#1 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -


#2 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Yet another Superman movie is upon us. This time, it might actually be decent, and not a silly knock-off of the 80s movies. The first full trailer is promising, but it's yet again the oh-so played-out origin story. Oh well.

I'd much prefer to see a story with 'Accomplished Superman'. The Superman, that's just as intelligent, as he is strong. Who has a crazy collection of interstellar and pan-dimensional memorabilia in his Fortress of Solitude. Who's saved the world a thousand times over, and is past being Clark Kent.

What about you? Are you as tired of Supe's origin story as I am?

#3 Posted by gaminghooligan (1438 posts) -

B for sure. I want my Kingdom Come movie *but it will never happen :(*

#4 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@gaminghooligan said:

B for sure. I want my Kingdom Come movie *but it will never happen :(*

And so it came to pass, that I've ordered Kingdom Come from a local book retailer. Thanks for the hint.

#5 Posted by BisonHero (6452 posts) -

The reason that people go to see Batman and Superman movies primarily focused around vaguely plausible villains like Joker and Luthor is that it allows them to safely avoid how supes dumb 90% of the DC universe is. So I don't see them making the sort of Superman movie you describe.

#6 Posted by Jayzilla (2560 posts) -

I'm not interested in the new film. It's an origin story. If I wanted to watch that, I would watch the film with Chris Reeves. Also, Powers as kid, power/responsibility/kryptonite/Fortress of Solitude/Jor-El(insert famous actor here)/Lois Lane/Save the world.

Superman bores me because he IS Superman. He isn't a regular dude. He is impervious to everything except a single substance that somehow always gets in the hands of the wrong person. Yawn.

#7 Posted by gaminghooligan (1438 posts) -

@Seppli: oh man. It's one of the few books I recommend, and it's one of the few Superman stories I love (I'm a batman guy). Hope you enjoy it!

#8 Posted by gamefreak9 (2358 posts) -

Accomplished but I understand that they are starting from scratch, if it does well we can expect a sequel. Hopefully with a time skip.

#9 Edited by GunGunW (60 posts) -

@Jayzilla: He's also weak to red solar energy, other super powered kryptonians, and can be hurt my magic. He may be nigh invulnerable but he's not invincible

#10 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@gaminghooligan said:

@Seppli: oh man. It's one of the few books I recommend, and it's one of the few Superman stories I love (I'm a batman guy). Hope you enjoy it!

Hope I love it as much as Red Son.

#11 Edited by TyCobb (1966 posts) -

I actually thought Superman Returns was a decent film and was kind of pissed that they opted to do an origin film instead of the sequel. We don't need a Superman Origin film. There was a shitty TV series that ran for like 10 seasons and most people already know how Superman became. Batman Begins was different because there wasn't a whole lot that dug into how Batman's past unless you read the comics. Also, Superman's origin is fucking boring.

#12 Posted by SeanFoster (866 posts) -

As a comic book geek, I'll always take the veteran version of a character over the rookie. I'm pretty tired of origin stories.

#13 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

@gaminghooligan said:

B for sure. I want my Kingdom Come movie *but it will never happen :(*

This is my favorite use of Superman. When he's already "established," he makes a fantastic companion for the rest of the DC universe. He is the invulnerable establishment of what a superhero should aspire to be and yet can never reach. And, then, if (and usually when) his resolve crumbles, you can tell it's all going to go to hell.

Superman is generally kind of a boring character, especially on his own. But include a world of heroes around him, and he becomes a fascinating part of the dynamic.

#14 Edited by gaminghooligan (1438 posts) -

@Little_Socrates: Yea. Superman (for me) has always worked best when he's part of the lager universe, and when the stakes get so high that only he can save the day. Since it's pretty hard to take Supes down, adding the more mortal heroes gives the story a sense of peril.

@Seppli: Now there's a movie that need to be made.

@TyCobb: I agree, I think everyone on the planet knows the Superman origin. Batman Begins worked for me because it not only sets up his origin, but incorporates Ra's Al Ghul who in my opinion was a bold choice for a villain.

