Report: Superman/Batman Movie Planned

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by JoeyP88: The movies are not canon. They are a portrait of what precedes it, an artistic interpretation of a different artform. I enjoy the interpretation, but I don't see it as part of the character's canon.


I never said they were "canon", I said they even got it right.


Originally Posted by JoeyP88: Bruce Wayne is his true identity.


Batman is the true identity and I will believe the writers of the series before believe anyone else and their opinions.
Scott Beatty has stated this and until it's stated otherwise by someone else that has written for DC comics, I'll believe an employee from DC.


Originally Posted by JoeyP88: I did not say he looked like Batman, I said he looked like Bruce Wayne.


If you're saying Batman and Bruce are one and the same, then shouldn't he look like both? If you want to go see a movie about Bruce Wayne, then I suggest making one for yourself, because no one wants that.


Originally Posted by JoeyP88: Sadly, I think there may truth to thisstatement, but Hollywood and more recently some expedient decisions on the part of DC have fueled that misperception. If you read from canon from the 40's to the 80's, you don't get that picture.


I'm to the understanding that you're completely stuck in the realm of Golden Age and Silver Age.
I would suggest reading the short lived 'All Star Batman and Robin'. It is considered "canon".

I'm the *** **** Batman!
 
  08 August 2013
I hate to tell you what you don't want to hear, but for the majority of "Batman Fans" the movies are canon. As we go forward, due to their success, those movies are canon. This is a fact until a more successful Batman "thing" grabs a majority of Batman revenue.

More bad news; the more you know about Batman, the more Batman comics you have read, the larger your Batman collection is; the bigger the Batman fan you are, the less your opinion matters to the people making decisions. You are going to go see it. Thank you for the nerd-rage, free social media buzz/publicity and revenue. Come again, junkie.

As time moves forward, these people who say that this recent mega successful thing or that mega successful thing isn't canon are only going to find what they wish was cannon in the past or in fan-fiction. The real canon are the latest and greatest commercially successful pieces which represent the jumping off point for the next hopefully mega-successful thing.

Let's go to a flea market and buy some old Batman comics in the discount bin. Let's make all of our decisions regarding the $200 million budget beholden to the old comics.
Said no one ever.

The Nolan Batman movies are Batman, almost in his entirety, as far as what comes next in film.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by JoeyP88: Persona means facade or act. That's what I said. Batman is the act.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persona

Firstly, I was saying that BRUCE WAYNE was the act, not Batman. I was disagreeing with you. Read it again.

Secondly, pointing somebody to the dictionary make you look arrogant. English is my first language and I speak it quite fluently, thank you. Let's not make assumptions regarding one another's intelligence.

Quote: And I disagree, Bruce Wayne was never pushed by anyone else to be Batman.

I didn't say that either.

What I said was that he had this pathological habit of dragging others into his world of insanity. In particular, he'd take these young boys and almost brainwash them into living like him. Had Batman never intervened, these boys might have led normal lives, albeit ones filled with years of therapy.

Batman has never needed Robin. What 30yo+ man needs to surround himself with young teen boys? No cop has ever said, "If only I had a child by my side. I'd surely catch that serial killer then." It's not logical and Batman's state of mind deserves to be questioned.

Worse yet, he doesn't seem to care about Robin. One would assume that Jason Todd's apparent death would have been the end of it. No. Robin, being a mantle, is utterly replaceable. One dies and you replace him with another. How many Robins have apparently "died" on Batman's watch. I count three: Jason, Stephanie, & Damian. If you're kid, it pays to stay the hell away from Batman. There's a 3-in-5 chance you might end up dead, at least for a little while. (comics)

What's the root of this? Think about it. Batman's parents were killed when he was a kid. He was powerless to save them. Now, he thinks that he's protecting or empowering these Robins, but what is he really doing? It's a power fantasy. It won't save his parents, them dressing up and fighting, but they might (in effect) be virtual stand-ins for his younger self. It's like dressing up your new girlfriend as your dead wife.

Quote: Being crazy, and appearing to do something which most people would consider irrational but heroic, are two entirely different things.

Hardly. In the real world, there are people who, like Batman, get dressed up and try to play hero. In spite of trying to do something noble, those same people end up getting arrested and/or put on a 72 hour psychiatric hold.

