great look at Deathstroke who will hopefully be in the stand alone batman movie.
[]
Printable View
great look at Deathstroke who will hopefully be in the stand alone batman movie.
[]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF031DwMffQ
Batman ... Ninja?!
(Coming 2018)
Yeeeeeeesssssss
The writer of this thing is good and makes me want to watch this, but even though this isn't the worst CG anime I've seen, it looks like CG anime and I don't really like it.
This is great. Here is a Trivial Pursuit card from the 2008 edition.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQKaCjtV4AAUfCk.jpg
Hahaha, this 2011 draft by Will Beale sounds crazy. Dude basically wrote a comic book story.
https://www.thewrap.com/justice-leag...suicide-squad/Quote:
Superman goes through a Boom Tube and travels eleven years into the future to find that Darkseid has wiped out 80 percent of the Earth’s population. Diana leads the last of the human resistance with an aged and grey-haired Bruce Wayne as her second-in-command. They have a son named Clark Wayne, and one surprising member of the resistance is Lex Luthor.
The Future Batman leads a dozen fighters known as Batman’s Berzerkers. They include Slade Wilson (Deathstroke) George Harkness (Captain Boomerang), Helena Bertinelli (Huntress) and Barbera Minerva (Cheetah). Comics fans might also recognize this team as the members of Suicide Squad — though not exactly the Suicide Squad of last year’s film. The last of the resistance is headquartered inside Superman’s Fortress of Solitude.
That's a movie I want to see.
The alternate reality is some of the best DC stuff. I'm including Flashpoint in that.
Damn, do an animated version of that.
New photo of Fuckuaman.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQd3xk6WkAEITG9.jpg
Aquaman: Rough Seas, Rough Trade
Had no idea the franchise was going in this bold new direction, but I'm okay with it.
That dude has the body I lust after.
Broquaman.
I love how Wan's just been off-camera quietly making his Aquaman movie while all this DC hand-wringing brouhaha goes down.
It’s still going to be awful.
Remember when we talked about manipulative superhero deaths played for effect?
Well, it seems Morrison planned to keep Batman dead for five years and DC wouldn't let him.
Justice League's failure is causing a big restructuring at Warner Bros that will take place in January. They're going to announce a new person to head the DC movies now. Apparently parent company Time Warner is really unhappy with what WB has been doing with the DC properties.
But I think this is the bombshell part:Quote:
Warner Bros. continues to have a production deal with Snyder, so it’s possible he could direct additional films for the studio. Time Warner is said to be frustrated that Warner Bros. leaders continue to bring the director back, especially after “Batman v Superman” was excoriated by critics even though it made money. They are also upset that each new DC film seems to be making less money than its predecessor.
Quote:
While Ben Affleck is expected to appear as Batman in a standalone Flash movie, it is highly unlikely he will don the cape and cowl in Matt Reeves’ planned standalone Batman movie. The director is said to want to cast the role with fresh talent, according to sources.
Apparently Jon Hamm really wants it.
IF they reboot it with Flashpoint everything will be fine.
It's pretty sad that Affleck's career has been marred by playing a superhero twice. All that good will he got from building himself up as a director got derailed by this Batman business. Regardless of whether people like him as Batman or not, I feel like this is for the best. Just cut and run, Ben.
Excuse my chain-posting, but I forgot to post this the other day. This article is mostly about comics, but it has one paragraph about that killing in Man of Steel that I think is a very good point and relates to that discussion about it a few pages back:
http://theculturalgutter.com/comics/...in-comics.html
The article is about the peculiar way in which mainstream American comics has to constantly justify why not killing is important, as if heroes are constantly on the verge of killing bad guys and has to be held back, versus comics where the "heroes" need an external, distancing motivation in order to justify their decision to kill, which fundamentally changes them.Quote:
We can act as if the only “realistic” consequences a superhero story can have are death or killing. And we take these superheroes and believe that they should kill and that killing is easy. That it’s their not killing needs explanation and caveats.
For example, the plot of Man Of Steel (2013) is unpleasant to me not because Superman kills Zod—in an extremely intimate, hands-on manner—but because the whole film’s plot is structured to justify this moment. It becomes the point. It answers the question director Zack Snyder and screenwriter David Goyer dare to ask: Why doesn’t Superman kill? As if not killing needs more of an explanation than killing in a world that is not entirely populated by genocidal psychopaths. As if killing were the norm and people must be taught not to kill, no matter the fact that people have to be trained to kill in war and even serial killers work themselves up to it.
Snyder explains why he and Goyer decided to have Superman kill in Man Of Steel (2013):
The why of it was for me [is]if it’s truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained, it’s just in his DNA. I felt like we needed him to do something just like him putting on the glasses or going to the Daily Planet, or any of the other things that your sort of seeing for the first time that you realize becomes his sort of his thing. I felt like if we could find a way of making it impossible for him, you know “Kobayashi Maru“–totally no way out–I felt like that could also make you go[,] “Okay, this is the why of him not killing ever again.”
I think that's rather irrelevant to her piece. It's not questioning why American comics as an industry played loose with violence. That's also actually backwards, which she noted in the footnotes: back when comics were undoubtedly, primarily for children, the heroes were less concerned about mortal violence against bad guys. Especially during wartime. The common "superheroes don't kill" credo really only emerged after the 60s resurgence of superhero comics, after college kids and older folks drove sales (probably a correlation between that and most writers/artists being caught up in the Peace & Love zeitgeist).
I read this more as talking about the way that the culture feels a need to treat their aversion as an effort. Batman, as he's regularly portrayed in modern context, always believes that it's ok for Gordon and other cops to kill bad guys to defend themselves or others, but doesn't allow that of himself or other superheroes. And his main reasoning is essentially because he believes that killing bad guys is what's easy and normal for us normies, but because they're heroes with extranormal powers or resources, and who operate above the law, they should be required to do things the hard way, which involves refraining from killing no matter what the situation calls for.
So this piece made me think about what this means philosophically, when we have mythic figures like superheroes to tell the modern myths of our culture operating on the blanket acceptance that not killing is an inherently superhuman labor. Is that notion a cynical invention, or just an accurate reflection of our culture?
I've said this previously in this thread, I think, but what I found odd was the impulse for Man of Steel to build an origin story for Superman's sense of morality. One thing that gets really exhausting when talking to fans about that movie is that they try to explain to me how it's--as Snyder puts it in his quote--a Kobayashi Maru situation and that the movie adequately explains how he got to that point where it all makes sense for him to do that. But I don't care about any of that, because it's just fucking written that way, right? Someone decided that the story should culminate that way, and it's more that initial impulse to do that story that I bucked against. I do find it a little peculiar, in hindsight, why Snyder and Goyer saw this Boy Scout character and immediately wanted to deconstruct that as, like you say, an incomplete first arc. I'm actually wondering if the neck-snapping had happened in a sequel, would it have felt as egregious?Quote:
That's one way to look at it, I guess? It seems a narrow interpretation to me. "Man of Steel" seemed like the first part of an arc that remains, afaik, incomplete. It wasn't just about the killing, but an attempt to show Superman grappling with his inherited legacies before becoming the Big Blue Boy Scout.
Irish why do you constantly delete your posts? Just curious.