MugiwaraCole
Member
That being the primary emotion you see instead of genuine sorrow for the lives lost around him, and guilt that he failed to save them, is a problem.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Framing Snyder's Superman - Why people think he doesn't care
- Thread starter Veelk
- Start date
That being the primary emotion you see instead of genuine sorrow for the lives lost around him, and guilt that he failed to save them, is a problem.
Takamura-San
Member
A lot of it comes down to Snyder's lack of awareness and subtlety when it comes to the optics of the situations Superman is in.
Like, Superman, I'm glad you're fine, but you could have just stopped that truck. Now that building is ruined. Do you not care about collateral damage??
Yeah Superman, that guy was a huge scummy douchebag but geez, that comes off more as anger issues than being chivilrous. I'm not sure destroying a man's livelihood is exactly fair punishment.
That scene always came off as bad for me because, well, what is he trying to say? Is he showing off? Is he angry and went too far? Either way it actually comes across more disturbed than heroic.
It's more sight gag and comeuppance than anything, I get it, but it has really unfortunate implications.
Overall, Snyder's Superman comes off as a genuinely unstable person. I wouldn't, and don't, trust him.
Not enough was done to make him truely heroic. He's more a force of nature with questionable morality.
Which to me, is far more interesting than him being a goody boy scout.
Surprised you didn't include Reeves smiling away as debris falls to the ground instead of telling people to move their ass in Superman 2. But I see the point you're making when you're comparing a seasoned soldier with rank delegating duties to people who should kinda know who one of the most decorated American soldiers is, to a guy on the first day on his job who may not totally wanna give the game away to genocidal soldiers that he cares for the local population unlike Cap who is dealing with mindless cannon fodder. But anyway to your point:
I think people's previous perceptions of Superman have coloured how people view the character. Look at how often a complaint Superman not smiling is. It's why you have people jizzing over the dude in Supergirl because he apparently smiles so much even though(full disclosure I haven't watched Supergirl yet) from what I have heard he doesn't get put through many trials and tribulations. Hell Cap wasn't a bundle of joy when the couldn't save the people in the car in AoU; Reeves was so angry when Lois died he screamed and span so fast he traveled back in time and he felt a bit mopey when he wasn't allowed to play football.
In the Snyder films of the top of my head he is bullied as a kid, has random people pick a fight with him, criticised for saving people, forced to watch his father die because his father though cynical was principled, blamed for collateral damage that was 99% the other guy, forced to kill and end his connection to his home world, framed for causing an international incident, blamed for a guy being driven to suicide, has a teched out fascist want to kill him because he doesn't trust him cos he's so damn super, oh and dies cause the figurative troll that caused half the crazy shit that happened to him created a literal troll to kill him.
Also. I have said this before, people may have depictions in their head that don't truly exist. Superman killed in cold blood during the Donner films. Jonathan Kent was a cynical bastard who feared his son would be a lab rat for the govt in those movies too. Why people insist that Johnathan Kent was a bundle of hope and optimism may be because they are basing what they are seeing on one to many episodes of Lois and Clark, possibly the comic, or nostalgia. Listen to the Smodcast episode on MOS where Kevin Smith had to remind the die hard Superman fan that Superman killed in the Donner films, how he can empathise as a protective parent with Jonathan Kent etc
I am probably going of on a tangent but it's interesting to compare how Cap and Superman take criticism. Cap is presented with the Sokovia accords and says the safest hands are still the Avengers as the Avengers can't even present a united front and doesn't think it's worth signing. Superman when presented with criticism is not mopey, he's pensive. When he is presented with criticism by Lois, he knows he is innocent and initially rejects it. But when presented with more "evidence", he is pensive, reflective and he goes to the Senate hearing to defend himself. Why he is criticised for it by audiences whilst Cap is praised for ignoring criticism. I am not quite sure, tone I guess. But then again I am not sure why people can't understand why a regular bloke may not want to be worshiped like a God and the Mexico complaint confuses me
Finally: I find it weird OP is saying there is moodwhiplash with the murder of Zod in MOS, but you don't bring up Superman 2. Though to be fair it is played for laughs and a quippy postmortem one liner before another act of murder is played for laughs in the Donner films. Maybe cos coldblooded murder is played for laughs in those films makes them more consistent I guess.
