Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice

[Leo656]

Which is funny, because a buddy of mine who's also a huge Superman fan said the same thing - didn't bother to see MoS because he "heard from people" that it was bad. So we watched it two weekends ago, and he liked it a lot. Wasn't in love with it, in particular thought the fight scenes were a little overdone, but didn't see anything wrong with it and definitely agreed that a huge chunk of the negativity was entirely overblown. When pretty much the biggest "complaint" anyone has about a movie is, "It was too different from something someone did 40 years ago", that's pretty silly.

So, again, once in a while it pays not to let the internet write all your opinions for you. Everybody gets their own, but it weighs a little more when it's really your own.

42, you're definitely right that MoS was a completely different approach to the story. That should be fine, honestly. Superman '76 was a fairy tale. It was a good one, but that was the entire angle they were going for. You hit the nail on the head, MoS focused on it as an "alien invasion" story... because when stripped of the "flight of fancy" aspect, that's exactly what Superman's story is! It's realistic! It's okay if that's not your preference but it doesn't make it "BAD". It's a perfectly valid approach to the material.

In continuing along that point, I'll partially answer one of your many questions about "What is it they're taking from the source that makes MoS so comics-faithful?" Anyone else can read along if they want to. There's several particular important arcs and plotlines that have shown up in almost every version of the comics, from he Golden Age up through a couple years ago. For example:

- Kryptonian villains, usually led by Zod, arrive on Earth some time after Superman does and try to take over. Their stated goal is to wipe out all humanity, terraform the planet, and repopulate it as New Krypton. That storyline goes back to as long as Zod's existed, and sort of even before. It's a little different every time they tell it. Sometimes the alien invasion happens years after Superman's been around, sometimes it's very shortly after. Sometimes it's not Zod and they all have different names (there were stories of Evil Kryptonians invading Earth many years before they made Zod the regular recurring one). Sometimes it's two or three Kryptonians, sometimes it's an army. In "Birthright", they were fake Kryptonians and the entire invasion was staged by Luthor (and I'm SO glad we did NOT get THAT take in this universe, because "Birthright" was terrible on the whole, despite a few neat moments). Also in "Birthright", this was an example where the "alien invasion" angle was, like MoS, pretty much the first Big Event they had Clark get involved with, and stopping the "alien" invaders was what led to him becoming Superman and the world embracing him as a hero. I didn't love that take on the story, but mostly because as I was reading it, it seemed like having it be Zod and the real Kryptonians instead of Luthor's drones would have made a ton more sense. I'm not sure if Waid was told specifically not to use Zod in that story, or what, but it was a mistake not to.

All MoS did, was borrow from "Birthright" and have the Kryptonian Invasion happen early on, and furthermore fixed what the comic did wrong by actually using Zod and his army instead of fakes. A case can certainly made for not using Zod as soon as they did, but hey, it's been done before. And if MoS was a reboot, why not Go Big if you want to get people's attention right away? I really can't find any problem whatsoever with making the Invasion the first story. You have to tell that story eventually. And they did a good job with it. It was definitely "big on action", but you do have to establish the destructive potential of these beings and their powers. It was an excessive amount of destruction, yes, but it was still par for the course in what I'm used to seeing when these things happen in the books. When Superman and Zod fight in the comics, it's a Big Deal. Cities fall. There's repercussions for years. Again, one can argue it was Too Soon, but that's a debatable point at best.

- Superman killing Zod. This was something a lot of people hated, too, but again, it's always bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think they did their best at making it seem like Clark truly had no other choice in the moment, honestly. But it's always pretty inevitable. So, again, I don't have a problem with getting it out of the way early. In the Byrne comic, his execution of Zod, Faora and Quex-Ul was directly what led to his steadfast code against killing, and it was an event he never fully got over, so I'm frankly happy to see it put to film.

- This one's more of a combination of things, but in addition to "Turn Earth Into Krypton" being a standard Zod angle, MoS also borrows heavily in several places from "Day of the Krypton Man" by Dan Jurgens. It's different in a ton of places, but what they borrowed most specifically was in the comic a Kryptonian artifact creates the Fortress of Solitude, then immediately begins trying to terraform Earth into Krypton. Clark in turn is caught between saving Earth and preserving what's left of his Kryptonian heritage. Again, it's more of a thematic homage than a literal translation, but the scenario is very similar in broad strokes. The slave/servant robots like Kel-Ex and Kel-Or are directly from those comics, also. I always loved those guys, so it was neat seeing them get into the movie.

- The theme of Superman not being a sunshine-y "symbol of hope" or "everyone's favorite Good Guy" right out of the box. This is controversial for some reason, and I'm not sure why. Because yes, there's a few versions, particularly the Reeve film, where Superman shows up and he's perfect and everyone immediately loves him. BUT, just as often they tell the story from the other side! Starting all the way back in Action Comics #1, Superman was an adventurer and a do-gooder, but he was by NO means the "Shining Knight" character we all think about when we generally think of Superman. He was aggressive, arrogant, careless with his powers, recklessly caused a lot of property damage, and was considered equally to be a hero or a public menace depending on which character was talking about him. For several years he was little more than a vigilante, and while he was on the side of good he wasn't on particularly good terms with the government, the military, or the police. THAT character evolved over several years through several events to become the more straightforward, purely heroic character. When Byrne did his revamp, he borrowed a little bit from this as well. Not everyone jumped on the Superman Bandwagon just because the guy could fly. People thought he was dangerous. Not everyone trusted him right away. Everyone, on some level, questioned who the hell gave this guy in the cape the authority to do whatever he felt like, and who was going to ever STOP him from doing, potentially, whatever he felt like.

