Topics

Can't say I'm terribly interested in this one, but for those who are:

There have been lots of great horror anthology TV shows over the years, but my favourite has always been the Canadian show Are You Afraid of the Dark? This series originally aired on Nickelodeon back in the nineties and was shown on CITV here in Britain. I loved it as a kid, and I still regularly watch the DVDs as an adult.

Here in the UK, AYAOTD used to be on Saturday mornings right after Batman: The Animated Series. That was the perfect way for any kid to start his weekend. Later they started showing both AYAOTD and BTAS on weeknights too. Lots of famous child actors appeared in the series, including Melissa Joan Hart, Neve Campbell, Ryan Gosling, Hayden Christensen, Tatyana Ali, Aaron Ashmore, Emily VanCamp, Elisha Cuthbert and Will Friedle (who later went on to voice Terry McGinnis in Batman Beyond). Occasionally they'd also have adult guest stars such as Charles S. Dutton, Bobcat Goldthwaite, Gilbert Gottfried and even the Riddler himself, Frank Gorshin.

Many episodes were adapted from classic horror literature, but with the stories relocated to modern day Canada. For example, 'The Tale of the Twisted Claw' was an adaptation of 'The Monkey's Paw' (1902) by W. W. Jacobs, and 'The Tale of the Midnight Ride' was based on 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow' (1820) by Washington Irving. Sometimes the plots were inspired by classic horror films. 'The Tale of the Midnight Madness' features a vampire who escapes from an old silent movie and is clearly modelled on Count Orlok from F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu (1922). There are many classic episodes to talk about, and I might come back to highlight some of them in the future. But to begin with I wanted to mention one particular episode which might interest the members of this site: 'The Tale of the Ghastly Grinner.'

Just as other episodes took their inspiration from film and literature, this one takes its cues from comic books. The story concerns a teenage boy and aspiring comic creator who is invited to the opening of a new comic book store. Part of the fun of this episode is seeing all the nineties comic memorabilia in the background. Of course there's a ton of X-Men stuff, since X-Men was the one title every comic fan seemed to be reading back then.

There's also some Reign of the Supermen art on display (this episode was broadcast in 1994), as well as numerous Batman-related images. The store is run by a young woman who gives the boy a rare edition of a comic called The Ghastly Grinner. The Grinner is said to have been the most terrifying comic book super villain of all time. He's an evil clown who dresses like a harlequin and has a permanent smile fixed on his face. Sound familiar?

In addition to superhuman strength, the Grinner also possesses the ability to drain people's emotions. This reduces his victims to mindless cackling zombies with creepy smiles and blue slime oozing from their lips.

In case it wasn't already obvious, the Ghastly Grinner is basically a supernatural version of the Joker. He doesn't actually kill people, but he does drive them insane and leaves them with smiles on their faces. Some Joker art can be seen hanging on the wall in the background of certain shots. I like to think this was the production team's way of acknowledging the character's influence on this story.

The Ghastly Grinner's creator had mysteriously disappeared while in the process of writing the final issue, which would have depicted the Grinner's death. We see samples of his artwork throughout the episode and the imagery is delightfully creepy.

The Grinner escapes into the real world following a mishap with a microwave. It's not long before his victims start cropping up.

When the Grinner himself finally appears, the costume and makeup effects don't disappoint.

The makeup effects on his smile are similar to those of Nicholson's Joker.

This episode was always one of my favourites. It appealed to my childhood love of ghost stories and comic book superheroes and mixed the two together. Modern audiences would likely find it cheesy, but for kids back in the nineties this was awesome.

Of course Are You Afraid of the Dark? wasn't the only kids' horror anthology series in the nineties. Another noteworthy show was Goosebumps. I was a big fan of the Goosebumps books by R. L. Stine and had collected and read more of them than anyone else in my school. But I was always disappointed by the TV show. Maybe it was because I loved the books so much and that AYAOTD had set such a high standard for kids' horror shows, but the Goosebumps adaptations usually felt cheap and rushed. They had to condense full length children's books into 20 minute episodes, and the results very seldom did justice to the source material.