I think people's previous perceptions of Superman have coloured how people view the character. Look at how often a complaint Superman not smiling is. It's why you have people jizzing over the dude in Supergirl because he apparently smiles so much even though(full disclosure I haven't watched Supergirl yet) from what I have heard he doesn't get put through many trials and tribulations. Hell Cap wasn't a bundle of joy when the couldn't save the people in the car in AoU; Reeves was so angry when Lois died he screamed and span so fast he traveled back in time and he felt a bit mopey when he wasn't allowed to play football.
In the Snyder films of the top of my head he is bullied as a kid, has random people pick a fight with him, criticised for saving people, forced to watch his father die because his father though cynical was principled, blamed for collateral damage that was 99% the other guy, forced to kill and end his connection to his home world, framed for causing an international incident, blamed for a guy being driven to suicide, has a teched out fascist want to kill him because he doesn't trust him cos he's so damn super, oh and dies cause the figurative troll that caused half the crazy shit that happened to him created a literal troll to kill him.
Also. I have said this before, people may have depictions in their head that don't truly exist. Superman killed in cold blood during the Donner films. Jonathan Kent was a cynical bastard who feared his son would be a lab rat for the govt in those movies too. Why people insist that Johnathan Kent was a bundle of hope and optimism may be because they are basing what they are seeing on one to many episodes of Lois and Clark, possibly the comic, or nostalgia. Listen to the Smodcast episode on MOS where Kevin Smith had to remind the die hard Superman fan that Superman killed in the Donner films, how he can empathise as a protective parent with Jonathan Kent etc
I am probably going of on a tangent but it's interesting to compare how Cap and Superman take criticism. Cap is presented with the Sokovia accords and says the safest hands are still the Avengers as the Avengers can't even present a united front and doesn't think it's worth signing. Superman when presented with criticism is not mopey, he's pensive. When he is presented with criticism by Lois, he knows he is innocent and initially rejects it. But when presented with more "evidence", he is pensive, reflective and he goes to the Senate hearing to defend himself. Why he is criticised for it by audiences whilst Cap is praised for ignoring criticism. I am not quite sure, tone I guess. But then again I am not sure why people can't understand why a regular bloke may not want to be worshiped like a God and the Mexico complaint confuses me
Finally: I find it weird OP is saying there is moodwhiplash with the murder of Zod in MOS, but you don't bring up Superman 2. Though to be fair it is played for laughs and a quippy postmortem one liner before another act of murder is played for laughs in the Donner films. Maybe cos coldblooded murder is played for laughs in those films makes them more consistent I guess.
Also just my opinion but I find the reeves and routh superman to be fake. By fake I mean putting in a stupid smile and conversing with the public. Superman is supposed to see some shit. Like arriving to an earthquake and seeing dozens of people already dead and saving the remaining etc. that's not a happy person. That should be a person with a stoic demeanor who can smile here and there but knows that he has to deal with life and death on a consent basis. I wouldn't wanna do that. I wouldn't be happy if I had to do that
Captain America isn't superman. He's not a god that has to zip around the world or fight super strong aliens. Cap is a soldier who is optimistic to a silly degree. Superman doesn't have time to reassure people to get to safety while facing down kryptonians. Get your butts inside
Captain America isn't superman. He's not a god that has to zip around the world or fight super strong aliens. Cap is a soldier who is optimistic to a silly degree. Superman doesn't have time to reassure people to get to safety while facing down kryptonians. Get your butts inside
I do mean them as flaws of the movies, but not flaws of the script. There is a consistent conflict between what the film depicts vs what events are literally happening. This happens occasionally in other movies, which is why I reference Lindsay's video on Transformers and depiction of Megan Fox. Megan Fox's character is the best in the franchise if you look at it from a raw writing perspective, but the film frames her otherwise.
