Well, in that case some off you guys are spending an awful lot of time on hating something you shouldn't really care about because it's apparently just disposable entertainment made for moniez...
Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Well, in that case some off you guys are spending an awful lot of time on hating something you shouldn't really care about because it's apparently just disposable entertainment made for moniez...
We're nerds. It's what we do.
I never said it was. It's just one sentence, not a detailed story outline, so it's ridiculous to treat it as if it's a "limit" rather than a starting point. Any basic premise can be developed in a thousand different directions, as you yourself say.
Comic-book readers have had that version, but most moviegoers have never read the comics. All that most modern movie audiences are aware of are Cavill, Routh, Reeve and maybe possibly Welling or Cain or Reeves, in decreasing order of likelihood (since not every casual moviegoer bothers to watch older shows and movies). For a whole generation of moviegoers, these films will be their introduction to Superman, just like Christopher Reeve was the introduction to Superman for the generation about 5-10 years younger than myself. These films will define what Superman is in their minds. They won't know what's been done with the character in the past, and if they find out later, it'll be filtered through what these films showed them.
Of course, but that doesn't mean all approaches work equally well. It's a logical fallacy to equate the general with the specific. Saying that I like Johns's take better than Snyder's doesn't mean that I hate all novel and fresh takes on Superman -- it means I like Johns's take better than Snyder's. Nothing more or less than that.
It's Superman. Champion of the weak, defender of truth and justice, symbol of hope and freedom. It's not unreasonable to think that he should be an inspirational figure for an audience. If you want a story that's more of a dark, cynical, deconstructive take on heroes, there's nothing wrong with that -- there's no shortage of stories out there that deconstruct the idea of heroes like Superman, including one that Snyder already directed a movie of, Watchmen. Even doing it with Superman himself, in certain stories like The Dark Knight Returns or Kingdom Come, isn't without merit if it serves a purpose. But doing that with Superman and presenting it as the default, foundational approach to the character, the introduction of a whole generation of film audiences to Superman as a character -- that's just mishandling the concept. It's tearing something down without building it up first.
And it's not like you haven't had your wish. Snyder's had two films now to present his darker version of Superman. Nobody can erase those movies from existence, as much as some of us wish we could. They'll always be part of Superman's film history, so you can rest easy on that point. But as you say, there's room to tell more than one version of the story. Now that Snyder's introduced and killed off his version of Superman, the character's resurrection seems like a great opportunity to take him in a different direction, a more positive direction that could be a response to Snyder's. For the generation that's just discovering Superman through these films, that would be something new and different, which is exactly what you're advocating for. It wouldn't be just a rehash of what past writers have done, because it would be in the context of what Snyder previously established, and that in itself would change its meaning and make it different from what came before.
What elitist crap. "Oooh, I'm a self-important Artist, I don't care if the audience hates my work, I'm above them." Speaking as a professional writer, nobody who thinks that way would have my respect. Of course the makers of popular entertainment are trying to satisfy the audience. We'd be total pretentious jackasses if we didn't want people to enjoy our work. I doubt you'd find many chefs who are happy if the restaurant patrons gag on their dishes. No, we try not to be slaves to convention, we try to give audiences things they don't expect and don't know they want, but we want at least a fair number of them to be pleasantly surprised by it. We don't consider the audience irrelevant -- they're the ones we're hoping to engage and inspire and share our ideas with.
And yes, despite the pretentious hype of some people, artists need money to pay the rent and feed their families just like everyone else. This is our job. So naturally we want it to be profitable, and if we do something audiences don't respond well to, then that's a poor performance that needs to be improved on. No, we shouldn't just pander to a formula, but neither should we pretend that our success as Artistes is completely independent of audience response. You're buying into a fantasy that has nothing to do with the everyday realities of doing this as a job.
It's noteworthy that one of these movies you wish you could erase from existence is a film you haven't even seen.
Did someone say something about logical fallacy?
This is true, but there's no need to get buried in cynicism, these money generators can turn out pretty great.
That previous report about Geoff Johns' new position at WB seems to have been wrong.
CBR| Geoff Johns Clarifies His Position at Warner Bros. & on Ben Affleck's Solo "Batman" Film
CBR said:
CBR| Geoff Johns Clarifies His Position at Warner Bros. & on Ben Affleck's Solo "Batman" Film
^"Could not confirm" doesn't necessarily mean the reports are wrong. It could just mean that the paperwork hasn't been finalized yet, so he's not allowed to officially confirm it.
In the original article, Johns says, "I do get to say that I'm working on Batman with Ben Affleck." Which does seem to indicate that he's just not free to talk about the other stuff yet.
