I don't always do reviews on this site, but I thought I would in light of the new animated DVD JLA Adventures: Trapped in Time, which is a direct-to-DVD Justice League animated film sold exclusively at Target, at-least so far. Ultimately, it's your classic kiddie fare: harmless, but bland. No big stars lend their voices to this film, and the animation is tepid but acceptable. Sadly, the biggest flaw is the story, which was clearly inspired by an old Challenge of the Super Friends episode, but with some Legion of Super Heroes characters--Dawnstar and Karate Kid--thrown in.
And yes, there was a member of the Legion of Super Heroes called Karate Kid. And he has to get back to the future. Sorry, it had to be said and yes, I stole that from Linkara.
The 'toon starts off with the Justice League battling their old enemies, the Legion of Doom. The Legion of Doom is a relic of the Super Friends and is basically a collective of various villains from each hero's rogues gallery, with Lex Luthor as the leader. Now, I've always felt the Legion of Doom to be a rather lame idea, but it makes sense for a kiddie version of the Justice League. That's what the Super Friends were and that's what this is.
The DVD gives us new looks for each member of the team. The best of these is Wonder Woman and the worst… I can't even think. Superman looks like a cartoonish reject from Pumping Iron in a variation of the New 52 costume, Aquaman's got no sleeves, and the design of Robin's costume is just odd.
No secret identities are ever given except for Superman's, which is unchanging and important to the plot. The only real battle where you think, "ooh, this is a cool matchup" is between Robin and Karate Kid. What's also odd is that neither the Green Lantern--who's been played up so much by DC lately and was the subject of a $200 million film even if it ultimately flopped--nor the Green Arrow--the subject of a very successful live action show--are present, though it's no big loss. Really, they almost could have put almost any roster in this film.
During the battle between the League and the Legion of Doom, Lex Luthor is trapped in the ice, where he stays in suspended animation much like Captain America. He manages to survive into the far-off future, when he's discovered by our two kid heroes, Dawnstar and Karate Kid.
Dawnstar was one of the sexiest super heroines in comic book history, but here, she's drawn as a fairly young girl. They've traded in sexy for cute, but that's okay, because again, was intended for kids.
When Luthor goes back in time by unleashing the Time Trapper--a Legion of Super Heroes villain, but here, he's used as basically a time-oriented genie--he gathers the forces of the Legion of Super Heroes to confront the Justice League.
Meanwhile, the two junior superheroes from the future travel back in time as well and enter the Hall of Justice. After Robin takes them as intruders, he and Karate Kid duke it out until Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman put a stop to it. Wonder Woman discerns that they're telling the truth thanks to her magic lasso and they confront Luthor, et. al who launches a plan to prevent Superman from being raised by the Kents.
A team of villains including Bizarro, Solomon Grundy, Toyman and the Cheetah manage to travel back to that period, while the Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman try to stop them. But unfortunately, Bizarro manages to throw the baby Kal-El into space. Superman fades away in the present and the Justice League has never been created as a result, so the villains go full-force.
Now, with time travel stories, a suspension of disbelief is a must, if they could not only prevent the existence of Superman, but the Justice League as a result, how on Earth is it that Bizarro didn't fade into oblivion as well? He's a friggin' clone of Superman for crying out loud!
Anyway, after that, we learn that there's a paradox after the Luthor of "our time" is set free from the ice, which starts a paradox so that the Time Trapper is no longer under the control of the future Luthor. Blah blah blah, the League is back in business--including Superman--and they defeat him. There's an interesting coda, but basically, this is a pretty ho-hum film.
This might actually be a pretty good kid-oriented alternative to the upcoming Justice League: War, but ultimately, I don't recommend it. The voices are bland and the fact that it's available only at Target is just kind-of cheap.
We're taking a break, here, from the entertainment format, because the internet has become one big community college. In good ways and bad. The internet is a forum for information and discussion and as such, people have a way of getting into arguments over the most ridiculous things. Literally anything can be fodder for an internet feud, and the best thing to do is to walk away, but sometimes it's hard to.
I cannot put myself above anyone else or pretend I'm innocent; however, there are a few things you need to know before you get into an internet fight, known as a flame war.
Once it gets heated, the other guy will inevitably say that you're "attacking" him because they have a "different opinion." That's right: the other guy will always say that all he did was voice his opinion and that's all. And for attacking his opinion, you've violated his civil rights, you're a NAZI fascist, and they must ban you immediately. It's almost always a ploy to discredit and vilify you by making you seem unduly hostile and unreasonable. It may, indeed, be that you attacked them, but chances are that it run a lot deeper from someone saying, "my favorite color is green."
In the words of Shelby Steele, "innocence is power." Saying that you've attacked them simply for disagreeing with them gives them a false sense of moral superiority. It garners an illusion of innocence by placing guilt on your part.
Of course, offering an opinion is not inherently harmless or praiseworthy. If someone were to say, "all Scandinavians are stupid punks! They ought to kill every last one of them," that would certainly be an opinion, but it would hardly be seen as harmless or reasonable.
Furthermore, making a factual statement that is in dispute, and combining it with an opinion may also cause for hostility. If someone were to say, "Michael Jackson was a child molester, and his fans should be ashamed of themselves," it's more than understandable why his fans would be upset with this, as most Michael Jackson fans likely choose not to believe that he was guilty of molesting children, whether or not the evidence, taken objectively, leads to the same conclusion.
Opinions that may be valid, but which contain hyperbole or which are too presumptuous about the opposing views are also a pain in the ass. Now, of course, I'm not perfect, but the fact remains that it's so annoying to hear that you're either an old fart or a young punk simply because of your entertainment preferences. It would be sad enough if it were true that people were only attacked for opposing things in entertainment, but also, they're often attacked for supporting or defending things.
Often, people are reasonable about a well-reasoned opinion, such as, "I think that in the new comics, Superman lacks the avuncular presence he once had, and has a more aggressive stance, so I find it hard to read the newer comics, and prefer material from when I was growing up," but are not thrilled with, "those losers made Superman this stupid little Twilight kid and now he's a baby throwing a bunch of tantrums! You '90s-kid losers can't possibly like this shit and call yourselves fans! Give me 'The Pied Piper of Steel' any day!"*
One might urge someone offering the former complaint to give it another chance, but rather speak in a more confrontational tone to the later. When it comes to entertainment, empty and acerbic criticisms of the material are often perceived as thinly-veiled insults not only to the creators of the work, but to fans and the intended audience/demographic.
Often, there are blatant generalizations made about the audience or intended audience, usually based on age and broad, unprovable generalizations about the age group in question. Almost inevitably, those making such complaints are usually sickened by a taste of their own medicine.
A lack of logic, can also be grating, even when there is no intent to insult the other poster.
