You’re kidding right?
What you’re presenting is ALL cliche.
It’s just not the cliches of the Batman. It’s the cliches of the Punisher, Mac Bolan, and 90% of the action heroes of the 80s.
I was gonna mention that I liked Batman Beyond as well but the thread is now to deep for me.
There were recommendations for Batman in the DC Animated Universe, and I can’t recommend that stuff highly enough. I think it’s an amazing, and somewhat more fantastical and more old-school, interpretation, and considering that we get hundreds of episodes across TAS, Batman Beyond, and JL/U, we really get a full depth of character. In fact, I think Mask of the Phantasm is probably the best version of the Batman origin I’ve seen.
As far as the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy goes, I quite enjoyed it, even if the last film wasn’t at the level of the first two. There’s plenty that could be said about what could have improved the film; personally, I think some of the jail scenes should have been cut, add another Batman sequence, and make the ending more ambiguous about whether or not he was alive are some of the things I would change. Ultimately, I think they just tried to do too much. How do you top a film with Batman’s iconic villain terrorizing the whole city? In super hero movies, they pretty much always feel like they have to outdo the previous film, and it just got out of hand. Look at other recent third super hero movies, Spider-Man 3, Iron Man 3, X-Men 3. I think it was an interesting interpretation that I quite enjoyed, but isn’t the definitive version, and if you don’t love it, you still have the comics, the DCAU, the Burton/Schumacher films, Adam West, etc…
And SirGalahad, it really seems to me that your complaints with Batman are that he’s Batman. Superman needs to have the S on his chest, Batman needs the pointy ears, Thor needs his hammer, Hulk needs to be green. There’s certainly parts of a character that are up for interpretation, that’s what spawned this thread with Nolan’s interpretation, but at a certain point, if you change too much, they stop being that character. For instance, take Halle Berry’s Catwoman. She had some magical cat powers, wasn’t a cat burglar, she wasn’t even Selena Kyle; you can call her Catwoman all you want, but she’s just too different from the source for most people in the audience to see that. You might think you can have Batman without ears, using guns, etc. and have an interesting character, and you may or may not be right, but I, and the others in this thread arguing with you, believe that the general audience will immediately reject that character as being Batman.
For instance, one of the short lived rumors for the casting of Batman in the new Batman vs. Superman film was that JGL, as Robin John Blake, would pick up the cowl. At a superficial level, it would be neat from a continuity standpoint, but ultimately, to general audience, Batman IS Bruce Wayne, just as Superman IS Clark Kent and Spider-Man is Peter Parker, and it wouldn’t have worked. I think the movie going audience, myself included, would say, I want to see the REAL Batman fighting Superman, not this guy. You just cannot change iconic aspects of an iconic character.
So, sure, if you see those aspects of Batman as flaws, that’s fine. Maybe you just don’t like Batman and you’d be better off with Zorro, the Phantom, the Shadow, the Punisher, or any number of other characters in that dark vigilante hero niche.
“You’re kidding right?”
No. No I’m not.
I like my cliches more.
Don’t forget Doc Savage, more Batman than Batman himself.
(Also, instead of killing the bad guys, he LOBOTOMIZES them. Cool)
Marx is an interesting historian and economist. He based his economic and political philosophies on the conditions in much of Europe during the mid 19th century. I don’t think his particular brand of wisdom is baseless. Granted, there are other competing economic templates. Different strokes.
Because I had no idea what you meant by “the Superman we need now”. Given the “we” in that sentence, I didn’t think you were talking about whether you as a lone individual found it entertaining; you were implying – something – about what people in the plural need. I still don’t know what.
You said that “Superman needs to be toned down, too. There was an image circulating the web of a Superman wearing engineer boots, jeans, a t-shirt and a bandana around his neck, struggling to lift some huge truck … that’s the Superman we need now” And yet you’re cool with the Avengers, where – a guy in a big red cape doesn’t wear jeans and a t-shirt, but instead “looks like a superior alien with Nordic fashion tastes”. Is he, in your opinion, the Thor we need now?
(You then add that “The cape is a personal peeve, I think capes are mostly ridiculous unless you’re cover identity is a magician or a vampire.” And so – I still don’t see why Thor gets a pass from you but Superman doesn’t.)
You flatly stated that “Batman needs to lose the silly mask and wear combat boots. He’s remained a walking Halloween joke”; as to the Avengers, you said that “my only criticism would be Capt America, who really could have used some more of a push toward WW2 style and maybe away from the ‘wearing a flag’ outfit.” Why does Cap get a grudging ‘maybe’ from you, while Batman ‘needs’ to drop the pointy-eared cowl and become a bandanna-sporting gunman?
We, as in the royal we … “We are not amused.” Also, anyone else who thought DKR was a lethargic mess.
I think capes were not uncommon fashions among Viking types. If the interdimensional aliens from Asgard generally wear capes, I suppose they influenced the Earth tribes they encountered in the past. Moreover, even if Kryptonians were likewise cape inclined, Clark Kent was raised in Kansas, not Krypton … I don’t see capes ingrained into his consciousness like they would be for Thor, since Thor was raised by a cape sporting culture.
Did I say “maybe” about Capt America?
The best costumes in Avengers, besides Iron Man, were Hawkeye’s and Black Widow’s.
This always happens with comic book and comic movie threads. This is not the first one I’ve opened, and usually by the third page or so I’m completely lost in the minutiae. That doesn’t mean I don’t like them.
Uh, yeah. (Is this a whoosh?) CTRL-F it, you should be able to see where you used the word, and where I quoted you using it, and where you copy-and-pasted me quoting you using it.
And I’m still unclear on the other point you copy-and-pasted me asking: you said a Superman in jeans and a t-shirt is “the Superman we need now”. I still have no idea what that means, and so repeat my question: in your opinion, is Thor, as seen in the movies, The Thor We Need Now (whatever that means)?
“I would have approached Capt. America as having worn the Stars and Stripes only for the war-bond pep rallies, and reverting to purely utilitarian costume, with perhaps a nod to the original character being: a wrestler style mask, trimmed away from his jaw, maybe a good luck charm given to him by a good friend who was a sparing partner and ex-wrestler.”
Is this the “maybe” you keep harping on? If not, save us some time and copy the quote … or quit asking the same question over and over. If you copy and paste the quote, I’ll answer you … it’s your question, you do the legwork.
The image, to which I referred, of Superman, had him in blue jeans, a blue t-shirt, work boots, and a red bandana. He was built like a bodybuilder … he looked like Superman … just not like Superman wearing tights with his underwear on the outside. My opinion is that Art needs to tell a more realistic story about an alien growing up in Kansas and becoming a guardian to the inhabitants of his adoptive planet. Art is for everyone … “we” refers to everyone who enjoys Art.
I’ll re-phrase … the time has come for the artists to give us a grown-up image of Superman, without the 30s circus strong-man cape baggage.
Thor gets to keep his cape.
The image you keep referring to is the cover of Action Comics #1 and is meant to depict the life of Superman before he becomes Superman.
I’d paraphrase your argument as saying that even though there were and are thousands of heroes in ordinary garb across every possible visual and printed media, we should take Superman out of his iconic extraordinary comicbook image. This would accomplish … something.
I think everybody is floundering at what the “something” is. I can’t figure it out either. I agree with the others that trying to make comicbook heroes less comicbooky is the worst possible thing to do. It robs them of everything. Why bother? And why advocate it, if you can’t articulate the “something” better than you have?
Well, I only “keep harping on it” because you (a) didn’t reply the first time, sure as you (b) asked whether you’d actually said it. And, since for some reason you even now refuse to answer the question when it’s quoted rather than copy-and-pasted, I’ll obligingly copy-and-paste what I’d quoted you as saying:
[QUOTE=SirGalahad]
my only criticism would be Capt America, who really could have used some more of a push toward WW2 style and maybe away from the “wearing a flag” outfit.
[/QUOTE]
So . . . why does Cap get a grudging ‘maybe’ from you, while Batman ‘needs’ to drop the pointy-eared cowl and become a bandanna-sporting gunman?
I think you’re glossing over a bit too much, here: as Clark Kent, who grew up in Kansas, he of course dresses like a regular guy holding down a job – but when in costume as Superman, he’s all “It’s not an ‘S’; on my world, it means ‘hope’.” As per the movie, that’s how he talks because that’s how he thinks: sure, he was raised by a non-cape-sporting culture – but then he gets brought up to speed by cape-sporting-culture Russell Crowe. “You were the embodiment of that belief, Kal … you are as much a child of Earth now as you are of Krypton. You can embody the best of both worlds. The dream your mother and I dedicated our lives to preserve.”
As per the movie, he asks Jor-El why he was sent here – and is presented with the costume, being told he’s “meant to be the bridge between two worlds.” Again, one is ours: the non-cape-sporting world; the other, the world of caped dudes with Kryptonian symbols on their chests, is the one he calls “my world”.
I know the image was used to tell a particular story … the story in that particular graphic novel is besides the point … I’m simply referring to the actual content in the image. I’d lose the “S” on the t-shirt, or at least play down the bright colors.
He was already Superman … the image was before he became “silly costume wearing Superman.” I’m not sure what part of your post should convince me that I’m all wrong, since one certain writer/ artist envisioned a sequence of events that has no bearing on my particular vision.
Thanks for finding the image, it’s a great drawing.
It’s not an “S”; on my world, it means “hope”.
“my only criticism would be Capt America, who really could have used some more of a push toward WW2 style and maybe away from the “wearing a flag” outfit.”
I’ll re-phrase that: “my only criticism would be Capt America, who should have used some more WW2 style and steered away from the “wearing a flag” outfit.”
The writers can supply whatever reasons they want for Kent to embrace Kryptonian style. I’d like to see a movie (or graphic novel) where Clarke is a little more independent. Maybe Justin Baily, with his super-google powers can find the images on the web where an artist re-imagined the characters from the Batman universe in “50s greaser Rock-a-Billy” style. Now that’s interesting.
On Thor, I could see him buddying up to bikers, and adopting some of their iconic accouterments, like wearing leathers or riding up on a bike if flying isn’t absolutely necessary.
Because your vision is wrong. Superman is not Superman until he puts on the tights and the cape. Before that he’s Clark Kent, the adopted son of John and Martha Kent. Superman is the secret identity. Clark Kent is the man.
This is unlike Batman, where the current consensus is that Bruce Wayne is the secret identity and Batman is the man.
I assume you’re referring to this:
On my world it means “Happy Face”, but if I’m the most powerful being on the planet, I’m not wearing it on my t-shirt. Hancock could have been a good movie if it hadn’t been bogged down with the “we can’t be together or we lose our powers” nonsense, and if the nerdy friend hadn’t pushed Hancock into wearing the skintight bondage outfit. Or was it a rice-burner suit? Is this going anywhere?
I disagree with your artistic sensibilities. Repeating questions that challenge my tastes gets tedious, because it’s the same thing over and over again. I’m suggesting the image of Superman and Batman as wearing circus costumes is dated. As far as I’m concerned, those images are history, they’ve expired. They need to be updated, and not in a slightly “more rubbery” way, but in a gritty, realistic fashion. We don’t have to agree.
You’re good. Thanks.
Ooh, Catwoman as Betty Page …