APoetSomeday

September 6, 2013 10:24 am Hi Nightwing/Sitara! I just applied (read: Begged) for a position on Ghostmann's new site. Fingers crossed.

September 4, 2013 10:52 am I've been a little bit busy over the last couple of weeks, so I'm just reading this now and I have to say that I am shocked and saddened. I was hoping to find some time over the next few days to finally start posting reviews here and I can honestly say that this is the nicest and most knowledgeable forum I've ever been a part of. I will really miss coming here and discussing the week's releases. Somehow we managed to be the massive fans we are without alienating newer ones. That's precious and rare. Mostly, I will miss WAC1, Ithosapien, Sitara and Nightwing, but I'll actually miss everyone. If anyone from this site wants to keep in touch (especially those listed above), contact me at chrismessenger2003@yahoo.co.uk Lastly: To everyone involved with this wonderful site, thank you.

August 28, 2013 8:24 am @Itho - You're probably right. Batman's mind is what attracts me to the character, so its probably for the best that I won't be seeing the film.

August 26, 2013 7:18 pm @Itho - Thank you for ignoring my angry MoS comments. You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. I was going to mention Jeph's Batman earlier, but again with the physicality. The movie shouldn't try and sell Affleck as a badass, he's not that guy. Tough guys are tough guys, its not something you can teach in any acting class. Bruce Wayne is a tough guy, but he hides it behind a childish veneer of entitlement and privilege. I certainly believe that Affleck can/will pull that off if the script gives him that version of the character. Again, my one doubt about Affleck as Batman is in the realm of physicality, the more physical, aggressive Batman (Miller's or arguably Snyder's) is definitely out, but Engelhart's thoroughbred detective/living shadow is a definite possibility. Thinking back to the old Len Wein days will make a lot of sense if we're considering Affleck in the lead role. I certainly hope viewers will see a more intellectual Batman this time around, he is a detective after all. Also, when you think about the staunch, traumatized, repressed Batman of Morrison's 'Arkham Asylum' (and to some degree 'Gothic' as well) and compare/contrast it with the rigid, decisive fighting style of Tim Burton's Batman, I think we can see a way for Affleck's Bruce to fight and dress. As for Bale's voice, I think the suit was too tight around his throat in the second movie (I heard that somewhere). @ Nightwing - Yeah, probably for the best. Cheers dude. @ Kenny G - Keaton was/is a comic actor, known for his quick wit and wily, somewhat enigmatic performances. He was a completely bizarre choice to play ANY superhero, much less Batman, but I really feel like he did a good job in the part. If the fans of 1988 (when the choice would have been announced) had have had the Internet, they would have crucified him as a bad choice. High as they were on the 'grim & gritty' tales of Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Jim Starlin and (to some extent) Steve Engelhart. Tim Burton wisely opted for Keaton not to go around kicking ass and being presented as a tough guy when out of the suit. In fact, before the all-in action choreography of 'Returns' (the scene which I named 'Attack of the Clowns' is a personal fave), he was mainly seen to strike from the shadows and, as Itho pointed out, dispatch his enemies with a minimum of fuss. I'd personally like to see this Batman as Sun Tsu, Niccolo Machiavelli or Myamoto Musachi, emphasizing brains over brawn, acting when necessary. If he is going to take out a being of Superman's power (let's face it, there will be a punch-up at some point), we'll need to have established in the mind of the audience that Bruce Wayne's greatest gadget (his mind) is in full working order. Affleck is a good choice as far as I can see. I've yet to see a convincing argument against him, but if anyone wants to present one, I'm all ears.

August 25, 2013 8:43 pm Sorry, I was cranky when I wrote this. This is my last 'MoS' rant on this site - I promise!