In those versions of the story, it takes a couple years for planet Earth to fully embrace Superman. It's fine that the Reeve movies and a couple other versions simplified things. BUT, that's not to say it's the "right" or "only" way to do it, because half the time, they do it the other way where he has to earn everyone's trust and it works out fine. These particular movies are just telling the story the way the comics have told it, several times, and in this case, "different" doesn't by default mean "worse". I'm not sure why some people have a huge problem with them taking the "slow burn" approach. It's just a different way of doing it, but it's fine.

Spoiler:

By the end of BvS, he's officially "SUPERMAN" in all caps and everyone loves the guy, just like everyone wants. I mean, is that soon enough for everyone? He gets to be Earth's "Beacon Of Hope", but he had to earn it once and for all by publicly saving the world from an impossible threat like Doomsday. That's what finally proves he's a hero and not a menace, and why everyone who doubted him at the beginning of the movie loves him at the end. That's good! That makes sense to me and it's a good way of telling the story.

There's a hundred other things I like that I can and will go into in detail later on, but this is long enough for now. But again, it seems like most of people's "problems" with MoS are fundamentally rooted in how "different" they are from what they themselves expect, and I'm pointing out how "different" in this case doesn't by default mean "bad", because in this case "different" is simply updating and condensing what came before many, many times.

Once more, a lot of these are being represented in broader strokes, rather than literally re-created, but I think I've adequately explained some of what they've borrowed, how they've streamlined it, and why it fits together. Meanwhile, I'll further point out that "Tone" is largely a matter of personal taste, and wishing a movie had a different tone is more a matter of opinion and hardly reflects upon the quality of the film itself. It's neither right or wrong; I'd personally argue that the tone they're going with so far, is appropriate for the particular stories they're telling.

[Leo656]

A ton of things are new and uniquely their own, sure, like the Codex, but they're always gonna just plain make up at least one or two things for a movie, I'll get into that kind of thing another time, and that part frankly didn't bother me very much at all, goofy movie "science" aside. Also, I'm looking ahead and thinking that it was just a convenient story excuse for them to need, and then get, a sample of Clark's blood, for a story in a later movie. Because you notice how they made a big deal about getting Clark's blood, then nothing happens with it once they get it because they all get sucked into the Phantom Zone. In a series where they're making a huge point to follow up on every tiny detail from one film to the next, I'm sure we haven't seen or heard the last of that blood sample, or the Zone villains. Or Hamilton. In the comics, Hamilton having access to Phantom Zone tech is very significant, so him getting sucked into the Zone with the villains intrigues me and I wouldn't doubt it was on purpose.

See, that's part of what I like about this series, there's so MUCH they've borrowed from the comics that even though they've changed or simplified a few things, the potential things that can unfold in future films branching from this point is positively tantalizing, to anyone who reads a lot of the comics.

As for all that "brooding, fearful" stuff, I still absolutely think you're projecting. The guy knows he can punch out a mountain by accident, and he's still, at this point, kind of grappling with that. I understand you'd rather they speed up and "get to the good parts", where he's all-powerful and confident and everyone loves him. He is. They will. Relax.

Like I'll said, I'll return to this another time.

EDIT: Spiffy stuff from the BvS display from NYCC this past weekend. http://supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=17050

Spoiler:

Yeah, the electric royal blue and the floor-length scarlet cloak just screams "Angst!"

[Xav]

Originally Posted by GoldMutant

Remember, every person who portrays a hero like Joker, Batman, and others will be compared, best to play safe.

Since when is the Joker a hero?

[Commenter 42]

Man, I love it when some fool suggests I don’t get Superman. Y'all need to to be educated! DAMN!

Whew! If sdp and Turo even remotely got Superman, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Polly wanna cracker? Lawdy Lawdy LAWD. Why bother typing at all, just drop the links to other peoples opinions, and call it a day.

Some folks need to wear warning signs or.. or at least a bell... wandering around spreading the stupid.
It's contagious, cover your damned mouth!
__________________________________________________ ___

Anyway... Leo ->

Originally Posted by Leo656

"Lot's of words"
Like I'll said, I'll return to this another time.

I FINALLY think I understand your point of view... Let's see if i get this right:

(1st, Just want to point out that Donner had Zod arrive on earth, obviously. Donner had Zod try to rule earth. Zod succeeds. maybe you can help me understand why you think Snyder did it better. I like the floating compact mirror over the giant flying black dildo brigade, but we can argue those semantics another time)

Obviously we both know the 78 films front to back, so I don’t need to go into detail - except to say that the parts your claiming were important in MOS, also took place in Donners version. One of the main points in Superman 78 that I love, is that Superman's arrogance, through 1 and 2, is actually the cause of most of his problems, just like he often is in the comics. It’s one of the most important tenants of Superman (to me), that he pays for his hubris time and again. I'm also a huge fan of the time travel at the end of The Donner cut (where it belongs) But more on that later -

But here goes.

Despite some of the broader strokes of MOS’s loose plot being more or less the same as the comics (Sure, if merely including Zod is what you mean, or that Pete Ross was included or, the terraforming?) I’m not sure what your saying is so much more comic accurate, other than you think Brynes version is the definitive Superman over all other Supermen.

So, let’s get this straight - you’re eschewing Donner films as fairy tales, because they don’t match up with your preferred version, which is the Bryne comic, because you think that Superman would be feared and not loved? Is that the jist? And since this film followed that logic your on board? a reboot of the source material that happened a decade after the Reeve film, that we’re drawing direct comparison to?

