Megabite

I watched Smallville for the first time last year and I've seen people say how the Kent's are responsible for Lex turning out the way he does, and that it's their fault.

I'm sorry, but no.

There have been jokes floating around online about how weird it is for a 21+ year old to hangout with a bunch of freshmen in high school, and I think because of the age of the actors, people don't realize how young they are.

I want to start with Jonathan, because while he's not a perfect father, he's not the villain fans make him out to be. Quite honestly, he's completely valid. Regardless of who Lex's father is, he's a rich, privileged man who essentially keeps stalking Jonathan's FOURTEEN YEAR OLD SON. He shows up at Clark's school, he shows up at the hangout spot for high school students just to see Clark, and he shows up at their home constantly trying to shower their teenager with gifts.

The fact that Jonathan even ALLOWS Lex have any contact with Clark goes to show how much trust he has in Clark, and how much he respects Clark's desire to connect with another person, even if it's Lex. Yea, he makes his dislike well-known, but I think it's better for Jonathan to be honest about how he feels, especially to Clark, because Clark isn't a child. He doesn't need to be shielded from his parents' opinions, and it provides Clark with a reliable adult's perspective who isn't Lex Luthor. It makes absolutely no sense for Clark to ONLY rely on Lex's opinions. He needs to hear what his parents have to say.

Also, Jonathan consistently makes it clear to Lex that he has no interest in having any relationship with him, and that he doesn't want Lex staying in contact with Clark. That's a hard set boundary that Lex CONSISTENTLY crosses, and often goes through Clark to violate Jonathan's line. He literally disrespects Jonathan at every turn, constantly interjecting himself into the Kent's personal affairs even when Jonathan outright tells him to back off. Those are some major red flags, and it goes to show that Lex doesn't respect their autonomy. He's bringing his mindset he learned from his father - Lex thinks he can walk over anyone just because he thinks he's owed a FOURTEEN YEAR OLD'S SECRET, instead of stopping and listening to what Jonathan has to say.

Now what about Clark's role in all this? I understand Lex was abused his entire life, but he's a grown ass adult who's capable of making decisions, and he consistently makes questionable ones. Sometimes they're explicitly dangerous. Even when he makes decent ones, they almost always have some string attached. An underaged kid has ZERO responsibility over what an adult does, especially one who's constantly trying to violate his privacy.

Clark doesn't owe Lex his secret. I truly do not understand why people think Clark has to share his secret on the very slim chance it helps Lex. First of all, as the audience, we know it won't. Lex has problems that run far deeper than any one thing can fix. Lex still stays connected with his father. He still makes questionable decisions that get people hurt. He believes he's entitled to Clark's secret. He has trauma up the wazoo going as far back as he can remember. Objectively, Lex is not a reliable adult for Clark to confide in, and again, he has NO obligation to expose himself to Lex, as a FOURTEEN YEAR OLD, to try to fix Lex's problems. Lex needs to go to therapy, not stalk the ever loving shit out of a minor.

By the time Clark is 18-20, Lex still fails to improve himself in any meaningful way. In fact, he gets worse. He CHOOSES to walk down a darker path. He CHOOSES to find ways to hurt Clark as his frustration grew at being held at arm's length. He continuously proves to Clark it's necessary for his own safety.

I think Lex is a FASCINATING character. His backstory is so rich and nuanced, but I fear people take all that and treat him like he's incapable of making choices, like he's a kid or something. He can do better. He just doesn't. Knowing Clark is an alien will only put Clark at risk, because there's zero guarantee that will help Lex in any way. Again, all those internal struggles he has will continue to be there no matter what Clark tells him. If Clark ever did tell him, all it would do is put him in a vulnerable position with an adult who very rarely has Clark's true best interest at heart. All Lex ever does is prove why he's unreliable, manipulative, and sometimes downright dangerous.

I mean goddamn, Martha ADORES Lois. During The Death of Superman arc she dropped everything to go see Lois, because even though Lois does have family, Martha knew Lois needed people who actually understood what she was going through. Martha knew Lois was essentially alone despite being surrounded by her community.

In a comic I just read, Martha, for no good reason, told Lois that she didn't think she was being a good wife to Clark, and that she was being selfish prioritizing her career... CLARK DIDN'T SAY A GODDAMN WORD. A few comics later, Martha straight up said to Clark that Lois hated quiche, but she'd make it anyway so he can have some. And that fucker goes, "okay, sounds good." HELLO???

I feel like the Patrick Star meme. "WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE??"

God, it makes my blood boil. When I say there was no transition, I mean Lois and Clark went from being in a happy marriage to whatever this bullshit is.

The real kicker is that I made a long post recently talking about how if the writers can't write Lois well, then the other characters will also be written poorly, because the writer clearly doesn't understand the mythos of Superman. Well, here come these dipshits who hate Lois, and it's turning the Kent family into miserable people. Thank god this was back in 2004/2005. I cannot wait to leave this era behind.

I really freaking hate that I know Clark will be in the movie. If anyone replies to this post with any kind of spoiler I will hit the block button. Please do not post spoilers. Idk if he'll just be in it during a flashback or not, and honestly I kind of figured he might be in the story somehow, but I didn't want to KNOW that he will bs in it. And what sucks is that for the most part is that this is the only spoiler I've seen. Kind of? I'm trying so hard to avoid spoilers. Update: now I fucking know what scenes he's in because it's all over the goddamn internet.

I'll reiterate again: do NOT post any kind of spoiler, even if it's only a joke and isn't actually part of the movie. I'm completely serious when it comes to spoilers of any kind and I don't find it funny when people poke fun at it.

It just makes me mad, and the solution isn't to get off social media because that's how I stay up to date on current events. What does upset me is I think I have to filter out Supergirl and Superman keywords.... even though a good chunk of posts don't even contain spoilers! I'll at least start with blocking Supergirl keywords........ it just upsets me I have to do that ://

If I was marketing a movie I'd look at initial receptions. People were fucking excited for the teaser in December, and I would've shaped the entire marketing around keeping as tight of a lid on any kind of information as possible. It feels cheap to market Superman being in the movie.

