Because they are. Mainly for not being ashamed of their origins the way the FoX-Men and Nolan movies were.
Spoilers Justice League - Grading and Discussion
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Because they are. Mainly for not being ashamed of their origins the way the FoX-Men and Nolan movies were.
Nailed it. Superman has been far "above mortal man" for most of his published and adapted life, yet that never prevented him from being a character anyone would warm up to. The individuals complaing about the DCEU's Superman is dreaming up excuses to criticize. Superman/Clark is and always will be the same alien/farmboy trying to balance his Kryptonian heritage with adopted humanity. Same character, but his conflicts will not remain the same in this era.
They didn't have viable alternatives and know any better. Now they do.
They're not dreaming up excuses, they are voicing legitimate problems they had with the way the character is presented in the movie. You might not be bothered by the way he is presented in the movie, but that doesn't change the fact that he is presented in a way that is different from the comics, and people looking for a more comics accurate version don't like that.
Cavill's Superman has been fine in these movies, and entirely consistent with the several versions of the character I've been reading in the comics since the late 1950s.
Hell, I remember maybe the first(?) time he deliberately killed Zod and his gang, back in the 1980s. The so-called "pocket universe" stories.
Hell, I remember maybe the first(?) time he deliberately killed Zod and his gang, back in the 1980s. The so-called "pocket universe" stories.
I remember him killing Zod in the 80's comics too.
Then grabbing gold kryptonite to de-power himself, leaving the fortress of solitude and condemning himself to death for what he did.
Or that other time where he killed after the crisis reboot. And then, again, exiled himself to space so that he could never harm anyone again.
People don't seem to remember the consequences in the comics. But in the movies, he killed Zod. Then fought Batman. I guess when people say he doesn't act like he does in the comics, there's reason, as he's totally inconsistent with several versions of the character we've been reading in the comics.
Nerd note - that's two different stories mixed together isn't it? You are thinking of 'Whatever happened to the Man of Steel" in that middle sentence.
Oh, right, it was killing Mxysshjljrhsdfw however you spell it, that caused his decision. The one written by Moore.
..which is consistent with what has been presented in the comics.
...well...
Exactly. Some have convinced themselves that the comic book Superman was this eternally Wayne Boring/Curt Swan-esque character (by way of TV's George Reeves) who would wink, smile and fly away after wagging his finger at Luthor. Anyone actually reading Superman stories--at least dating back to the mid 1960s--would know that he's had periods where he's morose, lost, or anything other than the Super Friends caricature they wish to dream into a single representation of the character.
Cavill is right in line with those serious versions, and as dark as the DCEU can be, Cavill successfully pulled off the struggling alien/farmboy contrast to his fellow Kryptonians and/or Batman. That's being a successful Superman.
I said 2 movies because you said you RECENTLY went to India... but didn't specify when, so it could have been before Infinity Wars
My point is that the Marvel movie machine has done a great job building the characters, so that there is growing popularity with them, and with them making 2-3 movies a year, keeps momentum up for many of them.
We'll see about your theory after Shazam comes out... he has literally godlike powers, but I have a feeling a lot of people will be able to relate
I am someone who IS a Superman fan, and WANTS the movies to succeed...but I have mixed emotions on the DCFU version
First, for everyone, I would make a distinction between the Cavill Superman and the Snyder Superman. Henry Cavill is a great fit for the role, and I see it in scenes (such as in Justice League). But Synder (or Goyer, or whoever wrote it) sabotaged some good stuff in it, or didn't build up for the payoff.
So Superman killing Zod -- there's nothing n the movie to show that Superman has a self imposed rule of not killing.
Superman dying came off as too soon...no feel for him growing into this hero role that the world sees him as.
Also, They had him wander around doing secret good deeds, and not actually grow into the Superman role, like Reeve's Superman did. (Captain AMerica was able to form his character and history as a hero in mere minutes)
His first "appeearnce" to the world is fighting some aliens...which, COULD have been spun as Superman being some kind of fugitive, and that HE put the world in danger by coming here.
Good "modernizing" stuff like Martha helping Clark with his powers by using special needs children techniques was awesome, and SHOULD have been one source of hero inspiration ...so instead of Clark coming home to a bitter "get off my lawn" personality of a mom...she should have been finishing up with a special needs client with Clark looking on admirably.
I hope we will see some better changes in the sequel (it is still on the books right??)