Imagine if someone said, "if you're wearing mostly red, you must be a member of the Norteños," then observe the following debate…
"The Flash wears mostly red, and he's obviously not a member of the Norteños."
"He's wearing crimson, not red."
"Crimson is a type of red, and usually, he's usually not in crimson anyway, it's usually closer to flame red."
"But it's a uniform. Not clothing."
"It may be a uniform, but it is still clothing."
"But it's very form-fitting, I was talking about baggy clothing."
"That's not what you said, and besides…"
This Abbot & Costello routine can go on forever. Now, even though the guy who thinks everyone who wears red is a gangbanger isn't really insulting anyone, it's still grating to see this guy ducking and weaving to support his non-logic. But then, imagine if the guy accused the guy who insists that wearing red doesn't make you a gang member of "not making sense," or something.
Moving on, another standard of flame wars is when somebody says, "excuse me for not blindly accepting everything they give us," when someone defends something, especially if it's popular in some circles. Also, expect the word "worship" to be bandied about.
Claiming that you "worship" something or that you are "blindly" accepting it absolves them of having to defend their position and makes you out to be the irrational one. Imagine if you had written drawn-out defense of what a controversial--and in whatever board or group you're in, unpopular--and being hammered with, "well, excuse me for not just blindly falling in line with him." They've not only refused to acknowledge your points, but they've basically accused you of being blind, when you may have written something absolutely scholarly.
The irony is that the aim of this, most of the time, to convey a sense of victimhood or in some other way, feeling put-upon as the "odd man out," even when they're the majority opinion in the board or group. It gives them victim status, and thus, hero status. I call it the Timmy O'Toole effect.
Another thing you can count on should you find yourself in a flame war is being accused of being angry. Now, you might be thinking, "okay, so they accuse me of being angry, so what?" But if you know what I'm talking about, then you know how it pisses you off, thereby making them wrong and pissing you off some more.
Now, the goal here is, of course, to discredit you and make you seem foolish, petty and, most importantly, irrational. It reduces anything you say to a comic tantrum. It also reduces you to two options.
When someone calls you "angry," and you get angry, you are, obviously, proving them right. If you lay into them with more extreme your insults, name-calling, cussing, references to their mother and sexually demeaning your comments, then you're proving them right. However, even a cute little jab or continuing to express a strong opinion will still beget this behavior from them.
Your other option is to shut up.
But who cares what they think? Well, other posters. When someone pulls out the anger card, it takes some pretty good maneuvering on your part for the other posters to really get that it's the other guy--and only the other guy--who's to blame. It's common for people who aren't even necessarily against you to tell you to "chill out" simply for offering a strong opinion, so what do you do?
Really just nothing. It's tempting, but just don't say anything. You'd just be making things worse for yourself. If you defend yourself, they'll just see it as more bitching. If you go as far as to say, "you're right," you're rewarding their butting in. If an apology is really in order, apologize to the administrator or nobody in particular. The best thing to do is to find something else to do for a while and come back later with another post. If they continue to ride you on it even though you're trying to change the subject, then it may just be time to raise the white flag, but as you're leaving, say, "okay, but look: I was trying to change the subject to something positive. You're the ones stuck in this little quagmire of yours. I admit, I said some things I shouldn't have; but at this point, it just doesn't matter anymore."
Sometimes, your opponent will actually play to this idea and say that you "come off as" an idiot or "sound" like such a loser. Best thing to do in those cases,
Internet fights between two or more people with differing viewpoints are bad enough, but the internet sheriffs have a tendency to make things worse. Oh, I'm not talking about administrators, they have a right and a duty to maintain order. I'm talking about the sanctimonious pricks who come on and dress down someone who's been seen as a pest on the group.
Now, let me ask you a question: do you think these people usually succeed in making posters straighten up and fly right? Or do they usually make matters… WOOOOOOORSE? Of course they make matters worse. Usually, their targets are as tired of the fights as anyone else, but they're too proud to just walk away. And if someone's gonna make them improve their manners, it's not gonna be some jackass who keeps insulting them and twisting what they have to say.
If you run into an internet sheriff, the best thing to do is to just call them out on it. Don't do it immediately, wait a few times so you can really make sure he or she is truly the self-appointed sheriff of the Deep Space Nine board; but do it soon enough before they have a chance to walk all over you and distract from what you're trying to talk about.
And try to do it in a humorous way. Make it sting just enough that they start to feel like they're not impressing anyone, but not too much so that they have too much ammo or make them go after you full-throttle because you've wounded their pride that much.
Then again, that's probably anything, but think of his audience. Let them know that while you may be guilty of being too hostile, arrogant or anything else they may believe about you; that this bozo isn't going to make things better by targeting you.
The good news is that people can be very forgiving. Administrators especially when someone owns up to what they've done. However, there comes a time when you have to walk away, and when that happens, don't feel that it's a "defeat." It will be looked upon by others as such, but sometimes it's better to just walk away.
The question is: was your message worth fighting for or was it much ado about nothing?
*Note that I used "The Pied Piper of Steel" as an intentional straw man story as it was a very unpopular issue from the Bronze Age. I think I've read it, but I don't remember it very well.
When I started reading Superman comics around 1991, I didn't pay that much attention to who was writing/drawing them, but I was aware. The villains were often newer versions of older bad guys I was familiar with, new supporting characters came and went and while I'd noticed that the Saga I'd jumped in on--Panic In the Sky--was named after a classic episode of The Adventures of Superman, it was clearly no adaptation of it. By a few years in, my friend and I had certain artists, supporting characters, scenarios and villains we liked and didn't like. Just like any modernization of any classic comic, I suppose.
Now, this "modernization" had began in 1986, with a reboot entitled Man of Steel, much like the new movie (though again, the film wasn't an adaptation of it) and it lasted all the way through the rest of the eighties and the nineties. It brought many changes to the Superman mythos: Krypton was suddenly a heartless planet devoid of human emotion, Lex Luthor was suddenly a billionaire everyone thought of as a wonderful philanthropist, and Jonathan and Martha both lived into Clark's adult years. As for his powers, Clark still had super strength & speed, but they were supposedly more limited, as was his invulnerability. He still had most of his vision powers (x-ray, heat, telescopic, microscopic, infer-red) and super-breath (for freezing and for blowing something away) and of course, he could still fly. However, some powers that Byrne simply couldn't rationalize (hypnotism, time travel) were done away with, even though they'd been used in the films, which were a clear influence on the books.
As a hardcore fan, I won't pretend anyone will be impressed by new supporting characters introduced to the book (Cat Grant, Bibbo, Keith Parks, José Delgado) but I do think some casual onlookers would be interested in all of the events that transpired between 1986 and 1999: the moment Superman kills General Zod and eventually exiles himself for a brief time, his engagement with Lois Lane forcing him to reveal his secret identity to her, the death of Superman, his return after four impostors emerge (well, two impostors and two would-be replacements who continued on as superheroes) and the reformation of the Justice League.