Dash_Riprock
Member
So you want a sociopath instead of a hero. Cool, Snyder is your man then.
TissueBox
Member
It depends on whether you can empathize with Supey's angst.
Well that's kind of the nature of deconstructive fiction. Of course there are its detractors. And then there is also deconstruction done right and done badly.
Well that's kind of the nature of deconstructive fiction. Of course there are its detractors. And then there is also deconstruction done right and done badly.
Now I need a jpeg of Superman with a backwards hat and skateboard over his shoulder, "How do you do, fellow humans?"
Father_Brain
Banned
Snyder's Superman isn't outright amoral like some of the more over-the-top criticisms of BvS and MoS would have it, but he only cares about saving humanity in the abstract, as an obligation or burden imposed by his powers. Save for Lois and Martha, there's no indication that he cares about anyone he saves on an individual level, and that also applies in reverse; except for Lois, Martha, and (at the end of BvS) Batman, there's no indication that anyone respects, admires, is inspired by, or just plain likes him on any sort of human level. There are just people who worship him like a god and people who fear him like a god, and Snyder is far more interested in the latter.
It's not really meant to just be a deconstruction tho. It's a deconstruction that switches gears into being a reconstruction. At the end of MoS, Superman is a good ol' boy who saved the world and is now just a humble guy, doing his own thing, helping out where he can. And at the end of BvS, any ambiguiity about Superman's character is dispelled. He's a hero, with the nation that mourns his loss.
They deconstruct that superman would actually be rather super insecure about his status as a hero, but then don't...do anything with it.
Also, bleepey, at some point you're gonna have to face that your whataboutism regarding the DCEU just doesn't work as an actual argument.
A lot of it comes down to Snyder's lack of awareness and subtlety when it comes to the optics of the situations Superman is in.
Like, Superman, I'm glad you're fine, but you could have just stopped that truck. Now that building is ruined. Do you not care about collateral damage??
Ironically he was too sublte with why he'd dodge the tanker. Look what happened earlier in the movie when just a train was thrown as him
https://youtu.be/xqlaXylsMwQ
Would premeditated violence like the diner scene in the Donner films be better compared to something done the heat of the moment? Serious question.
I mean he's superman. For example, I drop eggs on the ground and they break. Imnnot devastated but I'm pissed that I'm gonna be yelled at. It's my job to not drop eggs. But it happened. I'm perturbed but not sad. He is a foreign alien god. People are just eggs to him
dragonyeuw
Member
Your breakdown of Captain America and Supes more or less hits the nail on the head. The way how Chris Evans plays Cap, and how the character is written, inspires hope in a way Cavil's Superman does not. Yes, there are scenes of him saving people but it's all portrayed in a way like it's a burden to him. Also, and this may be less 'realistic', but you can't help the comparison: Reeve's Superman pretty much hit the ground running, displaying more poise, thought and confidence in his actions than Cavil. Again, that's Snyder's vision for how he wanted to portray this version of Superman upon donning the cape, but he hasn't given the character a chance to breath. We needed at least another movie between MOS and BvS.
Fast forward to BvS and he already looks like he's had enough of the job. Granted, Snyder puts him in a world that Reeve's Superman didn't face, whereas Reeve's Supes was more or less universally revered and accepted, versus the mixed reaction Cavil's Supes gets( which based on real life is probably the more realistic take). But the effect it has on the character is to make him dour, doubtful and aloof. That's why it's hard to look at him as an inspiring figure, despite some familiar beats( like saving people) there's more to the character than merely saving people and that's lost in this translation. I wouldn't call myself the biggest Superman fan ( meaning I was a casual reader of the comics and I grew up in the 80's on Reeve's movies), but I think I have a general idea of what makes the character tick, and that hasn't been captured in Snyder's version. Frankly if *this* version of Superman came out in the 30's, I doubt he would have transcended that era much less become a pop culture icon 80 years and running.
