Topics

Back in 2017 we had a comic-to-screen analysis of Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man (2002) movie to coincide with the film's 15th anniversary, as well as the release of Spider-Man: Homecoming: https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3590.0

Summer 2019 marks the release of Spider-Man: Far From Home and also happens to be the 15th anniversary of Raimi's Spider-Man 2 (2004), so now seems like as good a time as any to go back and take a look at that movie and the comics that might have influenced it.

As with the previous Raimi Spider-Man film, much of the inspiration came from the original Silver Age stories of the sixties and the Ultimate Spider-Man line that was popular at the time of the movie's production. Raimi specifically cited 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #12, May 1964) and the 'Spider-Man No More!' storyline from Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #50 (July 1967) as major influences:

"I was thinking about a great issue of Stan Lee's Spider-Man comic book where he gets the flu. And he, for a time, is really weak. It was so human to me, I thought it was great. [...] I thought that was a unique thing that happened in Stan Lee's comics. But also there was another issue of Stan Lee's comics that I loved where he decided to throw the suit away. It was issue number 50, perhaps, his life problems had just become too great, so I think what happened was there was a synthesis of those two ideas, along with other elements I was interested in telling in this story. That's where the genesis of the loss of powers came from."

https://www.superherohype.com/features/86019-interview-director-sam-raimi-on-spider-man-2

My Spider-Man 2 DVD set includes a reprint of 'Spider-Man No More!' This tie-in comic also contains cover art for several other stories that might have influenced the movie. I'll highlight some of these issues later in this analysis.

The movie's portrayal of Doctor Octopus is also indebted to the character's debut storyline in Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #14-21 (December 2001-June 2002).

Many viewers have pointed out similarities between Spider-Man 2 and the Richard Donner/Richard Lester movie Superman II (1980), but Raimi himself – while acknowledging his love of that film – has downplayed its influence:

"I would say, though, that I was influenced by the Stan Lee comic books. All the ideas came out of those Stan Lee comic books, and the artists that drew them, from Romita to Steve Ditko. That's where all the ideas for the Spider-Man films came from. As much as I love the Superman films, they weren't really the source material."

https://www.cbr.com/guest-spot-rohan-williams-interviews-sam-raimi-and-rob-tapert-part-1/

The film begins with one of the best opening title sequences of any superhero movie. Comic artist Alex Ross provided the paintings that recap the events of the previous film, similar to how the opening titles of Richard Lester's Superman II recapped the events of Superman: The Movie (1978).

The first time we see Peter Parker he is riding a moped similar to the scooter he rode in the Silver Age comics. The following panel is from 'The Tentacles and the Trap!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #54, November 1967).

Early in the film Peter tries selling some pictures to J. Jonah Jameson, only for the editor to dismiss all of his photographs that aren't directly related to Spider-Man. Jameson has shown similar contempt towards Peter's work in the comics, as seen in this panel from 'Man on a Rampage!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #32, January 1966).

Peter is fired by Jameson, then immediately rehired when the editor discovers he has fresh photos of Spider-Man. This exchange was likely inspired by a similar scene from 'In the Clutches of the Kingpin!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #51, August 1967), which was the issue that followed immediately after 'Spider-Man No More!'

One of Peter's teachers at university is Doctor Curt Connors, played by Dylan Baker. Connors was mentioned in the previous movie, but this marks the first time he appears on screen. He debuted in the comics in 'Face-to-Face with... the Lizard!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #6, November 1963). As in the comics, the movie version is shown to have only one arm.

Peter's character arc in the film sees him struggling to balance the different aspects of his life. His crime fighting activities are thriving at the expense of his social, work and academic responsibilities. This reflects the storyline of 'Spider-Man No More!'

Connors informs Peter that his grades are suffering as a result of his tardiness. His teacher told him the same thing in 'Spider-Man No More!'

Peter's social life is also in trouble. Harry Osborn believes Spider-Man murdered his father, and this creates a widening rift between him and Peter, just as it did in the comics. The following scene is from 'The Dark Wings of Death!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #127, December 1973).

Peter also learns that Aunt May is struggling financially in the wake of Uncle Ben's death, and this too happened in the comics. The following panel is from 'Spider-Man' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #1, March 1963).

To make matters worse, Peter discovers he is losing his powers. This has happened to him numerous times over the years. The earliest example was in the 'Unmasked by Doctor Octopus!' story that Raimi cited as an influence on the film. In that issue, Peter was suffering from an illness that sapped him of his strength and made it harder for him to cling to walls. The untimely onset of these symptoms coincided with the return of Doc Ock, just as his loss of power does in the movie. More on this story later.

Peter's landlord, Mr. Ditkovitch, was named in honour of Spider-Man's co-creator Steve Ditko.

The main villain in the movie is Otto Octavius, aka Doctor Octopus, who debuted in the comics back in 'Spider-Man Versus Doctor Octopus' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #3, July 1963). English actor Alfred Molina plays him in the film. His costume in the movie, consisting of sunglasses and a brown trench coat, reflects one of the outfits he wore in the Ultimate Spider-Man series.

In the original Earth-616 timeline Peter didn't first encounter Octavius until after the latter had already become Doctor Octopus. However in the Ultimate Spider-Man timeline they had already met prior to Otto becoming a villain, which is also what happens in the movie. In both stories Peter is introduced to Otto by Harry Osborn. The following panel is from 'Growing Pains' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #2, December 2000)

In Marvel Year by Year: A Visual Chronicle, Marvel editor Tom DeFalco wrote:

"Dr. Octopus shared many traits with Peter Parker. They were both shy, both interested in science, and both had trouble relating to women... Otto Octavius even looked like a grown up Peter Parker. Lee and Ditko intended Otto to be the man Peter might have become if he hadn't been raised with a sense of responsibility."

The movie versions of Peter and Otto strike up a rapport that reflects Lee and Ditko's original concept for the character of Doc Ock. At the end of the film, it is their ability to relate to one another that allows Peter to reason with Octavius by appealing to his sense of intellectual responsibility.

The cinematic version of Otto has a wife named Rosie, played by Donna Murphy, whose tragic death is a major factor in his turn towards criminality. Rosie was created for the film, though she is somewhat similar to another character named Mary Alice Anders who first appeared in 'An Obituary for an Octopus' (Spider-Man Unlimited Vol 1 #3, November 1993). Mary was a scientist who became romantically involved with Otto before he became Doc Ock. Otto's mother sabotaged the relationship, which left her son deeply embittered and helped set him on the path to villainy.

The extended cut of the movie features a scene where Peter sketches an image of his own face with half of it covered by the Spider-Man mask. This image has been used countless times in the comics, often to indicate Peter's spidey sense, as seen in this example from 'The Uncanny Threat of the Terrible Tinkerer!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #2, May 1963).

The scene where Mary Jane refuses to pick up the phone when Peter calls, and he imagines telling her that he's Spider-Man, is similar to a scene from 'The Sinister Secret of Spider-Man's New Costume!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #258, November 1984). This issue was part of the 'Alien Costume Saga', which Raimi went on to adapt in Spider-Man 3.

In the movie Octavius creates his mechanical arms to aid in his experiments, just like he did in the comics.

This isn't a comic reference, but one of the Oscorp executives at Octavius's demonstration is played by Peter McRobbie, who would later portray Father Paul Lantom in the Daredevil TV show on Netflix.

Something goes wrong during one of Otto's experiments and he is badly wounded.

In the movie the accident occurrs during an experiment funded by Oscorp, which reflects Doc Ock's origin story in the Ultimate Spider-Man canon. Only in the Ultimate Spider-Man comics he was fused to his arms during the same lab explosion that turned Norman Osborn into the Green Goblin, while in the film the accident occurs during an unrelated experiment. But Oscorp is involved in the accident in both versions of the story.

The scene where Otto awakens in hospital and massacres the surrounding medical staff is taken from 'Doctor Octopus' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #14, December 2001). In both stories he wakes to find himself lying in a hospital bed with his eyes bandaged, initially unaware that he has been fused to his metal arms.

In the comic he had been in a coma for several months before awakening, while in the movie he wakes not long after being admitted. In both stories his metal arms slaughter the surrounding medical personnel with ruthless efficiency.

The image of Otto roaming the city barefoot and shirtless is evocative of the Ultimate Spider-Man comics.

