I mean...seriously...he didn't have to do that, or even kill him...
...right?
I'm gonna step out of this debate for a moment (I agree with you, btw) and say this one thing...
That scene... the scene we all keep arguing about... whether he's killing him or throwing him into some magical prison... I don't care.
That scene is truly one of the most awesome frickin' moments in motion picture history.
I loved Man of Steel and I totally disagree with the folks who say he's dark in this movie. He's not dark at all. He maintains his goodness in the face of darkness.
But man.... I LOVE that scene in Superman II. The music was perfect. The direction was perfect. The scene was perfect.
I really don't understand why people are treating this as an either/or thing. I grew up with Christopher Reeve. I saw every one of them in the theaters. As a kid, he was Superman.
But as a 40 year old geezer, I really enjoyed this new movie and felt this movie was just what the character needed.
Superman really is the same in both movies. It's the world around him that's different.
OK, well, my Darling wife and I , went and saw it yesterday , and so here is my review of it:
First off, they RUINED Superman. Completely Destroyed the great kind "world's biggest boy-scout"--(as he was known in the good comics of the 90s and 80s as), they Utterly destroyed every particle of his Good image, and turned it into Shreds of dirt.
Let's start at the beginning of the movie and work through out it to the end.
(And I know there will be , no doubt many whom disagree with me, those whom adore the tough cruel darkside "hero's" that today's ugly money-making world has set up all over for people to like). I miss the good ol days, when a good guy was a good guy, and a bad guy was a bad guy. Anyways onwards with the review:
The Beginning: like always, EVERYONE is wearing Black. (Just like in ALL movies of today, no one wears anything with colour anymore...talk about dull or what, guess it ain't 'cool' to) Anyhow, Jor-el, supermans father, is talking with the Council, and then the evil General Zod, smashes in with his goons. And of course they also wear black...(if everyone wears black....who the heck is the bad guy? can't there be some sort of change?)
The world of Krypton looks very different than the original Superman movie (and story of the comics). This one isn't cold looking, it's more like my wife said , the "Avatar movie", not that there's jungle everywhere, yet it's just got that same feel to it , the land looks primitive and Superman's father, Jor-el, flys on a weird Avatar like creature...
Alrighty, (so as not to make this post too long, I won't go into as much detail as I'd prefer to), yet General Zod ends up fighting Jor-el in the chamber area that Baby Superman is in , as the little ship takes off...
Zod kills Jor-el (Superman's father)!!!!!!????!!!!???!!!!! (that never happened in the old story)
, then gets captured by the authorities and sent off to the Phantom zone (later it's revealed that his group were freed from the explosion of Krypton).
So anyways, there's the poor mother of Superman, standing alone on the world of Krypton, as she watches the world get destroyed due to itse Core failing. MUCH unlike the original movie/story.
There's No beginning credits (as always with this pathetic "director" whom seems to get pleasure not only in ruining the Batman characters in his other movies, but now has ruined Superman, the man who's suppose to stand for "Truth, Justice, and the American way").
Meanwhile this new "Superman" is more for "hiding, lieing, and the murdering way"...
So anyhow, there's no great beginning music or anything... which is what really makes a movie get you interested in it at first , or at least it does for me anyhow. The old Superman movie, the music got you excited right away, you almost expected Superman to fly out towards you as the credits rolled.
With that music, you knew Superman was around, and that he stood for Good.
Right, so I won't say everything that happens in the movie , yet basically, his earth father, dies MUCH differently than the one of the original story. A Tornado (twister), comes along while they are all sitting in traffic, ......OH and meanwhile just before then, Superman says to him , something the REAL one would NEVER say to his earth father, which is , in a real kid-like bratty attitude (even though he's about 18 here), something like "your not my father, and your nothing but some idiot who found me, go and die!"
Well then he gets his wish,....what the?????
