Batman-Online.com

Mark Millar's classic Elseworlds story is finally receiving an animated adaptation. The voice cast includes Jason Isaacs as Superman, Amy Acker as Lois Lane and Diedrich Bader as Lex Luthor. Here's the first image.

Boy has this story taken on a new context in the current year.

Wonder if they've got the paired reproductive organs to faithfully adapt the story.

I have wondered if there will be some attempt at linguistic authenticity in this movie. Will the cast use Russian accents where appropriate? Maybe I'm overthinking it but it might be a bit jarring for Jason Isaacs to use his conventional British accent, Roger Craig Smith to an American Midwest accent, etc since they're all supposed to be Russian.

Russian accents confirmed.


I'd have preferred a more Connery-esque voice for Luthor.


"Sholving problemsh ish jusht like eating or breathing for me and thish Shuperman..."

Connery? Interesting choice. Under the circumstances, I think I would've preferred a German accent for Lex. In a way, it kind of makes sense. He could've been one of the scientists taken back to the States during Operation: Paperclip. Obviously there was no love lost between the Russians and the Germans before, during and after the war. It could make sense that this Lex has a rivalry with Superman that reaches every possible level.

There are drawbacks to that approach, of course. But considering the real history of Stalin (which I doubt this animated film will delve into very much), I don't see how making this version of Lex basically a Nazi is somehow worse.

I wonder if they'll stick with the comic book ending, re: time loop.

I always thought Luthor was modelled on a young Connery in Red Son. With Millar being both Scottish and a huge Bond fan, I can imagine him directing the artist to use the actor as a reference.


But the idea of Lex being a Wernher von Braun-type war criminal recruited through Operation Paperclip is very interesting, and would offer an historical foundation to the character's Nietzschean worldview. So how about this – Connery with a German accent:

"Vhy don't you jusht put ze entire vorld in a bottle, Shuperman?"

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 16 Dec  2019, 20:33But considering the real history of Stalin (which I doubt this animated film will delve into very much), I don't see how making this version of Lex basically a Nazi is somehow worse.

True. Then again, this is Hollywood we're talking about. Folks in the entertainment industry are more likely to read Trotsky than Solzhenitsyn, and to regard anyone right of Michael Moore as a Nazi. Don't be surprised if they downplay the horrors of Stalin's reign.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 16 Dec  2019, 20:33I wonder if they'll stick with the comic book ending, re: time loop.

Hopefully they'll preserve the original ending. A number of recent DC animated adaptations have made substantial deviations from their source material, but the Red Son trailer looks reasonably faithful so far. I'm keeping my fingers crossed it turns out better than the Gotham by Gaslight movie.

Finally watched it. Which should say something about how much I ever prioritized this movie.

Been a while since I read the miniseries. But my memory of it is that it was implied that Hippolyta had something going on the side with Stalin. For sure, a big subplot was Wonder Woman's unrequited feelings for Superman. Um, yeah. The movie does away with both of those things because El Gee Bee Tea.

In the miniseries, Bizarro was basically a critique of Bush 43, the international war on terror, 9/11-era American foreign policy, etc. In the movie, it's Orange Man Bad. And it's bad. Very bad. Cringe-inducing.

The invasion of America in the miniseries was Superman's desperate gambit to save his empire. But Lex held the upper hand because he'd been preparing for that moment since the Fifties while Superman had barely gotten his head around the idea before launching the invasion. The movie shows Luthor launching the invasion first (for some reason) and so Superman launches a defensive action that takes him all the way to Washington DC.

Of course, in the middle of all that, there's the face off with the Green Lantern Marine Corps. In the comic book, it's built up to be something big but then Superman takes them out without breaking his stride. Is the movie different?

Do you even have to ask at this point?

Naturally, Wonder Woman intervenes because you need to have a stronk indapandant waman be the voice of reason or something. But Superman ignores her and presses on with the war. Honestly, by itself, this change wouldn't have bothered me. But it exists in the context of all the third wave feminism stinking up the rest of the movie so it stands out as a negative. Even tho it actually does ring true as something Diana would've at least tried to do.

The change that bugs me the most tho is how the movie chickens out on the loop ending of the comic book. You could argue it's still a loop and we just don't see it. But that's dumb. The comic ended on one big twist (arguably two) and it was a good closed-loop time travel story. The movie is... meh.

