Guild is not a threat because they will do something bad with the Gate; they are a threat because they will kill the Order of the Stick to do it. At the end of Star Wars, one does not care that the Death Star is about to blow up Yavin 4; one cares that the Death Star is about to kill the protagonists, some of whom happen to be on Yavin 4.

The Amity Island local economy and the effects of the shark on its tourism are absolutely irrelevant to the overall quality of the movie. Its resolution is not dramatic and interesting. Reviews never talk about it. You know what the reviews do talk about? What people walking out of the theater talk about? What still gets recognized decades after the movie? The characterizations, the ability of the movie to pull you into Chief Brody's personal phobias and really and truly feel them as he did, like when Quint gives the Indianapolis monologue.

If you think "can they save the town's economy" is dramatic and interesting... well, it's kind of gobsmacking. I think what you look for in a movie and what the vast majority of people look for in a movie are complete crossroads, and I am amazed that you are able to engage in discussion without constantly being frustrated at what everyone else cares about.

Psyren

2021-10-19, 02:23 PM

It's not. Nobody cares about the town's economy. If you did... well, again, bully for you but that's a completely novel take I've never heard anyone espouse before.

The town cares.

"We gotta do it quick. Gotta bring back the tourists. That'll put all your businesses back on a paying basis. Gonna stay alive and ante up? Or are you gonna play cheap, and be on welfare the whole winter?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPi40lQetew)

That sounds an awful lot like stakes to me, and not a single townsperson argued. The mayor dragged his feet of course (because antagonist) but all it took was one more death and he paid Quint's entire asking price, which he clearly would never have done if Quint's assessment of said stakes were false.

ETA: Or, put another way:

The Amity Island local economy and the effects of the shark on its tourism are absolutely irrelevant to the overall quality of the movie. Its resolution is not dramatic and interesting. Reviews never talk about it. You know what the reviews do talk about? What people walking out of the theater talk about? What still gets recognized decades after the movie? The characterizations, the ability of the movie to pull you into Chief Brody's personal phobias and really and truly feel them as he did, like when Quint gives the Indianapolis monologue.

If you think "can they save the town's economy" is dramatic and interesting... then I think what you look for in a movie and what the vast majority of people look for in a movie are complete crossroads.

To paraphrase a common saying, good stakes are like a good bassist, you only notice them when they aren't there. That beach was the town's lifeblood, and if they became known as the shark buffet then the town would not have survived. Take a similar movie like Civil War - nobody walked out of that one talking about all the secret Winter Soldiers that could destabilize governments all over the world, but without those stakes injecting urgency into the plot, Cap's actions would have been completely different and the movie wouldn't have worked. You need all the elements, not just characterization. I agree the stakes don't have to be world-ending, but not that there don't have to be any.

Peelee

2021-10-19, 02:37 PM

The town cares.
I was unaware that the viewers who watched the movie were, in fact, the fictional town of Amity Island. I'm also glad that there was apparently a scene between two men swimming back to the island and the credits which involved them telling the Mayor that they got the shark, the real one this time, everything is good, and they can open the island back up.

Or, just a thought here, I didn't actually miss that scene because it wasn't there because that resolution didn't matter.

"We gotta do it quick. Gotta bring back the tourists. That'll put all your businesses back on a paying basis. Gonna stay alive and ante up? Or are you gonna play cheap, and be on welfare the whole winter?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPi40lQetew)
Yes, you have successfully found the plot device use to get the main characters onto the boat. Note how nobody in the movie gives two ****s about the town's economy after this.

Take a similar movie like Civil War
Didn't see if so I can't speak to it at all.

Psyren

2021-10-19, 02:56 PM

I was unaware that the viewers who watched the movie were, in fact, the fictional town of Amity Island. I'm also glad that there was apparently a scene between two men swimming back to the island and the credits which involved them telling the Mayor that they got the shark, the real one this time, everything is good, and they can open the island back up.

Or, just a thought here, I didn't actually miss that scene because it wasn't there because that resolution didn't matter.

Yes, you have successfully found the plot device use to get the main characters onto the boat. Note how nobody in the movie gives two ****s about the town's economy after this.

Yes, stakes are a plot device, i.e. part of the plot that make plot go brrr. I never said they weren't. They are in fact a pretty essential component, is what I'm saying.

Peelee

2021-10-19, 02:59 PM

Yes, stakes are a plot device, i.e. part of the plot that make plot go brrr. I never said they weren't. They are in fact a pretty essential component, is what I'm saying.

They're not stakes, though. Again, nobody cares about the economy after they get on the boat. No mention is made about it after the shark dies. No text appears on screen letting us know of the town's fate. It purely serves to get the three men on the boat. That's it. That's all. You, my friend, are the last of their religion the people who give it even a seconds' thought after a half hour into the movie.

Just like how the setting is not the protagonist, the setting is not the stakes.

Dragonus45

2021-10-19, 03:11 PM

Stakes don't have to be big or small, they just have to feel important to the characters. No person sitting in a theater is likely to be too heavily invested in the question of the Islands economy, but it matters to the characters who then matter to us. What the actual stakes there were were meaningless outside of that, and I think a low stakes character study of Superman, if well written, could easily get just as much effect out of anything it chose to have him fixate on as part of it's plot no matter how small you might consider it.

Psyren

2021-10-19, 03:14 PM

They're not stakes, though. Again, nobody cares about the economy after they get on the boat. No mention is made about it after the shark dies. No text appears on screen letting us know of the town's fate. It purely serves to get the three men on the boat. That's it. That's all. You, my friend, are the last of their religion the people who give it even a seconds' thought after a half hour into the movie.

Just like how the setting is not the protagonist, the setting is not the stakes.

Why would they need to spell out that killing the shark means the beach town gets to stay open? With the shark gone, there are no other external factors that would cause the town to close down, and a beach town's default state is people being able to go to the beach. The town's fate should be obvious at that point, and the movie is thus over.

Did you also think Karate Kid ended with Danny continuing to get bullied every day because they didn't have some text appear on screen saying "And having won the tournament, Danny was never bullied at school again" right before the credits rolled? They didn't spell it out, right? :smallconfused:

Stakes don't have to be big or small, they just have to feel important to the characters. No person sitting in a theater is likely to be too heavily invested in the question of the Islands economy, but it matters to the characters who then matter to us. What the actual stakes there were were meaningless outside of that, and I think a low stakes character study of Superman, if well written, could easily get just as much effect out of anything it chose to have him fixate on as part of it's plot no matter how small you might consider it.

Exactly - stakes can be smaller but there do need to be some.

I don't think a low-stakes Superman story is impossible, my criticism was more of the specific pitch Traab provided earlier. But I'll allow that a professional screenwriter could possibly come up with a better one (if DC deigns to hire one.)

Peelee

2021-10-19, 09:02 PM

Why would they need to spell out that killing the shark means the beach town gets to stay open? With the shark gone, there are no other external factors that would cause the town to close down, and a beach town's default state is people being able to go to the beach. The town's fate should be obvious at that point, and the movie is thus over.

Yes, it's not as if a plot point was that a shark was already caught and killed and blamed as the killer shark.

Also, I feel the need to point out that yet again, nobody gives two ****s about the town's economy after they get in the boat. Daniels bullying in Karate Kid is referenced constantly throughout the movie. The Amity tourism industry? Nada. It serves its purpose and then is gone. The shark isn't dangerous because business owners are getting less money. The shark is dangerous because it's killing people. No shark, no more eaten people. Now, granted, this was a super minor point. It's subtle, I'll admit, but they do mention that the shark is killing people. It took me like four watches to realize that there's this whole theme of sharks eating people throughout the whole movie too. Like, the Indianapolis monologue? I thought that was about the economic impact of shipwreck on the US Navy shipyards. My mind was blown when I started reading between the lines and figured out it was about people dying. It's really blink-and-you-miss-it. And then, at the end, when the shark is inflicting a loss of future wages on Quint? Turns out the shark was actually eating Quint! It's filmed in such a way that you totally think it's about his place of business being under attack, but the subtext about him dying is is totally there if you know what to look for.

ETA: but if you want to talk Karate Kid, yeah, the bullying is directly addressed in the end too. Johnny says "you're alright" to Daniel. The bully accepted the bullied kid. And then went on to get bullied himself, which Miyagi stopped immediately.

Just like how once the shark is dead, Brody says "thank god I've saved the small business owners" in Jaws.

Psyren

2021-10-20, 02:20 AM

Yes, it's not as if a plot point was that a shark was already caught and killed and blamed as the killer shark.

Also, I feel the need to point out that yet again, nobody gives two ****s about the town's economy after they get in the boat. Daniels bullying in Karate Kid is referenced constantly throughout the movie. The Amity tourism industry? Nada. It serves its purpose and then is gone. The shark isn't dangerous because business owners are getting less money. The shark is dangerous because it's killing people. No shark, no more eaten people. Now, granted, this was a super minor point. It's subtle, I'll admit, but they do mention that the shark is killing people. It took me like four watches to realize that there's this whole theme of sharks eating people throughout the whole movie too. Like, the Indianapolis monologue? I thought that was about the economic impact of shipwreck on the US Navy shipyards. My mind was blown when I started reading between the lines and figured out it was about people dying. It's really blink-and-you-miss-it. And then, at the end, when the shark is inflicting a loss of future wages on Quint? Turns out the shark was actually eating Quint! It's filmed in such a way that you totally think it's about his place of business being under attack, but the subtext about him dying is is totally there if you know what to look for.

Thing is, there's actually more than one way to deal with a shark. Instead of literally risking life and limb sailing into its domain to try and stab it, or blow it up - they could just close the beach while they wait for it to move on, or trap it, or lure it away, or set up an exclusion net or a drum line to keep it out of the swimming waters etc. These are almost certainly solutions the "experts from the oceanographic institute on the mainland" might have proposed to them.

The problem is that the town couldn't wait the time it would take to try any of these. They couldn't even wait the weeks/months it would take for the mainland experts to show up. Why you ask? Because stakes. Closing the beach during peak tourism season would ruin the town economically, and thus they're forced to pin their hopes on the shady Ahab-type, which of course allows the movie to happen. Separate those stakes from the movie, and you're left with gaps in the narrative that make the characters' actions inexplicable.

Good stakes don't just answer the question "why" - they answer the question "why now?" They elevate a character's want ("I want the shark gone") to a need ("The shark needs to be dealt with before tourism season ends.") And that need is why no other solution will work but the rather foolhardy one proposed by Quint, which directly leads to the climax and his death.

Nothing is forcing you to put stakes in a movie of course, but the ones that neglect or undercook this aspect of their screenplay tend to be toothless/feckless as a result.

Trafalgar

2021-10-20, 11:05 PM

That sounds an awful lot like stakes to me, and not a single townsperson argued. The mayor dragged his feet of course (because antagonist) but all it took was one more death and he paid Quint's entire asking price, which he clearly would never have done if Quint's assessment of said stakes were false.

You really need to make a stronger case that the mayor is an antagonist because he doesn't meet the definition as I understand it.

You can't call every character in a story who creates an obstacle for the hero an antagonist. For example, if a merchant is selling a sword that the
hero needs for a 100gp but the hero only has 50gp, that merchant is not an antagonist.

Psyren

2021-10-21, 02:15 AM

You really need to make a stronger case that the mayor is an antagonist because he doesn't meet the definition as I understand it.

You can't call every character in a story who creates an obstacle for the hero an antagonist. For example, if a merchant is selling a sword that the
hero needs for a 100gp but the hero only has 50gp, that merchant is not an antagonist.

A sword the hero needs? If not getting that sword is keeping the hero from defeating the villain and saving everyone's lives, including the merchant - and the merchant knows that but digs his heels in anyway - then of course he is.

Trafalgar

2021-10-21, 03:10 AM

A sword the hero needs? If not getting that sword is keeping the hero from defeating the villain and saving everyone's lives, including the merchant - and the merchant knows that but digs his heels in anyway - then of course he is.

First, you are changing the scenario which is never a sign you are on the winning side of an argument. Secondly, the merchant is still is not an antagonist. The villain is.

Conversation:
Hero: I need to buy a sword.
Merchant: 100gp please.
Hero: I only have 50gp.
Merchant: Sorry, can't help you.
Hero: But I need it to kill a villain and save everyone's lives.
Merchant: Sorry, 100gp please.

The merchant is nothing more than a obstacle in the Hero's way. Instead of the merchant, there could be a mountain that the hero has to climb or a river he/she has to cross.

Now if you want to change the scenario further where the Merchant is in league with the villain and, say, sells the Hero a sword that will break the first time its used, then the Merchant could be an antagonist.

Fyraltari

2021-10-21, 03:13 AM

The merchant is nothing more than a obstacle in the Hero's way. Instead of the merchant, there could be a mountain that the hero has to climb or a river he/she has to cross.

Isn't that the core of what an antagonist is, though? A character whose role in the story is to be an obstacle for the protagonist to overcome?

Clertar

2021-10-21, 04:23 AM

You really need to make a stronger case that the mayor is an antagonist because he doesn't meet the definition as I understand it.

You can't call every character in a story who creates an obstacle for the hero an antagonist. For example, if a merchant is selling a sword that the
hero needs for a 100gp but the hero only has 50gp, that merchant is not an antagonist.

You mean like that stupid CGI alien in The Phantom Menace? If that went on through the end of the film, he would be an antagonist alright in my book.

Androgeus

2021-10-21, 04:40 AM

You mean like that stupid CGI alien in The Phantom Menace? If that went on through the end of the film, he would be an antagonist alright in my book.

I think it would be fair to call him one of the antagonist of the Tatooine portion of the film (the other being Sebulba, for Anakin in the race)

Traab

2021-10-21, 07:17 AM

I think it would be fair to call him one of the antagonist of the Tatooine portion of the film (the other being Sebulba, for Anakin in the race)

I dunno, sebulba I think falls into the obstacle not antagonist portion because he was no different than the tusken raiders taking pot shots at everyone. There was nothing personal in it. He wasnt after ANAKIN, he just wanted to win the race and cheats to do so.

