Superman/Batman/DC art photos and videos (fan and official)

[Metallo]

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 26, 2018 17:20:44 GMT -5 Metallo said:

You’re right Marvel has always been more rooted in reality while DC was rooted in fantasy. Even in their origins. The Marvel heroes operate out of real places while many of DCs don’t. There are positives and negatives that come with that. Most of their main characters weren’t so strongly tied to specific events. Superman and Batman and others had some ties to real wars but not so much that it couldn’t be discarded in the main continuity even before crisis.

Well, then again- DC's characters came much earlier, so Stan/Marvel had a chance to 'reinvent' the superhero.... though I'm a bit irritated at the Ultimate line and the Alan Moore influence to reinvent them all as much darker for the big screen in WB's case...

[Metallo]

I can blame marvel for the ultimates but not Moore for the wrong message everyone took from his work. The ultimate line was a great idea and produced some good stories but too many times they relied on shock value instead of good writing. New 52 was basically dc doing their version of the Ultimate line (only as the main line and not an alternative). Marvel was smart to give people a choice but they also did it at the right time. Dc was ten years too late to the dance. Those are two big reasons why it ended up failing. They did the same thing trying to replicate the success of Nolan’s Batman almost a decade after he started it. The landscape had changed by the.

Moore never intended for people at DC to try to make everything like Watchmen. Greed did that. Watchmen was a very specific premise never intended to be duplicated in DC’s mainline continuity. It was supposed to be a one time commentary on the industry and the world with familiar archetypes not the actual characters. That’s why the comic worked better with Moore’s own creations instead of the original idea of using the Charleston characters

[crazy_asian_man]

Oct 7, 2018 12:26:08 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I can blame marvel for the ultimates but not Moore for the wrong message everyone took from his work. The ultimate line was a great idea and produced some good stories but too many times they relied on shock value instead of good writing. New 52 was basically dc doing their version of the Ultimate line (only as the main line and not an alternative). Marvel was smart to give people a choice but they also did it at the right time. Dc was ten years too late to the dance. Those are two big reasons why it ended up failing. They did the same thing trying to replicate the success of Nolan’s Batman almost a decade after he started it. The landscape had changed by the.

Moore never intended for people at DC to try to make everything like Watchmen. Greed did that. Watchmen was a very specific premise never intended to be duplicated in DC’s mainline continuity. It was supposed to be a one time commentary on the industry and the world with familiar archetypes not the actual characters. That’s why the comic worked better with Moore’s own creations instead of the original idea of using the Charleston characters

True. Moore was first on the block really doing his own thing, but it's DC's laziness in letting (or encouraging) so many mediocre creators on their team to 'ape' Moore- badly during that time.

[Metallo]

Watchmen and TDKR were commentaries on the real world and comics and what happened when they collide. That’s why trying to copy them by making all comics dark and gritty didn’t make sense. The industry failed miserably at understanding that or didn’t care to try. As they are on the page superheroes don’t work in the real world. The comics of the dark age didn’t have real world consequences either so it made going dark even more silly. It’s also why Watchmen was never intended to have a follow up. In the real world major characters dying isn’t to going to get reversed to sell more crap.

[crazy_asian_man]

Oct 8, 2018 17:43:47 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Watchmen and TDKR were commentaries on the real world and comics and what happened when they collide. That’s why trying to copy them by making all comics dark and gritty didn’t make sense. The industry failed miserably at understanding that or didn’t care to try. As they are on the page superheroes don’t work in the real world. The comics of the dark age didn’t have real world consequences either so it made going dark even more silly. It’s also why Watchmen was never intended to have a follow up. In the real world major characters dying isn’t to going to get reversed to sell more crap.

I think it's the sad biz mentality meeting art.... if it's popular, then keep it alive, clone it as much as possible, then beat it to death until it stops making money.

I'm mixed on the new miniseries bringing Watchmen into the DC universe- I agree that Watchmen didn't need/shouldn't have a follow-up, but then again, I like that it exists mainly because of the creative team on it.

[Metallo]

[Metallo]

[Metallo]

[crazy_asian_man]

Neat seeing these costume changes.... funny how eventually most revert close to what they started with!