And to be clear, while I don't think he exudes Evan's charisma I don't think the issue is necessarily Cavil. Actually, in the MOS scene when he's learning to fly there's a 'hopefulness' and some levity of him enjoying his powers.I had an 'Ahhh, THIS is Superman' moment there, but it doesn't really carry past that scene.
Fast forward to BvS and he already looks like he's had enough of the job. Granted, Snyder puts him in a world that Reeve's Superman didn't face, whereas Reeve's Supes was more or less universally revered and accepted, versus the mixed reaction Cavil's Supes gets( which based on real life is probably the more realistic take). But the effect it has on the character is to make him dour, doubtful and aloof. That's why it's hard to look at him as an inspiring figure, despite some familiar beats( like saving people) there's more to the character than merely saving people and that's lost in this translation. I wouldn't call myself the biggest Superman fan ( meaning I was a casual reader of the comics and I grew up in the 80's on Reeve's movies), but I think I have a general idea of what makes the character tick, and that hasn't been captured in Snyder's version. Frankly if *this* version of Superman came out in the 30's, I doubt he would have transcended that era much less become a pop culture icon 80 years and running.
And to be clear, while I don't think he exudes Evan's charisma I don't think the issue is necessarily Cavil. Actually, in the MOS scene when he's learning to fly there's a 'hopefulness' and some levity of him enjoying his powers.I had an 'Ahhh, THIS is Superman' moment there, but it doesn't really carry past that scene.
More_Badass
Member
I enjoy Man of Steel, but this is so true. What does it tell you about the movies intent and priorities that the first time we see him in costume isnt some moment of heroics or some acceptance of his decision to be a hero, but framed as a homecoming, destiny, acceptance of being an alien outsider and of a messianic destiny, with his father telling him how hell be more than a man, but a diety that humans will worship, fear, and aspire to be.
JonnyDBrit
Member
I feel like part of the thing here is that there's a missing piece in the transition, particularly for Man of Steel's ending. Something to make him feel it's worth it, however hard it may get.
...This is Black Adam's characterisation, not Superman's.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Problem is Snyder is the equivalent of a college freshman attempting to analyze and deconstruct Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Not only is he woefully unprepared, his attempts come off as unintentionally hilarious.
SuperStiltzkin
Member
Okay, so im supposed to lament that this unstable superpowered individual is dead and that the world is a worse place without him? Then Im supposed to celebrate his return? That arc only works if we buy him as a goody boy scout.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
The issue is with these textual examples ever since Man of Steel:
The issue is with the fundamentals of the characters vs. how Superman/Clark reacts to the world around him. This is why I've said multiple times that Superman treats his heroism as an obligation rather than something that is natural to him. Primarily because the writing is interested in portraying an extremely cynical situation where Superman is constantly questioning whether he's good or doing good, which isn't really a proper way to have him be "flawed" or human in the eyes of people. People who argue that "he doesn't have to be all smiles" are missing the point big time. It's not that he's smiling while he's doing his job because that is ridiculously superficial and facile. Rather, it's about whether he truly has the desire to do what he did without letting the cynicism of the world bring him down. Instead, this Superman is letting the world get into his head.