ORLY?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Sup...AhW9FjQIHQcmDyUQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=2162&bih=1283
Some examples from the above:
True. But so what? It's his FIRST DAY ON THE JOB. He's just figuring out the extent of what he's capable of, has taken in a massive amount of new information about his origins, has no one in whom to confide or consider the possibilities that he's known for more than six minutes...and he didn't kill Zod with a cathartic "hell, yeah" attitude so prevalent among "action-heroes" on screen. He's clearly upset and anguished about it and it is far more a sign of his total inexperience in the role--particularly facing multiple, equally-powered, better-trained in combat adversaries--rather than some sort of sign that this version of Superman is some "murder-happy sociopath" that some have (asininely and ridiculously) tried to paint him with.
I can see how it could be viewed that way, but it does not reflect how I experienced the event. Hardly a universal reaction, at any rate.
I very much enjoyed the Captain America films (especially the first two). However, I did not admire them as much as I did Man of Steel because they followed a predictable, safe path--mirroring and replicating the source material rather than considering it from a different angle. They were well done, entertaining, enjoyable--but not challenging my expectations (something Cavill's Superman has done, though less so--and disappointingly--in Justice League). My favourite aspect of Man of Steel is precisely that he was shown as inexperienced and uncertain of himself--I have, literally, THOUSANDS (counting comics, on-screen and even a few novels) of examples of Superman as a self-assured, righteous hero. Plenty of room for an unorthodox take--particularly one that deliberately challenges expectations.
Kind of a big plot point of BvS. The two films together offer an intriguing (not flawless--but nothing is) look at how Superman would be perceived if A) he was real and B) his "first appearance" was today, rather than the more (superficially) innocent "days of yore" that inform the Reeve version. I love the Reeve Superman. But that version is safe, expected, and ultimately unsurprising. Cavill's Superman is one I find refreshing. Obviously, YMMV.
Again, I disagree. My second favourite element of Man of Steel is the quite IMPERFECT Kents. Rather than the paragons of virtue found in EVERY. OTHER. VERSION. OF. THE. SUPERMAN. STORY., we get flawed human beings who do their best in a world far more (justifiably) paranoid of how the government would act if they knew of young Clark's existence, as well as the distrust and fear of much of the general public. When Martha tells Clark he doesn't owe anyone anything, she's placing his well-being above that of everyone else--a human parenting moment (rather than the idealized "noble purity" always placed on the Kents). And where some (mistakenly) view Jonathan's "I don't know, maybe" when Clark asks "should I have let them die" as a callous response, his hesitant tone clearly indicates the desperate realization of someone who doesn't have the answers, someone who is torn between his fierce impulse to protect his son from the world and all the dangers he imagines it holds and the "noble ideal". I found that a very refreshing take and far more interesting than another "wise old salt of the earth" pontificating.
There are pacing issues, plot points and other things I would have liked to have seen done differently--they're not perfect movies by any stretch. But, as far as I'm concerned, defying my expectations, even when it falls short in some places, is far more captivating to me than a safe serving of the same thing again. (I have similar thoughts about Kelvinverse Trek and feel equally strongly about Kirk's character arc, but that's for another thread).
^ I dislike Snyder's handling of Superman, but that is one of the better defenses of it I've read. Nicely done.
I'm super annoyed when people treat that scene as proof that Jonathan is a dick. He isn't talking to a 30 year old Superman there, he's talking to a 12 year old kid, his son, who he's understandably worried about. Even with the fear he might be taken away he also doesn't know Clark is practically invulnerable, the Kents didn't go shooting him in the face with a shotgun to test just how strong he is... for all he knows Clark could have just as easily died in that accident trying to help those kids...
I disagree on that, they're pretty much just great.
Exactly.
Oh, things I'd have done differently are not dramatic (a few edits here and there) and I really wish the longer BvS cut had been released theatrically (I think it resolves a considerable number of complaints--though I still enjoyed the theatrical cut just fine). I would have liked a bit more Clark in BvS (even with the longer cut, I thought more Clark would have been good).I disagree on that, they're pretty much just great.
In MOS, I really didn't like the scene where Clark doesn't save Jonathan from the twister because he waves him off. In that moment he made the decision not to help his own father to protect himself, and that will ruin this version of the character forever, unless he addresses it as a demon he's had to fight off since.
I still think that scene would make more sense in regards to the rest of the movie if Clark had ignored his father's refusal and saved/tried to save him anyway. Either he makes a mistake and his dad dies after all, which perfectly sets up his conflicting emotions and self-imposed exile, or he actually succeeds and exposes himself to a bunch of people, leading him to go on the run to keep ahead of any problematic questions and as a result isn't around when his dad dies of natural causes.
All the same driving issues but much better logical throughline for the film.
All the same driving issues but much better logical throughline for the film.
And I remember Supes killing Zod in Superman II and continuing on his merry way.
...Unless that bottomless crevice in the Fortress of Solitude was actually only a few feet deep.
Kor
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