After leaving the hospital he steps into a road and is almost hit by a car. Fortunately his new arms grant him the strength to lift the vehicle into the air. The following panel is from 'Live' (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 1 #20, June 2002).

Octavius makes his way to the waterfront where he establishes his new hideout in a dilapidated warehouse. Doc Ock has had several similar hideouts in the comics, including the following example from 'Enter: Doctor Octopus' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #53, October 1967). The cover of this issue is included in the Spider-Man 2 DVD comic, making it likely it was a deliberate reference.

Following Octavius's escape, Hoffman and Jameson discuss what they should call him. Before settling on the name 'Doctor Octopus', Hoffman suggests 'Doctor Strange'. Obviously this is a nod to Marvel's Doctor Stephen Strange, who first appeared in 'Doctor Strange Master of Black Magic!' (Strange Tales Vol 1 #110, July 1963). Like Spider-Man, Doctor Strange was created by the team of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.

Jameson then instructs Peter to cover a party being held at a planetarium. Peter asks if he can be paid in advance, but Jameson bluntly refuses. The same thing happened when Peter asked Jameson for an advance in 'Nothing Can Stop... the Sandman!' (Amazing Spider-Man Vol 1 #4, September 1963), which is a story Raimi referenced heavily in Spider-Man 3 (2007).

I've never been a big fan of the original Dark Crystal. I watched it again earlier this year, and my reaction was the same as when I last saw it over a decade ago: it's got beautiful visuals, great special effects and an interesting mythology, but the characters and storyline fall flat for me. That said, the trailer for this new Netflix series is very impressive. It looks gorgeous.

I've been vocal about how tired I am of seeing old IPs revived with inferior reboots. But in this instance, I think the revival stands a good chance of surpassing the original. If they preserve everything that worked about the 1982 movie – the art direction, production design, practical effects, cinematography and mythology – but give it a better plot and characters, then this could turn out to be a really good series. It's already reminding me of old Jim Henson shows I used to watch as a child, such as Dinosaurs and The Storyteller: Greek Myths.

I also think this offers a good example of what Disney should be doing with their Lucasfilm properties. Instead of making sequels to Star Wars and Indiana Jones, I think they should be focusing on the more flawed Lucasfilm IPs like Labyrinth and Willow. That way they could actually improve on the originals instead of retroactively damaging them.

To begin with, I'd like to acknowledge this breakdown of the DCEU Batman's fighting style by a YouTube creator named Godzillarex:

My own breakdown in this thread is slightly different. But as I said in the discussion on the Burton Batman's fighting style, my knowledge of martial arts is purely amateur and mostly limited to Japanese styles (primarily Ju-Jitsu). So wherever my analysis differs from the video above – especially regarding non-Japanese styles – it's probably best to assume he's right and I'm wrong. Now that I've got that disclaimer out of the way, here's my breakdown.

With Batfleck we have a similar situation to the Kilmer Batman, where they each have one impressive fight scene that showcases a broader range of martial arts techniques than is typically displayed in their other battles. For Bat-Kilmer this is the fight at the bank, and for Batfleck it's the fight in the warehouse. So most of this is going to be based on the warehouse scene from BvS, which I believe was performed by stuntman Albert Valladares.

I'm not sure if Affleck undertook any martial arts training for Batman v Superman, but I do know that he trained in the Indonesian martial art of Pencak Silat for The Accountant (2016), which was the very next movie he filmed. I'm not 100% certain, but I think his Batman uses Silat during the warehouse fight. I remember someone on this site (I forget who) remarking that they thought his fighting style was similar to that of the Nolan Batman when the first clip of the warehouse scene was released. I think what that person was picking up on was the use of Silat. Nolan's Batman definitely employs this martial art (more on that subject soon), and I think Batfleck does too. This is most apparent in his fluid combinations of elbow strikes and joint locks.

Note how in that last example Batfleck twists his opponent's knife hand around to drive the blade into his leg. I'm pretty sure this is an example of Krav Maga, a martial art developed by the Israeli Defence Force. So is the following disarming technique.

Batfleck is definitely a ninja. He's frequently shown disappearing into the shadows, clinging to walls, using stealth and wielding shuriken-style batarangs. So Ninjutsu should be added to the list.

Speaking of those shuriken-style batarangs, we should probably add Shurikenjutsu to the list too. This is the Japanese martial art of hurling throwing blades. Most Batmen hurl boomerang-style batarangs, so this wouldn't apply to them. But the batarangs thrown by the Nolan and DCEU Batmen are clearly modelled on ninja throwing stars. And in both cases the unerring precision with which Batman hurls them would suggest a proficiency at Shurikenjutsu.

Batfleck definitely knows Muay Thai. His use of elbow and knee strikes is evidence of this, and in particular his use of a curving knee strike during the warehouse scene. Most knee strikes in other martial arts involve thrusting the knee directly forwards or upwards, but a curving knee entails directing the knee laterally with the hips, similar to a roundhouse kick. Batfleck does this during the warehouse fight.

Some of the techniques I identified earlier as Silat could also be examples of Muay Thai, as both martial arts place a prominent emphasis on knee and elbow strikes. To be honest, I don't know enough about either martial art to accurately make the distinction. So I'm just going to go ahead and say he's familiar with both.

Batfleck strikes one goon in the neck with what looks like a knifehand, which is a classic Karate move. So we can add Karate to the list.

At one point an enemy charges at him and Batfleck uses his attacker's forward momentum to throw him to the ground. This illustrates a central concept of Aikido, which is to turn the force of an opponent's attack against them.

He follows this up with some ground-and-pound, a technique common in MMA where a fighter takes up a dominant position over their grounded adversary and pummels them into submission.

Boxing is a no-brainer.

When Batman picks up the wounded Superman, he lifts and carries him using what looks like a variation of the overhead gutwrench backbreaker rack. This is a wrestling move.

Batfleck uses a lot of headbutts. These, combined with some of the dirty fighting moves and improvised weaponry techniques he employs against Superman (e.g. hitting him on the back of the head with a sink while he's down on the ground), suggest a familiarity with street fighting.

Once again, this is all guess work and I could be way off the mark. But based on what we see on screen, I'd say Batfleck's fighting style incorporates elements of Ninjutsu, Shurikenjutsu, Muay Thai, Silat, boxing, Karate, Aikido, Krav Maga, ground-and-pound, wrestling and street fighting. That's more fighting styles than the Burton or Schumacher Batmen used.

This combination offers a well-rounded range of techniques covering strikes, throws, joint locks and methods for dealing with both blades and guns. He makes effective use of weaponry and always takes advantage of his environment to outmanoeuvre his enemies. Batfleck is also the most ruthless Batman and is willing to do things his predecessors would not. This makes him by far the most dangerous live action version of the character when it comes to close quarters combat. To be honest, it's hard to identify a weakness in his fighting style. He has several obvious psychological and emotional weaknesses. But his martial arts skills are pretty comprehensive and difficult to fault.

So that covers his fighting style. But what about his physical feats (not counting feats performed with the aid of the mech suit)?

According to the BvS Facebook page, Batfleck's punches exert 1420lbs of force.

He's strong enough to hoist a grown man into the air and slam him through a wooden floor with one arm.

Then there's this.

His reflexes are fast enough that he can dodge shotgun blasts at close range.

He's also fast enough to dodge Doomsday's attacks, including his heat vision.

He's considerably more acrobatic than the Burton or Nolan Batmen. I'd say he's second only to the Schumacher Batman in terms of agility.

He has several impressive durability feats, such as being able to survive a backhand stroke from a Kryptonian.

And he was able to survive this without serious injury.

Now comes the part where we discuss how he'd cope against the villains from earlier Batman films. But in this case it seems a tad redundant. Batfleck would likely defeat everyone. So the question instead becomes which characters could put up the best fight against the DCEU Batman? Would any of them stand a chance of beating him or at least stalemating him?

I don't think anyone from the Burton movies would give him any trouble.

I'd guess Schumacher's Bane and Mr Freeze are physically stronger than the DCEU Batman, but neither has the speed or skill to keep up with him. And if Bat-Clooney could beat them, so can Batfleck.

