Jul
25
2013

@JVLast speaks for me in this matter.

When it comes to WHAT MUST BE the essential nature and conflict in the upcoming Batman/Superman movie, take Jon’s words as if they had come from my throat, with my voice. I mean no disrespect to Nolan, mind, but Jon’s point is well-taken:

In Miller’s world, Superman and Batman embody two polar views of the human condition. Superman believes in the perfectibility of man and the eventual triumph of the City of God over the City of Man. Batman does not. In fact, he views even the City of Man as a tenuous achievement, and one which must be constantly defended against the depredations of human nature. He believes in the Enlightenment, but not in its inevitability. And because of this, he believes that an übermensch such as Superman is at least as much a threat to civilization as he is its savior.

This is satisfying in a way that using the Nolan Batman could not be. Christopher Nolan’s Batman exists in a very different universe that Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel. A movie that sought to bring them together would struggle for coherence, because Nolan’s Batman would ultimately welcome a Superman. But a Superman-Batman movie must have tension between the two characters if it’s going to have anything interesting to say.

Although I will add this: Nolan’s Batman likewise labors under the burden of being, at the end, alone. There can only be one Dark Knight in Nolan’s universe at a time. Heck, the entire plot of The Dark Knight Rises would be nonsensical in the DCU.  But Miller’s Batman can live, easily enough, in a wider super-heroic milieu.

Moe Lane

12 Comments

  • Crawford says:

    Never really got that vibe from “Justice League of America”. Seemed to me they mostly just dealt with the evil schemes of Lex Luthor and company from their HQ at Union Terminal.

  • acat says:

    secular messianic figure seeking to create utopia, check
    .
    secular dystopic figure predicting failure, check
    .
    Egad, it’s a political thread.
    .
    Screw it, I’m re-reading “Watchmen” instead.
    .
    Mew
    .
    .
    .
    p.s. wait, Hoyt has “A Few Good Men” out .. maybe I’ll read that instead.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      Because, yeah, Watchmen is an improvement, politics-wise. 😉

      • acat says:

        Eh. It asserts that there is no panacea, no silver bullet.
        .
        Humanity is screwed up now, it’s screwed up in the universe the Watchmen inhabit. Unlike classic Superman, the belief in utopia is quite dead.
        .
        I suppose that’s always been why I prefer a Dark Knight vigilante-edged Batman… and why I find Superman just stupid. Not enough exploration of why Supes doesn’t fix all possible problems of New York..
        .
        Mew

  • Finrod says:

    I remember in one of the animated Justice League episodes in the 1990s, they’re fighting an enemy that can gain the superpowers of whoever he fights. The next-to-last member the enemy fights is Superman, and after a big battle where Superman is finally bested, he faces Batman, who pulls a chunk of kryptonite, and since he’s taken on Superman’s vulnerability as well, Batman is able to best him. Green Lantern says something along the lines to Batman “Do you always carry that in case you have to fight Superman?” and Batman replies “Wouldn’t you?”

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com