That is to say that during this time, the comics accomplished a lot. However, in 1996, K.C. Carlson took over for Mike Carlin as editor, followed by Joey Cavileri by the end of the year. I'm not going to blame anyone in particular for the decline in quality, but it did seem like the staff was revolving more. Despite a few change-ups in the early '90s, there was a pretty consistent overall staff on the books between 1991 and 1996. It just seems like they had settled into a certain formula by the end of the decade, with even more major stories arguably taking the place of good writing. During the Final Night crossover in November of '96, and the following month, Superman married Lois Lane in The Wedding Album, a one-shot featuring a bevy of writers and artists.
In a way, you could say that this was where "my Superman" died, but that's not quite true. This was the natural extension of the arc that began in 1991: Lois and Superman's engagement. In fact, they would have been married much earlier, but the producers of Lois & Clark: the New Adventures of Superman (you know… even if it had just been called The New Adventures of Superman without the Lois & Clark, I think that would have made it just that much better) had it in mind that the two should get married during a later season and that it would make the comics and the show seem to have more synergy if they married simultaneously.
By this time, Supergirl, Superboy and Steel (the later two having been among the would-be replacements of the Reign of the Supermen saga) began their own series' with Supergirl's being the most successful due to Peter David's writing. Superboy's series was more experimental, with many homages to Jack Kirby, but it was overall, a great book.
For several months, Superman continued on trying to regain his powers, but in May of 1997, D.C. published Superman Vol. 2 #123, in which Superman gains new electric-based powers and gets a wholly new costume. No, I don't mean he gains the same powers but they're somehow electrical, and I don't mean a costume change like the ones we've been seeing lately where they're "modernized" variations of his costume; I mean a wholly new costume.
Predictably enough, this change lasted an entire year, during which time, they actually made it so this Superman split into two, thus reviving the old "Superman Red & Blue" concept from a 1963 imaginary story. The two eventually merged, and expelled all their powers into some menace, with Superman reappearing with his classic powers intact, for the 1998 prestige format book Superman Forever. The subsequent arc involved Superman being sent into different time periods where they could do homages to comics of different eras (the best of which was Simonson & Bogdanove's ode to the Golden Age Superman) which was a harbinger of things to come in the '00s.
This was all due to a fiendish plot by a villain called Dominous and he soon manipulated Superman in trying to destroy the world's armaments. I don't remember that story too well, except for the fact that it paid off the plot line that the Kryptonite Superman gave Batman had been stolen and replaced with a fake.
After that, the Superman books just seemed to meander. There was a three-part prestige format miniseries called The Doomsday Wars which I had fun picking up as they came out, but it was clear that Superman's books had grown stale--and not in the way your typical pseudo-intellectual jackass would have you believe (it may not have helped that in September of 1999, there was a one-month arc called One Man JLA but it didn't gain much publicity).
In December of 1999, Eddie Berganza took over as editor with Jeph Loeb, Mark Schultz, Mark Millar, Stuart Immomen and Joe Kelly took over as writers. The stories had more "bite" to them, and they weren't connected. Also, the books took on more of a variety of artistic styles, especially after Ed McGuinness took over the art chores on the Superman series.
I would say that while there may have, indeed, been a jump in quality on the books, D.C. that this more-or-less marked the end of my era of Superman. I 'm not saying that as a snob telling people that this take on the character was wrong. Far from it, it was an improvement, but it was still the turning point that begat the Superman of the '00s.
Now, certainly, the stories of 1986-1999 were stun in canon with the Superman comics that came out within a couple of years of Berganza's takeover of D.C. right? Yes, but it didn't take long to circumvent the direction of those books with Return to Krypton, which established that Krypton had actually been more like the Silver Age version. This was incredibly controversial and a year later, D.C. had backpedaled. Once again, the cold, forbidding Krypton of Byrne's miniseries was revealed to be the true form of the dead planet.
In September of 2003, D.C. Comics began publishing a 12-issue limited season, known as Birthright. This was another retelling of Superman's origin, but unlike a four-issue miniseries called A Superman For All Seasons, which retold the existing origin from another point of view; Birthright changed much of Superman's backstory, including the culture and nomenclature of Krypton, Clark's years between his life in Smallville and when he became Superman and a Daily Planet reporter, his first public feats as Superman, and to a lesser extent, Clark's personality.
What's strange about this reboot is that it didn't follow a story like Crisis on Infinite Earths or Zero Hour. It was published, and according to some sources, not intended to be canon. However, by Superman/Batman #8, published May, 2004 (months before Birthright came to an end), it had apparently been adopted as the official backstory, as the nomenclature of Krypton matched what we saw in this issue and the issues that followed, which was the reintroduction of the classic Supergirl.
Now, as I alluded to earlier, talking about the history of Supergirl in the "From Crisis to Crisis" era would take a whole hour, so I'm generally going to avoid talking about her here and save it for another entry. But long (long, long… LONG) story short, the original Supergirl, who was Superman's cousin from Krypton had died in Crisis on Infinite Earths and then eliminated from the continuity all together. A couple of years later, they introduced a new Supergirl who was an artificial life form and had very different powers. She was very popular in comics in the mid '90s, but I'm not sure what happened to her. The aforementioned Superman/Batman #8 introduced a version of the character who was more like the original. Oh… and Power Girl was introduced in the mid-'70s as the Earth-2 equivalent of the character, and after Crisis on Infinite Earths, they established that she was really from Atlantis. They later changed her back.
Anyway, back to Superman, Birthright constitutes another "death" of the '90s Superman. By this point, they were turning their back on established facts left and right. Superboy, the clone introduced during Reign of the Supermen was actually the clone of Superman and a mysterious "donor." Eventually, the donor was revealed to be a minor villain known as Paul Westfield, however, when Geoff Johns took over Teen Titans, he overrode that to establish that Lex Luthor was the "donor."
In a way, this makes sense dramatically as far more people would be familiar with Luthor than Westfield, but it was still such a dramatic disregard of the established backstory.
Meanwhile, I'd mentioned Power Girl earlier. In a 2005 miniseries published on the eve of Infinite Crisis, it was revealed that the character was, indeed, the "Supergirl" of Earth-2, just like in pre-Crisis history. Yet, if there were no parallel Earths, how was that even possible?
As an example in another line of comics, a change in Batman's history was that Jason Todd had been revived by Rah's al Guhl years earlier. There was also a Nightwing miniseries (in which Superman appeared in one issue) recounting his evolution from Robin to Nightwing, which contradicted things established in earlier versions of the story.
