That wasn't fully the case. The view of him as a savior was unsettling to Superman. But there were those who were also hostile toward him and this grew worse after the Capitol bombing when the hostility toward him grew worse. Snyder did not portray Superman as someone who was emotionally detached from humanity or someone who barely cared for them. His Superman was a lonely man who had to deal with others regarding him with detachment, because they regarded him as someone different. A freak. Like Batman.
We won’t get to see it, and perhaps it’s execution wouldn’t have persuasive enough to quell the divisive views of the existing work, but the idea was to show Clark’s journey from uncertainty about his place in the world to becoming the confident, inspiring, approachable hero a veteran Superman typically is. In the past, that journey has either already occurred off screen or page OR is a swift one within one episode or film. Snyder wanted to show a more complicated journey over a longer period. He wanted to explore some obstacles of the journey that had either been glossed over or ignored (the latter allowing him to insert his own bits). I enjoyed his take on Superman largely because he took a different path, and because of Cavill (and Adams ). I didn’t like all his choices in storytelling and I found some of the more interesting elements (to me) not as well executed as I would have liked. But I applauded the effort to try something different and, on balance, there were many more positives than negatives (particularly with the extended BvS instead of the theatrical as part of the overall story and the Snyder JL—the less said about the Whedon version, the better). In the end, for those who enjoyed this version, it’s there to rewatch. It’s lack of closure is frustrating but not an uncommon experience—if I became apoplectic with every cancellation of a show or movie sequence I like, I’d have died of a heart attack a long time ago. So now, on to the next one hopefully. I wish the next set of creators luck.
Well sure. It's modern day mythology and the god figures in mythology will adapt and be changed to suit the times in which they are told. Many of their preferred Superman and that's good. I don't think one is lesser or greater because of tonal differences. I just have my preference and others have their's. Snyder's Superman was a man struggling to find his place in the world. For people like myself, feeling like an outsider, that has a greater importance than the always doing good character presented at times. Many will call that angst or whatnot; I call it very identifable.
Well said. Superman was created as an immigrant and vigilante, one who was not a manufactured, corporate symbol of "good" (e.g. how Santa Claus had been appropriated for Coca-Cola), and certainly not out of the gates. As the ultimate immigrant coming to earth, his origin--in Man of Steel, and further development in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice--perfectly directed characters such as his adopted father to warn him against exposing himself, which was an unambiguous comment on the nature of humans to resent and/or harm others who are different. It did not matter that Clark could help in ways beyond the skills or ability of humans, there can be no expectation of a grateful population as some exist with a very, very familiar, inherent resentment of the racial/ethnic "other" and their mere existence holds up a mirror leading the majority to feel (without cause) threatened in more ways than I will refer to here (but being the recipient of said resentment is personally relatable). The adapted Superman's origin & early development should be one where struggle and threats from his new planet-mates are part of the experience--its the only way to integrate a fantasy character of that kind into a "real world" setting and sell, particularly if he's to be a part of a larger superhero narrative set in that same "real world" audiences understand. By the time of Dawn of Justice, we see a spit in public perception; some show great reverence for him, while others despise the former attributing God-like status to him. It's the driving motivator behind the atheistic tech giant Luthor's plot against Superman (yet in a typically contradictory mindset, he feels he should be held in the highest regard), the military having contingency plans designed for Superman, and Bruce Wayne feeling this alien "overlord" (one with the power to--and if fact participated in destruction, yet he had no responsibility to anyone) had to be stopped. That is how to bring a cape-wearing fantasy character such as Superman is successfully brought to life in a film. He cannot land on earth wearing a bow on his head like a flying birthday present ready to be recieved, because you're dealing with audiences who live in a world where such adoration either exists in a limited amount, or its often misplaced (usually given to public figures). Judgement and suspicion are psychological hallmarks of humanity, and yes, many would view Superman in a manner shared by Luthor, the military and Wayne. That Superman has to actually prove himself during his journey (no matter how benevolent he is) when he should not need to answer the demands of those who despise him is the story of the ethnic/racial immigrant, which he is the fantasy sense. That's a Superman who fights to overcome the odds and suspicion about his otherness, which is a potent story to tell, rather than the readily consumed corporate symbol who lacks any substance one could relate to.
