Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max

[Sci]

That you cannot imagine the character might not be relatable to some viewers (readers) in no way means that they are “failures” (and what an arrogant position to take).

It is not reasonable to take offense at rhetorical language that clearly is not meant to be personalized to the individual reader or groups of readers.

Clearly this isn’t school and no one is required to do anything with material presented online anonymously. In any case, I don’t endorse the whole thing (particularly the point to which you object) but the article is hardly limited to that one point (I’d argue it’s tangential at best). However, I mostly posted it because sci seems to refuse to accept that not all movie viewings are cinema studies assignments,

I don't expect all films to be cinema studies assignments. We all have only a limited amount of time on this Earth, and it is a waste of the audience's time if your creative choices do not serve an artistic purpose. So I do insist that if a film presents the audience with set-ups, it has an obligation to give the audience pay-offs. I do insist that if you use the filmatic language of deconstruction, you ought to arrive at a deeper truth you can express. If you go digging in the ground, you ought to find a skeleton you can show everyone else. If you do not, then your creative choices were arbitrary and you have wasted the audience's time.

And if you're going to pretend your movie has depth but the no one can actually articulate that depth, then it's just inconsistent and annoying. We all have stories we subjectively enjoy that lack depth (I adore the Bette Midler film Hocus Pocus), but we can do that without pretending there's anything deeper to them. If your only point is, "I like the Snyder Superman because I enjoy the aesthetics of juxtaposing Superman with a modern, cynical society and that's only as far as it goes," then fine -- but please just acknowledge that Snyder also tries and fails to use complex cinematic concepts.

And that makes for a lovely premise, but that is not a fully-developed theme. Set-ups need pay-offs. To what artistic end does Snyder depict the world distrusting Superman? What does this set-up reveal about the world and about Superman?

It is as clear as day in MoS, where adult Clark;s solo journey has him running from any location where he's close to being discovered--echoing the dangers predicted by his adoptive father.

Again, that's not a fully-developed theme. Are you saying that Man of Steel is about running away from responsibility? Are you saying it's about the symbolic act of "killing your father" via Clark needing to overcome Jonathan's false teachings? Are you saying it's about acknowledging that we have moral responsibilities to other people whether or not we want to?

You're presenting half-developed premises; you're not presenting a fully-developed theme.

Dawn of Justice is largely about Superman being seen as a menace not only by Luthor, but by Batman and Congress based on (in part) the destruction and death caused by his battle with the Kryptonians--that is the heart of the film, which Snyder so perfectly set up one film earlier. The people are not universally celebrating him as in earlier adaptations, because they see him for what he is--a super-powered, unstoppable alien with no blood allegiance to mankind.

That's not a film's heart, that's a plot set-up. It is, again, not a fully-developed theme; that set-up could lend itself to any number of themes. It is about humanity needing to let go of fear of the Other? Is it about the need to take responsibility for the unintentional consequences of our actions? Is it about how pain can drive us to inflict suffering on people who do not deserve it? What conclusion is the film coming to?

Complaining about Superman being "hopelessly silly" makes about as much sense as complaining that there's no grim and gritty version of the Care Bears. Superman is at his core a story for children

Wrong. Superman was created as a Depression-era character who--in many of his early years comics--often used his power to play a hard judge and jury to those who were committing crime, and not in the infantile, slap-on-the-wrist manner that later plagued the character in the Weisinger/Plastino/Swan comics and ridiculous adaptations such as the George Reeves TV series and the Super Friends cartoon franchise.

Early Superman represented a period of American history where vigilante justice was not completely condemned, but seen as necessary--welcome when crime (whether on the personal, local level, or in government) appeared to have the edge over the innocent. The public responded positively to innumerable characters cut from the vigilante mold, the reason why early Superman mirrored many a real world feeling--taking delight in criminals being brutalized or dying--a behavior one would associate with Batman or Golden Age Captain America, but Superman shared that view of criminals. It was that version who became a breakout hit / revolution in publishing. Contrary to another member I will leave nameless, Superman of this period was not (to paraphrase) some embryonic, shapeless character in the hands of those who did not know what to do with him. No, his identity and methods were the result of conscious creative decisions, and that did not include the Daddy / camp counselor some have conned themselves into thinking was the creators' intent all along..