Nobody in their right mind does stuff like this. I'm sorry. If you've ever seen documentaries on these "real" superheroes, you'd realize that many of these people are deeply disturbed, quite sad, and not greatly in touch with reality. Some are and buck that notion, but many aren't.

In the real world, people who dress up like bats and beat people up are not exactly stable. I takes a certain "unconventional" mindset to do that. Guys who do play the opposite role, like Colorado shooter James "The Joker" Holmes, aren't simply arrested. No. They're sent off for immediate psychiatric evaluation.

Think about that for a second. Is what separates Batman from the Joker only a matter of which people they beat up or kill? The act itself is the same. Only the chief participant changes.

Quote: But what was the context of each. Was there pre-meditation? Was the act malicious or an act of self defense. Police do the same things every day in the line of duty.

I know. My uncle's a cop. My cousin's a cop. My sister was in the army. My brother in-law was in the army. My aunt is in the army. My father was in the army. My cousin is in the army. I know people who have killed in the line of duty. It's unfortunate, but it happened.

However, Batman is a little different. Yes, on occasion, he has killed people in self-defense. However, he has also knowingly and intentionally killed bad guys deemed "irredeemable" by society. Right in 1940's Batman #1, he kills a brainwashed mental patient. Instead of trying to cure him, Batman literally drops a noose from his bat-plane and hangs him to death. The only thing he can say...



(Superman's not much better, having executed the Phantom Zone criminals with Kryptonite in 1988's Superman #22.)

Quote: Can't say that I'm aware of this, I'm guessing this is part of the Dark Knight narrative? Still what's context?

It's been a while since I read this. I can't remember whether or not it was in context of the Brother Eye or OMAC stuff, but it was around the time when DC did the 52 or Infinite Crisis stuff. I'd have to look it up.

Quote: He does dirty work, work others are afraid to do. But he's capable of compartmentalizing. Won't argue with that.

No way. Batman is TERRIBLE at compartmentalizing, at least where the "family" is concerned. Batman can play the part of Bruce Wayne in the media, but the lines become horribly blurred anytime his extended bat-family is involved. I suppose that you can say that of any family though.

BTW, just because you're the only one who can do the dirty work doesn't mean that you're the one who should. That's the problem with vigilante justice and one of the reason why Batman is technically probably also a criminal. (Afaik, he's not deputized or anything. What he does is pretty far outside of the citizen's arrest territory too.)

Quote: Not normal is not synonymous with psychotic.

True. However, when you take his overall actions and combine them with his multitude of psychological issue, Batman isn't exactly the picture of perfect mental health either. He's not as wanton and brazen as a Bin Laden, but he's definitely pathological in the extreme.

Quote: He's definitely not living a normal life. By choice. But he's perfectly sane. As sane as any genius or IQ above 200.

Higher IQ is somehow less sane? I'm not so sure. Granted, at "only" a 147 IQ, I can't relate to the 200. Still, the only thing that IQ truly measures is how fast you absorb and adapt. That's all it measures really. My 147 means that I can learn something 50% quicker than the US national average of 98. That doesn't mean that a guy with a 98 can't become a learned professor. It just means that he has to work harder.

IQ is bogus anyway. I've had mine professionally tested 3 or 4 times - not by choice, btw. The tests aren't all made equal and, within each one, there's a certain margin of error. Plus, once you get past a certain number, the validity is questionable.

So, while some people have been recorded as having 200+, those numbers aren't too helpful. Really, IQ ceases to be any sort of measure once you pass 160. The older the test, the less reliable too. That's why William Sidis' reported 250-300 record IQ isn't upheld. Newer standards have gone on to invalidate those used with him.

The numbers also become even less reliable if the test is taken when you're a child. The younger you are, the more the number is likely to be "off". Some tests measure mental age relative to physical age. So, if you score as a 10 year old and you're actually 10 years old then you'd have a 100.

However, if you're scoring as a 20 year old would and you're only 10 then your IQ would be 200. The problem comes as you age, and this is why the test is faulty. If you're 30 now and you still test, mentally, as a 20 year old would then the 200 is no longer valid. Obviously, this is just one test. However, IQ tests are wrought with problems. The tests chan

Either way, not one of these tests really accounts of sanity. I have read of some extreme geniuses going crazy, but that was likely unrelated. At most, the only connection was in their inability to totally relate to so-called "normal" people. That I get. High IQ driving you further from sanity? Not so sure.