The biggest head groan for me on all of these is Jim Lee's design of Wonder Woman with a black leather jacket. When Black Canary had one, it looked great.

With Wonder Woman getting one- it felt odd that an Amazonian would be cold enough to need a black leather jacket..... and imagining a whole island of Amazonians and a queen also wearing the same black lather jackets just made me shake my head. Were sunglasses far behind?

[Metallo]

You can’t beat a classic. Plus going back to the traditional look bumps sales up much like changing their looks did in the first place.

I think with things like Jim Lee’s Wonder Woman costume they were just trying to be trendy and modern. Much like the changes to the X-men comic costumes in the early 2000s. I thought most of the New 52 redesigns were terrible. Flash in particular. The 1990s update of the silver age costume was perfect and they ruined it by adding a lot of useless unneeded details. It’s not like Superman or Wonder Woman’s costumes which looked more dated. The Flash suit much like the Spider-Man suit was pretty much perfect and still is when it comes to comics. It’s why most of the live action adaptations of the suit aren’t as good.

[crazy_asian_man]

Nov 14, 2018 12:49:16 GMT -5 Metallo said:

You can’t beat a classic. Plus going back to the traditional look bumps sales up much like changing their looks did in the first place.

I think with things like Jim Lee’s Wonder Woman costume they were just trying to be trendy and modern. Much like the changes to the X-men comic costumes in the early 2000s. I thought most of the New 52 redesigns were terrible. Flash in particular. The 1990s update of the silver age costume was perfect and they ruined it by adding a lot of useless unneeded details. It’s not like Superman or Wonder Woman’s costumes which looked more dated. The Flash suit much like the Spider-Man suit was pretty much perfect and still is when it comes to comics. It’s why most of the live action adaptations of the suit aren’t as good.

I wish comics in general had a little more time and care taken with their changes.

Instead, it seems with publishing schedules, much is thrown half-hazardly together.

If WB gets (deserved) criticism for trying to be trendy and throwing things against the wall quickly to see what sticks, then DC comics doesn't seem like it's been all that much better.

I just recently bought a few of the volumes of Levitz' 'the Bronze Age' and 'the Silver Age' of DC comics at Costco by Levitz (a great buy at costco- $20 per hardback versus $60 retail) and am absorbing how much better it seemed when things were given a longer run, rather than having quick restarts (almost) every year it seems.

I do wonder with the Cavill/Superman failure.... will Superman go back into limbo for another 30 years cinematically (if we all live that long?)?

[Metallo]

Nah. Too much money to be made to leave it on the table. They’ll try again one day. I predict within the next decade. It might be a hard reboot but it’s going to happen. A lot depends on how the DCEU pans out.

There’s a reason the classic costumes stuck around relatively unchanged from the 60s right into the 90s. They worked. Now change is done and controversy is actually courted just to get press and boost sales. At some point the model changed with the rise of merchandising and pop culture. The old saying of all publicity is good publicity is true to a point. When people get talking they get curious to check it out for themselves. It’s why DC shakes things up every five years or so. They know they can go back to the status quo once the bump in sales dminishes and they need to get people back on board again.

[crazy_asian_man]

I think that'll work up to a point--- but how many reboots and crossovers before fans get totally burned out and leave/ stop buying?

The thing is: For the hardcore comic reader, initially comics filled a spot that now can be filled with Netflix, Youtube, and video games.
If licensing is enough to keep comics going, that's cool... but it's hard to see the market expanding for comics as is, only shrinking or transferring into box office dollars and toys.(which might help the core company, but not necessarily the comic shops).

One of the biggest comic shops in LA I believe closed its doors for good this year, but I honestly don't know how these shops continue to survive as is.

Over here, many of the shops are hybrid card gaming places to survive. (Something that seems a little odd, but if it works, I'm all for it).

[Metallo]

If it’s great and we’ll recieved the number of reboots won’t matter. We’re on our third version of Spider-Man in 15 years and it’s a success. Amazing Spider-Man 2 was just four years ago and yet we’re two and half years into the MCU era of Superman. Pretty quick turn around.

