DC and WB are starting to worry...

[madmarva]

Like I wrote, vigilantes can be heroes or anti-heroes. It depends on their motives and actions. Batman is an altruistic character at his core. He is fighting the good fight. He is putting his life and happiness on the line for the benefit of others. He is a hero. His reputation among criminals is worse than he actually treats them. He believes in rehabilitation. The way he has been characterized during the bulk of his existence is that he avoids taking a life at all costs, which goes beyond norm of most literary heroes. He does use violence, but only when necessary and only to the extent necessary.

Even in Dark Knight Returns, Miller pushed BAtman all the way to the line, but kept him heroic. Heroes aren't defined by perfection, but by putting others before them. The Dark Knight Returned because Gotham needed him to.

Again, the classic definition of anti-hero is the lead character in a story who does not exemplify heroic attributes. It is also can be a character who is not as smart or is deluded or has trouble communicating with society and feels out of place working within it.

Some writers do see Batman as crazy and from that view, he could fall into the role of an anti-hero. But I suggest that over the long course of Batman's existence, he has not been portrayed as crazy. But rather, he knows absolutely what he is doing.

Nolan and Bale's Batman is a hero because he continues to battle crime even though he takes the crime boss out that was ultimately responsible for his parents death. If he went away at that point, maybe he's an anti-hero, but he continues. In the second film, he's put a dent into crime from his efforts but then the Joker comes along. In the third film, he returns to action because he is needed. Heroes can be conflicted. From a literary sense, Christ, who was an outlaw to Rome and the Hebrews, is the ultimate hero - giving his life for the salvation of all mankind - but he didn't want to do it. He asked if there is any other way, let it be. The fact that Bale's character doesn't want to be Batman but carries on for the good of others makes him heroic.

As for Watchmen, most of the characters if not all are anti-heroes because they are doing what they do primarily for their own selfish reasons rather than for the good of the people. I believe Moore's thesis with Watchmen is that realistically there are heroic acts but no real heroes.

Basically, if you are going to do what a super hero does, then you are going to get something out of it. Not just being good or heroic for good's sake.

Ironically Roarshach, who is a classic anti-hero along the lines of Don Quixote with a good bit of Travis Bickel mixed in, acts the most heroically in the novel, despite being one of the least heroic characters on the surface. The character who might be a hero is the original Nite Owl, whose back story is in the text pages. His motives are basically heroic from my recollection.

Watchmen has been aptly described as a deconstruction of super heroes, but the way Moore accomplished it was creating a gallery of anti-heroes.

As for Man of Steel, Superman is conflicted. Who do I choose my adoptive family/people/planet or my biological family/people/planet? Like anyone, he wants both. But, when he is forced to choose, he takes the one that is not going to kill billions of living beings. A heroic choice in my opinion, despite the conflicts which all interesting heroes are going to have.
Snyder and Goyer's Superman is a novice hero not only with his powers but with his ethos. Because of Goyer And Snyder's decision on how to portray Pa Kent, this is a different Superman. He hasn't been trained to work for the greater good by his adoptive parents, but rather to hide and be careful.

I have a feeling in BvS, Batman will likely teach him some lessons in heroism before Superman makes a grand heroic move that ultimately leads to the JLA film.

I have never viewed Superman and Batman as anything but heroes who have different methods. Bombs don't Burst off Batman's chest so he has to use deception and fear as protection, but he does it selflessly, not for his enrichment but to help others avoid the pain he's been through. Classically, that's nothing but heroic.

[MIB41]

The word anti-hero has been so misused that its actual meaning has almost been lost. An Anti-hero is not synonymous with the word vigilante, which is the way many use the it, particularly those that write about comics and genre material.

An anti-hero is the protagonist or lead chararacter in a story that lacks traditional heroic qualities. A vigilante is one who takes the law into his own hands. A vigilante can be an anti-hero like Roarshach from Watchmen, but he/she doesn't have to be. Batman is a vigilante, but he's not an anti-hero. Batman is clearly a hero. He puts his life on the line to help and save others.

