Reportedly, the upcoming Superman & Lois series may actually deal with some of these topics.
Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max
- Thread starter Ar-Pharazon
- Start date
But Metropolis is such a big part of the comics, that it's where I'd focus my story. Basically I'd start off with him in the"bullshit Norman Rockwell painting wasn't even accurate back in the day", and then mirror it with the more realistic modern day Metropolis.
Re: "Bullshit Norman Rockwell painting that wasn't even accurate back in the day."
Of course it wasn't. It wasn't meant to be. Superman started out as an aspirational figure who was already too goody-two-shoes for this world. His earliest adventures had him rounding up slum lords and corrupt politicians.
Anyway, I don't mind if someone wants to reinterpret things a bit by having Smallville be more troubled than in the '78 film and showing Metropolis in a more positive, progressive light. But the Kent Farm should always be a Norman Rockwell painting, because that's the spirit of Superman. He is, to paraphrase Alan More's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?," a man who fell from the sky and did only good. He's everybody's loving father figure.
I'm very wary of this coming Snyder Cut of Justice League. For one, his films are full of toxic masculinity and regressive, harmful political messages, as video essayist Maggie Mae Fish has demonstrated in a very insightful series on Snyder's work:
1/2
Of course it wasn't. It wasn't meant to be. Superman started out as an aspirational figure who was already too goody-two-shoes for this world. His earliest adventures had him rounding up slum lords and corrupt politicians.
Anyway, I don't mind if someone wants to reinterpret things a bit by having Smallville be more troubled than in the '78 film and showing Metropolis in a more positive, progressive light. But the Kent Farm should always be a Norman Rockwell painting, because that's the spirit of Superman. He is, to paraphrase Alan More's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?," a man who fell from the sky and did only good. He's everybody's loving father figure.
I'm very wary of this coming Snyder Cut of Justice League. For one, his films are full of toxic masculinity and regressive, harmful political messages, as video essayist Maggie Mae Fish has demonstrated in a very insightful series on Snyder's work:
1/2
Part 2 due to TrekBBS not letting me include more than five pieces of media per post.
Further, Snyder's command of film as a form is... questionable. Not only does he use the brutal language of filmatic deconstruction on Superman and Batman as ideas without actually using that deconstruction to say anything about them, as film critic and essayist Bob Chipman demonstrates in his Really That Bad: Batman v. Superman series...
... but his basic command of film structure in general is mediocre, as Evan Puschak demonstrates:
On the other hand, the theatrical cut of Justice League was such an obvious Frankenstein's hybrid of two entirely different films stitched together with loose thread that it will at least be interesting to contrast Snyder's version with the Snyder/Whedon hybrid we actually got.
Film critic and essayist Dan Olson probably put it best, though, when he responded to news that Snyder had said that his perfect version of Justice League would be a two-part, black-and-white IMAX release by remarking, "Well on its way to being a curated monthly scent basket."
Further, Snyder's command of film as a form is... questionable. Not only does he use the brutal language of filmatic deconstruction on Superman and Batman as ideas without actually using that deconstruction to say anything about them, as film critic and essayist Bob Chipman demonstrates in his Really That Bad: Batman v. Superman series...
... but his basic command of film structure in general is mediocre, as Evan Puschak demonstrates:
On the other hand, the theatrical cut of Justice League was such an obvious Frankenstein's hybrid of two entirely different films stitched together with loose thread that it will at least be interesting to contrast Snyder's version with the Snyder/Whedon hybrid we actually got.
Film critic and essayist Dan Olson probably put it best, though, when he responded to news that Snyder had said that his perfect version of Justice League would be a two-part, black-and-white IMAX release by remarking, "Well on its way to being a curated monthly scent basket."