The DCEU was a creative flop from the get go so unlike other beloved franchises that were followed by a reboot most will be ready to move on. People were lukewarm on Garfield’s Spidey because they loved Maguire's. I don’t see a massive groundswell of love for Snyderman. By that point when they do reboot you’re also going to have a whole new generation of fans. There are five year olds now that can barely comprehend the Snyder version of Superman. If they get another version out in five or ten years those kids will be ten or fifteen. The prime age to be a big part of the new audience WB will be trying to cater to. They won’t be tired of the reboot because they aren’t going to remember the last one very well.

[Metallo]

[crazy_asian_man]

Nov 16, 2018 15:56:58 GMT -5 Metallo said:

If it’s great and we’ll recieved the number of reboots won’t matter. We’re on our third version of Spider-Man in 15 years and it’s a success. Amazing Spider-Man 2 was just four years ago and yet we’re two and half years into the MCU era of Superman. Pretty quick turn around.

The DCEU was a creative flop from the get go so unlike other beloved franchises that were followed by a reboot most will be ready to move on. People were lukewarm on Garfield’s Spidey because they loved Maguire's. I don’t see a massive groundswell of love for Snyderman. By that point when they do reboot you’re also going to have a whole new generation of fans. There are five year olds now that can barely comprehend the Snyder version of Superman. If they get another version out in five or ten years those kids will be ten or fifteen. The prime age to be a big part of the new audience WB will be trying to cater to. They won’t be tired of the reboot because they aren’t going to remember the last one very well.

I think in Spiderman's case- one GIANT advantage that reboot had was MCU's sense of one giant tapestry to begin with.

While some of the MCU's movies had some weak outings (Iron Man 2, Thor 2)--- overall it built itself as one giant unique 'novel in movie form'--- with some chapters weaker than others, but overall great.
So, that I think helped Spiderman tremendously. If Spiderman were created as a 'single hero in its own universe' like the Garfield one..... it had to (imo) be as full and rich as the Raimi Spiderman films or else it just didn't have enough to stand up to the bar now.
(And I'm actually not even sure Raimi's Spiderman would be fresh enough in the sea of superhero films if released today).

Having Tony Stark as Spiderman's mentor was perfect. If RDJ wasn't interested, it might have been interesting to have seen Cap be the mentor, but probably not as effective. (or as funny as Cap is/was probably too nice a guy to be annoyed by Parker)

With the DCEU--- too many sour notes in its lot of films to really feel like anything grand.

If the DCEU had stuck with Singer/Routh's Superman, Christian Bale/Nolan's Batman, then I would have probably forgiven far more in BvS and Justice League.

As is...... I don't know.

I know I'm glad that when Donner/Reeve's STM came out--- there was giant anticipation all around in no small part because of the lack of ANY big budget superhero films at the time- and very few (at the time) big budget fantasy films as well, with believable effects.

For a reboot..... I'd be hard pressed to know what the best route would be to re-imagine things. I hate to admit it, but there are parts of MOS that actually worked for me and felt fresh- but too much at the core that did not for me to ever feel like MOS could be on the same level as STM. Wayyy too many mistakes.

Anyhow--- WB had trust in Nolan producing & Snyder directing, but that seems gone. Also, WB had trust in Whedon saving the franchise, but that also seems gone.

I can imagine WB scratching their heads with seeing both Singer's retro approach and Snyder's 'change everything' approach both disappointing box office-wise.

But then again.... they've been (seemingly) chasing their tails with Flash, Green Lantern, etc. for years, (and Wonder WOman previously)--- so, it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that we'll be really amazed by something that comes out of them.

For all of the flak that the Salkinds get/got---- they really treated Superman like a giant event, possibly moreso than WB/DC had.

SR had press.... but I really think that Smallville's existence hurt it a bit - as well as timing (coming after Spiderman 1& 2 and X2 made the action seem pretty WEAK)... anyhow, it's kind of sad how something that was a polished jewel that could prove itself as blockbuster potential wasn't quite handled wtih enough love and care to be something 'special' now.

But.... I could be wrong. I certainly hope whoever takes on the directing for the next Superman reboot proves me wrong and makes something special again.

[Metallo]

Homecoming did have the good will of the MCU behind it but if the movie had looked like another terrible Sony mess it wouldn’t have mattered. The MCU connection doesn’t always equal success. Just look at Inhumans failure on arrival. The imax premiere was a disaster. What also helped is that it didn’t retread the same ground. It wasn’t an origin. That made a big difference. That’s one place where MOS failed. We’ve seen Superman’s origin dozens of times. Smallville had spent ten years on it just two years before.