So a "twister" comes out and everyone runs from the cars, then the father decides to go back for the dog.... and as the twister is about to eat up the father, he puts his hand up to tell Clark (superman) not to save him....... so as not to reveal himself....
Meanwhile, in the original story, he died of a normal thing that old people die of...
Which made ALOT more sense...
Oh, Clark also finds out about where he's from , when he comes across a buried ship.... and Lois Lane just so happens to follow him there ... so that she finds out about him as he does......
So from the start, Lois Lane researches him and finds out who he is by going to the Kent farm eventually. And so she knows his identity from the beginning !?!?!?!!...... YEAH.. I know!!! Someone "give me a WHAT WHAT" ?!?!?
The outfit that "Superman" wears, is NOTHING like the REAL Superman. It looks more like a Dark swimsuit that Aquaman would wear if he changed his colours to DarkBlue. This
thing is so close to Black, that they should have just made it Black..completely.
What is the fear about wearing Colours in movies today?!?!?????????? WHAT IS IT???????
DOES everybody have such a big ego and fear of what others think that they don't want to wear anything that is not "neutral"?
Basically though, the badguys, general zod, and his dork squad, arrive and invade earth, and demands "Superman" give himself to them.
There's a big battle of course, and nearly the entire earth seems destroyed....
In the end of it, "Superman" does something to save some people. Let me set this up as to how it was in the movie first....
"Superman has Zod in, like a neck, choke hold. "Superman" behind him, and zod, kneeling in front of him, his head locked in Supes arms.
Zod is shooting out Heat vision and slowly coming towards the people stuck there...
NOW, THIS is where , in the comics that I use to read at least, the REAL Superman would , Fly Both him and his enemy into the sky, far high into the sky,to get the enemy away from the people, so saving them and NOT killing his enemy, for Superman did NOT believe in killing AT ALL.
Yeppers, you can guess where this is heading...
Well folks, in THIS movie, "Superman" decides to Snap Zods neck, killing him !!!!!
(ahem....darts- eyes up then down......)
oh, also, it was right in front of some children and their parents as well.... (when he could have done instead what I said, quit easily, just fly up into the sky with zod, but of COURSE Murder was more THIS "Superman"'s dark 'cool' style).
God forbid if the director made a Good guy for the "Hero" of the story.
Then in the end, he finally comes in as glasses wearing Clark Kent to the Daily planet, that's the ONLY time you see Clark Kent, which is sad, cause I always felt that Clark Kent was JUST as important a character as Superman himself.
(NO BODY played a more accurate and Better Clark Kent And Superman than the dear ol; Christopher Reeve, God Bless and Rest his soul).
So Yeppers, there ya have it folks, in a "nutshell" ..(which is where the director and writer of this movie should be in), is the new "Superman" movie.
They made Superman into a murdering bratty attitude dorky killer, who enjoys wearing a dark aquaman like outfit.
This is NOT Superman, instead I see him as "Azbats", or "Jean-Paul-Valley" the person who took over as Batman when Bruce Wayne had his back broken, back in the Knights trilogy comic book series.
The unfortunate thing is, the Real Superman is not coming back to the films, he's been lost from us for many years now, and his dear soul is resting now.
Christopher Reeve is and was the Real Superman, and Always will be, the only movie that showed respect to that and did a great job with trying to replay it, was the movie "Superman Returns".
God Bless you all .
Might want to go back and watch the old superman. He kills every super-villian he faces. Even his evil-self. Even Lois kills zod's lieutenant(probably because Superman couldn't hit a lady) . Sure they cover it up with falling into the smokey abyss of the Fortress of Solitude. But lets face it. He got the win by telling a lie and tricking Luther to help him.
Hell, even the end of the first Reeves Superman he disobey's Jor-el and turns back time after lois dies.