I wanted to be able to gasp! I wanted to be able to grad my mom's arm in total shock!

Okay so there is like ZERO reason for the official HBO Australia account to post this reel on Instagram if the Battinson merge isn't happening. I mean, HELLO?? The CAPTION??? That's literally what I've been saying for ages about Superman 2025 and The Batman. I will genuinely be upset about this edit if they cast another actor, especially after HBO posted this.

This is what I realized. As a movie, it wasn't a hard hitter for me. It was just fine. Which is not a bad thing! How I'd describe Captain Marvel is that the only standout parts about it are Carol's character moments. The rest of the movie is so painfully "mid." It doesn't feel different at all from the rest of the MCU. I'd argue it's one of their more boring installments. And to be very, VERY clear, while I do not like the MCU whatsoever anymore, Carol holds a special place for me. I wouldn't say she's my favorite character, but she deserved so much better than what the MCU gave her. That's because Kevin didn't know how Carol would be received, so he totally cut back on her screen time in End Game, which is such bullshit. She should've played a way bigger part in that movie, but because Kevin was afraid of backlash from male audiences, he catered to them before Captain Marvel was ever given a chance in her own movie. Then it took YEARS for her to show up in the MCU. The MCU is failing with proper women representation. They have some here and there, and they tried with Black Widow, but they had no follow-through.

Now look at the DCU. It's in its second year, we've had three official installments in James Gunn's universe... the next project, the fourth entry ever, is completely woman-led. Supergirl is not trying to prove to the audience it should exist, because it has something else to say. It's instead taking a young person whose entire future was destroyed, and she's now adrift. That....... is literally what so many of us are going through right now with Donald fucking Trump. We're watching our future burn to a crisp because of his bullshit and lack of guard rails in our government. Supergirl isn't testing to see how she'll be received. Kara Zor-El WILL play a huge role in the entirety of the DCU. No ifs ands or buts. Captain Marvel really didn't have anything to say outside of attempting to push some boundaries. It was much more of a military propaganda kind of movie.

That's not even touching on how women have been handled in Peacemaker, Superman, and Creature Commandos.

The DCU isn't asking us to accept women in leading roles. They ARE in leading roles, and all sexists can do is cry about it. Meanwhile the MCU is STILL catering to that same base. Spoilers for Thubderbolts even though I never watched it (I will not, I'm so done with the MCU), but they killed off Ava purely because sexist men complained about her years ago. God, and all the other women they've totally sidelined in the MCU...

Basically, the MCU weighs a woman's value based on the opinions of basement dwellers, and the DCU knows the world cannot function without women.

That's why I'm excited about Supergirl.

For awhile it was pretty nice because the overarching story that crossed over different runs followed publication order. If the person who made the list screwed up the order, I could reorganize by date. It was especially helpful because I've been bounced around between Man of Steel, Superman, The Adventure of Superman, Action Comics, and other runs.

DC randomly decided in 2002 that for about five months out of the year, events in the overarching story would be contained to specific runs, and DC ignored publication dates entirely. I'm now in 2004 and they're still doing this nonsense. I just started an arc where Clark got demoted from his position at the Daily Planet, but Perry hadn't told him yet. Lois was pissed about lying to Clark about it, because she believed he had a right to know immediately. The next comic in the order I'm following shows Clark setting up his work station at some sort of crime unit division. I had to pause early on in the issue so I don't have more information than that. I'm beyond confused. I can't tell if they just didn't show Perry breaking the news to Clark, or he's working an assignment and doesn't know yet about Perry demoting him. Maybe they'll do a flashback? If it's none of those and the issue order is simply messed up, I literally have no way of figuring out the correct order beyond reading and hoping for the best.

It's pissing me off so bad. I can't look at the publication order because I'm currently in those weird months of the year where DC kept events contained to specific runs, but there's still an overarching chronological story across all of them. If you don't follow the correct chronological order, the overall narrative is totally messed up.

I've been paying for DC Infinite so I can read Post-Crisis. The list I'm following goes from 1986 to whenever that era ends, and it leads into Post-Flashpoint. I've read 1,200+ comics, including a couple of alternate storylines like Absolute Superman. Over 200 hundred of the issues I read aren't available on the app, and so I had to turn to Read Comics Online. If I tried to buy just 100 of those comics, which are only available secondhand, it would've cost me over $500, not including shipping, just for comics I may not even like or touch again. There have been several I've pirated that I didn't like. So no, buying physical for missing issues has never a viable option for me.

I have bought physical copies for storylines I absolutely adore (Absolute Superman, for example) from comic book stores that order directly from DC.

With Read Comics Online gone, I may have to give up reading this order, which means I'd have to cancel my DC subscription, because I don't do well skipping around between storylines. This reading order has been the most accessible for my enjoyment.

I tried looking into Hoopla, and they don't have an issue that I could ONLY find on Read Comics Online.

This sucks. This genuinely fucking sucks. I could skip to Post-Flashpoint, but I really don't want to. I've been really enjoying where I'm at. I reached Superman comics published in 2004, and I was so excited to see the evolution throughout the 2000s, so skipping to 2018 or later literally is not an option for me.

I've been a fan of Matt Reeves since Dawn of the Planet of the Apes released in theaters, and he was solidified as my favorite director when War for the Planet of the Apes came out. I had zero interest in any Batman projects, but the moment I saw his name attached to The Batman, my ass was sat.

He was already my favorite director, but after seeing The Batman, it's going to be really tough for anyone to knock him off as my favorite. James Gunn is definitely in the top 3 for me - I've been a fan since GotG Vol 1. My other favorite would probably be Ryan Coogler. It's a basic list, but I don't care.