There were however two exceptions: 'The Haunted Mask' and 'Attack of the Mutant'. These were two of my favourite books in the Goosebumps library, and they were both adapted as 2-part stories, which meant they had 40 minutes instead of just 20. These were perhaps the only two Goosebumps adaptations that actually did justice to the books they were based on.

'Attack of the Mutant' can be seen as the Goosebumps answer to 'The Tale of the Ghastly Grinner'. The book was published in 1994, while the TV adaptation was broadcast in 1996. I remember reading the book in the summer holidays when I was 11 and strongly identifying with the main character because he was a comic book fan like myself. I imagine anyone who was a kid in the nineties and collected comics will get a nostalgic kick out of this story.

Like the Ghastly Grinner, the plot concerns a comic book super villain who escapes into the real world. He's known as the Masked Mutant and has the ability to change his shape into any form, provided it's not liquid. The fact Stine named him the Masked Mutant perhaps reflects the popularity of the X-Men comics and cartoon show at that time.

The main character – a boy named Skipper – is obsessed with the Mutant and knows everything about him. He's also a fan of another character called the Galloping Gazelle, who is the Masked Mutant's heroic arch nemesis.

One day Skipper is travelling on the bus when he spots a building that looks identical to the Masked Mutant's hideout from the comics.

The production values in Goosebumps were never as good as those in AYAOTD, and there are some dreadful chroma key effects here to prove it. But I always appreciated the ambition that went into these episodes. They tried to capture the scope and imaginative visuals described in the book. And considering they were working with a comparatively low TV budget, I think the results have a certain charm to them.

Following the example of the Ghastly Grinner, the Masked Mutant makes the leap from the printed page into our world. The costumes here are very typical of nineties superhero productions, with sculpted rubber masks and padded muscle suits.

The Mutant himself has a bit of a Freddy Krueger thing going on; he's constantly cackling and verbally tormenting Skipper, and the control room of his hideout even resembles a boiler room. He's nowhere near as creepy as the Ghastly Grinner, but he's definitely one of my favourite Goosebumps villains. Sadly he didn't appear in the 2015 feature film. Hopefully they'll put him in the sequel.

Returning to the TV show, Skipper freaks out when he receives the latest issue of the Masked Mutant and discovers he himself is now a character within its pages.

In the end, he ventures into the Masked Mutant's fortress to confront him. And this is where the Batman connection comes in – for who should Skipper find tied up in the Masked Mutant's hideout, but the Galloping Gazelle. Watching this as a kid, I remember thinking the actor who played the Gazelle was really funny and that he reminded me of Adam West. It wasn't until years later I found out it actually was Adam West. I think this was probably the last time he ever donned a mask and cape to play a live action superhero. It was exactly thirty years after he'd first played Batman. He was 67 years old at the time!

West later reprised his role as the Galloping Gazelle in vocal form for the 1997 Attack of the Mutant PC game. The Gazelle is the pompous leader of the League of Good Guys, which is obviously based on the Justice League. He has the ability to move at super speed and is essentially a cross between the Silver Age Batman and the Flash. However unlike Batman and the Flash, he ultimately proves to be a clumsy and incompetent crime fighter who is no match for the Masked Mutant. But it's great to see West in costume again. Having him portray the Gazelle added an extra layer to the character that wouldn't have been there otherwise.

So that's the Ghastly Grinner and the Masked Mutant. As I said, I'll probably revisit this thread in the future to highlight some other interesting episodes of AYAOTD (and maybe Goosebumps too), but for now I just wanted to shine a light on two of these lesser known super hero productions from the nineties. Was anyone else a fan of either of these shows? If so, do you have any favourite episodes? Any you recall as being particularly scary or memorable?

This is gorgeous. So much better than those generic character-standing-with-back-to-camera posters we've been lumbered with for the past decade.