Fyraltari

2021-10-21, 07:41 AM

I dunno, sebulba I think falls into the obstacle not antagonist portion because he was no different than the tusken raiders taking pot shots at everyone. There was nothing personal in it. He wasnt after ANAKIN, he just wanted to win the race and cheats to do so.

That doesn't really matter, does it? He opposes the protagonists, that makes him an antagonist, regardless of his reasons. Sauron has nothing personal against Frodo.

Peelee

2021-10-21, 07:53 AM

You mean like that stupid CGI alien in The Phantom Menace?

Gonna need you to be more specific there, you just described most of the characters in the movie (and the next one, and the next one...).

Traab

2021-10-21, 12:25 PM

That doesn't really matter, does it? He opposes the protagonists, that makes him an antagonist, regardless of his reasons. Sauron has nothing personal against Frodo.

But he does. Frodo has his property. he wants it back, therefore he is targeting the hobbit directly. He is not just some passing stepping stone that has no bearing on the story outside of a single set piece. If sebulba is an antagonist, you might as well proclaim the merchant that owned the part they needed (and anakin) was an antagonist, he wasnt, he was a merchant with goods for sale the protagonists wanted. Not falling over himself to give away his merchandise doesnt make him an antagonist. It makes him a character. Stories have more to them than antagonists and protagonists.

Fyraltari

2021-10-21, 12:50 PM

But he does. Frodo has his property. he wants it back, therefore he is targeting the hobbit directly. He is not just some passing stepping stone that has no bearing on the story outside of a single set piece.
So the Balrog isn't an antagonist? Neither are the trolls that tried to eat Bilbo?

If sebulba is an antagonist, you might as well proclaim the merchant that owned the part they needed (and anakin) was an antagonist, he wasnt, he was a merchant with goods for sale the protagonists wanted.
Watto is an antagonist. Getting his pieces and slave is the entire stake of the Tatooine sequence. He is the obstacle for the protagonists to overcome during a whole stretch of the movie (in tandem with Sebulba).

Not falling over himself to give away his merchandise doesnt make him an antagonist. It makes him a character.
What do you think an antagonist even is?
Stories have more to them than antagonists and protagonists.
Of course, there are also helpers and bit characters.

Psyren

2021-10-21, 12:54 PM

First, you are changing the scenario which is never a sign you are on the winning side of an argument.

Dude, the "unique sword merchant" was your scenario, not mine. :smallconfused: :smallconfused:

Secondly, the merchant is still is not an antagonist. The villain is.

Conversation:
Hero: I need to buy a sword.
Merchant: 100gp please.
Hero: I only have 50gp.
Merchant: Sorry, can't help you.
Hero: But I need it to kill a villain and save everyone's lives.
Merchant: Sorry, 100gp please.

The merchant is nothing more than a obstacle in the Hero's way. Instead of the merchant, there could be a mountain that the hero has to climb or a river he/she has to cross.

Now if you want to change the scenario further where the Merchant is in league with the villain and, say, sells the Hero a sword that will break the first time its used, then the Merchant could be an antagonist.

Under your scenario, the hero needs that sword. There is no other way to beat the villain and no other place to get it. The merchant has moved into an antagonist role by refusing it to the hero.

Dragonus45

2021-10-21, 03:55 PM

Dude, the "unique sword merchant" was your scenario, not mine. :smallconfused: :smallconfused:

You did create some extra context in your post that really raised the stakes of the sword and it's sale.

Traab

2021-10-21, 04:05 PM

So the Balrog isn't an antagonist? Neither are the trolls that tried to eat Bilbo?

Watto is an antagonist. Getting his pieces and slave is the entire stake of the Tatooine sequence. He is the obstacle for the protagonists to overcome during a whole stretch of the movie (in tandem with Sebulba).

What do you think an antagonist even is?
Of course, there are also helpers and bit characters.

Not everyone who refuses to fall over themselves to help the hero is an antagonist. In the original star wars, darth vadar and the emperor are the antagonists. The storm troopers are not, they are faceless mooks and obstacles at best. Tools of the actual antagonists. Under your definitions that idiot at the bar bragging on his death warrant is an antagonist. Uncle owen is an antagonist, the bartender who made his droids wait outside is an antagonist. To paraphrase Syndrome, "when everyone is an antagonist, nobody is." Because you have robbed the word of all meaning at that point.

Psyren

2021-10-21, 04:30 PM

You did create some extra context in your post that really raised the stakes of the sword and it's sale.

Based on the word "need" from his scenario. If the sword isn't really "needed" that obviously changes things.

Not everyone who refuses to fall over themselves to help the hero is an antagonist. In the original star wars, darth vadar and the emperor are the antagonists. The storm troopers are not, they are faceless mooks and obstacles at best. Tools of the actual antagonists. Under your definitions that idiot at the bar bragging on his death warrant is an antagonist. Uncle owen is an antagonist, the bartender who made his droids wait outside is an antagonist. To paraphrase Syndrome, "when everyone is an antagonist, nobody is." Because you have robbed the word of all meaning at that point.

"Antagonist" != "Big Bad and Dragon only."

Fyraltari

2021-10-21, 04:35 PM

Not everyone who refuses to fall over themselves to help the hero is an antagonist.
You are creating a false dichotomy. There are states between "fall over themselves to help the hero" and opposes them. And we are not talking about character motivation we are talking about narrative roles. There are three categories in which you can sort characters in that regard: helps the protagonist, hinders the protagonist and flavor.

In the original star wars, darth vadar and the emperor are the antagonists. The storm troopers are not, they are faceless mooks and obstacles at best. Tools of the actual antagonists. Under your definitions that idiot at the bar bragging on his death warrant is an antagonist. Uncle owen is an antagonist, the bartender who made his droids wait outside is an antagonist.
In the original Star Wars, Vader and Tarkin are the principal antagonists, the Emperor is vaguely alluded-to background figure (flavor if you consider him even a character), the stormtroopers are minor antagonists, so is Greedo, Uncle Owen is an antagonistic figure in that he prevents the beginning of the literal hero's journey (which the film does frame as bad, even if understandable) and the bartender is flavor (no influence on the protagonist).

To paraphrase Syndrome, "when everyone is an antagonist, nobody is." Because you have robbed the word of all meaning at that point.
Except that not everyone is: Luke, Han & Leia are protagonists; Obi-Wan, Chewbacca, R2, 3PO and the rebels are helpers; the rest (mostly the people of Tatooine) are bit characters.

Wintermoot

2021-10-21, 05:09 PM

Because you have robbed the word of all meaning at that point.

What -they- are doing is using the word by it's ACTUAL meaning. You, on the other hand, are using some personal definition of the word. Which is -fine- but don't get into arguments with others who DON'T use YOUR personal definition of the word and tell them THEY are the wrong ones.

Eldan

2021-10-22, 07:12 AM

But he does. Frodo has his property. he wants it back, therefore he is targeting the hobbit directly. He is not just some passing stepping stone that has no bearing on the story outside of a single set piece.

Excuse me, it's not Sauron's property, it's Isildur's and by extension Aragorn's. Isildur took it as Weregild for the murder of his father, which is legitimate under anglosaxon law. Aragorn, presumably, is fine with the ring being destroyed.

GloatingSwine

2021-10-22, 07:15 AM

So the Balrog isn't an antagonist? Neither are the trolls that tried to eat Bilbo?

For the scene, yes, for the story, no.

An antagonist at the level of the story is a character who is persistent throughout the story and works actively to bring about a state of affairs opposed to those of the protagonist. If the protagonist is a champion of the status quo the antagonist seeks to disrupt it, if the protagonist seeks to disrupt the status quo the antagonist seeks to enforce it.

A character who appears for one scene or act and is disposed of thereafter can be antagonistic within their scene but do not have an active effect on the story and is not an antagonist of the story.

eg. Darth Vader is an enforcer of the status quo, antagonistic to the protagonists who seek to overthrow it. He is relevant beyond scenes he is personally present in as his actions drive the actions of the protagonists who are forced to respond to what he is doing whether he is in the scene or not. So he is an antagonist for the story, but Boba Fett is not. He is only relevant to scenes he is in and the protagonists are not pushed to act to respond to things he does unless he is actually in the scene.

Traab

2021-10-22, 05:20 PM

Excuse me, it's not Sauron's property, it's Isildur's and by extension Aragorn's. Isildur took it as Weregild for the murder of his father, which is legitimate under anglosaxon law. Aragorn, presumably, is fine with the ring being destroyed.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and considering everyone possessed by the ring will be lead to sauron eventually I think its still his. :smallbiggrin:

Rodin

2021-10-23, 08:52 AM

*saunters vaguely in the direction of the thread topic*

What struck me most from the trailer is Batman doing a slow walk through heavy machine gun fire. Batman isn't the Terminator or Superman, and wearing bulletproof armor wouldn't allow you to pull that move. It's also not his style, and not why I go to see a Batman movie.

I go for the "Terror of the Night" Batman we see in Arkham Asylum. He doesn't walk into a large group of guys with guns, he comes crashing through the skylight kicking guys in the head and knocking their guns out of their hands with Batarangs. He emerges from the night and silently takes down thugs one by one until the last guy is freaking out. A single thug getting a few shots that deflect off his armor is fine. What we saw in the trailer was not.

I'm fine with Batman being gritty, but he needs to feel like Batman.

Lord Raziere

2021-10-23, 09:10 AM

I'm fine with Batman being gritty, but he needs to feel like Batman.

Which feels to me another reason why we should just give the character a rest a while.

Batman is already awesome enough, he is an awesome surplus and we don't need to add walking through gunfire to that. he is more than enough awesome to do without. like thats just an unnecessary amount of coolness that he is too cool to need. that feat something he looks at and goes "nah, other superheroes can have that. I'm not greedy."

Peelee

2021-10-23, 09:14 AM

Agreed. Batman's two biggest skills are being a detective and being a ninja. Most of the movies completely avoid the detective angle or make him just a horrible detective, (eg Christian Bale's detective work: "WHERE ARE THE DRUGS?!? WHO IS YOUR BOSS?!?") and while some at least start out with the ninja bits, they usually peter out to Batman just straight up brawling through hordes as he openly makes his way to where he wants to go.

brionl

2021-10-23, 11:21 AM

I wonder how people would react to a superman flick where there is no zod, no braniac, no doomsday, no darkseid. Its just clark kent trying to live his life as clark kent while not being able to ignore all the pain he can hear all the time in metropolis alone. Where its not an action film, its a dramatic one with character growth being the primary focus. Maybe put it so its right after he gets to metropolis and starts to experience how different it is from smallville. Living on the farm he isnt being exposed to literally millions of people with dozens to hundreds of crimes going on every day that he can hear taking place. He gets to experience the difficulty in being clark kent when superman is needed so often. A different version of tobys spiderman 2 where everyone sees him as unreliable because his time in the suit keeps getting in the way of time as himself. He is trying to be a reporter, trying to make friends, but he keeps getting called away to save lives and stop crimes and doesnt know what to do.

They already did that one back in the 90s. It was called Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. As I recall, they hardly ever had world destroying threats or super fist fights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_%26_Clark:_The_New_Adventures_of_Superman

Anyway, you can tell we're all real excited about YABOS (Yet Another Batman Origin Story), by the fact we're all talking about MCU and Superman and stuff halfway down the first page. I think one of the best parts of Lego Batman was that they didn't rehash his origin story again (and again).

Trafalgar

2021-10-24, 02:54 PM

Dude, the "unique sword merchant" was your scenario, not mine.

{scrubbed}. You altered the scenario.

Under your scenario, the hero needs that sword. There is no other way to beat the villain and no other place to get it. The merchant has moved into an antagonist role by refusing it to the hero.

No, that's not an antagonist. That's a merchant doing what merchants do. The merchant is willing to sell the sword to the hero, just not at a discount. In Jaws, if Quint had maxed out his credit cards and couldn't afford to buy diesel for the Orca, that wouldn't make the fuel dock attendant an antagonist.

Someone mentioned Watto from the Phantom Menace. I agree that Watto is an antagonist. But there is a lot more is going on with Watto in that story.

Psyren

2021-10-24, 04:14 PM

You altered the scenario.

Did you not intend to write the word "need" in that scenario? How is treating a need as though it is a need an alteration?

No, that's not an antagonist. That's a merchant doing what merchants do. The merchant is willing to sell the sword to the hero, just not at a discount. In Jaws, if Quint had maxed out his credit cards and couldn't afford to buy diesel for the Orca, that wouldn't make the fuel dock attendant an antagonist.

If it was a plot point that there was no other earthly means of getting to the shark to kill it, absolutely they would be.

Trafalgar

2021-10-24, 05:37 PM

Did you not intend to write the word "need" in that scenario? How is treating a need as though it is a need an alteration?

Sure, I used the word need. But you added:

If not getting that sword is keeping the hero from defeating the villain and saving everyone's lives, including the merchant - and the merchant knows that but digs his heels in anyway - then of course he is.

Which is changing the scenario. But even in your version, the merchant is not an antagonist. You need to change the scenario further to make them into an antagonist.

Psyren

2021-10-24, 06:01 PM

Sure, I used the word need. But you added:

Which is changing the scenario. But even in your version, the merchant is not an antagonist. You need to change the scenario further to make them into an antagonist.

I'm assuming the protagonist has a brain and thus articulates their need to the character withholding said need.

Peelee

2021-10-24, 06:11 PM

I'm assuming the protagonist has a brain and thus articulates their need to the character withholding said need.

If we're going to be fair here, assuming a character in any given story will explain the nature of the problem is probably a bad bet. :smalltongue:

Psyren

2021-10-24, 06:48 PM

If we're going to be fair here, assuming a character in any given story will explain the nature of the problem is probably a bad bet. :smalltongue:

Can't argue with that!

Dragonus45

2021-10-24, 08:57 PM

Did you not intend to write the word "need" in that scenario? How is treating a need as though it is a need an alteration?

The part where you took a simple concept like need and added a bunch of context to massively raise the stakes of why he needed it to world ending importance thus emphasizing the antagonism of the merchant in this scneario. Perhaps the hero just needs the sword because his is wearing down and it would be a good idea to get a new one before he goes out to do hero things again.