August 25, 2013 8:17 pm I wasn't going to get in on this thread, largely because I absolutely will not be seeing the film in question and have no further interest in comic book movies... However, I think Ben Affleck certainly could play a really good Bruce Wayne. I believe that his take on Bruce will be similar to Michael Keaton's portrayal of the character in the Tim Burton movies. In 'Supergods' Grant Morrison describes Keaton's Wayne as child-like, distracted and whimsical (or similar) and that is the type of Bruce Wayne that I think we can expect from Affleck. He will lack the lithe, scrappy physicality of Christian Bale, which could hurt him in the eyes of some fans, but his 'public persona' Bruce Wayne will sparkle for sure. You can forget seeing him do Miller's 'Dirty Harry/Travis Bickle' Batman (because Affleck would be foolish to attempt that one), but I think a film version of Morrison's super-confident mind warrior Batman will be very much within Affleck's reach. Personally, I think we'll see Affleck play Bruce as a trauma survivor hiding behind a billion dollar smile. We might see shades of Engelhart's Batman, or possibly Paul Dini's Batman in this one. Affleck is actually a pretty good actor and naysayers ought to re-watch 'Chasing Amy' or 'Good Will Hunting' to see Affleck in roles where he portrays a happy-go-lucky character on the outside, whilst harboring darker emotions like loneliness, jealousy and rage. He's a proven leading man, a comic book fan and a guy who will definitely give the part his all. He cares about this one, at least, I think he does. Honestly, I think he will likely be the best thing about the movie, especially since he'll be acting alongside Henry Cavill's creepy, insecure Superman and probably working against Snyder's sloppy, directionless storytelling. ...Although, if a few good sci-fi movies come out between now and then, we may find that Snyder uses them as 'inspiration' for his own film and then his directing might not be quite so horrible. Sorry, that was catty...But totally warranted. The guy makes more money on a toilet break than most of us do in a year and yet his work screens like a recreation of famous scenes from other movies strung together by someone who was barely paying attention to them the first time out. I'm not going to watch the movie, so the point is moot, but those are my thoughts, take them or leave them.

August 23, 2013 12:39 pm @Itho. I agree. A perfect ending and no point going around in circles. Yes, the MLK quote was for you. He is my hero and I have a poster of him on my wall that I look at every day. When I get mad at America for its bad qualities, I immediately think of all the great men and women who have emerged from that crazy experiment and find that I'm not so mad. So yeah, that was just for you. @Nightwing - Thank you, Please do. But I'd like lots and lots of money. lol :) You should use Ithosapien's stuff as well, he has made a great many good points here.

August 22, 2013 10:37 pm KA-KICK! HOLY BAT-SPOILERS, BATMAN! Of course, Robin. How Clever...He warned about spoilers by using your own quote at the beginning of his post. Diabolical. I was very happy that they went with the Otto Preminger Mr. Freeze, design-wise. I always felt that the Preminger version of the character had the best look. Mr. Preminger was very unpopular on the set and he was apparently rather difficult to work with, so he didn't appear very often (only a handful of times, by my recollection). However, I thought that old Otto had a great handle on the character and portrayed a darker, more nuanced and frustrated villain than the cartoonish excess of Cesar Romero's Joker, Frank Gorshin's Riddler of Burgess Meredith's Penguin (although that is the first and last time I will EVER use the word 'nuanced' when discussing the 60's Batman show, I promise you). This was another fun issue, I especially enjoyed the cameo from the original Batwoman. It might be fun on this thread to cast 60's actors and actresses as upcoming characters who were never featured in the show itself. I've a few ideas, but I want to hear yours first... It was also a blast to see the Penguin sub from the 'Batman The Movie'. I am so in love with this book right now!