So, Superman wasn’t the definitive Superman until 1986, because Superman wouldn’t be universally loved because people in real life would be freaked out? And if they had taken the material to heart in 76/78, it would have been a serious film, because Superman is only about an alien invasion? But it's okay, because eventually he'll earn our trust?

Jesus...I think that series exists - dealing with fear of super powered people... I think it was called X-men. They made a few movies too, If I recall...

Yeah, that’s kinda fudged logic man. In no way are you proving that MOS is more Superman - it’s simply more Byrne, from your point of view. It aligns with your opinion is all. Fine, I can’t argue that opinion, but it is not, in any way, closer to who the character is as a result.

Now, we can back and forth over the requisite number of source ideas in MOS - but the bottom line, is that a feature film is so much more than a collection of referenced data. You know this, and i know this. The film we're discussing, beyond these "neat" nods to easter eggs, is a crappy, boring slog. It's not a great experience at all, and the reason it's difficult for most people to endure, is thatit's in love with a singular idea "In real life, Superman would be a scary thing". This idea is the sort of thing that some geeks might get off on sitting around the D&D table late at night while trying to one up the other on how dedicated a fan they are () and maybe it could be an interesting film. But the film That I watched, couldn't compel me to care. I not the only one. Trust me, it's not that we have a big problem with dark stories, I love heavy material - I'm a disciple of fincher - it's that it wasn't done well. It is very, very boring. it is slow. It is stupid. It's insults the intelligence of anyone above a 5fth grade reading level. Inshort, it is not a well made film. Even if it had been bright and clean and fun, The quality of the dialogue, acting and effects were laughable. Having comic accurate data, in today's CBM rich environment is just not enough anymore. To shoot some green screen flying sequences, isn't impressive. Superman needed to impress. Even Singer knew this. Snyder is trapped in 90's.

Brass Tax, I’ve mentioned before that I’d written a huge yearend thesis on “Superman”. I read Niche, researched Indian, Roman, Egyptian and Greek myths, Easter Island to the Inuit tribes, searching for all incarnations of the übermensch.

Thing is, at the age of 21, I also thought “being Superman" would absolutely mean you’d be feared, and hated…and in turn you yourself would be something akin to Dr. Manhattan due to your enormous power. As a god, you’d find it difficult to relate to others ... all the tropes we've read or heard before.

Anyway, at the edge of adulthood - I agreed with that, all of it.

It's still true, that people are fearful, and close minded; selfish and hateful. I agree that humans have a huge issue with trust. We live in a world that screams the horrors of humanity in our face everyday, with constant vigilance over the food we buy, that might actually make us sick; the water in the tap that might harm our kids; the rainbow of bias peppered through the news networks, our social presence/instagram/optics to our "followers", lying politicians, greedy corporations, on and on and on…a cacophony of worry and stress...

But Superman? He’s supposed to make things okay. Not later, when he learns who he is, or when he get's around to it, rigt now, in the next two hours I've found in my day to try and escape reality. He shouldn't be struggling with the same things as I am, 'cause that’s just a bit too much reality for the metaphor.

This is a magic man. He can fly. He’s invulnerable, he’s basically what you need him to be, when you need him. He’s the thing that destroys the darkness, without becoming darkness. You should feel the hope, not wait for him to point at himself and clumsily spell it out. That's just lazy film making.
The first rule is show it don't say it. First rule.

Your reading of him as having problems with government and military etc..well, Superman fights for the people. He’s our escapist fantasy, because he is the best of us. We want to be that perfect and good - or at least, we’re supposed to. That's how I read him. This character is the solution, not yet another problem.

He’s not an alien invader, because he’s not meant to be taken as a literal alien -man! -he’s mythical, he’s alien as in he’s more than human. Yeah, he's from Krypton, but it might as well be never never land. (big wink..big...)

Yes there are comics in which they play what if, and there are comics that explore the darker side - because it’s fun to play the opposite number game, but you said it yourself - Every thinks of Superman as Sunshine…

And in my 20’s I was right there with all of you, - Superman should be more muscular, more bad a$$, tougher, more severe - with his little finger he could...

yadda yadda yadda...

But these days? Man, we sure as hell could use a Superman…a guy with no real agenda, a guy we could trust. Some one to swoop in, and literally/figuratively save the damn day. And because that is the appeal of the character, so it's a given that the tone actually matters.

Yes, he can struggle along the way, but the struggles shouldn’t be dark psychological problems… it’s really not the damned point of a hero in primary colors who can fly. That isn’t to say the character couldn't hypothetically endure some mental anguish, etc, but he isn't defined by them, the way some long eared moppy grumpy gussies are.

I’m not advocating for a 2 dimensional character - I’m saying, if the “S” that stands for hope seemingly has none, and can’t fix the problems without massive disasters, then the idea of Superman falls apart, he becomes too human and ordinary. Superman, is not just a version of Ubermensch, or the ultra man, but also above, both literally (flying) and figuratively (beyond the grasp) of man. He is more than we are -while simultaneous an example of what we could strive to become.

All of this - you know ALL of this. which begs the question, why are you so in love with the idea of the world rejecting hope?

Siegel didn’t dream up a hero who would fail to save his father from dying. Superman was the invisible friend he wished had been around to stop the bullet/heart attack. With Superman, Siegel could turn back the clock and make it all okay. That was the entire point. Somebody who would save his dad, because losing your father is one of the worst things that can happen to a kid. The helpless feeling - if only there was someone who could fix it. This is why he resonates with so many people. He is untapped potential hidden in all of us, who answers to no one, rights wrongs and most importantly faster than a speeding bullet, fast enough maybe, to even change the past.