This is getting very positive reviews so far. I think smaller, more experimental superhero films like Logan and Deadpool are the way to go for the Fox Marvel franchise. The main X-Men series is showing its age now – personally, I think the entire superhero genre is starting to feel stale in the current surfeit of 'shared universes' – so a few more idiosyncratic and less formulaic standalone films will make for a welcome change.

Anyone planning to check this out?

Classic:

Nightwing:

Arctic:

I left out the Flying Grayson's suit, since he hadn't technically adopted the name Robin when he wore it. So out of the three suits listed, which is your favourite?

For me, the classic costume takes the top spot. But I like the Nightwing costume too. The arctic suit's a distant, distant third.

I always thought it was a shame Robin only wore the classic outfit for one sequence at the end of Batman Forever. I think it might have been better if he'd worn if for the first half of Batman & Robin too, then adopted the Nightwing costume – as well as the name 'Nightwing' – when he went solo following his disagreement with Bruce.

I remember watching a few episodes of the Batman Beyond animated series when it first aired, and I always liked the Return of the Joker feature film. But I've only recently begun to appreciate just how good BB really is. I've embarked on an attempt to watch the entire series from start to finish, and I also recently read this 2010-2011 miniseries by Adam Beechen, Ryan Benjamin and John Stanisci. I can imagine most Batman fans overlooking this story, in the same way as many of them now disregard the BB TV show. But it's well worth reading.

For one thing, it's a cracking mystery in the tradition of the original Hush storyline. It functions as a standalone story for the DCAU, but also works as a sequel to the earlier Hush comics in the mainstream canon. It also does a good job of capturing the look, feel and characterisations of the Batman Beyond TV show. So for fans of the series, it's a must.

As well as introducing a new version of Hush, the story gives readers a hi-tech Batman Beyond-era incarnation of Catwoman; one which offers an interesting spin on the nine lives concept. I won't say what it is, as I wouldn't want to spoil any of the story's many twists for those who haven't read it. But it's certainly original.

The book answers certain questions that were left open by the BB TV series. What happened to Dick Grayson? What was Barbara hinting at when she said Terry should speak with him in Return of the Joker? Why did Batman stop wearing a cape in between the events of Justice League and BB? And we get to catch up with some old school Batman villains who never appeared in the BB TV show and find out what happened to them in their old age. But once again, I won't elaborate on that subject out of respect for spoilers.

So has anyone else read it? If so, what's your verdict? To anyone who hasn't, I say add it to your reading list and give it a shot.

[Special thanks to Azrael for restoring the pictures to this thread.]

Special thanks to Azrael for restoring the pictures to this thread.

The period of comic history between 1986 and the late nineties is commonly referred to as the Dark Age of the medium. There are few titles more exemplary of this era than James O'Barr's 1989 graphic novel The Crow and the 1994 film adaptation directed by Alex Proyas.

Many of the scenes in the film are adapted directly from the comic. However the order in which these scenes occur in the book doesn't necessarily correspond with the film. For the purpose of this analysis I'm going by the order of events in the adaptation, not the comic.

The first thing to mention about the movie is the soundtrack. O'Barr's comic features numerous references to song titles and lyrics by bands that inspired him, including The Cure and Joy Division. The movie's soundtrack includes a cover of Joy Division's 'Dead Souls', while The Cure contributed the song 'Burn'.

The main protagonist in both the comic and the film is a young man named Eric, played in the movie by Brandon Lee. In the film his last name is revealed as Draven, whereas in the comic his surname is never disclosed. Draven returns from the grave to avenge his own death and that of his murdered fiancé. In the film Eric had been a rock musician in life, but in the comic his occupation is never revealed. The decision to make him a musician is a fitting one, seeing as O'Barr's original depiction of Eric was influenced by Peter Murphy, Iggy Pop and Robert Smith.

One year after his death, Draven rises from the dead and begins wandering the streets of Detroit. Both stories take place in October.

In both the comic and the film he is guided by a mysterious crow. In the comic Eric himself is sometimes referred to as 'The Crow'.

He returns to the abandoned apartment where he and Shelly had once lived.

There he relives the painful memory of their deaths.