If BVS had been made the same as it was by producer Nolan and director Snyder and writer Goyer just with Bale and Routh it still would have failed just not as hard. It would have to be a complete rewrite of history going back to SR. SR still got a mixed reaction as much as I might have liked parts of it. That would have been carried into BvS. Nolan and Goyer, the architects of the dark knight trilogy, were involved with MOS and it didn’t help enough because the film was still flawed. In order for a Bale and Routh take on BVS to be the hit it should have been it needed a whole new creative team behind it. Maybe Nolan in the directors chair to get people more excited. Also keep in mind Green Lantern did it’s fair share of damage to the DC brand that would also be a factor.

I do think Superman’s constant screen presence on Smallville dulled the public’s hunger for a new Superman movie a bit but if SR had been better it would have counteracted that.

[crazy_asian_man]

Nov 25, 2018 21:02:26 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Homecoming did have the good will of the MCU behind it but if the movie had looked like another terrible Sony mess it wouldn’t have mattered. The MCU connection doesn’t always equal success. Just look at Inhumans failure on arrival. The imax premiere was a disaster. What also helped is that it didn’t retread the same ground. It wasn’t an origin. That made a big difference. That’s one place where MOS failed. We’ve seen Superman’s origin dozens of times. Smallville had spent ten years on it just two years before.

If BVS had been made the same as it was by producer Nolan and director Snyder and writer Goyer just with Bale and Routh it still would have failed just not as hard. It would have to be a complete rewrite of history going back to SR. SR still got a mixed reaction as much as I might have liked parts of it. That would have been carried into BvS. Nolan and Goyer, the architects of the dark knight trilogy, were involved with MOS and it didn’t help enough because the film was still flawed. In order for a Bale and Routh take on BVS to be the hit it should have been it needed a whole new creative team behind it. Maybe Nolan in the directors chair to get people more excited. Also keep in mind Green Lantern did it’s fair share of damage to the DC brand that would also be a factor.

I do think Superman’s constant screen presence on Smallville dulled the public’s hunger for a new Superman movie a bit but if SR had been better it would have counteracted that.

If Bale and Routh had been cast (with this scenario everything else being exactly the same)- I would have been able to enjoy it much more, in the same way I enjoyed Superman IV--- in that it would have been enjoyable just to see the actors again in the characters they shone in. It might not have altered the real quality of the film- but it would have made me enjoy it a little more.

[Metallo]

Yeah I can understand that. I probably would have felt the same way even though I still can’t get past some of the lesser parts of their movies. It would have made a difference for me. I thought Affleck did great despite the flaws of the film. Cavill? Not so much. It still sucks though becusss BvS and Justice League should have been amazing. It was a one time thing to see these things happen for the first time ever. There will be other dc team up movies but they won’t be firsts and WB dropped the ball. It stings even more because we’ve seen other people pull it off even with DC Crisis on Earth X was very good and if Elseworlds works it’s going to make the DCEU look that much worse.

[crazy_asian_man]

Nov 28, 2018 21:41:38 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Yeah I can understand that. I probably would have felt the same way even though I still can’t get past some of the lesser parts of their movies. It would have made a difference for me. I thought Affleck did great despite the flaws of the film. Cavill? Not so much. It still sucks though becusss BvS and Justice League should have been amazing. It was a one time thing to see these things happen for the first time ever. There will be other dc team up movies but they won’t be firsts and WB dropped the ball. It stings even more because we’ve seen other people pull it off even with DC Crisis on Earth X was very good and if Elseworlds works it’s going to make the DCEU look that much worse.

My issue with Affleck as Daredevil and as Batman is that it feels too much like a nice guy trying to 'act like he has a dark edge'- I think he is a good actor, (and he seems like a pretty good human being judging by his interviews) but not enough of a great actor to make me no longer be attached to his previous work.

Contrast to Chris Evans, who i thought 'no way can I get past his previous work as Human Torch'---- but, whether it was the filmmaking plus the actor's performance.... I only saw Steve Rogers the character from the first moment on, despite the ingrained performance of Evans as happy-go lucky guy as 'Human Torch'- and it wasn't that big a stretch between the two peformances.