The League of Shadows would be the first opponents to present him with a real challenge. He could beat the four ninja warriors Baleman fought at the end of Batman Begins, but it wouldn't be an easy fight. Ra's al Ghul would also present a difficult prospect owing to his extensive knowledge of martial arts. It's also worth taking into account the confined space in which the train fight takes place. This would limit Batfleck's ability to manoeuvre or make use of his agility. If Ra's could match Batfleck's speed and strength then he could pose a serious threat. I think Batfleck would win, but Ra's wouldn't make it easy for him.

Ledger's Joker couldn't beat Batfleck physically, but he could hurt him psychologically. Batfleck's emotional instability caused him to be manipulated by Lex Luthor, and it's not hard to imagine Ledger's Joker doing something similar or even worse. In a straight up fight though, the DCEU Batman would win. But that might be exactly what the Nolan Joker wants...

IMO Hardy's Bane would be the biggest threat to Batfleck. He could match his strength, skill and ruthlessness, and possibly even his speed and durability. Batfleck would outclass him in terms of agility and would also be willing to use more deadly methods than Baleman. So I think Batfleck would win, but not without difficulty.

Now we arrive at the question of which Batmen would put up the best fight against Batfleck. I'd say the Burton and Nolan Batmen could each offer a respectable challenge, though both would ultimately lose.

The Burton Batman could probably match Batfleck's superhuman strength and durability and might even present a similar level of ruthlessness. However he's far less agile than the DCEU Batman. He's also not quite as skilled – particularly in the area of grappling techniques – though the skill gap isn't so big that he couldn't put up a good fight.

I think the Nolan Batman actually has a slight skill advantage over Batfleck (again, more on that soon), though he's not as strong or agile. Baleman has surprisingly good damage soak, as illustrated by the punishment he was able to take from Bane. And that was the broken down version of Baleman from TDKR. The younger prime-era version from BB and TDK would put up a good fight. But like the Burton Batman, I think he'd eventually lose.

The Schumacher Batman could probably dance around with Batfleck for a while, but I don't see how he could put him down.

The only live action Batman that I'm confident could beat Batfleck is West, and that's due to his absurdly superhuman feats and god-tier plot armour. I can imagine Bat-West employing a special yogic technique to tense his muscles so that Batfleck would injure himself every time he hit him. West would just stand there and let Batfleck wear himself out, then calmly knock him out when his energy was spent.

ROBIN: Holy punching bag! How could you take a beating like that?

BATMAN: Elementary muscle control, Robin. By concentrating and regulating my breathing, I was able to induce an advanced state of muscular rigidity; a technique pioneered by the great Harry Houdini. Remember, Robin – never neglect your isometrics.

ROBIN: Gosh, Batman! You're right!

But what does everyone else think? Have I misidentified any aspects of the DCEU Batman's fighting style? Anything I've overlooked? How do you think he'd do against the earlier screen villains or against the earlier Batmen?

The first trailer:

They're sticking to the same formula as the trailers for Episodes VII and VIII:

•   slow, grandiose rendition of a recognisable theme from the OT, accompanied by a quiet voiceover from Luke which incorporates lines from an earlier film
•   'This Christmas'
•   shot containing the ruins of something recognisable from the old films (in this case the Death Star)
•   close-up shot of damaged Sith mask
•   Kylo Ren with a lightsaber (in a forest again, like the Episode VII trailer)
•   shot of the Millennium Falcon flying as nostalgic music swells
•   shot of an OT character to appeal to older fans (Lando)
•   shot of a cute new character designed to sell toys (D-0)
•   sentimental shot of Leia hugging someone
•   another desert planet
•   Rey swinging a lightsaber

Once again, they're pandering to nostalgia. They even recycled the text from The Phantom Menace trailer.

I was hoping the bad taste left by The Last Jedi might have worn off by now, but the damage was worse than I thought. It breaks my heart to say it, but I've never felt so un-hyped for a Star Wars movie (with the possible exception of Solo). The only remotely intriguing thing in this trailer is the laugh at the end. Other than that, it's just the same old thing.

What role does everyone expect the Wayne family to play in this film? Will Thomas Wayne simply be a background figure contributing to the political context of Fleck's transformation? Or will he have a more active influence on the Joker's creation? I'm assuming this little boy in the trailer is Bruce.

If it is, then there's clearly some connection between Arthur and the Waynes. Will the Joker be the one to kill Thomas and Martha in this version of the story? It wouldn't be the first time he was portrayed as the murderer of Bruce's parents. The Joker or Jack Napier killed the Waynes in the 1989 movie (obviously), as well as the Elseworlds comics Batman: Dark Joker the Wild (1994) and Batman: Detective No. 27 (2003).

Will he also slay them in the new film? If so, will this be part of a wider conspiracy? In the Pre-Crisis canon, Joe Chill killed the Waynes on the orders of mob boss Lew Moxon. And in Batman: Detective No. 27 Napier killed them on behalf of the Knights of the Golden Circle. Sam Hamm's Batman II script also revealed that Napier had killed the Waynes in the 1989 movie as part of a wider conspiracy. Will that be the case here? Considering the political turmoil hinted at in the trailer, it seems plausible.

It's interesting to note that Thomas Wayne is being played by Brett Cullen, who previously played the congressman Selina kidnaps in The Dark Knight Rises.

Since they originally pursued Alec Baldwin for the part, I'm guessing he must have a sizeable role in the narrative. At this point it's hard to tell if that role will be antagonistic or sympathetic.

We already have a thread on the fighting style of the Burton Batman (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3798.0) so here's a similar thread for his successor. I'll start things off with my own analysis and then everyone else can pitch in with their observations or correct me where I've gone wrong.

One martial art you'd expect every Batman to use is Ninjutsu, but I don't think that applies in the case of the Schumacher Batman. The only time he uses stealth is when he clings to the roof of the elevator before attacking Two-Face's goons at the beginning of Batman Forever. Other than that, he doesn't use stealth, he doesn't disappear into the shadows (except for that one time he vanished while talking to Chase), and he doesn't incorporate smoke bombs, shuriken or other ninja apparatus into his arsenal (unless you count his grappling hooks). The West, Burton, Nolan and DCEU Batmen all make prominent use of ninja techniques, but Schumacher's doesn't.

So what martial arts does he use?

Don't quote me on this, but I seem to remember once reading online that Val Kilmer had trained in Wing Chun Kung Fu. This training might have been completely unrelated to Batman Forever and could have taken place years after he played the role. But looking at the action scenes in BF, I could believe that this was the foundation of his fighting style.

The Siu Nim Tao form of Wing Chun places a prominent emphasis on concentration and balance. Kilmer's Batman is noticeably more acrobatic than Keaton's and is also calmer and less aggressive. He displays a respectable level of balance in combat, extending his leg fully while maintaining his equilibrium whenever he executes a side kick.

His skill at intercepting enemy strikes, which is evidenced numerous times throughout the film, is also typical of Wing Chun. This is perhaps best demonstrated during the fight scene at Nygma's party.

One final piece of evidence to support his use of Wing Chun can be found in a deleted scene where Bruce's gym is shown to contain a Mu ren zhuang – a wooden training dummy commonly used in Chinese martial arts, and especially Wing Chun.

While Kilmer's Batman primarily uses strikes, he does also employ joint locks.

Note how he incapacitates the following goon with an arm lock, then takes advantage of his opponent's immobilisation to deliver a knee strike while still holding onto him. This is typical of Ju-Jitsu.

Later in the fight he throws a goon to the ground and applies a wristlock. Look carefully and you can see him still holding the goon's wrist while simultaneously fending off an attack from a different thug. The type of wrist lock he's using here is common to several martial arts, including Ju-Jitsu, Judo, Aikido and Hapkido.

I'm not sure about the throw he uses immediately prior to this. It could be Judo, Aikido or Hapkido. Considering how he flows straight from this throw into the aforementioned wrist lock and kick manoeuvre, I'm going to go ahead and guess it's probably Hapkido.

At one point during the bank fight Bat-Kilmer performs what looks like a flying armbar takedown. This is a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu move derived from the classic cross armbar submission hold used in traditional Japanese Ju-Jitsu and Judo.

So to summarise, I'd guess Bat-Kilmer's fighting style is primarily a fusion of Wing Chun, Hapkido and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (and/or possibly Japanese Ju-Jitsu). He doesn't seem to be versed in as many fighting techniques as the Burton or Nolan Batmen, but he has a solid well-rounded proficiency in strikes, throws and grappling moves. In contrast to the fighting style of Keaton's Batman, Kilmer's is more graceful and acrobatic. Admittedly his most impressive display of skill is during the first fight scene at the bank, while throughout the rest of the movie he veers towards the flashier and less practical style of his successor.