Superman was never good old boy like 'Propaganda Superman' from the 40-50's. Let's face it. "The American' way part was added for the soldier's in WWII. Let's not forget that deplorable exploitation of our super heroes before we rip on them today.:mad:
I got to say that it is too bad they took the heart attack away from his dad. The "I was powerless to stop it" was always a good humbling thing for Superman.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Help rebuild the Romulan Star Empire to glory. Click the banner to join today.
Ya, these 'new' superhero's do alot more killing and have cooler toys than the old versions but that gross profit quote dont make the characters more respectable than the older ones who flaunted their morals and integrity.
<Salutes LordMalak1> Precisely. The world has become a more dangerous race of "humans", and this is due to what's 'cool' to today's young, which has been fed through today's radios and tvs and bad parenting.
It is a sad day when you can't make another understand, how the 'old days' respectful 'ways', are to be held, and they just can't figure out why...
God Bless ya LordMalak1 and God Bless the Forgotten Generation of this particular planet.
Sorry, but the cheesy, Adam West super-camp heroes are better left to the 60's. IMO, you missed the point of the Nolan Batman trilogy and are trying to place the blame on him for changes to the character that began long before Nolan ever thought of directing a Batman film.
...sad sad sad.... if 'cheesy' means following the rules and respecting life, and honoring the fundamental things that makes a Good person good, then count me in for 'cheesy', cause I'd much rather see the 60's Adam West Batman, rather than today's murdering characters.
So sad, when today's world are blind...Good luck, 'humans' of Earth, I highly doubt your species will survive more than 144 years more on this beautiful planet.
Funny, just saw the final installment Saturday night, and had a short but heated discussion with the wife about how Anne Hathaways character was NOT Batgirl. No, not anyone can be Batman, and this point Bruce Wayne can't afford to be Batman anymore, he's bankrupt and physically unable.
Thank you for the remake, Joker and two-face are dead, Bruce is broke, Selina hasn't embraced her character yet, and Robin is just a disillusioned former cop.
Yawn.
LordMalak1, I have gained quite a good deal of Respect for You. All you have said, echo's what I feel .
You are correct. Not "anyone" can be Batman, yet only those whom ever Knew the Real Batman (us 'old timer' comic collectors of the days when the comics WERE good.), anyhow, only WE know Whom and What Batman was and what He stood for.
Worlds Greatest Detective- He didn't use his fists to get the answers (unlike todays films) In the comic of "Batman #440" on page 10 ,as he speaks to Bruce Wayne, Alfred says to him "I distinctly remember when you first instructed Master **** in combat, you said, 'we're NOT Brutalizers, we've got to Think with our Heads, not with our fists'. "
Batman did use physical violence, YET ONLY as a LAST result. If he could scare his enemies first, just by , for example , showing a shadow, he would! Not plow into him till near death...
There is a MUCH larger difference. Only ONE person can be Batman, and I think the One person who came close , was Dear Adam West.
I disagree, but there's no sense going on about it.
I will say this though...
I have always felt that in Superman II since the battle took place in the Fortress of Solitude, what Superman did was just drop Zod and Friends into a special holding area...
Not kill them.
We never saw a dead body and in fact, when the Directors cut came out, it shows them being taken away by the authorities.
So it was never the intent of the makers of that movie to show Superman as a vengeful being.
Batman has always represented the vengeful hero, not Superman.
And just for the record, as far as I'm concerned, the ONLY time I felt a story actually justified Superman killing his opponent, was against DOOMSDAY...
And we all know how that turned out.
PRECISELY! EXACTLY!!! I couldn't Agree More! with You Daveyny!!!
In the first issue of Detective Comics (Batman's debut to the world), a criminal came at him with a gun so Batman took the gun from the guy and shot him with it.
To say, "Not the real..." person isn't really accurate for any super hero.
There is no "real" Batman or "real" Superman. There's only the character as it was defined for you.
Both characters have changed many times over the decades. Batman used to kill without hesitation, then he didn't kill. In the 40's Batman not only killed, he regularly used racial slurs.