August 22, 2013 10:24 pm OK! Well, there's a lot to be getting on with here. I'll try to respond to you as best as I can. Apologies if I miss anything out... I guess I'll start with the 'core being' (or soul, if you will, of Superman). In my opinion, based on nothing more than a lifetime of enjoying his adventures: Superman is a dream come true, a sci-fi folk hero for modern times, a visionary riposte to the madness of war and depression. An answered prayer. He exists to prove that Human beings can accomplish anything we set our minds to. Superman is driven by an intense, profound love for mankind and the majority of its endeavors (excluding war, profiteering etc). Endowed with the powers of a God from an early age, he is a being of supreme gentleness and kindness. He is, by necessity, a creature of restraint. He is also a very patient person. Superman hates bullying of all kinds and resents inequality a great deal, but he does not hate those who perpetrate these things. He is tolerant, noble and true to himself at all times. He's the big brother who could totally kick your ass, but you know he never will. What he represents is not about powers, a costume or any of the other distracting things that catch our eye. Superman represents us at our very best, the inner hero which is locatable in every single Man, Woman or child. He is here to show us a better way. In short, he is hope given solid form. Am I projecting? Probably. Can you point to a hundred stories where Superman disobeys these edicts? Perhaps. However, I would argue that Superman breaks pretty much all of these in MoS, often for very spurious reasons. This probably explains why I hated that movie so much (besides the horrible directing, godawful, exposition-filled script and unapologetically stolen visuals, that is). How can he allow his father to die, only to disobey his father's dying wish for the rest of the story? Why doesn't he care about anyone who accidentally dies whilst he's smashing buildings and tearing up roads? In keeping with the film's theme of 'realism' the death toll caused by Superman alone would amount to genocide. Why doesn't he worry about saving the people who are dying all around him? Snyder had that part down in Issue 2 of 'Unchained'. Why are his major worries to do with self pity as opposed to protecting and nurturing mankind? Why not float off the ground gently rather than destroying all roads? Why is he so scared, unimaginative and weak that he can find no recourse other than to kill General Zod? I have faced many enemies in life and have thus far killed none of them. I expect the same from Superman. I could go on forever, but the point is that the Superman of MoS was motivated by fear and self pity instead of love for all mankind. That made him the polar opposite to the Superman that I believe in. It allowed him to kill and cringe and whine and scream and destroy. None of those things are the actions of a man motivated by love. Some will argue that this is a younger, inexperienced Superman. But I don't buy it, there are better ways to tell that story. The recent 'Superman: Earth One' books spring immediately to mind. Just because the movie ripped the few good points wholesale from good comics does not guarantee its authenticity. My brother played me a horrific dance music track that sampled the opening salvo from 'Kick out the Jams' by The MC5 on Saturday, it did NOT make the song good. When I said that Hollwood wasn't trying anything new, I meant in the sense of exploring new franchises. For example, the Superman of MoS would work better under a different name, because he is not the traditional Superman (by which I mean that he does not display the elements above which are common to most, if not all, iterations of the character), they could have released it as something else and started a new franchise, but instead they called it 'Superman'. Hollywood is, however, not doing anything new by rapidly re-interpreting established characters as being 'younger' edgier' or 'darker' - it has all come before. I have spoken about America elsewhere on this site. As a British person, I love American people, but I have serious doubts over American foreign policy. I don't really want to get into that one now, though. However, I still think that Nolan's quote reads like pseudo-intellectual doublespeak for "yeah, this movie stinks, but then again, the world is really effed-up, so just focus on that instead". I don't think Nolan 'gets' comic books. Not a popular opinion I'm sure, but that's how I see it. I am also done on MoS as of now, but it has been a genuine pleasure discussing it with you. You have made me think and re-consider my opinions on the movie, even though I landed right back where I left off. Thank you for an alternate (and very well argued) opinion. I hope people from both sides of the debate read and consider what was said in this thread. We appear to have learned how to disagree without being violently disagreeable. lol. The nation that produced the Man who spoke those words can't be that bad a place, can it?