Anti-heroes are Victor Frankenstein, Lenny and George from Of Mice and Men, Ethan Edwards of The Searchers, Travis Bickel from Taxi Driver, Holden Caulfield in the Catcher in the Rye, the Punisher and Sub-Mariner in their own series and most of the characters in The Watchmen. Wolverine might have qualified as an an anti- hero until the Claremont/Miller mini series, but after it he has basically acted heroically, although was a bit more crude and crusty than most comic-book heroes.

Superman is undoubtedbly a hero in Man of Steel, maybe not as compotent as fans are used to seeing him portrayed, but still a hero. He turns himself over to Zod in an attempt to save Earth. He puts his life on the line to stop that huge terraforming machine in the ocean, he fights to stop Zod when it would have been easier to team with him, and yes he commits what would likely be considered justifiable homocide against Zod, who was attempting to murder a family in an effort to make Superman release him. All of that is heroic. There is even a scene in the film where he tells people on the street in Smallville to move to safety.

I think where most have a problem with MOS stems directly from Superman II, where Superman notices people are suffering form the battle with the Phantom Zone villains and he deliberately lures the fight from Metropolis. That scene was influenced by Superman comics and has since influenced comics, other media versions of the character and the thoughts of any Superman fan who has seen it.

But, Cavil's Superman is less experienced than Reeves. Reeves' Superman was trained/taught for 12 years by Jor-El before making his debut. Time has passed between Superman and Superman II. How much, we don't know, but Reeves isn't a novice hero at the point of his Zod battle. On the other hand, Cavil's Superman enters the Kryptonian space ark, sets off the beacon that draws Zod and his crew to Earth and within in a matter of days, he's having a super-powered throwdown with not only trained warriors but also genetically engineered ones.

When the fight started in Metropolis in MoS, our expectation was for Superman to act in a similar fashion as Reeves Superman in SMII. Goyer and Snyder knew this and zigged where the audience expected them to zagg. Goyer explained after the film opened that he and Snyder made conscious decisions to do the unexpected in certain situations. He said in the same interview that the destruction would be addressed in the sequel.

In the context of the film, Cavil's Superman didn't have the time nor the experience to be proactive in protecting Metropolis.

Goyer and Snyder both have hinted that Superman will be mistrusted and misunderstood in the sequel, almost assuredly by Batman when the film begins leading to the confrontation the title is based on, but nothing has been said that Superman will be portrayed as an anti-hero in the film. While Chris Terrio, the screenwriter for Argo is reworking Goyer's script, the story is still being credited to Goyer at this time.

Superman was heroic in MOS, maybe not to the level some/many would have liked, and from what I've read, he's going to be heroic in the sequel.

While I am playing apologist for MOS, I didnt agree with all of Goyer and Snyder's choices and would prefer a more fun and hopeful version of the character in future films.

Well, that's the end of my MOS/anti-hero rant for today. If anyone reads all of this, I apologize for taking up so much of your day.

It's interesting you would mention the Watchmen since Snyder directed that film. I feel that his interpretation of the DC Universe is quickly becoming a repackaged version of that world. I like what you have to say on Batman but there are many iterations of the character that might fit that definition or miss it completely. Adam West's approach is Batman as the ultimate boyscout. But if you ask Frank Miller, he might take exception to that premise. Plus I feel you broad stroke the definition of vigilante too smoothly for the sake of this discussion. By definition, a vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands. And what they deem as justice may or may not find agreement with the law of the land. There was plenty of vigilante justice in the Watchmen, yet you define all of them as anti-heroes. So that term does not remove Batman from the list of candidates for that label (depending on which version you read or watch).

Even if we're to look at which side of the law these characters reside on, can that be the defining moment that separates a hero from a anti-hero? Look at Dirty Harry? Would you consider him a hero for being on the police force or an anti-hero for not always following department rules to administer his version of "justice"? Lets go one step further - Look at a character like Snake Plissken in Escape from New York.