Psyren

2021-10-24, 09:51 PM

The part where you took a simple concept like need and added a bunch of context to massively raise the stakes of why he needed it to world ending importance thus emphasizing the antagonism of the merchant in this scneario. Perhaps the hero just needs the sword because his is wearing down and it would be a good idea to get a new one before he goes out to do hero things again.

That's "nice to have", not "need."

Callos_DeTerran

2021-10-24, 10:04 PM

I'm not so sure. Marvel started small (with Iron Man, as I recall) and built up the franchise and characters in stages, finally putting them together with Avengers. They took time to experiment, didn't over-reach and were always in a position where they could put the project down without looking as if they had failed.. That smacks of at least some level of planning and forethought rather than plain luck. (Although I acknowledge that a huge amount of luck is required...)

While others have been accused of following Marvel's template, I'm not really sure that anyone really has. More that they have tried to create the same endpoint, but without doing the same level of preperation. DC tried to do the same thing in the space of about three films and rushed it too much, and Universal "Dark Universe" Pictures dived straight in with the first film and crashed.

You can honestly say that the Monsterverse has followed the Marvel template, successfully at that.

Dragonus45

2021-10-24, 10:07 PM

That's "nice to have", not "need."

I mean if my sword being in good condition when stabbing something was a concern I would call that a need even if it wasn't an emergency.

Peelee

2021-10-24, 11:18 PM

Clertar

2021-10-25, 02:09 AM

If we're splitting hairs, the merchant and sword story is a false analogy fallacy to begin with. Other people playing with it is the least one could expect.

Anteros

2021-10-25, 02:44 AM

It appears Batman has done his patented disappearing trick from this thread. Truly, he is a master of stealth.

Psyren

2021-10-25, 02:48 AM

I mean if my sword being in good condition when stabbing something was a concern I would call that a need even if it wasn't an emergency.

For a concern to become a need generally means there are no possible alternatives. Usually there are other ways to stab someone, and many other ways to deal with someone besides stabbing too.

There happens to be a fairly relevant situation (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1028.html) on this very site!

I would not call the pirates antagonistic there. They simple see the heroics as a normal thing that happens in the world so much that they can pass it off as "apocalypse of the week". There are many campaigns going on at any given point, apparently, and they don't want to be stuck with the bill. From their point of view, it's perfectly rational - the heroes want a service to save the day, they pay for that service. And the heroes, I should note, seem to agree.

It is indeed rational - as was their decision to immediately back down once Bandana and Roy agreed on a reasonable price for their services. If she had instead demanded 2 million gold for each pirate, or selling Haley into slavery for the crew, that would have been an entirely different conversation.

You'll note too that the one person who didn't consider the exchange reasonable - Andi - did end up being an antagonist, at least for a time.

Androgeus

2021-10-25, 03:52 AM

It appears Batman has done his patented disappearing trick from this thread. Truly, he is a master of stealth.

It just the forums has a problem with Redictio ad Bella Siderea, any discussion given enough time devolves into one about Star Wars.

Fyraltari

2021-10-25, 03:59 AM

There happens to be a fairly relevant situation (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1028.html) on this very site!

I would not call the pirates antagonistic there. They simple see the heroics as a normal thing that happens in the world so much that they can pass it off as "apocalypse of the week". There are many campaigns going on at any given point, apparently, and they don't want to be stuck with the bill. From their point of view, it's perfectly rational - the heroes want a service to save the day, they pay for that service. And the heroes, I should note, seem to agree.

They're not antagonists, because an agreement was immediately reached. If there was a whole subplot about the Order steugfling to find a way to procure trnasportation to the North Pole, then a case could be made.

Edit:
Redictio ad Bella Siderea
I love you.

Azuresun

2021-10-25, 04:26 AM

It just the forums has a problem with Redictio ad Bella Siderea, any discussion given enough time devolves into one about Star Wars.

I'm stealing that.

Also, I'd like to point people towards the Injustice games as a model for what a DCCU could look like. Yes, it uses the worn-out old question of "What if Superman went bad?", but the second game especially strikes a really good balance between grim stuff happening and character development, and casually dropping in bits of unabashed cheese like Batman saying "I've got a mole in Gorilla City." :smallbiggrin:

Peelee

2021-10-25, 07:18 AM

For a concern to become a need generally means there are no possible alternatives. Usually there are other ways to stab someone, and many other ways to deal with someone besides stabbing too.

It is indeed rational - as was their decision to immediately back down once Bandana and Roy agreed on a reasonable price for their services. If she had instead demanded 2 million gold for each pirate, or selling Haley into slavery for the crew, that would have been an entirely different conversation.

You'll note too that the one person who didn't consider the exchange reasonable - Andi - did end up being an antagonist, at least for a time.

I wouldn't say they backed down as much as they got what they wanted, with was payment for their services. They had no reason to be unreasonable it, but they still were not moving until they you paid.

Andy did object, but I would argue that's not because she disagreed with Bandanna's leadership generally and made up an excuse rather than actually believing the argument she made, and regardless, she was overruled there.

Dragonus45

2021-10-25, 08:57 AM

Psyren

2021-10-25, 09:03 AM

They're not antagonists, because an agreement was immediately reached. If there was a whole subplot about the Order steugfling to find a way to procure trnasportation to the North Pole, then a case could be made.

Yes, exactly. The subplot is the key, and subplots like regular plots need goals, stakes, urgency. "I want to buy thing" "I'll sell thing for X" "Done, thanks!" has only one of those.

What an oddly specific use of the word to settle onto for no reason... other then that it supports your argument I guess.

Insisting that a need be something you need is oddly specific? Okay sure :smallconfused:

Trafalgar

2021-10-29, 01:01 AM

I'm assuming the protagonist has a brain and thus articulates their need to the character withholding said need.
You added the Villain. You added that the Villain is going to kill everyone including the merchant. And you added that the merchant knows all this. I can write 100 stories about a hero who needs a sword without those elements.

You seem to be saying that every character in a story is either a protagonist or antagonist which simply isn't true. The vast majority of characters in almost anything I can think of are neither. Unless it's a story with two people in it. What is the definition of antagonist you are using? Because it doesn't align with the definitions I know.

Clertar

2021-10-29, 03:03 AM

The vast majority of characters in almost anything I can think of are neither. Unless it's a story with two people in it. What is the definition of antagonist you are using? Because it doesn't align with the definitions I know.

Wikipedia is to be taken with a grain of salt with everything, but you might be surprised that it says this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist#Other_characters):

Characters may be antagonists without being evil – they may simply be injudicious and unlikeable for the audience. In some stories, such as The Catcher in the Rye, almost every character other than the protagonist may be an antagonist.

Psyren

2021-10-29, 11:47 AM

You added the Villain. You added that the Villain is going to kill everyone including the merchant. And you added that the merchant knows all this. I can write 100 stories about a hero who needs a sword without those elements.

I added the... actually here, I'll just quote you.

Conversation:
Hero: I need to buy a sword.
Merchant: 100gp please.
Hero: I only have 50gp.
Merchant: Sorry, can't help you.
Hero: But I need it to kill a villain and save everyone's lives.
Merchant: Sorry, 100gp please.

Trafalgar, If you can't even remember your own scenario then discussing it is going to be beyond farcical. Is the Merchant not part of "everyone?" Does explicitly telling him not constitute him knowing?

The Glyphstone

2021-10-29, 11:53 AM

Psyren

2021-10-29, 12:07 PM

Uh....guys? Any chance we can get back to discussing Batman? I'm not sure what the current argument is about, but the word Batman is featured exactly once in the last 25 posts, and only to comment on how he's not actually in the topic anymore.

I believe this tangent started as a broader discussion of what sorts of movie the DCEU should be trying to make, instead of "dark and gritty Batman breaks mook limbs in alleys take #47." (There, I said "Batman" :smallbiggrin:)

GloatingSwine

2021-10-29, 12:39 PM

Discussion of the trailer was exhausted several pages back because nobody is actually excited by it enough to speculate on the movie it represents.

So a discussion of why that is and what might make people excited to see a trailer for a DC movie again (that aren't the words "James Gunn" somewhere on it) is actually on topic.

Manga Shoggoth

2021-10-29, 01:28 PM

On the subject of which, I would be tempted by a live action attempt at "What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American Way"/"Superman vs The Elite". Actually compare an optimistic version of Supes against the gritty fare that the last few Batman/Superman/BVS films have been.

Dragonus45

2021-10-29, 01:30 PM

Discussion of the trailer was exhausted several pages back because nobody is actually excited by it enough to speculate on the movie it represents.

I mean I am, Hot Topic Robbert Pattinson is 100000000% my jam as a Batman. I just lost the energy to fight uphill against the metaphorical haters on this one.

Azuresun

2021-10-30, 06:27 AM

GloatingSwine

2021-10-30, 01:34 PM

Lord Raziere

2021-10-30, 01:38 PM

To be honest the original misses the point as well.

It tries to critique The Elite for imposing their will through superior power, but just has Superman eventually do the same to them. So ultimately its intended critique is just hypocritical because its critique isn't "someone else might be stronger than you eventually" but "this thing you are doing is bad, but I'm going to win by doing it as well so maybe you're actually right?".

I mean to me, it has nothing to with strength, more like Superman is showing by example what happens when he doesn't have the morality. How scary and terrifying it all becomes if supers don't hold themselves to the standards they do. Basically he pulls a superhero version of scaring them straight by for a second demonstrating what he could be if he wasn't so nice.

The Glyphstone

2021-10-30, 02:06 PM

Lord Raziere

2021-10-30, 02:28 PM

Doesn't he lobotomize the Elite's leader at the end, though, or at least laser-beam out the part that gives him superpowers?

From the DC Wiki on Manchester Black: (https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Manchester_Black_(New_Earth))

Superman then disabled the Englishman by using his x-ray vision to locate an unusual growth on Black's brain. He identified the growth as the source of Black's powers, and then carefully fired a thin burst of heat vision through Black's retinas and told Black that he had cut out the growth (he had actually given Black a micro-concussion that left him temporarily powerless).

Faced with the apparent loss of his powers, Black actually wept, hypocritically appalled that Superman had seemingly adopted the lethal tactics he and the Elite had spent so much time advocating. Superman then revealed to the powerless Black that the rest of the Elite were only unconscious, he had not removed anything from Black's brain, and that murdering opponents makes a hero no better than his enemies. Furious, Black declared that by not killing him, Superman had guaranteed that as long as Black was alive, he would come after Superman again and again, but Superman calmly replied that he would not want it any other way, and that dreams like the ones he gave to Earth were what made life worth living.

So technically yes, but also no.

GloatingSwine

2021-10-30, 02:41 PM

I mean to me, it has nothing to with strength, more like Superman is showing by example what happens when he doesn't have the morality. How scary and terrifying it all becomes if supers don't hold themselves to the standards they do. Basically he pulls a superhero version of scaring them straight by for a second demonstrating what he could be if he wasn't so nice.

Well yeah, but all that does is demonstrate that their methods are effective because that's what they do to everyone else. He has the power to impose his will and he does, even if he's bluffing about what he would actually do.

In order to make the point it wanted to it would have needed Superman to demonstrate that his idealist approach achieved superior results without needing to adopt the methods of The Elite.

The concept of "Superman shows a better way to a gritty superhero world" is good, but "What's so funny about..." isn't a good execution of it because he doesn't do it by being Superman, he does it by convincing The Elite he's a bigger ******* than they are.

Superman should win by being a better man, not by being more super.

Manga Shoggoth

2021-10-30, 02:48 PM

Well yeah, but all that does is demonstrate that their methods are effective because that's what they do to everyone else. He has the power to impose his will and he does, even if he's bluffing about what he would actually do.

In order to make the point it wanted to it would have needed Superman to demonstrate that his idealist approach achieved superior results without needing to adopt the methods of The Elite.

The concept of "Superman shows a better way to a gritty superhero world" is good, but "What's so funny about..." isn't a good execution of it because he doesn't do it by being Superman, he does it by convincing The Elite he's a bigger ******* than they are.

Superman should win by being a better man, not by being more super.

Superman does not have to demonstrate his idealist approach in this story because has spent his entire career demonstrating his idealist approach. The Elite are mocking him for it, so in the end he demonstrates what happens when you have a thug imposing his will instead of an idealist trying to change things.

Traab

2021-10-30, 02:54 PM

I just wanted to share this because the internet can be a creepy place. This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9x83Cf17Z4) was on my youtube feed not 5 seconds after I read the latest argument on this topic. No I dont watch these clips

GloatingSwine

2021-10-30, 03:05 PM

Superman does not have to demonstrate his idealist approach in this story because has spent his entire career demonstrating his idealist approach. The Elite are mocking him for it, so in the end he demonstrates what happens when you have a thug imposing his will instead of an idealist trying to change things.

Yeah, he demonstrates that it gets results quickly and easily.

Manga Shoggoth

2021-10-30, 03:29 PM

Yeah, he demonstrates that it gets results quickly and easily.

No, he demonstrates that when you have a superpowered thug imposing his will, it gets terrifying very quickly. Which is why he (Superman) doesn't work that way.

He sets up the illusion that he is doing it to bring home to Manchester Black exactly how morally bankrupt his position is, and indeed Black is crying like a baby when it appears to happen to him.

GloatingSwine

2021-10-30, 03:36 PM

No, he demonstrates that when you have a superpowered thug imposing his will, it gets terrifying very quickly. Which is why he (Superman) doesn't work that way.

He sets up the illusion that he is doing it to bring home to Manchester Black exactly how morally bankrupt his position is, and indeed Black is crying like a baby when it appears to happen to him.

Yes, and to the audience it shows that bullying your opponent into submission makes you win.

Which is the opposite of what it wanted.

Manga Shoggoth

2021-10-30, 03:42 PM

Yes, and to the audience it shows that bullying your opponent into submission makes you win.

Which is the opposite of what it wanted.

Really? Because the clip linked above shows the exact opposite of what you are saying: People are terrified until they realise Superman was faking it.