I can't help but think that at least some of the antipathy toward Snyder's Superman must have to do with the fact that -- in at least one potential dark future -- he ends up in thrall to Darkseid. But this should not be misunderstood as indication of moral degeneracy on Clark's part; rather, it is a consequence of Darkseid having learned Anti-Life.
Considering Jonathan Kent's fear of what would happen if anyone learned the truth about Clark's identity as Superman, I'm not surprised. What I'm a little weary of is this idea that Superman characters and supporting characters (aside from the villains), always have to do and say the right thing without any ambiguity. I find this opinion increasingly frustrating as I grow older.
Neither did I. But I was glad to have my expectations challenged. Moreover, it worked, for me, because it revealed Jonathan as not having all the answers. He did NOT unequivocally tell Clark he’d been wrong to save the bus. He expressed a moment of doubt (well played by Costner) because of his conflicting, human reaction and feelings—empathy for the kids on the bus wrestling with his fear of losing his son. That moment of uncertainty illustrates the post-Watergate world of suspicion that earlier portrayals of Clark’s youth (Reeve’s version) did not (and, to be fair, should not) have. To me, the MoS Kents are more interesting for their imperfections. Not always well executed (the tornado scene could have used some work), but kudos for the willingness to step out of the mould. I mean, my parents never had all the right answers, nor do I as a parent today—why should the Kents be any different?
Because, saving children's lives when your life isn't in danger, in every single circumstance, is the ONLY right answer. There is zero ambiguity with this. A child could die, you save them. Heck. Even at the risk of your own well being, this is the only right answer. Any other answer is monstrous. There is no grey, this is as black and white as it gets. Edited to add, the most frustrating thing is most of the issues with MoS could easily have been fixed with even a line of dialogue each. The script needed another pass.
Agreed. but if one constructs a false narrative about the Snyder Superman that ends with the character being some immoral thug, then it's easy to tell him or herself that his alternate future was just an extension of the character he had been in the present day, which is nonsense, of course. In reality, no one runs around spouting patented 1950's TV sitcom dad-speak, because there's no part of said reality that applies to. Clark's father was addressing the truth of the world, and being a loving father, he did not want his son to risk being hunted / captured / killed by a majority that barely tolerates anyone an eyebrow shape different than their own, and/or comes from a place only minutes away. MoS' Jonathan Kent spoke like a real person, not a greeting card from 1957, as no one who has any experience with the threats faced for being "different" would somehow avoid warning his child about the dangers he would face if exposed. That's a natural human reaction, but you're not going to see that in adaptations where the Kents act like employees at an Army recruitment center, telling some 18-year old about his duties once in uniform.
This is my stance as well. The scene is supposed to show that Jonathan doesn't have the answers, but whoever decided that the word "Maybe" should be the first thing he says regarding letting kids die is an idiot. There are plenty of ways of showing a man who does not have an answer, who is struggling with what to say...the line only has to be tweaked the tiniest bit for it to come across better than it does.
Writing him like a real person is fine, but I have never met a decent human being who would ever under any circumstances suggest letting a bus full of children die.
Good answer. For me, it was a powerful scene. Jonathan didn't have all the answers--and in his future, Clark actually has to choose who to save and who to let die on a daily basis. What MoS really lacked regarding Jonathan was a final scene where he and Clark can have a more nuanced conversation--even if he doesn't have all the answers for Clark, rather than the final scene of Jonathan we actually got.
Ahh, but some do not want to acknowledge that Superman had to make such decisions from the very start of his published life.
Selective editing. That scene happened right after Superman saved a child from a burning building. Do you honestly think he just stood in the sky and did nothing? Highly doubt it. Superman has been round so long that you have many generations with their own idea of who Superman is. I promise you, Superman Legacy will have the same debates.
The point was not whether he saved them (I have no doubt he did). The point was the tone, which was purposeful on Snyder's part. He wants Superman to appear isolated, alienated, disconnected even from the people he saves. It's equally evident in the fire rescue scene you cite. If you can't see it, I don't know what to tell you, except that I'm not the one misapprehending Snyder's intent.
As someone who feels alienated and disconnected, even from the people I help, I find a lot of power in that scene.
Which is superfine. I get that some viewers respond to Snyder's approach. I'm not damning it, just discussing it.