Which brings me to Bat-Clooney. I don't have too much to say about his martial arts skills. To my knowledge, Clooney didn't undergo any combat training for Batman & Robin. There are a few shots where you can see him throw basic punches, but other than that he left all the action to his stunt doubles. So who were his fight doubles?

One was Chris Casamassa, who is perhaps best remembered amongst film fans for his portrayal of Scorpion in the first Mortal Kombat (1995) movie. Casamassa is a 9th degree black belt in Shōrin-ryū Karate.

Another martial artist who doubled for Clooney was Brad Martin, who holds a black belt in Taekwondo.

And that pretty much sums up Bat-Clooney's fighting style – it's a fusion of Karate and Taekwondo. He pulls of some flashy moves which look impressive but wouldn't be of much practical use in a real fight. For example, both Batman and Robin perform flash kicks.

At one point Batman executes a tornado kick (at least I think this is a tornado kick, but it's hard to see clearly), which I believe is a Taekwondo move.

He does make some limited use of throws. The most notable example of this is when he and Robin perform synchronised stomach throws during the fight scene at the museum.

Incidentally, the Adam West Batman did the exact same thing with the Green Hornet in the Batman (1966) episode 'Batman's Satisfaction' (season 2 episode 52).

Clooney's Batman also throws Bane over his shoulder at one point, though there isn't much skill involved in this particular move.

And that's about all I've got to say on the fighting style of the Schumacher Batman. Combining Kilmer and Clooney's skills, we end up with a fusion of Wing Chun, Hapkido, Ju-Jitsu (Japanese and/or Brazilian), Taekwondo and Karate. Comparing this to the fighting style of Burton's Batman, Schumacher's is more energetic, graceful and acrobatic, but overall less functional. Burton's Batman uses a more grounded, brutal style of fighting that incorporates techniques from approximately eight different martial arts. Schumacher's Batman uses a flashier style that draws from around four or five different martial arts.

Of course I could be way off the mark with this analysis, but this is just my attempt at breaking down the fight scenes. If I've made any mistakes, or missed anything significant, then please chime in. Do you like the fighting style of Schumacher's Batman? How do you think he would cope against the villains from the other Batman films? Do you have a favourite fight scene from BF or B&R?

Following their 2015 comic book crossover, Batman and the Ninja Turtles are teaming once again. This time in an animated movie produced by Warner Bros Animation and Nickelodeon: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/exclusive-batman-and-the-teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-meet-in-first-animated-movie

The first official image has already been released.

I like the left side of the picture and I'm digging Batman's classic Neal Adams look. But why is Donatello's head so narrow, and why are Batgirl and Robin wearing their New 52 costumes when Batman's sporting his classic look?

Those quibbles aside, this could be a lot of fun. There's no release date yet, but I think it's coming out this year.

Seems like it wasn't so long ago we were having this same discussion after The Dark Knight Rises came out. But here we are again, with a new screen version of Batman looming on the horizon. So what ideas would you like to see implemented in the upcoming reboot? What kind of tone would you like the film to have? What visual style? Which villains or stories would you like them to adapt?

Essentially I'd like a live action version of the DCAU Batman. Suitable for kids, but sophisticated enough that adults will enjoy it. If I were to cite a previous adaptation as an example of the tone I'd like, then Batman 89, Batman: The Animated Series and Batman Begins would be the closest. As far as visuals go, I've always been a proponent of the Alex Ross approach. I want to see Batman's most iconic costume return to the big screen. Forget the hi-tech New 52 design and get back to basics. Keep the costume as simple and iconic as possible.

Let's ditch the sculpted rubber muscle suits. They were cool back in the late eighties and early nineties, but it's time to move on. I've been watching a lot of old 1940s superhero film serials lately, and I love the purity of their traditional costume designs. Alyn's Superman and Lowery's Batman look like they stepped right out of the comics of that era.

The short films of Sandy Collora offer a more modern take on what these designs might look like on actors with suitable physiques. This is what Superman and Batman should look like:

For another example, see Jack Brewer as the Adam West Batman in Return to the Batcave (2003). His cowl was a bit off, but the rest of his costume looked great thanks to his imposing height and musculature.

This is the sort of look I want Batman to have in the new film. I don't care if it's unrealistic. This Batman should be so skilled, so fast, so stealthy, that he doesn't need body armour; he makes sure not to get hit in the first place. The actor needs to be above average height and should look as if he's undertaken an intense mixture of cardio, martial arts and heavy weight training. He needs to look at least as jacked as Christian Bale did in Batman Begins. Oh, and I want the longer ears back on the cowl. We haven't seen those since 1997 and it's high time they made a comeback.

As far as personality goes, I'd like to see a slightly lighter, less intense characterisation of Batman this time. I don't mean go full Clooney, but rather something along the lines of the Bronze Age comic book version. Look at how Denny O'Neil wrote Bruce, as well as how he was portrayed in Batman: The Animated Series. That's the sort of characterisation I'd like in the next movie. They should play up the detective angle and make it integral to the plot. I don't just mean have a couple of scenes where he uses the Batcomputer to figure out what to do next. I mean actually show him utilising his deductive skills to identify the villain and track him/her down.

I'd like them to strip back his arsenal of weapons a bit too. Keep it simple. Equip him with some batarangs, a grapple gun, a gas mask, night vision goggles, some smoke bombs and a forensic kit, and leave it at that. He should also only have one vehicle, but not another tank-style Batmobile. We've seen enough of those. The new Batmobile should be a simpler automobile along the lines of the Lincoln Futura from the sixties TV show or the Anton Furst design from the Burton films.

And one of the most important things I'd like to see in the new film – have Batman stick to his Golden Rule. Yes, he's killed in the comics. We all know this. But the fact remains that the 'no kill' rule has been dominant in 90% of the comics since 1940. Let's see it accurately represented from now on. I'd also prefer it if this version of Batman didn't use guns (with the exception of his grapple gun). That includes not having guns on his Batmobile.

I don't mind having other members of the Bat-Family show up, but only if they're properly introduced. I don't want the film to begin in a Gotham where there are already numerous Robins and other vigilantes operating in the area. Start off with just Batman on his own, then add Dick Grayson in the sequel. It's about time we saw a new take on Robin's origin story. Then perhaps they could attempt a decent treatment of the Barbara Gordon Batgirl in the third film. But aside from that, I don't want to see any other superheroes making cameos in Batman's solo films. By all means leave the door open for a possible Justice League movie in the future, but for now keep the solo films focused on Batman and Robin (and possibly Batgirl). Nobody else. And if Robin does show up, he should be played by a real teenager.

I want Gotham City to return to the more stylised depictions of the past. It was an interesting experiment to see them use real cities in the most recent films, but I'd much rather have a Gothic Art Deco style metropolis filled with gargoyles, cathedral spires and airships flying overhead. Look at Burton's Gotham, the B:TAS version and the drawings of artists like Darwyne Cook and Tim Sale.

I want to see a DC universe that looks like an alternate reality, where you're not quite sure if it's the past or the future. I'd particularly like to see a stylised version of Metropolis that could equal the most memorable cinematic representations of Gotham. A Metropolis in which the architecture displays a New World's Fair retro-futurist aesthetic mixed with elements of Art Deco. It should look like the city of tomorrow, as envisaged in the 1930s. They could use the Fleischer Studios cartoons, Superman: The Animated Series and Fritz Lang's Metropolis for inspiration.

I'd like all the other DC cities to look equally stylised, but each in their own unique way. I've got a vision of what I'd like Central City to look like – filled with vast skyscrapers constructed in a red brick collegiate style, with elevated runways stretching between the buildings and vast clock towers perched on every rooftop. That would create an interesting visual contrast to Gotham and Metropolis.

For villains, I'd love to see Catwoman return. And I mean Catwoman, not just Selina or 'The Cat'. And I want them to move away from the street thief portrayal presented in The Dark Knight Rises and Gotham. Instead let's get back to the glamorous socialite version of Selina who has an exciting civilian life to complement her costumed antics. She should wear the classic cowl, ideally with a purple dress. And the actress playing her should be super buff to match whoever's playing Batman.

