Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max

Well, I'm referring to stuff like Lois acting like a utter nutbag in both movies and doing things like shooting Clark to prove he's Superman and hoping he wouldn't be able to tell they were blanks. Superman deciding to give up his powers to be with said Nutbag, even if there hadn't been renegade Kryptonians that was still moronic. Then when he gets his powers back he sadistically tortures Zod, goes back to beat up that one Trucker who beat him up when he was powerless in an act of petty vengeance and then decides Lois (who he loved so much he gave up his powers for) can't be trusted with knowledge of his secrets so he violates her mind and makes her forget everything.

Yeah, I really wouldn't call Superman II a great Superman movie.

I'm fully aware of how the original ending for Superman 2 would have been him using the whole "Spin the World backwards" thing to undo everything but that still would have ruined the movie for me.

It gets worse for Lois later, because for all their flaws Superman III and Quest for Peace both gave us much more likable female characters in Lana Lang and Lacy Warfield.

 

I mean, in fairness to all the Superman actors, unless you count his cameo at the end of Shazam!, there's only ever been one good Superman movie...

 

Yeah, and even THAT film is brought down by Hackman camping it up. And his idiotic real estate plan.

Everything else nearly makes up for that though, which leaves it as the only good Superman movie.

 

I honestly don't dislike the real estate plan. I just wish it had meant something and been a part of the film criticizing realty and the idea of selling/renting land.

 

STM (3hr Cut) is my favourite film but I can't help but wonder how they weren't sued by Alastair McLean.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Goodbye-Ca...1591&s=books&sprefix=goodbye+c,aps,367&sr=1-1

 

The only thing I didn't like about Batman vs Superman was the title. They should have just called it "Dawn of Justice" or to go one better, "World's Finest: Dawn of Justice". Obviously they didn't think enough people would get it.

 

I would've just called it Batman vs Superman and leave it at that.

 

The reason you continue to fail in understanding the story is due to what appears to be a rejection of Snyder acknowledging how the world generally works and in turn, how mankind would react to a super-powered alien, and why Clark's adoptive father would warn him against exposing his true self. It is all successfully laid out from beginning to end in MoS, and fully justifies the story presented in BvS, with many on the streets and in government having a very realistic reaction to the presence of a destructive alien who cannot be controlled. This is a realistic journey of the early Superman of the DCEU.

I believe you're looking for some "The End" as a plot point to Superman's early years; this was never intended to have some neatly wrapped-up, triumphant ending, for the clear as day reason that violence, paranoia, fear and anger have no conclusion. No easy answer. They are natural threads that run throughout every generation, based on whatever circumstances they are forced to deal with. To that point, in MoS and BvS, Snyder made the only rational story choice possible to sell a superhero story set in a world patterned after the real one: have many among humankind fear the sudden and destructive appearance of an alien. Some seem to have a difficult time understanding that the way Snyder had congress, Batman, and others react is exactly how real people would to an event of that magnitude.

The silly way Superman has been depicted in older adaptations transformed him into hat aforementioned camp counselor / Daddy figure to the point that he might as well be some random human in long-johns, because his true nature is completely ignored. Snyder was one of the few filmmakers to ever have people see a super-powered alien in relatable, real world terms, which is not treating him like Mickey Mouse come alive.

Again, your view stands on the opposite side of history, as Superman--and nearly every superhero born during the Depression were created knowing teens and adults actively read comic books as well--a cultural habit carried over from the pulp novel era. From his start, Superman was not deliberately aimed at children like Little Lulu or Herman and Catnip; his stories, with his hard, brutal stand against criminals was written to appeal to those who--in real life--supported the idea of vigilante justice. Adults.

Obviously not, but in your case, you have acknowledged--for the second time--that someone accused you of insulting them. Perhaps you need to consider why that member believed that, beyond a "I did not..." kind of response.

Its interesting how some are so willing to reject the very foundation and early period of a character they claim to like. As posted time and again, that Superman--the one you're actively rejecting--was a breakout success instantly revolutionizing an industry. It did not need to "find an audience" / "find its creative legs", so he was the one millions of readers loved to read, and could not get enough of. It did not need the Weisinger/Plastino/Swan era to make the character an icon, because he already reached that level of cultural importance not long after his first year of publication.

