Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max

There is not, never has been, and never will be an absolutely and unequivocally 'right' way to depict Superman (or any other character, for that matter).

 

Well, I think that would depend on your intent with the character. If you're attempting to tell a specific kind of story with the character, but the version of the character that appears on screen goes against that story, then I'd say it was a wrong way to depict the character.

I don't have a problem with exploring alternate versions of Superman, my problem is when that is the only version we're getting in that media. If the Snyder version of Superman was an Elseworlds version of that would be fine, but the problem is that is the one and only version we've been getting in movies since the end of the Reeve series.

 

This entire post is nonsensical.

I don't particularly like the way that Tom Holland's version of Peter Parker has been characterized, largely because he's been forced to play second fiddle to other characters in the films that he's supposed to be headlining, but the fact that his version of the character is what we're being presented with on film right now doesn't mean that Sony and Marvel Studios are 'doing him wrong' or that their narrative decisions aren't valid just because we don't have an onscreen alternative treatment of the character.

 

So movies are exempt from non-traditional explorations of Superman (or any other character)? One—fuck that noise. Two—the Snyder version is far, far more traditional than not.

 

Snyder's Superman is way too bland to be anything but a boring depiction. The depth of the conflict is just so shallow in these films with character interactions that lack charm or punch. Really disappointing.

 

I’ve seen you assert this many times before. Don’t mean to demand a dissertation or anything, but would you care to explain briefly (or point me to where you’ve done so)? I think it’s very clear Snyderman doesn’t “read” as traditional to a great many viewers, so I imagine you’re advocating for an interpretation that runs counter to most people’s gut reaction.

I’ll admit that, for me, perhaps the biggest obstacle such an argument would have to overcome is tonal. It may be superficial, but the fact the guy is such a goddamned mope all the time is a big part of what says “not Superman” to me. So even if you make a case “on paper” for his traditionalism, I confess I might have a hard time seeing it past the constant constipated frown.

 

I'm not the person this was addressed to, but I'm answering it anyway, and doing so with the following:
http://www.trek.fm/the-602-club/15

The host - our very own @Enterpriserules - and his guest panel are die-hard Superman fans and go into a lot of detail as to how and why the DCEU Superman represents everything that is great and traditional about the character as presented by Snyder and Co.

 

This post says it better than I have.

emphasis mine

 

Ha! You said you were just going to quote that post in the future. You lazy sod.

It's a fair enough point, as far as it goes. But I still say it would be nice if he didn't act so Christ-on-the-cross about it.

 

I never said that, all I meant is that I would prefer it if they did stuff like the Snyder version as an alternate version, alongside a more traditional version.

 

None of the old movies exist any more.

They were all destroyed in Crisis.

 

How many productions do you want to have them make at a time? Did you honestly think that Snyder's version would be etched in stone and be the only version for the next 50 years? Look at Spider-Man. Tobey Maguire. Andrew Garfield. Tom Holland. Each has his fans. Each has his detractors. None is identical to the other.

I get that Snyder's version is not everyone's cup of tea. But since every other live action version has been in the "traditional" mode, I don't think it's unreasonable for one version to step outside the box (rather timidly, as far as that goes, really). Moreover, it's not like Snyder was going to make every DCEU film even before his personal circumstances caused him to leave JL unfinished. He had an approach to the character (though even there, it wasn't his alone--Christopher Nolan and David Goyer had significant input; regardless of how one feels about their involvement, it wasn't a "solo Snyder show") that examined an aspect not explored on film by previous efforts. That is a good thing (as an attempt--for the moment, I'm leaving aside any judgement about its success in its execution). If I want the exact same recipe served to me over and over, I'll watch Taken 1-7 (or however many of those they made). I love Superman: The Movie. I watch it with my son about once a year. I even liked Superman Returns (though not as much as Superman: The Movie or Man of Steel). It's not like I hate traditional takes on the character. I'm 53 years old and I still buy Superman comics. I watched the Adventures of Superman as a kid after school for years. But just like I very much enjoy Kelvinverse Trek (and, in particular, Pine as Kirk), I very much enjoy Man of Steel/BvS--to a large degree because they are not "traditional" takes on the characters. Anyway, this merry go round will continue ad infinitum, so I'll step off here (too much marking left to do).

There will be more Superman movies. Most of them will be "more traditional" than Man of Steel. They might even be good. But I won't stop liking Man of Steel and it will take a very impressive reboot to dethrone Man of Steel from its perch on my ranking. Obviously, YMMV.