Hanging in the apartment are white masks painted with clown makeup.

Eric paints his own face in the same style.

Both the comic and the film reveal past events in the form of fragmented nonlinear flashbacks. O'Barr frequently inserts single panels depicting past events into scenes that otherwise occur in the present. Proyas does something similar in the film, intercutting between scenes in the present and short clips of earlier incidents. The effect is similar in both versions of the story.

The murder of Eric and Shelly is depicted early in the film, whereas in the comic the full details of what happened are not disclosed until the second half of the book. In the film Eric and Shelly were attacked as part of a premeditated scheme to forcibly evict the tenants from their apartment building. Shelly had contested the eviction order, so the slumlord sent his henchmen round to make an example out of her. Eric walked in and found the criminals gang raping his fiancé. The villains then stabbed and shot Eric before throwing him out of the window. Shelly died in hospital several hours later.

In the comic the attack was much more random. Eric and Shelly had broken down by the side of the road and were attempting to repair their car. A gang of joyriding criminals sped past and caught a glimpse of Shelly. The thugs then turned their vehicle around and went back to molest the young couple. Eric tried to defend Shelly but was shot in the back of the head by a gang member named T-Bird. However the bullet didn't kill him, but instead left him in a state of death-like paralysis. Eric watched helplessly as the gang took it in turns beating and raping Shelly. Eventually her screams angered T-Bird to the point that he shot her in the head, killing her instantly. Another gang member named Funboy then continued to rape her corpse while Eric lay on the ground watching. Eric himself died in hospital some hours later.

The first killer Draven hunts down in both the comic and the film is Tin Tin. In both versions of the story they face one another in an alleyway at night.

Tin Tin's dreadlocked appearance in the film is closer to that of T-Bird in the comic.

In the film Tin Tin hurls throwing blades at Draven. Draven catches one of them and throws it back at Tin Tin. In the comic Tin Tin uses a revolver instead of blades. He fires at Eric, but the gunshots have no effect. Eric then returns fire with his own gun, wounding Tin Tin and knocking him to the ground. In both the comic and the film, Draven crouches over Tin Tin and jogs his memory about the night of Shelly's death.

The scene in the comic is punctuated with panels that alternate between the confrontation in the present and flashback scenes between Eric and Shelly. The scene in the film is similarly punctuated with flashbacks.

In the film Draven kills Tin Tin by impaling him with his own knives. In the comic he blows his brains out with a revolver.

The scene where Draven recovers Shelly's stolen ring from Gideon's pawn shop is taken straight from the comic. In the comic Eric tortures a gang member named Tom Tom into revealing the whereabouts of the stolen ring. Tom Tom does not appear in the movie and his role is instead filled by Skank, a minor character from the book.

In both the comic and the film, Gideon is alone in his shop at night counting his money when someone knocks at the door.

Gideon responds in the movie by shouting "Hey, p*** off! We're closed!" His response in the comic is equally inelegant.

Undeterred, the knocking continues. When Gideon yells at him to go away, Draven smashes through the glass door.

Much of the dialogue in this scene is taken practically verbatim from the comic.

•   DRAVEN: "I'm looking for something in an engagement ring."
•   GIDEON: "You're looking for a coroner, s*** for brains."

•   DRAVEN: "Mr. Gideon, you're not paying attention."

When Gideon resists his inquiries, Draven pins the shop owner's hand to the counter with a knife.

Gideon directs Draven to a box filled with rings. Draven sits cross-legged on the floor and inspects them one by one until he locates Shelly's.

In the comic Eric kills Gideon, but in the film he spares him. The line "Is that gasoline I smell?" is derived from a similar line spoken in the book.

Outside the pawn shop Draven is confronted by a police officer named Albrecht (his name is spelled 'Albrect' in the comic, but 'Albrecht' in the credits of the movie). In the comic this scene takes place inside Gideon's store, just before Eric blows it up. But in the movie the scene takes place outside after the shop has already been destroyed. In the film Albrecht says "Don't move!" and Draven replies "I thought the police always said 'Freeze!'" In the comic Albrect says "Freeze!"