Donner's film underscores that father-son relationship in a way that Snyder overlooked. His quiet nod to Siegel with the inclusion of the Jonathan Kent heart attack is the biggest easter egg you could possibly hide. It echoes back before DC had even heard the name Superman. I could go deeper, but I think for now that's enough.

Bottom line, MOS isn't any more "Superman" than Donner's Superman. I wouldn't even argue it's a very good version of Bryne's world, but we can debate that another time.

[Leo656]

In brief, for what has to be the hundreth time:

It's fine that you prefer something lighter and more fantastical. Lots of other people just as well like something more realistic and down to Earth. Whether or not the Superman character should be "played that straight" is simply a matter of taste and opinion.

Face facts: If a guy showed up tomorrow, who could fly, shoot fire from his eyes, and crack the planet in half, the world would NOT react the way they did in the Donner films, the world would react the way they did in MoS. That's reality, and that alone gives them the right to take that approach in telling the story. Again, you can argue all day long that Superman, as a character, should be "greater" than or "above" all that, that we shouldn't bother with "reality" and the stories he's in shouldn't waste time dealing with the consequences of his actions, or exactly how complicated his very existence suddenly makes everything for everyone, but that's your hang-up.

He SHOULD have to prove himself a hero first. It's not about "rejecting hope", it's about "Maybe we should actually be sure someone deserves that amount of faith and trust before we just declare them our savior because they come from the sky." That's a really inarguable point. The world should NOT just bow down and accept him because he's "magic", until they see for themselves that he has their best interest at heart. A being with that level of power is frightening, and we the audience only know he's a "Good Guy" because WE know how the story turns out. To the people living in this world, all they know is that suddenly there's a demigod in their midst and he has the power to potentially do a lot of damage if he felt like it. He's not going to be that symbol of hope until he earns it. Well, that's how it usually goes, in most versions of the story. Not the Donner one, but most versions. It's all perfectly fine and logical. And frankly, I personally enjoy seeing heroes grow into being heroes, rather than arrive all "Perfect" and infallible right out of the box. The former is realistic, the latter isn't. And I prefer a little reality in my stories. Even about guys who can fly. Sorry, hopefully we can just agree to disagree on that. I get it, you think lighter is better and you're not a huge fan of comic books. You're looking at the whole thing more symbolically, some of us are looking at the story as if it were actually happening in real life, and how the characters in these situations would actually behave. Opinions. Quit shouting at people.

There's more, but this is all long and ridiculous enough for one day. To summarize, there's more than one "Right" way to tell this story, regardless of how you personally feel about it. In the 70s, they made Superman as a fantasy-adventure movie. Now, they're doing Superman as an action-adventure movie with a heavy bit of sci-fi. Gee, I'm perfectly fine either way because I like all those things. Those are both perfectly valid ways to tell the story, and both are exactly the kind of movie they should be for the version of the story they're individually trying to tell.

And in case it doesn't come through, I do like a lot of what's in the Reeve movies. It's not like I hate them. As a self-contained story that tells a viewer everything essential they'd need to know about the very basic mythology, the first movie is pretty hard to ever beat. BUT, they never fully satisfied me, and for all the things they did right there's still a ton of things wrong, big and small, with each and every one of them. It's never been "my version", even though I always loved them for what they are, and Reeve himself did a great job with the increasingly insipid material he was given, but they're in no way sacrosanct and that's a huge reason why I'm fine with a more modern and completely different approach. Old stuff is fine. New stuff is also fine. People need to relax, for f*ck's sake.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Which is funny, because a buddy of mine who's also a huge Superman fan said the same thing- didn't bother to see MoS because he "heard from people" that it was bad. When pretty much the biggest "complaint" anyone has about a movie is, "It was too different from something someone did 40 years ago", that's pretty silly.

So, again, once in a while it pays not to let the internet write all your opinions for you. Everybody gets their own, but it weighs a little more when it's really your own.

The theme of Superman not being a sunshine-y "symbol of hope" or "everyone's favorite Good Guy" right out of the box. This is controversial for some reason, and I'm not sure why. Starting all the way back in Action Comics #1, Superman was an adventurer and a do-gooder, but he was by NO means the "Shining Knight" character we all think about when we generally think of Superman. He was aggressive, arrogant, careless with his powers, recklessly caused a lot of property damage, and was considered equally to be a hero or a public menace depending on which character was talking about him. While he was on the side of good he wasn't on particularly good terms with the government, the military, or the police. THAT character evolved over several years through several events to become the more straightforward, purely heroic character. Not everyone jumped on the Superman Bandwagon just because the guy could fly. People thought he was dangerous. Not everyone trusted him right away.

Meanwhile, I'll further point out that "Tone" is largely a matter of personal taste, and wishing a movie had a different tone is more a matter of opinion and hardly reflects upon the quality of the film itself.

No, that wasn't what I meant at all. I SAW Returns, and didn't like it- too dark, gloomy, and Lex and the kid and practically everything in it just felt WRONG for a Supes film. Especially that whole ending with the giant Kryptonian rock or whatever; I just didn't like it. When I saw the trailers for MoS, I sighed and decided (along with the word-of-mouth when it came out) that it wasn't for me- more of the same of what I already KNEW I didn't like in the previous film! And you've since confirmed all of what I'd heard and seen in the trailers as being not for me. That's all I was saying. And it's not because it's "different", it's more a case of this feels more like it belongs in Batman's world than Superman's. Combining the two, but only taking the tone of ONE, is exactly the wrong way to go, here, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

(1st, Just want to point out that Donner had Zod arrive on earth, obviously. Donner had Zod try to rule earth. Zod succeeds. maybe you can help me understand why you think Snyder did it better.