 

I try to be a man of my word. You know, like Superman.

I don’t really know what to say to that. “Christ-on-the-cross” is baked into so many Superman stories.

 

Is it? I don't generally see him as a suffering figure, which is pretty much Snyderman's whole schtick.

I know that some creators love to try to impose the "Christ figure" analogy onto him, which is not a thing I'm hugely fond of (even when Donner did it). But I was referring more to the tortured martyr bit, which seems to me largely a Zack Snyder "innovation."

 

Well, at that point, there's nothing I can tell you to satisfy you, as you reject the initial premise of setting this particular Superman in a post-Watergate world of "cinematic realism". The point of the story is to imagine how the world might react to an extra-terrestrial being with godlike powers who also looks indistinguishable from humans. In that specific scenario, his entire upbringing is informed by a different cultural vibe than the Norman Rockwellesque version more commonly presented. But if you can't accept that premise, then the rest just won't follow. And I think "the tortured martyr" label is an exaggeration. I see him more as someone unsure of his place in the world, but clearly with an inherent goodness at his core (or else he really would just "disappear"--but as Lois so astutely points out, "that's not an option" for him).

Of all the points I think get overlooked, the one most ignored is how new he is on the job (the caped job). He doesn't get access to "the training" Donner's version got...as an adolescent (or, at most, very early 20s) before heading out into the world. There's no direct evidence that Donner's version was helping anyone anonymously as Snyder's did with the oil rig (or the other times Lois digs up in her investigation). So when each caped version "goes public", they have different educational experiences (not quite the correct label, but it will have to do) AND Donner's version confronts a much less imposing set of Kryptonians with considerably more experience under his belt than Snyder's version.

I do think one significant flaw in BvS is Superman's death. Not the death itself (he sacrifices himself for the greater good--that's Superman in a nutshell), but coming so soon in what was intended to be a series of stories with the character. If the plan, all along, had been a duology, then I would have been fine with it. I think Man of Steel/BvS work best as a self-contained story (and could have foregone the JL setups). But, death aside, I think there was plenty of potential for this version to grow into something similar, though not identical, to traditionalist expectations. I view the Pine/Kirk arc in the same way (and like it for many of the same reasons--a less than traditional take on a classic character who, nevertheless, is more similar to the original/classic version than people are willing to admit because they didn't like the deviations from how they imagine the character "should be").

 

Given that Superman was created by Jewish Americans, he is much closer an intended analogue to the Hebrew prophet Moses than he is to the Messianic Jesus, but the notion that leaning into him being a "chosen one" figure - as was done with the DCEU iteration of the character - is 'non-traditional' is a false one.

And I say this as a person whose familiarity with the character goes back to the mid-90s but who didn't truly connect with the character until the debut of the DCEU version in 2013.

 

Well-presented and argued, even where we disagree. FWIW, I don't know that I reject out of hand the idea of placing the character in a consciously "post-Watergate" world; in fact, I would say Superman '78 does exactly that. But I much prefer the way Donner has Superman cut through that oh-so-modern cynicism (which the film does acknowledge) like it's not even there, rather than it weighing heavily on him and informing the character's entire portrayal. To that extent, it's true I don't find much value in a "realistic" Superman, if realism means dragging him down into the muck with us. "My" Superman soars above.

FWIW, though, I do like Pine's Jim Kirk very much.

 

In Man of Steel, Superman’s whole life was post-Watergate. In 1978, the cynicism and paranoia was far shallower (both in real life and the movie) than now. What I found interesting was the exploration of how Superman might be affected by having grown up in a world where even the Kents were a product of that post-Watergate society. And despite all of that (the more deeply ingrained cynicism, the flawed parents, the lack of access to Jor-El in a more formative moment of late adolescence), Clark’s first instinct remains helping others (going back to early high school). The story over the two films is about making the transition towards “soaring out of the muck”. It’s just that this time, we see more of that journey and the obstacles to overcoming “the muck”, rather than starting after that bit has been completed. To me, that’s a more interesting starting place. As always, YMMV.

 

I do love the Snyder Superman. Talked in depth about it in this episode of The 602 Club. We have also talked about Man of Steel as you mentioned, BvS, both versions and Justice League. And we'll of course be covering The Snyder Cut!

 

When I saw Superman returns in 2006; my one comment to friends with me was - I liked the original version of this film, that I saw in theaters in 1978 better.