#15 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3782 posts) -

Batman.

#16 Posted by Happenstance (462 posts) -

Both of those two just kind of feel like Silver Age Superman, a version I never really connected with. I just prefer respected hero Superman where Clark Kent is the real person.

As for the new movie I would prefer it to lean more towards that version but I doubt it. I am still hopeful that it will be good but im not particularly a fan of the costume design and I havent really seen anything that has convinced me yet. I will still go see it though as with most comic book movies.

#17 Edited by LTSmash (619 posts) -

I want a Superdickery movie in which all Superman does is use his powers to mess with the people around him. Played by Patrick Warburton.

#18 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

I think Superman in general is kind of lame but at the same time you can't be telling the same damn origin story every 10 years.

#19 Posted by damswedon (3185 posts) -

Remember Lois and Clark. I'd rather have that.

#20 Posted by Happenstance (462 posts) -

@damswedon: Best version of Clark Kent!

#21 Posted by dudeglove (7770 posts) -

Zack Snyder? Fuck off.

#22 Posted by MarkWahlberg (4602 posts) -

@Seppli: Have you read All-Star Superman? Red Son is a blast, but the characterization of Supes in All-Star is by far the best version I've ever seen. Kingdom Come is ok but it's really more about where all those characters end up. All-Star is a phenomenal simply because it uses all the craziest shit in Superman mythology and makes it totally work.

#23 Edited by crusader8463 (14419 posts) -

No interest in Superman as a character. They built him up in such a way that he's impossible to beat outside of a few means that always feel contrived or forced. Just call some other super hero to take on those bad guys and let Superman beat up everyone else since they pose zero threat to him and he actively needs to hold back just so he doesn't punch them into pink mist.

The character even goes so far as to ruin other characters in the DC universe for me. He makes any threat in that universe a joke because no matter how scary or all powerful a threat is to any other character, at the end of the day if the big bad is really going to takeover/destroy the world at some point he will need to go up against Superman as well as whomever he's fighting. And for the above reasons it makes the whole thing lose any impact.

#24 Edited by GunstarRed (5126 posts) -

The only Superman story I have read in full is All star Superman which was wonderful, so established I guess.

#25 Posted by HistoryInRust (6293 posts) -

Superman Returns wasn't that bad.

Also, pissed off, old man Superman from Kingdom Come is the best. Well, second best if you could Communist Superman.

#26 Posted by Rattle618 (1463 posts) -

So they made him super smart too? Why? Doesnt he have enough?

#27 Posted by huser (1076 posts) -

@Seppli said:

Yet another Superman movie is upon us. This time, it might actually be decent, and not a silly knock-off of the 80s movies. The first full trailer is promising, but it's yet again the oh-so played-out origin story. Oh well.

I'd much prefer to see a story with 'Accomplished Superman'. The Superman, that's just as intelligent, as he is strong. Who has a crazy collection of interstellar and pan-dimensional memorabilia in his Fortress of Solitude. Who's saved the world a thousand times over, and is past being Clark Kent.

What about you? Are you as tired of Supe's origin story as I am?

I'm OK for being accomplished. I don't equate that past being Clark Kent though.

For me, I just want one that acknowledges Clark being a superscientist no less capable than Reed Richards, such as teleconferencing alternate reality versions of himself. One that isn't completely baffled by the super motivated human with the resources of a small nation once again pulling a green rock from his pocket. Whether it's Lex or Batman they should both be getting zapped by tech they can only barely understand let alone replicate if they try such an obvious stunt.

#28 Posted by huser (1076 posts) -

@crusader8463 said:

No interest in Superman as a character. They built him up in such a way that he's impossible to beat outside of a few means that always feel contrived or forced. Just call some other super hero to take on those bad guys and let Superman beat up everyone else since they pose zero threat to him and he actively needs to hold back just so he doesn't punch them into pink mist.