Let's also see some of the more comic bookish villains return. How about a live action version of Man-Bat created with practical creature effects?. Or Hugo Strange and his giant monster men? Or how about reuniting Poison Ivy with Mr. Freeze for a more dramatic reimagining of Batman & Robin?

Well those are just a few of my thoughts to get things started. What about everyone else?

Back in 2013 Scott Adkins announced on social media that he'd recorded a screen test for Batman v Superman. His audition has now appeared online.

This trailer has a pleasantly nostalgic DCAU vibe. It's nice to hear Conroy, Newbern and Eisenberg reuniting in their classic roles.

There are several online videos analysing the fighting styles of the Nolanverse and DCEU Batmen, but I don't think anyone's ever done a similar breakdown for the Burton version. So this is my attempt at analysing his fighting style to ascertain precisely how many different martial arts he knows.

The fight scenes in the Burton Batman films were primarily performed by British martial artist Dave Lea. Stuntmen Sean McCabe and Mike Cassidy also contributed to these sequences, and Michael Keaton did a small amount himself. But most of the actual fighting was handled by Lea. Lea has spent his life training in a variety of different fighting techniques from across the globe, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Bruce Wayne knows all of those same styles in the Burton universe. So which martial arts does Batman actually use on screen in Batman 89 and Batman Returns?

Lea has said in interviews that he created a fighting style suited to Batman's character; one that focused on concise economical movements over flashier techniques that might needlessly expend energy. One of the martial arts he incorporated into Batman's fight style was the Malaysian discipline of HapKune Do.

HapKune Do is a style I learned in Malaysia. It's an amalgamation of all different styles put together - which suited me perfectly at the time when I was learning because I could learn everything. I had already studied the Filipino arts, studied with Dan Inosanto, studied the kicks, the flips, weapons, Kung Fu - all the time different stuff. I took all the moves and turned them into Batman moves...but you're not going to see Batman do a Tiger Claw or a Thai Boxing kick...so what I did was - whatever the move was I would turn it into a little bit more of the Batman character.

https://www.batman-online.com/features/2009/12/19/michael-keaton-stunt-double-dave-lea-interview/3

Another martial art the Burton Batman utilises is Ninjutsu. The official movie book of the 1989 film reveals that this Batman carries ninja weaponry in his utility belt, including smoke pellets and 'ninja wheels'/shuriken. He is never actually shown to use the shuriken in the finished film, but we do see at least two instances where he uses smoke pellets to evade his opponents. So this Batman is definitely a ninja.

Batman's fighting style in Batman Returns has been described as a mixture of kickboxing and street fighting. Keaton is said to have studied kickboxing under Lea's tutelage for both the 1989 film and its sequel. The particular form of kickboxing he uses appears to be a mixture of Shotokan Karate and Taekwondo.

The Burton Batman also displays a proficiency at the Filipino martial art of Escrima when dealing with blade-wielding opponents. I'm pretty sure the choreography during the fight against the swordsman is derived from Escrima.

As is this.

Although he primarily uses striking techniques, he does also occasionally incorporate grappling into his fighting style. The following move looks like an Aikido wrist throw to me, but I'm open to correction on this.

When he fights the Joker at the end of the 1989 film, he forgoes his usual quick jab punches in favour of powerful right hooks and body blows. These indicate he has some boxing skills.

So to sum up (and assuming I'm right in all this) the Burton Batman would appear to be proficient in at least seven or eight different fighting techniques: Ninjutsu, HapKune Do, Shotokan Karate, Taekwondo, Escrima, Aikido, boxing and street fighting.

More than anything else though, Bat-Keaton loves his backhand punches.

Has anyone identified any other martial arts techniques used by this version of Batman? Have I misidentified one of the disciplines I've listed above? If so, what would the correct martial art be for that particular technique? Do you like the fighting style of this Batman, or do you prefer the techniques used by a different screen version? Any and all discussion/analysis of Batman's fighting style is welcome in this thread.

[But please, please, please keep it apolitical.]

It's official. It's finally happening. They're filming this summer for a 2020 release. Sony has already released the first official teaser.

Jason Reitman, son of Ivan Reitman, is directing. And it sounds like they're going to bring back the surviving cast members. It's been confirmed that this will take place in the same universe as the old films, cartoon show, comics and videogames and will completely ignore the 2016 abomination. Thank God.

To be frank, this is 25 years too late. Ghostbusters 3 should have come out in the early-mid nineties. The ship has sailed on the possibility of assembling the original four actors, and my fear is that this new film will amount to another hollow nostalgia-fuelled remake along the lines of The Force Awakens and Mary Poppins Returns. I also think Dan Aykroyd has a long way to go to win back the trust of the fans after he accused us all of being members of the KKK for not supporting the remake (he actually said that).

On the other hand, I've been waiting and begging for this film for as long as I can remember. The original Ghostbusters franchise is very, very special to me and was a major part of my childhood. Aykroyd teased us for years with hints about Ghostbusters 3, and it broke my heart when they finally shelved the project in favour of the woke remake. This movie may end up sucking, and I wish they'd made it when Ramis was still alive. But for now at least, I'm supporting Ghostbusters 3. As long as the original actors are back in their classic roles, I'll be there on opening weekend.

They've had enough time to get the script right, so they'd better not screw it up. And if nothing else, the existence of Ghostbusters 3 is the final nail in the coffin of Sony's Feigbusters.

But please, please, please keep it apolitical.

Here's our first look at the new Rorschach.

And here's Jeremy Irons as an aged Ozymandias.

It's interesting they cast Irons as Veidt, since one of his most acclaimed roles was as Charles Ryder in the 1981 television adaptation of Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. And who played Charles Ryder in the (inferior) 2008 feature film adaptation of Brideshead Revisited? Matthew Goode, who of course also played Ozymandias in the 2009 Watchmen movie. I'm expecting Goode to be cast as Alfred Pennyworth any day now.

Last year marked the 35th anniversary of Richard Lester's Superman III, and after recently revisiting the film on Blu-ray I was struck by a number of similarities between it and Joel Schumacher's Batman Forever. Identifying parallels between the Reeve Superman films and the Burton/Schumacher Batman series is nothing new, but I wanted to get a little more specific with this thread. I should start by saying that I like both of these movies. Both are obviously flawed (Superman III a lot more so than Batman Forever, IMO), but both have good qualities that are too often overlooked whenever modern appraisals crop up. Right now though I want to look at the similarities between them.

Both films offer a hard line of demarcation between the style of an outgoing director and that of his successor. In the case of the Superman series, the changeover between Donner and Lester occurred during the production of Superman II. But Superman II was still plotted, cast and scripted according to the creative vision of Donner. Because of this the theatrical cut of Superman II, though credited to Lester, is still partly a Donner film (and by the same token, the Donner Cut of Superman II is still partly a Lester film). With Superman III we get the first and only Superman film that is 100% Richard Lester's. And with Batman Forever we get the first Joel Schumacher Batman film.

Both directors were criticised for marginalising the dramatic content and verisimilitude that characterised their predecessor's work in favour of a campier style that overemphasised humour and nonthreatening villains. The villains in Superman: The Movie weren't particularly threatening either – not when compared to the Phantom Zone criminals in the second film – but they functioned well in that particular story, and Hackman brought some gravity to Lex's villainy through his charismatic screen presence. Ross Webster on the other hand feels like a second-rate knockoff of Lex Luthor, and the absence of any real comic book villains in Superman III is sorely felt. That's not a dig at Robert Vaughn, but rather a criticism of the way the character was conceived and written.

Similarly one of Batman Forever's greatest weaknesses is the performance by Tommy Lee Jones, who reduces one of Batman's most psychologically-complex rogues to a cackling buffoon. If Webster is a poor man's Lex, then Jones' Two-Face is a poor man's Joker. And that's a real shame, since Tommy Lee Jones is a fine actor and could have made an excellent Two-Face had he played the part in a more serious film. But at the end of the day, Webster and Two-Face both feel like inferior imitations of better villains that appeared in earlier films.

Christopher Reeve consciously chose to tone down Clark's bumbling in Superman III, which allowed for more emotionally earnest scenes between himself and Lana. Similarly Kilmer portrayed the playboy aspect of Bruce's personality with a confident and relaxed charm that was a departure from the reclusive and socially-awkward Bruce portrayed in Burton's films. In both cases, the lead character's alter ego is presented in a way that is more consistent with the comics of the era than the previous two films.