Also, as it relates to this topic, would Batman REALLY be above a 200 IQ, if you place any value on these tests? As far as I'm aware, that would put him well above Einstein or Hawking, both of whom are estimated to be around 160. Batman, as a character, is very smart, but also cunning and crafty. (In reality, he's only as smart as the writer though. )

Quote: And by 1985, with 50 years behind the character at that time, the basis for the character is clearly established, regardless the sensationalist narratives.

The only problem being the issue of retroactive continuity. The retcon has become the proverbial fly in the ointment. Compound this with the full on continuity reboots that make up the post-Crisis and nu52 and you can only be sure of certain core elements.

Batman's parents were murdered. Batman dressed up as a man-sized bat to fight crime. There's a bat cave. Lots of gadgets. Alfred. Pretty much everything else is fair game. That's why so many people are upset that Tim Drake was now never actually Robin, instead jumping straight to Red Robin.

Once you reboot continuity, the writers are free to do entirely new things. That's why some previously straight characters are now gay in the nu52 and why certain dead characters are now alive again. The reboot allows writers to envision these characters in completely different ways. Look at the recent uproar of the "emo" Lobo redesign. Because of that, everything we think we know about Batman might no longer be true.

The movieverse Batman, so far, adheres to post-Crisis design. They're sticking to the core elements only. Bigger changes from nu52 haven't trickled over just yet. The movieverse Superman borrows a little bit from nu52 though, especially with the costume.

Quote: Struggling to be sane is not psychotic, unhinged, or insane. It just means your having a difficult time holding on to it.

And Batman's never crossed the line? Just saying. He's always managed to come back, but he's always teetering on the edge that separates Batman and Joker, a fact that Joker himself knows and has exploited over the years.

Quote: Bruce is not a mask, but Batman is the megaphone with which Bruce gets to express himself.

As much as I hate TDKR, Blake's character makes my point clearly.
"Not a lot of people know what it feels like to be angry, in your bones. I mean, they understand, foster parents, everybody understands, for awhile. Then they want the angry little kid to do something he knows he can't do, move on. So after awhile they stop understanding. They send the angry kid to a boys home. I figured it out too late. You gotta learn to hide the anger, practice smiling in the mirror. It's like putting on a mask."
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views presented herein do not necessarily represent those of my brain.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by Stankluv: I hate to tell you what you don't want to hear, but for the majority of "Batman Fans" the movies are canon. As we go forward, due to their success, those movies are canon.

Not even close. More people might recognize the movie version(s), but the comic Batman is THE Batman. Movie canon is only valid with respect to itself and ONLY so long as the franchise doesn't change hands after an extended absence. Otherwise, everything that happened in Keaton run would still hold true for Bale's run. Similarly, some future creator could totally reboot Batman for movies again and then everything Bale did doesn't count. At least the comics try to pick and choose, ignoring only the more goofy and inconvenient bits in their reboots.

Also, seeing as how the comics predate the movies, anything about movie continuity replacing the comic one is just asinine. The two are separate and certainly not equal. The comics only bend to match the movies for the temporary sales boost. They usually revert to type months after.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views presented herein do not necessarily represent those of my brain.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by Sthu: The more I think about it the more I like it. Ben has that laid back douchebag thing going and can easily play the part of Bruce Wayne, but who cares. It is the "he can't be Batman" that gives us a taste of what people in Gotham feel about Bruce Wayne, and I for one find that interesting and will be part of the reason why I will pay to see this movie.

"Ben/Bruce as Batman? No way!"

It's genius!

Now I could go with you on this one. Ben Afleck should have no problem playing Bruce Wayne. If he can dig deep and be a convincing Batman, then that would be quit a show because like you say. Ben Afleck, Batman? No way! We shall see.
__________________
HMC: Model Collection
WIP: Harris Nut House
WIP: WarCraft Troll
wyattharris.com Dig it!
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by rhinton: Batman is the true identity and I will believe the writers of the series before believe anyone else and their opinions.
Scott Beatty has stated this and until it's stated otherwise by someone else that has written for DC comics, I'll believe an employee from DC.


That's fair enough. But I have lot to say about that in just a minute.


Originally Posted by rhinton: If you're saying Batman and Bruce are one and the same, then shouldn't he look like both? If you want to go see a movie about Bruce Wayne, then I suggest making one for yourself, because no one wants that.


