Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

New superman Vs Batman film


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-08-2014, 07:16
Naa_KwaKai
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,763
Male muscle only makes sense for a human superhero such as Batman. From a narrative point of view, an alien superbeing such as Superman has strength that far exceeds what you would expect from a man of that build. Indeed, how exactly could someone like Superman get a vigorous work-out on Earth? He should be average build as he doesn't particularly exert himself.
Actually, if anything Superman should naturally have those muscles because of the sun radiation. He's not human so he isn't bound by human standards of "work outs"

Superman's muscle is unnecessary and is presented mainly as a masculine ideal. Just as Wonder Woman's shape is presented as a feminine ideal
.

Nobody is talking about shape. Again, you're bringing up "realism" and body shape/boobs as if those are my arguments and then attempting to counter them. I am referring to:

a) nudity that is, the amount of cleavage and skin shown.

b) the way their bodies are angled that is, if there is focus on t&a, if they are drawn in impossible positions solely for the sake of showing off their sexual parts.

Wonder Woman is not the feminine ideal, she is the male fantasy. She serves only men. Women don't want to walk around half naked all the time and be nothing more than sex objects, trust me.

And here's another thing: comic books are written by men and bought mainly by male readers. None of these readers have a problem with the way men are depicted in comics because they're well represented so the whole "men is objectified too" argument is bull and used only as a reflex reaction to me expressing a desire to be better represented in comics. We must stop pretending that sexism against women doesn't exist.

It's just as sexist, fetishistic and body-fascistic as the depiction of females. Or do you think all those gratuitous topless shots of Henry Cavill, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale have nothing whatsoever to do with female objectification of the male form?
Again, you're flip flopping between mediums. It is comic books we're talking about here. Besides, you're ignoring the narrative context: Superman had his shirt burnt in a fire during the oil rig, Wolverine had just had sex, Christian Bale was training. All legitimate reasons to be naked. Power Girl and her exposed bust, not so much.
Naa_KwaKai is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-08-2014, 11:12
be more pacific
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,188
Actually, if anything Superman should naturally have those muscles because of the sun radiation. He's not human so he isn't bound by human standards of "work outs"
So you're happy to embrace fantasy elements when it suits your argument, yet the idea of a warrior woman in heels send you into a meltdown of incredulity?
Nobody is talking about shape. Again, you're bringing up "realism" and body shape/boobs as if those are my arguments and then attempting to counter them. I am referring to:

a) nudity that is, the amount of cleavage and skin shown.

b) the way their bodies are angled that is, if there is focus on t&a, if they are drawn in impossible positions solely for the sake of showing off their sexual parts.

Wonder Woman is not the feminine ideal, she is the male fantasy. She serves only men. Women don't want to walk around half naked all the time and be nothing more than sex objects, trust me.

And here's another thing: comic books are written by men and bought mainly by male readers. None of these readers have a problem with the way men are depicted in comics because they're well represented so the whole "men is objectified too" argument is bull and used only as a reflex reaction to me expressing a desire to be better represented in comics. We must stop pretending that sexism against women doesn't exist.



Again, you're flip flopping between mediums. It is comic books we're talking about here. Besides, you're ignoring the narrative context: Superman had his shirt burnt in a fire during the oil rig, Wolverine had just had sex, Christian Bale was training. All legitimate reasons to be naked. Power Girl and her exposed bust, not so much.
Isn't that just the excuse used by Kenny Everett's character Cupid Stunt?
"And then all my clothes fall off! But it's all done in the best possible taste."


Have you seen the marketing for the two Wolverine films and Days of Future Past? Narrative context has little to do with the chosen pics of Hugh Jackman with his shirt off.

So you wouldn't have a problem if some contrived "legitimate" plot device disintegrated a superheroine's costume? You would be happy to see Diana Prince's blouse burnt off her body? Or see Barbara Gordon training in a sports bra? Or see whole marketing campaigns built on the promise that Rogue or Storm will be topless?