So yea, as a long-time fan, I get really annoyed when dudebros in comment sections talk about Matt Reeves hating fantastical elements and flat out refusing to consider a DCU merge. Um, no?? This guy lights up like a goddamn Christmas tree any time he's asked about incorporating fantastical concepts into his saga, even while he implies that he may not go down that route. He gets so excited when people ask him about potentially merging his Batman into the DCU. I've never seen that man happier than when he's asked about Robin. He likes fun, and he pulls ideas directly from the comics. He's not Christopher Nolan, and I feel like that's who the anti-merger crowd want to turn him into.

It feels like dudebros and James Gunn haters don't like Matt Reeves because of his creativity, but because they want to use him as a way to bash Gunn and the DCU. Like... this is the guy who created Bad Ape to bring a comedic element to War. Not to mention, The Batman has sequences that are straight out of a comic book. The Batman is a comic book movie, and that was intentional on Matt Reeves' part.

One criticism I've seen consistently floating around is how let down people felt after reading issue 14, but they never stated why that is. I read the first arc a second time, because I'm literally obsessed, and the only conclusions I came to are that: 1. People didn't like that Kal didn't kill Ra's, 2. The Peacemakers chose to stop fighting in the end, 3. There was no plot twist.

I could be wrong! I consider myself pretty critical of media, but I also know I can be quite forgiving to overlook things. It depends on a lot of factors that I'm just not going to get into right now. But I've been baffled by how common the disappointment is for issue 14, and I truly don't understand why.

Let's start with Ra's. If his life being spared is why people were frustrated, I feel like that's missing the whole point of the themes the story had set up to that point. The people on Earth had become bitter. Systems, namely Lazarus, punished empathy and kindness. Here comes this seemingly all powerful being out of nowhere, and everyone from all walks of life who meet this individual see something that can use his power to fulfill their goals and desires. Even the people who'd been beaten down and survived on scraps hoped this "Superman" would destroy those that had harmed them and their communities, as seen with the people Lois interviewed.

But Kal doesn't want to hurt anyone. All he wants to do is protect, and help make the world a more positive place. Every step of the way, everyone wants Kal for his powers and what he could achieve for them. We see Kal at the brink of nearly betraying his core beliefs, but he perseveres even at his lowest of low moments. Because the theme of Absolute Superman is that being kind in a world that so desperately wants to snuff it out is the most profound act of rebellion you can commit. It's easier to succumb to cruelty, but it's true bravery to resist even when it seems impossible. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I got from this series.

If Kal killed Ra's, that would completely undermine all of the character growth and themes established throughout the story. Not to mention, Kal handing Ra's over to Pakistan instead of enacting judgement himself is the most Superman thing he could've done. Sure, it's only two pages, but those two pages get the job done, and we see what Superman has represented for decades.

Part of me wonders if people had a problem with the Peacemakers defying Ra's Al Ghul's orders in shooting the townspeople. This one's a little trickier, because the argument could be made that it's on the nose for them to suddenly have a change of heart and it's unrealistic. That's fair.

Let's start with indoctrination. We don't know how extensive the training program for Peacemakers really is, especially when we compare it to something like the U.S. military. I've never served in the military to any capacity. I absolutely do not want to. But I've listened to veterans talk about how much mental conditioning they go through to never question orders. Yes, that's a bad thing, but these people I've listened talked about how unlikely it is for soldiers to refuse following unethical orders because it can get a lot of people killed. When there's a unit on the field, and one soldier hesitates to follow orders, it can be fatal. That's regardless if the order is moral or immoral. If the order is moral (HIGHLY unlikely), and a soldier hesitates, then that hesitation could put many lives at risk. The amount of indoctrination and training they go through is insane.

We don't know how extensive the training program is for Peacemakers. Based on how flimsy the Brainiac program was for Chris Smith, I have to assume their conditioning derives mostly from gaslighting and little else. Chris Smith walked away knowing something was wrong. Yes, the military uses gaslighting tactics, but they have extensive physical training regiments that almost entirely rewire peoples' brains, and they spend years training soldiers. The mental conditioning for Peacemakers, I assume, is weak, because of how little training they go through in comparison. All it takes is just one or two people resisting to break through a superior's order to make the unit hesitate.

I believe it's on page 11 of issue 14 (I'm reading digitally) we see one of the Peacemakers, Joe, operating a mech suit in hoisting Kal's body, while other Peacemakers hesitate to shoot down the townspeople. Already we see that the Peacemakers' only goal is to capture the alien. I could be wrong, but I don't think any Smallville residents had died by that point - they'd only taken to a detainment center. I looked back and I couldn't find any evidence for Smallville casualties. I bring this up because the Peacemakers clearly only had one directive in mind, and they had every intention of leaving once they had the alien detained. Then Ra's tries to Joe, the very man who apprehended Kal, and Kal saves Joe's life. For weeks, Ra's and his army had terrorized this town, terrorized this alien, only for said alien to thoughtlessly put himself in the line of fire for that very same soldier who'd just gloated over Kal's capture.

And then Kal says he's willing to sacrifice himself for Smallville, but the gesture would be meaningless because Ra's would kill them all anyway. It's then Ra's tells him that Kal will be the one to kill everyone in Smallville. When Ra's gives the order to execute Smallville's residents, Joe puts himself in the line of fire before his unit. He tells them why what they're doing is wrong. They're going to kill people who could be their neighbors - their family - for an alien they were ordered to take into custody, and that very same alien risked his life to protect one lowly soldier.

My point is that it's realistic that one or two Peacemakers would falter in following orders given all of that context, which they did. It only takes those one or two people to shift the tide for the others to stand down. It also shows the influence Kal has. By staying steadfast in his core morals, and refusing to waver, he can make a positive impact on anyone, even misguided soldiers.

Lastly, I want to talk about plot twists, or lack thereof. I don't know if people were expecting to have some crazy plot twist come out of nowhere, or for the writer to rip the rug out from under us. As I said earlier, no one has actually talked about why they felt let down by issue 14, but I do know people expect crazy finales.