I admire Affleck's commitment, but.... I just don't think his performances were strong enough to make me forget previous performances. I still enjoy seeing Affleck as an actor in things, but for multiple reasons, it's really hard for me to fully see Affleck as the character. Perhaps it's also the baggage of seeing him in so many movies prior to.... but then again, I also saw Evans in other films prior to Captain America.

Similarly, Scarlett Johanssen I accept as Black WIdow with her having played her so much at this point.... but it's Scarjo as WIdow in my eyes, rather than the Widow I envisioned in reading the comics way back when. (Emily Blunt for the role, dammit!)

[Metallo]

Nov 29, 2018 2:16:49 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

My issue with Affleck as Daredevil and as Batman is that it feels too much like a nice guy trying to 'act like he has a dark edge'- I think he is a good actor, (and he seems like a pretty good human being judging by his interviews) but not enough of a great actor to make me no longer be attached to his previous work.

Contrast to Chris Evans, who i thought 'no way can I get past his previous work as Human Torch'---- but, whether it was the filmmaking plus the actor's performance.... I only saw Steve Rogers the character from the first moment on, despite the ingrained performance of Evans as happy-go lucky guy as 'Human Torch'- and it wasn't that big a stretch between the two peformances.

I admire Affleck's commitment, but.... I just don't think his performances were strong enough to make me forget previous performances. I still enjoy seeing Affleck as an actor in things, but for multiple reasons, it's really hard for me to fully see Affleck as the character. Perhaps it's also the baggage of seeing him in so many movies prior to.... but then again, I also saw Evans in other films prior to Captain America.

Similarly, Scarlett Johanssen I accept as Black WIdow with her having played her so much at this point.... but it's Scarjo as WIdow in my eyes, rather than the Widow I envisioned in reading the comics way back when. (Emily Blunt for the role, dammit!)

I get having the comics in mind but at a certain point you also have to judge the actors and the material they’re working with on their own merits. Downey and Jackman weren’t exactly the comic book versions but they won me over with their own takes because I thought they were good. I think Johansson has really grown into the role of black widow. I think by winter soldier they’d figured that character out.

I wasn’t against Evans because I didn’t think he couldn’t do it I just thought he was too strongly associated with Johnny Storm. But when you really step back and look not only is he a talented actor but he’s naturally more like Steve Rogers than he is Johnny Storm. He won me over almost immediately.

I thought Affleck did well as Daredevil despite being miscast. He just wasn’t the right guy. I felt his Batman was better because he understood the character even though the script had all kinds of problems. I think he had something to prove after Daredevil and worked that much harder at it. You could tell he was crushed when the reviews for BvS came out.

Meanwhile as much as a loved Bale I don’t think he quite nailed it as Batman either. I pretty sure he’s even admitted that. I think he was a better Bruce than Batman. I think he could have been even better but I just don’t believe he tuned into it the way Ledger did as the Joker. I don’t think we’ve seen the definitive and perfect screen Batman yet. Guys have had big pieces of it right but not quite the entire thing.

[crazy_asian_man]

Dec 1, 2018 13:56:27 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Nov 29, 2018 2:16:49 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

My issue with Affleck as Daredevil and as Batman is that it feels too much like a nice guy trying to 'act like he has a dark edge'- I think he is a good actor, (and he seems like a pretty good human being judging by his interviews) but not enough of a great actor to make me no longer be attached to his previous work.

Contrast to Chris Evans, who i thought 'no way can I get past his previous work as Human Torch'---- but, whether it was the filmmaking plus the actor's performance.... I only saw Steve Rogers the character from the first moment on, despite the ingrained performance of Evans as happy-go lucky guy as 'Human Torch'- and it wasn't that big a stretch between the two peformances.

I admire Affleck's commitment, but.... I just don't think his performances were strong enough to make me forget previous performances. I still enjoy seeing Affleck as an actor in things, but for multiple reasons, it's really hard for me to fully see Affleck as the character. Perhaps it's also the baggage of seeing him in so many movies prior to.... but then again, I also saw Evans in other films prior to Captain America.

