The thing is, that's Superman's thing. I like seeing him catch missiles, lift islands, and super heavy space shuttles. No other super hero does that, at least not currently. Well, maybe Magneto but he knocks down planes.
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
A lot of it has to do with expectations.
Audience expected the Christopher Reeve take on Superman, the classic Supes. And they got JMS' updated version from Superman Earth One. Who isn't as iconic, but is a far more interesting character when it comes to his personal development.
They expect Bale's take on Bats, they get Frank Miller's Batman from the Dark Knight Returns. Grim guy, scary as hell. Someone who is willing to take life when called to it. Several of the scenes were right out of DKR.
Wonder woman, we just don't know. But she's the one character that's just having fun, and it shows. She's going to be a massive hit in the next movie - and that will redefine everything, because Marvel hasn't embraced female superheros nearly as much as they should. The Wasp will be cool when we finally get her. WW has the potential to be a phenomenon.
As far as the rest, I do personally think most audience members aren't up to following all the nuggets Snyder drops. And that could be a problem for the film. This film isn't as fun as the Avengers. But what it sets up to do it does extremely well. I truly hope Snyder gets a chance to finish his vision for Supes. Because when the icon arrives, it will MEAN something in a way that no previous version on the screen ever did.
Audience expected the Christopher Reeve take on Superman, the classic Supes. And they got JMS' updated version from Superman Earth One. Who isn't as iconic, but is a far more interesting character when it comes to his personal development.
They expect Bale's take on Bats, they get Frank Miller's Batman from the Dark Knight Returns. Grim guy, scary as hell. Someone who is willing to take life when called to it. Several of the scenes were right out of DKR.
Wonder woman, we just don't know. But she's the one character that's just having fun, and it shows. She's going to be a massive hit in the next movie - and that will redefine everything, because Marvel hasn't embraced female superheros nearly as much as they should. The Wasp will be cool when we finally get her. WW has the potential to be a phenomenon.
As far as the rest, I do personally think most audience members aren't up to following all the nuggets Snyder drops. And that could be a problem for the film. This film isn't as fun as the Avengers. But what it sets up to do it does extremely well. I truly hope Snyder gets a chance to finish his vision for Supes. Because when the icon arrives, it will MEAN something in a way that no previous version on the screen ever did.
http://www.latino-review.com/news/breaking-zack-snyder-has-exited-justice-league
Well, WB has to make it's property work somehow? They can't keep pouring money into these things and deliver a piece of sh*t every time out.
Well, WB has to make it's property work somehow? They can't keep pouring money into these things and deliver a piece of sh*t every time out.
Em... You are seven days late for april's fools.
Good points.
Here's my take (for whatever 5 Canadian cents is worth--no more pennies):
Your point about "the classic Supes" is spot on. In the vast majority of critical reviews and comments, the thing that comes out most is "that's NOT Superman". Well, "that's NOT Superman" is exactly what I like about the Snyder films.
1) In this version, baby Kal-El arrives around 1980. He grows up in a post-Watergate, more cynical and distrustful world. His adoptive parents are not Ward and June Cleaver on the farm. They don't have all the answers and they're not perfect--just like real parents. So Clark doesn't get an "ideal middle America" upbringing. He gets a more believable, imperfect one. No 8 year old Superboy out rescuing cats and blowing out fires on Henderson's farm or some such thing. Keeping his powers hidden is, by far, the most natural precaution his adoptive parents display (and if they were fans of the X-Files in the 1990s, they'd certainly not want him to be "on display"). So no "Truth, Justice and the American Way" default position. And that makes him a much more interesting character.
2) He still has some decency and moral grounding--else he wouldn't bother helping people as we see throughout his pre-"coming out party". But having grown up in a more cynical era (one not unfounded), and having had little, if any guidance about his alien heritage, he's understandably reluctant to be more open. Again, a conflicted character is more interesting than one who is entirely comfortable in his skin from day one.
3) His search for answers eventually leads him to discovering the colony ship and learning quite a bit about who he is and where he's from. But such information cannot have been easy to process and assimilate. Still, he eventually embraces what he can of his heritage. But oops, he's also unknowingly signaled a hostile force about the location of his adoptive home.
4) He makes numerous efforts at helping fend off the hostiles--yes he's conflicted about how best to respond to their message (again, a more interesting character), but he makes the "right choice" in the end. And I thoroughly enjoyed the "alien invasion/first contact" approach to telling the Superman story.
5) The battle is fierce and the damages extensive--as should be expected with the kinds of power levels on display. He's also alone against a number of people with the same abilities and trained for combat (on what is effectively his FIRST DAY ON THE JOB as a superhero). Of course he makes mistakes.
6) The new movie raises a number of interesting themes--how do we (as a society/species) cope with A) the existence of extra-terrestials and B) extra-terrestrials with such power. Of course he's worshiped by some and feared by others. Anyone imagining that, in 2016, the world would react to Superman the way the 1978 film suggests has a poor understanding of current social dynamics (and, arguably, the 1970s version was WAY too optimistic).
I have more ideas, but I'm out time.
Basically, I find the reaction to Snyder's Superman parallels the reaction to Abrams' Kirk--each is shown to us as imperfect rookies (and then lightly experienced in their roles), and those who expected the fully formed, mature version of the character--the one they imagine makes no silly mistakes and so on, and the one who behaves exactly as they think they are owed/expect--are naturally disappointed. That's fine. No one is required to like a movie (or any other work of creative expression). But expectations certainly play a key role. I, for one, would rather watch someone attempt a different interpretation and risk not pleasing everyone (or even a majority) than watch a re-hash of an interpretation for which there are, literally, thousands of examples in print and on screen (big and small). YMMV
They're not perfect or flawless movies. I gave neither full marks in the polls. There are pacing issues, editing, clunky transitions, ideas raised that lacked follow through--but the decision to give us something that is "NOT the Superman I grew up with" is something I applaud, not dislike.
Even Superman in the Christopher Reeves movies was a blatant anachronism... the old-fashioned, 100% morally upright do-gooder who thought the word "swell" was current slang because he came from some kind of Norman Rockwell cornfield world - straight out of the "Leave it to Beaver" 1950s - that didn't exist any more, if it ever really did in the first place.
The late 1970s was already a jaded post-Vietnam, post-Watergate world, with gritty movies featuring violent, deeply flawed, lawless and sometimes self-loathing antihero misfits as protagonists. An overgrown boy scout from the 1950s in bright blue and red tights and a cape arguably didn't belong there at all.
The idea was that Superman is some kind of timeless representation of old-fashioned heroic values, maintaining such an ideal no matter how the world around him changes. So this can open up room for all kinds of discourse on the relevance or obsolescence of such ideals in an increasingly cynical society that generally doesn't give a crap about them any more. "Superman Returns" tried to address such questions, but turned out rather mediocre.
Kor
The late 1970s was already a jaded post-Vietnam, post-Watergate world, with gritty movies featuring violent, deeply flawed, lawless and sometimes self-loathing antihero misfits as protagonists. An overgrown boy scout from the 1950s in bright blue and red tights and a cape arguably didn't belong there at all.
The idea was that Superman is some kind of timeless representation of old-fashioned heroic values, maintaining such an ideal no matter how the world around him changes. So this can open up room for all kinds of discourse on the relevance or obsolescence of such ideals in an increasingly cynical society that generally doesn't give a crap about them any more. "Superman Returns" tried to address such questions, but turned out rather mediocre.
Kor
That's fine. I enjoyed (and still enjoy, with my son) the first two Reeve films. And I agree he was already an anachronism in the 70s. And I would certainly give a new film that took such an approach (or something like it) a chance. I just don't think it's the only way to go and I find the current one interesting.
It's amazing how the old 90s/early 00s animated series and most of the animated movies have had no trouble presenting Superman as a real hero with high ideals and strong morality that other superheroes look up to as the paragon of everything they stand for. He didn't have to go around murdering people, letting his father die in a situation that even a normal human could have prevented, or having both of his parents advising him to tell the world to "fuck off" whenever he felt the urge to help others.
But, apparently, that's impossible in a live version of the character for Reasons(tm).
But, apparently, that's impossible in a live version of the character for Reasons(tm).
Really? Who said "impossible"? Choosing a different path (not that your caricature of the Snyder version merits much in the way of serious consideration) is hardly suggesting the path you prefer is "impossible". Besides, your examples support my point--they are among thousands of examples of similar approaches. I'd like to think there's enough room for more than "one kind of Superman", even if a different kind isn't to all tastes. After all, it is possible to be a fan of Adam West's Batman AND Ben Affleck's Batman (I am)--and they are far more different than Reeve and Cavill are to each other.
Lots and lots and lots of people, especially around here. Apparently, Superman has to be "dark" and "edgy," even if those are two character traits that have never -- nor should have ever -- been attributed to him once he was fully established in the public mind.
But nope, it's impossible to do anything like what the animated series/movies have done, and even if it weren't impossible, it would apparently be the most boring thing ever because you can't be an interesting character unless you are, in fact, "dark" and "edgy." Which, of course, means murdering people, letting your dad die for a stupid reason, and being told repeatedly that you shouldn't be a hero by the very people who have for decades upon decades been the source of why he was the superhero of superheroes... but instead, he should just let anyone and everyone die just so he doesn't have to deal with anything. Because gosh darn it, that's the only way to be edgy and hip and "kewl."
At least according to most of the people who defend his horrendous portrayal in the last two movies, anyway.
And why the fuck is "old fashioned" the opposite of "dark and edgy?" Am I old fashioned because I haven't murdered someone?
I don't see him as dark as the JMS version--I see his situational context as dark. I view the Cavill Superman as someone who grew up in a more cynical time, with much later access to significant knowledge about his alien heritage than the "classic Supes". The setup creates a lot of potential for interesting character development (which, admittedly, are only hinted at in the films--could be better done by a considerable margin, though perhaps better through a long-form storytelling device like a novel or TV miniseries). Of course, I'd also love to see a period piece Superman set in 1938, based on the early stories (or character--the stories would need significant "filling out"). The first Captain America film in the MCU demonstrated the viability of such an approach.
Superman isn't "dark and edgy" in the Snyder films--though the world is darker and edgier than in the Silver Age version you appear to hold as the pinnacle of the character and his context. And he doesn't "let anyone and everyone die". That he doesn't rescue EVERYONE is not the same thing. And having imperfect parents is hardly "unbelievable". It makes his willingness to help people (even if it's not the way YOU want to see it) more compelling if it represents taking risks he's been warned not to take. I'll grant the "stupid way to die" for Jonathan Kent--it's not the film's finest moment, to say the least--but "murdering people" is, frankly, an absurd characterization of what he did re: Zod. It ignores both the immediate context of Zod as an existential threat and the broader context of Superman being on the job FOR ONE DAY. "Dark and edgy" would have been killing Zod, cracking a joke and going to a biker bar to find a hooker to celebrate. His actual reaction is galaxies away from that--and it serves as an object lesson. I don't recall Superman killing anyone (apart from the weird "dream sequence") in B v S. I do recall him saving people--and dying to protect others. Real murderous stuff.
That never looks good on the line graph.
People have suggested that the guy who was menacing Lois in that "Nairomi" sequence may have died.
If he's dead, so are Zod, Non and Faora at the hands of the classic "good guy" Superman in the 1980 film.
^
I would rather think that Zod, Non, and Ursa are imprisoned within the Fortress. All Superman and Lois did was knock them off into the depths of the Fortress.
Whereas in Batman V. Superman, Superman takes that guy through like two walls. When he could've used his heat vision or freeze breath to take out the guy's gun hand. It's likely he murdered that guy.
I would rather think that Zod, Non, and Ursa are imprisoned within the Fortress. All Superman and Lois did was knock them off into the depths of the Fortress.
Whereas in Batman V. Superman, Superman takes that guy through like two walls. When he could've used his heat vision or freeze breath to take out the guy's gun hand. It's likely he murdered that guy.