Think of it this way, remember in The Dark Knight when Batman lost Rachel to an explosion after getting trolled by the Joker? Bruce Wayne could've quit at any time and let the Joker win but he didn't. He pushed on until he finally was able to catch and hold him. It feels like this rendition of Superman would have quit immediately following the explosion. Personally, my issue is summed up by this perfect quote:
The issue is with the fundamentals of the characters vs. how Superman/Clark reacts to the world around him. This is why I've said multiple times that Superman treats his heroism as an obligation rather than something that is natural to him. Primarily because the writing is interested in portraying an extremely cynical situation where Superman is constantly questioning whether he's good or doing good, which isn't really a proper way to have him be "flawed" or human in the eyes of people. People who argue that "he doesn't have to be all smiles" are missing the point big time. It's not that he's smiling while he's doing his job because that is ridiculously superficial and facile. Rather, it's about whether he truly has the desire to do what he did without letting the cynicism of the world bring him down. Instead, this Superman is letting the world get into his head.
Think of it this way, remember in The Dark Knight when Batman lost Rachel to an explosion after getting trolled by the Joker? Bruce Wayne could've quit at any time and let the Joker win but he didn't. He pushed on until he finally was able to catch and hold him. It feels like this rendition of Superman would have quit immediately following the explosion. Personally, my issue is summed up by this perfect quote:
I really do think it's the dourness of Superman. It's honestly that he just never seems to be enjoying what he's doing.
Compare with Supergirl's Superman:
This one moment rings more true to the character of Superman for me than anything in the Snyder films. The slight smile on his face, the wink that seems to indicate to the people that things will be all right. That's what Superman is supposed to be, at least from my perspective.
Compare with Supergirl's Superman:
This one moment rings more true to the character of Superman for me than anything in the Snyder films. The slight smile on his face, the wink that seems to indicate to the people that things will be all right. That's what Superman is supposed to be, at least from my perspective.
That shit's legit. Like if you look it on paper, apart from the whole fighting Zodd in the middle of a heavily populated city thing and the weird terrorist undercover... thing, Snyder Superman is doing heroic stuff same as any other, but he just doesn't come across that way because of the way he's depicted. He looks and feels too much like the crux of his arrival is looking majestic and dour instead being there to help.
There is a very very very very long list of "Superman, except fucked up and 'interesting'" characters. Miracleman, Sentry, Plutonian, Hyperion, Invincible, original recipe Supreme, DC Ultraman, Injustice Superman, Nazi Superman, Commie Superman, Darkseid's Son Superman...
What's wrong with having one guy be the guy who's just nice? It's not difficult to make movies about nice guys. They made three Captain America movies already, 5 if you count the two Avengers flicks. It's like when they remake a game that has a lot of distinct identity and make it play like everything else; if you wanted to make something that different, why did you bother using the original's name?
There is a very very very very long list of "Superman, except fucked up and 'interesting'" characters. Miracleman, Sentry, Plutonian, Hyperion, Invincible, original recipe Supreme, DC Ultraman, Injustice Superman, Nazi Superman, Commie Superman, Darkseid's Son Superman...
What's wrong with having one guy be the guy who's just nice? It's not difficult to make movies about nice guys. They made three Captain America movies already, 5 if you count the two Avengers flicks. It's like when they remake a game that has a lot of distinct identity and make it play like everything else; if you wanted to make something that different, why did you bother using the original's name?
PixelatedBookake
Junior Member
That was actually a big gripe I had with the movie. At the beginning, Batman already hates Superman and wants to fight him. Lex didn't need to blow up the courtroom. People already didn't really trust Superman before that. Just get Batman the kryptonite and kidnap some of the people who would have been in the courtroom explosion. There. Batman will kill Superman. No Doomsday plan necessary.
Well then black Adam is a more realistic character for the snyderverse and probably how superman would generally be. Not a happy camper ala Reeves
yanipheonu
Member
Yeah pretty much. There's giving your hero flaws, and then there's making your hero not a hero.
I get more sociopath than hero from Snyderman.
You can let Superman be flawed, even destructive. But I need to know he's a hero, that he's a good person after everything.
Captain America shows he's extremely loyal and has a strong sense of justice. Wonder Woman is extremely forthright and caring, willing to take great lengths to help people.
