MCU and DCCU Differences in Mentality

Prison rape is played as romantic more often than not...in fact I think the last movie I have seen in which prison rape wasn't used for cheap drama was Shawshanks redemption...and even there they cheated and went for a less darker version of it since in the original story Andy eventually pays the guards who beat up his rapists himself once he has a certain standing in prison while in the movie, the guards act on their own.

There's no such thing as "dark, no matter what the context is". Rape is a literary tool that writers use. It shows up everywhere on the grimdark to light-hearted spectrum, typically in one of three fashions:

1. Gratuitously as a cheap, easy method to make their work seem EDGY.
2. As a comedic device for lulz.
3. As Swanpride pointed out, as a romantic development.

None of which are particularly respectful towards what rape actually is. Snyder, in the interview, was doing the first one. The entire purpose of his "Batman would get raped in prison" comment was to shill how dark and edgy his movie is by comparison, because he equates "Dark and Edgy" with "Good". And, as pointed out, it was a gratuitous reference because nobody even gets raped in prison during Watchmen despite an extended prison sequence.

The point about Snyder isn't that he would actually have Batman raped in the DCEU. It's that the level of emotional maturity he is bringing to his work is equivalent to that of an edgy teenager lecturing people on what it really means to be Goth. His work is cheap, shallow, and driven purely on shock value and that is quite evident in BVS.

edited 27th Sep '16 10:10:57 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Nobody actually gets raped in Watchmen. The Comedian attemps to rape Silk Spectre, but gets stopped before it happens. And the example he used (prison rape) is never a part of the film or comic.

There was no source material for Sucker Punch and it's the rapiest film of his I've ever seen. The entire film is filled with women treated like objects — not just by other characters, but by the camera itself. It's basically Male Gaze: The Movie.

edited 27th Sep '16 10:13:38 AM by alliterator

"He should justo killed and pin her death to Batman. It would have been easy, Batman was going for the kryptonite, he is highly destructive in his quest forma it, he could have madre ver death an easy accident of bats crusade."

Then Super would be world breaker over him and everyone, Super is to OP to handle and Doomsday wasnt ready yet

"His plan hinges in a hero not growing a concience in the last minute"

Why it should plan for that? Bat was going psycho, you know?

" he was lucky Superman is apathetic and doesn't try to clear his name, or is worried about the people that where killed in Africa and tries to find the ones responsables. "

Because so far, he think the warlord and someelse did and he just get pin down for it, and even them is not longer about what he did is people can trust him consder he just do is own thing, the hearing is more a think about trust.

"All he had to do was tune his Lois-Sense to Martha Kent, zip over to her location, and rescue her."

first there was eliminated scene where super try to find her in gotham with his hearing but the sheer level of people suffering shock him, even them Andolini wil just burn her if he get close

" The movie has him trying to reason with Batman throughout the fight but every time he gets his hands on the Bat, the Conflict Ball takes over again."

Because he need bats and there is nothing he can do to stop him, I mean what bat can do?....until kryptonie fall off

"What was he planning to do with Doomsday if Batman succeeded? Hell, what was his plan for bringing Doomsday into containment if Doomsday succeeded?"

is not really clear as the movie move to fast but he thought he cloud controled it, also he was going bonker by what he saw in the ship

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

It's for the best they eliminated that, because it's a Voodoo Shark. Metropolis is, like, right across the river from Gotham for some f*cking reason. How is that not a problem when he's effortlessly pinpointing people in Metropolis? Like when Lex chucked Lois off a building?

Does Gotham have a quantum suffering barrier around its border so the people who are hurting can only be detected through Super-Hearing if Superman is on their side of the river?

He was already bonkers. He peed in a jar and blew up his right-hand assistant for no reason. Imagine Lex setting that in motion.