I consider this to essentially be the equivalent of announcing a sequel to Superman Returns, Green Lantern, ASM3&4, a new Terminator trilogy etc etc etc --- it's part of the marketing strategy meant to further enhance excitement and/or interest in your initial film. Show confidence.
This isn't Marvel Studios where anyone is doubting that Infinity War is happening or that solid plans are underway for Phase 4. Their brand and success allows the audience to know those things will happen.
Suicide Squad may be the best thing since Deadpool or it could be mediocre and a Harley Solo film will whimper away and never be mentioned again. I no longer get excited over pre-mature marketing bravado announcements like this when tied to unproven films or franchise starters.
^ Yeah, remember how great that Halle Berry Jinx solo movie was? Or that 2004 Van Helsing TV spinoff series?
I did enjoy BvS quite a bit when I saw it, but after reading some of other stuff people have said, I have reevaluated my feelings about how the film treats Superman and what's wrong with that. I think what Christopher says here is the big problem with the character as presented in the Snyder movies. I don't think it's necessarily a bad to treat the character differently than how we traditionally see him, but this version shouldn't be the default. It's OK to make changes in an adaptation, but if you are trying to present the same character we see in the source material, then those changes should be to the surface of the character, the small things, but you really need to keep the core of the character intact. I could definitely see the complaints that what MoS and BvS did to Superman did alter the character too much.
If you later want to present a different, alternate version of the character, that's fine, but it shouldn't be the default.
EDIT: I was a little surprised to see the articles about Geoff Johns having a more hopeful, optimistic approach. I had been assuming all of the dark, gritty, overly violent and sexual stuff in the early New 52 issues was due to Johns' influence.
Last edited:
The "core" of Superman himself is very traditional in both MoS and BvS. Clark already is the regular guy just doing the best he can to do what's right. What's different is everything around him and - especially in BvS - how people, especially Batman, react to him. And the overall 'more positive' direction is exactly the trajectory things are already on.
Nothing needs to be corrected at all. Apparently many people want things to be accelerated though, to skip the challenge and go straight for everything being sunny.
Nothing needs to be corrected at all. Apparently many people want things to be accelerated though, to skip the challenge and go straight for everything being sunny.
I guess I missed this gem of "missing the point". I am not saying (nor have I ever said) the artist is "above" the audience. Do NOT put words in my mouth. I have argued (here and elsewhere) that artists do not OWE the audience SATISFACTION. They owe them the work of art. That's is ALL the audience is entitled to receive. If the artist believes the best way to satisfy his artistic intent is to give the audience what they think they want--that's perfectly fine. As long as it is the ARTIST'S choice. If the artist wants to challenge the audience's expectations, even radically so, that is also PERFECTLY FINE. The risk there, of course, is a lack of acclaim, and, depending on the extent of the failure to generate positive response, a risk of a compromised career in that particular art form. So what? That should ALWAYS be for the artist to decide. If the work is commissioned with specific instructions by contract, then the contract should be respected. But absent such explicit restrictions, it should be up to the artist to decide the degree to which he wants to "give the audience what they think they want". And I fully support any artist who wants to shake up the status quo--independently of whether I enjoy the result.
As to "if we do something audiences don't respond well to, then that's a poor performance that needs to be improved on"--talk about a logical fallacy. Much of 19th and early 20th century orchestral music would have been thrown away (including a significant chunk of Beethoven, to name but one composer) if this nonsense were actually true. The same applies to all forms of artistic expression.
I strongly disagree on two points. One--Snyder's take is NOT the "default". The "default" is the THOUSANDS of other stories that hew closely to the traditional model of the character. Two movies do not erase the rest, they are but a rather small portion of the whole. Two--there is NO "should be" (absent contractual obligations imposing specific limitations or instructions) in any artistic endeavour. The artist creates something, puts it out for public consumption and then the chips fall where they may. Snyder is not owed acclaim, approbation or approval of his version. No one is. But it wasn't "wrong" of him to present a different take from what people expected. The audience is NOT OWED happiness with the experience. They are owed the experience itself. That's it, that's all. If the majority of the audience is disappointed--that's tough. If it's truly that problematic, the artist will suffer professional consequences--and that's tough too.
By default I meant default for the DCEUw, hen you introduce a version of a character and use it for the first two movies in a row, that then becomes the default version of that character for the medium. Now if enough movies present a different version of the character, that will become the default, but for right now any changes made will be moving it away from that default.
I just don't think the beginning of a new universe, that is introducing the characters is the right place to try something different. Now, after a few movies if you want to step away and do the something different as kind of Elseworlds type thing that's cool, but if you want to create an accurate adaptation of the source material, then the first two movies are not the place try something different.