No, he should not look like both. People talk about Batman as though he a person. He isn't. He's a role. Bruce Wayne is the person. Bruce is the ego. Bruce is also a role. Batman is a role. Batman is the alter ego. Batman is the persona. The act. You can never reconcile who Batman is without first understanding who Bruce Wayne is. Batman does not come first. It might be romantic, or idealistic, or something to think that the Batman role has that much gravitas. But to assume that once Wayne puts on the mask, Wayne disappears? That's ridiculous and has no foundation. And it can't be that way without first defining Bruce Wayne as being so psychotic as to be committable.

So many people, included some who are part of the actual DC machine, have erroneously adopted Batman as a person, when it isn't. I can understand why movie goers do this. I can understand why the average consumer might think or feel this. But artists writers and editors? Seriously? How repugnant.

Batman is the means to an end. An end which is the goal of one man. Bruce Wayne. Its a persona which is a masterfully crafted tool to achieve a job. A tool designed to achieve a very specific emotional and psychological response among those who have to deal with him. The real story is the man under the mask. What drives him. What makes him tick. What causes him to invest the blood sweat and tears into the effort. This is a truly compelling story far more worthy than a simple image of a guy in a bat suit breaking bones, smashing things, or crushing villains.

Being a dangerous unhinged midnight maurader? That's easy. Dealing with the tragedy, that's hard. Being constructive and doing something useful for society in response to your tragedy, that's hard. Being a psycho? That's easy. Permitting your emotions to rule your actions, that's easy. Channeling your anger and turning it a responsible but risky activity which people can rally behind. That's hard.

Batman has reason and purpose. He tried to do the right thing most of the time. At least the Silver Age Batman did.




Originally Posted by rhinton: I'm to the understanding that you're completely stuck in the realm of Golden Age and Silver Age.
I would suggest reading the short lived 'All Star Batman and Robin'. It is considered "canon".


Stuck? Not hardly. Being stuck suggests that your trapped in a situation which you have little or no power to get out of on your own accord. But your understanding of my position is pretty close. The difference is that I choose not to capitulate to this activity that DC or Warner or whoever has permitted for the past 25 years or so. I accept it has happened. There lots of canon which I'm unhappy about, but not for the reason you might think. This isn't about what I think Batman should be. And its only partly about what Batman is.

Its about the people who created the artform. The editors, writers, illustrators, etc. The people who nurtured the idea, the people who defined it, the people who gave life to it. And its also about about those people who threw those artists, that came before them, under the bus.

Look I'm not ignorant about this particular media industry. When I was much younger I entertained the idea of it being a career. But it, like most media industries are challenged in certain ways. Its no different than broadcast news, film, or newspaper. Its been this way since its inception. So what I'm about say next is not viewed from a perception of purity.

The issue I have is one of respect. When I was younger, and reading from the silver age chronicles, it was clear that among the people who created the ideas, stories, and art, they had a lot of respect for the artists that preceded them. Did they change things? Sure, with the idea of making it better. Did they create any paradox? Sure they did, sometimes intentionally sometimes not. But they came up with respectful solutions to those paradox situations such as parallel earths which kept the work of the artists who preceded them intact. That was a respectful and responsible behavior.

But something started happening about 1984. Slowly at first then picked up in pace. First they killed Barry Allen. They gave Hal Jordan the run around eventually ending in his becoming a villain a decade or so later. They broke Batman's back. They killed Superman. Its 95 now and it does not end there, it only get's worse.

Crisis comes along and they're trying to clean up the mess they made, or make it even messier, I couldn't really tell. But I was burned out and decided I had enough. Besides, I'd pretty much not bought a comic in several years. And I couldn't even get a rack version of Death of Superman it flew off the shelf so quickly. I returned to Flea markets and started shopping comic stores for any old DC issues between 1960 and 1990. Buying whatever I could to fill in the gaps I had. Still do.

I understand that comic books are an evolving artform. Things change. I don't mind that. What I mind is this irresponsible behavior on the part of modern media that figures nothing is sacred but sales. By 1995 the writers or editors or producers or somebody had pretty much wasted everything that was good about the DC brand. Many of the new readers are clueless about things which are really fundamentally important about the characters in a cerebral way, or they are more interested in the psychotic lashing out by a guy who could crush your face by blinking an eye. Gone is truth, justice, and the American way. DC promoted that. That's what they wanted, its what they got. Its all sensationalism now and in order to keep the crack coming it has to become even more sensationalist.