Superman has killed plenty over the years. In some comics, he killed without hesitation. In others, he refused to kill, and in others, he killed and regretted it.
The violence of these characters have been up and down since they were created. Our Superman (in the 80s) didn't kill. Our parents' Superman didn't have a big problem with it as long as the villain was a bad guy. And our grandparents generation saw Superman do some pretty awful things to people.
To say, "They don't understand the real Superman" is very judgmental of the younger generation. I grew up in the 70's and 80s. Christopher Reeve was "my" Superman. But Superman was around for 4 decades before Reeve.
So let's be honest here... when we say "The real Superman", we mean, "Superman as I have determined he should be."
Because he often was not that, both before and after we discovered him.
And let me add that I think all this bashing of the younger generation is unwarranted. I'm 40 years old and I can tell you, this newest young generation has stood for peace and respect far more than my generation ever did. My glorious generation was too busy living it up in an age of self-absorption and wealth accumulation.
Adam West isnt the "real" batman. The TV show was completely different in tone from the comic books it was based on. That may be the version of batman you like but it is basically a bastardization of the character and setting.
I read your post before you changed it, and you said something to the effect that Superman did the right thing by killing. I cannot accept that Superman can justify killing anyone as 'right', it goes against everything that he has traditionally stood for- Truth, Justice, and the American way. NO possible way Superman would intentionally kill someone without giving them their legal due process, the American way.
At least that's how I remember Superman, he wasn't a vigilante.
Sad, isn't it, how money has become the Golden Idol of many of today's 'humans'.
Thanks for the kind words. As I posted earlier I wasn't a huge superman follower but if the last 3 Batman films are any indication where Superman is heading I think I'll pass on the films. Batman was a darker character but nowhere near as dark as what the last 3 Batman films turned him into.
I'm laughing because the Zod scene the comic is trying to replace took place 8 years earlier in Reeves film, Superman 2.
It's not replacing that story. It's a completely separate story. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if you realize these characters are based on comic book characters. None of your replies really seem to reference the characters' actual origins: Comics.
I don't mean that in a snarky way, by the way. It just seems like you might not be familiar with the actual origins of these characters. Christopher Reeve is not the "original" Superman. Superman was around for almost half a century before Reeve put on the suit.
I read your post before you changed it, and you said something to the effect that Superman did the right thing by killing. I cannot accept that Superman can justify killing anyone as 'right', it goes against everything that he has traditionally stood for- Truth, Justice, and the American way. NO possible way Superman would intentionally kill someone without giving them their legal due process, the American way.
At least that's how I remember Superman, he wasn't a vigilante.
So you think Superman should have let those three people die?
Thanks for the kind words. As I posted earlier I wasn't a huge superman follower but if the last 3 Batman films are any indication where Superman is heading I think I'll pass on the films. Batman was a darker character but nowhere near as dark as what the last 3 Batman films turned him into.
Again, I wonder if you realize these characters originated from the comics. Nolan's movies are largely based on three comic books: Batman: Year One, The Killing Joke, and The Dark Knight Returns. The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns (which are both decades older than the Nolan films) are much, much darker than Nolan's movies.
My problem with the movie was that it was dark (all browns and greys), loud, and had non-stop action in a way that was actually detrimental to the story they were trying to tell. ("Wait, ANOTHER fight?!? What time is it, anyway, and how long IS this movie?")
There was no charm or lightness to the movie at all.
I liked the actor who played Superman, and also appreciated that he portayed Clark as a good guy, but all the colors and joy that inhabit all the Marvel movies (Iron Man, Thor, Avengers) just weren't here in a DC movie. It seemed like another of those depressing Batman movies. The music in this movie was also terrible; it fit in with Batman, but for Superman it felt intrusive.
Overall, I thought Man of Steel wasn't quite as dark as the most recent Batman movies, but will probably be about as dark as the new Wolverine movie. Superman and Wolverine--not exactly two peas in a pod.