GloatingSwine

2021-10-30, 03:51 PM

hungrycrow

2021-10-30, 04:18 PM

But at that point it doesn’t matter. Superman has achieved victory through the fear of superior force.

The methods of The Elite are vindicated, Superman is merely better at using them because he has the greater force available.

The question wasn't whether or not Superman could win, it was whether it was better for the public for him to use any means necessary to stop crime. The fight is only demonstrating to the public that a Superman who uses whatever methods he feels like is actually terrifying.

I don't think Superman is trying to convince the elites in that scene; he knows that they're just jerks pretending to be heroes. That's why he ends up permanently disabling Manchester Black's powers. He cares more about the public knowing why he doesn't kill villains for them.

GloatingSwine

2021-10-30, 04:46 PM

The question wasn't whether or not Superman could win, it was whether it was better for the public for him to use any means necessary to stop crime. The fight is only demonstrating to the public that a Superman who uses whatever methods he feels like is actually terrifying.

I don't think Superman is trying to convince the elites in that scene; he knows that they're just jerks pretending to be heroes. That's why he ends up permanently disabling Manchester Black's powers. He cares more about the public knowing why he doesn't kill villains for them.

Yeah, but that wasn’t the point the comic was trying to make. It was a response to The Authority specifically, the idea that superheroes could make the world do what they wanted through superior power. Showing that that was actually a bad thing.

The way to respond to that if you don’t like it isn’t to show that it’s scary to people it is used against but it works, because everyone will imagine it being used against “the right people” it’s to show that it doesn’t work.

Outside of the realm of superheroes for a moment, there’s a series called Lost Fleet which is set at the tail end of a century long war where the protagonist is a mythical hero found in cryosleep who is horrified to find that atrocities against civilians have become commonplace because they are “necessary to win”, but the series shows that all those things that were necessary to win never actually brought victory and doing the opposite, being professional and fighting according to the laws of war is actually an advantage. That makes the point that What’s so Funny About… wanted to far more effectively because the better path is the one that actually brings victory not just being better at being vicious.

Superman just defeats The Elite by being more super than them, not by being more human. In his best stories his humanity is his greatest strength.

hungrycrow

2021-10-30, 05:27 PM

Yeah, but that wasn’t the point the comic was trying to make. It was a response to The Authority specifically, the idea that superheroes could make the world do what they wanted through superior power. Showing that that was actually a bad thing.

The way to respond to that if you don’t like it isn’t to show that it’s scary to people it is used against but it works, because everyone will imagine it being used against “the right people” it’s to show that it doesn’t work.

Everyone would imagine that unrestrained force would only be used against "the right people" which is why Superman makes the fight so scary: he's shattering that misconception by showing that he could be using unrestrained force to settle petty grudges.

Ultimately the story doesn't care whether killing supervillains or other brutal methods actually work, it's only point is that Superman and other superheroes shouldn't be making that call. If they ever did, they would essentially become the Elites: a bunch of entitled ubermensches using their power however they saw fit. The only thing making superheroes moral paragons is that they leave that kind of moral choice up to legitimate authorities.

GloatingSwine

2021-10-30, 07:44 PM

Everyone would imagine that unrestrained force would only be used against "the right people" which is why Superman makes the fight so scary: he's shattering that misconception by showing that he could be using unrestrained force to settle petty grudges.

Ultimately the story doesn't care whether killing supervillains or other brutal methods actually work, it's only point is that Superman and other superheroes shouldn't be making that call. If they ever did, they would essentially become the Elites: a bunch of entitled ubermensches using their power however they saw fit. The only thing making superheroes moral paragons is that they leave that kind of moral choice up to legitimate authorities.

Yeah, that’s also why you need to structure the story so that the method is shown to be ineffective not just show that your chosen hero can do it even better.

Like show some Authority type behaviour from The Elite, toppling a dictatorship or two, doing righteous violence to the deserving for the catharsis of the audience etc, show Superman being a humanitarian, then throw them into conflict because he “doesn’t do enough” then have him drag Manchester Black to all the places he has been and show that they haven’t actually changed anything. They haven’t addressed the causes in the way Superman does.

Show the ideological weakness of the thing being criticised not the physical weakness.

Lord Raziere

2021-10-30, 08:48 PM

Anteros

2021-10-30, 09:13 PM

Superman just defeats The Elite by being more super than them, not by being more human. In his best stories his humanity is his greatest strength.

You've missed the point. Superman's intent in that fight isn't to show that their methods are ineffective.
His intent is to showcase how much their brutal methods suck for their victims. He shows them how terrifying and traumatizing their methods are when compared to his usual methods that don't traumatize people.

Is he wrong? Of course he is. He's a comic book character using comic book logic. It doesn't stand up to real world scrutiny any more than the Batman allowing Joker to go free and murder thousands every other week. Like with most traditional comics, you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief at how naïve his world view is in order to enjoy the story.

GloatingSwine

2021-10-30, 09:16 PM

Yet somehow......the comic worked. It did mark the end of the Iron age of comic books. People were inspired to think of superheroes to be better than a bunch of killers from it, and its held up as one of the better superman stories you could read, and the Authority is.....some random obscure comic book no one has ever heard of while DC and Marvel continue to be the big cheeses. It was effective enough. you may not like the method, but that doesn't mean it didn't work.

If that were true, Superman would have been kept as far from the hands of Zack Snyder as was possible within the confines of this earth.

What's So Funny About.... showed exactly what a certain audience wanted, righteous violence done to the deserving, it only redefined who was deserving. It was exactly the same as the book it set out to criticise, but possibly even more naive because it failed to examine the failure modes of what it railed against before it did so. A Better World it was not.

You've missed the point. Superman's intent in that fight isn't to show that their methods are ineffective.
His intent is to showcase how much their brutal methods suck for their victims. He shows them how terrifying and traumatizing their methods are when compared to his usual methods that don't traumatize people.

Is he wrong? Of course he is. He's a comic book character using comic book logic. It doesn't stand up to real world scrutiny any more than the Batman allowing Joker to go free and murder thousands every other week. Like with most traditional comics, you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief at how naïve his world view is in order to enjoy the story.

Right, but when the writer sets out to criticise another story, as Joe Kelly did, they can't afford that laziness. It doesn't mean a damn thing to show how traumatising the methods are if you show them being effective because the audience will always find an excuse for them to be acceptable. A target they can be used on, a good cause for righteous violence.

The Superman of "What's So Funny About..." is no different from the Superman of Dark Knight Returns, or Kingdom Come, or the Justice Lords, or Injustice. He's a Superman who decided it is good to force others to behave the way he thinks is right no matter what.

Anteros

2021-10-30, 09:38 PM

I mean, that's always what he does. Punch people until they stop doing things he doesn't like. I don't know why people like to pretend Superman is some high brow literature about human nature. It's not and it never has been. The writers have to write stories for the characters as they're defined. They don't have the freedom to write a Superman story where he's not an idiot who lets murderers run free. Weak justifications are all they can do.

Aside from that though, his goal isn't to force them into line. Again, it's to show how brutal their methods are. That's why the whole fight is televised, and he gives a big dramatic speech to the world at the end. He's more than powerful enough to have taken them down without pretending to kill them and then immediately going "just kidding." His show of pretending to kill them had literally no effect on the outcome of that fight.

hungrycrow

2021-10-30, 09:43 PM

Is he wrong? Of course he is. He's a comic book character using comic book logic. It doesn't stand up to real world scrutiny any more than the Batman allowing Joker to go free and murder thousands every other week. Like with most traditional comics, you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief at how naïve his world view is in order to enjoy the story.

The real answer to why batman doesn't kill the joker or why superman doesn't kill atomic skull is that DCverse citizens should be changing the laws and having the court system kill the Joker or Atomic Skull. Of course discussing that would get too bureaucratic and pull people out of their immersion in comic book logic. So they just leave it at saying Batman and Superman shouldn't be executioners.

Anteros

2021-10-30, 09:49 PM

The real answer to why batman doesn't kill the joker or why superman doesn't kill atomic skull is that DCverse citizens should be changing the laws and having the court system kill the Joker or Atomic Skull. Of course discussing that would get too bureaucratic and pull people out of their immersion in comic book logic. So they just leave it at saying Batman and Superman shouldn't be executioners.

I would say that the real reason is that characters like the Joker are massive cash cows, and they like their Scrooge Mcduck piles of money. Plus the characters originating from a time when the no killing in comics rule was a thing.

Plus, it's probably hard to write 60 years of stories with new antagonists every time because you keep killing them off.

Lord Raziere

2021-10-30, 09:50 PM

Manga Shoggoth

2021-10-31, 06:18 AM

I wonder what Zack Snyder would make of Stardust the Super Wizard...

Trafalgar

2021-10-31, 08:41 PM

Talakeal

2021-11-04, 10:43 AM

Just watched Dune and saw the Batman trailer again.

One thing I don't like is Batman is treating his armor like its 100% impervious to bullets. He is walking into automatic weapons fire like he is Superman or Ironman.

I normally think of Batman's armor being light enough to move around in but strong enough to deflect a bullet if he doesn't dodge in time. In the trailer there are two scenes where he makes no attempt at dodging and just takes the gunshots. Even though the lower half of his face is exposed.

Yeah, Batman shouldn't be immune to bullets.

The idea is for Batman to let his enemies THINK he is invincible, not to actually be the Terminator.

Still, it could make a great "Darth Vader in Rogue One" style scene if it is explicitly done from the criminal's perspective.

Yet somehow......the comic worked. It did mark the end of the Iron age of comic books. People were inspired to think of superheroes to be better than a bunch of killers from it, and its held up as one of the better superman stories you could read, and the Authority is.....some random obscure comic book no one has ever heard of while DC and Marvel continue to be the big cheeses. It was effective enough. you may not like the method, but that doesn't mean it didn't work.

I always thought it was a bad, hypocritical, Superman comic, and the idea that mutilating someone and keeping them on drugs is somehow morally superior to just killing them always struck me as especially perverse.

That being said, I don't disagree with this.

The Iron Age was all about deconstructing Super Heroes and thinking critically about the lines between good and evil. Examining what type of people would become costumed vigilantes and what the effects would be. Debating whether or not the Punisher is worse than a Batman who keeps letting Joker live to kill again.

This is pretty much a straightforward "Might makes write. Don't question the hypocrisy because I have a giant S on my chest!" Superhero story. That being said, I would postulate that the Iron Age more likely came to an end because the post 9-11 world wasn't really a great time for moral ambiguity in escapist fiction.

Traab

2021-11-04, 12:06 PM

I always liked it when we get to experience how the thugs and such see him, and they see Batman as The Bat. This spooky sinister monster in the shadows, not human, a mythological creature. It shows that the underworld in general see him how he portrays himself. A symbol of fear. Not so much the big bads, but the underlings? Yeah, they are pretty terrified of running into him.

The Glyphstone

2021-12-01, 01:20 PM

I can't take him as Batman, I keep expecting him to bite someone.)

He was Cedric Diggory first, why can't he whip out a wand and broomstick?

Traab

2021-12-01, 01:21 PM

He was Cedric Diggory first, why can't he whip out a wand and broomstick?

/Nolan voice "I put on my robe and wizard hat!"

Peelee

2021-12-01, 01:24 PM

/Nolan voice "I put on my robe and wizard hat!"

Now that's a reference I've not heard in a long time... A long time.

Traab

2021-12-01, 01:26 PM

Now that's a reference I've not heard in a long time... A long time.

I considered a reference to casting magic missile at the darkness but couldnt think of a good way to link it to batman. :smallbiggrin:

Peelee

2021-12-01, 01:32 PM

I considered a reference to casting magic missile at the darkness but couldnt think of a good way to link it to batman. :smallbiggrin:

That's just Cedric Diggory vs Batman.

Fyraltari

2021-12-01, 01:35 PM

He was Cedric Diggory first, why can't he whip out a wand and broomstick?

Because Diggory was a supporting character, not a lead.

Lord Vukodlak

2021-12-01, 05:26 PM

GloatingSwine

2021-12-01, 06:03 PM

Look stop blaming Batman for the Jokers continual existence. It’s not his fault Gotham hasn’t executed the Clown. Take away the comic book logic and the Joker would have been executed.’Or the police would have beat him to death after one arrest and blamed it on the Batman.
“The Joker died due to injuries suffered fighting The Batman, given the circumstances of the Joker threatening hundreds of lives the DAs office has concluded his use of force justified.”

The Joker only lives because then Government can’t execute or contain him. It’s not Batman’s job to be Judge Dredd.

Pfft, this is the DC universe where death is a mild inconvenience at best.

The Joker lives because when he escapes from Arkham it's in the news and Batman can do something about it, when he came back from the dead he'd have months for shenangians before anyone realised it was him again.

And that’s assuming he doesn’t do something even more inconvenient like hang around as a ghost or something or come back via magic nanotechnology when you’re old.

No, far better to keep him corporeal so you can keep an eye on what he’s up to.

Peelee

2021-12-01, 07:14 PM

Look stop blaming Batman for the Jokers continual existence. It’s not his fault Gotham hasn’t executed the Clown. Take away the comic book logic and the Joker would have been executed.’Or the police would have beat him to death after one arrest and blamed it on the Batman.
“The Joker died due to injuries suffered fighting The Batman, given the circumstances of the Joker threatening hundreds of lives the DAs office has concluded his use of force justified.”

The Joker only lives because then Government can’t execute or contain him. It’s not Batman’s job to be Judge Dredd.

I find it odd how your "without comic book logic" argument immediately dives straight into comic book logic.

Whatever state Gotham City is in does not have the death penalty (at least, in DC world), so no, they would not execute Joker because they can't execute Joker. He probably would die at the hands of police, but I'm baffled as to why you think they'd beat him to death - the police have guns, after all. He'd almost certainly be shot, and just as almost certainly be justified under the defense of others justification defense. The police would have no problem taking credit, especially since they would not be working with or exonerating Batman; without comic book logic, cops hate vigilantes and vigilantes usually get arrested and put on trial for their actions. Unless Gotham wants to make Batman an agent of the state, which would come with an enormous host of problems (even assuming Batman agreed, which he would be an absolute fool to do).

