The good old days.
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
But sometimes they can get so far away from the character as to make the exercise pointless. Could Aarron Sorkin write a female tax accountant James Bond? Sure. But I'm not sure why.You are still missing the point. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) to like the take on the character. I'm pointing out the FACT that no ONE interpretation of a fictional character is sacrosanct. You prefer the same serving of vanilla cake on offer for the past half century or more, that's your prerogative. You don't like the new recipe, that's fine. You don't want anyone to try a new recipe because you're happy with the old one--tough. Some of us like to try new recipes. We even enjoy some of them. Doesn't mean we don't like the original. Just means there's more than one way to bake a cake.
I just read about a production of Romeo and Juliet called R&J. In it, all roles are gender swapped. NOT what one would expect but sounds intriguing to me. I don't know if the production is good, I haven't seen it. But good or not, I'm happy to know it's been tried. But I suppose someone should have told the production company "hey, you can't do that, that's not the real Romeo and Juliet". Heaven forfend someone try to challenge the audience and do something unexpected. Can't be having that.
I've had a similiar argument with someone over the newest F4 movie. So much of the characters background was changed that I dont even know why they didnt just call it something else. I said from the very beginning that fans would never buy it and box office receipts proved my point.
And for the record, I LOVE daniel craig as bond even though I winced the first time I saw a blonde haired Bond. Hopefully that is as far as the "retconning" goes as far as character traits.
Sometimes adaptations are made by people who think they have something new and interesting to say about a well-worn idea/character/musical style/artistic school/etc. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. It's always a risk. The "safe" play is to give the audience what it thinks it wants. Often successful (latest Star Wars seems a clear case). But not necessarily the most interesting effort. I enjoyed the latest Star Wars movie but I don't praise it for its artistic daring. It was like a good home cooked meal like my mom used to make. But I don't want a steady diet of that. I like variety and I especially like my expectations to be challenged. Even if the challenge falls flat, I appreciate the effort (though I won't hesitate to say if I'm disappointed).
I haven't seen the last FF movie. Maybe it's as bad as I've heard. Maybe I'd like it. The one thing I do like about it, without seeing it, is the willingness of the filmmakers to try something new.
Perhaps I would hate such a movie. I wouldn't consider the attempt to go so far out of the box "wrong" in and of itself. But more to the point, characters and genres that have attained an iconic status are ripe for reimagining in different ways. And while it's clear many people are not happy about the challenge posed to their expectations, there are also many who appreciate both the effort and the result. There's room for more than one take--and examples of the "classic" version abound. Besides, as someone else on the BBS noted, MoS Superman is less of a deviation from the "classic" than the one on Smallville or Lois and Clark (to at least two of us).
You are still missing the point. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) to like the take on the character. I'm pointing out the FACT that no ONE interpretation of a fictional character is sacrosanct. You prefer the same serving of vanilla cake on offer for the past half century or more, that's your prerogative. You don't like the new recipe, that's fine. You don't want anyone to try a new recipe because you're happy with the old one--tough. Some of us like to try new recipes. We even enjoy some of them. Doesn't mean we don't like the original. Just means there's more than one way to bake a cake.
I just read about a production of Romeo and Juliet called R&J. In it, all roles are gender swapped. NOT what one would expect but sounds intriguing to me. I don't know if the production is good, I haven't seen it. But good or not, I'm happy to know it's been tried. But I suppose someone should have told the production company "hey, you can't do that, that's not the real Romeo and Juliet". Heaven forfend someone try to challenge the audience and do something unexpected. Can't be having that.
This x Infinity! Excellent post and well said!
Not that it matters, but I noticed that MOS has gone down a percentage point on RT, from 56% to 55%. Two critics felt the need to chime in on a 3 year old movie. I guess it makes them feel better.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/reviews/?sort=rotten
I saw the same thing happen last year with TFA. Where critics tagged on negative reviews to ROTS lowering it's score beneath ROTJ. As well as giving positive score to ROTJ to put it ahead. Why they felt the need to chime in on a ten year old movie at the time, I have no idea.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_iii_revenge_of_the_sith/reviews/?sort=rotten
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/reviews/?sort=rotten
I saw the same thing happen last year with TFA. Where critics tagged on negative reviews to ROTS lowering it's score beneath ROTJ. As well as giving positive score to ROTJ to put it ahead. Why they felt the need to chime in on a ten year old movie at the time, I have no idea.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_iii_revenge_of_the_sith/reviews/?sort=rotten
Last edited:
The reviews are three years old, they were only added to RT recently.
Odd.
How does that work?
They probably became registered on RT only just recently, I'd wager.
OK. Let's look at that scene from the perspective of a "teachable moment." It seems to me that Clark did the right thing. He not only saved the bus, he also didn't tell anyone else about it and positioned himself so that no one else really saw anything incriminating. So he did the right thing morally AND took precautions to preserve his secret at the same time. But instead of praising Clark for his selflessness and encouraging his moral behavior, Jonathan seems to be suggesting that Clark should consider acting more selfishly in the future and concentrate on preserving his secret even at the expensive of the lives of others.
Is it believable? Yes. Is it good parenting? No.
Admittedly, that probably wasn't the actual intent of the scene but it's a bit ambiguous for my taste. And, as others have said, that scene would be less troubling on its own if not for the fact that it reinforces the rather bleak, cynical outlook that Snyder & Goyer have given to their Superman movies.
