Obviously, but the point is that people and institutions who initially seemed to be trustworthy and good turned out to be deeply corrupted. A story where the bad guys are unambiguously bad can be dark, sure, but a story where even your faith in the good guys is shaken is darker.
MOS works. I disagree that there's any significant quality gap between IW and WS, but regardless quality is not darkness. And WS is a story about hope triumphing over fear.
To some people, it clearly does. To others, it clearly doesn't. Myself, I think parts of it work, others don't.
Many dark stories are about hope triumphing over fear. The fear is the dark part, after all. The more intense the darkness, the more it serves the message of hope. Anyway, this isn't a competition. You don't have to prove that your opinion is more right than mine, nor do I have to prove the reverse. That's not how opinions work.
OK, first off let me just by saying holy crap there is a shit ton of misunderstanding in, by me and due to my not being clear enough. Sorry, I didn't mean to say that every superhero movie must be fun, I just meant that it is what I personally prefer, and that I don't mind the occasional darker take on superheroes. I love Logan, the Winter Soldier, and The Dark Knight, but I just don't want to see every single superhero movie try to be like them. This is where I think I misunderstood you, I thought you were basically saying that ever superhero movie that wasn't dark, and "challenging" was shit and they should never make superhero movie like that again, and since Aquaman was a hit that meant that was all that was going to be made and you were pissed about it. Or Gotham
So what do we think of the new trailer? I think they nailed the concept which is an intentional Mary Sue, so to speak. This is a boy's superhero fantasy come true...
Since the villains in "The Winter Soldier" are unambiguously bad, what do you mean? Was Steve's faith in the good guys shaken, because they didn't realize they had moles within their organization for years? I agree with grendelsbayne that "Man of Steel" worked. Well, at least for me. Perhaps one day in the future, my opinion of it might lessen, as it has for "Superman: The Movie". But right now, it's my favorite Superman movie.
I disagree. And there are plenty of others - including people who have been Superman fans for decades - who do as well.
That's right dear. My opinion of "Superman: The Movie" is not what it used to be. In fact, my opinion of it declined a few years before I saw "Man of Steel", which is why I was not that eager to see the latter back in 2013.
I disagree on this as well. MoS was pretty close in tone (if not in the specifics of the plot) to how Superman stories had been in the comics for years leading up to the movie. I have some problems with the climatic battle but not really with the movie overall.
I just thought it was emotionally unengaging, one of those "Well, there are things happening on screen" kind of movies. The effects were well done, the way Supes used his powers was awesome, the movie just didn't ever make me care that much about what was happening.
I had a similar experience, and there are probably a zillion little things adding up to it. Seems like others didn't, though, so....
Being challenging is fine...but should ALSO should understand the character and why people like them. The challenge of expectations that worked for me, that everyone seems to ignore, is that Martha helped Clark by teaching him the way a special needs child might need to be taught. So very ironic that the most powerful person on the planet becomes that way by using techniques typically used for the most vulnerable people on earth. THAT is how you usurp expectations, but still stay true to the character... had they gone with that, and showed how such creative love would shape Clark to WANT to be a hero, even with conflicting feelings that the talk with Jonathan and Clark as a kid brought out (which was ALSO good, and "challenging expectations"), would have made for a great origin to herodom. Instead, having Clark doing the TV Hulk / Bruce Banner thing of going place to place --- ehhh.... not so creative or inspiring. As a comparison... Having Logan be a R Rated film certainly challenged expectations for a Wolverine that many teens and pre-teens (and parents) got into...but because of the character (i.e. Wolverine), the darkness MADE SENSE.
Of course not. It's all opinion. Duh. And... to add... MOS is a pretty terrible Superman story. Cavill was let down by Synder's "vision."
Lovely observation. And as I've said many times, another way the film challenges Superman tradition and expectations is to have Lois in on Clark's secret from the beginning, and it's a great change that pays big dividends. So you're right: The issue is not that MoS's detractors are just too hidebound and unimaginative to accept an original or fresh approach (despite what the film's boosters like to argue). The issue is that there are good changes and shitty changes, and MoS contains a few of the former but many more of the latter.
And I found it emotionally engaging. I guess we all have different opinions of the movie. That might be your issue and the issue of some others, but it's not MY issue and I assure you, I have come across others who share my feelings. So, there is no "issue". There is simply "your issue".