• Lex: (pissing) This is going to be so great, I can't wait for her to see this, it's going to be amazing. The look on her face will be glorious. Except I'm not going to be there to see it, of course, but it's the thought that counts.
• Mercy: Wait, why aren't you going to be there to see it?
• Lex: Not your concern! Just focus on holding the jar straight. Man, I am going to need a LOT of water to get this thing filled.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

"Then Super would be world breaker over him and everyone, Super is to OP to handle and Doomsday wasnt ready yet"

The movie makes very clear that Superman will only go "world breaker" when Lois dies, after all, she's the key, not Martha. And if he really feared that he would go "world breaker", why make him fight with Batman while exposing yourself as the bad guy and the one who kidnapped his mother? Just kill him already. Hell, Supes wouldn't know he killed his mother (If we are expected to accept that Batman in his rage doesn't want to listen Supes, we can accept the same of Supes when Batman tries to tell him he didn't kill his mother). It would give him enough time to make Doomsday.

"Why it should plan for that? Bat was going psycho, you know?"

And how was he 100% he would kill a good man even when he is a hero? How he expected that he would kill Superman when he didn't kill the Joker? How did he know that the level of psycho bat was going through was enough to justify letting him take all the kryptonite he had and hoping he sudendly doesn't want to kill Supes? Because Lex's an idiot.

It's presented as though Luthor wins no matter what happens. Either Batman kills Superman and Superman is dead, or Superman kills Batman and the world sees him as a cold-blooded murderer.

Problem is, nobody cares about Batman. They all think he's a terrifying beast-man. We've seen cops shoot at him, trafficked women afraid to come out of their cage because he's still in the building, and everyday civilians scared shitless by his existence. Everyone wants Batman gone.

Superman ripping off Batman's head and presenting it to Lex Luthor wouldn't prove to the world that he's not so holy after all any more than breaking Zod's neck already did. So far as the people of Earth are concerned, Batman is 100% pure villain. No one would be angry that Superman ended the unholy terror he has wreaked upon Gotham.

edited 27th Sep '16 10:56:24 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

No it doesn't. The dream scenes are rather ambiguous and the presence of the parademons points to Darkseid's involvement.

It does heavily imply they're gonna adapt the injustice storyline, in which Lois death makes Supes evil.

... But yeah, fair enough. It's mostly speculation from my part and isn't all clear.

Still, Lex thought Supes was "all-good", so he becoming that only helps his plans. And he already made a really risky and idiotic plan in wish he could loose everything in the end if Batman doesn't kill Superman. Superman becoming evil doesn't look that bad when he doesn't know he's the one who killed his mother.

edited 27th Sep '16 11:17:02 AM by eligram

Um, Lex didn't think Superman was all good. That was the entire point of his enmity with him.

Ok, then he wants to prove it, what better way that to make him evil. Then the Doomsday plan makes more sense in the end.

Lex didn't think Superman was all good.

"If God is all powerful he cannot be all good."

So he is trying to prove that Superman isn't all powerful by having him killed. Which would in turn prove that Superman is all good.

edited 27th Sep '16 11:33:10 AM by Halberdier17

Batman Ninja more like Batman's Bizarre Adventure

DCEU!Superman has a "Create the Earth in a week" power?

When a green shiny rock can kill you, that evidence enough that he isn't all-powerfull. Lex just ignores it because reasons.

And do you honestly believe that Lex would do everything he did without believing and fearing that Supes might indeed be all-good?

edited 27th Sep '16 11:43:31 AM by eligram

I find a rather intriguing sort of meta-comentary in Luthorberg's attitude, mostly because there have been Superman stories that milk the whole divine deal to no end - if it's illustrated by Alex Ross, it probably fits. And these stories are just as ridiculous for the reasons stated above - Superman isn't invincible or all-powerful, he has clear weaknesses, and in general, is no more special or powerful than any other heavyweight cape in the DC universe. So it's the writers that just ignore that because reasons. Having this sort of attitude come from the villain is an interesting reversal, with the rest of the story focusing on how Superman clearly isn't interested in being anyone's icon, and while still helping people around the world, prioritizes his family and loved ones first and foremost. And this is what actually makes him relatable - the fact that he has a personal stake, rather than just being an idealized embodiment of generic altruism. Forget forced character flaws, loss of powers, or being dark and edgy so as to compete with the cool kids - being relatable is a matter of stakes; namely the ones we'd all feel connected to, like family, friends, even a cute puppy. That's not to say that the lives of Lois or Martha are more valuable than that of any other person, but that it's far more heartfelt to have Superman fight for them in particular, even as he guards the world as a whole.