All in all, it's rly hard to recommend the movie. If you don't have much investment in the Red Son comic, you might enjoy the movie. But I didn't, ultimately.

I never got around to watching this, and after reading your review I don't think I'll bother. Thanks for saving me some time and money.

It's a shame to see how consistently poor the DCAU offerings have been over the past eight years. The only animated DC film I've really liked during that period was The Brave & the Bold Scooby-Doo movie, which was great. The Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen films were ok too, but all the others have disappointed.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  7 Sep  2021, 12:23
I never got around to watching this, and after reading your review I don't think I'll bother. Thanks for saving me some time and money.

It's a shame to see how consistently poor the DCAU offerings have been over the past eight years. The only animated DC film I've really liked during that period was The Brave & the Bold Scooby-Doo movie, which was great. The Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen films were ok too, but all the others have disappointed.

What bugs me is how fiction is refusing to recognize different social norms of the past.

Lois is married to Lex in Red Son. But in the animated movie, she's referred to as Lois Lane Luthor, Mrs. Luthor, etc., and she always corrects whoever calls her that. But the story takes place in the Fifties and Sixties, when that was almost 100% the norm.

Same thing happened with Catwoman in Gotham By Gaslight. She was a sassy, modern third wave feminist (somehow) in the 19th century.

Apart from an overall lackluster product, the pandering is a serious turnoff. It's enough to make me think that the animated TDKR rly was lightning in a bottle.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  7 Sep  2021, 12:56What bugs me is how fiction is refusing to recognize different social norms of the past.

Lois is married to Lex in Red Son. But in the animated movie, she's referred to as Lois Lane Luthor, Mrs. Luthor, etc., and she always corrects whoever calls her that. But the story takes place in the Fifties and Sixties, when that was almost 100% the norm.

Same thing happened with Catwoman in Gotham By Gaslight. She was a sassy, modern third wave feminist (somehow) in the 19th century.

This is a major problem for me with most modern historical novels, TV shows and films. British television has become particularly bad in this regard. It doesn't matter how authentic the sets and costumes are – if the characters are talking and acting like people from the 2020s, or expressing political and social attitudes that didn't exist at the time they're set, then it instantly shatters the illusion of historicity and reminds you that you're watching a product of the 21st century. This was one of the points I touched upon in my site review of the Gotham by Gaslight film back in 2018.

QuoteOne of the broader issues I have with this film is its lack of authentic Victorian attitudes. The whole thing feels a tad too modern. The 1989 book attempted to capture the historical mentality by giving us a gentlemanly Bruce Wayne who was easily shocked by Jacob Packer's lascivious remarks concerning women, and whose only concession to public mischief was attending a boxing match in a waterfront warehouse. By contrast, the Bruce Wayne in this movie has no qualms about cavorting naked with Selina Kyle on the floor of a hansom cab in the presence of two police officers. This behaviour is something the Modern Age Bruce might indulge to preserve his secret identity, but it feels inappropriate for his more reserved Victorian counterpart.

https://www.batman-online.com/features/2018/2/9/review-batman-gotham-by-gaslight-2018

There's a whole generation of writers out there who never read historical literature and so have no idea how to capture the attitudes and voices of an earlier century, or even an earlier decade. In some cases they intentionally try not to for the sake of making historical characters more "relatable" to modern readers and audiences; an attitude that panders to the notion that modern readers and audiences are too ignorant to emotionally empathise with people who don't think, talk and behave exactly as they do. Then there's the problem of the radical political ideologies which now dominate the entertainment industry, and which transform almost every creative endeavour into an agenda-driven work of political activism. I've said before that I think Hollywood is in the worst creative state it's ever been, and I think that's also true of modern western television and commercial publishing.

This is why these days I mostly read old books and watch old films and TV shows.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  7 Sep  2021, 12:56Apart from an overall lackluster product, the pandering is a serious turnoff. It's enough to make me think that the animated TDKR rly was lightning in a bottle.

It's clear now that the TDKR films marked the end of an era for the DCAU original movies. Since then, the quality has plummeted (with one or two exceptions, such as The Brave & the Bold film).