Draven walks right up to the policeman's gun, bows and says "Shoot, if you will."

In the comic Albrect is an inexperienced young rookie, while in the movie he's a middle-aged cop played by Ernie Hudson. The Albrecht in the film more closely resembles another policeman from the comic named Sergeant Hook. Hudson's character is basically an amalgamation of these two characters.

Draven's line "He was already dead. He died a year ago the moment he touched her" echoes something similar he says to Funboy in the comic.

This movie was announced way back in 2008. In fact it was meant to be the third DC animated movie after Superman: Doomsday and Justice League: The New Frontier, but for some reason it kept getting delayed. Now it's finally coming out in 2017 and the voice cast includes Christina Ricci, Taissa Farmiga and Miguel Ferrer.

On the subject of Ferrer, I'm sure most people will have heard he passed away last month at the age of 61 following a battle with throat cancer. I've been a fan of Ferrer's ever since I saw RoboCop as a kid. Few actors could deliver a sarcastic one-liner like he could. I'm also a huge Twin Peaks fanatic and have habitually re-watched the enitre series every year since I was a student. Agent Albert Rosenfield was my second favourite character after Agent Cooper, and I'd just finished re-watching his debut episode when I heard Ferrer had died.

In real life, Ferrer was a massive comic book fan and performed voice work for numerous DC animated productions, including Superman: The Animated Series, The Batman, Justice League: The New Frontier (in which his Twin Peaks co-star Kyle MacLachlan voiced Superman) and Young Justice. He also played the villainous Weather Man in the 1997 live action Justice League of America TV movie, and he's voicing Deathstroke in Teen Titans: The Judas Contract.

A lot of his friends and co-stars Tweeted their sorrow at his passing, including Chris O'Donnell, Mark Hamill and Kyle MacLachlan. His parents were actor José Ferrer and singer Rosemary Clooney, and his cousin was none other than George Clooney. Apparently the first thing George did after landing the lead in Batman & Robin was to phone Miguel and tell him, knowing he was a huge Batman fan and would be thrilled by the news.

This subject gives me an excuse to post one of my favourite DC Comics related pictures, taken at their office in 1987. Obviously that's Ferrer on the right. But I'll serve a damn fine cup of steaming black coffee to anyone who can identify the other people present (without Googling it).

The Panther Suit:

The Sonar Suit:

The Nipple Suit:

The Arctic Suit:

Choose wisely.

I like all of them to an extent. I really like the overall shape of the sonar and arctic suits. None of the nineties Batman actors were muscular, but these costumes boosted their heights and lent their frames an imposing outline. Even Clooney, who was arguably the skinniest Batman actor, appeared jacked when wearing the arctic suit.

But I also like the simplicity of the panther suit. It's basically a sleeker, more anatomically detailed version of the 1989 costume. And the nipple suit was sleeker still. Clooney's fight double in that movie was Chris Casamassa, who is perhaps best known for playing Scorpion in Mortal Kombat. The lighter and more flexible suit allowed him to pull off some martial arts moves that the earlier, heavier costumes would likely have prohibited. So even that costume had its strengths.

They all have merits in my eyes. But if I had to pick one, it would probably be... the sonar suit. I like the fact it was armoured without being overly busy like the TDK costume. And it made Kilmer look like a beast. The only thing I don't like about it is how stiff the neck and cowl look. But other than that, I think it's one of the best costumes from the Burton/Schumacher series.

Mine would be Deadshot. I thought Smith gave a solid performance, his costume was a good translation of the comic book outfit, his skill set was accurately represented, and I liked the fact he had a personal reason for wanting the mission to succeed.

What about everyone else?

I've included Enchantress in the vote because she was briefly a member of Task Force X before going rogue.

Contains spoilers.

As the title implies, this thread is for news updates, analysis and discussion of the film's box office performance. Any info regarding revenue from merchandise, promotional tie-ins or ancillary markets (VOD/Blu-ray/DVD sales, etc) is also welcome here.