Superman's divinity is played up so he can be used as a metaphor. He's not more powerful than other capes because of his superpowers, but because he's the representation of an ideal. Not every story has to do this, but I think it can be an effective use of a character, mythologizing them in that way. DC retells its characters' origin stories every other year or so, and has never had a problem fudging past continuity to suit current stories. Different interpretations can exist, the same way there are various retellings of the same stories in ancient myths.

...which is why a hard reboot like New 52 bugs me— it's a fix for something that wasn't broken, like they're trying to turn a mythology into a history.^note Not that a more historical approach is inherently bad— Marvel, even with the same sliding scale, does tend to feel more current events-y than modern legend, and I don't have a problem with that. But I digress.

Every story isn't necessarily about relating to Superman. What the argument seems to come down to is more about his feeling like a character to be *aspired* to.

edited 27th Sep '16 1:41:04 PM by Unsung

To be frank, the whole aspiring thing is also more than a little overdone, mostly because of all the contrived conveniences Superman benefits from in order to function. It's not just his powers, but also his anonymity, as well as almost never facing actual hard choices or ambiguous or unclear issues. Easy to be a saint in paradise. So, relatable is probably the better way to go in the long run, particularly as being an inspiring paragon is a matter of public preference. I've mentioned before that the people taking down dictators and terrorists in real life wear Punisher skulls rather than Superman shields - that's some chewy food for thought when it comes to what people consider heroic, author intentions to the contrary notwithstanding.

One could make the argument that the sloppy execution aside, a Superman who doubts and stumbles but perseveres is a lot more human and inspiring than one who never has to make hard choices and who always has the perfect solution to everything.

Yeah, all those things are part of the fantasy that is Superman. And the Punisher is closer to what some people consider heroic, sure. Just not everyone. A former soldier who solves peacetime problems with the same skills he's learned to apply in war? The fact that that resonates with soldiers isn't surprising. Trying to make Superman more 'realistic' because some people like Punisher better seems to miss the point of both. You can't please everybody all the time, which is why both characters still exist.

Superman is capable of still being a saint even when he's *not* in paradise— when he's on Apokolips, for example— and that's something a lot of his fans like about him. Is it overdone, exaggerated, unrealistic, improbable? Yeah, probably, sure. It's not an accident, though. It's part of the fantasy that's being played out. Not everyone has to like it, but that's why Superman's not the only superhero. And even then, it *is* possible to like Superman and the Punisher both at the same time, without needing either one to become more like the other.

People don't always need their gods and heroes to be flawed, or at least not too flawed, to be inspired by them. People are inspired by different things. You're right that some people would find a more flawed character more relatable, but that doesn't mean every single character has to be deeply flawed or even all that relatable to be appealing. Antiheroes and deconstructed Ideal Heroes have become the norm, but that's not the only approach that can lead to a successful work.

edited 27th Sep '16 9:31:17 PM by Unsung

Thing is, if Superman is supposed to be a fantasy, this makes him both unrelatable and uninspiring at the same time, since it's a clear admission that the rules of his reality bend to accommodate him, rather than his attitude being able to stand on its own. Notably, on Apokolips, his idealism fails - the people there are more willing to tend to Darkseid rather than be free of him, so Superman's inaction merely props a painfully corrupt system.

And it's a rather frequent cliche to equate idealism with passivity, with moral codes that make the Prime Directive seem lenient and flexible. He's a bit of a dark horse, but Dylan Hunt of Andromeda is an example of a very idealistic and extremely proactive hero who will nevertheless give Ben Sisko a run for his money when it comes to putting his foot down, all without becoming morally compromised. (Honestly, that series is criminally underrated.)

With Superman, the problem is that comics have been going for darker villains, Luthor included, so heroes prioritizing their own ideals over the innocent lives lost due to continued lenience aren't really inspiring either. Either cut the grimdark crap and make the villains more redeemable, particularly those like Luthor who continually avoid the legal system, or just have Superman snap the occasional neck so as to show that cares more about protecting people rather than preaching to them.