Even if audiences aren't owed happiness with an artistic experience, I think they are at least owed enjoyment, and if people don't enjoy it in some way, then obviously something went wrong somewhere.
I just don't think the beginning of a new universe, that is introducing the characters is the right place to try something different. Now, after a few movies if you want to step away and do the something different as kind of Elseworlds type thing that's cool, but if you want to create an accurate adaptation of the source material, then the first two movies are not the place try something different.
Even if audiences aren't owed happiness with an artistic experience, I think they are at least owed enjoyment, and if people don't enjoy it in some way, then obviously something went wrong somewhere.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It took years for many of what are now considered "default" examples of orchestral music (it's the example with which I am most familiar--there are some in every form of art), to the point of being viewed as "cliché" to get beyond something that most people did not "enjoy". We are not owed anything but the experience itself. Any enjoyment is a bonus. The reverse is also true--the artist is not owed any acclaim. He owes us the art, we are owed the art. We are free to be happy, sad, furious, indifferent--but there are ZERO guarantees of "enjoyment" or "happiness".
I don't think it's an issue of how much you change a character. Both Superman and Batman have changed a great deal over their histories. It's just a question of whether a specific change works well and is beneficial to the character. Having Tony Stark reveal his Iron Man identity publicly at the start of his career, for instance, was a major change, but it worked.
I think Snyder tried to portray a version of Superman that was relatively faithful to the character as he saw it. I just don't think Snyder believes in the idea of Superman or is able to identify with that kind of character or his value system, so he has trouble understanding how such a character would think or act. It'd be like hiring me to write a Punisher novel. It's just a mismatch of artist and subject.
Maybe it was, but he changed his mind when it didn't work out as well as he'd hoped? Similarly, the upcoming Rebirth thing in the comics is supposedly about bringing back the optimism and relationships that were lost in the reboot.
"Entitled?" You make it sound like something handed out grudgingly. You're talking like the audience is an adversary. I prefer to see an artist's creations as something the artist shares with the audience, invites them to partake of. No, they don't have to like it if it isn't to their tastes, but it's rewarding if they do. And if your livelihood depends on their willingness to pay for it, then it's kinda necessary that at least a reasonable number of them do enjoy it.
And that's fine in the abstract, but it ignores the fact that we do this to get paid so we can eat food and not die. It's not just Pure Art, it's a job. And that means you have to pay at least some attention to customer feedback.
Beethoven had patrons. He could afford for his work to be unpopular.
And I'm all for artistic freedom, but artists are only human, and thus fallible. Nobody, whether an artist or anyone else, can improve if they're unable to listen to criticism and recognize when it's valid. I've seen more than a few wannabe writers who assumed that every word that rolled off their keyboards was God's gift to literature and that the only reason nobody would buy their stuff was because the book publishers or Hollywood studios were an elitist clique conspiring to exclude new voices. They couldn't recognize that maybe their work just wasn't very good and needed improvement, and so they could never correct their shortcomings and become good enough to get published. In my case, I started out thinking my lousy ideas were good, but the rejections I got over 7 years of failed submissions were an invaluable learning experience, because I listened to the criticisms and recognized my shortcomings and worked hard to raise my game.
So yes, artists should listen their muses, but they should never assume they can do no wrong and close their ears to criticism. They'd never become successful artists in the first place that way.
For those in the know, yes. But as I said, a lot of new viewers have experienced Superman for the first time through these films. For them, it will be the default, just as Christopher Reeve was the default Superman for an earlier generation.
No, it wasn't wrong for him to try. But that doesn't mean his attempt was successful, or that it's somehow improper to critique it.
Actually, to more clearly express my meaning, I should have used "fans" instead of "audience" (as "audience" is a far more diverse set of people than "fans"). And there is no shortage of expressions of "fan entitlement" in various fora and media about any number of things--franchises, musical groups, etc. "They should 'listen to the fans'." "Any 'real fan' of (fill in the blank) would know it shouldn't be like this." "'Real (whatever)' has to have X,Y,Z in it or it's wrong."--I could go on.
I'm not suggesting artists give a big middle finger to the audience just for the thrill of it (though they are free to do so--I endorse their right to it even if I think it's a bad idea). But artists should feel free to put out what they want and hope for the best.
And? That's part of the equation for each artist to judge. I teach for a living. I have quite a wide latitude of method and content/argument available to me. I've earned it over two and a half decades. I do not have tenure or any guaranteed contract. Nevertheless, I don't merely "play it safe". I challenge expectations, both for my students and my bosses. Sometimes they've responded less than enthusiastically. Mostly I get positive reviews (from both students and bosses). I've learned the range that is "safe". I still go outside of that range when it suits me. It's a chance I take that few of my colleagues take. In part, because it's in my nature to take such chances. In part, I have the financial support of my spouse to minimize the consequences if I ultimately go "too far" for my bosses. But it's MY choice and it fits MY circumstances. The same applies to artists. I don't begrudge artists who play it safer because they don't want to risk their livelihood. I abhor the attitude that "playing it safe" is necessary in and of itself, for fear of disappointing the audience/fans. Playing it safe should be the artist's choice--not a requirement or even a predominant trend.
