Amph Here's Some Money, Go See A Swap Thing: DCU/Elseworlds Discussion

I have to admire the hope that some higher up at WB is going to read the JC, see that hashtag and think, "that person is right, we should restore the Snyderverse!"

 

Who knows? Might work.

#SomeoneGetMeSomePeanuts

 

Love her, i remember her in the sherlock homles crime series.

 

The teaser trailer for The Batman came across my YouTube suggestions over the weekend and it's my most anticipated DC film, yet to be released.

It's worth taking another look at, especially since it's not using a pop song to score the trailer.


The Batmobile does kind of give off some vibes of the 66 Batmobile.

 

But in this world, if that guy comes to our planet, then he'll get that level of division between detractors and advocates. Snyder nailed that in a way that's very DC - a publisher that's never been shy about letting alternative, serious takes exist (Elseworlds et al).

 

I mean if you want your Randian Superman story, have at it. But I'm also going to call it overly serious, and therefore missing the point of the genre (well at least the specific character of Superman).

 

I'm not sure Superman's character is ever missed though. They go to exceptional lengths in MoS and BvS to demonstrate that in spite of the lack of trust, Superman endures and serves the people of Earth. Not sure if you missed it, but it was hardly subtle or hidden.

 

Other characters, such as his mother and father, are continuously telling him to act more selfishly and with his own interests at heart. Which I suppose would be fine, if his commitment to serving the people of Earth wasn’t done seemingly reticently, as if he’s only working because of an obligation foisted upon him by society. He’s always acting in such a way that his serving of humankind is a burden upon him and that he isn’t particularly happy about it. He’s basically the proverbial Atlas in Atlas Shrugged (people are even shown and said to be ungrateful to him).

 

You know, I think one moment that absolutely works in MoS is that ending with Clark showing up at the Daily Planet. Lois Lane's "Welcome to the Planet" line and the moment she and Clark have right there . . . that has more hope and optimism than the rest of the movie put together. That was a great moment and a glimpse at a take on Superman that is a bit more hopeful than the one we ultimately get in BvS.

 

I think there are some limits in watching a film once, years ago, and relying on that first impression to formulate all views on it. The film reverses the traditional roles of Pa Kent and Jor-El, because in this modern, cynical world that Snyder's films are set in, it's more believable that Superman's brand of noblesse oblige is a biproduct of alien cultures than the Trump voting Middle America of Smallville farmers.

So if you ignore that, then yes, the parents encourage him to be more self-focused. But ignoring that doesn't make Jor-El go away.

You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards.
They will race behind you; they will stumble, they will fall.
But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal.
In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

And

No, you are as much a child of Earth now as you are of Krypton. You can embody the best of both worlds. The dream your mother and I dedicated our lives to preserve.
The people of Earth are different from us, it's true, but ultimately I believe that is a good thing. They won't necessarily make the same mistakes we did, but if you guide them, Kal, if you give them hope, that's what this symbol means. The symbol of the House of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief the potential of every person to be a force for good. That's what you can bring them.

He never resented helping. BvS goes to great lengths to show people trying to hobble him but he never responds in kind. He shows up to the Capitol to justify why he selflessly continues to help people without sanctioning from people who would control or weaponise him.

There is also "You're talking about genocide!" "Yes, and I'm arguing its merits with a ghost."

 

Pa Kent isn’t represented as being an ideological roadblock to Clark though. He is represented, as is Ma Kent, as being formative in his development. We’re meant to agree with their cynicism and see Joe-El as naive (because of how BvS eventually turns out). The world Snyder paints is Randian - people are selfish and we ought to be selfish in return. People won’t thank you for being altruistic.

In any case Superman comes across as disinterested because the way he is being directed. He’s almost never happy.

 

I really feel you should watch the films again.

Gosh you're proud of being able to throw Ayn Rand into it the mix.

At no point are we meant to look at Superman and go "ha, sucker." The point of the whole thing is how these gods among us do what they do for our wellbeing in spite of how little we deserve it. The fawning shown in the Dia de Muertos scene is in fact a good indicator of how the film is commentating on America's fall from grace, because this crowd never felt entitled to anything and when Superman saves all those trapped in a burning building they cannot believe their fortune. By contrast we get American talking heads talking Superman down.

I genuinely feel most people put up roadblocks because it's not Chris Reeve or the Timmverse Superman, and wonder how much they'd struggle after reading Peace on Earth.

 

You liked those turds?

 

Ja.

 

I’m not sure I’m ‘proud’ to throw Rand into this discussion, as much as it’s difficult to pinpoint what exactly is off-putting of Snyder’s work without it. It’s clearly very formative in Snyder’s world view.

Snyder, like Rand, is inherently skeptical of human nature and other people, whilst Superman’s outlook is meant to be optimistic and the opposite of this. I can’t help but think that you’re fine with the view of human nature, not because you share their views of it or their remedies for it, but that you view the humans as specifically Americans.

I think that any hope that existed in MoS is sucked out of it by the time of BvS. I think we’re meant to see the general public in that film as undeserving of Superman and how they will regret it when this man is gone.

If anything I support the people skeptical about Superman, but specifically because he doesn’t really live up to Joe-El’s ideal. Most people will just see him the way Batman sees him - someone who didn’t really have much regard for human life when he was battling Zod. Not to mention Superman killing Zod, and that being devastating to him always felt ‘false.’ Had he not been trying to kill Zod this whole time anyway and destroyed the city because of it? Wouldn’t it actually have been the right thing to do just to have snapped his neck this whole time?

 

The thread title lol.

Perhaps Bats and the Boy Wonder can team up with the cast of Gilligan's Island to solve the mystery of spooky island a la Scooby Doo?

 

Are we digging up and reanimating Adam's corpse?

Can't we restore the Keatonverse instead?

 

We need to start by setting up the broader cinematic universe. I'm thinking Batman and Superman discover each other's secret identities following a series of wacky coincidences where they wind up sharing a room on a cruise ship.

Edit:

Obviously the loss of Adam West's singular talents is no easy obstacle to surmount, but I think the answer to cover for the new hire is fairly obvious: claim the change in appearance is due to Bat-Rhinoplasty.

 

I mean, Man of Steel was three years before Trump ran for President. But I mean, I like MoS's take on Pa Kent. Costner's great and it's an interesting take. It's genuinely morally complicated, in contrast to a lot of the other "morally complicated" stuff in the Snyder films that, you know, aren't actually that morally complicated.