Look at Peacemaker season 2's finale. So much of the criticism came from the fact there weren't any big action sequences or big cameos. In general, they were quite let down by the finale, despite the fact that it was some of the most brilliant storytelling we've seen from a TV show in a LONG time. I'm a big defender for the finale of Peacemaker season 2. I have a long post about it already. The finale fit perfectly with everything James Gunn had set up until that point, even from season 1. It was a full circle kind of finale. I won't get into it, because that's not what this post is about.

Issue 14's goal was to close the story in a way that perfectly encapsulates the themes and character arcs. The goal wasn't to yank the audience around. Issue 14 is the thematic climax. Issue 13 was the action climax.

Maybe people had an issue with the pacing? I didn't find it rushed, not compared to the issues that came out before. In my personal opinion, I thought issues 1-13 had consistent pacing. Issue 13 didn't feel rushed or dragged out compared to any other story beats.

In my own opinion, I think arc 1 of Absolute Superman is some of the best storytelling, if not the best storytelling, I've seen in comics, and media in general. It is really difficult to establish deeply compelling characters, include complex topics and meld them seamlessly into the narrative, develop characters well and realistically, have consistent quality in storytelling, and stick the landing with the themes and messages that were set up throughout the story.

It's. Not. Easy. And in my opinion, very few complete stories have achieved all of those aspects. I consider arc 1 of Absolute Superman to be complete. You can stop reading at issue 14. I don't think anyone SHOULD, but it's a complete story, so I feel confident in comparing it to other fully complete stories. I find issue 14 to be a masterclass in storytelling and how to complete the narrative you're creating. I don't think it needed to be anything other than what it is.

Here's the thing: we don't know anything about this DCU's version of Krypton. Zilch. I'm sure we're going to learn more about Kryptonians with the new Supergirl movie, although I'm not sure that we'll see much of Jor-El and Lara.

This is what we know about Clark's parents: their planet was dying, and they were sending their infant son to a planet they knew so little about. In every iteration of Superman I've engaged with (barring Smallville), Kryptonians at best could launch vessels into their planet's orbit, and at worst they couldn't send crafts into the atmosphere. That means their knowledge of Earth is either extremely limited, or non-existent. In the movie, his parents already know about Earth, but we don't know how much they actually understand. Maybe what little they saw took place during a dark time in our world, like World War 2, or something.

I don't see Jor-El and Lara's message as some evil colonizing gospel as much as two parents who are terrified for their son and his survival. Maybe they had only seen the worst of what humanity has to offer. What if Jor-El had intended for Clark to be raised in the Fortress? If so, then it would help reiterate how scared they were for their son's safety. I'm only guessing, we have no idea what their intentions were once Clark landed on Earth. What we know is we saw parents terrified for his safety, and that Clark's ship was damaged.

But let's consider that maybe they did become quite elitist, or had been before the fall of Krypton. I still think it works. Clark's story is an immigrant story. Krypton's story is not an immigrant story. They are two very different things, because Krypton has ALWAYS been portrayed as an advanced civilization that pushes the boundaries of science. Sure, in some iterations they ignored Jor-El's warning, but that doesn't mean science isn't a focus for Krypton in several versions. Clark becomes an immigrant because of the destruction of Krypton, not because Kryptonians are immigrants or an oppressed society. Kryptonians have never been oppressed by outside forces in every iteration I've seen. They're typically regarded as a "holier than thou" society.

Krypton's purpose is purely to drive Clark's story and character, and so whoever is telling the story makes it into something that fits their narrative. We don't know anything about Kryptonians in Superman 2025. What we do know is that James Gunn wanted to have this version of Clark think he's Superman because of his biological parents' message, and have him realize he's Superman because of the man his adoptive parents raised him to be.

If Krypton does end up being portrayed as an elitist society in the DCU, it's not problematic. It doesn't erase Clark's immigrant status. It doesn't shine a bad light on any real demographic. He still is an immigrant no matter what Krypton was like. Krypton has typically been used as a cautionary tale for our own planet's future. I'm a new fan to Superman, and what were once implications I see now as now outright warnings for our own future. We are killing Earth and those in power are actively ignoring critical warnings from experts. We have fascist-genocidal-maniacs running rampant with no real guard rails to stop them. But that doesn't make all of humanity evil. A lot of humanity is actually quite beautiful. Elon Musk is a god awful human being, but his daughter, Vivian, is an absolute gem of a person. She rejects everything that he is.

Let's say our planet was on the verge of total collapse, and someone high up in society had the ability to send their child to a distant planet. That person could be the worst example of what humanity has to offer, but that doesn't reflect how many incredible people there really are, and how that child could grow up to be someone wonderful.

Krypton could be filled with elitists, and that still doesn't erase the fact that there were probably plenty of Kryptonians who were upset with the system.

I guess my point is that I actually love what James Gunn did with Jor-El and Lara, and a lot of the criticisms didn't make much sense to me. Like I said, Krypton is whatever the story needs it to be. In almost every iteration, Clark reinvents what it means to be Kryptonian, because he was raised as a human by very human parents. He can take the best of what Krypton was, and let the worst of it fade into a distant memory. He gets to choose what it means to be Kryptonian.

And everyone who said that The Batman would work in the DCU called it, because Clayface does NOT match James Gunn's style, in a VERY good way. Clayface just proved that not only does The Batman work perfectly with Gunn's vision of each project feeling unique, but that people actually LOVE that concept.

No, seriously, Clayface's Gotham looks near identical. Yes, the movies were filmed in the same city, but my point still stands that they have really similar atmospheres.

Season 2 of Peacemaker was some of the best television I've seen in YEARS, since Black Sails quite frankly. I also prefer season 2 over season 1.

Season 1 was fine. Here's the thing: I didn't watch season 1 until a couple months before season 2 aired, so it was all fresh in my head going into season 2. I feel like a lot of people who didn't like season 2 either hadn't watched season 1 since it aired, or they went in with their own expectations and refused to actually engage with what the season is about.

I saw people complain by how many "music videos" there were, when arguably season 1 had significantly more. A lot of the complaints people had about season 2 honestly fit season 1 more.