Honestly, Gal Gadot is not showing that much skin in the Comic-Con image. If you have a problem with a woman showing a bit of thigh, then you pretty much have a problem with society.

Perhaps you could drive through town in this hot weather doing "drive-by suitings", throwing clothes onto any woman who's showing a bit too much skin?
be more pacific is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 15:02
Bio Max
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 1,732
quick question....this is superman vs batman..... why would they be fighting each other? Both are 'good' ??
Bio Max is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 15:21
Naa_KwaKai
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,763
quick question....this is superman vs batman..... why would they be fighting each other? Both are 'good' ??
Did you not see the end of Man of Steel? Superman killed more people than he saved
Naa_KwaKai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 16:51
deano0501
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,346
quick question....this is superman vs batman..... why would they be fighting each other? Both are 'good' ??
No-one's said they'll be fighting each other. The versus could imply they'll be competing one another a la Ant vs. Dec. The Comic-Con footage only showed Batman swinging his signal around and then Superman appearing. We've not actually seen 'em fighting yet.

Wonder Woman could be the Ashley Roberts of the contest.

See now you're excited aren't you?
deano0501 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 18:36
zwixxx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,723
quick question....this is superman vs batman..... why would they be fighting each other? Both are 'good' ??
before they knew each other and were in the JL together we've got:
Superman sees a violent vigilante and Batman sees an Alien with unlimited powers who could easily destroy the world.
so it would not be surprising that their first how-do-you-do doesn't go smoothly.
zwixxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 21:07
-GONZO-
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 7,936
Did you not see the end of Man of Steel? Superman killed more people than he saved
And he also killed a Wayne Enterprises Satellite too
-GONZO- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 21:40
Yuffie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,289
When the announced the proper subtitle to the film I remember seeing a comment somewhere about the title specifying ideally been Batman v Superman. It's a while ago now but they highlighted the fact that it's v ... Not vs. and that seemed important.
Yuffie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 23:14
Motthus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,408
I thought it was just a major villian who sets Superman up against Batman before they realise that its a greater villian behind it and they team up to take him down!
Motthus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 23:57
Naa_KwaKai
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,763
When the announced the proper subtitle to the film I remember seeing a comment somewhere about the title specifying ideally been Batman v Superman. It's a while ago now but they highlighted the fact that it's v ... Not vs. and that seemed important.
I think the court term 'V' is just to indicate that Batman is the one with the issue with Superman, not the other way round.
Naa_KwaKai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 21:08
Motthus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,408
Well according to Bad Ass Digest Batman is an urban legend in BVS and has been around for three decades as he is in his fifties.He has had past adventures and the bat cave also has a memorial with a war torn Robin costume in it!
Motthus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 21:28
Motthus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,408
Rumours that BVS has been moved to the 25th March 2016 to avoid opening against Captain America 3!
Motthus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 00:47
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,907
^ Could well be true it seems. But is Batman still sad?
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 10:08
be more pacific
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,188
Well according to Bad Ass Digest Batman is an urban legend in BVS and has been around for three decades as he is in his fifties.He has had past adventures and the bat cave also has a memorial with a war torn Robin costume in it!
I wonder if the plan is to run Batman prequels alongside the current continuity?
be more pacific is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 10:24
Naa_KwaKai
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,763
It's quite obvious that this film will be ready by 2015 as filming is well under way and they will have plenty of time for post production and marketing. WB made a mistake in announcing the 2016 delay too soon; I bet they regret that now.
Naa_KwaKai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 10:54
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 13,777
yeah 2016 is miles away. i really hope it gets fasttracked to summer 2015...if its ready

if not march is still bit earlier than we were expecting at least.
whedon247 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 12:10
zwixxx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,723
Well according to Bad Ass Digest Batman is an urban legend in BVS and has been around for three decades as he is in his fifties.He has had past adventures and the bat cave also has a memorial with a war torn Robin costume in it!
seriously ?! wtf. So will the JLA movie be simply all the other member going "hey gramps" to Old Mr Batman. Why the heck would they chosoe to reboot things, to start afresh so they can wheel out a string of movie feature all the JLA guys+gals, but give us an old Batman rather than a young fresh chat. Let him have had the cowl for a number of years, been doing his thing longer than Superman, I'm fine with that, but this grizzled old geezer, oh puhleeze. Unless one of their future movies involves time travel.. :sheesh:
zwixxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 12:26
Naa_KwaKai
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,763
seriously ?! wtf. So will the JLA movie be simply all the other member going "hey gramps" to Old Mr Batman. Why the heck would they chosoe to reboot things, to start afresh so they can wheel out a string of movie feature all the JLA guys+gals, but give us an old Batman rather than a young fresh chat. Let him have had the cowl for a number of years, been doing his thing longer than Superman, I'm fine with that, but this grizzled old geezer, oh puhleeze. Unless one of their future movies involves time travel.. :sheesh:
I think it's because we already had a young fresh Batman literally a couple of years ago making this one of the fastest reboots ever. So what WB have done, quite cleverly might I add, is that in having an older Batman it feels more like a continuation rather than a "reboot". They're trying to create a sense that we've skipped a lot of years in Bruce's life and that he's, in a way, returning - even though it's not necessarily in the same continuity as the Dark Knight Trilogy.
Naa_KwaKai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 13:44
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 13,777
yeah old batman aint a issue for me. as long as he can still go. dont want a mentor only style character.
whedon247 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 14:05
zwixxx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,723
Yes we've seen young Batman and "done it for a few years" Batman before, so old Bats would be a new experience. BUT, and this is a big but, we've never seen him with Sups or with WW or any of the other gang. I just can't escape the feeling that seeing a bunch of 30/20 somethings running around with a 50 year old won't look anything other that "ahhh, bless, they're taking their grandpapa on a little outing, ain't that sweet of them" thing.
- though I'm open to being wrong.
zwixxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 15:33
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 13,777
afflek dont look 50, a late 30's/40 character would suit better.
whedon247 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 15:53
Naa_KwaKai
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,763
Yes we've seen young Batman and "done it for a few years" Batman before, so old Bats would be a new experience. BUT, and this is a big but, we've never seen him with Sups or with WW or any of the other gang. I just can't escape the feeling that seeing a bunch of 30/20 somethings running around with a 50 year old won't look anything other that "ahhh, bless, they're taking their grandpapa on a little outing, ain't that sweet of them" thing.
- though I'm open to being wrong.
lol re BIB I see what you mean. Personally, I've never been convinced of Batman's presence in the JL despite his alleged out-of-this-world intellect that outmatches even that of a being that is actually out of this world. So adding the element of experience i.e. a Batman who has seen shit and knows how to deal with a God-like alien adds to the plausibility of the situation. Just.
Naa_KwaKai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 20:11
Motthus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,408
I'm thinking that another reason why we are seeing an older Batman in his fifties in BVS is that they will do a standalone Batman film after the JL that will act as a prequel to show the missing years for Affleck Batman before BVS in a standalone Batman film.Its just a guess but Affleck could still easily play a version of this Batman in his thirties!
Motthus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 23:07
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 1,193
I wonder if the plan is to run Batman prequels alongside the current continuity?
To be honest, I doubt this.

We've had many Batman films over the years, he's always been the prominent DC hero (on film) followed by Superman, though I don't believe either have ever crossed before. I suspect DC are focusing on the Justice League now, and are (for the most part) going to look at other DC characters and see what other stories they can sell.

As great as Batman is, he's been done. Do we really need the same stories being told again and again? I'd be surprised if we see any stand alone Batman films following BvS simply because there's not too much need of them.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2014, 23:49
Yuffie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,289
I think the court term 'V' is just to indicate that Batman is the one with the issue with Superman, not the other way round.
Oh that makes sense. Batman should have issues with Superman after what he did.
Yuffie is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16.