Most would consider him a classic anti-hero because he's viewed by society as a criminal who has broken the law, but finds himself forced into a situation where he has to help law enforcement, each with a different objective. But as the story unfolds we see how corrupt the government and it's president truly are. After we've watched Snake in a number of situations where he has saved, spared, and rescued people from certain death, we begin to see him differently. And at the end, when the president is saved from certain death, he can not offer even a minute of meaningful gratitude when Snake asks him how he felt about the people who sacrificed their lives for his. So we begin to question who was really the villain by definition rather than by social labels.

So is a anti-hero really just someone who is reluctantly placed in circumstances to play the role of a hero or is it more about their intent that runs contrary to the outcome which places them in that position? I don't think you get a clean definition with every situation. So (for me) I define them according to whether they really want to be there. Christian Bale's Batman doesn't want to be Batman. He's chasing demons that define what he feels is justice. He's a victim who wants his life back. He thought being a vigilante taking out these people who emotionally incarcerated him in this constant replay of parent's death would free him. It didn't. So he's a person who performs heroic feats, but not because he chooses to. He feels he has to in order to find peace.

For me, Superman has always represented the best face humanity can offer for peace. He comes in as an outsider trying to find acceptance by the world (rather than one country). This higher perspective allows him to see past borders and show dignity and respect for all races and cultures. He wants to be here. He wants to defend what is his adopted home, so he respects every form of life as something he must stand up and defend as part of his family. So he has a personal, invested, interest to perform heroic feats because that is his purpose. That's his life. That's what he pays back for this world adopting him as their own.

I never get that conviction in Man of Steel. Snyder seems intent on making him a creature that is highly conflicted and edgy. Superman wrestles with his allegiance to earth given the plot that served to entangle his loyalties between saving the people on this planet versus the extinction of his own. So it really places him in a role he doesn't wish to be in. He doesn't have a strong bond with earth and he's heavily jaded by the extinction of his race which he played a role in by saving this planet. So in many ways, he's built up like Batman. He's here now because he has to be, not because he wants to be. That's why I'm perplexed how he will play off Batman since they come from similar emotional scars, including murdered parents. In the comics, it was more like the hero versus the anti-hero because their ideals were fundamentally different. Here, they're too much alike.

[madmarva]

The word anti-hero has been so misused that its actual meaning has almost been lost. An Anti-hero is not synonymous with the word vigilante, which is the way many use the it, particularly those that write about comics and genre material.

An anti-hero is the protagonist or lead chararacter in a story that lacks traditional heroic qualities. A vigilante is one who takes the law into his own hands. A vigilante can be an anti-hero like Roarshach from Watchmen, but he/she doesn't have to be. Batman is a vigilante, but he's not an anti-hero. Batman is clearly a hero. He puts his life on the line to help and save others.

Anti-heroes are Victor Frankenstein, Lenny and George from Of Mice and Men, Ethan Edwards of The Searchers, Travis Bickel from Taxi Driver, Holden Caulfield in the Catcher in the Rye, the Punisher and Sub-Mariner in their own series and most of the characters in The Watchmen. Wolverine might have qualified as an an anti- hero until the Claremont/Miller mini series, but after it he has basically acted heroically, although was a bit more crude and crusty than most comic-book heroes.

Superman is undoubtedbly a hero in Man of Steel, maybe not as compotent as fans are used to seeing him portrayed, but still a hero. He turns himself over to Zod in an attempt to save Earth. He puts his life on the line to stop that huge terraforming machine in the ocean, he fights to stop Zod when it would have been easier to team with him, and yes he commits what would likely be considered justifiable homocide against Zod, who was attempting to murder a family in an effort to make Superman release him. All of that is heroic. There is even a scene in the film where he tells people on the street in Smallville to move to safety.

I think where most have a problem with MOS stems directly from Superman II, where Superman notices people are suffering form the battle with the Phantom Zone villains and he deliberately lures the fight from Metropolis. That scene was influenced by Superman comics and has since influenced comics, other media versions of the character and the thoughts of any Superman fan who has seen it.

