The Batman - 2022

[Peelee]

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]

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.

[Traab]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Superman joining an all-male revue would certainly pack the theater - consider my objection rescinded

"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]

"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]

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?"

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]

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?"

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

Spoiler: Jaws tangent

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.