If this was happening with Superman and Batman, I wonder what was happening to other superheroes. I'm not really sure, but in any case, an explanation came in the form of Infinite Crisis. As the title may suggest, it's a space & time story that altered the status of the entire D.C. Comics Universe by reinstating the multiverse and setting the stage for further revisions in characters' backstories. Infinite Crisis revealed that Superboy Prime, a character who had appeared during Crisis on Infinite Earths twenty years earlier, and who entered a parallel dimension with the Superman of Earth-2, had been punching the walls of reality which lead to these continuity glitches.
Now, Infinite Crisis lead to yet another reboot for Superman, and other superheroes. The new version of Superman first appeared in Superman #650 (depending on how you look at it, they either re-retitled The Adventures of Superman so that it was just Superman again, or they bumped Superman up to that issue, but either way, they'd cancelled the other book, and had cancelled Superman: the Man of Steel years earlier, leaving Superman with two books: Superman and Action Comics) in which he's suffered the loss of his powers following the events of Infinite Crisis. Clearly, the nomenclature of Krypton was different again (owing much to the Superman films of the '70s/'80s and their psuedo-sequel Superman Returns) and other changes to the backstory which seemed to imply, for instance, that he grew up as Superboy, or that his first meeting with Batman was on a yacht, both of which are similar to stories from the silver and bronze age of Superman.
2009 was a rather lousy year for Superman. Not only had Warners' planned sequel to Superman Returns failed to materialize, Superman would not be appearing in his own titles anymore. Action Comics would go to his adopted son, now known as Nightwing (oh, incidentally, the name Nightwing was originally a Kryptonian thing Dick Grayson had become Batman following Bruce Wayne's "death" in Final Crisis but he's alive again so never mind) who had adventures in the Bottled City of Kandor. I've never read any of the issues and cannot comment on them.
Meanwhile, Superman was taken over by Mon-El, a Legion of Super Heroes member with most of Superman's powers, but whose weakness was lead and who had been wrongly imprisoned in the Phantom Zone. I think. Anyway, they didn't even make him the "new" Superman or give the impression that it could be Superman (as in Reign of the Supermen), he was still just Mon-El and he was the new main character of Superman. This, to me, was one of the most asinine moves in comic book history. The character's popularity may have gone downhill and the stories may have been great; but having a comic called Superman when the main character is some other guy is just, I don't know, false advertising.
During this year, Superman went to a new planet to oversee the creation of a new Krypton-like planet. I'm afraid I don't even know how to describe it. I only bought one issue later on, and the idea just simply didn't appeal to me. I may read it one day. It may indeed be a great story. But I think the main problem here is that they had taken the character away from his surroundings to do, basically, a full-on space opera type story, and I'm not sure I wouldn't have objected to it as a shorter story in a six-issue miniseries, but it was its own series outside of the regular titles which were taken over by other characters.
The most disturbing thing is that after twelve issues, they apparently couldn't resolve the story and had to wrap it up in a miniseries called Superman: War of the Supermen in 2010. This was so indicative what what was wrong with superhero comics at the time. Everything centered around big events and crossovers, then publishing a new four-issue miniseries that would be easy enough for the collectable market to pick up.
The follow-up to all of this was an arc called Grounded which I'll talk about one day, but at this point, I'm far too tired. Suffice it to say, I had problems with the concept, but while it wasn't any more severe than the above transgressions, it's the classic case of a creative team who thinks they're turning a corner, but just ended back at square one.
Coinciding with this were Superman of Earth One which I've talked about in an earlier entry, and Action Comics #900 which was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as I was concerned. Superman: Earth One wasn't without its flaws, but it gave us a slightly updated version of his costume and had a certain verve that made it fun without being hammy. Action Comics #900's "The Incident?" Let's just say that to some fans "the American way," may sound a tad jingoistic; but while it's one thing to phase it out of the slogan, it's another thing to simply pooh pooh it.
In a sense, Infinite Crisis had brought back the pre-Crisis Superman with some post-Crisis mollifications. Minor supporting characters from pre-and-post Crisis reappeared almost obligatorily and, in perhaps one of the strangest ideas, Gary Frank began drawing Superman with an unmistakable likeness to Christopher Reeve. This despite many fans' clamoring for a reboot after the disappointing Superman Returns which similarly attempted to tie itself to the earlier films.
It wasn't until 2009 that fans got an actual origin story for this Superman, but by this time, it was clear that we'd had a new demarkation. The era I grew up with was now a thing of the past, and I didn't really know how to feel about it. I wasn't buying the comics much, because they seemed even more obsessed with publicity stunts and experimentation than the '90s stuff I grew up with.
I'm not saying that any version of the character--in or out of comics--is inherently better or worse than the other (well, except Superman Returns, that's worse), but that the character is constantly evolving, whether you like it or not. And I happened to grow up when a lot of sweeping changes were occurring, so I don't feel it's such a strange thing, and I don't think that the fact that a given story is or isn't in canon anymore doesn't mean D.C. has forsaken or disrespected it, which may indeed be the basis for another entry.
Every time people get on the subject of a superhero film, or any other movie based on a comic book, it seems like someone will always claim that "comic book nerds" don't matter to the film studios.
Now, that may seem like common sense. After-all, a single comic book is lucky to sell 100,000 and who cares what some fat, sweaty guy who plays Dungeons & Dragons thinks, right? But are the tastes of people who read comics and weigh in on them on the internet that different from those of everyone else?
Besides, for something so "nerdy," it seems like there's an awful lot of people who play poser to it. After-all, don't graphic novels that have been on bookshelves long enough eventually turn a pretty decent run?
In 1989, Warner Bros. released Batman which was a dream come true for Batman fans who had been reading him starting in the 1970s, when his adventures took on a more gloomy tone, and the deeds of his enemies became more heinous. Oh, it took many liberties with the stories, but at the time, many fans felt it was just great to see a movie like this, which became the biggest movie of the year in the United States.
1992 saw the inevitable sequel, but some fans weren't happy. They could no longer overlook Batman's willingness to kill, and the monstrous look of the Penguin, so different from the comics. There were script problems from day one as well. And yet, many other fans thought it was terrific, however, many parents had taken their kids to see it not realizing that there were elements of the film that children would find scary and depressing. It was only the third-biggest movie of the year in America.
To remedy this, Warner Bros. released Batman Forever, which replaced the gloomy German-expression inspired look of the first two with a more exciting music-video like action flick. The villains were as comedic as in the 1960s Batman TV show--which, mind you, was a comedy in the vain of Get Smart and fans were divided over the inclusion of Robin. Consensus among fans was that the movie was a major disappointment.