Obviously we both know the 78 films front to back, the parts your claiming were important in MOS, also took place in Donners version. One of the main points in Superman 78 that I love, is that Superman's arrogance, through 1 and 2, is actually the cause of most of his problems, just like he often is in the comics. It’s one of the most important tenants of Superman (to me), that he pays for his hubris time and again. I'm also a huge fan of the time travel at the end of The Donner cut (where it belongs)

So, let’s get this straight- you’re eschewing Donner films as fairy tales, because they don’t match up with your preferred version, which is the Bryne comic, because you think that Superman would be feared and not loved? Is that the jist?

So, Superman wasn’t the definitive Superman until 1986, because Superman wouldn’t be universally loved because people in real life would be freaked out? Superman is only about an alien invasion? But it's okay, because eventually he'll earn our trust?

Jesus...I think that series exists - dealing with fear of super powered people... I think it was called X-men. They made a few movies too, If I recall...

The film we're discussing, is a crappy, boring slog. It's in love with a singular idea "In real life, Superman would be a scary thing". But the film I watched, couldn't compel me to care. I'm not the only one. Trust me, it's not that we have a big problem with dark stories, it's that it wasn't done well. It is very, very boring. it is slow. It is stupid. It's insults the intelligence of anyone above a 5fth grade reading level. In short, it is not a well made film. Even if it had been bright and clean and fun, The quality of the dialogue, acting and effects were laughable. Having comic accurate data, in today's CBM rich environment is just not enough anymore. Even Singer knew this.

Brass Tax, I’ve mentioned before that I’d written a huge yearend thesis on “Superman”. I read Niche, researched Indian, Roman, Egyptian and Greek myths, Easter Island to the Inuit tribes, searching for all incarnations of the übermensch.

Thing is, at the age of 21, I also thought “being Superman" would absolutely mean you’d be feared, and hated…and in turn you yourself would be something akin to Dr. Manhattan due to your enormous power. As a god, you’d find it difficult to relate to others ... all the tropes we've read or heard before.

It's still true, that people are fearful, and close minded; selfish and hateful. I agree that humans have a huge issue with trust. We live in a world that screams the horrors of humanity in our face everyday, with constant vigilance.… a cacophony of worry and stress...

But Superman? He’s supposed to make things okay. Not later, when he learns who he is, or when he get's around to it, rigt now, in the next two hours I've found in my day to try and escape reality. He shouldn't be struggling with the same things as I am, 'cause that’s just a bit too much reality for the metaphor.

This is a magic man. He can fly. He’s invulnerable, he’s basically what you need him to be, when you need him. He’s the thing that destroys the darkness, without becoming darkness. You should feel the hope, not wait for him to point at himself and clumsily spell it out.

Your reading of him as having problems with government and military etc..well, Superman fights for the people. He is the best of us. We want to be that perfect and good- or at least, we’re supposed to. That's how I read him. This character is the solution, not yet another problem.

He’s not an alien invader, because he’s not meant to be taken as a literal alien -man! -he’s mythical, he’s alien as in he’s more than human.... But you said it yourself - Every thinks of Superman as Sunshine…

But these days? Man, we sure as hell could use a Superman…a guy with no real agenda, a guy we could trust. Some one to swoop in, and literally/figuratively save the damn day. And because that is the appeal of the character, so it's a given that the tone actually matters.

Yes, he can struggle along the way, but the struggles shouldn’t be dark psychological problems… it’s really not the damned point of a hero in primary colors who can fly.

I’m saying, if the “S” that stands for hope seemingly has none, and can’t fix the problems without massive disasters, then the idea of Superman falls apart, he becomes too human and ordinary. Superman, is not just a version of Ubermensch, or the ultra man, but also above, both literally (flying) and figuratively (beyond the grasp) of man. He is more than we are- while simultaneous an example of what we could strive to become.

All of this- you know ALL of this. which begs the question, why are you so in love with the idea of the world rejecting hope?

Siegel didn’t dream up a hero who would fail to save his father from dying. Superman was the invisible friend he wished had been around to stop the bullet/heart attack. With Superman, Siegel could turn back the clock and make it all okay. That was the entire point. Somebody who would save his dad, because losing your father is one of the worst things that can happen to a kid. The helpless feeling- if only there was someone who could fix it. This is why he resonates with so many people. He is untapped potential hidden in all of us, who answers to no one, rights wrongs and most importantly faster than a speeding bullet, fast enough maybe, to even change the past.

Donner's film underscores that father-son relationship in a way that Snyder overlooked. His quiet nod to Siegel with the inclusion of the Jonathan Kent heart attack is the biggest easter egg you could possibly hide. It echoes back before DC had even heard the name Superman.

This is why I am in agreement with you, man. It's exactly how Superman was all through my childhood, and much of what came before. He's the ultimate "savior", and even the films state (in Jor-El's narration) that's Kal-El's true "purpose"- to lead/save Earth and humanity from the mistakes of Krypton. I've always seen that as his reason for being, and what made him so iconic and such a great hero. You just said it far better than I could, with my limited knowledge of him.