The character writing was phenomenal. I mean look at Economos - he started off unable to defend himself. Sure, if someone would insult him he might've thrown an insult back, but he NEVER actually stated what was bothering him. In season 2 we see how much of a family the 11th Street Kids became, how much they really supported him, and how Economos could be quite assertive in telling people how they offended him.

Honestly, I could do a major deep dive into this show, I really truly could. But all I really wanted to say is that none of the criticisms actually make m sense.

For one thing, people were mad that James Gunn didn't cram a major cameo into the finale because he "promised" ........ um. No. He literally only said that episode 6 would have a big cameo (I guessed who it would be by episode 2, because he was not being sneaky), and there'd be some smaller ones in the finale. He delivered on that front, and I think those two sets of cameos were far superior to any other random cameo.

People were disappointed by the lack of action in the finale... the season as a whole, really. Idk what to tell anyone. Maybe it's because I'm not big on action, but I much prefer how the action was used in season 2 over season 1. Season 1 had so much action that was used for the sake of jingling keys. The action in season 2 had purpose.

Also, episode 7 was the action climax. Episode 8 was the thematic climax. That's how it should be with storytelling, in my opinion.

People didn't like that the show ended on a cliffhanger................... I'm sorry, what? Granted, I almost never watch new shows, so I'm not familiar with how series handle cliffhangers these days, but they used to be so common??? I remember the season 3 finale for Lucifer ending on the most insane cliffhanger, only to get cancelled (before Netflix revived it). I genuinely don't understand the complaint about the cliffhanger. If they'd ended it with everyone walking out of the building with big smiles, people would've been upset about there being nothing else. There'd be nothing to draw audiences back for more, because a good chunk of the audience doesn't know what Checkmate is. My mom didn't, so it didn't mean anything to her, but she was SO invested with the cliffhanger, and she wants more. The cliffhanger is an epilogue, and it gets people excited to see what's coming next.

People were mad about how Adrian was handled, and honestly? He was literally handled the exact same way in season 1, but he was given more layers. That's a case where I think people haven't seen season 1 since it came out, and they forgot what Adrian was actually like in season 1. Season 2 didn't handle him all that differently. I actually prefer him in season 2... but Economos is my favorite character.

"For me, looking someone in the eye is an act of heroism." COME ONNNN, EconoGOAT! That scene always makes me cry.

I genuinely love season 2 of Peacemaker. I love how it was paced, I love how the characters were the center focus and the plot served to develop them, so we actually got real human moments with them, and just.. gah.

I've watched many shows and movies, I've played a fair amount of story driven video games, and while I should read more books, I've read a wide variety that makes it impossible to pinpoint what my taste is. I've seen a lot of romantic relationships in all of those stories. Some of them do not work for me AT ALL. Most of them are cute, but I don't have any investment. Some of them I REALLY love because of how well developed each character is, but I can really only think of maybe three or four romantic relationships in media I genuinely care about. But of all of them, none of them have ever perfectly encapsulated "in every universe" like Lois and Clark have. They are the most bizarre ship I've ever seen. I mean that SO affectionately.

Like, usually a non-protagonist female character isn't given as much depth as non-protagonist male characters. They CAN be given a lot of layers, but they just don't get as much depth as a supporting male character. Women tend to be forced into the "love interest" box. When there's a supporting male character, they're given way more depth (usually). An example that comes to mind is Elena Fisher from Uncharted. She really didn't get much development. You have to infer a lot about her arc, but outside of her relationship with Nate, we don't know anything about her. She's an amazing character, I adore her, but inarguably she isn't nearly as well fleshed out as Nate, and even Sully is given more layers than her. If the female character isn't well written, she's the weak link in the story and that's about it. Most women characters, mainly ones who aren't the protagonist, have almost no real influence on the quality of the story. Sure, the story would be enhanced and it would be way better representation, but the story and other characters still stand on their own. I don't know if any of that makes sense. I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about.

I've seen people say that if Lois isn't well written, it's a terrible Superman story. Tbh, I didn't get it. Like, okay, she's not written well in a story. Surely that just makes her less enjoyable, but how can a character possibly directly effect how good the story is-

NOPE. If she's not well written, it is a BADDD Superman story. She's her own fully fleshed out character, who quite literally has her own life. She has her own arcs that totally belong to her and her alone, and she has a direct influence on the entire world. If a writer comes in and doesn't know how to write Lois, they fundamentally lack the understanding of the whole story, and they inevitably mischaracterize Clark. I read an arc where Lois broke off her relationship with Clark, and she was in character the whole time (it takes place before the wedding storyline from the 90s). Their anguish was so gut-wrenching and their reactions felt completely natural. The way they behaved made total sense. I kind of wish how they got back together was written better, but whatever. It's from the 90s. All things considered, it is handled pretty well for that time. But it COULD be better.

Just a few weeks ago I read another arc where, unbeknownst to the reader, Parasite had shapeshifted into Lois, and she acted like a total asshole in such an out of character way. She was abusive, cold, manipulative, and just... so badly written. Until the reveal, I thought that was just how she was being written from then on because this comic had come out in 2000, and DC had changed out all the writers. And Clark? My god. He had the most out of character reactions that made me genuinely set my tablet down because I was so uncomfortable with him. I kept saying out loud, "Clark wouldn't say this. He wouldn't do this. This isn't who Clark is." What's crazy is that "Lois" had an in-canon reason for acting totally different, but because she was written so out of character, it inherently made Clark a worse character.

I've read some alternative timeline stories (some that are major canon events, and other ones, like Red Son, that are totally self contained) where Lois and Clark either hadn't met at all, or did meet, but weren't on a path to end up together. You can feel how empty their lives are because of it. Something feels like it's missing from them. They aren't worse people because of not knowing each other, but it almost feels like some important part of them is missing. And in those fleeting moments they do meet, everything just clicks, and you can't help but want them to see the truth.

I watched the Superman animated series last year, which I liked, but I didn't really love it. Anyway, in season 3 Lois basically disappeared until the finale, and I kept saying, "okay, and where's Lois? These episodes are lacking something important and THAT IMPORTANT THING IS LOIS!!!"

I'm just blown away. They really are the ship of all time, and they really are the epitome of the term, "in every universe." Lois really is THE character of all time, and she's SO integral to Superman's mythos. You can't have a good Superman story if Lois isn't treated with the respect she deserves.

If anyone wants to know what order I'm following, here's the link!

I've been reading on the DCInfinite app, and fair warning, they don't have every issue in their catalogue. I've had to pirate several of them. I'm paying for the app! And I'm planning on buying physical copies for arcs I loved! For example, I REALLY want The Death of Superman Omnibus. I'm not promoting pirating, but I'm not condemning it either. I looked into buying volumes, and for just The Man of Steel run in the link I provided, it was over a hundred dollars to get a physical copy. I've read over 900 comics. The app saved me so much money, and I did not want to hunt down issues I'd never read again. I'm sorry, but if I'd stuck with physical, I wouldn't have been able to read as much as I have. If y'all want to pirate, have at it. If you have a problem with pirating, DCInfinite is an awesome affordable option. Or do both, like I did! If you don't care about reading orders and just want to read whatever, then do whatever works best for you!

And yes, I am aware that people don't like John Byrnes. Dan Jurgens joined the team of writers, and it seems like he eventually replaced John Byrnes. His era was awesome.

I'm genuinely hoping he's lying, or he's being cheeky with what he's saying no to, as in no about Robert Pattinson being a variant because he IS the DCU Batman... because I cannot fathom any reason to cast a second actor as Batman.

Before I continue, play nice! I already made a long post breaking down all the reasons The Batman belongs in the DCU, so I don't want to rehash it. If anyone takes issue with my pro merge stance, please look for the post I made about why The Batman being in the DCU a better choice over casting a new actor.

There literally isn't a better setup for these two characters. The Batman and Superman 2025 damn near mirror and contrast each other perfectly in almost every regard. If you told me James Gunn wrote Superman with The Batman in mind, I'd believe you. The movies and characters are the walking definition of, "two sides of the same coin."

They're going to have to start from scratch with a new Batman and they'll have to take a different route to make the new Batman standout from Robert Pattinson........ and I just don't see how they could ever possibly create a better setup for these two characters than what they have with Robert now. He's considered the best live action Batman. People say he has the best Batman movie to date. Their movies have so many contrasting and mirroring themes, messaging, story arcs, and character arcs.

DC Studios has two actors who are deeply passionate about their characters and understand them on a level most actors don't. Brendan Sklenar terrifies me, because how he describes Batman is why I hated the character for years. Robert Pattinson made me fall in love with the characters. I can't think of any actor who could do better than Robert, and his version is the only one who ever connected with me.

If they do cast another Batman......... I truly don't care how petty it sounds - my investment level for the DCU will take a massive nosedive. A large component of my interest is seeing Robert Pattinson and David Corenswet bring their characters to life on the screen together. Every fiber of my being is repulsed by the idea that someone else could stand beside David Corenswet as Batman. Like, I won't be showing up for the DCU Batman. At all. Not even for crossovers. I will not watch a Batman and Superman movie if they cast another actor. I have the biggest pit in my stomach just thinking about it.

Again, I made a long post providing all the reasons why the merge should happen, and there's literally not a single reason out there for why it shouldn't happen.

I am begging for this to be a lie from James Gunn, or a misdirect. I believe, deep down to my core, that it will be the biggest fumble in cinematic history if they don't bring Robert Pattinson into the DCU.

I've been following this sale since it was announced, because the DCU has been so impactful for me on a level other media just hasn't been. I could spend paragraphs praising the DCU, but that's not the point of this post.

When I heard Warner Bros was for sale because Paramount wanted it, I felt sick to my stomach, especially when other companies stepped back from making their own offers. Then Warner Bros met with Netflix, and suddenly they entered sale talks...

I'll be quite honest, I felt a little sliver of relief, but Paramount... they scare me. When Netflix won the bid last week, I honestly felt like I could take a small breath. And then people lost their minds, which honestly frustrated me, and it still does. Christopher Nolan, the WGA, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders... so many people slammed Netflix for trying to buy Warner Bros and they want to block the sale, as if Paramount isn't objectively worse in every regard.

Great, longer theatrical runs if Paramount wins in the end, but those movies will be about white Christian values. Mark my words. I'd honestly rather deal with Netflix shortening theatrical runs. They're not going to completely back out of releasing movies in theaters, not while they're putting more of their projects onto big screens. I'm pretty sure I heard they're releasing the Stranger Things finale in theaters. Clearly they' see the value.

Now Paramount is talking about making a hostile bid directly to the shareholders, while the Supreme Court is about to let Trump fire just about anyone on a whim........

God, I hope Warner Bros doesn't waver. I'm pretty sure they're the only reason why Netflix changed their minds - it seems like Warner Bros asked Netflix to make an offer. I hope Zaslav and the shareholders know how evil Paramount is...

It just sucks. This year has been so shitty. It's been nonstop evil almost every single day, and the DCU was one little bubble I could turn to, where the movies and shows openly criticized white supremacy, fascism, the government, and Nazism. Not only criticized, but they're incredible projects as well. I hate that the one thing I've come to depend on to stay positive and hopeful is under threat of the very thing that's made our lives so shitty.

All I can do is hope Warner Bros doesn't back down on Netflix's bid, but it's so hard to hold onto hope, because things I've been putting my hope on continue to get crushed throughout this whole year.

I've heard so many people say that Robert Pattinson is the most comic accurate live action Batman to date, and currently we have arguably the most comic accurate Superman... why wouldn't you want to see those two on screen together?

Because I know it's probably bound to happen: I will block comments that say it shouldn't happen. Why? I'll know that whoever comments that didn't read through everything. I also just don't want to deal with circular arguments, because I will be addressing all the points I've seen. To be clear, I'm okay with people disagreeing with me. But simply commenting, "it shouldn't merge," or, "you're wrong," tells me the person leaving a comment like that is just looking for a fight. I like conversations. I don't like circular arguments.

Why do I think the merge is happening?

1. When James Gunn was asked which director he'd like to bring into the DCU, he said his number one pick is Matt Reeves.

2. James Gunn has said he wants all the projects to feel wildly different from each other, because he wants creatives to be able to fulfill their visions. Clayface is going to be a rated R body horror film made by professional horror filmmakers... that's going to be quite the clash with James Gunn's projects, especially Superman.

3. While Matt Reeves did say he had personal reasons for delaying the script for The Batman Part 2, the release date is still lining up perfectly with the launch of the DCU.

4. Within 8 weeks of James Gunn reading The Batman Part 2, he wrote Man of Tomorrow's script in 8 weeks. That's ridiculously fast, and why did he wait until right after he got Reeves' script?

5. The Batman Part 2 and Man of Tomorrow are filming literally at the exact same time next year in April.

6. Both movies are releasing the same year.

7. Matt Reeves has only attached his name to Clayface and Brave and the Bold, which are Batman related projects. I'm just saying, if those projects had no attachment to Battinson, there'd be no reason for him to only be a producer on those two movies and then not produce any other DCU project. There's a reason he's only a producer on Clayface and Brave and the Bold, and it could be because they're connected to his trilogy 👀

8. It doesn't make sense financially to cast another Batman. If they cast another actor, they will be paying two leads on top of a supporting cast with possible duplicates, as well as two whole production teams. DC Studios is going to be paying for a lot of actors and production workers.

If they do cast two actors, they will essentially be paying double in: actor contracts, production teams, and marketing.

Now why is that a concern?

Going to the movies is expensive now, so people are already selective on what they go watch. If you have two Batman movies, most people are going to choose one of them to see in theaters, and maybe wait for streaming for the other one, if they even have any interest. The studio would be spending double on producing two movies with an even higher risk of splitting the box off numbers. While audiences shouldn't worry about that, studios do worry about it. I find it so highly unlikely James Gunn is going to risk it by casting another actor. He made Suicide Squad and Peacemaker season 1 work. He can make The Batman work.

I want to talk about the positives first, and why I truly believe they have a masterpiece on their hands.

- The character arc. I mean, come on. Clark and Bruce dedicated their superhero identities to what they believe their parents would want of them. They learn their parents weren't who they thought they were, and Bruce and Clark have to forge a path they believe in. For Clark, that's doubling down on his core beliefs, while Bruce realizes he needs to help Gotham heal. They literally have the same story arc in regards to their parents.

- Symbols of Hope. Clark's never ending kindness and hope inspires other characters to step up and help in ways that are within their capabilities. He never asked it of anyone. He simply inspires other people to stand up and help those who need it. By the end, the other characters finally saw what it is Superman was fighting so hard for, and they simply do what needs to be done.

Bruce started on a path of vengeance, which inspires the oppressed to take their anger out on the whole of the city, despite the fact that many people in Gotham are good, even if the city as a whole is corrupt. When Bruce is confronted with the direct impact of his actions in the form of the Riddler, he deliberately chooses to become a symbol of Hope, to help Gotham heal. You literally could not have a better setup for a Batman and Superman to appear on screen together with that aspect alone.

- Bruce and Clark are in their superhero fatigues for a good 80% of their respective movies. Man of Steel altered the perception of Superman. I didn't know anything about Superman until I saw Man of Steel, and I avoided the character because I believed that he was this stoic, angsty, godlike figure, and I hated it. It's through James Gunn's Superman I discovered the character's humanity. That's what that movie was all about. Superman is already more human than most of the characters in the DCU - it's the audience who rediscovered the humanity in Superman, by going on his superhero journey.

In The Batman, Bruce lost his humanity. Bruce no longer existed - he became totally engrossed in The Batman and his goals. When we do see Bruce emerge from The Batman, he's a shell. He doesn't know who Bruce is. He doesn't want to know who Bruce is. The movie shows the audience how Bruce rediscovers his own humanity.

The contrast!!!

- Lois knows Clark's secret, and she tells him that he trusts everyone. Selina doesn't know Batman's secret, and she tells him he sees the worst in people... it's so stupidly on the nose how perfect the parallels and contrasts are.

- This.

And this.

- I need David Corenswet and Robert Pattinson to do press junkets together. It would be utter chaos in all the best ways. They're both so weird and so passionate.

Also, they have an incredible understanding for their characters. I could see these two sitting down and talking for hours about all the nuances of Bruce and Clark's dynamics. And, honestly, I've never heard anyone talk about Batman the way Robert talks about him. He doesn't see Batman as a superhero - he sees Bruce as a tragic figure who succumbs to incredibly unhealthy habits. I just don't see how anyone could be a better fit for another actor who also sees the vulnerabilities of his own character. David Corenswet talks about the deep loneliness Clark has, something I haven't really seen other actors talk about either. The dream team is right there!

I'm sure there are more reasons I'm forgetting for why these two renditions of the characters are perfect for each other, but I want to move onto points I've seen for why it "wouldn't work." I know people have concerns about Matt Reece's' Batman merging into the DCU. I'll go through the ones I remember off the top of my head.

- "There are no metahumans in Reeves' Batman movie."

That's fair, but there's a way to transition Battinson into the larger universe. From what I've gathered in the Superman movie and other DCU projects, while there are metahumans, they don't seem to be widely common. The Boravian government, which is funded by Lex Luthor, is not equipped to any capacity to fight off metahumans. Metahumans also seem to keep their heads down and don't really get involved in politics or cause many problems for world leaders. The world was shocked by Superman interfering with the Boravian invasion. In addition to that, from what we've seen, regular people aren't afraid of metahumans. Sure, there are bigoted characters, like the ones who work for Lex, but on the whole the average citizen isn't all that phased by metahumans, and even accept them. I mean, one guy throws a can at Superman. You could make the argument that it's because they trust Superman, but... at that moment no one really does, and if metahumans had presented themselves as a more common threat, people wouldn't be jeering at Superman like they did after the message reveal.