It's not replacing that story. It's a completely separate story. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if you realize these characters are based on comic book characters. None of your replies really seem to reference the characters' actual origins: Comics.
I don't mean that in a snarky way, by the way. It just seems like you might not be familiar with the actual origins of these characters. Christopher Reeve is not the "original" Superman. Superman was around for almost half a century before Reeve put on the suit.
So you think Superman should have let those three people die?
Yes, I used to watch the B/W reruns on Saturday morning, along with the Lone Ranger and the Cisco kid, your point ?
Again, I wonder if you realize these characters originated from the comics. Nolan's movies are largely based on three comic books: Batman: Year One, The Killing Joke, and The Dark Knight Returns. The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns (which are both decades older than the Nolan films) are much, much darker than Nolan's movies.
batman: year one- 1987, The Killing Joke- 1988, The Dark Knight Returns- 1986. Did YOU ever read some of the original comics from the 40's to late 70's, before these mid 80's rewrites of the character ? I did.
Ya, rewrites happen everytime the political climate changes, but Batman killing TRIBBLE while we're at war with them is a little different than him offing some mentally insane hood because it's easier than dragging him to jail.
Yes, I used to watch the B/W reruns on Saturday morning, along with the Lone Ranger and the Cisco kid, your point ?
My point is, if you watched the black and white Superman (I'm assuming George Reeves) and if you read the comics, your view of Superman is confusing to me. George Reeves played him completely seriously, with no humor at all (especially at first). And Superman has killed in the comics several times, and the further you go back, the more violent he gets.
batman: year one- 1987, The Killing Joke- 1988, The Dark Knight Returns- 1986. Did YOU ever read some of the original comics from the 40's to late 70's, before these mid 80's rewrites of the character ? I did.
I have. And in those earlier comics, he's even more violent. In the 40's (is that early enough for you?), he actually took guns from criminals, then shot them with their own guns. How, exactly, is Nolan too dark compared to that?
I'm not saying you shouldn't dislike the new movie. If you don't like it, that's totally cool. People have different tastes.
I'm just saying the assertion that Superman never kills is factually wrong. He of course avoids killing when he can, but he has always killed when left with no choice. And the assertion that Nolan's Batman is "too dark" is also factually wrong. Batman was far darker in the 40's, 50's, 80s, and 90s than how Nolan portrayed him.
You do know Batman used to kill bad guys quite regularly when he first came out, right?
I don't remember how often he did but I don't remember him enjoying it as much as the silver age authors infer. Did you know that in Batman and Robin, George Clooney purposely played Batman as TRIBBLE? That's the kind of sacrilege to my hero's I can hardly wait to put out of my memory, so I might also have put some of the more violent early exploits from the comics out of my young mind as well, or more likely they were removed by the publishers before printing.
Comments
Elaborate please.
I'm gonna step out of this debate for a moment (I agree with you, btw) and say this one thing...
That scene... the scene we all keep arguing about... whether he's killing him or throwing him into some magical prison... I don't care.
That scene is truly one of the most awesome frickin' moments in motion picture history.
I loved Man of Steel and I totally disagree with the folks who say he's dark in this movie. He's not dark at all. He maintains his goodness in the face of darkness.
But man.... I LOVE that scene in Superman II. The music was perfect. The direction was perfect. The scene was perfect.
I really don't understand why people are treating this as an either/or thing. I grew up with Christopher Reeve. I saw every one of them in the theaters. As a kid, he was Superman.
But as a 40 year old geezer, I really enjoyed this new movie and felt this movie was just what the character needed.
Superman really is the same in both movies. It's the world around him that's different.
You do realize the last Christopher Reeve movie was 1987, right?
I'm not sure I understand the LOL there.