Similarly, people often dismiss the 1978 movie as a naive relic of a more innocent time, yet the 1970s were the era of Vietnam, Watergate, OPEC, stagflation, "malaise," etc. I expect our heroes to rise above the wickedness of their age, not succumb to it.
Agreed. I'm all for reinterpretation & reimagining up to a point. But if you're going to take on an established character, I think you need to have some idea of what that character is about.
Snyder & Goyer seem to think that the most important thing about Superman is that he's a super strong alien who flies around in blue tights & a red cape. I would argue that, while those are the superficial trappings of the character, it is the underlying morality & optimism of the character that ultimately define him. And while I think there could be value in exploring, reinterpreting, or subverting those ideas, you can't do it if you don't understand it in the first place. It seems like Snyder & Goyer aren't giving us an alternate take on Superman. They think that this is Superman! I think that they think that, so long as they put him in the tights and have him fly around, that they've captured the core of the character and can feel free to explore it in whatever directions they want.
I suppose this wouldn't bother me so much if I'd felt like there had already been a definitive live-action Superman movie that I could latch onto. But there hasn't.
After 40 years and 7 tries, we've still come up short. The Richard Donner movies got the character right but were weak on plot and occasionally bogged down with cheesy humor. Superman III was less of a Superman movie and more of a Richard Pryor comedy (for some reason 
). Superman IV is so godawful that it makes Batman & Robin look good by comparison. Superman Returns is faithful to the character but was kinda disappointing because, in the end, Superman's final enemy is a giant rock. And now we've got the dark, cynical version from Snyder & Goyer in Man of Steel & Batman v. Superman.I'll admit, while I disliked Man of Steel, I was cautiously optimistic about Batman v. Superman. I figured that, in order to appropriately contrast with Batman's darkness, the filmmakers would have to make some adjustments to give us a lighter Superman. Instead, they compensated by giving us an even darker version of Batman!
It's not just about what Superman does. It's also about how he's presented in the movie. If the movie presented Superman as a benevolent hero who was misunderstood by the people of Earth--either out of fear or because he'd been framed by Lex Luthor--that would be one thing. But every time the movie depicts Superman's heroism, there always seems to be this figurative pause questioning his motives. Lex Luthor may technically be the villain of the piece but the filmmakers seem to think that he's got a point.
Really?
I'd like to hear that argument.But while you're enjoying that cake, LANA LANG'S HORSES ARE DROWNING!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's a decent sci-fi movie with some likable characters. The part where it falls apart is when it tries to be a superhero movie. In that respect, the Fantastic Four name is more of a liability and the filmmakers probably would have been better served making their own original sci-fi movie, free of the expectations of an established franchise.
You don't have to change a character's backstory and what identify's him/her as that character in order to "try something new." In fact I find that type of so-called creativity to in fact be proof that the writers have no idea how to tell a good story within anything but their own limitations. For example....
Take TNG. Gene Rodenberry could have very easily just done a rehash of TOS but he didn't. He set the show almost a hundred years in the future and set up VERY strict guidelines on how members of the federation were suppose to act in this time frame. We went from a dashing young captain who was always in a fight to an older,balder captain who always tried diplomacy first. From the ship and uniforms down to the characters themselves there was very little similiar to the old show other than the Star Trek title. And he DIDN'T say that this bald headed,diplomatic captain was Kirk or change Spock to an emotional mess or change the other characters and try to pass it off as the same.
I like creativity too. But don't change my Coke to Sprite and try and pass it off as Coke because I won't buy it.
So? You're not the only "buyer" out there. And I disagree that the character (of Superman or AbramsTrek Spock) is so totally different from the original--certainly not to the point of Sprite pretending to be Coke. That you don't like the different take is fine. That an adaptation of a fictional character is "wrong" because some fans don't like it--nope. There is no "wrong" in doing something different in and of itself.
I'm a big fan of Sherlock Holmes. Read all the originals, loved the Jeremy Brett series. Also love BBC Sherlock and CBS Elementary. And neither Snyder's Superman nor Abrams' Spock is more different than the original than Cumberbatch or Miller is from Brett and Doyle's original. Of course, not all fans of Holmes like the new TV versions. Fine. But none of the new versions (even the Ritchie one) is "wrong". They're all just exploring different aspects of the character.
I don't find anything in Superman's backstory or in what he does in these two movies as un-heroic or "un-superman" like.
His moment of doubt in BvS isn't because of "boo hoo, people don't like me, being a hero is a drag" as some people here present it, it's because innocent people died(on two occasions!) because people who wanted to hurt him couldn't hurt him directly. He even expressed desire to keep on trucking and help people regardless of what they say about him after the first incident, it wasn't until after the second one that he had a completely human and understandable reaction of "should I really be doing this if innocent people are gonna get hurt because of me?"
Even then he didn't stop, only paused for a moment after a tragedy to think and he ultimately does decide to keep helping people and face anything they throw at him.
Not to mention that as Clark Kent he's depicted as someone who stands up for people that nobody wants to stand up for, namely the criminals in Gotham who he feels aren't getting a fair treatment.
So, I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree that this Superman is somehow "wrong".
Except it can lead to something better - the seminal swamp-thing story completely turns on its head the central premise of the character.
I think it would be unlikely that the owner of a ginormous conglomerate would know what was going on with individual employees and former employees.
Kor
I already posted earlier that I loved Batman vs Superman.I'm not referring to Superman I'm referring to F4. The changes to superman are minimal and nowhere near as drastic as what was done to F4.