If--as you say--styles and tastes have changed, then you should have no trouble understanding why DC changed Superman from the infantile Weisinger/Plastino/Swan version in print, or why the Donner tribute AKA Superman Returns was not the Superman audiences wanted to see, WB did not seek to bring back for a sequel, or why no one is trying to bring back anything even remotely similar to the George Reeves or Super Friends versions of the character. Think about it.

.

Routh was part of the problem; he was trying to channel Reeve, as much as film was trying to copy+paste Donner's style to the story. Audiences did not want to return to that idea of Superman.

That's the point: characters dealing with serious issues that--despite fantasy elements--reflect the real world, which audiences relate to, hence the kind of praise those Marvel TV series and movie received.

...the original, tough, judge and jury version is what made him, and what the reading public instantly accepted, which was not the watered down, infantilized version of Weisinger/Plastino/Swan, George Reeves, and Hanna-Barbera. Snyder's version is a natural bookend to the original, as he too is a character existing in a world that is familiar and/or addressing real world reactions or emotions of this era, just as the original version did for its period of history.

 

Bullshit. You have constantly insulted fans of Snyder as being part of some "grimdark" cult (yes, you've used both, so denying it is not going to work), insinuating that they have some sort of psychological issue, and you've attacked anyone for "daring" to question plot elements of your favorite versions of not just Superman, but other characters as well. If you're going to play "I'm lil 'ol mister innocent," then you should at least have a record free of the kind of insults you hurl in this and other threads. You do not, so not only is your post BS, but you are being a textbook hypocrite.

I expect a tap-shuffle-tap denial routine, or deflection.

 

I wouldn’t presume to compete with the master of deflection, of which your response is a prime example: summarily dismissing my comments as “bullshit,” before launching into a litany of whataboutism.

My observation received multiple “likes” for a reason, you know. Here’s just one handy example of your famously tolerant posting style:

“Conned themselves” ... “bolted to their eyes” ... “perceptions were rattled” ... “failing to realize” ... yep, you’re the soul of tolerance for others’ opinions, big guy.

I’m perfectly prepared to admit I don’t always frame my comments in the gentlest possible manner. Do you possess the honesty and self-awareness to do the same? Or would you prefer to deflect again?

 

This is the core of the problem with Snyder's take on Superman, there is no way that anybody should ever fear or distrust Superman. Him appearing on the scene should not be a moment of fear, it's a moment of inspiration and hope. It's the start of things improving and is what launches a whole era of superheroes rising to help him defend Metropolis and the world.

None of the other adaptations ignore his true nature, they just come at it from a different angel.

I really couldn't care less about how people reacted to him during the Depression. We're talking about how he is being portrayed today.
OK, I admit, I can find going back a characters beginning interesting from a historical perspective, but that's it, I don't really see why that should be so important to a modern adaptation when there is so much history with the character not being like that.

The popularity of a character has nothing to due with whether or not the early version of a character is the iconic version of a character. There are plenty of shows that were popular right off the bat, but still retconned and adjusted things as they went along, and it is the retconned and changed version that is the one people think of today. When people think of Spock, they think of him as the unemotional Vulcan, not the smiling and laughing Vulcanian. And they think of the United Federation of Planets Starship Enterprise, not the United Earth Starship Enterprise.

Again, I'm not talking about going back that far, if you want to see what I'm looking for, go read some of the read the comics I talked about before and watch the DCAU shows, that is what formed my picture of the character. And most of the other adaptions I've seen, like the Reeve movies, and Smallville, and the Arrowverse have given me a version of the character that I recognize from those comics.

I honestly don't remember the movie well enough to debate this point, I just know a lot of people said they liked Routh in Returns and were excited he was coming back for Crisis on Infinite Earths.

.
Yes, but again, those were characters who were had already been darker, and more grounded for quite a while, Superman is not.

That was what made him popular when he started, that doesn't mean it's what makes him popular today, or made him popular throughout the rest of his history.