Exactly. Some really need to look into Superman's published history--the very beginning where he reveled in the death of people he considered bloodsucking criminals (some of those panels were posted on this board). That was the original intent for the character, not the camp counselor from the silly Weisinger/Plastino/Swan period, the Reeves TV series, etc. The latter version eventually had late 60's Julius Schwartz, et al.,authorize changes to the character because the readers thought he was stale and hokey compared the rest of the DC titles--and they were right. For those wanting that tired version, they have the aforementioned period of comics / Reeves TV series / The Super Friends, etc. to relive, but that is not the only way Superman works (and again, he did not start off that way), particularly in stories set in a world similar to our own. The naive, Pollyanna approach cannot work anymore, hence one of the major reasons Superman Returns--an obsessive homage to Donner's film--failed to resonate with modern audiences.
Whedon-ize or MCU-ize--both have no place in the DCEU by any stretch of the imagination. Thankfully, Snyder's true vision is on its way and should compliment the DCEU he established so effectively.
I'd feel a lot better about reinterpreting Superman away from the "Big Boy Scout" version if the director doing that reinterpretation was actually competent enough to execute that premise well. Snyder is not.
Snyder created a Superman for this age, rationally addressing the way an alien would have conflict with his role in a world of humans, because unlike the stale versions of the past, he understands that he is different, and that meant he would struggle with his identity / place in the world, and not jump to grinning and winking as if the presence of the world's first alien superbeing would be universally accepted. That absurd convention of the Weisinger/Plastino/Swan/Reeves TV period was too ridiculous to be believed even within a fantasy framework. .
Exactly. But clearly many people would rather have something that conforms to safe expectations rather than have them challenged. Oh well.
Yeah...but they're both still bad. There's nothing interesting or human about the characters. There's no point where you can put yourself in their shoes--other than maybe how Lex is obviously a victim of child abuse and needs serious, genuine help.
A couple of scenes where Clark is off having hobbies and passionately talking about them would humanize his character so much. Like, those streams of Cavill just fucking around on stream painting figures and building a computer are quintessential examples. Drop the focus on plot and vaguely shown themes and just do scenes with Lois and Clark casually messing around putting together models and you'll make every other scene in these films so much more impactful.
Zack Synder has officially cemented himself as the new Michael Bay.
Two jabs at him in one series? That's an achievement.
Two jabs at him in one series? That's an achievement.
I hate to tell you this, but I've seen them challenged plenty. I've enjoyed deconstructionist challenges to the Superman archetype in other works. The problem with Snyder is that he tries to deconstruct Superman but then he doesn't say anything about Superman. He deconstructs Superman without reaching any meaningful conclusions about what he has deconstructed. The problem is not that I or others "would rather have something that conforms to safe expectations rather than have them challenged" -- the problem is, the challenge was badly-executed.
When it's well-done, I usually enjoy seeing things challenged instead of conforming to safe expectations. That's what The Last Jedi did to a T, and it's my favorite Star Wars movie. But Zack Snyder is no Rian Johnson. He tried to make The Last Jedi but ended up making Attack of the Clones. Or to make another comparison: He tried to make Deep Space Nine and ended up making Voyager.
I disagree that his attempt was poorly executed. Moreover, what I especially found refreshing was the Kents NOT portrayed as “paragons of virtue” but rather as flawed and conflicted about coping with their adopted EXTRATERRESTRIAL child. It portrayed a very believable sense of anxiety about what would happen if the post-Watergate state discovered their son.
Anyway, while I still like to poke about the edges of this “debate”, I’ve long exhausted my desire to get into very lengthy arguments about it—a search will turn my longer posts if anyone is interested (not that anyone should be).
Short version is A) Man of Steel, by a whisker, is my favourite Superman film (The Movie is my second), B) Cavill’s Superman is FAR closer to the traditional version than he gets credited, and C) Amy Adams is the definitive Lois Lane (I’ll entertain objections to my first two points but I’ll brook no dissent to my final one.
).
Okay, so what was Snyder trying to say about Superman by deconstructing him? What truth about the idea of Superman did he uncover and depict through the lens of deconstructionism?
I mean, fine, but to what end? What was the dramatic purpose of making the Kents so conflicted, what dramatic conclusion did this decision yield; what function did it serve in the story?
You probably just like the ad revenue...
There's that false broad stroke brush again.
I think current age. I've enjoyed the Bendis for the most part which has a VERY different tone than the movies.
Similar threads