Fyraltari

2021-12-01, 07:20 PM

Take away the comic book logic and the Joker would have been executed.

Take away the comic book logic and there wouldn't be a Joker to execute. He's not a very realistic criminal.

Peelee

2021-12-01, 07:21 PM

Take away the comic book logic and there wouldn't be a Joker to execute. He's not a very realistic criminal.

You made my point but better. Even if he tried to start out doing crime, he'd get killed pretty fast.

Fyraltari

2021-12-01, 07:28 PM

Whatever state Gotham City is in does not have the death penalty (at least, in DC world)
Except when they do.

He probably would die at the hands of police, but I'm baffled as to why you think they'd beat him to death - the police have guns, after all.
Because you can't write "abuse of power" without "torture". well, you can, but, it's not as fun.

Unless Gotham wants to make Batman an agent of the state, which would come with an enormous host of problems (even assuming Batman agreed, which he would be an absolute fool to do).
Yeah, they'd have to set up some sort of system to call him, like a huge physics-defying projector or something...
Hey, didn't Batman franchise himself, one time?

Psyren

2021-12-01, 08:14 PM

"Bat-signal exists" = "Batman is an agent of the state" feels kinda suspect to me. Yeah the police call him when they need help, and a lot of the time he shows up, but it's not like he answers to them in any meaningful way.

As for Joker - my problem is less about him constantly escaping, and more that he has to have this grimdark writing where he succeeds in killing a whole bunch of innocent people every time he gets out nowadays, which throws Batman's competence (and that of the Gotham judiciary) into question constantly. If you're going to keep him alive, at least let Batman stop him in time. I remember older stories where he would poison a bunch of people or trap them next to a bomb with a long fuse, or maybe blow up the support pillars of a building, something Batman could react to and use his brains and gadgets to get everyone out of safely. Or maybe he'd kill rival gangs or something. But when you have him just going ham on civilians then all the arguments for Batman's philosophy tend to ring a bit hollow to me.

The Glyphstone

2021-12-02, 11:12 AM

Because Diggory was a supporting character, not a lead.

But he was the Real Hogwarts Champion...Potter Stinks

HolyDraconus

2021-12-04, 04:29 AM

Vahnavoi

2021-12-04, 08:22 AM

Batman has flip-flopped between being part of the police department or not throughout the years. Sometimes he's a vigilante, hated by the cops and hunted just as well as his rogue's gallery, sometimes he's a deputized detective openly collaborating with the police and called to testify in court.

Stop looking for consistency in a character with dozens of different versions by dozens of different authors. Continuity and canonicity in superhero comics are big, fat lies.

Phobia

2021-12-11, 09:00 PM

I hate this common idea of Superman being bland. It's solely due to him being neutered for the modern age. Superman is an immigrant who tries to embody what's best about his chosen country but is still alien to it. His story is more relevant than ever. Especially because his creators were Jewish during WW2 and created Superman to be Jewish originally as a big middle-finger to Hitler's idea of the ubermench but were not allowed to by their publisher. It's a good clap-back whenever I hear someone saying 'wahhh why didn't minorities just make their own characters'. Because they were literally not allowed to. And if the creators of the greatest comic superhero couldn't even do it how they wanted then how was anyone else supposed to. He's the idea of, what if someone with God-like power used that to be good? And not just a little good but all the way good unrestrained by laws. The original Superman didn't stop and say, oh gosh, that would be illegal. No! He was flying straight into billionaires offices, kidnapping them, and forcing them to fight on the front-line of a war they were profiting from all the while laughing at their attempts to not be shot by a gun they sold. Superman forced corrupt bosses to experience the horrible conditions they put their workers through. He was straight up picking up cop cars and rescuing the arrested people inside if he didn't agree with them being arrested. And these aren't even corrupt cops, just regular cops, but Superman doesn't recognize their authority because he is all-powerful and more moral than them, what can they do? Superman is punk as hell.

Talakeal

2021-12-12, 01:49 PM

It's a good clap-back whenever I hear someone saying 'wahhh why didn't minorities just make their own characters'. Because they were literally not allowed to. And if the creators of the greatest comic superhero couldn't even do it how they wanted then how was anyone else supposed to.

I really think that is a more modern complaint about rebooting established characters as minorities than about the lack of minorities in old time comics.

Even in the Silver Age there are plenty of new minority characters, and that tend has only picked up steam afaict.

The original Superman didn't stop and say, oh gosh, that would be illegal. No! He was flying straight into billionaires offices, kidnapping them, and forcing them to fight on the front-line of a war they were profiting from all the while laughing at their attempts to not be shot by a gun they sold. Superman forced corrupt bosses to experience the horrible conditions they put their workers through. He was straight up picking up cop cars and rescuing the arrested people inside if he didn't agree with them being arrested. And these aren't even corrupt cops, just regular cops, but Superman doesn't recognize their authority because he is all-powerful and more moral than them, what can they do? Superman is punk as hell.

Ok. Now take that same character and pretend he disagrees with you about key political issues, but still acts in the exact same way. Does he still seem awesome to you?

Phobia

2021-12-13, 01:09 AM

It's fair play because minorities weren't allowed to make characters then or were forced to make them white.

So am I to understand that you consider billionaires profiting off of wars or forcing their employees to work in unsafe conditions as your main political viewpoints

The Glyphstone

2021-12-13, 01:59 AM

Great Modthulu: Let's steer this conversation in a safer direction, away from the Inappropriate Topics iceberg looming ahead?

Talakeal

2021-12-13, 12:17 PM

So am I to understand that you consider billionaires profiting off of wars or forcing their employees to work in unsafe conditions as your main political viewpoints

No. I am saying that if you try and keep superman interesting by having him use violence to solve social issues, you risk alienating a large portion of your audience. One man’s hero is another man’s villain and all that.

Its far safer to have him punch bank robbers who everyone agrees are bad guys regardless of their position on the political spectrum, even if it is less interesting.

Psyren

2021-12-13, 01:20 PM

The thing about Superman is that he has a substantial and well-known rogue's gallery that you can solve through force (or brainpower followed by force) without any kind of ethical concerns. Darkseid, Braniac, Metallo, Zod, Doomsday, Mongul, Bizarro, even Lex when he throws on that Warsuit thing - all of them typically need a super-powered punch in the face to resolve, and those are just the household names. Moreover, even when those villains do employ minions, they tend to be more on the "nonsapient drone" or "weaker but still powerful clone of me" end of the spectrum, than disenfranchised patsy who might be trying to make ends meet.

Batman meanwhile gets a bit stickier. Even among the pure metahumans in his gallery like Clayface, Killer Croc, Man-Bat or Mr. Freeze, you tend to find tragic backstories / societal implications of some kind that make beating them into submission more questionable. And the majority of his gallery aren't metahumans at all, putting them at a heavy disadvantage without legions of goons in their employ, which can't help but look like punching down. There's a few unsympathetic faces in there like Ras al-Ghul, Deathstroke or Bane where Bats can be shown to be punching up instead, but it's fairly thin on the ground overall, and even most of those tend to have the same mook agency problem. (I think the only one who basically never uses sapient/human minions is Deathstroke, and he is just as often in the antihero bucket.)

Traab

2021-12-13, 03:05 PM

Anteros

2021-12-13, 03:09 PM

Great Modthulu: Let's steer this conversation in a safer direction, away from the Inappropriate Topics iceberg looming ahead?

Pretty sure we already rammed straight through that iceberg and are in the bucketing stage.

Back to Batman. I've always wanted a "horror movie" style film where it's Batman stalking the criminals and picking them off one by one. Either that, or one that actually plays up his intelligence and skill. Batman walking through a hail of gunfire because he's rock enough to afford magic armor is the absolute least interesting take possible on the character.

Dragonus45

2021-12-13, 03:19 PM

Pretty sure we already rammed straight through that iceberg and are in the bucketing stage.

Back to Batman. I've always wanted a "horror movie" style film where it's Batman stalking the criminals and picking them off one by one. Either that, or one that actually plays up his intelligence and skill. Batman walking through a hail of gunfire because he's rock enough to afford magic armor is the absolute least interesting take possible on the character.

I'm withholding judgement till I actually see where the whole take goes, but Batman as the frustrated unsubtle ball of anger issues and angst who is far more brutal and less elegant then normal portrayals could go somewhere interesting if they have the fortitude to actually explore how screwed up Wayne must be and not just have it all be fanservice and fluff.

Phobia

2021-12-13, 04:04 PM

Wintermoot

2021-12-13, 06:17 PM

No. I am saying that if you try and keep superman interesting by having him use violence to solve social issues, you risk alienating a large portion of your audience. One man’s hero is another man’s villain and all that.

Its far safer to have him punch bank robbers who everyone agrees are bad guys regardless of their position on the political spectrum, even if it is less interesting.

I definitely disagree with your take on the matter. For 80+ years, comic books have been on the FOREFRONT of using their reach and influence to speak to social issues and have political messages. Given how this particular forum is moderated, I won't be listing examples. But I would hate to see the artform lose its status in that arena by being scared of alienating a potential audience B by watering down their message. Trying to convince audience B of political message A is part of the point.

And it works both ways. I'm pretty hardcore audience A on most political issues. There are creators, like Garth Ennis, who are hardcore message B. While I fundamentally disagree with most of what he has to say, there are times he's made me think and alter my stance through his writing.

Talakeal

2021-12-13, 07:01 PM

I definitely disagree with your take on the matter. For 80+ years, comic books have been on the FOREFRONT of using their reach and influence to speak to social issues and have political messages. Given how this particular forum is moderated, I won't be listing examples. But I would hate to see the artform lose its status in that arena by being scared of alienating a potential audience B by watering down their message. Trying to convince audience B of political message A is part of the point.

And it works both ways. I'm pretty hardcore audience A on most political issues. There are creators, like Garth Ennis, who are hardcore message B. While I fundamentally disagree with most of what he has to say, there are times he's made me think and alter my stance through his writing.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

The Superman isn't as political now as he was in the golden age? That taking a strong political stance in a comic can turn off readers who disagree with you? That DC regards the image of Superman as an iconic representation of their company?

Note that I am absolutely not saying people shouldn't get political in their writing or that creatives shouldn't be allowed to write whatever they want. If Frank Miller wants to write a Superman story in the same vain as Holy Terror, he 100% has my support, but that doesn't mean that I am going to enjoy reading it.

Now, Golden Age Superman, to me, comes across as a juvenile revenge fantasy about being strong enough to bully the bullies. That can come across as good (most Bugs Bunny cartoons), bad (the 2004 Punisher) or deliberately monstrous (Saw). I personally don't think it works for Superman as I tend to take it a little more seriously as I find black and white ideas of "good and bad" to be a little more nebulous and realize that if Superman actually existed he would likely disagree with me on a number of issues.

Psyren

2021-12-13, 07:09 PM

Even Bane has a sorta sympathetic back story. Basically born and raised in prison, forced to kill his first person at I think 8 years old, etc etc etc. Also the whole "Hopelessly addicted to drugs" thing. Heck you could probably portray ras and deathstroke as sympathetic to one degree or another as well. Or at least portions of their backstory. But yeah, his gallery is kinda wild, there is a reason so many of them have had story arcs where they honestly go legit, or at least try to. And it works for a time, until everything falls apart and they go back to crime for whatever reason. Honestly, Freeze could be handled just by hiring the man and providing him with the best equipment to do research to cure his wife and see what else he comes up with in the process. Probably a lot cheaper than incarcerating him and repairing the damages caused by his crime sprees. Dude isnt evil, he is desperate to save his wife. Turns out its hard to get research grants as an unemployed felon so he has to get his funding elsewhere.

Agreed - and, well, that last sentence gets us right back to "unfortunate societal implications of his rogues that not many of the comics (and none of the movies) seem willing to adequately explore."

I'm withholding judgement till I actually see where the whole take goes, but Batman as the frustrated unsubtle ball of anger issues and angst who is far more brutal and less elegant then normal portrayals could go somewhere interesting if they have the fortitude to actually explore how screwed up Wayne must be and not just have it all be fanservice and fluff.

I could be wrong, but didn't Frank Miller's All-Star B&R try for the "super edgelord/brutal messed-up-in-the-head" Batman? And people hated it so much it got cut short and left in editorial limbo?

Rodin

2021-12-13, 07:15 PM

Back to Batman. I've always wanted a "horror movie" style film where it's Batman stalking the criminals and picking them off one by one. Either that, or one that actually plays up his intelligence and skill. Batman walking through a hail of gunfire because he's rock enough to afford magic armor is the absolute least interesting take possible on the character.

I would love to see a full horror movie Batman - or even "Batman" if doing something that experimental with a beloved comic figure doesn't appeal. Start out with a Reservoir Dogs style band of criminals - a band with good chemistry that doesn't completely know or like one another. Get them robbing a big building like an old bank or a museum. Show the crime, show them being scummy. They're on their way out with the loot.

And then somebody activates the security system and locks the door. We don't follow "the hero" at all. We watch the villains getting picked off one by one. Divisions set in, the criminals start fighting each other as much as the mysterious force grabbing them. In some ways I think it would be even better if it wasn't Batman, but a more lethal opponent. Think Die Hard, but entirely from the villain's perspective.

Sounds like a good time to me.

Dragonus45

2021-12-13, 07:22 PM

I could be wrong, but didn't Frank Miller's All-Star B&R try for the "super edgelord/brutal messed-up-in-the-head" Batman? And people hated it so much it got cut short and left in editorial limbo?

Well, his take on uberbat Batman is really not what I had in mind. But even if it was, the caveat of wanting to see it explored well with quality writing and acting would apply.

Traab

2021-12-13, 07:35 PM

I would love to see a full horror movie Batman - or even "Batman" if doing something that experimental with a beloved comic figure doesn't appeal. Start out with a Reservoir Dogs style band of criminals - a band with good chemistry that doesn't completely know or like one another. Get them robbing a big building like an old bank or a museum. Show the crime, show them being scummy. They're on their way out with the loot.