Warner Bros. laughed all the way to the bank, however, as it became even more successful than Batman Returns (it was the second biggest film of the year) and continued on with Batman & Robin which was one of the most universally-decried films of the last twenty years. While it opened fairly strong, the film was ultimately considered a disappointment, if not a flop. While a low-budget Spawn movie did respectable, if unremarkable, business at the box office, and the Men in Black movie was an enormous hit, but it seemed that Batman's days of box office supremacy were over as the film came in 12th in the domestic box office.
Had Warner Bros. learned their lesson? Before we had a chance to find out, three years went by before 20th Century Fox released X-Men. Now, this is a strange case because the idea of the team as being feared and hated by ordinary humans was kept, as for a lot of the drama of the comics. It also featured Patrick Stewart as Professor X, who had been WizardMagazine's choice for the role since their first fantasy cast in 1994. Inevitably, there were characters who were altered quite a bit to support the story, and the costumes were pretty much unrecognizable.
The film did well, but was nowhere near what the first three Batman films had been. A year later, Warner Bros had put Superman back on the small screen in the form of Smallville, which covered his high school years, wherein he slowly learned to use his powers and deal with the typical problems of a teenager in Kansas. The show was a success, but with his costume nowhere to be seen, it was almost more like an urban fantasy (or, well, rural fantasy) version of the character as X-Men had been more of a straightforward sci-fi/adventure film in the vain of Star Trek.
Fans' opinions on each of these projects was divided.
That may have held true of Columbia's 2002 blockbuster Spider-Man, but with its box office earnings, it just didn't seem to matter. While there were still small changes to the mythos (the most talked about of which was Spider-Man's webs coming from his actual wrists instead of gizmos placed on them), his costume was much as it had been in the comics, with the main difference being in texture, and the idea of a teenager with coming-of-age problems and who fought crime because he had failed to prevent the killing of his uncle when he had the chance remained.
There were fans who nitpicked the changes as minor as they were. There were also those who felt it wasn't the best film it could be in general. But for the most part, it was considered a blessing from fans.
In the meantime, Smallville kept going strong, while a sort-of Batman spin-off Birds of Prey only lasted one season with many viewers complaining that it was confusing. Welcome to our world.
The show made a brief allusion to Smallville (suggesting that in this universe, Superman was far younger than Batman and even Batgirl) but never crossed-over. Birds of Prey had many similarities to Smallville--a modern rock soundtrack, an attractive cast, no costumes for the heroes except in flashbacks) but predictably had a much different atmosphere and premise.
While the series was cancelled after just one season, the show runners were given the opportunity to reshoot the final episode, which showed that they at-least cared what viewers thought as far as it went.
During the next two years, X2 (why they couldn't call this otherwise fine film X-Men 2 is beyond me) and Spider-Man 2 did great business at the box office, each about as faithful as their predecessor. On the other hand, Daredevil was a mediocre hit, and The Punisher more-or-less broke even, while The Incredible Hulk was basically a high-profile flop. All of these films were fairly faithful. It may not have helped that the independent comic-based League of Extraordinary Gentlemen--a tepid film that really would have been lame even for the '90s--was also something of a flop in the domestic box office.
However, none of these films did quite as bad as Catwoman, starring Halle Berry in the title role. I cannot comment on this film in that I haven't seen it, but in addition to terrible reviews, there didn't appear to be any fidelity to the source material. They changed her secret identity, and I'm under the impression she had cat-powers. I'm also under the impression, she's a straight-up hero (if maybe an anti-hero) as opposed to the burglar with a heart of gold as seen in the comics and cartoons.
Oh shit, almost forgot, here's the Spider-Man 2 trailer.
Despite what Catwoman implied, however, Warner Bros. had been listening to Bat-fans. The next year Batman Begins was released. Fans had been clamoring for a "Year One" type film since almost immediately after the release of Batman & Robin. The film not only returned Batman to the darkness of the past (where he'd been in the comics all along), but also stayed somewhat closer to the source material. The film made Joe Chill the killer of Bruce's parents as he had been in the comics, and used the idea that it was a mob-hit made to look like a robbery--a product, ironically enough, of the '50s comics. We also saw Bruce training with Rah's al Guhl, a major character in the comics and in the animated series, but who had never appeared in live-action. The film even ended with a tease for the Joker, that was straight out of Batman: Year One.
That's not to say the film never tarried from the source material. They still had a black, armored costume and the love-interest was an original character; but compared to Batman & Robin, not only was this film practically a work of utter genius, it was also practically verbatim what was in the comics.
And yet, while the film faired mostly well with critics, some felt it was tedious and that too much attention was devoted to things like the creation of Batman's gadgets. In box office figures, the film did well, but didn't quite restore Batman to his early '90s glory days. What I will say is that the film had a certain feel to it like it was faithful to the comics without trying to rest on the laurels of being based on them. This sort-of takes the X-Men formula to a higher level. It's its own movie, and I really think that it was the greatest superhero film of all up to that point, though Spider-Man 2 and Superman: the Movie are strong contenders as well.
The same year, a Fantastic Four movie hit the screen. It was reasonably faithful, with the predictable watering-down of the main villain. It just… sucked. But it wasn't exactly a flop.
By this point, it's obvious that filmmakers and studios saw the value in fidelity to the source material as well as seeking the opinions of the base. But does that mean they started giving a rat's ass about what fans think?
Well, I think we've gone long enough without defining the word "fan." A fan doesn't necessarily mean someone who's at the comic book store every Wednesday
X-Men: The Last Stand or whatever the third film stepped away from treating the series as straight sci-fi/adventure and went with something with more of a superhero feel, even if the costumes were, for the most part, what they had been in the earlier films. It still took liberties with the characters--Cyclops' death being a case-in-point--but it was also just incredibly cheesy. That was the conciseness among fans, though the film did well at the box office.
But that summer came the most divisive film in superhero history.
Superman Returns is a movie I cannot describe in objective terms, because it just pissed me off that royally. I'll try: it was a broad-strokes sequel to the Christopher Reeve film (according to its press, it followed the first two but ignored the later two) and the idea was that Superman left for five years because some scientist discovered evidence that Krypton might not have blown up. Right off the bat, this premise is contrived at best, and self-serving on his part at worst. But anyway, he returns to find that Lois had a son and has a boyfriend. Lo and behold, he discovers that he's the child's true father. Oh, and there's some bullshit about how Lex tried to use the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude to… um… turn North America into that so people would pay to live there?
This offensive, nonsensical gibberish brought in $200 million at the U.S. box office with an additional $191 million overseas. It garnered a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes as well. These numbers aren't that bad, but when you look at the $270 million budget (whether or not that includes prior attempts to create a Superman film) and the aim of critical prestige, it really wasn't that big a deal. Yet, many fans love it.
Why?
Well, because: it said it was faithful. How did it manage that? Well, the film went into pre-production soon after the deaths of Marlon Brando and Christopher Reeve, the stars of 1978's Superman: the Movie which began the age of blockbuster superhero films. It was produced by Alexander and Ilya Salkind, the later of whom was a big fan. Warner Bros. distributed and largely financed it, but it was basically a Salkind production, so the corporate era really began with Batman.