August 22, 2013 7:39 pm Hey, Itho. Sorry I ran out on our last conversation. I was enjoying it, but in the last week I barely had time to fart, much less contribute to my favorite comics site. I wasn't making any kind of dig at you at all (sorry if it came off this way) in my previous post, but you know my feelings regarding 'Man of Steel'. I was just trying to point out that the overly dark take on the character simply feels wrong to me. As far as I can see, DC's movies will flounder and divide their audience (just as MoS did) until they embrace that childlike sense of wonder and optimism that originally spawned them. Also, I have no problem whatsoever with new takes on characters, as long as those new readings are respectful to the 'core being' of the character in question. Radically altering a character without leaving anything recognizable for the fanbase is not really a revision, it is the creation of a separate character. Characters are not reborn via this method, they are more often than not damaged by it. In our recession-hit film industry, Hollywood is simply not out to try anything new. They are an industry and they need to make money, like all other industries. Frankly, we're lucky that they produce any art at all. It is a testament to the talent of great actors, directors and producers that good films are still being made in this day and age. The studios latch on to established brand names and proven money spinners, just as they always have done, but with far less emphasis on storytelling and far more emphasis on marketing. Instead of sequels, they churn out 'reboots' which are, essentially, remakes or, if you like, new movies with the same title as old ones. For example, J.J Abrams 'Star Trek' has little, if anything, in common with the Gene Roddenberry series and would, artistically, have been better served as being ever-so-slightly re-written and released under a different title. However, if that had been the case, the script would never have been filmed at all, because it would represent a huge expenditure on an unproven product. Before the reboot trend was the 'Prequel' era, beginning, in earnest, with 'The Phantom Menace'. Reboots are just prequels that don't have to make canonical sense. That's all. They are sequels that don't count as sequels. There is nothing new or challenging about them. It is just, what I call 'focus-group film making'. Very rarely are these movies any kind of genuine attempt to revive a flagging franchise, but rather an attempt to beat an already expired equine, if you'll permit the expression. Essentially, as Human beings, we enjoy the same stories being re-told and re-purposed over and over again. There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with this, its the reason that we have ancient mythology, enduring ballads and even the bestseller lists; it does bother me, however, when a studio calls for a radical revision to be enacted upon a character that has remained consistently popular in all forms of media throughout the decades for no other reason than to sell a movie on controversy rather than its artistic merits. I write this not to change your mind (even if I could, I wouldn't try), but simply to illustrate my own viewpoint a little better. Anyway, I don't think any modern comics reader or movie goer really minds a character revision or 'tweak' here and there, but they baulk when a character is rendered as completely unrecognizable. Watching MoS was, for many fans, the equivalent of picking up an issue of 'Green Lantern', only to find that Alan Scott was now Hal Jordan, without the benefit of being told that they were distinct characters. The anger and outcry further serves, not to prove that the naysayers are stuffy old purists crying into their decades old Curt Swan comics, but to demonstrate exactly how well-loved the existing version of the character really is (and, by association, how a radical reboot was not a sound strategy for success). As for the Superman/America metaphor, I'm afraid that, in my opinion, is just rhetorical nonsense from a film maker who excels at making himself seem far smarter than he actually is. PS - Apollonian and Dionysian are alternate schools of thought, dating back to antiquity. The terms are used as 'catch-alls' for any 'button-down vs get-em-out' debate, as well as a number of other areas and are often applied to art and political thought. I hope you are well (and that you aren't mad at me for leaving our chat without saying goodbye). @LBolt - I agree. It does feel weird that these characters are appearing in very adult movies. Superheroes really ought to be kid friendly. I wouldn't let my (hypothetical) kids watch 'The Dark Knight' even though I think its a great movie. They can grow up with Adam West and TAS, just like I did, dammit! @Nightwing - Yeah, sorry I was away for so long. I believe, very, very strongly that our popular media should be sending out messages of hope and optimism - exactly the kind that Superman embodies. I think that the zeitgeist will swing this way within five years (based on current industry/artistic trends and my own 'gut feelings' as an artist) and that DC/Warners really missed a trick by not delivering a movie that delivered on the superhero promise of a better tomorrow. Had MoS come out 5-10 years ago, when 'emo' culture was being debated on the news and Eminem and Slipknot were selling units like it was a bodily function, the film would have turned a huge profit and been a hit. However, in the media industry, timing is everything. Warners can learn from their mistakes, or not, we'll have to wait and see...