This. It may be unrelatable and uninspiring to you personally, but that's not the case for everyone. Ideals do not need to be attainable— we are unlikely to ever achieve perfection in anything, but it's the striving which is important. And the idea that the rules of reality can't bend to accommodate stories or characters is completely wrongheaded. All fiction bends probability to some greater or lesser degree for the sake of narrative convenience. You're just quibbling over what degree you find acceptable.

Idealism can take all kinds of forms, some passive and pacifistic, some violent and aggressive. Rapture in Bioshock starts off as quite idealistic, as does the pre-war world of Fallout. Both have their own substantial problems once you scratch the picture-perfect surface veneer, but they represent someone's ideal, or at least as close as they were able to get in those worlds.

As for darker villains in the comics, a darker tone need not mean the lead character has to become darker to follow suit, or that those lives cannot be saved. For that matter, some ideals *are* worth dying for— and the idea that Superman has to save absolutely everyone and kill everyone who steps out of line is exactly the slippery slope these stories are trying to avoid, because there's never going to be an answer to that. He could kill Luthor, okay. Then maybe he could kill the Joker, too. Then maybe he could kill every terrorist leader and despot in the world, then every terrorist and corrupt revolutionary who steps up to be leader after that. They're going to kill people, too. Hell, there's innocent blood on the hands of good soldiers, for that matter. Collateral damage. Friendly fire. War is messy. Sure, you could say that no, it would *only* need to be Luthor, but then how is that fair to the other victims? There's no end to that road, no source of crime and war and evil to cut off forever. It's part of humanity. You have to take the bad along with the good. What you *can* do is try to mitigate it.

Look, as it happens I don't actually believe that people like Luthor getting killed for their crimes would be such a bad thing. I do think there's a problem with asking Superman to do it. People are untrustworthy enough without giving them carte blanche to execute whomever they damn well please, and they're irresponsible with the power they already have, however much or little that is. Checks and balances exist for a reason. If Superman gets some leeway, it's only because he's proved he can be trusted, but if he doesn't want to kill anyone, he shouldn't have to. If the people want Lex or Joker dead, then they can get the state to do it. They both must be guilty of war crimes by now.

As for Darkseid, a literal God of Evil— yeah, that is one point where the no kill policy hurts Superman and Batman. That's where having an Amazon can come in handy. Or just let Orion do it. Hell, I don't know that most of the Green Lanterns would shy away from it, if it really came down to that.

And in an in-universe sense, the Cardboard Prisons are just Acceptable Breaks from Reality, along with Comic-Book Time. The whole thing blows over in a stiff wind from the forums if you really think about it.

edited 27th Sep '16 9:25:33 PM by Unsung

Now you're just barking at the wrong tree. As is Superman choice to be a hero, is his choice to not kill. If anything has to change is the law, to make sure the really dangerous villians get the death penalty, or at least the people living in comicbook land so they start asking for that alternative. If Supes doesn't like it then he can stop being a hero. But we can't and shouldn't ask him to start killing people because death penalty is inmoral. So the problem in the end is not Supes, is the people that are fine that he doesn't kill, but are also fine that super villians escape from prison easyly just so they don't get blood in their hands forma aproving a death penalty forma supervillians.

edited 27th Sep '16 2:34:32 PM by eligram

I think this is the moment to mention that the reason I love the Cap movies so much is, among other aspects like really good writing, that I feel it is really refreshing to get a straight up hero for a change. I am very tired of Anti-heroes.

Sure is nice having DCEU Superman, who's never done any selfish thing and has only spent his time helping people.

Inb4caveatslike"he doesn't smile enough"

"If you weren't so crazy I'd think you were insane."

He's not a bad guy, but he's also not a straightforward hero. In playing him up as an ordinary man who just happens to have been born with great power that he's sometimes uncertain how to use, he becomes a deconstruction. Not saying that's a bad thing, but if what you want is a true-blue idealized conventional hero, he isn't that.

edited 27th Sep '16 11:05:07 PM by Unsung