The character even goes so far as to ruin other characters in the DC universe for me. He makes any threat in that universe a joke because no matter how scary or all powerful a threat is to any other character, at the end of the day if the big bad is really going to takeover/destroy the world at some point he will need to go up against Superman as well as whomever he's fighting. And for the above reasons it makes the whole thing lose any impact.

Except that Darkseid as originally conceived would reduce Superman to dust that no one would even remember. This back in the day when Kryptonians were so stupidly powerful they couldn't even hurt each other.

Given Superman has actually died (OK not quite, but as dead as anyone ever does in comics) and has countless times been physically overcome without use of his particular vulnerabilities I find this particular issue a bit weird.

#29 Edited by flindip (533 posts) -

@huser: But that isn't the character. Superman is not supposed to be the smartest character in the DC universe. Superman is supposed to be a leader, one who inspires. Clark Kent is a farmboy from Kansas.

Batman is supposed to be the brains, "world's greatest detective" etc. Something that was painfully missing from the Nolan films.

#30 Edited by flindip (533 posts) -

@huser said:

@crusader8463 said:

No interest in Superman as a character. They built him up in such a way that he's impossible to beat outside of a few means that always feel contrived or forced. Just call some other super hero to take on those bad guys and let Superman beat up everyone else since they pose zero threat to him and he actively needs to hold back just so he doesn't punch them into pink mist.

The character even goes so far as to ruin other characters in the DC universe for me. He makes any threat in that universe a joke because no matter how scary or all powerful a threat is to any other character, at the end of the day if the big bad is really going to takeover/destroy the world at some point he will need to go up against Superman as well as whomever he's fighting. And for the above reasons it makes the whole thing lose any impact.

Except that Darkseid as originally conceived would reduce Superman to dust that no one would even remember. This back in the day when Kryptonians were so stupidly powerful they couldn't even hurt each other.

Given Superman has actually died (OK not quite, but as dead as anyone ever does in comics) and has countless times been physically overcome without use of his particular vulnerabilities I find this particular issue a bit weird.

Whats going to be hilarious is when Darkseid is finally put onto the big screen, he will be considered a Thanos rip-off.

When in actually Thanos was a rip-off of Kirby's Darkseid in comics. Oh the irony.

Its sad, Darkseid is one of the greatest comic book villains. New Gods, in general, is awesome.

#31 Edited by huser (1076 posts) -

@flindip said:

@huser: But that isn't the character. Superman is not supposed to be the smartest character in the DC universe. Superman is supposed to be a leader, one who inspires.

Batman is supposed to be the brains, "world's greatest detective" etc. Something that was painfully missing from the Nolan films.

Actually not quite. That dynamic is a relatively new thing derived from a Post Crisis retcon to make Superman more relatable combined with the double whammy of the popularity of the Dark Knight Returns on impressionable teenagers, who in the intervening decades are now the creative voices in comics. If you don't think that last thing has happened look at how long DC allowed Aquaman (one of their most famous characters and a founder of the JLA) to languish because of the zeitgeist of a crappy 1970's Saturday morning cartoon.

So suddenly Superman ain't that smart and Batman's importance in the DC Universe is upped to the point he can humiliate the Big Blue Boy Scout, because of course Supes hadn't faced for decades (both literally in real time and in the narrative of DKR) a supersmart human supremely motivated to defeat him with the resources of a small country and plenty of time on his hands. Obviously, Frank Miller is a Batman fan. I bring both of these intentions up because just the year prior to these two things, was Crisis on Infinite Earths where the day was saved by multiple Kryptonians several of them being alternate reality Supermen, whereas Batman and Robin were relegated to the sidelines to beam their courage at the superbeings.

To see a more measured take on the relative capabilities of the two and how they coexist read some Grant Morrison JLA. It's not perfect as Batman becomes Batgod to justify his role, but I being up Morrison because in contrast to Miller he actually takes to task the idea comics were "maturing" by including increasing violence and bloodshed in his famous run on that D-list character Animal Man (ie Batman doesn't need to prove himself by beating up Superman). As well as his run on All-Star Superman, giving us an AWESOME story that involves a supersmart Superman and putting the lie to the notion that Superman needs to have all his backstory wackiness and extreme abilities toned down to be interesting.

Superman for most of his history is absolutely one of the brightest minds in DC. My interdimensional teleconference example wasn't made up on the spot, the guy has built such a thing in his past along with a host of other wacky Reed Richards level insanity. Just to be clear, plenty of less smart folks have tricked Reed. One can be supersmart without being super devious. And that is where Batman can reside safely. I also fully believe Superman should roll into danger with Kryptonian tech and am a fan of his new armored suit thing. For a guy with such obvious vulnerabilities it annoys me he had previously done so little to address them when he has the accumulated knowledge of a space civilization in his bachelor pad. If that steps on the toes of a certain Batsuit/Utility belt wearing ally, then up everyone's game.

TL;DR Superman's been that smart for decades.

#32 Posted by gaminghooligan (1438 posts) -

@MarkWahlberg: Dude as soon as I saw that All-Star Superman was a Grant Morrison joint. Totally on my to-read list.

#33 Edited by flindip (533 posts) -

@huser: Got to disagree there huser. I've read plenty of silver age Superman stuff. They never usually portrayed him as one of the smartest. The Silver age Superman was defined by the fantastical-krypto the super dog, city of Kandor etc. But he was never a super genius. Unless his intelligence was servicing a plot point, which would change from writer to writer(as would his powers). Most of the time he was just clever, but not a character of extreme intellect. He was ALWAYS a boy scout.

The major difference between silver age Superman and 86' post crisis reboot of the character was relationship of Clark Kent vs Superman. In the Silver Age , Superman was the real identity and Kent was the mask. In the 86 reboot, Superman was the mask, and Kent was the real identity. In either case, the character didn't get smarter or stupider.

As far as Batman is concerned the whole idea of "Worlds Greatest Detective" was established WELL before Frank Millers take on the character. In fact, Batman's extreme intelligence was established in the 1960s. I can recall stories in the 50's that showed Batman was clearly smarter than Superman.

But what makes Superman well...Superman is not his intelligence, or his powers. The defining element of Superman is his humanity despite being a demigod.

#34 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@MarkWahlberg said:

@Seppli: Have you read All-Star Superman? Red Son is a blast, but the characterization of Supes in All-Star is by far the best version I've ever seen. Kingdom Come is ok but it's really more about where all those characters end up. All-Star is a phenomenal simply because it uses all the craziest shit in Superman mythology and makes it totally work.

I've seen the straight-to-video cartoon adaption, and liked it quite a lot. Will definitely get me the comic book at some point, now that you mention it.

#35 Edited by Snail (8595 posts) -

Argh! Why didn't you add a "view results" option? Hmpf.

#36 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

im pretty sick of origin stories, so yeah...

especially for characters who you KNOW the origin story and the origin story has been told a million times.

#37 Posted by huser (1076 posts) -

@flindip said:

@huser: Got to disagree there huser. I've read plenty of silver age Superman stuff. They never usually portrayed him as one of the smartest. The Silver age Superman was defined by the fantastical-krypto the super dog, city of Kandor etc. But he was never a super genius. Unless his intelligence was servicing a plot point, which would change from writer to writer(as would his powers). Most of the time he was just clever, but not a character of extreme intellect. He was ALWAYS a boy scout.

The major difference between silver age Superman and 86' post crisis reboot of the character was relationship of Clark Kent vs Superman. In the Silver Age , Superman was the real identity and Kent was the mask. In the 86 reboot, Superman was the mask, and Kent was the real identity. In either case, the character didn't get smarter or stupider.

As far as Batman is concerned the whole idea of "Worlds Greatest Detective" was established WELL before Frank Millers take on the character. In fact, Batman's extreme intelligence was established in the 1960s. I can recall stories in the 50's that showed Batman was clearly smarter than Superman.

But what makes Superman well...Superman is not his intelligence, or his powers. The defining element of Superman is his humanity despite being a demigod.

We'll have to agree to disagree then because I can definitely recall Superman surprising Batman with various gambits in the comic past (not limited to just the Silver Age) which was my point. They were relative mental equals with different specialties.

As Superboy, Clark was building androids indistinguishable from normal humans. It was taken as a given how irretrievable Kandor was if a dedicated Superman couldn't crack that nut. Given several of his expys (Mr. Majestic, Supreme, Sentry) have super intelligence as a key part of their personas, or heck Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman I'll go with those to highlight supersmarts being a legit if somewhat inconsistent superpower of Superman that existed and then disappeared/became marginalized for a while until returning relatively recently (the current Supes has supersmarts explained as eidetic memory and superspeed thinking, interestingly enough matching his brute force powers compared to Bruce's more skill/finesse abilities).

In regards to "World's Greatest Detective", well Reed is probably the smartest person on his planet, possibly in his universe with the caveat some folks start at a higher average tech level. But he probably isn't the greatest detective. I'd also probably think say Sherlock (even Cumberbatch) isn't going to be teleconferencing alternate reality versions of himself any time soon. Smarts is useful to a detective obviously, but there are different kinds of smarts and specialties. This was in fact highlighted where Superman could recreate a medical scan on command after an instant of viewing whereas Batman could upon seeing it quickly analyze what the problem/source was. Different strengths, both geniuses. I make the division of Miller's DKR because "frankly" (pun not intended) that's where the tone changed from a relative parity to onesided affairs. Which itself wouldn't be a problem (Batman is devious after all) if Batman's various gambits were actually invented by devious geniuses rather than writers on a deadline.

I'd say being suddenly very much alone would be the major difference between Silver Age Superman and 86 Post Crisis, but yours is a fine interpretation. His killing of the Phantom Zone Kryptonians is that much more tragic for example.

#38 Posted by huser (1076 posts) -

@flindip said:

@huser said:

@crusader8463 said:

No interest in Superman as a character. They built him up in such a way that he's impossible to beat outside of a few means that always feel contrived or forced. Just call some other super hero to take on those bad guys and let Superman beat up everyone else since they pose zero threat to him and he actively needs to hold back just so he doesn't punch them into pink mist.

The character even goes so far as to ruin other characters in the DC universe for me. He makes any threat in that universe a joke because no matter how scary or all powerful a threat is to any other character, at the end of the day if the big bad is really going to takeover/destroy the world at some point he will need to go up against Superman as well as whomever he's fighting. And for the above reasons it makes the whole thing lose any impact.

Except that Darkseid as originally conceived would reduce Superman to dust that no one would even remember. This back in the day when Kryptonians were so stupidly powerful they couldn't even hurt each other.

Given Superman has actually died (OK not quite, but as dead as anyone ever does in comics) and has countless times been physically overcome without use of his particular vulnerabilities I find this particular issue a bit weird.

Whats going to be hilarious is when Darkseid is finally put onto the big screen, he will be considered a Thanos rip-off.

When in actually Thanos was a rip-off of Kirby's Darkseid in comics. Oh the irony.

Its sad, Darkseid is one of the greatest comic book villains. New Gods, in general, is awesome.

Well that's what WB gets for being so gunshy. A particularly odd thing that DC, owned for decades by a multimedia giant has such difficulty. I've said it elsewhere but I really think it was the fact WB is a monolithic multimedia empire and the easy success of their Big Two that made them so glacially slow in doing anything to develop the DC live action universe. Why spend time and money trying to establish any other character when you have two billion-dollar cash cows, and especially when anything you do has the chance of upsetting the apple cart? Still they had Superman on TV for a decade that ultimately went nowhere. They routinely embargoed characters in other works if they were developing a movie or TV show, cause of course that market confusion would just be too much.

And now as you rightly predict, the Apokaliptan god that Satan worships will come off as a cheap knockoff. Embarrassing really.