That's why it's easy to say that blaring the John Williams music enough, finding a guy that resembles Christopher Reeve enough, and quoting enough lines from that classic of classics was "faithful" even if the plot was out-of-character shit. At the time, Superman: the Movie was considered more-or-less the granddaddy of superhero films, despite some infidelities and important reboots and events in the comics since it came out. Yet, there was a divide between "comic book fans" and "Donner fans," in the years leading up to Man of Steel. And I hold Superman Returns director Bryan Singer--who had masterfully helmed the first two X-Men films--as the prime suspect.
Now, take another look at the box office figures and critical response. Does this sound worthy of a sequel? I mean, it's more-or-less what Batman Begins took in, albeit on a much larger budget. Bear in mind also that Batman's comics have also sold more in general, with some major exceptions, and that Batman's prior films were more recent and more profitable than Superman's, even adjusting for inflation (Superman IV was an unmitigated disaster at the box office, and III was a modest hit) and Bats had done better in TV animation and far better in video games--in fact, Superman's rep in the world of video games was considered terrible.
However, Superman did still have a feather in his cap, which was that he had always been successful in live-action TV. The Adventures of Superman was a nugget of the golden age of television proving there was life before Reeve, Superboy was a cult favorite, Lois & Clark was a respectable prime-time hit for ABC, and Smallville was still going strong when Superman Returns came out. Plus, the first two Christopher Reeve films had been huge hits, as long ago as they were released, and the 1992 Death of Superman arc, and its sequel Reign of the Supermen (I'm trying to explain it in terms a studio board member would understand) were big-sellers, with the death issue itself selling about three million copies.
Meanwhile, many fans felt Superman Returns was a great accomplishment and embodied everything they'd wanted in a Superman film--especially after years of rumors and leaks of a very unfaithful film in the late '90s and a slight improvement in the early '00s--but many others, including myself, flatly didn't. Some like me were offended by the scenario. There would be no way to follow it up without making Superman a deadbeat dad at-least at the beginning of the movie. Others felt the original films were too old anyway, and hadn't aged as well as some of their contemporaries. I could see where that was coming from, but I feel that if the Star Wars films could have prequels, Superman could have sequels if they loosely adapted more recent stories.
I'm not sure, but I think D.C. was trying to test the waters when they released Superman: Doomsday, the first in a line of animated films based directly on stories from the comics, and with no ties to any other animated or live-action projects. I really hated Superman: Doomsday, but the next one--Justice League: New Frontier--was a gem, and one day, I'll review them in greater detail; but today, I'm here to talk about theatrical releases.
2007 was not a great year for superhero films. While in the U.S. box office, Spider-Man 3 reigned supreme, Ghost Rider and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer barely covered costs. Movies based on non-superhero comics were also coming into the fray. A CG-animated Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film aimed low with a $34 million budget, but hit its mark with $54 million domestic. 300 was a surprise hit and marked Zack Snyder's entry into the arena of comic book adaptations. But it was Michael Bay's Transfomers, which we can call a comic book adaptation because the first fiction for the characters was the Marvel comics, was a tremendous hit.
Back to Spider-Man 3, though: it adapted the symbiote costume saga and the advent of Venom with a reasonable amount of fidelity… but the role of Eddie Brock was miswritten and miscast. Bryce Dallas Howard was good as Gwen Stacy, but the role of the character was unlike in the comics and they seemed to be using her for every moment they needed a female of childbearing age who wasn't Mary Jane. The Sandman story was good, and he made for the perfect foe for Spider-Man in the living costume; but while the story of him being Uncle Ben's true killer was almost like a retroactive Batman-esque "have the villain kill the parents" moment. But more importantly, the symbiote isn't well set up or explained, the scene where "dark spidey" goes nuts in a coffee shop is beyond lame, and the special effects were just a little behind the times.
In other words, fans generally acknowledged that it was faithful enough, but it still sucked.
The following year, however, superhero films turned a page.
When that trailer hit… we knew a new era had begun.
The first production of Marvel Studios, Iron Man was, to many people, the ultimate "comic book movie." Not only did the costume look a lot like in the comic books of the time, but the film was faithful almost to a fault. When Tony first escaped from the camp, he wore the original clunky armor that many fans never thought they'd see on the big screen. Practically every supporting character from the comics appeared in one form or another. And most importantly, it ended with a post-credits scene in which Nicky Fury, played by Samuel L. Jackson, telling Tony that they're "forming a team."
Later that year, Tony Stark appeared again The Incredible Hulk, a film that was marketed as a reboot to the 2003 disappointment that was Hulk, and yet, seems to almost take up where the last film left off (Banner is in Brazil) and don't devote much time to the origin, however they do provide a new origin in a brief flashback and explain that it was part of an experiment to replicate the super soldier serum from World War II. Also, there was a new cast, which sold the idea that it was a reboot, but to moviegoers unimpressed by the first film or unfamiliar with the Marvel Studios plan, it wasn't a big deal. This film didn't really do much better than its predecessor, and the big problem remained that the CG Hulk wasn't convincing enough. By that point, however, Iron Man--a superhero who was largely unknown outside of comics and video games--had made his mark, even if the hero who had been Marvel's biggest hero in the late '70s/early '80s (unless you count the Star Wars characters) was clearly not the draw he used to be.
By the middle of July, though, the disappointment of the Hulk movie didn't matter. Batman Begins had built up a following on DVD, and critics were raving about the performance of Heath Ledger, who had died since the film wrapped up shooting. Fans' early reactions to stills from the film was a bit tepid in some cases, as the Joker bore scant resemblance to the comics and there was division over the decision to simply title it The Dark Knight; but by the time the film was on the way to theaters, nobody could hide their curiosity.
The Dark Knight quickly became one of the biggest films of all time, with critical response through the roof and Oscar buzz (and an eventual win) for Ledger. It was the biggest movie of the year, and until Avatar won out, the entire decade.
While the plot of The Dark Knight is not without its influence from the comics, nor is it something that couldn't happen in the books (except, arguably, the ending) it wasn't a direct adaptation. Fans can debate whether the Joker was ultimately more similar to the comics or less than the Jack Nicholson version, and the inclusion of the Wayne Foundations (which owed itself to the comics of the early '70s) was probably neat for some fans but lost on others. One of the main differences between Superman & Batman vs. most of the Marvel stable, is that these two heroes have been in several influential films and TV shows, and rebooted several times in the comics; while the Marvel bunch has seldom been in live-action films of note (the '70s Hulk TV show is a major exception) and the comics were rarely rebooted, notwithstanding Ultimate Marvel. Even the animated series' tend to be more-or-less direct adaptations of certain stories, while D.C. animation has tended to add its own creations into the mix (compare Justice League Unlimited and Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes).