But, Cavil's Superman is less experienced than Reeves. Reeves' Superman was trained/taught for 12 years by Jor-El before making his debut. Time has passed between Superman and Superman II. How much, we don't know, but Reeves isn't a novice hero at the point of his Zod battle. On the other hand, Cavil's Superman enters the Kryptonian space ark, sets off the beacon that draws Zod and his crew to Earth and within in a matter of days, he's having a super-powered throwdown with not only trained warriors but also genetically engineered ones.

When the fight started in Metropolis in MoS, our expectation was for Superman to act in a similar fashion as Reeves Superman in SMII. Goyer and Snyder knew this and zigged where the audience expected them to zagg. Goyer explained after the film opened that he and Snyder made conscious decisions to do the unexpected in certain situations. He said in the same interview that the destruction would be addressed in the sequel.

In the context of the film, Cavil's Superman didn't have the time nor the experience to be proactive in protecting Metropolis.

Goyer and Snyder both have hinted that Superman will be mistrusted and misunderstood in the sequel, almost assuredly by Batman when the film begins leading to the confrontation the title is based on, but nothing has been said that Superman will be portrayed as an anti-hero in the film. While Chris Terrio, the screenwriter for Argo is reworking Goyer's script, the story is still being credited to Goyer at this time.

Superman was heroic in MOS, maybe not to the level some/many would have liked, and from what I've read, he's going to be heroic in the sequel.

While I am playing apologist for MOS, I didnt agree with all of Goyer and Snyder's choices and would prefer a more fun and hopeful version of the character in future films.

Well, that's the end of my MOS/anti-hero rant for today. If anyone reads all of this, I apologize for taking up so much of your day.

[VintageMike]

I could see Antitrust covering market share, except there's no way Marvel would maintain all 52 titles. When Marvel was in bankruptcy court, DC had a rep who was there to pick the bones and just take Spidey and X-Men, possibly Hulk. That was it and the argument was the other titles didn't sell, had little brand awareness, or were duplicates of existing DC characters. For Marvel to get around antitrust, they could pare it all down to Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman books while merging other characters into existing Marvel titles. Justice League Avengers, for example.

There's is actually a precedent for this being allowed: In Pro Wrestling (entertainment) the #1 company, WWE bought the number two company WCW in 2001, which was going to under anyway. There were are and are other companies but to this day WWE basically has a monopoly. The government never looked twice at it because I believe because actual goods were not involved, only entertainment. I beleive the same would be true of comics especially with other companies like Dark Horse and Image out there.

[MIB41]

nowhere does it say "anti-hero" it says this:
Regarding Superman, Batman-On-Film is stating the character will be treated badly in the movie - an "anti-Superman theme" - with people actually protesting against him.
Probably and anti-alien sentiment after the shenanigans of Zod in the first movie. Nothing in that vague article sounds that far-fetched. The urban myth angle for Bats has been used in the comics for years.

Superman is absolutely getting the anti-hero treatment. There's nothing to question there. He's incredibly jaded and untrusting. He seldom gave a moment's consideration to others being killed while Metropolis was destroyed during his fight with Zod. Nor did a personal code keep him from killing his enemy to give him the outcome he deemed as "right" or "necessary". He's absolutely in the same vein as Batman or Wolverine. That report certainly suggests he will continue to be an outcast and for reasons far beyond just an alien mentality. Metropolis was destroyed and scores killed as a result of his involvement. And apparently Batman is not even real enough for the public to have a consensus on his validity outside of being an urban myth. So I think the anti-hero treatment is playing for many of the heroes in this film. Here's another one about Aquaman.

http://batman-news.com/2014/07/02/jason-momoa-hints-anti-hero-aquaman-batman-v-superman-dawn-justice-video/

[thunderbolt]

nowhere does it say "anti-hero" it says this:
Regarding Superman, Batman-On-Film is stating the character will be treated badly in the movie - an "anti-Superman theme" - with people actually protesting against him.
Probably and anti-alien sentiment after the shenanigans of Zod in the first movie. Nothing in that vague article sounds that far-fetched. The urban myth angle for Bats has been used in the comics for years.