The lead love interest in both films is a redhead, while the villain has two female companions with contrasting personalities: one blonde, the other brunette.

Both movies feature a sexually-charged scene where the hero visits a love interest in her apartment at night. In Superman III the Man of Steel is acting under the influence of the synthetic kryptonite when he visits the villainous femme fatale Lorelei, while in Batman Forever Bruce visits Chase in the guise of his costumed alter ego.

Both films feature a geeky tech wizard (played by an actor previously known for comedic roles) who sets out to screw his billionaire employer. In Superman III Gus Gorman quickly forms an alliance with Webster, while in Batman Forever Edward Nygma initially wants to go into partnership with Bruce but ultimately teams up with Two-Face. Both geek villains then embark on a criminal scheme to gain power by exploiting modern technology to the detriment of the public. Gus uses computers, while the Riddler uses 'the Box'.

The primary line of attack used by the villains in both films is psychological rather than physical. Webster tries to kill Superman using the synthetic kryptonite, and in doing so inadvertently triggers a split personality disorder that renders the Man of Steel useless as a crime fighter. Nygma bombards Bruce with riddles in an effort to confuse and intimidate him, then exploits the secret of his true identity by attacking his home and threatening the lives of his friends. Bruce is already struggling with repressed memories at the start of the film, and the Riddler's machinations exacerbate those problems further.

Both films include a sequence where the hero confronts an externalised projection of his inner alter ego. In Superman III this takes the form of the junkyard fight, while in Batman Forever it's the deleted scene where Bruce confronts the bat-creature in the cave. Both of these scenes were adapted directly from comics: the junk yard fight in Superman III is taken from Adventure Comics Vol 1 #255, while the scene of Bruce confronting the bat in the cave was taken from the first chapter of The Dark Knight Returns.

The point of these scenes is to show the heroes reconciling the two halves of their psyches and re-establishing the equilibrium that was previously disrupted by the antagonists. In Superman III the humble and mild-mannered Clark Kent side of Kal-El is reconciled with the powerful and potentially hubristic Superman side, while in Batman Forever Bruce Wayne achieves an equitable symbiosis with his animal totem. The idea of the superhero having to conquer their inner demons has since factored into other CBM threequels such as Spider-Man 3 (2007) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012).

The hero in both movies has to undergo a personal journey that involves confronting an unresolved issue from their past. In both cases this unresolved issue was introduced in the first film of the series, but not referenced in the second film. For Superman, it's a return to Smallville and the feelings of inadequacy, frustration and isolation he experienced as a teen. For Batman, it's a return to the night his parents were killed and the feelings of guilt, fear and desolation he experienced in its aftermath. The hero having to confront an unresolved aspect of his origin story is another plot point that has cropped up in later threequels.

The villains in both films have a large hi-tech lair situated in a remote location, which only comes into play during the final act of the movie.

Both movies feature a sequence where the hero flies to the villains' hideout, only for the bad guys to launch weapons at them using a control console resembling an electronic game. In Superman III Webster fires missiles at Superman using what appears to be an Atari video game, while in Batman Forever the Riddler and Two-Face use a game of Battleships to attack the Batboat and Batwing.

Both sequences climax with the villain pressing a large red button which launches a more powerful attack that knocks the airborne hero out of the sky.

The hero survives and has to endure a series of traps as he advances deeper into the villains' lair.

Both showdowns entail the villains looking down on the hero from an elevated position in the heart of their base.

Both finales depict the hero using his wits rather than his brawn to defeat the enemy. Superman tricks the supercomputer by attacking it with a harmless chemical which he then turns volatile using his heat vision. Batman distracts Nygma with a riddle while he uses his sonar suit to target the brainwave receptor above his throne. In both films the villain's malfunctioning creation directly interfaces with them in such a way that corrupts their physical form.

Both heroes emerge with a more cohesive sense of their own identity, having conquered the inner demons which had previously fragmented their psyche. And both films end with a triumphant image of the hero in action.

While the hero may be upstaged by the villains in both of these films, the lead character nevertheless gets a decent storyline of his own. Superman's arc is not as strong as it was in the previous two films, but I still find it interesting. I like the narrative about him returning to Smallville, reconnecting with his early life as a humble farm boy and rekindling his unfulfilled romance with Lana. Meanwhile Batman Forever does a better job of balancing the Batman and Bruce Wayne personas than either of Burton's films did. I'd argue it has by far the strongest character arc for Bruce of any entry in the Burton/Schumacher series and is the only live action Batman film of the nineties that really tried to look inside the lead character's head and see what makes him tick. It also has a strong character arc for Dick Grayson and does a decent job of highlighting the parallels between Robin's origin story and Batman's.

But what does everyone else think? Are there genuine similarities between these two films, or am I seeing parallels where none exist? Are there other parallels I've not spotted here? Did these films really establish the formula for the superhero threequel, and if so are there any other aspects to that formula you can identify in these two movies?

I had intended to post this thread last month to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Superman: The Movie, but unfortunately I've had internet problems for the past four weeks that prevented me from doing so. But here it is, better late than never.

We already covered the possible comic influences on this film in another thread: https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2197.0

Now I'm looking at influences derived from other sources – from films, music, architecture, literature, history, politics, real life people and events. Some of these will be obvious, but I'm going to list them all anyway in the interests of being comprehensive. Please feel free to add more references if there are any I've overlooked.

The film begins in June 1938 with a child reading an issue of Action Comics. Superman debuted in Action Comics Vol 1 #1 which was published in June 1938.

The opening narration mentions "the world-wide depression" of the 1930s. This refers to the Great Depression that began with the Wall Street Crash of October 1929.

Krypton's sun (named Rao in the comics, but unnamed in the film) is a red supergiant. Although red supergiants exhibit tremendous size and luminosity, they are cooler than younger stars. This might explain why Krypton is depicted as a frozen ice planet in the movie.

Superman is descended from the House of El. In Hebrew, 'El' means 'god' and is derived from a root word meaning 'might, strength, power'.

The look of the spaceship that carries Kal-El to Earth was designed to resemble a star in reference to the Star of Bethlehem. The scene where the Kents see the spaceship plummet to Earth and discover the orphaned child at the crash site consciously evokes the three wise men following the star to find Jesus in The New Testament.

The Smallville scenes were visually influenced by the films of John Ford and the paintings of Norman Rockwell. The wide-angle location shots are redolent of the films of both Ford and David Lean. The following comparison is with a scene from Ford's The Searchers (1956).

The comparison below is with a shot from David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia (1962). Note how the silhouetted human figure in each shot is dwarfed beneath the dominant skyline.

The extended cuts of the film feature cameos by Kirk Alyn and Noel Neill as the parents of Lois Lane. Alyn was the first actor to portray Superman in live action, having played him in the black & white film serials Superman (1948) and Atom Man vs. Superman (1950). Neill had portrayed Lois Lane opposite Alyn in both of those serials, and later reprised her role opposite George Reeves in seasons 2-6 of the Adventures of Superman (1952-1958) TV show. Neill later appeared in Brian Singer's Superman Returns (2006).

The 1954 recording of 'Rock Around the Clock' by Bill Haley & His Comets can be heard on Brad's car radio during the Smallville sequence.

John Williams' Smallville theme echoes the music of American composer Aaron Copland. It also strongly resembles Williams' earlier score for Mark Rydell's The Cowboys (1972) starring John Wayne. Listen to the section from 3:30 onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jEf6HMxm74#t=3m30s

And from 2:10 onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXYj8nChItw#t=2m10s

The extended cuts contain a less-than-subtle piece of product placement involving a box of Cheerios. This breakfast cereal first went on sale in America in 1941.

The distinctive look of the Fortress of Solitude as it rises from the snow evokes Caspar David Friedrich's 1824 painting 'The Sea of Ice'.

The holographic projection of Jor-El's face recalls the eponymous character's illusory appearance in the film version of The Wizard of Oz (1939) produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Christopher Reeve cited Cary Grant's portrayal of Dr. David Huxley in Howard Hawks' Bringing Up Baby (1938) as an influence on his own performance as Clark Kent. Common characteristics include bumbling, stammering and being bossed around by the headstrong female lead.