Superman? He saves some people. Not entirely sure why. Cares about his mom I guess. He just kinda seems depressed and unstable.
That is literally the opposite of everything Superman's character has ever been. Holy shit how badly can you miss the point?
What do you think of him doing all of the above by trying to bring about change through non violent means. He's an investigative reporter and he is the only person who gives a shit about the crime wave in Gotham. He goes out of his way to try to bring about change through non violent means via the press but crime being endemic to Gotham is about as surprising as milk being white.
He asks the detractors of Batman what they think about him such as the widow and even the supporters like the black people in Gotham just to get a full picture about the Batman and fucking hell even asks the Batman to his face why he does what he does. I know I come across as the biggest Snyder-Stan on this board but inbetween the wastes of time debating bullshit about men in tights, I am seriously confused at the sheer number of times i see complaints for shit clearly explained or shown in the film.
A lot of it comes down to Snyder's lack of awareness and subtlety when it comes to the optics of the situations Superman is in.
Like, Superman, I'm glad you're fine, but you could have just stopped that truck. Now that building is ruined. Do you not care about collateral damage??
Yeah Superman, that guy was a huge scummy douchebag but geez, that comes off more as anger issues than being chivilrous. I'm not sure destroying a man's livelihood is exactly fair punishment.
That scene always came off as bad for me because, well, what is he trying to say? Is he showing off? Is he angry and went too far? Either way it actually comes across more disturbed than heroic.
It's more sight gag and comeuppance than anything, I get it, but it has really unfortunate implications.
Overall, Snyder's Superman comes off as a genuinely unstable person. I wouldn't, and don't, trust him.
Not enough was done to make him truely heroic. He's more a force of nature with questionable morality.
Very much all of this. The animated shows at least got this right. If Superman is all powerful, how do you make him interesting? By making him care about everybody and everything else around him that isn't as invulnerable as he is. I'm pretty sure there was at least one moment in an animated show where he stops that same scenario with a truck, and then whatever threw it hits him because Superman is distracted, who is then mocked for his kindness. There's NONE of that with Snyder's nonsense, because he feels that superheroes need to "grow up".
The truck scene is like something straight from a Reeves movie where Superman was headed down a wrong path for him. The problem is they've given no time to set up a "right path" for him before we're forced down Snyder's "vision." The bomb in the courthouse? Yeah, in any other work Superman would have flown that shit out of the courtroom, but doesn't because he doesn't fit Snyder's "vision". In any other work Superman isn't put in a position where he has to choose to kill someone to save someone else, but avoiding that situation wouldn't fit Snyder's "vision."
Basically, what I'm saying is Snyder is a hack.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Well if that's your expectation for what is 'realistic', I sorta get where you're coming from - particularly given the sort of people who hold the current reins of political power - but I do fundamentally disagree with it. At the very least, even if it's more 'realistic', it's not a good fit for this character in what is nominally presented as an archetypal (rather than elseworld ala Red Son) example.
I really do think it's the dourness of Superman. It's honestly that he just never seems to be enjoying what he's doing.
Compare with Supergirl's Superman:
This one moment rings more true to the character of Superman for me than anything in the Snyder films. The slight smile on his face, the wink that seems to indicate to the people that things will be all right. That's what Superman is supposed to be, at least from my perspective.
Well one, that Superman is an awful interpretation and it's very clear he's in his prime since he walks around and knows everyone including MM. The only thing he has going for him is smiling. His first conversation with MM is really absurd and out of character.
I'm perfectly fine if the plan for Snyder was to show Superman's growth through 3 films while Donner relegated his Superman to become Prime Superman in what, seconds? He walks into the Fortress and walks out and boom prime Superman.
It was covered in lead...
Realism and cynicism are not the same thing.
Superman's story is an inherently optimistic one, yes, because it operates under the assumption that you can be gifted with immense power, and if you are a decent person raised up right by good parents, you're not going to destroy the world just because you can or because it gets you things. Maybe you're just going to want to help.