But EVERY Superman comic I've ever picked up, that I enjoyed, was in that vein. My favorite Supes book? "Superman: Man For All Seasons". I also read the Death of, book, and THAT was the beloved hero that I knew, and who he SHOULD be. When he "died" (and I've watched the animated movie version of it as well, and loved it, too) everyone mourned him as if he'd been Elvis. He was THAT loved. I don't like the idea that he'd be hated so much for just existing, no matter HOW much more "realistic" it might be. That's territory for an X-Men story, if it's anything. Nice job pointing that out.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Leo, I get that you're well-versed in the comics and other media, but you're in the minority on how he's viewed (or should/would be) and MOST people are going to see him and go "Who is this guy? Superman's is supposed to be the HERO!" Though I think there's some merit to Cubed's statement that a lot of Bat-fans will just want to see him punching the snot out of Clark, so there's that, too. However, I think 42 said it best about how this version is really just a reflection of our ultra-cynical, untrusting times, where people are paranoid about every d@mn thing. Honestly, in this day, we NEED that other "sunny" Superman more than we need some angsty, emotionally conflicted, "dark" version. We need the beacon of hope, not "Batman 2.0". We don't need TWO dark broody heroes in the movie, we need the dark AND the light.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

The world is what it is. Superman has always been a reflection of our values as a society, in every iteration.

The current reflection is what it is; fearful, hostile and angry.

Wow, that's a very insightful point you've made. I never made that connection.

And thinking about it, seeing two broody dark guys fight each other IS a step down from what we could otherwise be getting.

I'm not a Superman fan at all, and I prefer my Batman completely divorced from aliens and gods. Down-to-earth, street-level vigilante with an extended family of Robins and Batgirls fighting a losing war of attrition against the crazies of Arkham Asylum and a decaying twisted city called Gotham itself.

But if this movie will give me Wonder Woman and "A Death in the Family", I'm mostly all for it.

Just PLEASE... don't lump all of the Robins into one "Dick Grayson" character for the sake of non-comic-reading fans who come to see the movie. Give me Jason Todd, Dick Grayson, Tim Drake, AND that little shite Damian, not just one "all-in-one" Robin.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Leo656

In brief, for what has to be the hundreth time:

It's fine that you prefer something lighter and more fantastical.

Jesus man...I'm for a good movie. I'm for good film making. Dark is fine, but it needs to be executed well. You can have reality in a film without boring the audience, because at every turn you point out how un real your reality is. I'm not shouting, I'm just being clear. If Snyder or Nolan want reality, they need to fact check their scripts, for glaring errors in logic and physics.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Face facts: If a guy showed up tomorrow, who could fly, shoot fire from his eyes, and crack the planet in half, the world would NOT react the way they did in the Donner films, the world would react the way they did in MoS. That's reality, and that alone gives them the right to take that approach in telling the story. Again, you can argue all day long that Superman, as a character, should be "greater" than or "above" all that, that we shouldn't bother with "reality" and the stories he's in shouldn't waste time dealing with the consequences of his actions, or exactly how complicated his very existence suddenly makes everything for everyone, but that's your hang-up.

My Hang up? Lol, sure, you can play Superman as reality. What a novel approach. Next we can have Barney the dinosaur as a freaky purple T-rex, and Kermit the frog as an bonafide amphibian. In Real life Barney wouldn't sing songs, he'd eat you, and Kermit's intrets in Ms Piggy wouldn't end well. If you Play the reality game to it's logical conclusion, it's no longer interesting, because a flying man isn't realistic, and the world engine isn't either. It's all psedo science and macguffins. So wanting a realistic Superman is actually your hang up, which is fine, and I get it, but this entire blow out was all about how I don't "get" Superman, as if I was missing some huge secret. Turns out, it was just your preference for setting Supes in the real world driving the argument - which I'm totally okay with, but again, doing it well is another matter.

Originally Posted by Leo656

A being with that level of power is frightening, and we the audience only know he's a "Good Guy" because WE know how the story turns out. To the people living in this world, all they know is that suddenly there's a demigod in their midst and he has the power to potentially do a lot of damage if he felt like it.

Again, which is why Donner has him catch a helicopter and save a woman mid air, then later rescue a kitten out of the tree - the pet the dog moment - which works really well, you must admit. When he arrives, he's a rock star, not a scary alien. If the Helicopter scene happened today, it wouldn't be a "fear" it would be a bunch of people trying to explain how he pulled it of - that it was a publicity stunt, or a social media campaign - "didn't you se the wires?" "it was all green screen man!" "was that a commercial for xbox?" etc. Conspiracy nuts would totally go to aliens right away, and people would mock them as usual.
Somebody would try to make a buck off him - or begin a crusade against him, which I think is what Luthor will do in BvS - but still, in reality, Superman wouldn't last much more than 2 news cycles. We just found Water on Mars, and people already don't care. Scientific research may have found the first evidence of actual alien life on earth - honest to goodness aliens - creatures so different from us genetically and morphologically that they may not actually have originated on Earth. You'd think that would b headline stealing news right? Nope, 'cause cephalopods aren't all that interesting to humans. "Octopus might be aliens? panspermia? for real? ok. neat-o."

Originally Posted by Leo656

I get it, you think lighter is better and you're not a huge fan of comic books. You're looking at the whole thing more symbolically, some of us are looking at the story as if it were actually happening in real life, and how the characters in these situations would actually behave.