And then somebody activates the security system and locks the door. We don't follow "the hero" at all. We watch the villains getting picked off one by one. Divisions set in, the criminals start fighting each other as much as the mysterious force grabbing them. In some ways I think it would be even better if it wasn't Batman, but a more lethal opponent. Think Die Hard, but entirely from the villain's perspective.

Sounds like a good time to me.

Ive been suggesting a villain focused batman movie for some time now. One that focuses on the story from their side of things and a horror movie style batman would be PEFECT. The bad guy is basically setting up his home alone style plan to deal with the big bad bat, and he is watching in horror as his traps are bypassed, his hired muscle vanishes one by one in the shadows, etc etc etc. Its like watching a horror movie where the main character finally is acting against jason or mike myers or whoever and fighting for their life against the relentless force pursuing them. I mean, you dont even have to change batman any for it to work. Dude is king of the jump scares when dealing with bad guys. Only difference is he is nonlethal with his attacks so rather than a rebar impaling you from behind its a quick knockout blow as you get dragged up to the rafters tied up. So instead of a gory end we get a muffled yell and bug eyed look of shock then we cut away to his partner who just turned around only to see nobody there. I think that would be so freaking awesome. I mean, we have already done a series of bad guy focused films, primarily meant to make them more sympathetic but still, so going a new step in that general direction could probably be a financial success.

BloodSquirrel

2021-12-13, 09:17 PM

I could be wrong, but didn't Frank Miller's All-Star B&R try for the "super edgelord/brutal messed-up-in-the-head" Batman? And people hated it so much it got cut short and left in editorial limbo?

I expect that they mean they want a take on Batman that treats those qualities as tragic rather than aspirational.

Brackenlord

2021-12-14, 07:17 AM

Ive been suggesting a villain focused batman movie for some time now. One that focuses on the story from their side of things and a horror movie style batman would be PEFECT. The bad guy is basically setting up his home alone style plan to deal with the big bad bat, and he is watching in horror as his traps are bypassed, his hired muscle vanishes one by one in the shadows, etc etc etc. Its like watching a horror movie where the main character finally is acting against jason or mike myers or whoever and fighting for their life against the relentless force pursuing them. I mean, you dont even have to change batman any for it to work. Dude is king of the jump scares when dealing with bad guys. Only difference is he is nonlethal with his attacks so rather than a rebar impaling you from behind its a quick knockout blow as you get dragged up to the rafters tied up. So instead of a gory end we get a muffled yell and bug eyed look of shock then we cut away to his partner who just turned around only to see nobody there. I think that would be so freaking awesome. I mean, we have already done a series of bad guy focused films, primarily meant to make them more sympathetic but still, so going a new step in that general direction could probably be a financial success.

The introduction of Suicide Squad (the first and terrible attempt) does a good albeit short job of showing the bat trough the rogue's lenses, being trounced and captured.

lord_khaine

2021-12-14, 09:06 AM

If that were true, Superman would have been kept as far from the hands of Zack Snyder as was possible within the confines of this earth.

And thanks to internet rage likes yours, I've never actually seen those movies. I barely remember the internet parodies of them. aside from maybe a couple jokes about things like "Martha" or Wonder Woman's theme being used a lot. But I still remember what Superman stands for and what he should be.

I do think this is a fairly unfair sentiment.
For all the crap Zack Snyders version of Superman gets, and yeah it certainly does have its flaws.
Then i will also point out its the Superman, who when given a fraction of a second, leaps in between the jerk who kidnapped his mom. And his own Super-powered creation.

Had he hesitated for even a second, Luthor would be a fine red paste upon the walls. He was likely the guy Superman hated more than anyone else.
And he risked his life to save him without a moments notice. The movie does have plenty of flaws. But thats the most -Superman- moment we have ever gotten in a movie.
So i will defend it to my dying breath for at least getting the core of who Superman is.

Now, Golden Age Superman, to me, comes across as a juvenile revenge fantasy about being strong enough to bully the bullies. That can come across as good (most Bugs Bunny cartoons), bad (the 2004 Punisher) or deliberately monstrous (Saw). I personally don't think it works for Superman as I tend to take it a little more seriously as I find black and white ideas of "good and bad" to be a little more nebulous and realize that if Superman actually existed he would likely disagree with me on a number of issues.

He was a bit of a jerk there sometimes.
So yeah. I do like how the concept has matured down the line.
Being less about judging people. More about inspiring (and punching other alien space gods or horrors man should not know).

Dragonus45

2021-12-14, 09:46 AM

I expect that they mean they want a take on Batman that treats those qualities as tragic rather than aspirational.

That sums it up yea, although Batdick is still too far along the curve of awful to be a useful reference point for what I'm thinking on.

Anteros

2021-12-14, 10:31 AM

The introduction of Suicide Squad (the first and terrible attempt) does a good albeit short job of showing the bat trough the rogue's lenses, being trounced and captured.

There's a short scene in the terrible Assault on Arkham movie that does a bit of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzxH9hu0GTw

The look on the Villain's faces when they realize Batman is there is the only good part of the whole movie.

I do think this is a fairly unfair sentiment.
For all the crap Zack Snyders version of Superman gets, and yeah it certainly does have its flaws.
Then i will also point out its the Superman, who when given a fraction of a second, leaps in between the jerk who kidnapped his mom. And his own Super-powered creation.

Had he hesitated for even a second, Luthor would be a fine red paste upon the walls. He was likely the guy Superman hated more than anyone else.
And he risked his life to save him without a moments notice. The movie does have plenty of flaws. But thats the most -Superman- moment we have ever gotten in a movie.
So i will defend it to my dying breath for at least getting the core of who Superman is.

Still can't get over the time he sat and watched his dad die when it would have been trivial to save him just because there would be a slight chance someone would figure out his identity. I don't know who that person is, but it isn't Superman.

Dragonus45

2021-12-14, 10:38 AM

There's a short scene in the terrible Assault on Arkham movie that does a bit of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzxH9hu0GTw

The look on the Villain's faces when they realize Batman is there is the only good part of the whole movie.

Still can't get over the time he sat and watched his dad die when it would have been trivial to save him just because there would be a slight chance someone would figure out his identity. I don't know who that person is, but it isn't Superman.

Yea, although there is something to be said for the idea that for Clark reaching the point of becoming Superman the paragon of kindness and decency could be something of a journey what he started out as in Man of Steel just feels alien and unpleasant. The Superman Earth One comic actually did a great job at that and honestly could have been a decent starting point for a movie adaptation now that I think about it.

lord_khaine

2021-12-14, 03:47 PM

Still can't get over the time he sat and watched his dad die when it would have been trivial to save him just because there would be a slight chance someone would figure out his identity. I don't know who that person is, but it isn't Superman.

That was exceptionally dumb true. At the same time i put that squarely on the shoulders of the dead. Who basically told him not to save him.
At the same time. Clark was a kid back then. And yeah. There is something to be said for the idea that becomming Superman was a journey.

BloodSquirrel

2021-12-16, 01:36 PM

Still can't get over the time he sat and watched his dad die when it would have been trivial to save him just because there would be a slight chance someone would figure out his identity. I don't know who that person is, but it isn't Superman.

To me, that was more the moment where Pa Kent decided to commit suicide just to screw with his adoptive son. And it still wasn't as bad as the part where Pa told him he should have let a bus full of children drown.

lord_khaine

2021-12-17, 07:16 PM

To me, that was more the moment where Pa Kent decided to commit suicide just to screw with his adoptive son. And it still wasn't as bad as the part where Pa told him he should have let a bus full of children drown.

Pa Kent was in turn really screwed up. Clark became a hero not because of him.
But despite of him. This is one of the mistakes Snyder made.

Vahnavoi

2021-12-20, 08:32 AM

Still can't get over the time he sat and watched his dad die when it would have been trivial to save him just because there would be a slight chance someone would figure out his identity. I don't know who that person is, but it isn't Superman.

As one of the few people who liked Man of Steel, I'm of the opinion that people who harp on said scene are being unfair.

1) it's somewhat the point that Clark ISN'T Superman at that point of the movie. He's an angry young dude having an argument with his adoptive dad.

2) It's an important part of Superman mythos that he has a SECRET identity. This scene is the movie's attempt to reconcile the idea of someone who is an ultra-powerful altruist from early age, with that. The entire flashback is told in context of Clark explaining to Lois why her attempts to reveal his secrets is kinda bad. "Hey, did you know, my dad was willing to die so I could come out on my own terms, you're kind of taking a crap on all that?"

3) Pa Kent is never portrayed as being 100% in the right - Clark calls him out every time. He still very much has a point, in his concern over his adoptive son's future. It's not unreasonable to want to give his son a chance to reveal his world-changing secret when he feels ready, rather than when a random externality, such as bus failing or a storm, forces his hand.

4) Clark is obviously conflicted over the whole thing, but comes to a working compromise - his identity as Superman, which he further reinforces when he brings that spydrone down at the end of movie. There's a pretty strong statement about trust and right to privacy in this plotline, which I find worthy of a modern day Superman.

Tl;dr: don't blame Clark for his dad's heroic sacrifice. :smalltongue:

Psyren

2021-12-20, 11:33 AM

"My adoptive dad was willing to die to keep my secret" is one thing. "My adoptive dad would be okay with a bus full of children drowning to keep my secret" is something else entirely.

Vahnavoi

2021-12-20, 11:51 AM

Psyren

2021-12-20, 01:27 PM

And? Clark never accepts that line of thought and, if you pay attention, neither does Pa Kent. It's a bad argument he makes when he's upset and part of the conflict between him and his son. The difference between Clark in the movie and audience like you is that Clark is willing to let him off the hook and remember him for the positive example he set. :smalltongue:

You misunderstand - it's Snyder I'm not letting off the hook, not Pa Kent. Going there in the first place just shows his poor understanding of the character.

Anteros

2021-12-20, 07:17 PM

And? Clark never accepts that line of thought and, if you pay attention, neither does Pa Kent. It's a bad argument he makes when he's upset and part of the conflict between him and his son. The difference between Clark in the movie and audience like you is that Clark is willing to let him off the hook and remember him for the positive example he set. :smalltongue:

They still wrote it and chose to include it in the movie. They could have easily not had that scene or replaced it with a more wholesome or uplifting one.

Vahnavoi

2021-12-21, 04:18 PM

You misunderstand - it's Snyder I'm not letting off the hook, not Pa Kent. Going there in the first place just shows his poor understanding of the character.

I'd seen a dozen or so versions of Pa Kent before Man of Steel and none of those established the character in my mind in such a way that Snyder's take even seemed off. But even if you convinced me it's the same character in name only, I wouldn't care. For comparison, the MJ in the newest Spiderman is nothing like MJ I knew from prior iterations, I don't care, the actress and the character are fine and do their job in context of the movie they're in. Ditto for Pa Kent.

They still wrote it and chose to include it in the movie. They could have easily not had that scene or replaced it with a more wholesome or uplifting one.

And? The scene works fine and supports the overall theme Snyder's going for. It set ups a moral conflict the movie later resolves. Saying they could've made a different movie isn't much of a criticism.

Psyren

2021-12-21, 05:45 PM

I'd seen a dozen or so versions of Pa Kent before Man of Steel and none of those established the character in my mind in such a way that Snyder's take even seemed off. But even if you convinced me it's the same character in name only, I wouldn't care. For comparison, the MJ in the newest Spiderman is nothing like MJ I knew from prior iterations, I don't care, the actress and the character are fine and do their job in context of the movie they're in. Ditto for Pa Kent.

I see a lot more parallels between MCU MJ and comic MJ (and Raimi MJ for that matter) than I do SynderKent and ComicKent.

And? The scene works fine and supports the overall theme Snyder's going for. It set ups a moral conflict the movie later resolves. Saying they could've made a different movie isn't much of a criticism.

Just because the edgy character fits the grimdark theme doesn't mean those are good choices for Superman.

And to bring this full circle... I'd like to have less of this for Bats too. Sadly I'm probably going to have to wait until after this movie.

Trafalgar

2021-12-23, 12:39 AM

I just re-watched BvS a couple of weeks ago (because... boredom). Snyder didn't get Batman right in that movie, he treats Batman like a dumber version of Rorshach.

So the scene starts with Batman using a sniper rifle to place a tracking bug on the truck with the kryptonite in it. This makes sense, it seems like its something that the world's greatest detective would do.

But Batman then immediately attacks the convoy with the Batmobile using deadly force. This was a legal shipment so the guards are just doing their jobs but Batman probably kills a number of them. The Batmobile also rips off the the top of the truck which would destroy/dislodge the tracking beacon. So not only is this Batman cruel, he is also stupid. I can accept a darker, edgier batman, I can't accept a dumb batman.
I do think Snyder's portrayal of Batman in BvS does have some good bits. I think that the Wayne Tower opening scene gives us every motivation for Batman. In fact, I think if removing much of the later dialogue between Bruce and Alfred would improve the pacing. I also like the warehouse scene. But overall, I don't think Zach Snyder gets the character.

On a side note, when do we need to stop putting things in spoilers on this Forum? BvS has been out for 5 years so I don't feel like you need to. Would I spoil Casablanca if I revealed whether Rick gets the girl in the end?

Peelee

2021-12-23, 01:16 AM

Would I spoil Casablanca if I revealed with Rick gets the girl in the end?

Welp, guess I can cross that one off my watch list.

GloatingSwine

2021-12-23, 09:47 AM

I just re-watched BvS a couple of weeks ago (because... boredom). Snyder didn't get Batman right in that movie, he treats Batman like a dumber version of Rorshach.

Zack Snyder doesn't get Rorschach either. He thinks Rorschach is a cool badass not a pathetic crypto-fascist who isn't a total loser nobody wants to be around, and he thinks Watchmen is about cool superheroes who **** not sad weirdos who can't get it up without pervert suits and violence, which is what Alan Moore thinks it's about.

slayerx

2021-12-23, 12:33 PM

Wasn't Batman being an agent of the state the main argument Joker had in White Knight, and won that case?

White knight is an AU story, one that pretty much rewrote batman so that he would fit into the story the writer’s wanted to tell with the joker being sane

Batman has flip-flopped between being part of the police department or not throughout the years. Sometimes he's a vigilante, hated by the cops and hunted just as well as his rogue's gallery, sometimes he's a deputized detective openly collaborating with the police and called to testify in court.

Stop looking for consistency in a character with dozens of different versions by dozens of different authors. Continuity and canonicity in superhero comics are big, fat lies.

The general story about batman’s relationship with the police is that it started out antagonistic and then became proactive. Gotham’s police were corrupt and heavily against vigilantes. After jim gordon became the commissioner, the police force was cleaned up and gordon started working with batman

Zack Snyder doesn't get Rorschach either. He thinks Rorschach is a cool badass not a pathetic crypto-fascist who isn't a total loser nobody wants to be around, and he thinks Watchmen is about cool superheroes who **** not sad weirdos who can't get it up without pervert suits and violence, which is what Alan Moore thinks it's about.

Watchmen was meant to be about why more gritty and realistic superheroes actually suck, but a lot of people including snyder thought it was cool

lord_khaine

2021-12-23, 07:04 PM

Watchmen was meant to be about why more gritty and realistic superheroes actually suck, but a lot of people including snyder thought it was cool

Are there not a million oppinions over what Watchmen is about?
Though i will mostly say, its not like you can call the majority of the people in it either super or heroes.
I believe the only one Super is Dr Manhatten.

The Glyphstone

2021-12-23, 07:40 PM

Ozymandius is arguably a super in the sense Captain America is - "peak human ability" has a new meaning in comics. He did catch a bullet, which is beyond any real world human ability.

Peelee

2021-12-23, 07:47 PM

Anteros

2021-12-24, 12:12 AM

Zack Snyder doesn't get Rorschach either. He thinks Rorschach is a cool badass not a pathetic crypto-fascist who isn't a total loser nobody wants to be around, and he thinks Watchmen is about cool superheroes who **** not sad weirdos who can't get it up without pervert suits and violence, which is what Alan Moore thinks it's about.

To be fair, I think a lot of people like Watchmen for different reasons than why Alan Moore thinks it's good. It would hardly be the first or last time a creator made something great without actually understanding why that product was so popular.

Moore and Snyder do have something in common though. They both hate comics and think that they're better than the people who read them.

Trafalgar

2021-12-24, 12:17 AM

To be fair, I think a lot of people like Watchmen for different reasons than why Alan Moore thinks it's good. It would hardly be the first or last time a creator made something great without actually understanding why that product was so popular.

Moore and Snyder do have something in common though. They both hate comics and think that they're better than the people who read them.

The meaning of a work is not determined by the author or artist. It is determined by the reader or viewer.

Peelee

2021-12-24, 12:33 AM

The meaning of a work is not determined by the author or artist. It is determined by the reader or viewer.

He's the one who likes all our pretty songs and he likes to sing along and he likes to shoot his gun but he knows not what it means.

Alternatively, if you like the hip hop side better, frat kids can play Fight For Your Right to Party but that doesnt make it any less satirical or mocking of those same frat kids.

Or, if alt rock is more your style, then the wealthy and/or powerful who enjoy Rage Against the Machine are still massively missing the entire point.

Or, if you just like to chill out to classic rock, there are still more lyrics than just the refrain to Born in the USA.

Or.....

People can read whatever they want into a work. But if the author has a message they want to impart, a specific meaning to their work, then that's what it means. You could also argue the case for a second, different meaning, or that the execution was lacking, or that the meaning was jumbled or contradictory, but there's still an inarguable meaning imparted. Death of the Author is not worthless, but it is vastly overrated.

Lord Raziere

2021-12-24, 12:40 AM

He's the one who likes all our pretty songs and he likes to sing along and he likes to shoot his gun but he knows not what it means.

Alternatively, if you like the hip hop side better, frat kids can play Fight For Your Right to Party but that doesnt make it any less satirical or mocking of those same frat kids.

Or, if alt rock is more your style, then people in power who enjoy Rage Against the Machine are still massively missing the entire point.

Or, if you just like to chill out to classic rock, there are still more lyrics than just the refrain to Born in the USA.

Or..... People can read whatever they want into a work. But if the author has a message they want to impart, a specific meaning to their work, then that's what it means. You could also argue the case for a different meaning, or that the execution was lacking, or that the meaning was jumbled or contradictory, but there's still an I arguable meaning imparted. Death of the Author is not worthless, but it is vastly overrated.

Agreed. I don't like the idea that once the work is finished that the author loses all rights to what they intend to mean and everyone else can just twist it to whatever they want. Art is an expression of self or at least what we want to express. If we do not respect the intended message and meaning, it is in my opinion that the author isn't truly respected at all.

Anteros

2021-12-24, 03:32 AM

That assumes that the author is inherently deserving of respect. If it's someone like Moore who openly holds his readers in contempt, and their work is primarily popular for reasons he never intended, I don't particularly care what his intentions are.

It's like when Rowling came out after the fact and said that wizards defecate in their pants and then use magic to clean it up. It's not in the story, and the story isn't better for it, so why in the world would I accept it? When you write something, your work is what you write and what your readers read. Your intent is irrelevant if you can't convey it properly.

The author of 50 shades is on record stating that it's a depiction of a perfectly healthy relationship. The author of Twilight thinks that having his character sneak into his ex's house to watch her sleep is depicting a romantic relationship, and that it's perfectly normal for the main character's ex to fall in love with her infant and take her away for grooming. It really doesn't take very much critical thinking at all to see that author's intentions should not be universally respected. Fortunately, we're all capable of critically thinking and analyzing these things ourselves on a case by base basis.

Fyraltari

2021-12-24, 04:50 AM

Psh. I can catch a bullet. Depending how how hard you throw it, of course.

"So, what's my job in the army? Overseeing the supply carts? Something like that?
-Oh, I have a job just for you. You're just before the frontliners and you're tasked with catching enemy arrows. With your head."

Lord Raziere

2021-12-24, 06:58 AM

That assumes that the author is inherently deserving of respect.

No it doesn't. Don't assume stuff about me. Disrespect all you want as long as you remember that is what your doing, and that your not going to have good conversations with people who respect things you don't.

Peelee

2021-12-24, 09:12 AM

lord_khaine

2021-12-24, 12:39 PM

Ozymandius is arguably a super in the sense Captain America is - "peak human ability" has a new meaning in comics. He did catch a bullet, which is beyond any real world human ability.

Ozymandius is indeed a border case. Well honestly his bullet catching is rather odd. Since it involves a degree of superhuman attributes thats not otherwise displayed.
All the same i still didnt include him as a Super, because it mostly feeling like a parlor trick. Its superhuman. But not enough to make a difference.

Personally my estimate is based on "how would this person measure up to a SWAT team in solving problems. Or in a direct fight (if robbed of plot armor).

Its only really Dr Manhatten who crush that test.
And he in turn is to disconnected from humanity to be a hero. Hence my "No Super Heroes in Watchment" stance.

The Glyphstone

2021-12-24, 02:28 PM

From what I've read, Veidt's actual 'superpower' was his brain. He didn't catch the bullet simply from reflexes, but by super-braining the speed and angle and calculating exactly where to put his hand at the exact moment to intercept.

Its just hard to judge that because every other person besides John is 100% mundane. Maybe its a parlor trick, or maybe that same super braining would let him win a fight via gun kata. Either way, he is at best a super villain, not a super hero.

Anteros

2021-12-24, 02:35 PM

Yeah, I shouldnt have said "the author is absolutely right and you cannot disagree," I should have said "you are free to disagree with the message and say it was badly done or a hack job or actually ours forth other messages or is stupid all you want".

Oh wait...

People can read whatever they want into a work. But if the author has a message they want to impart, a specific meaning to their work, then that's what it means. You could also argue the case for a second, different meaning, or that the execution was lacking, or that the meaning was jumbled or contradictory, but there's still an inarguable meaning imparted. Death of the Author is not worthless, but it is vastly overrated.

Emphasis mine.

Seems pretty straight forward that you believe the work has to always mean what the author intended, and that we can only argue whether or not it's a good portrayal of that intent, or whether it has a secondary meaning. Neither of which is true in my opinion. It's entirely possible for an author/artist to make something that becomes known for entirely unintended reasons and means things to their audience they never intended. You're placing more value on the author's intent than the reader's interpretation, which I don't agree with. I could just as easily argue that the work will always mean what the reader believes and the author's intent is secondary.

This type of thing happens all the time in art. Look at Salvador Dali's "Persistence of memory" that got famous for its depiction of melting clocks representing the malleability of time. You know what Dali actually intended? He was just trying to make the clocks look like melting cheese. That's it. No symbolism at all. Van Gogh painted a picture of his brother, and it got famous as a self portrait. And woe unto every art student who tried to make a picture of a flower or a candle and accidentally depicted female private parts.

Farenheit 451 was originally intended to be a criticism of television replacing books. Alice in Wonderland was about math. I can think of plenty of other famous examples that are too close to modern politics for me to talk about here. The list goes on and on.

The author of a work only gets to decide what they work means to them. Everyone else is free to decide for themselves.

Peelee

2021-12-24, 04:37 PM

Emphasis mine.

Seems pretty straight forward that you believe the work has to always mean what the author intended, and that we can only argue whether or not it's a good portrayal of that intent, or whether it has a secondary meaning.

I make no such distinction between "primary" and "secondary" meanings. Works can have multiple meanings, period. Fahrenheit 451 is a perfect example. Almost everyone agrees that it makes an excellent point about censorship. This does not in any way take away from the intended point about television, and both meanings can exist at the same time. The censorship meaning is arguably much stronger, more easily taken, and exists alongside the original authors meaning. Just because you can read censorship into it doesn't mean that it suddenly does not mean what the author intended. This isn't a binary issue.

Or, for another much more blatant example, The Boss's song may be played by people who take it to mean "being born in the USA is all I need", but that does not mean that it doesn't also mean "it should be better than this" as the author intended. Itd always going to mean that, and if you strip away the original creator's intent the second they are done creating, then you're ultimately going to lessen creators wanting to create. The entire reason they create things is to put forth their messages into the world. Saying "your message is irrelevant, all that matters is my message I'm putting into your work" is flat out disrespecting the creator as much as can be done.

Between the two of us, you're the one arguing that if more interpretations exist, one must trump the other. If you dislike that thought, then you certainly can't blame me for putting it forth.

Not to mention the fact that if the author's meaning is irrelevant to the reader and the reader establishes their own meaning, then I can simply thank you for agreeing with me in your last post since I can take whatever meaning I want from it and disregard what you intended to mean entirely.

Fyraltari

2021-12-24, 04:43 PM

From what I've read, Veidt's actual 'superpower' was his brain. He didn't catch the bullet simply from reflexes, but by super-braining the speed and angle and calculating exactly where to put his hand at the exact moment to intercept.

That still requires superhuman acuity of the senses, superhuman speed to move his hand into position. And superhuman resilience to not have the bullet go through his hand like it ought to.

Mystic Muse

2021-12-24, 05:00 PM

if you strip away the original creator's intent the second they are done creating, then you're ultimately going to lessen creators wanting to create. The entire reason they create things is to put forth their messages into the world. Saying "your message is irrelevant, all that matters is my message I'm putting into your work" is flat out disrespecting the creator as much as can be done.

Yeah. In fact, every time I see this argument put forth, it puts me off ever trying to get any writing done.

"I can interpret what you're saying to mean whatever I want." Brings up so many awful memories for me that I see no reason to put myself through that willingly.

Anteros

2021-12-24, 10:00 PM

I make no such distinction between "primary" and "secondary" meanings. Works can have multiple meanings, period. Fahrenheit 451 is a perfect example. Almost everyone agrees that it makes an excellent point about censorship. This does not in any way take away from the intended point about television, and both meanings can exist at the same time. The censorship meaning is arguably much stronger, more easily taken, and exists alongside the original authors meaning. Just because you can read censorship into it doesn't mean that it suddenly does not mean what the author intended. This isn't a binary issue.

Or, for another much more blatant example, The Boss's song may be played by people who take it to mean "being born in the USA is all I need", but that does not mean that it doesn't also mean "it should be better than this" as the author intended. Itd always going to mean that, and if you strip away the original creator's intent the second they are done creating, then you're ultimately going to lessen creators wanting to create. The entire reason they create things is to put forth their messages into the world. Saying "your message is irrelevant, all that matters is my message I'm putting into your work" is flat out disrespecting the creator as much as can be done.

Between the two of us, you're the one arguing that if more interpretations exist, one must trump the other. If you dislike that thought, then you certainly can't blame me for putting it forth.

I'm arguing that interpretations are down to individual and cultural perception. Back to 451, it doesn't matter to most readers if the author intended to criticize television if the vast majority of readers never even realize that's the case and simply take it as a message about censorship. It has nothing to do with intentionally disrespecting the author. If they failed to get their intended message across to the vast majority of people who read their work, that's their own failing, not the reader's. Once you put something out to the public, it's the public's to interpret. If you want to keep private control over something, then keep it private. Like it or not, that's simply how it works.

Not to mention the fact that if the author's meaning is irrelevant to the reader and the reader establishes their own meaning, then I can simply thank you for agreeing with me in your last post since I can take whatever meaning I want from it and disregard what you intended to mean entirely.

Only if you genuinely believed that I was agreeing with you, which obviously isn't the case. Thank you for comparing my posts to a work of art though.

But yes, if I made a post and everyone who read it thought meant one thing while I intended another? That would be my failing as a writer to express myself properly. People can only read the things you actually write. Not the things you intended to write but didn't.

Vahnavoi

2021-12-25, 05:28 AM

The whole argument about author's meaning versus interpreted meaning can be captured by communication and cryptographic theory.

To wit: the author's idea or intent (aka "the message") is the plain text. They then encode this meaning in words, pictures etc.. The interpreter then has to have the proper code key to decode the message - in case of writing, that means being able to read the same natural language, in case of visual art, it means knowing certain cultural symbols etc.

There's many ways the original message can be lost. First, the original author can just forget, so they then have to decode their own meaning from their own work just like everybody else. Second, the original author can forget the code key (the linguistic and cultural assumptions they used when making their work etc.), so they know what they meant, but can't explain how to get that from their work. Third, the original author can missapply their code key (using bad language etc.) so the message gets garbled when making the work. Fourth, the interpreter can lack the proper code key (not speaking the right language etc.), so they can't understand the message. Fifth, the interpreter can accidentally use the wrong code key (related but different language etc.) and get a seemingly valid but still wrong message out of the decoding process, instead of the original one. Sixth, the interpreter can willfully missapply the code key (because they think the original author hates them or some other form of motivated reasoning :smalltongue:) to twist the original message into something it isn't.

Those are all distinct from simple disagreement and criticism. Disagreement is "I got your message and think it's wrong"; criticism is "I got your message but you would've sent a better message if you did something differently". Fair disagreement and fair criticism of a message are only possible when you actually get the message.

The only time when all interpretations of a work are equally valid, is when there is no valid message to begin with - it's all random nonsense etc.

Some works get famous because people repeatedly misinterprete them. This means nothing for validity of those alternate interpretations - they are still wrong, those works are literally famous despite their messages, not because of them.

All of the above is just the basics; it's not getting into the weeds like complex and layered messages, where the same encoded symbol, when properly decoded, gets you more than one interpretation. Puns and other double meanings are an obvious example. A pun is funny BECAUSE it can be interpreted more than one way - the humour is in intentionally BAD communication.

lord_khaine

2021-12-25, 05:40 AM

That still requires superhuman acuity of the senses, superhuman speed to move his hand into position. And superhuman resilience to not have the bullet go through his hand like it ought to.

Its why i did assume it was a trick. Jumping in correctly so the bullet glance off an armored patch or something.
Since just casually catching it is a rather mean feat. That generally require a Flash Tier Character.

The whole argument about author's meaning versus interpreted meaning can be captured by communication and cryptographic theory.

A reasonable explanation.

BloodSquirrel

2021-12-25, 10:41 AM

The whole argument about author's meaning versus interpreted meaning can be captured by communication and cryptographic theory.

This is out-and-out wrong. It's based on the premise that Death of the Author is about disagreement regarding what the author intended. It isn't. It's about disagreement over whether the author's intent matters.

It isn't about saying "Your story would have been better if it was about X instead of Y," it's saying "I find interpreting your story to be about X more interesting than interpreting it to be about Y, and so I'm going to do that regardless of what you originally intended".

Case in point: Was Palpatine really losing to Mace Windu, or was he faking weakness in order to get Anakin to attack Windu because it would force Anakin's fall to the dark side? Personally, I find the latter explanation more interesting. I don't care what George Lucas originally intended- both explanations are consistent with the text, and I enjoy the story by interpreting it that way.

You don't even have to stick to one interpretation. You can interpret a story in one way today and come up with a different interpretation tomorrow just because both give you something worthwhile to think about. Your reaction to finding out that someone has a different interpretation should not be "This town isn't big enough for the both of us", it should (assuming it's actually a decent one) "Well, that's neat- you've just added another layer to this story for me".

Once of the greatest examples I've seen of this lately is covered by SuperEyepatchWolf's "What the Internet has Done to Garfield" video, where he goes through how people have re-interpreted the comic strip as being about depression, despair, and cosmic/psychological horror. It's an exercise that is entirely beyond caring what Jim Davis meant for people to take away from his comic about a goofy cartoonist and his cat. The interpretation is valid because it creates a space for people to express themselves.

It's amazing to me how many people just can't get the fundamental thrust behind Death of the Author. It's not about original intent being unknowable. It's about it being irrelevant. It's fundamentally about the fact that something's value is determined by what use you can put it to, not what the person who made it was thinking about at the time. Whoever designed the filing cabinet that I have sitting next to my desk never intended it to be a cat bed, but it turned out to be the perfect size and height to serve as a spot for a cat to sleep while I'm at my desk. It's also got wheels, so I can roll in or out from under my desk depending on whether she's there or not, and she can be as close to me as possible without being in the way. The author intended it to mere be a place to store files, but I interpreted it as a cat bed, put a towel on top of it, and the cat agreed with my interpretation. The validity of that interpretation rests on the fact that it works- completely regardless of whether the cabinet was designed with that in mind.

GloatingSwine

2021-12-25, 01:35 PM

Its why i did assume it was a trick. Jumping in correctly so the bullet glance off an armored patch or something..

It’s artistic license for a comic book, but the bullet isn’t aimed at him, it’s aimed past him at his secretary so even if it doesn’t work he’s not the one dead (and it does mess up his hand).

(You can argue with the author but you can’t argue with the text and you have to change the text a lot to get to Snyder’s version of Watchmen. You can tell because he did in his movie, glamourising every part of it that the comic makes ugly. Example: Watchmen very deliberately excludes action lines in scenes of violence. It shows the aftermath, the hurt, but never the action.)

Anteros

2021-12-25, 03:20 PM

It’s artistic license for a comic book, but the bullet isn’t aimed at him, it’s aimed past him at his secretary so even if it doesn’t work he’s not the one dead (and it does mess up his hand).

(You can argue with the author but you can’t argue with the text and you have to change the text a lot to get to Snyder’s version of Watchmen. You can tell because he did in his movie, glamourising every part of it that the comic makes ugly. Example: Watchmen very deliberately excludes action lines in scenes of violence. It shows the aftermath, the hurt, but never the action.)

Watchmen shows plenty of action though? The confrontation with Veidt, Rorschach in jail, Rorschach vs the police...etc.

GloatingSwine

2021-12-25, 05:25 PM

Watchmen shows plenty of action though? The confrontation with Veidt, Rorschach in jail, Rorschach vs the police...etc.

Not in the visual language of comics it doesn’t.

In comics actions, particularly dynamic actions like violence, are denoted by action lines. They show things like the arc of a punch to draw the eye along it and lend dynamism to the still scene and make it exciting.

Watchmen does not. It is deliberately not showing a dynamic scene, it is showing the moment after. The focus is on the hurt caused not the dynamism of the event.

Violence in Watchmen is not cool and entertaining. But it is to Zack Snyder so that’s what he did in his film, using his usual visual tools to accentuate the action of violence.

Vahnavoi

2021-12-25, 05:29 PM

This is out-and-out wrong. It's based on the premise that Death of the Author is about disagreement regarding what the author intended. It isn't. It's about disagreement over whether the author's intent matters.

Wrong. I'm not talking about Death of the Author specifically in my post. But since you want to talk about it: Death of the Author argues against using biographical context and direct statements from the author to give a text a single meaning - and from the viewpoint of communication and cryptographic theory, this is bad practice, full stop. It falls under what I said in my post: "Sixth, the interpreter can willfully missapply the code key (because they think the original author hates them or some other form of motivated reasoning :smalltongue:) to twist the original message into something it isn't."

Disagreeing on whether an author's intent matters can only be fairly done from a perspective from which it is known. Or like said above: "Fair disagreement and fair criticism of a message are only possible when you actually get the message." Case in point:

It isn't about saying "Your story would have been better if it was about X instead of Y," it's saying "I find interpreting your story to be about X more interesting than interpreting it to be about Y, and so I'm going to do that regardless of what you originally intended".

If you know what the original intent was, this is a distinction without a difference. If you don't know what it was, you are being unfair.

Case in point: Was Palpatine really losing to Mace Windu, or was he faking weakness in order to get Anakin to attack Windu because it would force Anakin's fall to the dark side? Personally, I find the latter explanation more interesting. I don't care what George Lucas originally intended- both explanations are consistent with the text, and I enjoy the story by interpreting it that way.

See points from above: "First, the original author can just forget, so they then have to decode their own meaning from their own work just like everybody else. Second, the original author can forget the code key (the linguistic and cultural assumptions they used when making their work etc.), so they know what they meant, but can't explain how to get that from their work. Third, the original author can missapply their code key (using bad language etc.) so the message gets garbled when making the work."

Also:

"All of the above is just the basics; it's not getting into the weeds like complex and layered messages, where the same encoded symbol, when properly decoded, gets you more than one interpretation. Puns and other double meanings are an obvious example. A pun is funny BECAUSE it can be interpreted more than one way - the humour is in intentionally BAD communication"

There can be intentional ambiguity to that scene, and George can be wrong about whether there's intentional ambiguity to that scene. That's what I'm talking about - you trying to boil it to what's more interesting is ignoring my actual points.

You don't even have to stick to one interpretation. You can interpret a story in one way today and come up with a different interpretation tomorrow just because both give you something worthwhile to think about. Your reaction to finding out that someone has a different interpretation should not be "This town isn't big enough for the both of us", it should (assuming it's actually a decent one) "Well, that's neat- you've just added another layer to this story for me".

You don't understand the point. Of course changing your code key, the way you are interpreting a work, changes what you get out of it! This just doesn't mean what you think it means. If you allow for arbitrary code keys, you can get any message out of any work - even out of random noise! There's a point past where the interpreted message tells more about the interpreter than the work.

In short, there is a line where a person moves from valid interpretations of a work to just doing their own work. Just like, with a filing cabinet, there is a line where you go from "that's how it was made to work" to "that's not how it was made to work but I can see why you use it like that" to "okay, now you just broke the cabinet and made it into something entirely different". And if you continue far enough, "only someone genuinely clueless or insane would think that's a good use for a filing cabinet".

Anteros

2021-12-25, 06:17 PM

Not in the visual language of comics it doesn’t.

In comics actions, particularly dynamic actions like violence, are denoted by action lines. They show things like the arc of a punch to draw the eye along it and lend dynamism to the still scene and make it exciting.

Watchmen does not. It is deliberately not showing a dynamic scene, it is showing the moment after. The focus is on the hurt caused not the dynamism of the event.

Violence in Watchmen is not cool and entertaining. But it is to Zack Snyder so that’s what he did in his film, using his usual visual tools to accentuate the action of violence.

I'm sorry, but what? Watchmen is full of dynamic and violent action scenes.

Watchmen
https://i.imgur.com/SvDM8rR.jpg
does
https://muleabides.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/issue-5-14-1.jpg
not
https://i.redd.it/eubcebzzbge61.jpg
lack
https://muleabides.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/issue-1-3-7.jpg
violence.
https://i.imgur.com/6AKSqCw.jpg

The idea that it's somehow totes different because his style doesn't use action lines is ludicrous.

lord_khaine

2021-12-25, 06:28 PM

It’s artistic license for a comic book, but the bullet isn’t aimed at him, it’s aimed past him at his secretary so even if it doesn’t work he’s not the one dead (and it does mess up his hand).

The bullet he catches in his hand was aimed at him. Im not refering to the scene with the secretary getting shot.
And i dont think you can really cover cathing a freaking bullet up with artistic licence.

Watchmen does not. It is deliberately not showing a dynamic scene, it is showing the moment after. The focus is on the hurt caused not the dynamism of the event.

Violence in Watchmen is not cool and entertaining. But it is to Zack Snyder so that’s what he did in his film, using his usual visual tools to accentuate the action of violence.

That in turn i actually agree with.
I didnt think specifically about it before. Just noticed the style was radically different.
But yeah it does have a lot of focus on the damage inflicted. Violence isnt something cool in Watchmen. Its ugly and bloody.

Anteros

2021-12-27, 05:48 PM

Psyren

2021-12-29, 06:06 PM

New Trailer is out for the actual thread topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u34gHaRiBIU

Warning: It's one of those trailers that basically spoil the entire movie. If anyone cares.

What I liked: Fight choreography looked ok, and the Riddler seems to be actually intelligent and threatening.

What I disliked: Everything else. Way too grimdark still. So sick and tired of Batman stories that focus on him being emo. I also couldn't care less about the Batman+Catwoman relationship. It's never really worked for me.

In a word: ugh.

Dark past of the Waynes kept secret by Alfred - great, so the one bright spot left in his life is going to be taken out back and bludgeoned with the emo stick in this version too. I'm getting ASM "forget what you think you know about this character's origin!" vibes.

Annoyed woman hanging a lampshade on Bruce doing nothing for the city - calling attention to the disconnect only works if you're going to do something with it, DC. And no, "I dress as a bat every night and put goons in the emergency room, what more do you want, you nagging cow?" is not doing something with it.

Catwoman volunteering to fight crime AND be his sidekick... wha? Is she getting paid at least?

Riddler channeling Zsasz/Bane... wha? I'm not saying we need another Jim Carrey (well, maybe I am, his Robotnik was stellar) - but a full 180 to edgetopia doesn't fit Nygma for me. Even the Arkham version didn't seem this dark.

Peelee

2021-12-29, 06:26 PM

Riddler channeling Zsasz/Bane... wha? I'm not saying we need another Jim Carrey (well, maybe I am, his Robotnik was stellar)

Jim Carrey would have been a perfect Riddler done straight, instead of done as Ace Ventura: Batman Villain.

I will die on this hill.

Psyren

2021-12-29, 11:12 PM

Jim Carrey would have been a perfect Riddler done straight, instead of done as Ace Ventura: Batman Villain.

I will die on this hill.

No argument here. Especially with his more serious post-comedy work in mind like 23.

Traab

2021-12-30, 07:49 PM

You know what I think would be a great way to play the riddler? A somewhat deranged but brilliant man whose riddles are something along the lines of those old text based games where you had to solve puzzles in obscure ways. As an example, you had to get a key off the subway track, but its electrified. Well, I found this swim floaty and a clamp device, if I inflate it it will hold the clamp open, then I put a slow leak in it so the clamp slowly closes and I drop it onto the key, grab it as the clamp shuts, then pull it up! EASY! Basically, the riddlers questions follow a thread of logic, but its not the logic of a normal person, and part of the challenge is figuring out his mindset and exploiting that to beat him. He has the obsessive need to leave clues but they dont make sense from a normal standpoint.

"I dont get it, he left a chair from a baseball stadium, what could that mean?"

"More specifically, its a chair from the dugout for the home team. That means we have to "dig out" the foundation of nigmas old home to find the next clue."

I literally just made that up dont take it too seriously, but I think it illustrates my point well enough. Once batman figures out how he thinks, his riddles become solvable.

Lord Raziere

2021-12-30, 07:54 PM