[MIB41]

Dwayne was absolutely right - DC just blinked. They moved the release date back to March!!! Wow... Annnnnnd Superman is now rumored to be a anti-hero and Batman has been in existence for 30 years but never photographed? Geez... Here are the stories...

http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/batman-vs-superman-gets-new-march-2016-release-date

http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/new-batman-vs-superman-rumors-include-beginnings-batman-wonder-woman

[samurainoir]

Dwayne, I think you're closer than you realize. Just look at the current parallels between Multiversity and the implosion of the Ultimate Universe, combined with Angelina's entrance from a disowned 10th realm, and then you have the grandaddy of Earth-2. It would be very, very easy to join DCU with 619 and then just flip characters back-n-forth. And you wouldn't even need to acknowledge Amalgalm or the other crossovers.

The Big Avengers storyline building up the past year has been the slow-burn battle for survival as parallel universes collide in New Avengers every month and time got "broken" after Age of Ultron. Spider-Verse is the Spider-Man crossover event starting soon that involves every single parallel universe Spider-Man they can dig up or introduce.

It's been speculated for a long time about folding the Ultimate Universe into the 616... we'll see if that actually comes to pass. I think the Ultimate Universe was a victim of it's own success. Bendis and Millar were given free reign, and early on those title began to outsell their 616 counterparts, so Bendis and Millar were given free reign in the 616. Then many of the Ultimate concepts were adapted into the Marvel cinematic universe and also implemented into the 616 as a result. Ultimate universe needed to become much more radically different to differentiate itself from just a "Greatest Hits" contemporary reinvention of Silver Age Marvel, until it unrecognizable from its original core new reader/continuity friendly conceit. (with that said, I'm still enjoying ultimate Spider-man)

[samurainoir]

I think the problem isn't that DC wants to be Marvel... it appears they want to be Marvel circa 1996! The Grim 'n Gritty humourless approach. The costume design. Even the creative teams on the current crop of comics, particularly on 2nd and 3rd tier titles... many alumni of the post-Image exodus from Marvel.

I was willing to give the New 52 a chance, and there were some nice gems in there (Geoff Johns Aquaman, Azzerello and Chiang's Wonder Woman), but I've slowly shed titles (as they have played musical chairs with their creative teams) and my monthly reading list is very Marvel heavy in comparison.

[madmarva]

What are the parallels between Ultimate Universe's implosion and Multiversity?

[kingdom warrior]

When you move too far away from what you are know for doing, you will lose your audience. Batman is their real only money maker at the movies. They keep forcing a newer version of their characters and the non comic book going fans eventually reject it. Marvel does well because it does not stray too far away from what people know, but Icons like Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are harder sells to a public that already knows the classic version. They know the characters from their childhood, if it doesn't match up they hesitate to want to see it or accept it. DC does well with their animated series because it's homage to their comics......

Make a Batman Noir film set in the 40's or Gotham by Gaslight or Superman 38 that looks like he lives in the world of Buck Rogers and you just might make something pretty interesting......

[CrimsonGhost]

Yeah, DC should be worried. They can't even compete with a tree and a raccoon.

[enyawd72]

Dwayne, I think you're closer than you realize. Just look at the current parallels between Multiversity and the implosion of the Ultimate Universe, combined with Angelina's entrance from a disowned 10th realm, and then you have the grandaddy of Earth-2. It would be very, very easy to join DCU with 619 and then just flip characters back-n-forth. And you wouldn't even need to acknowledge Amalgalm or the other crossovers.

The nerd in me WANTS THIS.

[hedrap]

Dwayne, I think you're closer than you realize. Just look at the current parallels between Multiversity and the implosion of the Ultimate Universe, combined with Angelina's entrance from a disowned 10th realm, and then you have the grandaddy of Earth-2. It would be very, very easy to join DCU with 619 and then just flip characters back-n-forth. And you wouldn't even need to acknowledge Amalgalm or the other crossovers.

[PNGwynne]

Combining them would totally screw up everything.

As I've aged, their universes have become very separate for me. I was always a stronger fan of DC, but it's been rough the last few years. Marvel films are more entertaining to me, but superhero comics of most sorts have passed me by.