Superman stories believe in the goodness of ordinary people, because when it comes down to it, Clark Kent is just an ordinary person who happens to be able to do amazing things.
"Optimistic" and "realistic" are not opposites, any more than "pessimism" and "realism" are synonyms.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
There's a gap between the script-- Superman wants to save people, is *compelled* to be a good guy even, even disobeying his father, even as it makes him an outcast (also asserted by the script)-- and how it's framed and shot. So we don't see Clark happy to be saving people, and we don't see him care, we just see him *do*. And further, in all the over the top destruction (what a horrible decision to make the damage so severe) him attempting to help people is often missed. And then there's that tone-deaf kiss at the end. And also, which we haven't even let the cement dry on "Clark is compelled to be a good guy, against some compelling reasons not to be" we push him past that and give him a no-win "Kill Zod or let innocents be killed" that doesn't play well because the movie hasn't stressed his no-kill stance before that.
So the basic beats are OK and he clearly does care, the movie muddles its own message with the visuals, the dilemma at the end, and the over-the-top destruction which overwhelms any nuanced take which the movie is already having a hard time selling.
So the basic beats are OK and he clearly does care, the movie muddles its own message with the visuals, the dilemma at the end, and the over-the-top destruction which overwhelms any nuanced take which the movie is already having a hard time selling.
I'm speaking on the adaptation of Snyder. You do know that the vast majority of these comic book movies aren't true to eh character at all. Jackman isn't actual wolverine, RDj wasn't actually playing stark etc
Lights and Waves
Member
...then I think you're missing the point entirely here. What you want is not what Superman is and stands for.
The viewer isn't supposed to see Superman as a god who is burdened by the weight of having to help the pathetic ants that are humanity. And yet that's how Snyder frames him.
There's nothing original or sympathetic about that. And it's far from interesting.
Well, I meant more like when he saves the little girl who was about to burn to death, if he had maybe smiled and tried to calm her down instead of gazing off into the middle-distance dramatically while people swarmed around him like they were lepers hoping to be cured by his touch.
But I'm not saying a snapback would hurt.
What you are describing are a few fleeting minutes in a nearly three hour movie. Compare how much time Snyder spends demonstrating Clark's investment in non-violence against the shots we are discussing in this thread. Superman as the christ figure is lovingly depicted, the montage goes on for ages, slow shots of his cape flowing and his focused sad stare with his features obscured by sunlight, blindingly beautiful. It goes on and on, as one might expect for a necessary part of the film's very obvious thesis statement. Compare that to any beats of Clark as a reporter, where the scenes are almost breathlessly edited down to the bare minimum of information required to follow the plot before changing focus.
The film has about as much interest in the ideas of Clark's preference for non-violence as Snyder's version of Superman himself seems to have in saving people. It's a fleeting moment of lip service before moving on to what the movie actually cares about: making him look sad, dark, and cool.
They failed to translate the 'Blue Boyscout' aspect over. It's like he saves people begrudgingly, when really Superman saves people as though he were a boyscout helping an old lady across a road.
Snyder was clearly going for 'What if Superman existed in the real world' but makes the mistake of making a film about 'What if someone had Superman's powers in the real world'. He made a 'Superman' rather than making what Superman actually is, a superhumanly decent and good-natured person who just happens to also have superpowers.
Snyder was clearly going for 'What if Superman existed in the real world' but makes the mistake of making a film about 'What if someone had Superman's powers in the real world'. He made a 'Superman' rather than making what Superman actually is, a superhumanly decent and good-natured person who just happens to also have superpowers.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Couldn't have said it any better.
Jean Valjean
Member
Agreed.I really do think it's the dourness of Superman. It's honestly that he just never seems to be enjoying what he's doing.