The result is that it's disrespectful to those artists who spent 50 years building up the characters and the art and these new "artists" have no issue with tearing it all down.

Now everybody thinks Batman is a person and Bruce Wayne is a facade. How quaint.

If you want a psychotic superhero living three seconds from being committed or convicted for manslaughter, create a new super hero or villain and sell it. Convince people to buy it on the merit of your unique creation. That's what the silver age artists did. That was respectable. I can respect that and I might even buy it.

But don't tear down the signature franchises just to build it back in a perverted image because you want Batman to be a "Super Psycho Bad-Ass" or you think Superman deserves to have an identity crisis. No wait.....IT SELLS! Call CNN, tell them we're killing Superman! Rock and roll baby! Superman's a jerk anyway! He needs to come down a notch. Now the whole world wants to read DC, Yay! ....uh at least this week anyway.

Its easy to tear things down. Its monumentally difficult to build things up. What DC had at the end of the silver age will stand the test of time forever. Mark my words. What's been created since has no foundation because its built on tearing down the real foundations. It has minimal credibility, and lacks respect or the ability to be respected as an artform that replaces those respectable franchises.

Yeah. Its canon. I get that. But Bruce Wayne is still Batman, not the other way around.

Last edited by JoeyP88 : 08 August 2013 at 11:38 PM.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by cookepuss:
What 30yo+ man needs to surround himself with young teen boys? No cop has ever said, "If only I had a child by my side. I'd surely catch that serial killer then." It's not logical and Batman's state of mind deserves to be questioned.


Robin is a Golden Age construct. It's from a different day an time which in all honesty I'm not even old enough to completely understand. But because it was successful, because young boys could relate to the idea, the character had gravitas. It was a time when that age group was the dominant market factor. Robin sold comic books, its that simple. Trying rationalize anything more into it prior to 1970 will be kind of hard.

Originally Posted by cookepuss: Worse yet, he doesn't seem to care about Robin. One would assume that Jason Todd's apparent death would have been the end of it. No. Robin, being a mantle, is utterly replaceable. One dies and you replace him with another. How many Robins have apparently "died" on Batman's watch. I count three: Jason, Stephanie, & Damian. If you're kid, it pays to stay the hell away from Batman. There's a 3-in-5 chance you might end up dead, at least for a little while. (comics)


I don't disagree with any of this. It wasn't this way in the 70's. Robin separated and went his own way with the Teen Titans. Batman evolved into a complex but brilliant character.




Originally Posted by cookepuss: Hardly. In the real world, there are people who, like Batman, get dressed up and try to play hero.


I don't disagree. But this is not what I'm trying to rationalize. I'm trying to rationalize a character created, written, and drawn by real people. My argument is about the art. My interest in this is about the artform. My concern is about the preservation of these classic characters. Its a legitimate but unique form of storytelling. It's bout the development of a character and why. But just as important its about the deconstruction of the creation.



Originally Posted by cookepuss: However, Batman is a little different. Yes, on occasion, he has killed people in self-defense. However, he has also knowingly and intentionally killed bad guys deemed "irredeemable" by society. Right in 1940's Batman #1, he kills a brainwashed mental patient. Instead of trying to cure him, Batman literally drops a noose from his bat-plane and hangs him to death. The only thing he can say...



(Superman's not much better, having executed the Phantom Zone criminals with Kryptonite in 1988's Superman #22.)


Yeah I know. In the 40's Superman went after Nazi's and killed some of them I think. I can forgive this because it was too early in the development of the character. They figured it out in time. The writers that is. And yes there are exceptions, mostly rare prior to 85. My issue is with what happened after 85. That's when it changed. That's my argument regarding Batman. I subscribe to the Silver Age ideology of the character, not this which they have created the last two decades. Some of which is just utter crap.




Originally Posted by cookepuss: No way. Batman is TERRIBLE at compartmentalizing, at least where the "family" is concerned. Batman can play the part of Bruce Wayne in the media, but the lines become horribly blurred anytime his extended bat-family is involved. I suppose that you can say that of any family though.


I disagree. He's taken the entire idea of risk and compartmentalized it. The fact he puts more people than just himself at risk is a compartmentalization. He has no difficulty ignoring these risks to himself or to others and avoids addressing it. You aptly described such compartmentalization as it relates to Robin.


Originally Posted by cookepuss: (Afaik, he's not deputized or anything. What he does is pretty far outside of the citizen's arrest territory too.)


Check this out.

http://www.getashirtlikemine.com/ke...tman-deputized/


Originally Posted by cookepuss: True. However, when you take his overall actions and combine them with his multitude of psychological issue, Batman isn't exactly the picture of perfect mental health either. He's not as wanton and brazen as a Bin Laden, but he's definitely pathological in the extreme.


That's a modern construct, not a traditional one and definitely wasn't a part of the psychological profile prior to the mid 80s.


Originally Posted by cookepuss: Higher IQ is somehow less sane?


Either way, not one of these tests really accounts of sanity. I have read of some extreme geniuses going crazy, but that was likely unrelated. At most, the only connection was in their inability to totally relate to so-called "normal" people. That I get. High IQ driving you further from sanity? Not so sure.


There has been speculation for many years regarding the association of extraordinary high IQ with psychosis. This is a short but interesting read on the subject.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/c.../mad-genius.htm


Originally Posted by cookepuss: Also, as it relates to this topic, would Batman REALLY be above a 200 IQ, if you place any value on these tests? As far as I'm aware, that would put him well above Einstein or Hawking, both of whom are estimated to be around 160. Batman, as a character, is very smart, but also cunning and crafty. (In reality, he's only as smart as the writer though. )


200 is considered the theoretical limit. Most of the high IQs float around that number or above. I imagine Bruce Wayne to have an IQ at or above 200. As you noted IQ isn't a measure of intelligence or knowledge capacity, IQ measures problems solving capacity. Since his primary skillset is problem solving and his ability to switch between deductive reasoning, engineering, math, physics, and right brain things like social psychology, it has to be really high. He's a modern Sherlock Holmes in essence.

Originally Posted by cookepuss: The only problem being the issue of retroactive continuity. The retcon has become the proverbial fly in the ointment. Compound this with the full on continuity reboots that make up the post-Crisis and nu52 and you can only be sure of certain core elements.

Batman's parents were murdered. Batman dressed up as a man-sized bat to fight crime. There's a bat cave. Lots of gadgets. Alfred. Pretty much everything else is fair game. That's why so many people are upset that Tim Drake was now never actually Robin, instead jumping straight to Red Robin.


I'm personally in denial that DC ever created a single comic after about 1995. I was as loyal and dedicated a consumer of DC literature as they came in the 70's and 80's. They screwed their brand to the wall and have made a mess that even I thought impossible. But I'm heartened by the fact that there are no time machines and they can't go back and erase the Golden or Silver age like I know they would love to. It's true, Batman is sane, DC Comics since 95 is just plain unhinged and should be committed to Arkham.


Originally Posted by cookepuss: As much as I hate TDKR, Blake's character makes my point clearly.

"Not a lot of people know what it feels like to be angry, in your bones. I mean, they understand, foster parents, everybody understands, for awhile. Then they want the angry little kid to do something he knows he can't do, move on. So after awhile they stop understanding. They send the angry kid to a boys home. I figured it out too late. You gotta learn to hide the anger, practice smiling in the mirror. It's like putting on a mask."



And so he did. The mask is called Batman.
 
  08 August 2013
Guys.... It's.... just a (superhero) movie.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
  08 August 2013
Yeah that is an amazing amount of back and forth.
Thread might need to be closed for health reasons.
__________________
HMC: Model Collection
WIP: Harris Nut House
WIP: WarCraft Troll
wyattharris.com Dig it!
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: Guys.... It's.... just a (superhero) movie.


Maybe. Maybe not. It's far more than just a superhero or even just a movie.

But if you think its interesting now? We're only discussing Batman. And he's the supporting act. Can't wait till this gets some traction.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/...-steel-20130826
 
  08 August 2013
Someone told me about this book Gotham City 14 miles: 14 Essays on Why the 1960s Batman TV Series Matters. It relates to the issue of Batman being changed in the mid 80s from a Zorro-inspired character to something more in the line of Wolverine I suppose. They go through the comics of the 50s and 60s to demonstrate how faithful the tv show was to the comics and that its the modern Batman obsessed with his parents' death that is out of line with the traditional character depiction.

Personally I think whatever the character's creator did is canon--so Bob Kane and the others at the time of his creation--and whatever comes later isnt so strictly canon.

Spider-man main canon is what Stan Lee wrote (been going through the back issue stories I missed-some good humor in there).