While leaving The Daily Planet building, Lois tries to introduce Clark to someone named Rex who passes them by in a hurry. This is a cameo by New York film critic Rex Reed, who is apparently portraying himself in the film.

John Williams' 'The March of the Villains' was influenced by the works of Russian composer Sergei Prokofiev. Compare it with the follow excerpt from Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf (1936).

Lex Luthor's subterranean hideout is visually modelled on Grand Central Terminal in Midtown Manhattan. Otis passes through the concourse of the real Grand Central Terminal on his way to Luthor's lair.

There are several black and white photographs visible in the background of Lex's hideout. It's difficult to tell who these pictures portray, and I can't find any information about them online. But I think one of the photographs may be a portrait of Heinrich Himmler, a prominent Nazi and head of the SS.

The model of Air Force One that Superman rescues is based on the SAM 27000, a Boeing VC-137C that entered service in 1972 during President Nixon's administration and was retired during President George W. Bush's first term of office in 2001.

While briefing his reporters, Perry says he wants Superman's name to go together with The Daily Planet like "death and taxes". This refers to an idiom commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, though the earliest recorded example of its usage can be traced to a 1716 quote by English actor and dramatist Christopher Bullock:

"Tis impossible to be sure of anything but Death and Taxes."

Perry also alludes to the Book of Exodus when he says that whoever lands an interview with Superman "is going to wind up with the single most important interview since... God talked to Moses!"

During the interview scene, Lois and Superman both mention the title character from J. M. Barrie's 1904 play and 1911 novel Peter Pan.

The main love theme by John Williams is thought to have been inspired by Richard Strauss' Tod und Verklärung (1889). Listen carefully and you can hear Williams referencing the 6-note transfiguration motif from Strauss' composition. Listen from the 8:00 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XkQi_dfWEA#t=8m

When Superman and Lois go flying they pass several recognisable New York landmarks including the World Trade Centre and the Statue of Liberty.

A gatefold copy of the 1968 album Traffic by the British rock band of the same name can be seen in the background of Lois' apartment. It is open on a picture of group members Dave Mason and Jim Capaldi.

Luthor's collection of wigs was perhaps inspired by Dr. Mabuse's similar collection in Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler (1922). Like Luthor, Mabuse was also a diabolical mastermind. He is considered to be one of the earliest cinematic supervillains.

When speaking to Otis and Miss Teschmacher, Luthor makes an allusion to Leo Tolstoy's 1867 novel War and Peace:

"Miss Teschmacher, some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."

Luthor's line "Oh Lord... You gave them eyes, but they cannot see" is a reference to Psalms 115:5:

"They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see."

Luthor's real estate scam recalls the scheme executed by Noah Cross in Roman Polanski's Chinatown (1974). Both villains purchase large amounts of seemingly worthless real estate with the intention of increasing its value through nefarious means. Cross plans to do this by drying up the land to reduce its value, then purchasing it and irrigating the area so it can be developed into an outer district of Los Angeles. Luthor plans to purchase a similar stretch of worthless desert land, then detonate a nuclear warhead at a fracture point in the San Andreas Fault to destroy the coastal area west of the fault line. Both villains plot to turn desert land into valuable urban real estate.

Richard Donner has cited the paintings of Norman Rockwell as an influence on the film's visuals. There's a shot of Jimmy Olsen looking towards Hoover Dam from atop a nearby canyon outcrop which is framed similar to Rockwell's 1969 painting 'Glen Canyon Dam'. Note the off-centre positioning of the dam itself in both images, as well as the human figure in the foreground with their back to us.

The song Lois listens to while driving through the desert is 'Give a Little Bit' (1977) by Supertramp.

In the sequence after the missile hits the San Andreas Fault, several real locations are shown along the West Coast of America. These include the Hollywood sign in Los Angeles, the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and the Hoover Dam in Nevada.

The shot of Superman holding up the subterranean rock evokes the image of Atlas bearing the world on his shoulders in classical mythology.

The final shot of the film, where Superman flies into space as the sun rises behind the Earth, echoes the lunar sunrise from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Geoffrey Unsworth was the cinematographer on both films.

And that's all I've got.

['Midnight Mess']

Back in October 2013 I posted a thread detailing the comic influences on Amicus Studio's 1972 Tales from the Crypt movie. And now, just in time for Halloween, I'm posting a similar analysis of the sequel: The Vault of Horror (1973).

Like its predecessor, this movie is structured as an anthology comprised of five stories adapted from EC Comics' classic line of horror titles. Of the five stories featured in the Tales from the Crypt film, only two were actually adapted from the Tales from the Crypt comic. The remaining three stories were adapted from the sister publications The Vault of Horror and The Haunt of Fear. Despite its title, none of the stories in The Vault of Horror movie are actually adapted from The Vault of Horror comic. Instead one story is adapted from Shock SuspenStories, and the remaining four are adapted from issues of Tales from the Crypt.

Three later feature films were produced based on the Tales from the Crypt franchise: Demon Knight (1995), Bordello of Blood (1996) and Ritual (2002). However none of these were adaptations of Tales from the Crypt comic stories. So out of the five feature films which have so far been released under the Tales from the Crypt banner, The Vault of Horror is the one with the most amount of content (80%) adapted from the Tales from the Crypt comic. It was even rereleased in the US in 1981 under the title Tales from the Crypt II.

Later cuts of this film were clumsily edited to remove almost all of the gore. Some of the bloodier special effects were flat-out replaced with static freeze-frames. If you're going to watch it, then make sure you see the uncut version for the full experience. I'll be referencing the uncut version in this analysis. Obviously this thread will contain spoilers about the twist endings to each segment, so if you'd rather see the film first then stop reading now. But for everyone else, let's get started.

Like Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror features a wraparound story that introduces the five main segments. But unlike the previous film, there is no 'host' character. The host of The Vault of Horror comic was the Vault-Keeper, but he is absent from the film. Instead the wraparound story in the movie concerns five strangers who descend to a mysterious subterranean room where they exchange details of their most horrific recurring nightmares.

'Midnight Mess'

The first story is adapted from 'Midnight Mess!' (Tales from the Crypt Vol 1 #35, April 1953) and features a young man named Harold Rogers (named Harold Madison in the comic) who journeys to a small, quiet town to visit his sister Donna. In the film Harold and Donna are portrayed by real life siblings Daniel and Anna Massey.

The film segment begins with a prologue in which Harold discovers his sister's whereabouts from a private eye, whom he them strangles. This scene is not in the comic and was likely included in the film to make Harold less sympathetic and add a moralistic twist to his fate.

Shortly after arriving in the town where Donna lives, Harold encounters a strange man who warns him to leave before it gets dark. In the comic the man explicitly cautions Harold about vampires, while in the film his warning is less specific.

Vaguely disconcerted by this encounter, Harold notices a local restaurant is still open and proceeds inside.

The restaurant interior features a large mirror on one of the walls. Harold takes a seat and attempts to order a meal, only for the elderly waiter to inform him the establishment is about to close for the evening.

Confused, Harold demands to know why the restaurant is closing so early. The waiter explains they are closing because it will soon be dark. In the comic he explicitly states there are vampires afoot, while in the film he only cryptically alludes to such things. In both stories Harold angrily leaves the restaurant.

He then goes to his sister's house and rings the doorbell. Donna asks who is there without opening the door, and Harold replies it's her brother.

Donna lets Harold in and quickly shuts the door behind him. He asks why everyone is so afraid of the dark, and his sister repeats the local superstition about vampires. In the comic she uses the word "vampires" while in the film she refers to the monsters simply as "them". In both stories Donna states that seventeen people have been killed and their bodies found drained of blood.

In the comic Harold is visiting his sister simply because he happens to be in the area. The film offers a more sinister take on their relationship where Donna has been hiding from her brother out of fear. In the movie Harold reveals their father has recently died and left all his money to Donna. He then draws a switchblade, stabs his sister repeatedly and leaves her corpse with the knife embedded in her chest.

In both versions of the story, Harold leaves his sister's house and goes for a walk at night. In the comic he does this because he can't sleep, while in the film he is fleeing the murder scene. In both stories he sees that the restaurant he visited earlier has reopened and people are now going inside.

The mirror on the wall of the restaurant has been covered over by a curtain. Harold observes the establishment's peculiar clientele, but decides to eat there anyway. He is serviced by a different waiter than the one he'd encountered earlier. This waiter brings him a red drink. Upon receiving it, Harold remarks "Ah, tomato juice." This line is spoken in both the comic and the film.