The few metahumans we've seen who are actually in prison are there because they were misunderstood and cast aside by society, or taken advantage of by other people. Not to mention, to even control metahumans, ARGUS had to plant a kill-switch in the Suicide Squad's brains. Otherwise, the government doesn't seem equipped to deal with metahumans. Even Lex was only really able to control Rex because he kidnapped Joey and threatened to murder him. If it wasn't for the child, it doesn't seem like Lex had any way to control Rex. He probably would've had to kill Rex or never mess with him in the first place. The point I'm making is that with how flimsy the control over metahumans seems to be, you'd think more metahumans would be causing issues if they really did present any danger to society. This all tells me they tend to get dragged into shitty situations, and otherwise seem to stay out of trouble if they can help it.

In Peacemaker season 2, we only see one metahuman outside of the Justice Gang, which, again, proves my point there aren't many metahumans in the DCU. All of these details could perfectly explain that metahumans on the whole may not want to mess with Gotham, because the people of Gotham could incredibly unwelcoming, so why would they want to put themselves in dangerous situations? If metahumans aren't interested in power, which seems to be the case given the evidence I provided, then it makes sense they wouldn't be involved in crimes, and would ultimately lead them to avoid a place like Gotham. The Batman has a little pocket it can slip right into, and Matt Reeves can slowly start incorporating more fantastical elements into his projects.

- "The Batman doesn't have advanced tech."

Actually... yes. It does. Bruce created a contact lens that he could use to talk to Selina. There isn't an earpiece or anything that he provides her. Beyond having audio communication capabilities, the contact lens is able to record audio damn near perfectly, and to download hours of data to a computer. He just has to slap the lens on a scanner with no audio issues. That's pretty freaking advanced.

That's while Bruce barely thought about Wayne Enterprise. I can imagine that when he puts more effort into the company, he can build more advanced tech that's more on par with ARGUS, or maybe Mr. Terrific.. The car he drove was pretty advanced, too.

The DCU isn't as technologically advanced as people believe it is. When Lex meets with the government officials, he has to explain to them what nanites are. Between him and Mr. Terrific, everyone else seems to have technology that's similar to our world. People have regular phones, computers, cars, TVs, etc. Even Boravia, which was funded by Lex, has regular tanks and artillery.

In Peacemaker... well, I'll avoid spoilers, but it's revealed that Auggie didn't invent the tech he and Chris use, and the government had to seek out experts to work that advanced equipment.

I'd argue that technology wise, The Batman is right on par with how advanced the DCU is.

- "The Batman is too grounded."

So, actually, grounded just means that no matter how batshit crazy the world is, the characters will have very realistic human emotions and reactions. People tend to mean "realistic vs fantastical." This would mean that Superman 2025 is actually quite grounded, because the movie is STEEPED in human emotions and realistic reactions.

Now, when it comes to fantastical elements, The Batman is on par with the DCU, particularly Peacemaker season 2. Bruce crash lands onto pavement and he walks away with some bruising and no real injuries. In the end of the car chase scene, Bruce is able to get over the car crash and through the fire purely because a slanted semi timed up perfectly for him to use as ramp to launch over the wreckage. That's quite literally straight out of a comic book.

- "Tone doesn't work."

Clayface is going to be a rated R body horror movie. James Gunn has said he wants all the projects to feel different from his movies and shows. That argument falls flat in that regard, sorry. Also, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather see a Batman that clashes with Superman. It's the same way in how I want Vigilante and Superman to meet. Them not fitting together at all is infinitely more interesting to me than having a Batman that blends in perfectly with Superman. That's not an interesting dynamic if they immediately fit together. I want to watch them grow together.

- "The timeline doesn't work because Batman is in Creature Commandos, so we already saw Batman take down a metahuman."

Actually, nope. Sure, Batman made a quick appearance, but that's literally it. We didn't see how he defeated the metahuman. He could've very well brought an ARGUS team with him who were actually equipped to deal with metahumans. The Batman Part 2 can easily incorporate elements to transition Battinson into being more equipped to deal with metahumans. James Gunn basically cherry-picked what's canon and what's not from The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker season 1. There's no reason Matt Reeves can't do the same thing. And it's not like Superman and Batman have to be on screen together in the next three movies. Matt Reeves can continue to flesh out his Batman and merge him organically in the larger picture of the DCU. We probably won't hear about a Batman and Superman crossover for at least another 3 or 4 years.

- "James Gunn and Matt Reeves already said it's not happening."

They did not in fact say that. The most they've said is that The Batman Part 2 is an Elseworld protect, but they could be saying that to trick people. Reeves even went as far as to say he's open to anything. Beyond that, James Gunn is a liar. He's kind of a little shit, tbh, which I personally find hilarious. When Gunn was asked about the parallels of Peacemaker season 2 and ICE, he literally just grinned and said, "nope. This could never happen in the real world." It's not an exact quote - I tried finding it and I don't know where I saw it. I'm a little a little mad about it to be honest. He also said there were no parallels between Jarhanpur and Palestine, but the way he said it... yea. That was the PR answer. This guy knows how to keep his mouth shut. I don't trust them, especially James Gunn, to tell the truth about anything regarding the merge or future projects.

- "James Gunn will ruin Matt Reeves' vision."

Um... no. This isn't the MCU, where project heads will be forced to fit inside a box. James Gunn only cares about good, complete scripts. He cares about good movies. He's even talked about how he doesn't want to place constraints on the creative teams like he experienced working in the MCU. He WANTS every project he doesn't write or direct to feel unique. He wants to preserve the creatives' visions. That means he's not going to mess with Matt Reeves. And Matt Reeva can do both. He can fulfill his vision AND incorporate Battinson into the DCU. I'll bet James Gunn will let directors and writers have creative control in crossover projects, just so the characters feel consistent across DCU projects.