Coincidentally I lost interest in spider-man around the mid 80s. First when they had his girlfriend reveal she knew he was always spider-man then his marriage. Not Spider-man for me.


But some people are even more strict. There was a guy who felt James Bond should always be set in the 1960s due to the Cold War aspect of the character and felt the same about Spider-man.

I'll confess I never bought much Superman (except the book Superman From the 30s to the 70s) but I did buy the Death of Superman collected paperback edition in the 90s (same for Dark Knight Returns in the mid 80s-have the first hardcover edition--hey maybe I should check the street price for that).
 
  08 August 2013
Which Wolverine is this? The short stocky one that keeps cussing and smoking? Or the new lovesick one who is way too tall and has so many fan-girls?

Wolverine's a solid case for "It can end up being anything now."

Because since it happened in the films:


It can now happen in the comics:


I still remember how the Wolverine "macho" fanboys reacted to that one!

Originally Posted by Hugh Jackman: "With these movies, about every third day, for the rest of your life, you hear a critique about how you played the part, what you should have done differently, and what you can do the next time, if you ever get a shot at it. ... Itís fair to say that by X-Men 3, Wolverine had gone a little soft, and I agree with them there."


Can they argue it's not the "real" Wolverine?
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation

Last edited by CGIPadawan : 08 August 2013 at 05:16 AM.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: Which Wolverine is this? The short stocky one that keeps cussing and smoking? Or the new lovesick one who is way too tall and has so many fan-girls?


Good point.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by kelgy: Someone told me about this book Gotham City 14 miles: 14 Essays on Why the 1960s Batman TV Series Matters. It relates to the issue of Batman being changed in the mid 80s from a Zorro-inspired character to something more in the line of Wolverine I suppose. They go through the comics of the 50s and 60s to demonstrate how faithful the tv show was to the comics and that its the modern Batman obsessed with his parents' death that is out of line with the traditional character depiction.

Personally I think whatever the character's creator did is canon--so Bob Kane and the others at the time of his creation--and whatever comes later isnt so strictly canon.

Spider-man main canon is what Stan Lee wrote (been going through the back issue stories I missed-some good humor in there).

Coincidentally I lost interest in spider-man around the mid 80s. First when they had his girlfriend reveal she knew he was always spider-man then his marriage. Not Spider-man for me.


But some people are even more strict. There was a guy who felt James Bond should always be set in the 1960s due to the Cold War aspect of the character and felt the same about Spider-man.

I'll confess I never bought much Superman (except the book Superman From the 30s to the 70s) but I did buy the Death of Superman collected paperback edition in the 90s (same for Dark Knight Returns in the mid 80s-have the first hardcover edition--hey maybe I should check the street price for that).

That looks like an interesting read!

I agree with you regarding canon. I accept that it is canon if it is from a monthly chronicle or tabloid produced by the active production team. But i do think there is primary canon(gospel), and secondary which is used to build upon the primary constructively. If its not constructive or at least respectful of that which precedes it violates the principle of canon and negates its credibility. What we have DC is just chaos. Canon has become meaningless to this organization so I've comfortable ignoring the canon I don't like.

I thought Roger Moore did the best job at capturing the essence of Royal English culture. I wouldn't have expected it to remain in the cold war forever any more than Superman should have been expected to remain in WWII.
 
  08 August 2013
Originally Posted by JoeyP88: But i do think there is primary canon(gospel), and secondary which is used to build upon the primary constructively. If its not constructive or at least respectful of that which precedes it violates the principle of canon and negates its credibility. What we have DC is just chaos. Canon has become meaningless to this organization so I've comfortable ignoring the canon I don't like.


To wit, I have to say that allowing "all canon" and "no canon" is what has afforded us all this fantastic imagining of all these things....For better or worse. I still remember when everybody was raving about how the Batmobile in Frank Miller's books was this tank, as well as the eye-opening "all-black" Batman design under Tim Burton's direction.

I think if there was too much stressing of "stick to canon", we'd still be seeing a lot of "blue" Batman costumes, and he'd always have this sidekick gesticulating "Holy <some word>, Batman!" And there are as many people who argue of Robin's position in canon, as well as those who think he shouldn't be there.

BOTH are valid. A lot of good has come from not planting things down.

It is what it is now... the point is that WB/DC can do anything now. Affleck's contract supposedly lists more than one film for his Batman run.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.