The waiter brings Harold a strange red soup which he begins tentatively consuming. The waiter then asks him how he'd like his "roast clots", to which Harold replies "Roast what?" The waiter answers "Clots. Blood clots." The dialogue in this scene is almost exactly the same in the comic and the film. In both stories, Harold realises he is consuming blood and spits it out in disgust.

The waiter has the curtain drawn back to expose the mirror on the wall. Harold gazes into it and sees that none of the other patrons cast reflections. They are all vampires.

As the vampires converge on Harold, Donna suddenly walks into the restaurant and reveals herself to be one of the undead. In the comic she is sorry to see Harold in his current predicament but makes no effort to help him. In the film she is carrying the knife he stabbed her with and takes pleasure in witnessing his unhappy fate.

The comic and film segment both end on the same gruesome image of Harold suspended upside down with a tap inserted in his neck as the waiter serves glasses of blood direct from his artery.

The edited version of the film replaces this shot with a still image, but the uncut version features a graphic zoom-in on Harold's face, still alive and twitching, as the waiter dispenses his blood through the tap. In the comic Harold had done nothing to warrant such a horrible fate, but in the film he is a coldblooded murderer who receives his just deserts.

'The Neat Job'

The second segment is the most comedic story in the film and the only one not to be adapted from an issue of Tales from the Crypt. Instead it is adapted from 'The Neat Job!' (Shock SuspenStories Vol 1 #1, February 1952). This one stars Terry-Thomas as Arthur Critchit, a wealthy mature bachelor with an obsessive attitude towards orderliness. At the beginning of the segment he announces his intent to marry a younger woman named Eleanor (played by Glynis Johns). The comic story begins with Eleanor being questioned by the police about her husband's death and then recounting the rest of the tale in flashbacks. The film segment eschews this framing device in favour of a linear narrative.

The couple are married and move into a house together. In the comic Eleanor secretly hates Arthur, while in the film she seems to genuinely like him at first. Arthur quickly turns abusive and starts yelling at his wife whenever she moves any article of furniture without telling him. One day he becomes enraged upon discovering she has moved his underwear to a different drawer in the bedroom.

He takes her down to his workshop in the cellar and shows her the collection of jars in which he keeps all his tools neatly organised.

On another occasion Arthur offers to cook dinner for Eleanor, but then flies into a rage when he discovers she hasn't replenished his store of ingredients. He keeps an inventory on the cupboard door and insists she mark it to keep stock whenever she uses an ingredient.

Arthur's aggressive fastidiousness takes its toll on Eleanor and she becomes increasingly stressed. One day, while her husband is out, she experiences a domestic crisis. In the comic this begins when a picture falls from the wall. The film has a longer and more comical sequence that begins with Eleanor placing a drink on a table without using a coaster. In trying to clean up the stain, she inadvertently dislodges more items and creates an even bigger mess. The sequence culminates in her knocking a picture off the wall.

Seeking to repair the hook before Arthur comes home, she heads down into the cellar. There she accidentally knocks over some of the items in his workshop and disorders his neatly arranged collection of tools.

The house is in complete disarray and Eleanor's stress level has reached breaking point. At that exact moment, Arthur comes home and catches her in the cellar.

When he sees the mess she has made he begins screaming at her. He maniacally repeats the phrase "Can't you do anything neatly? Can't you?" in both the comic and the film.

At this point Eleanor finally snaps and kills Arthur using one of his own tools. In the comic we just see Eleanor brandishing a hatchet while the actual killing occurs off panel. But in the film we see her bury the claw of a hammer in her husband's head.

The story ends with us seeing what has become of Arthur's corpse – Eleanor has dismembered it and placed every individual limb and organ into neatly labelled jars on the shelves in his workshop.

'This Trick'll Kill You'

The third segment is adapted from 'This Trick'll Kill You!' (Tales from the Crypt Vol 1 #33, December 1952) and stars Curd Jürgens as a stage magician visiting Calcutta in search of new illusions. In the comic this character is called Herbert Markini, while in the film he is named Sebastian. Both stories begin with him exploring an Indian marketplace. In the comic Herbert sees an old fakir perform an illusion and contemptuously disregards it. In the movie Sebastian goes out of his way to expose and humiliate the fakir in front of the crowd.

Herbert/Sebastian is wandering the marketplace when he encounters a young woman, played by Jasmina Hilton. This is the first time we see this girl in the comic, while in the film she was shown assisting the fakir in the previous scene. In both stories she performs a magic trick that involves causing a rope to rise from a basket with the aid of a musical instrument.

Once the rope has risen to its full height, the girl gracefully ascends it.

Herbert/Sebastian examines the basket but cannot figure out how the illusion is performed. The girl tells him it is not a trick, insisting that the rope itself is magic. He then offers to buy the rope, but the girl says she cannot sell it as it had belonged to her mother. In the comic Herbert offers her 500 rupees, while in the film Sebastian offers her 40,000 rupees. But she declines both offers.

The magician then returns to his hotel room and recounts what he has seen to his wife, played by Dawn Adams. She is named Inez in both the comic and the movie. In the comic Inez reveals that she too has seen the magic rope trick and has already invited the young woman to perform it for them in their hotel room. The film offers a slightly different sequence of events, where Sebastian returns to the market and invites the girl to perform the illusion for his wife. The young woman initially declines, but changes her mind after Sebastian offers her 200 rupees.

In both stories the young woman comes to their hotel room and performs the rope trick as they requested. In the middle of her act, Herbert/Sebastian sneaks up behind the girl and murders her. In the comic he strangles her, while in the film he stabs her through the back.

Inez then examines the rope and confirms that it isn't hollow and contains no wire.

Herbert/Sebastian plays the dead girl's instrument and the magical rope begins to rise.

Inez tells her husband to "keep playing" as the rope rises higher and higher. She tests the rope to make sure it can take her weight and then commences climbing it.

But when she reaches the top of the rope, Inez gazes up in horror and screams.

The next instant, she vanishes altogether. In both stories Herbert/Sebastian then cries out: "Inez! Inez! Where are you?" The scene in the film includes a direct panel recreation as he shouts this. In the comic Herbert is framed in a circular spotlight as he delivers this line. In the film Sebastian is similarly framed by an octagonal rug. I don't know if the director did this on purpose or if it's just a coincidence, but I thought the visual similarity was worth pointing out.

But what has become of Inez? In the comic her dismembered body parts appear out of thin air and begin to rain down from the ceiling. The film offers a different but equally gruesome image where an expanding pool of blood gradually appears on the ceiling directly above where she vanished.

Her husband's fate isn't much better. Before he can escape the room, the magical rope descends and coils itself around his neck.

The comic ends with the hotel manager entering the room and finding Herbert's corpse hanging by the magical rope. The closing narration states that the body of the murdered Indian girl disappeared, suggesting she is still somehow alive.

The film segment ends on a less ambiguous note with a scene featuring the elderly fakir Sebastian had humiliated at the beginning of the story. The fakir is once again performing in the market when he looks over his shoulder and sees Sebastian's hanging corpse framed in the window of his hotel room. The fakir then turns to his side where we see the young woman that was murdered earlier in the story, alive and well, and controlling the rope with her musical instrument.

The film segment implies the Indian girl is a relative of the fakir and that she deliberately manipulates Herbert/Sebastian in order to pay him back for humiliating the old man. This gives her actions a premeditated edge they lacked in the original comic, making her seem more like a predator and less like a victim.

Filming is well underway on the MCU's second standalone Spider-Man movie. Here's our first glimpse of Jake Gyllenhaal in the Mysterio costume.

Happy anniversary to Stephen Norrington's Blade, which turned 20 earlier this week. For a teenage comic book fan back in 1998, this movie was a lifeline. Batman & Robin had delegitimized superhero movies for many youngsters, and things weren't looking good for the genre. But then Blade came along and showed that CBMs could still be hip, modern and edgy.

The final showdown remains one of my favourite fight scenes in any superhero movie. Blade tanks up on blood and rage-modes his way through Deacon Frost's entire army of vampire goons, massacring them with his bare hands. This was Snipes in his prime.

Most people seem to prefer Guillermo del Toro's Blade II over the original, but the first film will always be my favourite.