It'll be a few more days before we get the CinemaScore and other clear indicators of audience reaction, but based on the latest critic scores, social media and message board buzz, I think I'm ready to make an early box office forecast right now. Basically, I think it's going to be a smaller scale version Batman v Superman: a frontloaded release with a low multiplier that ultimately underperforms. It'll open huge thanks to presales and fan hype, possibly even breaking records for an August release. But the criticisms I'm hearing, combined with general audience burnout after BvS and the impending start of the Rio Olympics, makes me think this won't find traction with the average cinemagoer. I'm expecting steep drops in the second week and weak legs overall.

I may amend this prediction subject to audience response, but for now I'm going to say it'll finish somewhere in the region of $550-600 million WW. It should break even, but I don't see it making a large profit while it's in theatres. Ultimately I think it'll be the third financial disappointment in a row for the DCEU. But if it gets a CinemaScore of A and positive WOM, it might do better.

Does anyone else fancy making a prediction before the opening weekend?

The new Justice League cartoon is scheduled to debut in the autumn. Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill are reprising their roles as Batman and the Joker.

I don't think Lindsay Lohan bought her advanced Suicide Squad tickets last week!

The actress just posted a photo of The Crow star Brandon Lee, and seemed to imply that The Joker was somehow a ripoff of his character. "Who wore it better?" Lohan asked in her Instagram caption. The photo also included Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, and Jared Leto dressed as The Joker.

Lohan's caption also expressed her sympathy for all the craziness that is going on in the world right now, which prompted her to set her sights on Suicide Squad. "A Suicide Squad movie is not helping the world but hurting people. Anger is not an answer for peace," she wrote.

Update 07/19/16: Lohan has deleted the Instagram post.

http://batman-news.com/2016/07/18/lindsay-lohan-disses-suicide-squad/

I get the visual comparisons between Eric Draven and Ledger's Joker. But Nicholson and Leto?

Suicide Squad is the first live action Batman movie since Batman Returns to receive a 15 certificate in the UK: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/suicide-squad-2016

The BBFC site states it was passed without any cuts. This begs the question of whether the PG-13 US version contains edits, as movies rated 15 in the UK are generally rated R in America.

This is both good and bad news for Suicide Squad. The downside is that a 15 certificate limits the film's earning capacity in the UK, which means it's unlikely to gross as much as Man of Steel or Batman v Superman did. Then again, Deadpool outgrossed both of those films in Britain and that was also rated 15. But I don't think Suicide Squad is necessarily going to pack the same comedic punch as Deadpool (campy movies generally play well with British audiences), so I'm sceptical about it performing as strongly. There's also the fact the DCEU brand has already been established as a 12 certificate franchise here, and lots of kids who enjoyed BvS will now be restricted from seeing SS. That could also throw a spanner in the works in terms of sustaining franchise momentum between now and when Wonder Woman comes out. But ultimately the box office performance will be determined by reviews and word of mouth, so we'll just have to wait and see.

The upside of the 15 certificate relates to artistic factors rather than commercial. It shows that Warner Bros is refusing to compromise Ayer's creative vision and is releasing the film in the condition he wants. This, combined with the fact Ayer is the only writer credited on the film (meaning no studio-mandated rewrites), suggests we're going to get his undiluted vision free of external interference. Ayer is an extremely talented filmmaker. This is the guy who wrote and directed End of Watch (2012) and Fury (2014). On the occasions he's faltered – such as with the Schwarzenegger flick Sabotage (2014) – it's often been because of studio interference. But all the signs so far indicate he's been given free rein with Suicide Squad. So the 15 certificate is probably a good thing from a creative standpoint, though perhaps less so from a commercial perspective.

Let's get the obvious ones out of the way – they're both Ben Affleck superhero movies, both received PG-13 theatrical releases before getting R-rated directors' cuts on DVD, and the directors of both films were primarily influenced by the works of Frank Miller.