2008 marked a new era because it was obvious that a couple of very different superhero films could come out and be the top two films of the year. It also founded the idea that Marvel's films (20th Century Fox's had a more playful, colorful style while Warner Bros.' films based on D.C. heroes tended to try for more of a "realistic" style. Which is "better" has been the subject of bitter debate among fans, and it's these two films that have set the discussion.
There was also a Punisher reboot that year… but I never saw it and don't care.
The following year, 20th Century Fox released X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which leaked early, and garnered negative press there from. Despite being Fox's most faithful X-Men film to date, it was not well-regarded, but Fox soldiered in the years to come and the box office returns were fair.
Less commercially successful was Watchmen, an adaptation of the most acclaimed miniseries-cum-graphic novel of all time. The film took some liberties, mostly with the ending and the costumes. In my humble opinion, some of the redesigned costumes were improvements and if anything, some of the revisionist history was probably confusing to less-informed moviegoers (e.g. Nixon still being president in 1985). In my humble opinion, the film was very faithful, but it seemed like a lot of fans were upset about what changes were made, and incredibly, some fans even criticized the more incidental moments (the old man and kid at the comic book shop) which is to say that this is simply one of those films where the stereotype of overzealous fans nitpicking minor changes was demonstrable.
Was this a case of a movie studio and filmmaker not listening to fans or fans expecting something not in the cards? Bear in mind that until after the film came out, Watchmen was a completely self-contained story that took place outside of the D.C. Universe and had no prequel, sequel or spin-off of any kind.
That same year, films like G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, Star Trek and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen were based on franchises targeted to the same audience as superhero films. Again, the Transformers and the G.I. Joe characters' first fiction originated in comics, while Star Trek was very influential in comic book/superhero circles, with actors from the various Trek series' appearing regularly at conventions. For what its worth, many fans felt Transformers had been an embarrassment and did not like what they were seeing with its sequel or the G.I. Joe movie. Even Star Trek was quite controversial because of some feeling that they shouldn't reboot the beloved space saga.
There was also a film called Avatar that became the biggest film ever. But it wasn't based on anything, so we don't need to talk about it.
Meanwhile, a sequel to Superman Returns had been scheduled for 2009, but nothing seemed to be happening. Superman Returns action figures with a Man of Steel logo appeared on the shelves of Target, and the presumptive name of the sequel was indeed Man of Steel, but not one frame of footage appeared to have been filmed. Had the movie been cancelled?
Many fans sure wanted it to be cancelled, but again, many didn't. However it was increasingly obvious that those who did want a reboot tended to be either non-fans, or fans of comics beginning in 1986, following Crisis on Infinite Earths and the reboot miniseries Man of Steel;while those who favored the earlier "pre-Crisis" comics or the Christopher Reeve films wanted a sequel. If Warner Bros. was indeed listening, it had a choice to make, and it looks like they did as early as April 22.
Perhaps this quote from Jeff Robinov in a 2008 interview with the Wall Street Journal sheds some light on this subject: "we're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters will allow it." In that interview, he said they had been disappointed in Superman Returns and that they'd planned to "reintroduce" the character, although it wasn't set in stone. Still: to that point, there had been little, if anything, to suggest that a reboot was in the offering.
Moving on to 2010, Iron Man 2 hit theaters. By this time, fans were used to sequels that improved upon the first outing: X2, Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, and in some people's opinion, Superman II and Batman Returns. This time, however, there was a disconnect. Had Iron Man 2 been a faithful film that managed to excite and tell a great story? Or did it get bogged down with in-jokes and meandering plot threads? Most importantly, was it getting people excited about the upcoming Avengers film, or did the setup get in the way of a good story?
At this point, the later seems to be the more common opinion, though at the time, the excitement was still bubbling for the big crossover.
Iron Man 2 was the only big superhero film of 2010, though Warners put out a film about the western D.C. Comics character Jonah Hex, which faired very poorly. Iron Man 2 was the third biggest film of the year showing that he was still going strong. In my humble opinion, the film may have some rather huge flaws, but it was certainly the type of film many fans had been hoping for. They just should have put more effort into creating an honestly-good film instead of a celebrity pajama party.
By this point, a reboot had been announced, not of Superman, but of Spider-Man, whose massive success at the box office and fidelity to source material had been an inspiration to Hollywood for nearly a decade. It seemed odd, since Spider-Man 3 had done well financially, and even the internal politics (director Sam Raimi's falling out with Columbia/Sony and star Tobey Maguire's leaving apparently out of loyalty) didn't seem like the series needed a reboot. But the decision had been made.
The next year saw the release of four mainstream superhero films, all trying to be at-least somewhat faithful. Thor was the first one out of the gate. While the film was mostly popular and got good enough ratings, influential critic Roger Ebert gave the film a scathing critique. Ebert's no snob by the way. For my money, the film was okay, but nothing special. My knowledge of early Thor comics is limited and my knowledge of later Thor comics is nonexistent, so all I will say is that originally he had a secret identity in Don Blake, a handicapped doctor whose cane turned into the hammer of Thor and he turned into the deity; yet, this is not covered in the film, although there's a brief mention of someone named Don Blake.
X-Men: First Class served as proof that Fox was trying to get a little more faithful to source material, but they were still off and had no choice but to be off because of how their "universe" was structured. The film had elements of a '60s spy thriller and even managed to incorporate a real-life event (the Cuban Missile Crisis) into the narrative. It had its flaws, but I actually recommend it as something that tried to be as faithful as it could be, mostly using unfamiliar characters, with new actors as the younger Charles Xavier and Magneto, both of whom will return in Days of Future Past along with their older counterparts.
But the biggest disappointment of the year was Warner's D.C. adaptation Green Lantern which I'm honestly afraid to talk about. I said something about it being a mediocre film and someone excoriated me as this fanboy who just wants everything to be 100% like the comics. Then, about a year later, I said it was fairly generic, but that I didn't think it was any worse than Iron Man 2 or Thor and said I was just a D.C. fanboy who had no objectivity.
Anyway, I didn't see much in the way of infidelity given my narrow familiarity with Green Lantern. From what most people said, he was too cocky and irresponsible, which was inconsistent with Hal Jordan's personality. My problem is that it was just generic and didn't have much going for it, with a character who should have been interesting visually. There's also too much emphasis on the love story and not enough on what could have been a fascinating look at this intergalactic authority. For a better film, check out the animated Green Lantern: First Flight.
Now, at some point, D.C. seemed to hope that Green Lantern would become their hero that just suddenly gained a new popularity like Iron Man, and be their third--or even second--most popular superhero. Yet, it just was not to be. The movie does serve as food for thought, however: if this had the Marvel logo on at the beginning and tied in with another superhero, would it have done better?
