I just read your review of BVS and ZSJL - and although I disagree concerning the "Alfred-Diana-Tea"-Sequence, I wholeheartedly concur with your quintessence.The Whedon-Cut was better.
DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
Reins.
Rein.theenglish said:
Well, this is a bit of an exaggeration. The theatrical cut merely leaves out some of the connective tissue fully explaining what went on with certain characters, such as the African woman and Wallace Keefe. As a result the viewer may be left somewhat confused by the fact that the accusations against Superman don't match what happened. After a certain point in the storyline both versions are equally coherent.Christopher said:
Humans do not live in cartoons, so their live action entertainment--more often than not--is designed to have relatable settings, situations or character behavior enough to sell. There's a reason Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the MCU's far-and-away best film: its messages of fighting against government corruption, terror cell infiltration, planned assassination, etc. resonated with an audience where most of those subjects have parallels in the real world. The film is the MCU's best for that reason: its not vomiting cartoonish insanity all over the story to the point the human actors end up being mere cartoon characters catapulted from one explosion-laden scene to another.
It is quite a ridiculous reaction for some to mount the argument that superhero films must be as unrealistic as possible, as if audiences never expect familiar social, cultural or occasionally ideological references and settings. Even the comic book sources rejected that notion generations ago, because their readers no longer found superheroes being pranked by sidekicks and/or aliens, or never facing serious consequences worth their interest and money. The comic industry changed to relfect a more realistic setting even with the fantasy framing, which was readers wanted to see. One gets a greater sense of danger when the setting mirrors real life, rather than a cartoonish realm.
There's a reason the aforementioned MCU film, the Snyder DC movies, Nolan Batman movies, and others work: they blended fantasy with the audience's expectation of some the familiar of reality in one way or another, and did not push that aside in favor of a completely artificial setting. Superman and Lois has a running cancer storyline for Lois, with her terrible, sobering struggles with the disease, how it changed her (and perception of herself) and the effect on her family. It does not get more real world serious than that, and its the series--a superhero series' towering achievement. People relate to fantasy motifs or settings based in reality. The series was not going to work if it completely divorced itself from reality, as if the genre is somehow trapped in 1950s superhero comics or bad adaptations from a few decades ago.
A common state for some still ranting about Snyder and his DC movies.
Are you saying Christoper Reeve's performance as Superman wasn't top shelf?
That's certainly an opinion I don't hear very often....
I prefer this poster's take on Donner's film and Reeve's performance:
Not being top shelf simply means its not the best. Cavill and Alyn are the best the screen's ever seen. The same would apply to Norton's Banner; while he's certainly the best from this century (the others not even close), the top ranking is easily held by Bill Bixby.
Gotcha, and I do agree about Bixby, but differ with Reeve. He perfectly captured the characters, which I count as two since he is one of the few who made Superman and Clark seem like totally different people. He was the heart and soul of his films, no matter how bad they wound up being in the back half. He owns each scene he's in. For someone so new, that was remarkable. He's literally the only reason I find his last two films watchable (although I do sometimes find Superman III to be genuinely funny). He wasn't the first actor I saw portray the character, but he is the yardstick I judge the rest by.
Cavill, tasked with playing it differently, was excellent as well. I wish he bad more solo films, he was exceptional in MoS.
Alyn, I can't say much about, I haven't watched the serial yet (although I do have it in my collection), but felt George Reeves give real gravitas and dignity to the role.
Cavill, tasked with playing it differently, was excellent as well. I wish he bad more solo films, he was exceptional in MoS.
Alyn, I can't say much about, I haven't watched the serial yet (although I do have it in my collection), but felt George Reeves give real gravitas and dignity to the role.
You felt correctly.
Also enormous charm and effortless charisma.
He was the Superman of my early days. Not enough difference between Superman and Clark, though, that made Lois, Jimmy and Perry look like idiots.You felt correctly.
But his Clark was a guy you'd want to be friends with.
Personally, I loved how dynamic Reeves's Clark was, especially since we spent so much time with him. I kind of put the "plausibility" question of the disguise aside, since it's never particularly believable, simply a convention of the franchise that you either affectionately accept or you don't. Honestly, as much as I adore Christopher Reeve, I prefer Clark not to be quite such a broadly contrived persona. I'm of the "Clark's the real guy" school of Superman, and I like to see that real guy when he's not in costume.
BTW, Tyler Hoechlin's Clark has always been a nice take IMO, the idea being that he really is a bit of a dork by nature, just not a cartoonishly broad one. There's a fantastically funny and charming moment in his initial appearance on Supergirl, when he and Kara (in their civilian guises) are coming out of an elevator. Hoechlin kind of stumbles and almost runs into someone, and Kara says, sotto voce, something like, "Hey, great job on the clumsy act." Clark laughs a little and says, "No, that was real." 