Dude, I love comics. I really do. But they really are a different medium. You can do so many things in a comic that is hard to do on the screen - and vice versa. It's true though, as Duckie pointed out, if we're looking for Superman, the guy most of us think of - Superman for All Seasons, for me, is pretty great. All star Superman is another. I love the bravado of the newspaper strips, with Superman being all dickish to Lois, and Lois being b*tchy as a result. Some of the animated films are fun. I love more than the movie - I'd like to see more of that. I also love the scene in Elite Squad when Superman goes berserk. It's done really well, and it echo's the "minute steak" scene in S2 (not that they are linked or it's derrived from S2 - just that even being an ass, it still feels like Superman.)



seriously though, you can't continue to say MOS is more like the comics...you really can't, cause that's simply not true (unless we get a huge dose of super-narration throughout BvS, then maybe ) You can say this is more like Byne's Superman run, I guess, but even that, I'm feeling is a bit of a stretch. I'll agree he is a millennial Superman, and mark my words - when you go to the theater on opening day, or whatever - I'd put the odds at 20 to 1 that the first punch Affleck lands on Cavil is met with cheering and possibly applause.

They're really excited to tear down Superman - the embodiment of patriarchy, compliance, servitude, and white male privilege.

You want to know what Superman in reality would be, it would be him against us.

[Leo656]

Sigh. I'm glad we all unanimously agree there's only one way to do things.

That's the last I have to say about any of this until March. Someone else can post updates, photos, news, and whatever else about the movie, for the majority of people who actually are looking forward to it. I'm sick and f*cking tired of people being so f*cking myopic when they don't even have the slightest f*cking idea what they're talking about to begin with. And you don't. I swear to f*cking Christ, you don't, and I've wasted too much time already going over it with you. You know a lot about one movie series, you know a lot about mythology and symbolism and all that jazz, but frankly, I don't give a f*ck in the end, because whether you like it or not, there's more than one f*cking way to tell stories with the character and they've been doing it like that for 80 f*cking years. The character of Superman is SO much bigger than the tiny little box you put him in. It's sad. It's sad that you don't think the stories can or should be any "bigger" or more "dramatic" or have actual consequences. Frankly, in my honest opinion, and the opinion of several other people who are openly avoiding talking about the movie just because of this kind of sh*t, your view on the character is far too narrow for you to actually call yourself an "expert" on it, when you openly disregard about 90% of the greater mythology as tripe, and only your precious Reeve films have any merit, the only valid interpretation, the one and only way to tell the story because you say so. That honestly takes some brass balls, my friend.

If I watched f*cking X-Men, and read like 5 comic books based on them, and maybe watched a couple episodes of a cartoon show... I wouldn't have the audacity to declare myself a f*cking expert on the subject and go around screaming at everyone else that they're wrong, because I liked one of those things and was ambivalent about the rest. That's my position.

I'm not the only one who feels this way. I'm in no way a "minority", based on the PMs I get from people who feel the same exact way on the subject and just don't have the energy to waste doing this d*ck-waving sh*t in public. Well, someone else can have a turn. I might actually start posting on Superman Homepage again instead, where people actually look forward to things and aren't so closed-minded. Might be some people who actually want to have a conversation instead of just bitch about every goddamn thing. Sometimes people even change their minds or admit they're wrong once in a while. Night and day from this f*cking sh*thole.

Later.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Man, no one is saying it's the only way to do it, and I'M certainly not claiming to be any kind of expert on Superman or DC in general (gods know I avoid DC for just this reason) but honestly it's just AN OPINION, and just as YOU have yours, we have our own ideas about what he should be. And it's not "Batman lite". Everything since Returns (or maybe Batman Begins, it's up in the air, really) has been so dark and gritty and full of realism and consequenses, that it just sucks all the fun and meaning out of the character. He's a literal frigging "savior", fer Chrissakes! You've even said it yourself! Yet in the new movies, that "best of us" savior is nowhere to be found, instead we get an emo angsty mess who doesn't really even know who he is anymore. How are we (as an audience) or the people in that universe supposed to have hope and faith in the character when the movie itself doesn't portray him in that light? The tone and direction are fine for a Batman film, but we don't need "dark and darker", we need "light and dark"- they are supposed to contrast each other, not be near duplicates tonally or emotionally. Clark is the light to Bruce's darkness. Always has been. Just as Metropolis is NYC day to Gotham's NYC night.

[Leo656]

I swear to f*cking Christ, like 8 people see it that way. "Mopey" and "Angsty". I'm pretty sure I spend a lot more time talking to people who would identify as Superman fans than most of you, and you'd be shocked how overblown that sh*t is outside of the f*cking stupid internet, how few people actually see it that way. People who DO read the comics are used to him having to pay his f*cking dues because he always does. WHY is this such a f*cking problem?! There's nothing wrong with seeing the Greatest Hero of All Time learn how to BE that f*cking guy. That doesn't make it "dark" and "mopey", that's your own projection. That's some people going, "Well, TO ME it's too dark." Well, again, that's an individual thing, and it's honestly not how most people feel. It's ONLY the feeling of people who are romantically in love with the Reeve films and think there's only one way to do Superman stories.

It's just a different way to tell the story. For the millionth time. And I'm done. People who have my email can have at it if they want to, but I rarely check it, so good luck. Later.

[Slade]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Yes, but people want to see Batman vs. Superman because they're rooting for Batman to win. Batman is God and Batman can do anything. People worship the ground Batman stands on.

I haven't even read the rest of the thread, though I will, but got damn son, chill the f*ck out with this. Are you seriously one of those kind people?

[Commenter 42]

Hunh.

Well okay then man. Could have sworn I said different in my last post - but what eves. You're actually angry? At me? I don't think I said anything too incendiary in my last post, but it's nice to know your bitching about me with the other guys in PM's.