Might want to go back and watch the old superman. He kills every super-villian he faces. Even his evil-self. Even Lois kills zod's lieutenant(probably because Superman couldn't hit a lady) . Sure they cover it up with falling into the smokey abyss of the Fortress of Solitude. But lets face it. He got the win by telling a lie and tricking Luther to help him.
Hell, even the end of the first Reeves Superman he disobey's Jor-el and turns back time after lois dies.
Superman was never good old boy like 'Propaganda Superman' from the 40-50's. Let's face it. "The American' way part was added for the soldier's in WWII. Let's not forget that deplorable exploitation of our super heroes before we rip on them today.:mad:
I got to say that it is too bad they took the heart attack away from his dad. The "I was powerless to stop it" was always a good humbling thing for Superman.
Help rebuild the Romulan Star Empire to glory. Click the banner to join today.
Amen to THAT, brothers and sisters!
<Salutes LordMalak1> Precisely. The world has become a more dangerous race of "humans", and this is due to what's 'cool' to today's young, which has been fed through today's radios and tvs and bad parenting.
It is a sad day when you can't make another understand, how the 'old days' respectful 'ways', are to be held, and they just can't figure out why...
God Bless ya LordMalak1 and God Bless the Forgotten Generation of this particular planet.
...sad sad sad.... if 'cheesy' means following the rules and respecting life, and honoring the fundamental things that makes a Good person good, then count me in for 'cheesy', cause I'd much rather see the 60's Adam West Batman, rather than today's murdering characters.
So sad, when today's world are blind...Good luck, 'humans' of Earth, I highly doubt your species will survive more than 144 years more on this beautiful planet.
once again, I salute you LordMalak1.
Sad, isn't it, how money has become the Golden Idol of many of today's 'humans'.
LordMalak1, I have gained quite a good deal of Respect for You. All you have said, echo's what I feel .
You are correct. Not "anyone" can be Batman, yet only those whom ever Knew the Real Batman (us 'old timer' comic collectors of the days when the comics WERE good.), anyhow, only WE know Whom and What Batman was and what He stood for.
Worlds Greatest Detective- He didn't use his fists to get the answers (unlike todays films) In the comic of "Batman #440" on page 10 ,as he speaks to Bruce Wayne, Alfred says to him "I distinctly remember when you first instructed Master **** in combat, you said, 'we're NOT Brutalizers, we've got to Think with our Heads, not with our fists'. "
Batman did use physical violence, YET ONLY as a LAST result. If he could scare his enemies first, just by , for example , showing a shadow, he would! Not plow into him till near death...
There is a MUCH larger difference. Only ONE person can be Batman, and I think the One person who came close , was Dear Adam West.
Too True... Joker is one of the craziest, why not at least show him watching things on tv, for a minute and laughing at least?
Not the Real Batman.
PRECISELY! EXACTLY!!! I couldn't Agree More! with You Daveyny!!!
On Everything!!!
Yet Another Respectful soul.
God Bless you.
Yeppers, and sadly, they have been conditioned not to like the Real Superman or any of the Real Heroes of old.
Anyhows, God Bless you all, whom see with Eyes that are Clear.
"Blessed are the pure at heart, for they shall see God"---the Bible.
In the first issue of Detective Comics (Batman's debut to the world), a criminal came at him with a gun so Batman took the gun from the guy and shot him with it.
To say, "Not the real..." person isn't really accurate for any super hero.
There is no "real" Batman or "real" Superman. There's only the character as it was defined for you.
Both characters have changed many times over the decades. Batman used to kill without hesitation, then he didn't kill. In the 40's Batman not only killed, he regularly used racial slurs.
Superman has killed plenty over the years. In some comics, he killed without hesitation. In others, he refused to kill, and in others, he killed and regretted it.
The violence of these characters have been up and down since they were created. Our Superman (in the 80s) didn't kill. Our parents' Superman didn't have a big problem with it as long as the villain was a bad guy. And our grandparents generation saw Superman do some pretty awful things to people.