I missed this show entirely. Now that it's ending, I really need to go back and watch it. I had my fill of the Arrowverse shows, but since this is really kind of outside that continuity (or so I understand) and have heard really good things about it, I should dive in a give it a shot.BTW, Tyler Hoechlin's Clark has always been a nice take IMO, the idea being that he really is a bit of a dork by nature, just not a cartoonishly broad one. There's a fantastically funny and charming moment in his initial appearance on Supergirl, when he and Kara (in their civilian guises) are coming out of an elevator. Hoechlin kind of stumbles and almost runs into someone, and Kara says, sotto voce, something like, "Hey, great job on the clumsy act." Clark laughs a little and says, "No, that was real."
Superman & Lois has had a fantastic run (though it suffered a slight sophomore slump with season two). I'm anticipating the finale on Monday with enormous excitement, combined with real regret that it's coming to an end.
Although the Superman and Lois series finale airs on 12/2/24, I would suggest going back and watching the entire series. Its one of the only Arrowverse series (or Berlanti-associated series) that grew in quality as the show progressed, the other being the best of all CW/DC series, Black Lightning. Superman and Lois--especially in its 3rd and 4th season--does not shy away from blending the fantasy with absolutely dark, mature subject matter and characters who can come off like real people dealing with real issues (regular life and the fantastic), rather than characters having strings pulled to do anything for effect.
No guarantees, but you might come away thinking Elizabeth Tulloch's Lois Lane is the key face on the Mount Rushmore of Lois actresses.
Oh, and YES, watch the Alyn serials. His Superman is the best Golden Age era adaptation, with Alyn going from energetic to cold serious at a moment's notice. He nailed the dual identity performance. I probably rate it neck and neck with Adventures of Captain Marvel serial as the best superhero adaptations of early years cinema, and among the best of that century.
Last edited:
Correct. Will fix.
I don’t know about you, but the answer to the question “Can or can’t I relate to that character?” hardly has anything to do with the style, these characters adventures are presented in. I can relate to Mitsuhiko Tsuburaya from the Detective Conan Manga – always wanting to be the smart guy, trying to use big words. And if one ever felt love, one can relate to Ryoga Hibiki, who fell in love with Akane Tendo, but is always out of reach, because she sees you just as her pet or friend – anyone, who ever was friendzoned can relate to that.
People saw “The Winter Soldier” as the best MCU-Movie? Really? Funny, I definitely remember, people telling me “Eh… it’s an okay film. It doesn’t feel like a Marvel-Movie, it’s more like a spy-film, more like “Die drei Tage des Condors”.
Yeah, that was the silver-age, right? Or was it the bronze one? Hardly the golden-age, where the more ridiculous situations were more prone of happening. And concerning “what the readers wanted to see” I have my own little theory. See – I hold the view, that the comic book reader sometimes has a fear – he fears, that people, who know him, see him either going to comic-book-movies or buying a comic.
So, their first line of defence is “That’s not a comic, that’s a graphic novel”. Or take the Nolan Batman movies, which are – if you ask me – completely overrated, ‘cause they’re trying to be realistic. So, the comic-fans can lean back, say “See, it’s an age old question, do the ends justify the means, what makes a human human and are these superheroes seen as gods among us?” – when in the end, it’s a dude with a mask, kicking some clowns ass or another dude using heat-vision to do something good.
You know, when I see a movie like ZSJL, coming to the same conclusions, as the Whedon Cut did, where Bruce bought the farm, so that Ma Kent can live there, I see a problem. To me, the problem is: When a movie is taking itself super-realistic, I tend to do the same. If in the Whedon-Cut Clark is back from the dead, I’m like “yeah, okay.”
But if in the Snyder-Cut the same thing happens, I’m like “Wait a second. Are these the same people of Smallville, Pa Kent made a big problem out of in Man of Steel? The same persons, that caused Pa Kent to go up to teenage Clark and say “You helped again?” and which caused him to utter the absolutely moronic “M… maybe” answer to Clarks question “What was I supposed to do? Let them die?”
If the people of Smallville were in a way, that caused Jonathan Kent to say “Maybe”, then Clark, who is back from the dead (and remember: Clark was buried. There was a coffin, there was a wake, they put him in the ground), would cause the Townfolk to panic. They should be running around with these little protest-signs, which would be saying, that the end is nigh, since the dead walk among us.
But they don’t do that, right? Or is there a missing scene? If not, then Pa Kents reaction was over the top and Ma Kent should’ve said “Jonathan, are you nuts? Of course he’s not letting them die – but he should wear a costume.”
I've never understood why people assume "a Marvel movie" is supposed to be only one kind of thing, given how many different styles and approaches the MCU's movies have had over the years. One of the defining features of large comic-book universes like DC and Marvel is that they're an amalgam of an eclectic range of genres and storytelling styles. The whole point is that they aren't just one kind of thing, but have something for every taste.
Similar threads