Yes yes yes. Anyone who's ever looked into the history of the character knows this. It's all true. You know what else is true?

They were still stories intended primarily for children. There is no contradiction between the two.

And stories written for children can be very good, well-written stories with depth and sophistication! "Written for children" does not mean it's been stripped of all death of pathos. Just watch The Lion King if you doubt this. It's got murder, a fascist coup d'etat, racism, an oppressive species hierarchy, a child watching his father die in front of him, psychological trauma, shame, victim-blaming, survivor's guilt, running away from responsibility, sexuality, the works! It goes to very dark places. Yet The Lion King is still a film for children -- because being for children does not mean "lesser than."

If you need a 4 hour video to explain why something is bad, perhaps it really isn't that bad?

Or maybe it's got so much that's wrong...!

Its the result of obsession--excess. Going overboard to condemn a film clearly not understood by the host of the video. This is a trait common to those who had Wesinger/Swan/Plastino-colored glasses bolted to their eyes before seeing one minute of the film(s) in question. When the expectation of Daddy/camp counselor Superman was not met, their perceptions were rattled, failing to realize the time for the worst of Superman's comics, George Reeves, the Super Friends, etc., had passed and was rejected. Similarly, the Donner tribute sequel Superman Returns did not generate a groundswell of anyone wanting to see more Donner-esque tributes. They are not the Superman audiences desire.

Siiiiiiiiiigh. I've already had one person complain that I was supposedly insulting his intelligence, yet the only person I've noticed here who actually insulted the other people in the debate is @TREK_GOD_1 .

 

[Noname Given]

If you need a 4 hour video to explain why something is bad, perhaps it really isn't that bad?

Or perhaps you're just a windbag and you need to be better at expressing your points in a less verbose fashion.

 

[The Realist]

Siiiiiiiiiigh. I've already had one person complain that I was supposedly insulting his intelligence, yet the only person I've noticed here who actually insulted the other people in the debate is @TREK_GOD_1 .

Yep. TG1 always feigns the vapors at the supposed disrespect shown by myself and others for dissenting opinions, yet his every post positively seethes with contempt for anyone who doesn't share his own preferences -- particularly those of us who treasure George Reeves's faultless portrayal of the Man of Steel.

 

[Sci]

Yep. TG1 always feigns the vapors at the supposed disrespect shown by myself and others for dissenting opinions, yet his every post positively seethes with contempt for anyone who doesn't share his own preferences -- particularly those of us who treasure George Reeves's faultless portrayal of the Man of Steel.

Yeah, the constant invocation of Reeves is weird. I'm not even a big fan of The Adventures of Superman -- I much prefer the 1978 film with Reeve and the 1996 animated series with Tim Daly.

 

[The Realist]

Yeah, the constant invocation of Reeves is weird. I'm not even a big fan of The Adventures of Superman -- I much prefer the 1978 film with Reeve and the 1996 animated series with Tim Daly.

It's a whole thing with him. By contrast, despite our eternal disagreement on the subject of Snyderman, I find Ovation to be a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[Maurice]

Personally I find people trotting out the depiction of the character as the reason of the so-called failure of Superman Returns a false equivalency. There were plenty of problems with that film beyond the portrayal of Superman/Clark, not least of which being that the film has little personality, a very meh script, and a climax which is less exciting than its first big action beat.

 

[The Lensman]

To what artistic end does Snyder depict the world distrusting Superman? What does this set-up reveal about the world and about Superman?

That he will save lives and give his own, not for adulation, even for a population that is wary of him at best and distrusting of him at worst.

“The only way you can disappear for good is to stop helping people altogether and I sense THAT’S NOT AN OPTION FOR YOU.”

...Lois Lane...

That right there showed the essence of Superman and it’s one of the most important scenes in the film. His need to help people and his willingness to do so regardless of what they thought of him or the cost to him. That not helping people was not an option for him. And that’s his mindset before he ever listens to a speech by Jor-El about helping people, unlike the Donner film. That’s about as “Superman” as it gets. Well until he gives his life to protect those who are wary of him.

 

[Mudd]

Personally I find people trotting out the depiction of the character as the reason of the so-called failure of Superman Returns a false equivalency. There were plenty of problems with that film beyond the portrayal of Superman/Clark, not least of which being that the film has little personality, a very meh script, and a climax which is less exciting than its first big action beat.

Yeah, but I loved Superman pulling the ship up out of the water. That was just emotionally and visually wonderful.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I thought the actor was fine. It was a thankless part, really, given the overall nature of the project. Singer managed a pretty long run given a fairly circumscribed toolset - he had a couple of memorable original films, but managed to always just miss the point of whatever franchise project he was working on.

 

[Anwar]

Yeah, the constant invocation of Reeves is weird. I'm not even a big fan of The Adventures of Superman -- I much prefer the 1978 film with Reeve and the 1996 animated series with Tim Daly.

The bizarre thing being that Reeves only had one truly good Superman movie to his name.

 

[Maurice]

The bizarre thing being that Reeves only had one truly good Superman movie to his name.

Well, 1½, since Lester cocked up II but there was enough of the Donner version still there to make bits of it work.

 

[UssGlenn]

The bizarre thing being that Reeves only had one truly good Superman movie to his name.

Well, 1½, since Lester cocked up II but there was enough of the Donner version still there to make bits of it work.

He said Reeves, so wouldn't that be "Superman and the Mole Men"?

 

[Maurice]

He said Reeves, so wouldn't that be "Superman and the Mole Men"?

Possibly. I am so used to people writing Reeves when then mean Reeve that I just assumed that's what was meant.

 

[Anwar]

He said Reeves, so wouldn't that be "Superman and the Mole Men"?

Possibly. I am so used to people writing Reeves when then mean Reeve that I just assumed that's what was meant.

No, you had it right and I had it wrong. I meant Christopher Reeve.

Superman II wasn't a Good Superman movie, Lester or Donner versions. Too many idiotic character choices.

 

[Maurice]

No, you had it right and I had it wrong. I meant Christopher Reeve.

Superman II wasn't a Good Superman movie, Lester or Donner versions. Too many idiotic character choices.

That's interesting because—of course—Donner was shooting both films at the same time so it was effectively one script, so those character choices would be part of the second half of the script.

 

[Mudd]

It's hard to imagine why half the world wouldn't distrust and fear Superman, just as it's easy to imagine how the other half would worship him.

 

[The Lensman]

Yeah, but I loved Superman pulling the ship up out of the water. That was just emotionally and visually wonderful.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I'd forgotten that scene, but yeah, it's a cool one.

This is not only my favorite Superman 'save', but probably my favorite of any comic book film:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

While MoS is my favorite Superman film, there are several things I would've done differently. For starters, I would've had a rescue scene like this one. The oil rig scene is good, but one of the cool things for me in a superhero film, especially the first appearance, is the reaction of the people to being saved by something out of the ordinary. The oil rig scene was cool, but needed a little more from the pov of the workers and their reaction to what just happened.

 

[Mudd]

Problematically, Superman Returns is one long homage to a movie that was a quarter century old and that itself was a fluke: that original was a flick where none of the parts really worked and the whole think was kind of a clumsily assembled mess, but somehow became a classic mainly because of the performance of the unknown lead.

So yeah, let's ignore every superhero and fantasy movie made in the intervening decades and remake that movie exactly the same way, with better effects and a lot less flair.

Man of Steel, and Cavil's version of the character in general, is the only version that seems at all "real" and plausible to me, in most any respect.

 

[The Realist]

Personally I find people trotting out the depiction of the character as the reason of the so-called failure of Superman Returns a false equivalency. There were plenty of problems with that film beyond the portrayal of Superman/Clark, not least of which being that the film has little personality, a very meh script, and a climax which is less exciting than its first big action beat.

Yeah, but I loved Superman pulling the ship up out of the water. That was just emotionally and visually wonderful.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I thought the actor was fine. It was a thankless part, really, given the overall nature of the project. Singer managed a pretty long run given a fairly circumscribed toolset - he had a couple of memorable original films, but managed to always just miss the point of whatever franchise project he was working on.

I like Superman Returns a good deal overall, so I endorse all the positives in these posts and reject the negatives.

The bizarre thing being that Reeves only had one truly good Superman movie to his name.

More right than you intended, since Superman and the Mole-Men is indeed an exemplary Superman film.

 

[JD]

No, you alone are saying that--which is not representative of all perceptions or experiences with a character. Moreover, if the version you cling to was so "iconic," DC would not have actively worked to change him in the late 60s. They changed hm because he was a ridiculous camp counselor not fitting with the interests / tastes of the readers, and was not at all a fit to stand next to other DC heroes---particularly Silver Age creations.

You keep going back to that extreme version of the character, but I never said anything about going that far back. That version of the character did take things over the top, but there are still ways to go back to something closer to the traditional version of the character without going that far. I'd look at stuff like Superman: The Animated Series or books like Secret Origin as a way to do a traditional version of the character that works for modern audiences.

Beyond nonsensical. The early years version always matters--it is the version of Superman who created an explosive, influential revolution in heroic fiction & publishing in general, and so quite obviously, that version was a stellar success.

This was back in the 1930s, tastes and styles have changed a lot in the past 80 years, so I would say it's much better idea to look to highly regarded modern stories featuring the character to see how to create a story for a modern audience.

.

They are still random, and not at all foundational of the numerous stories what made the character--and a success to millions of readers.

I never said that. All I meant was that they were stories I enjoyed, with a more traditional version of the character. Judging by the rating on Amazon, I am not the only one who felt that way, none of the stories I listed have a rating lower than 4.5/5 stars.

Again, you are saying that. You look for Daddy/camp counselor yet the last time that version was on screen (Routh), no one was impressed, or even wanted a return to that characterization, hence the reason there was never going to be a second act for that kind of Superman.

Actually, I have seen a lot of praise for Routh's performance, it was the rest of the movie around him that people had a problem with. That's why people were so excited to see him play the character in Crisis of Infinite of Earths, because they thought that it would be chance to see his version of the character in a story they might enjoy more.

Such a wild, reactionary statement. If you want kids' bedtime stories as you are tucked in, go read The Berenstain Bears. No one said Superman was going be that for you, and whether you're able to handle it or not, the rest of mankind lives in the real world, and do like to see fantasy have some of that real world and/or serious issues. It is the very reason why of all MCU films, Captain America - The Winter Soldier was so widely celebrated, and continues to be held in the highest regard; despite the fantasy element of Project Insight, the underlying message about government (known and shadow) plotting against citizens, brutality, brainwashing and questioning the concept of liberty--all real world concerns--resonated with audiences in deeper ways no Power Rangers-esque explosions / energy blasts of the other MCU films could. Superhero films and TV are not locked into your idea of goofy, light productions, otherwise The Winter Soldier, great Marvel TV series such as The Punisher, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, etc, would not have been greenlit. Clearly, superhero productions that reflect some of the real world were not only welcome, but in no surprise, were the best productions to come out of the Disney/Marvel franchise.

I think this is one point where I do owe you an apology, I admit, that I forgot about the stuff you listed when I made my last post. I absolutely loved everything you listed there.
But I think a lot of this goes down to the characters, the characters in those productions have always been some of the more grounded characters coming out of Marvel, and are pretty much built for stories like those. Superman is not that kind of character, he's always been a larger than life fantasy, and if you try and get to realistic and grounded with him, you start to lose what makes him Superman.

 

[Ovation]

That he will save lives and give his own, not for adulation, even for a population that is wary of him at best and distrusting of him at worst.

“The only way you can disappear for good is to stop helping people altogether and I sense THAT’S NOT AN OPTION FOR YOU.”

...Lois Lane...

That right there showed the essence of Superman and it’s one of the most important scenes in the film. His need to help people and his willingness to do so regardless of what they thought of him or the cost to him. That not helping people was not an option for him. And that’s his mindset before he ever listens to a speech by Jor-El about helping people, unlike the Donner film. That’s about as “Superman” as it gets. Well until he gives his life to protect those who are wary of him.

Exactly. You’ve distilled, far more eloquently than I ever have, why Man of Steel/BvS (director’s cut in my case) is my favourite Superman. In fact, from now on I'll just quote this post whenever anyone asks me why I’m a fan of this Superman.