Similarly, Scarlett Johanssen I accept as Black WIdow with her having played her so much at this point.... but it's Scarjo as WIdow in my eyes, rather than the Widow I envisioned in reading the comics way back when. (Emily Blunt for the role, dammit!)

I get having the comics in mind but at a certain point you also have to judge the actors and the material they’re working with on their own merits. Downey and Jackman weren’t exactly the comic book versions but they won me over with their own takes because I thought they were good. I think Johansson has really grown into the role of black widow. I think by winter soldier they’d figured that character out.

I wasn’t against Evans because I didn’t think he couldn’t do it I just thought he was too strongly associated with Johnny Storm. But when you really step back and look not only is he a twlented actor but he’s naturally more like Steve Rogers than he is Johnny Storm. He won me over almost immediately.

I thought Affleck did well as Daredevil despite being miscast. He just wasn’t the right guy. I felt his Batman was better because he understood the character even though the script had all kinds of problems. I think he had something to prove after Daredevil and worked that much harder at it. You could tell he was crushed when the reviews for BvS game out.

Meanwhile as much as a loved Bale I don’t think he quite nailed as Batman it either. I think he’s even admitted that. I think he as a better Bruce than Batman. I think he could have been even better but I just don’t think he tuned into it the way Ledger did as the Joker. I don’t think we’ve seen the definitive and perfect screen Batman yet. Guys have had big pieces of it right but not quite the entire thing.

That's a good point about Evans- in any case, one thing in re-reading my post I'm not sure was clear: I freaking LOVE Evans casting as Steve Rogers/Captain America. I'm disappointed we didn't get more Captain America movies with him, though.

I do respect that Afflleck didn't do a turnabout on his opinion on BvS. Like MOS, I still enjoy parts of BvS- and thought it was much smoother ride in ways than MOS. I think I've said this before: if you think of it as a giant fan film and not canon, it's much easier to digest.

Bale is fantastic as Bruce Wayne. I think he made a giantly BAD choice with his 'scratchy artificial voice to avoid detection' for Batman. It was too close to parody. Much like Halle Berry's distracting accent in Xmen 1 that got dumped in X2, I think that the 'voice' should have been dumped immediately after Batman Begins....

[Metallo]

Evans ain’t the best actor but he has a naturalness and earnestness that works with the character. When you watch him in interviews he’s very humble and polite. I think he’s a case where actor and character line up very well. He’s not wooden like Cavill so you can buy into him as this hero type. You can’t see the seams in his acting as easily because he’s not putting on all the time.

I thought the batvoice was borderline in Batman Begins. Sometimes it worked fine. It wasn’t until TDK that I felt Bale went too far. Not only was it more over the top but he was using it in situations where it wasn’t even called for. Bales best Batman movie imo is Batman Begins because he has the most to work with. He gets kinda lost in TDK because that’s mostly Dent and Jokers film. Ledger just rolls over him with his performance. He’s fine in TDKR but the film has other issues behind him.

I think as its own thing, divorced even from MOS, BvS is incredibly flawed. It’s own internal logic not only isn’t consistent but doesn’t make sense. Superman’s a massive hypocrite for going after Batman for being a vigilante but he himself doesn’t even work within the system. He pasted that terrorist when he saved Lois and acted unilaterally. At least Batman works with Gordon. Superman doesn’t answer to anyone for most of the film. They could have made that work if they’d had him realize it at some point EARLY even though only an idiot wouldn’t realize it immediately. He only appeared before Congress well into the movie. Then they had him try to justify murdering Batman to save his mom by saying no one stays good...even though he knew by this point Lex was pulling the strings.

Batman himself behaves incredibly idiotically. No one seems to mind that Lex is nutso. I get the rich being eccentric but he boarders on losing it a few times and no one even bats an eyelid. Wayne breaks into Lex’s server at his mansion and never considers Luthor is setting him up? Especially since he gets the Kryptonite from him. Honestly I think a ten year old wrote BvS.

I tried to put MOS out of my mind and give BvS a clean slate chance but on its own it’s so poorly thought out. I still believe most people checked out of JL as soon as they saw it was another Snyder style movie in the trailers because they’d had enough of his nonsense. It’s why WB is trying so hard to show that Aquaman is someone else’s movie just from the trailers.

[Metallo]