Thankfully, the final superhero movie of that summer was awesome and faithful to the comics. Captain America: the First Avenger followed the title hero from his origin as a young private who volunteers for an army experiment to grow bigger, stronger, faster, etc. to his seeming demise in the frigid sea with the film ending in modern times as we get a preview of the Avengers film after the credits.
There are scenes taken virtually verbatim from Ultimate Origins and yet, the film feels fresh, almost like Marvel's stab at an Indiana Jones type of adventure. The cast is incredible and while the story isn't gobsmackingly original, it is a thrilling adventure and ode to the most important period in superhero history.
The following year was something of the year of the superheroes. The Avengers was the biggest movie of the year. No, it's not 100% faithful to the comic book. In order for that to be the case, Cap would have to appear either toward the end, or not at all. Plus, you'd have to swap out Hawkeye and Black Widow for Ant/Giant Man and Wasp. But for all the razzle-dazzle, references to comics, the fact that it had basically the same villain as in The Avengers #1 49 years earlier, and that a plethora of other films lead up to it, it's pretty damn faithful if you ask me.
Not only that, but it was produced by a comic book company that had become a movie company. That's the key: Marvel had been producing the Iron Man films, and all other films that lead up to this one. There's not much to talk about as far as the plot goes, but whatever.
Later that summer, the Spider-Man reboot came into fruition. This time, the backstory of Peter's mother and father had more to do with it and Gwen Stacey (the love-interest in late '60s/early '70s comics) was written much as she had been in the comics, rather than the catch-all female of Spider-Man 3. Spider-Man's web-shooters returned, rather than having given Peter the power to spin webs on his own--one of the few controversial liberties taken with the Raimi films--and the costume was changed to something still recognizable, but in my opinion, cheesier. I'm glad to see they've essentially returned to the classic costume in the upcoming film.
While I think The Amazing Spider-Man was ultimately a better film than its predecessor, it isn't such a vast improvement that it warranted making a reboot just ten years after the original. It is only slightly more serious and slightly darker. Both versions depend on Peter and Ben having a heated argument before Ben is killed to ratchet up the guilt, and while the idea that Peter goes on a manhunt to find the killer which is never resolved is an interesting twist, it just never seemed like this reboot was born out of anything but inside baseball.
Incidentally, Sony's other top franchise (I hate that word) returned that year, surprisingly out-earning Spidey with Skyfall, the third film to feature Daniel Craig as James Bond. Many people were confused about the timeline with respect to his initial outing, Casino Royale (it took place when Bond was in training, but it was still the Judi Dench version of M, whose hiring was a major hurdle for Bond in Goldeneye because he had to… *gasp*… take orders from a woman), but Skyfall actually seemed to be having fun with the idea that there's no solid timeline for Bond.
I don't think we can look forward to that kind of artsy-fartsy approach with Spider-Man, but time will tell. In the meantime, it did well at the box office, but was only the seventh biggest film (the first Spidey to not be #1 or 2) in the yearly box office and came in well under $300 million, unlike the others.
Then, of course, came The Dark Knight Rises: the third in what's known as the Dark Knight Trilogy. Where the first movie was quite faithful and the second one was something that could happen in a Batman comic, this one throws it out the window, catching up with Bruce long after he's hung up the cape after the events of the previous film. He returns (with a flying Batmobile) to do battle with Bane. Yes, the part where Bane snaps his back is derived from Knightfall, but the rest of the film is devoid of resemblance to the comics. I won't spoil it, but let's just say there's a reason they've introduced a new Batman to join Superman in his upcoming film, despite the first teaser for the flick being shown along with The Dark Knight Rises.
It may sound like I'm saying that TDKR was written without fans in mind, but by this point, a veritable religion had grown around these films, and Warners had put the man behind them in charge of kickstarting their oldest and debatably next-most-popular superhero.
There were nods to the comics, and ultimately, it played like a high-concept Elseworlds graphic novel. I think what we've learned here is that with the two oldest and greatest superheroes, they've been storied, adapted, rebooted and merchandised so much over the years that there's no way any movie could please the bulk of the fan base and not be controversial.
That will take us to 2013's Man of Steel, but first the biggest movie of that year was, once again, an Iron Man film. It seemed inevitable that Iron Man 3 would be the biggest superhero film of the year and that it would face more competition from the sequels to The Hunger Games and The Hobbit than Superman might have to offer, especially coming off of The Avengers. There were continuity nods, but it was actually a little more divergent from its source material. In fact, I'm not terribly familiar with the Mandarin, but it seemed to me like they completely bastardized him.
But I don't care. The focus of this article was always to talk about Man of Steel and I've defended it as a film. Right now, what I will say is this: many fans loved Superman Returns. Many, including myself, hated it. Opinion from casual fans may have swayed more in favor of Superman Returns, but against it in the eyes of fans of the action genre. For better or worse, though, most seemed to be basing their opinion on the nods to the Christopher Reeve films and the lack of violence than anything else.
Again, though, when a Superman reboot was announced, it was joined with the half-hearted promise of it being "dark," whatever that meant. If you ask me, many fans, casual fans, posers, and people who only liked Superman because of the kitschier elements of yesteryear were pissed and seemed to assume the worst. If they saw him in an unhappy scene, he was being "emo," and it was a dark sign of the times that he wasn't smiling. If he was taking charge and fighting the bad guys, he was "cocky," and causing to much destruction. And the killing of Zod? Superman doesn't kill, right?
Generally no, but he did kill General Zod in an incredibly important story from 1988, and in the years to come, his remorse got the better of him, which is hinted at here, but where they go with it remains to be seen.
The film was considerably more successful than Superman Returns but not competitive with Iron Man 3. Checking boxofficemojo.com today, I saw that it was now only the fifth biggest film of the year, having been overtaken by the animated feature Frozen. I didn't see that coming and thought that if anything, The Hobbit would have been its competition (the high frame rate of that film seemed to distract from the box office) but it didn't matter.
This movie was the product of listening to fans. But as I said above, these two heroes who have been around since the great depression and been part of our culture through thirteen presidents, several wars, countless technical innovations and had been seen in almost innumerable radio dramas, animation, serials, TV shows and movies. Batman has made over $3 billion at the box office, while Superman has made one billion, and has a grand total of 24 seasons worth of live action television. It's almost becoming impossible to please half the fanbase for either of these characters.
Make no mistake: Warners has been listening. It's just that fans can have bad ideas, or give incredibly mixed signals. And if it seems odd that the last two Superman films have been greeted with a strange amount of controversy, well, wonder no more.
Oh. And Thor: the Dark World and The Wolverine were both pretty faithful from what I could see, but I could be wrong, and they did okay financially.