Warner Bros. is Snyder's patron. They can afford it too.
And where have I argued artists should ignore all criticism and can do no wrong? I have repeatedly pointed out artists are not owed acclaim or approval. Choices have consequences. But they should be granted the freedom to make the choices.
I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that more than a tiny slice of the audience will have had ZERO experience of Superman before seeing these movies. In the absence of hard evidence, I'm going to consider this an alarmist view.
Again, where have I argued it cannot be critiqued? "Successful" is in the eye of the beholder--in my eyes, his take is very successful--in large part because it is different than the traditional version. I don't expect anyone else to have the same view (though I know I'm not alone, regardless of the near-hysteria of online commentary suggesting otherwise). I don't think his films are perfect (I didn't score them as such on the polls in this forum). But I do find his exploration of the character a welcome addition to the more traditional versions--almost all of which I have also enjoyed.
In many ways, I find the reactions to Snyder's take on Superman, the Cumberbatch and Miller (and even Downey Jr.) versions of Sherlock Holmes, and JJ Abrams' take on Captain Kirk very similar--they depart from tradition to a degree that makes people uncomfortable because, to them, these characters have become sacrosanct (at least, their personal "versions"--not always supported by actual examples). I happen to find very few things "sacrosanct"--especially fictional characters. I have no problems when people critique any and all of the examples I've just mentioned--except when their criticism is rooted in the notion that versions they don't like are "wrong". That particular criticism is untenable.
That's true, but it doesn't mean that all criticism should be tarred with the same brush. I take it as a personal insult to have my distaste for Zack Snyder's take on Superman demonized as some kind of selfish entitlement rather than a measured critical judgment. That's ad hominem argument, denouncing the person rather than responding to their position, and it's unacceptable.
And that's a complete and total straw man. Nobody is saying that anyone should "play it safe" with Superman. We're saying that Zack Snyder's specific approach didn't work as an interpretation of the character. That doesn't mean someone else's innovative take couldn't work, it just means that this particular one didn't. There's the third of your logical fallacies so far, conflating specific argument with general argument.
And nobody is saying they shouldn't -- just that their audience has equal freedom to dislike their choices. Criticism is not a violation of anyone's rights.
"Alarmist?" Again with the needlessly ad hominem distortions. There's no "alarm" here. Nobody's in danger. Nothing is threatened. It's just a fact of life that anyone's experience with a fictional character has to start somewhere. Of course everyone's heard of Superman, but plenty of people haven't read the comics or seen the cartoons or seen the earlier movies. There are a lot of young viewers out there who hadn't discovered the character yet because he hasn't been as prominent in the media in recent years as he used to be.
When Smallville was on, in its early seasons, there were several reports of people who didn't even realize that it had anything to do with Superman. They'd heard of the character, but weren't familiar enough with him to recognize names like Clark Kent and Lex Luthor. It's never safe to assume that everyone else shares your own familiarity with a concept. Like when I went out to Hollywood to pitch for Deep Space Nine and talked to my cousin I was staying with about maybe pitching for Voyager too, and he didn't even know they were connected to each other or to Star Trek. It hadn't occurred to me that he wouldn't know something I took for granted. But it happens all the time.
Here's why that's an invalid straw-man argument: I happen to be quite fond of the Miller and Downey versions of Holmes and I have no problem with the Abrams take on Kirk. I don't reflexively reject things because I'm "uncomfortable" with novelty. On the contrary, I'm quite fond of novelty. But not every fresh take is successful. I dislike Snyder's specific interpretation for reasons that are specific to it.
You have assumed that my comments are directed primarily at you and your specific views. They're not. I stand by the points I made about fans (plural)--take five minutes to peruse the Trek BBS, or any other fan-specific site of a franchise, music group, etc. You'll find plenty of examples.
If "alarmist" is an ad hominem distortion, then "Murderverse" is, what, exactly? Pot, meet kettle.
Lastly, the point about Superman, Holmes and Kirk wasn't about you, specifically (why would you even presume that, or even that each individual instance of people being uncomfortable with one of the three examples would automatically be uncomfortable with all of them?). So I stand by that point as well. Very little of my commentary was about any one person in particular, let alone you specifically. So think twice before levelling "logical fallacy number 947".