Messages

I think at the end of this flick audiences will be crying out for an expanded DC universe on the screen. That's my hope anyway.

I really really hope so.

Love that it maintains the epic feel of the Donner films while still being completely contemporary. And judging from the little bits of the trailer, this is much more Superman the farm-boy from Kansas than the alien. That's a plus in my book.

Thankfully it's been debunked (or at least denied by JGL's reps). Me personally, I like JGL and I do think he could pull off being Bruce. But at this point that would be odd and inviting audience confusion. It would be like if Chris O'Donell played Batman in Begins, or if Don Cheadle played Tony Stark. And I really do think the Nolan series should be it's own thing. It's done and it was great (my disappointment with TDKR aside). But it's time to move on.

^Well in the old school 70's Green Lantern/Green Arrow comics much of the conflict arose from the clash of the leftist/pro-union/fight the power Oliver Queen vs the more old school traditional conservative Hal Jordan. I don't know if that extends to all of the DCU, but being a radical leftist is definitely a engrained part of Oliver's character. Hell I remember that dreadful DC Decisions comic from a the last election, they adressed some heroes' affiliations that time (Ollie is obviously a leftist, while Power Girl was revealed to be voting Republican), but specifically kept Supes' politics a secret. I thought it was ridiculous that they said that Clark and Lois had never talked about politics 'till then, when Lois revealed she's conservative but Clark's views remained private. I dunno how that works for other people, but the idea that I wouldn't know my wife's politics (or she not now mine) sounds inconcieable to me. 

I always thought os Clark Kent/SuperMan as more of a Republican that leans towards the center. Your analysis , though, might be the best one.

Really I could see Clark as either a moderate Reublican or a Blue Dog liberal. I.e. he's pretty much centrist.  I while I don't see him as someone itching for a completely interventionist foreign policy, he does understand the need to able to go into action for the greater good (he is a superhero after all). I don't see him giving any credence to any kind of radicalism, either from the right or the left. But he's definitely not as "conservative" (in term of the though on crime and distrustful of centralized power) as Bruce.

As for Iron Man...the more I think of it the more I think he would be the most extreme centrist of all. He's distrustful of government at times (IM2) but he's definitely pro-science and I would think he would share the same views on science education and govt. funding as someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson. He's in the arms business, but he's wants peace to prevail, yet he's not gonna back down from conflict...I dunno, he's a though cookie to classify, at least from my very limited exposure to the character (the movie and Ultimate comics, along with one or two of the 616 stories).

I read this on another forum a few years ago and I gotta say I agree. Superman is a Blue Dog Democrat, while Batman is an anti-gun Libertarian/Borderline Anarchist. While I don't think Bruce cares about social issues at all, he is always very much portrayed as someone who is distrustful of organized power and favor people being left to their own devices (or at least leaving him alone). And he quite obviously believes in being thought on crime (so much so that he went to do it himself). The one thing he belief in that goes against this is the gun issue, which he's against for obvious reasons., and I would also think this would extend to his views on the death penalty.

Supes on the other had is very much a Kansas boy and patriotic, but he does believe the safety net and working to ensure everyones safety and well-being (Superman 4). While he's the most powerful being on the planet, I don't see him as someone who inherently likes conflict. He seems like someone who rather see conflict resolved by peaceful means and is always looking out for the wellbeing of others around him.

You can watch the show on the CW's site.

http://www.cwtv.com/shows/arrow/

I saw it yesterday. I actually thought it was pretty cool. While I still think dropping "green" from the name was silly, and it does take some liberties with the mythos (Speedy is Oliver's sister, hi's mom is still around, in a Smallville like twist Olie and Tommy Merlin are best friends), taken on it's own it's a pretty cool action/superhero show. At times it does very much play like a Batman Begins re-hash, but hey even in the comics GA was created as a Batman analogue so that's to be expected. All in all I liked it and will continue to tune in. Not a great show by any means, but a good one.

^I agree with that take, when the kill is more colateral damage. I prefer the no-kill rule in part because of the dramatic tension it creates in some situations (ie, The Joker), but I understand that something deaths will happen.

I also like the no-kill rule because it provides this connection to Superman. I always loved that scene in Kingdom Come where Supes tells them that's what they share, that deep down Batman is "someone who doesn't want to see people die".

I kinda like the helmet/headgear design, and the chest-plate is growing on me. But it's still far to much of "guy in suit" vs cyborg. And the hand...that's dumb even a normal man would wear some sort of protection in their hands. I have a feeling the hand is something deliberately sarcastic, and that at some point the hand get's blown up to reveal a terminator like skeleton underneath. Something to show that it was purely a marketing gimmick.

The 5 year origin story thing could go either way depending on the execution, but dropping "Green" from the tittle is pretty silly. I like the "sorta" realistic approach myself, but the color/word "green" is not gonna make the idea of an archer fighting crime against people with guns any less realistic than it already is.