Well okay then. See ya round, or something.

[Leo656]

To clarify because as a friend you deserve a response:

There are more than a few people here who do tell me they'd rather talk about the movie and look forward to it, than either be condescended to and scolded for liking it OR have to wade through pages of debates and flat-out lecturing about what is and isn't "correct Superman storytelling procedure". But no, your name, or anyone's name specifically, hasn't come up in any of those conversations.

It doesn't take much to figure out why those people don't want to talk more, though. It's absolutely why I myself only post half the stuff I find about the movie. I find stuff every day, and I'd share a lot more of it, but every single time, like clockwork, one new article or one new picture turns into three pages of you, specifically, telling everyone everything is terrible, and insisting so even after they've acknowledged you and moved on.

I know I've been just as guilty of it regarding other things; I've personally been trying to be better about it.

But as far as this specific thread is concerned, nobody likes it and I don't want to enable it anymore. I, personally, think it's odd that someone who actually likes the thing that's being discussed should be the one to walk away, but like I said, there's really no point in contributing anything further to it. Meanwhile, if you really want to stomp around in here and break everyone's toys every time you hear them having a good time, be my guest. You'll get no interference from me going forward, so whenever anyone gets excited about a picture or a trailer or a spoiler about the movie, by all means, tell them how stupid they are and make sure to go heavy on the details, just to be sure they "Get It". I think it's silly and selfish, and it murders conversation when people are afraid to even talk, but if it makes you feel better, rock on.

And if it's not just about getting your rocks off by insistently telling people they're wrong (even when they're not), then maybe just let them like what they like and let them talk about it. Just an idea.

Less about you specifically. More about, "this is what passes for 'conversation' in this sh*tbox of a forum anymore", and it's tiresome. You and I both know this whole place sucks. Remember? Last week you had enough, this week I had enough. But I've been here longer, and I had enough way, way before you had enough. You can have it.

You're a smart guy, buddy, and I like you. Honest. But, you might want to at the very least consider , that the most hated guy on the entire forum is politely telling you that your condescending attitude is a little bit overbearing to more than a handful of people who might otherwise have more to say, and that your outbursts and speeches are strangling conversation rather than enriching it.

You don't have to consider it, but it's out there. Don't say I never gave ya nothin'.

[Turo602]

Gotta agree with Leo. I have my own sh*t going on right now so I couldn't get around to contributing to this sh*tstorm. But honestly, this is tiring. This movie is such a big deal for lots of people and rather than sharing the excitement we have to constantly see Commenter42's ignorant and delusional bitching about it with his false superior act. There's nothing wrong with hating Man of Steel and disliking this movie. Anyone is free to share their disdain for anything but staying around to tell everyone they're wrong for appreciating something for not matching their preference is annoying. I mean, I hate the new TMNT movie to no end yet I don't hang around those threads just to talk sh*t and call everyone out. It's not worth it.

[plastroncafe]

The temptation to copy/paste the last couple of posts in this thread to the Ghostbusters Movie Thread is strong. OH SO STRONG.

But instead I will add this, far more productive IMHO, vid instead:

[Commenter 42]

Ya'll will have to try harder, I got plenty thick enough skin.

Seriously Leo - the last two comments from those two clowns and you wonder why I dress people down. "Superior attitude" - coming from Mr. King of Kings. Lol. Easy buddy, easy.

It's nice of you to call me out for doing precisely the same damned thing you've done here for as long as I've been on the board. You tell people their opinion is wrong, you shout people down when you don't agree - all of it. You just told some one that you're sick of everyone getting a blue ribbon for showing up, and the SWJ b*llshit etc.

And now I get a knife in the ribs to the hilt, telling me I'm breaking peoples toys, and I'm a big meanie. You know I'm not that guy - I'm just ticked off, I know you understand - but for some reason, you've vilified me, instead of backing me up, the way I've done for you more than once.

It's pretty clear I started out slamming just the stupid movie. People went and got personal, so I retaliated. But hating what they're doing to Superman doesn't mean I'm wrong. Keep telling me I'm wrong, you're prolonging the fight, not me. You don't actually know me man, and all of this shows me I really don't know you. I'm not here to piss on the party; I'm here to try and get why we disagree, and why the kids are so hyped for this.

The discussion got heated, but for me it was all in good fun - who knows more about big blue, yadda, yadda, you're wrong no you are, all taht stuff - I wasn't taking any of it seriously - because I never really do.

I DO take exception when people are dicks - and I give back. Plastron routinely crusades against men in general, and it drives me bloody mental - so I say something. It's all well and good if she's got beef with men in general - but I'm
really not her enemy - she just assumes I am, 'cause I've got a swinging pair.

Turo's just taking pot shots - so I don't respect anything he has to say.

You wanna tuck tail and run, go for it man, but you're being a bit childish, for real. I get it - you're tired of me hating, so okay, I'll calm it down, but the slights and insults from the others turned it nasty, not me. you want to make a no speech rule? great, this is the last lengthy post in this thread from me.

I like reading you're posts, and actual still think you're a good dude, smart, funny, all that jazz, but this blow up threw me some, but you leaving the board makes no sense.


My vote? You stick around, and we get back to having a few laughs.
I even went and bought a few back issues of Superman today, just to educate myself on the stuff i apparently don't know.

That's an olive branch man. Your move.

[plastroncafe]

You sweet sweet summer child, you.
Bless.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

You guys are trading punches harder than Supes and Bats ever will next year...