To say, "They don't understand the real Superman" is very judgmental of the younger generation. I grew up in the 70's and 80s. Christopher Reeve was "my" Superman. But Superman was around for 4 decades before Reeve.
So let's be honest here... when we say "The real Superman", we mean, "Superman as I have determined he should be."
Because he often was not that, both before and after we discovered him.
I'm laughing because the Zod scene the comic is trying to replace took place 8 years earlier in Reeves film, Superman 2.
I think I DO know him, before he was changed to appeal to the newer generation. I'm NOT trying to look down on them but I'm seeing myself change.
I read your post before you changed it, and you said something to the effect that Superman did the right thing by killing. I cannot accept that Superman can justify killing anyone as 'right', it goes against everything that he has traditionally stood for- Truth, Justice, and the American way. NO possible way Superman would intentionally kill someone without giving them their legal due process, the American way.
At least that's how I remember Superman, he wasn't a vigilante.
Thanks for the kind words. As I posted earlier I wasn't a huge superman follower but if the last 3 Batman films are any indication where Superman is heading I think I'll pass on the films. Batman was a darker character but nowhere near as dark as what the last 3 Batman films turned him into.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
It's not replacing that story. It's a completely separate story. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if you realize these characters are based on comic book characters. None of your replies really seem to reference the characters' actual origins: Comics.
I don't mean that in a snarky way, by the way. It just seems like you might not be familiar with the actual origins of these characters. Christopher Reeve is not the "original" Superman. Superman was around for almost half a century before Reeve put on the suit.
So you think Superman should have let those three people die?
Again, I wonder if you realize these characters originated from the comics. Nolan's movies are largely based on three comic books: Batman: Year One, The Killing Joke, and The Dark Knight Returns. The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns (which are both decades older than the Nolan films) are much, much darker than Nolan's movies.
There was no charm or lightness to the movie at all.
I liked the actor who played Superman, and also appreciated that he portayed Clark as a good guy, but all the colors and joy that inhabit all the Marvel movies (Iron Man, Thor, Avengers) just weren't here in a DC movie. It seemed like another of those depressing Batman movies. The music in this movie was also terrible; it fit in with Batman, but for Superman it felt intrusive.
Overall, I thought Man of Steel wasn't quite as dark as the most recent Batman movies, but will probably be about as dark as the new Wolverine movie. Superman and Wolverine--not exactly two peas in a pod.
Yes, I used to watch the B/W reruns on Saturday morning, along with the Lone Ranger and the Cisco kid, your point ?
batman: year one- 1987, The Killing Joke- 1988, The Dark Knight Returns- 1986. Did YOU ever read some of the original comics from the 40's to late 70's, before these mid 80's rewrites of the character ? I did.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
My point is, if you watched the black and white Superman (I'm assuming George Reeves) and if you read the comics, your view of Superman is confusing to me. George Reeves played him completely seriously, with no humor at all (especially at first). And Superman has killed in the comics several times, and the further you go back, the more violent he gets.
I have. And in those earlier comics, he's even more violent. In the 40's (is that early enough for you?), he actually took guns from criminals, then shot them with their own guns. How, exactly, is Nolan too dark compared to that?
I'm not saying you shouldn't dislike the new movie. If you don't like it, that's totally cool. People have different tastes.
I'm just saying the assertion that Superman never kills is factually wrong. He of course avoids killing when he can, but he has always killed when left with no choice. And the assertion that Nolan's Batman is "too dark" is also factually wrong. Batman was far darker in the 40's, 50's, 80s, and 90s than how Nolan portrayed him.
I don't remember how often he did but I don't remember him enjoying it as much as the silver age authors infer. Did you know that in Batman and Robin, George Clooney purposely played Batman as TRIBBLE? That's the kind of sacrilege to my hero's I can hardly wait to put out of my memory, so I might also have put some of the more violent early exploits from the comics out of my young mind as well, or more likely they were removed by the publishers before printing.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG