texdent: There was an upside to Batman and Robin?

It was so bad it killed the franchise and made the studio consider hiring a real director and real actors to work on a good script. So there's that.

texdent: There was an upside to Batman and Robin?

As a 90's continuation of Batman '66, it was pretty good. As a continuation of grimdark Frank Miller Batman, not so much.

texdent: There was an upside to Batman and Robin?

Rifftrax.

Google it.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Batman and Robin is that no matter how bad it is, they still kept making Batman movies anyway. Compare that to the rest of the DC universe, and it looks pretty grim. Time-Warner will keep making Batman movies and TV shows no matter how good or bad they are, while remaining absolutely clueless as to what to do with the rest of the DC characters they own.

Electriclectic: As a 90's continuation of Batman '66, it was pretty good.

That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw Batman and Robin for the first time. Even so, just imagine how much better the film would've been if that was the actual intention behind the film.

Rev. Skarekroe: Then his face creases into a mask of confusion, consternation and concern. He turns to his friend, holds the book aloft and says, "What the hell is Blade doing in a comic book?"

Yes, I'm sure that's a typical reaction to someone seeing Blade in a comic book.

More like "huh, they made a comic book out of Road to Perdition? That's odd."

Jaws75: Perhaps the most amazing thing about Batman and Robin is that no matter how bad it is, they still kept making Batman movies anyway. Compare that to the rest of the DC universe, and it looks pretty grim. Time-Warner will keep making Batman movies and TV shows no matter how good or bad they are, while remaining absolutely clueless as to what to do with the rest of the DC characters they own.

I think the difference is that Batman already had a history that included the ridiculous.

Before Batman & Robin, they'd already done the fall to Adam West's TV show, and then the climb back up to The Dark Knight Returns by Miller. So there was proof the character and setting could survive some tarnish and do well in a reboot.

Superman hasn't really shown that kind of ability to recover, not in TV/film anyway. Plus, Batman's easy to write; he's just a normal guy who's trying to capture and lock up ridiculously insane badguys. Superman's ridiculously powerful, and his only real weakness is deus ex machina. The issue with Superman is his antagonist. You can go with the guy who's as or more powerful than Supes, but despite his less restrictive moral code is going to lose anyway for reasons that won't be plausible. You can go with some dude with Kryptonite because nothing says "good writing" like building in what amounts to "cheat codes" against Superman because there's no other way to write the villain plausibly.

And then there's the one really solid antagonist who's really difficult to write. Lex Luthor. The man who's brilliant, and not insane but supersane. He's the guy who realizes that Superman is an alien invader and that human reliance on such a defender rather than on their own strengths is a danger to humanity. Lex uses kryptonite (because he'd be stupid not to, given that it exists), but he'd be a reasonable villain even without it. The whole story arc where he became President of the USA, for instance. He didn't cheat. He didn't lie. He ran, legitimately, and won, legitimately. And made life hell for Superman, using the powers he was legally entitled, nay, required to use to do so.

He's a great villain because he's not wrong. But that's hard to write without turning Superman into a villain, so instead we get movies about maniacal plots to make new islands for real estate sales.

Hebalo: Electriclectic: As a continuation of grimdark Frank Miller Batman, not so much.

We haven't seen Miller's Batman on the screen yet. The current films are the closest, but still not him.

Well...maybe not in theaters, but we have seen him.

Link (new window)

yeah, i think movies based on comics are a risky proposition for the comic companies, because a bad film can give the entire comic a bad name. fantastic four is a good example. the punisher i think is another. good comic characters and stories but the movies are pretty terrible. people who might have been interested in the comics end up thinking the comics must be as bad as the movies. compare that to something like watchmen or 300 or hellboy, where the movie was good enough (or at least interesting enough) that it made people seek out and buy the comics.

part of me would love to see a movie based on preacher, but the rest of me knows that the movie would be totally awful.

Thorak: Jaws75: Perhaps the most amazing thing about Batman and Robin is that no matter how bad it is, they still kept making Batman movies anyway. Compare that to the rest of the DC universe, and it looks pretty grim. Time-Warner will keep making Batman movies and TV shows no matter how good or bad they are, while remaining absolutely clueless as to what to do with the rest of the DC characters they own.

I think the difference is that Batman already had a history that included the ridiculous.

Before Batman & Robin, they'd already done the fall to Adam West's TV show, and then the climb back up to The Dark Knight Returns by Miller. So there was proof the character and setting could survive some tarnish and do well in a reboot.

Superman hasn't really shown that kind of ability to recover, not in TV/film anyway. Plus, Batman's easy to write; he's just a normal guy who's trying to capture and lock up ridiculously insane badguys. Superman's ridiculously powerful, and his only real weakness is deus ex machina. The issue with Superman is his antagonist. You can go with the guy who's as or more powerful than Supes, but despite his less restrictive moral code is going to lose anyway for reasons that won't be plausible. You can go with some dude with Kryptonite because nothing says "good writing" like building in what amounts to "cheat codes" against Superman because there's no other way to write the villain plausibly.

And then there's the one really solid antagonist who's really difficult to write. Lex Luthor. The man who's brilliant, and not insane but supersane. He's the guy who realizes that Superman is an alien invader and that human reliance on such a defender rather than on their own strengths is a danger to humanity. Lex uses kryptonite (because he'd be stupid not to, given that it exists), but he'd be a reasonable villain even without it. The whole story arc where he became President of the USA, for instance. He didn't cheat. He didn't lie. He ran, legitimately, and won, legitimately. And made life hell for Superman, using the powers he was legally entitled, nay, required to use to do so.

He's a great villain because he's not wrong. But that's hard to write without turning Superman into a villain, so instead we get movies about maniacal plots to make new islands for real estate sales.

Obviously, this is all wrong. Superman isn't an "invader," alien or otherwise - no more than any other hero. "Invading" implies some sort of intent that Superman has actually never exhibited (except in alternate-world stories), unless you want to ignore the inspiration for his origin in the first place. Luthor is a racist, a bigot, who perceives aspects in Superman that aren't there. Luthor hasn't restricted his hatred to only Superman either - he's gone against many other heroes in the DC universe. Unless, of course, Luthor is "right" against all of them as well.

I'll have to assume you're trolling. I should really not have replied to this in the first place.

Lodger: Thorak: Jaws75: Perhaps the most amazing thing about Batman and Robin is that no matter how bad it is, they still kept making Batman movies anyway. Compare that to the rest of the DC universe, and it looks pretty grim. Time-Warner will keep making Batman movies and TV shows no matter how good or bad they are, while remaining absolutely clueless as to what to do with the rest of the DC characters they own.

I think the difference is that Batman already had a history that included the ridiculous.

Before Batman & Robin, they'd already done the fall to Adam West's TV show, and then the climb back up to The Dark Knight Returns by Miller. So there was proof the character and setting could survive some tarnish and do well in a reboot.

Superman hasn't really shown that kind of ability to recover, not in TV/film anyway. Plus, Batman's easy to write; he's just a normal guy who's trying to capture and lock up ridiculously insane badguys. Superman's ridiculously powerful, and his only real weakness is deus ex machina. The issue with Superman is his antagonist. You can go with the guy who's as or more powerful than Supes, but despite his less restrictive moral code is going to lose anyway for reasons that won't be plausible. You can go with some dude with Kryptonite because nothing says "good writing" like building in what amounts to "cheat codes" against Superman because there's no other way to write the villain plausibly.

And then there's the one really solid antagonist who's really difficult to write. Lex Luthor. The man who's brilliant, and not insane but supersane. He's the guy who realizes that Superman is an alien invader and that human reliance on such a defender rather than on their own strengths is a danger to humanity. Lex uses kryptonite (because he'd be stupid not to, given that it exists), but he'd be a reasonable villain even without it. The whole story arc where he became President of the USA, for instance. He didn't cheat. He didn't lie. He ran, legitimately, and won, legitimately. And made life hell for Superman, using the powers he was legally entitled, nay, required to use to do so.

He's a great villain because he's not wrong. But that's hard to write without turning Superman into a villain, so instead we get movies about maniacal plots to make new islands for real estate sales.

Obviously, this is all wrong. Superman isn't an "invader," alien or otherwise - no more than any other hero. "Invading" implies some sort of intent that Superman has actually never exhibited (except in alternate-world stories), unless you want to ignore the inspiration for his origin in the first place. Luthor is a racist, a bigot, who perceives aspects in Superman that aren't there. Luthor hasn't restricted his hatred to only Superman either - he's gone against many other heroes in the DC universe. Unless, of course, Luthor is "right" against all of them as well.

I'll have to assume you're trolling. I should really not have replied to this in the first place.

To be fair, every Kryptonian that isn't Superman, Super-girl, or Power Girl, is a colossal asshole. Zod is just the start of it, the people of Kandor were total asshats as well.

Lodger: Thorak: Jaws75: Perhaps the most amazing thing about Batman and Robin is that no matter how bad it is, they still kept making Batman movies anyway. Compare that to the rest of the DC universe, and it looks pretty grim. Time-Warner will keep making Batman movies and TV shows no matter how good or bad they are, while remaining absolutely clueless as to what to do with the rest of the DC characters they own.

I think the difference is that Batman already had a history that included the ridiculous.

Before Batman & Robin, they'd already done the fall to Adam West's TV show, and then the climb back up to The Dark Knight Returns by Miller. So there was proof the character and setting could survive some tarnish and do well in a reboot.

Superman hasn't really shown that kind of ability to recover, not in TV/film anyway. Plus, Batman's easy to write; he's just a normal guy who's trying to capture and lock up ridiculously insane badguys. Superman's ridiculously powerful, and his only real weakness is deus ex machina. The issue with Superman is his antagonist. You can go with the guy who's as or more powerful than Supes, but despite his less restrictive moral code is going to lose anyway for reasons that won't be plausible. You can go with some dude with Kryptonite because nothing says "good writing" like building in what amounts to "cheat codes" against Superman because there's no other way to write the villain plausibly.

And then there's the one really solid antagonist who's really difficult to write. Lex Luthor. The man who's brilliant, and not insane but supersane. He's the guy who realizes that Superman is an alien invader and that human reliance on such a defender rather than on their own strengths is a danger to humanity. Lex uses kryptonite (because he'd be stupid not to, given that it exists), but he'd be a reasonable villain even without it. The whole story arc where he became President of the USA, for instance. He didn't cheat. He didn't lie. He ran, legitimately, and won, legitimately. And made life hell for Superman, using the powers he was legally entitled, nay, required to use to do so.

He's a great villain because he's not wrong. But that's hard to write without turning Superman into a villain, so instead we get movies about maniacal plots to make new islands for real estate sales.

Obviously, this is all wrong. Superman isn't an "invader," alien or otherwise - no more than any other hero. "Invading" implies some sort of intent that Superman has actually never exhibited (except in alternate-world stories), unless you want to ignore the inspiration for his origin in the first place. Luthor is a racist, a bigot, who perceives aspects in Superman that aren't there. Luthor hasn't restricted his hatred to only Superman either - he's gone against many other heroes in the DC universe. Unless, of course, Luthor is "right" against all of them as well.

I'll have to assume you're trolling. I should really not have replied to this in the first place.

I thought he made pretty good points. Also, look up invade/invader/invasive. Invasive species do not have malicious intent, but they can and do do harm.

Don't know where you read "Invasive species do not have malicious intent, but they can and do do harm." Maybe if you're talking about locusts or plant species, maybe you're correct, but not people.

The most common definition I came across was "to enter like an enemy." Unless we want to argue the definition of "enemy," this still doesn't apply to Superman, no matter who has been writing him.

Whatever "dependence" you think people have on Superman is easily shared by every other hero. But as in so many other cases, Superman is made to be the highest example of an attribute. People get mad if Superman does too much, and then argue that he isn't saving everyone all the time.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: The upside to Batman and Robin is that now even the average moviegoer sees the words "Directed by Joel Schumacher" at the bottom of the poster and thinks "Hmm. I could drop $10 on this or I could just videotape the dog shiatting out Xmas tinsel and use the money on booze."

Which is really unfair. I don't know how B&R went so wrong but Schumacher was also behind Falling Down and the Lost Boys. Given good material he can make a good movie

Lodger: Thorak: Jaws75:
I'll have to assume you're trolling. I should really not have replied to this in the first place.

Pretty much the whole theme of "Lex".

Lex sees Superman as a virtually invulnerable, immensely powerful, laser eye'd threat to humanity.

Lodger: And then there's the one really solid antagonist who's really difficult to write. Lex Luthor. The man who's brilliant, and not insane but supersane. He's the guy who realizes that Superman is an alien invader and that human reliance on such a defender rather than on their own strengths is a danger to humanity. Lex uses kryptonite (because he'd be stupid not to, given that it exists), but he'd be a reasonable villain even without it. The whole story arc where he became President of the USA, for instance. He didn't cheat. He didn't lie. He ran, legitimately, and won, legitimately. And made life hell for Superman, using the powers he was legally entitled, nay, required to use to do so.

He's a great villain because he's not wrong. But that's hard to write without turning Superman into a villain, so instead we get movies about maniacal plots to make new islands for real estate sales.

Obviously, this is all wrong. Superman isn't an "invader," alien or otherwise - no more than any other hero. "Invading" implies some sort of intent that Superman has actually never exhibited (except in alternate-world stories), unless you want to ignore the inspiration for his origin in the first place. Luthor is a racist, a bigot, who perceives aspects in Superman that aren't there. Luthor hasn't restricted his hatred to only Superman either - he's gone against many other heroes in the DC universe. Unless, of course, Luthor is "right" against all of them as well.

I'll have to assume you're trolling. I should really not have replied to this in the first place.

Don't think he's trolling, just seeing things from Luthors perspective. Thats exactly what makes the current comic version of Lex so good. He isn't out to further evil, he thinks Superman (and other nonhuman DC heros) represents a threat to the planet that needs to be controlled by humans. Luthor thinks he is looking out for Earth. In his mind he's the clearsighted hero, not a villian

Real people never see themselves as evil. Thats what made Nolan's Joker so good too. He knew his actions were terrible and ugly but his sociopatic nature made him believe he was just more open and advanced than other people. He wanted to prove that under pressure everyone was as ugly inside as him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Luthor:_Man_of_Steel

Spoiler on the idea, sorta.

Thorak: And then there's the one really solid antagonist who's really difficult to write. Lex Luthor. The man who's brilliant, and not insane but supersane. He's the guy who realizes that Superman is an alien invader and that human reliance on such a defender rather than on their own strengths is a danger to humanity. Lex uses kryptonite (because he'd be stupid not to, given that it exists), but he'd be a reasonable villain even without it. The whole story arc where he became President of the USA, for instance. He didn't cheat. He didn't lie. He ran, legitimately, and won, legitimately. And made life hell for Superman, using the powers he was legally entitled, nay, required to use to do so.

What arc was this?

RedPhoenix122: Orgasmatron138: It was so bad it killed the franchise and made the studio consider hiring a real director and real actors to work on a good script. So there's that.

Oh yeah, like that would really happen in Hollywood...Next you'll say it's was a blockbuster movie that spawned an even greater sequel.

I love those two movies, and I trust Christopher Nolan, but I have to tell you I have a bad feeling about the third one.

I am still pissed off they screwed up Judge Dredd. Thanks, Stallone.

//The helmet.. stays.. ON!

brigid_fitch: enderthexenocide: yeah, i think movies based on comics are a risky proposition for the comic companies, because a bad film can give the entire comic a bad name. fantastic four is a good example. the punisher i think is another. good comic characters and stories but the movies are pretty terrible. people who might have been interested in the comics end up thinking the comics must be as bad as the movies. compare that to something like watchmen or 300 or hellboy, where the movie was good enough (or at least interesting enough) that it made people seek out and buy the comics.

part of me would love to see a movie based on preacher, but the rest of me knows that the movie would be totally awful.

That's why Marvel created Marvel studios. They saw the hit Punisher & FF were taking when their characters were handled by outside studios and decided to take matters into their own hands. That's when we got Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Capt. America. So far, they seem to be doing pretty well. I think The Avengers will be the tipping point--either it will completely flop or it will set the tone for larger comic movies. If Avengers does well, expect to see a JLA movie & an FF reboot.

BTW, The Watchmen sold more comics BEFORE the movie than after. The movie didn't really do that well outside of comic circles because most of those people thought it was another superhero comic. I remember telling one parent w/his 6-yo kid that he really should take him to see Coarline in the next theatre. The guy was like, "No way, he got scared during Coraline!" "And you brought him to Watchmen???" The movie never did better than its hype. Not that it was a flop, by any means, but it was not the success everyone was hoping for. It really should have been marketed better.

That and Watchmen blew as a movie. The original story was just fine and could've translated VERY well as a mini series, but Zack Snyder went for the larger audience rather than sticking to the rather adult themes of the book. Just imagine the mirror image issue spread out for an hour or two on HBO, THAT would've made for a great adaptation.

It's much more a problem with the crowds and the films than with the characters. I never understand why the endgame of a comic book is to make a crappy movie out of it. The movies are really just long expensive trailers for the comics as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes you get a gem, and more often than not that's on television rather than theaters.

If crowds don't get the character because of a crappy movie, that's their problem.

Lodger: Obviously, this is all wrong. Superman isn't an "invader," alien or otherwise - no more than any other hero. "Invading" implies some sort of intent that Superman has actually never exhibited (except in alternate-world stories), unless you want to ignore the inspiration for his origin in the first place. Luthor is a racist, a bigot, who perceives aspects in Superman that aren't there. Luthor hasn't restricted his hatred to only Superman either - he's gone against many other heroes in the DC universe. Unless, of course, Luthor is "right" against all of them as well.

I'll have to assume you're trolling. I should really not have replied to this in the first place.

Luthor's a long-running villain, he's been written in both ways you two are arguing over. The difference is that when Luthor is written to, well, kind of have a point, that's good writing, and the storylines you're describing are usually shiate writing. The reason he keeps surviving as Superman's primary antagonist (even when they aren't actually battling it out in a robot suit or whatever), though, is that his line of reasoning is not actually unreasonable in a real-world context, even if it's a bit silly by comic-book logic.

There's something that appeals about the character that continually lampshades the tropes of the work in which he exists, Luthor as he's best written is a good example. If the world of Superman was The Taming of the Shrew, he'd be more a Tranio to Superman's Lucentio rather than a Gremio, constantly cutting down people from the sidelines and bringing them back to practicality rather than being an outright dick through and through.

//Hm... did I just resolve an argument regarding a comic book with a classical theatre analogy? I may be a nerd of some description.

brigid_fitch:
It's not that fans are pissed when one storyline is done over another. We only get pissed when the storyline they choose is done POORLY. Spiderman 3 is a great example. The black suit and eventual creation of Venom is a great story arc and they could have done a lot with it without sticking 100% to the comic (for instance, ignore the fact that the suit was given to him during the Secret Wars). Instead of trying to portray that storyline well, they decided to throw in a new villain, make said new villain Uncle Ben's killer, and completely miscast a lightweight as Eddie Brock. The hell?

That always struck me as two movies crammed into one. Whether or not having Venom in the film was Raimis idea or the studios, I don't know. What I do know is that individually each villain would have made a good singular antagonist for a movie because of the backstory given and fit in nicely with Peters internal conflict with his newfound fame. Ultimately they were just trying to do too much at once and Marvel Studios has doen a very impressive job keeping things simple yet entertaining. Their Hulk had only two major action scenes, same for Iron Man and Thor, but it worked.

Thorak: The whole story arc where he [Lex Luthor] became President of the USA, for instance. He didn't cheat. He didn't lie. He ran, legitimately, and won, legitimately.

I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. Luthor manipulated the economy to create a recession in order to cause hardship among the citizenry. He then used bribery and extortion to reduce the budgets of most of the police departments in the US. He did this for the express purpose of making the incumbent president, the police, and the Justice League (mostly Superman) look bad. Luthor broke the law many times in order to artificially create the factors that led to his electoral win. And on top of that, he only wanted to be President to piss off Superman.

Lex has bragged about this several times, including Superman's title series, and in the Justice League Unlimited cartoons. Check out the Season 2 episode called, "Divided We Fall". Lex goes on about his presidential campaign at some length.

/Sorry, but Lex Luthor is so crooked he can't even take a piss in a straight line.
//I really liked the "Good Lex" In Crises On Infinite Earths.

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Thorak: The whole story arc where he [Lex Luthor] became President of the USA, for instance. He didn't cheat. He didn't lie. He ran, legitimately, and won, legitimately.

I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. Luthor manipulated the economy to create a recession in order to cause hardship among the citizenry. He then used bribery and extortion to reduce the budgets of most of the police departments in the US. He did this for the express purpose of making the incumbent president, the police, and the Justice League (mostly Superman) look bad. Luthor broke the law many times in order to artificially create the factors that led to his electoral win. And on top of that, he only wanted to be President to piss off Superman.

Lex has bragged about this several times, including Superman's title series, and in the Justice League Unlimited cartoons. Check out the Season 2 episode called, "Divided We Fall". Lex goes on about his presidential campaign at some length.

/Sorry, but Lex Luthor is so crooked he can't even take a piss in a straight line.
//I really liked the "Good Lex" In Crises On Infinite Earths.

Great line, (misquote) "and I spent 500 million on a phony presidential campaign JUST TO TICK SUPERMAN OFF. Do you have any idea how much power I'd have to give up to be president?"

texdent: There was an upside to Batman and Robin?

Nipples.

The_Time_Master: texdent: There was an upside to Batman and Robin?

Nipples.

Blasphemy. It was the codpieces.

Summer Glau's Love Slave: I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. Luthor manipulated the economy to create a recession in order to cause hardship among the citizenry. He then used bribery and extortion to reduce the budgets of most of the police departments in the US. He did this for the express purpose of making the incumbent president, the police, and the Justice League (mostly Superman) look bad. Luthor broke the law many times in order to artificially create the factors that led to his electoral win. And on top of that, he only wanted to be President to piss off Superman.

So, just like current events?

Will anyone ever make a movie baed on Alan Moore's American Gothic arc of Swamp Thing or did that last POS movie kill that dream off forever?

Don't even get me started on Hellblazer.

/Bitter.

Alphax: Summer Glau's Love Slave: I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. Luthor manipulated the economy to create a recession in order to cause hardship among the citizenry. He then used bribery and extortion to reduce the budgets of most of the police departments in the US. He did this for the express purpose of making the incumbent president, the police, and the Justice League (mostly Superman) look bad. Luthor broke the law many times in order to artificially create the factors that led to his electoral win. And on top of that, he only wanted to be President to piss off Superman.

So, just like current events?

Got it in one.

zakke: I am still pissed off they screwed up Judge Dredd. Thanks, Stallone.

//The helmet.. stays.. ON!

[cdn.counter-currents.com image 600x497]

Thus the inherent problem with adapting Dredd to the big screen. The studios are going to cast a big name star - who they're not going to want to hide under a helmet through the entire film (and on the posters). Doing the movie math we see there should NEVER HAVE EVER BEEN a Dredd film in the first place. Unless you're willing to cast a nobody with the perfect jawline, that is... ?

Even with all the backlash from fans over the first film, do you really think they're going to hide Karl Urban's mug entirely just because of it in the remake? NOT BLOODY LIKELY.

what i dont get is why people think the movies should follow a certain story arc as a requirement. i have no problem with movies creating their own continuity as long as following installments that arent reboots keep that continuity. i see the movies as a different universe in the entire comic multiverse, kinda like an Earth-26 or Marvel-1157.

that said i would kill for a relaunched Exiles that incorporated the live action avengers.