How is Superman dull and boring again? Because you say so? Superman has some of the best comics arcs out there. Clearly your wrong, since Superman has just as much as fans as any other heroes. Standing for something like hope is not a bad thin. To this day, Superman is still one of the few heroes out there that literally stopped a teen from committing suicide. After the teen read Morrison’s Superman, he/she was so inspired, they choose to live on.
Yes Batman is their cash cow now, only because few people can write a good Superman movie. Never cared for the WW because yes for that reason it did copied TFA. It copied a shitty movie. I fell asleep watching that snooze fest. The only thing good about the TFA was Red Skull, and that was because he was portrayed Hugo Weaving. One of my favorite actors.
And onced upon a time in the early days, DC was dominating in all medium. All movies Marvel put out sucks so badly even one of them was refused to be released. Now Marvel is dominating in the movie business, and I have no reason to fault them their success. It’s a success that came from hard work of blood and sweat. Kudos to them.
Again your opinion. Superman 1 and the superior Superman 2 the Richer Donner cut beats All the Hulks movies, the Captain America TFA, Thor 1,2. Same with Keaton’s Batman.
Superman is at a low because most writers and directors don’t really understand the character, and most of them have only read The Dark Knight.
Clean cut yes, simple, not any more than a real person, flat? Definitely not. Are you familiar with the character's most literary stories?
Expand on this, don't just make vague dismissive statements without rationalizing them. What makes the "hope symbol stuff" hilarious? Do you believe that daring to hope for anything is inherently childish? That's a very adolescent viewpoint you have there young man.
Batman is more frequently successful because, as far as fantasies go, the one he's selling is far more childish and marketable. Grant Morrison has a fairly famous quote on the matter that explains the differences between the two pretty well, better than I could.
"Batman is obviously much cooler, but that’s because he’s a very energetic and adolescent fantasy character: a handsome billionaire playboy in black leather with a butler at this beck and call, better cars and gadgetry than James Bond, a horde of fetish femme fatales baying around his heels and no boss. That guy’s Superman day and night.
Superman grew up baling hay on a farm. He goes to work, for a boss, in an office. He pines after a hard–working gal. Only when he tears off his shirt does that heroic, ideal inner self come to life. That’s actually a much more adult fantasy than the one Batman’s peddling but it also makes Superman a little harder to sell. He’s much more of a working class superhero."
So Superman is more difficult to sell than Batman because he requires a more mature storyteller to pen the tale. Does that mean no one should try? Because it's harder?
Interestingly enough, those same qualities of Superman you lambast? Being clean-cut and allegedly simple? Just as applicable to Captain America, who is pretty much Marvel's version of Superman in function, if not in power.
No one accused you of hating DC. Why are you defending yourself against an accusation no one made? And why do you think it lends your clumsily-written post any more credibility than it warrants?
For reference, I've almost certainly read less comics than you. I've probably read less Superman comics than you. But I would certainly say I've understood the relatively few I've read more than the likely thousands you have, based on your posts.
Big L is a contender for the GOAT even despite his untimely death, so that bodes well for Superman.
Have to agree with Neme, here. There are some really great takes on Superman, and he can be a really complex and interesting character when done right. Problem is, it requires a really gifted writer to do that correctly, and most just fall into the "he's good, he's hope, he's humanity's savior, now watch as he saves humanity" without much nuance, because that's easy and what most people expect from Superman. Doing a good Superman movie would be difficult, but no more difficult than it was for Marvel to do Captain America well in their movies.
I think as far as Batman goes, I think his greatest strength is that he's very pliable as far as what kind of story you can do with him. You can do a funny one, a hopeful one, a light hearted one, a bleak one, you can even do horror with Batman. Superman is harder because of audiences preconception, he's more rigid. You can still do all those types of stories with Superman if you want, it just takes more effort to convince the audience that it's sensible and to suspend their disbelief.
In order for a Superman film to be a success these days, without the cheese of the Reeve films, is to have a suitably credible threat, and by that I mean beyond the cerebral intellect threat that Lex poses. I can think of at least two of Superman's greatest foes that fit that bill.
The first being Braniac.
And the second being Darkseid.
Unfortunately, in order to match the impact of Infinity War, introducing Darkseid at least would take some decent setup. They wasted Doomsday and blew the Death of Superman way too early. A second death would be wasted now as they know a Motherbox can revive Clark now.
At the bare minimum they need to not make another ****ing DC movie for at least ten years.
Beyond that, there's plenty of things they could do to make good films and win over a new audience but I don't know what it would take to gain back the people who've been burnt by WB over the past decade. This is where DC's Holy Trinity fails them. DC movies aren't allowed to exist without one of the Big Three being involved for some reason, but I have zero desire to ever see a ****ing Batman or Superman film again.
I suppose the way to go would be to shelve the expanded universe and also take a break from the A-list DC characters. Disney built its universe on the back of a C-list character (Iron Man), Fox is raking in the mega bucks right now with Deadpool who was also a c-list character until he wasn't. WB could take a feather out of that cap, scale down their ambitions and and focus on making a series of stand-alone, GOOD movies focused on the lesser known DC characters that have less baggage attached to them. Give me a Slade movie. Give me a John Stewart film. Nigga give me a Hawkgirl film with a GotG aesthetic.
Oh and for the love of God, stay from super-teams. Team dynamics are a pain to write properly and if the chemistry feels whack on any level the entire concept goes to shit.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Jun 4th, 2018 at 12:24 AM
Live action is the best and where the money is at. So of course fly wants to watch toons because he’s both an idiot and a bad businessman because of his own poor life choices.
Overall agreed, but what Marvel did extremely well, is casting these characters. Downey is the perfect Tony. Evans is the perfect Steve. Reynolds is the perfect Wade etc. If they had cast miscast early on, we'd likely not be where we are now with the MCU. Imagine if they had cast someone like Colin Firth for Tony, he's a great actor, but he doesn't fit that role.
Though I will say Caville is a good casting for Superman, his writing leaves lots to be desired though.
No, I don’t I loved the last Jedi and it’s divisive. You never make any sense and really are retarded. I also think the dark knight is the weakest of the Nolan Batman films which isn’t the popular opinion. I also don’t think Batman is cool at all.
I’m a Thanos guy well before he showed up in a film. I’m my own person you’re just a hater miserable all the time.
KMC Community Forums
May 21st, 2018 10:20 PM