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  8 Sep  2021, 12:32
There's a whole generation of writers out there who never read historical literature and so have no idea how to capture the attitudes and voices of an earlier century, or even an earlier decade. In some cases they intentionally try not to for the sake of making historical characters more "relatable" to modern readers and audiences; an attitude that panders to the notion that modern readers and audiences are too ignorant to emotionally empathise with people who don't think, talk and behave exactly as they do. Then there's the problem of the radical political ideologies which now dominate the entertainment industry, and which transform almost every creative endeavour into an agenda-driven work of political activism. I've said before that I think Hollywood is in the worst creative state it's ever been, and I think that's also true of modern western television and commercial publishing.

This is why these days I mostly read old books and watch old films and TV shows.

My thoughts exactly.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  6 Aug  2021, 12:46
I like comics, but my real passion is the written word. I've read a ton of books the past couple of years and enjoyed them all. I research everything I read before making a purchase, ensuring the themes and protagonists are to my liking. As a rule, I generally stick to the 1880s. The 50s and 60s are the most modern I'll get, apart from the occasional American Psycho. The past is my sanctuary and I really love the idea these old works have effectively always been there, even when I've been oblivious to them. Patiently waiting in silence all these years, perfectly preserved. Well before The Titanic sank or any World War.

The mark of any good book or movie is if you feel like making one yourself. You have to feel that spark, and I don't think it's being felt as often now, as your posts above explain. Movies have always been part entertainment, part brainwashing. But now the brainwashing part is the dominant element. The book or movie has become incidental. The bar for something to be enjoyable has been set really low now: how much left wing politics will feature, because it will feature in some way, and if it's tolerable.

I talk about the potential trap of nostalgia for ongoing franchise media, and I wholeheartedly believe in that statement. But the works of yesteryear are a beautiful retreat, completely free of modern taint. Contemporary interference seeks to ban or alter what has been written, or at the very least provide critical analysis to the content in an attempt to be morally superior. But owning the original book and having it on my shelf bypasses such garbage. Looking at the situation that way, the complete work of a particular author from the 1880s is a perfect time bubble that cannot be tarnished. The Beatles discography is what it is. This material is an old friend that will never let you down. The same can't be said of other once loved properties that are resurrected to be ruined.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 22 Sep  2021, 14:56My thoughts exactly.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  6 Aug  2021, 12:46
I like comics, but my real passion is the written word. I've read a ton of books the past couple of years and enjoyed them all. I research everything I read before making a purchase, ensuring the themes and protagonists are to my liking. As a rule, I generally stick to the 1880s. The 50s and 60s are the most modern I'll get, apart from the occasional American Psycho. The past is my sanctuary and I really love the idea these old works have effectively always been there, even when I've been oblivious to them. Patiently waiting in silence all these years, perfectly preserved. Well before The Titanic sank or any World War.

The mark of any good book or movie is if you feel like making one yourself. You have to feel that spark, and I don't think it's being felt as often now, as your posts above explain. Movies have always been part entertainment, part brainwashing. But now the brainwashing part is the dominant element. The book or movie has become incidental. The bar for something to be enjoyable has been set really low now: how much left wing politics will feature, because it will feature in some way, and if it's tolerable.

I talk about the potential trap of nostalgia for ongoing franchise media, and I wholeheartedly believe in that statement. But the works of yesteryear are a beautiful retreat, completely free of modern taint. Contemporary interference seeks to ban or alter what has been written, or at the very least provide critical analysis to the content in an attempt to be morally superior. But owning the original book and having it on my shelf bypasses such garbage. Looking at the situation that way, the complete work of a particular author from the 1880s is a perfect time bubble that cannot be tarnished. The Beatles discography is what it is. This material is an old friend that will never let you down. The same can't be said of other once loved properties that are resurrected to be ruined.

Well said. I love comics, but even the best of them can't compare to a truly great novel. Literature allows an individual to express their unique worldview and share their innermost thoughts. It allows the author to leave a part of his or herself for future generations to engage with. Writing is personal in a way that most other narrative art forms aren't. To create a film, comic or TV show usually requires a group effort, with input from multiple parties. But writing a novel, short story or poem is a purely personal process that reflects the passion and creativity of a singular mind.

Admittedly a lot of modern commercial literature is trash, but thankfully there are countless older books out there just waiting to be discovered. I generally try to vary my reading habits so that I consume a balanced mixture of modern and classic literature, as well as translations of foreign language novels and the occasional nonfiction book. Literacy really is a wonderful gift.