 

Wealthy, powerful and conservative people should fear Superman. It's the youth and activists that should love him, although still hold him accountable. Things need to mean something and just blanket 'fear' does nobody's story any good.

 

Why do you stop at George Reeves and Super Friends with every comparison? Why not bring up every other (current) interpretation of the character that's still matching what people want in a Superman. The Supergirl TV series, Smallville, the current comics (especially post the failed nu52) and so on and so on.

As opposed to Brightburn or the Injustice comics of which you think are more fitting for a Superman story.

I'll let Grant Morrison (he wrote Superman well after the Swan era, just fyi) sum it up better than I ever could:

I mean, I love all the characters, but Superman is just this perfect human pop-culture distillation of a really basic idea. He's a good guy. He loves us. He will not stop in defending us. How beautiful is that? He's like a sci-fi Jesus. He'll never let you down. And only in fiction can that guy actually exist, because real guys will always let you down one way or another. We actually made up an idea that beautiful. That's just cool to me. We made a little paper universe where all of the above is true.

You exaggerate. Everything I remember reading was the miscasting of Lois, that Superman was a "dead-beat dad" (I got pretty annoyed at that one since people obviously don't know how that works, especially in the context of the movie), that he was a stalker and, what was probably the mantra at comic book resources at the time, that he didn't punch enough things. They wanted more action than him lifting an island out of water as the big finale.

But rare was it said that Routh was a problem at all. Sure, some people didn't like that, but that was at the VERY bottom of any list of problems IF it even appeared at all. Just look at how excited people were for his return as Superman in the CW Crisis mini, as has been mentioned above.

 

Routh back as Superman was a highlight for me in the crisis crossover. He is my favorite seasoned Superman and he gave a great speech in the waverider. I would mind to see him back in a tv show of movie.

 

Gib us a Routh mini-series where he and Richard are married co-dads to Jason, please.

 

Seriously?

There's not really a story there, is there? That's been the character's problem for many decades.

There's no reason that people running things, at least, shouldn't fear and distrust Superman. As for other people...well, look to the problematic relationships they have to the gods they believe in for some suggestion of the potential anxieties and resentments Supes would be dealing with. They're gonna want to know his politics for sure, just for starts - and there's no answer or evasion of an answer that wouldn't provoke negative reactions.

Of course, the character was invented to entertain pre-teen children, eighty-odd years ago, which is why he was successfully presented in so preposterous a fashion for decades (okay, still is).

Clark can be as wonderful, noble and selfless in his use of power as you like; that's who he is. But the world full of people that he has to deal with? Either they're us, or something reasonably like us, or there is no story worth telling - not even a fairy tale; real folk tales are pretty scary.

 

The story comes from whoever or whatever he's fighting against.

 

There have certainly been hundreds (if not thousands) of wonderful Superman stories told, in numerous media across many decades, without going down the road that leads to Snyderman. If that were the only way to successfully tell a Superman story, the character would never have survived long enough to fall into Snyder's clutches.

 

On the other hand, the fact there are thousands of "traditional" Superman stories already is what makes the exploration of other types interesting (not only Snyder's--that I happen to like his version doesn't mean there aren't other viable ones that are also "non-traditional"). I found Red Son very interesting as an idea (though, like Snyder's, not flawless in execution). Kingdom Come Superman is another interesting variation. And the fact some people don't want/like an attempt to use "realism" (I'm going to go out on a limb and presume everyone understands that cinematic "realism" is not a literal copy of reality and leave it there) as a lens to examine Superman as a character or an archetype is in no way a valid argument against making the attempt. If that's not the type of Superman story one wants, one should simply skip it (I've skipped many a Superman story that had a premise I did not find appealing--I've NEVER suggested those stories should not have been attempted--that would be arrogant presumption on my part).

 

So you've said. I was responding to the arguments commonly expressed by TG1 and, just a few posts above, by Serveaux -- the idea that the only way to do a Superman story is by appeal to some Snyderesque "realism." (Serveaux explicitly casts it as fixing "the character's problem" of being portrayed as a symbol of hope loved and embraced by the public -- because God forbid a fantasy story should be about a better world than the one we slog through every day.)