Compare with Supergirl's Superman:
This one moment rings more true to the character of Superman for me than anything in the Snyder films. The slight smile on his face, the wink that seems to indicate to the people that things will be all right. That's what Superman is supposed to be, at least from my perspective.
It has been said over and over again, Or Snyder doesn't understand Supes or he's a hack.
Lights and Waves
Member
Nailed it.
Compare the MoS behavior to Wonder Woman in No Man's Land.
Snyder Supes has yet to do anything even nearly as heroic as that. That one scene is more Superman than anything in either MoS or BvS.
Like in MOS where Zod and Faora says that because Superman gives a shit they'll destory humanity.
Maybe. But in JL unlimited there's this https://youtu.be/ONza8T0cBZ4?t=614
I said it before that even Jesus had to be tested to show how good he was. Same thing for Job. I find it weird people feel that they want an individual's character to be shown without being tested. Cap had to be shown to be brave without powers, Superman has to be shown to be able to deal with challenges even/especially when so powerful. He didn't fly the bomb out because one he wasn't looking for a bomb and two Lex lined it with lead.
Saving a bus full of kids from drowning including the school bully doesn't count cos reasons
Oil rig save doesn't count cos again, reasons. Fuck that prick for almost drowning too because he was more concerned with ensuring everyone got of the rig than saving himself. Altruism will get you killed if he ain't careful
Using the spear doesn't count either cos Superman is not selfless. He would have given the Spear to Wonder Woman who was holding Doomsday, and whilst yes I am sure her lasso was preventing the eyebeams as evidenced by Doomsday being incapable of firing them despite his eyes glowing. It would have been more logical to not leverage his superspeed and super strengh but instead give the spear to the exhausted Wonder and hope in her exhausted state she might not be curb stomped or burnt by the superfast, super strong thing that shoots lasers!
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
That's not even how he appears in the the Snyderverse.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Wonder Woman was definitely more what Superman should have been.
I don't even like Superman all that much but him being a loveable boyscout is what makes the character.
Stuff like Injustice is fine because its trying to be different, having an off-Superman in your mainline movies nearly ruins the entire point of the teamup imo.
Honestly in live action, Dean Cain is my favorite Superman(after watching Lois and Clark for the first time last year)
He was a super likeable dude and yet even that version of Clark wasn't a goof.
I don't even like Superman all that much but him being a loveable boyscout is what makes the character.
Stuff like Injustice is fine because its trying to be different, having an off-Superman in your mainline movies nearly ruins the entire point of the teamup imo.
Honestly in live action, Dean Cain is my favorite Superman(after watching Lois and Clark for the first time last year)
He was a super likeable dude and yet even that version of Clark wasn't a goof.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Hopefully dying and coming back is going to lead to a more chill Superman who digs helping humanity.
SuperStiltzkin
Member
It's going to lead to "I gave my life for these people and they still hate me. Why do I continue to help them, mom?"
Martha: "Kill them all, Clark."
thatsbait.gif
This doesn't have much to do with the thread topic per se, but I've criticized how Snyder not depicting Superman as vulnerable (except to kryptonite) is going to make any story beyond the scope of "What if god was one of us" problematic. And now I feel that's gonna come home to roost in JL. Superman was killed by kyptonite, his one established weakness, and all that did was make him take a long nap. What possible threat could anyone pose after that?
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Out of curiosity, did you even watch JL/U? Because you're picking one of the worst examples in which Superman is going up against someone who brought an army to invade Earth. Not to mention, Superman stopped holding himself back. This is a series that unlike Snyder, actually put a lot of thought and care into Superman before letting him go ham on Darkseid.
Again, you just have the habit of trying to compare things because they "look" similar, while completely disregarding context.
dragonyeuw
Member
They so fucked that part up. The worlds ( both in real life and in the comics) reaction to Superman's death was earned; a love affair with a character that had become a part of us over ( then) 60 years. There's no reason whatsoever why the world would react to Snyder's Superman with the same respect, affection and love like they lost a close family member.