I personally feel the theatrical cut of Daredevil is extremely mediocre. The R-rated director's cut, on the other hand, is a perfectly solid superhero film. If you haven't seen it yet, it's well worth checking out. It's not a patch on the Netflix show, but it's a vast improvement over the theatrical cut. And while I've yet to see the R-rated edition of BvS, I've heard it's similarly improved thanks to its extended running time.

But when I say parallels, I'm thinking more along the lines of character arcs. At the start of both films, we find Affleck's hero in a very dark, lonely place. He has a confidante who disapproves of his behaviour but nevertheless offers him spiritual/emotional support (Father Everett/Alfred). He's abandoned his classic moral code from the comics in favour of killing criminals (this is a lot more problematic for Matt than it is for Bruce, because unlike Batman Daredevil does not have a history of intentionally killing bad guys in the source material). Both characters rediscover their humanity through a strained relationship with another hero (Elektra/Superman) who ultimately gets killed (in both films the hero's resurrection is implied but not explicitly shown). Affleck's character fights this other hero at some point in the film, and the battle concludes with one of them lying injured while the other stands poised to deliver the killing blow. However in both films the triumphant hero mercifully relents upon realising they have been manipulated by a wealthy mastermind (Kingpin/Luthor). This same mastermind then unleashes a secondary villain upon the two heroes (Bullseye/Doomsday) who stabs one of them (Elektra/Superman) to death.

Affleck's character in both films is a man who's lost his way. The sacrifice of another hero helps him reorient his life and find renewed purpose. The pivotal test in both films comes when Affleck's hero stands over a defeated foe whose life he has vowed to take. But in both films he shows mercy and spares their life. It now looks as though Batman may have resumed his no kill policy in the DCEU, just as Daredevil did at the end of the movie.

So what does everyone else think? Do these parallels exist, or am I seeing patterns that aren't there? And if there are similarities between the two character arcs, could that redemptive quality be what attracted Affleck to the roles in the first place?

I haven't read this comic, but apparently it takes a few shots at BvS.

Before anyone gets bent out of shape, the comic also spoofs the recent Deadpool movie and pokes fun at Spider-Man's cinematic history. It all seems playful in tone.

You can read more about it here: http://comicbook.com/marvel/2016/06/29/marvel-trolls-batman-v-superman-in-spider-man-deadpool/

It was announced a while back that the Hulk would be appearing in this movie. Now the latest rumours are suggesting the plot will be a mixture of the original Ragnarok storyline from the Thor comics and Greg Pak's Planet Hulk saga.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I'm a much bigger fan of the Hulk than I am of Thor, so his presence is a major draw for me. But I really love the Plant Hulk storyline - in fact it's probably my favourite Hulk comic ever - and I was hoping they'd adapt it into a standalone film. A sort of Spartacus meets Star Wars affair. Since Marvel Studios currently lacks the rights to Silver Surfer, I can see how they might use Thor to fill his place in the narrative. But I'm not keen on the idea of throwing in elements from Planet Hulk as subplot material in a Thor movie. I'd prefer they gave Thor a cameo in a proper Planet Hulk adaptation.

But we'll see how it pans out. I think it already sounds more promising than the first two Thor films.

I know this has already been discussed on every other site, but since we didn't have a thread on the subject I figured we could use one. Batman v Superman contains some obvious allusions to John Boorman's 1981 film Excalibur, which in turned was based loosely on Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur.

During the flashback depicting the death of Bruce's parents, we see Excalibur listed on the marquee as one of the films showing in the theatre. The poster for Excalibur is also visible.

The mutual impalement of Superman and Doomsday mirrors the gory showdown between Arthur and Mordred at the Battle of Camlann (in Malory's original version of the story, it was Arthur who impaled Mordred with the spear, only for Mordred to impale himself further in order to deal the killing blow against his father; in the film their roles are reversed).

One other possible connection with Excalibur, although admittedly a tenuous one, is the first encounter between Arthur and Lancelot. While they later become best friends, they initially meet in a one-on-one duel that concludes with Arthur almost killing Lancelot. This inspires a moment of self-reflection in Arthur that makes him realise his folly, much like Batman in Snyder's film.