Lokimaru
Member
Why can't others get this simple fact?
-
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
Why can't others get this simple fact?
So you somehow missed the fact that Jessica Jones had a whole subplot where a "client" tried to ambush and kill her for having superpowers, specifically because she lost someone during the battle at the end of Avengers?
Lokimaru
Member
But he did believe in himself til people started in on him because of Lex's machinations (Which is actually a what a good Luthor plan should do). It's like people completely ignore the Clark Kent parts of the Movie even though that Superman too.
I swear it's like people think Clark and Superman are two separate people instead of the same guy. Think of Perry's proposed headline after the statue defaming "End of Love Affair with man in the Sky?" Doesn't that mean the people loved him? Jenny certainly look disappointed hearing Perry come up with it.
At the Capital there were just as many Pro-Superman people there as Anti-Superman people.
Pa wanted Clark to be Ready before he stood before the World, that's why he held him back . How many Child stars go up in flames cause they can't handle the pressure society puts on their young shoulders. Now imagine Jake Lloyd with the power of Superman.
More_Badass
Member
I mean sure, but that's like the laziest way of trying to establish that kind of thing. Like the blatant "telling of showing".Look, a headline that says people like Superman and someone looks disappointed about it. Here, people holding scenes saying that believe in and trust Superman.
The movie has now convinced us that Superman is a beloved inspiration to the world
This guy is warm and inspiring? He looks terrifying.My Hero Academia does Superman better than Snyder ever did.
All Might is warm, friendly and inspiring to people. He smiles to give people hope. MoS superman doesn't inspire confidence, and I wouldn't feel safe around him.
Gonna disagree there.
A: His Dad talking to him about internalizing all of the help he does into a few people meant that Clark needed to remember that he is there for the people he loved, and that they loved him because he wanted to help. I have no idea where you got the "only focus on the people you care about".
B: He look perturbed when he was helping people because he didn't want to be idolized as some god-like figure. He was uncomfortable with being seen as some sort of messiah figure and simply wanted to help. You can see him smile when he brings back the girl to her mother at the beginning. It doesn't mean he was uncomfortable with the actual act of saving.
C: The vision of the world where he became dictator was from Batman's point of view, and served to establish the fear and paranoia Bruce he had felt if Superman's power was unchecked. We might see references to those scenes in Justice League for all we know, but in this film it acted as a visual cue to the reason why Batman absolutely had to do what he could to take Superman down.
D: "You are my world" is once again an internalization to himself that tells him he is who he is because of the love of the people closest to him. Lois knows him completely and has his utmost trust. His parents instilled into him values that he has to consider everyday knowing the extent of his ability to affect the world. Don't forget he also says "This is my world", meaning that he chose Earth over his former birth planet and culture (established in Man of Steel) and that he'll do anything to protect his planet.
E: He isn't an objectivist because then that would mean he would only care about himself and his own personal happiness and achivement, which BvS clearly argues against his character being as such, simply by showing him being concerned for how his actions would affect the world around him. He wants to help, but he's also shocked at how much the world is questioning his role at the end of the day and the amount of latitude he's given.
Imperfected
Member
He's actually amazingly well written. There's a point in the most recent episode where:
a junior hero (basically a young Robin type) who's obviously harrowed asks him if sometimes even he can't save everyone. His answer is better Superman writing than everything Zach Snyder has ever filmed put together.
That said, while the writing of that character is completely spectacular, the rest of the show is pretty much just formulaic shonen anime, so don't consider this as a blanket recommendation. He's also not the protagonist, so those "Superman Moments" come like twelve bloody episode long slogs apart.
There were moments of levity, but they weren't in the action scenes as obviously you wouldn't want to undercut the tension and drama. Alfred in BvS was a source of dry wit. Secretary Swanwick made that balls joke to Lois. The ending of Man of Steel ("Welcome to the Planet"). They just weren't as blatant and sticking out as much as moments from other more prominent superhero films.
The reason why we're having this debate is because people are (and should) determine for themselves why Superman is such a relevant hero in this day and age. We do see him smile in moments throughout the film, but it only leads to us relating to him more and feeling shocked as slowly he loses the positive outlook on him from society. Superman inspires hope simply by showcasing how much he struggles, which also informs the movie-watching audience as to why he stands as such a symbol of hope: that despite all the destruction and death he's witnessed, he's always going to try to do the right thing.
The reason why Snyder chose not to have Superman be able to defend himself during the Senate hearing before the explosion because it was ultimately Lex's plan to discredit Superman's reputation even further by making him a possible terrorist or extremist target and to also drive Bruce Wayne to further depths of rage, inciting him to steal the Kryptonite and have their long-manipulated battle to the death.
And my god is Chris Evan's Captain America such a watered down version of the character as he is in the comics. As much as I loved him in The First Avenger, his portrayal and actions in The Winter Soldier and especially Civil War come to make me despise his character and how little he even thinks about the ramifications of what he's doing to the world overall. It just gets dismissed because the MCU films never really explore that background of the world as a whole and instead focus on characters' dilemmas like whether they need to fight each other, or fight the main villain of the story. I don't mean they don't care about the people around them as they're fighting, cause clearly the films show them spending time to save innocents, but in a larger context their large-scale action scenes only show them
If you want to ignore people literally praying to him sure. There's a literal monument to him in the city, but not one likes him? Wish folks would use this much effort to ask why crossbones knew saying bucky would freeze cap.
More_Badass
Member
That supposed to imply this criticism is some Marvel/DC thing?
And I take issue with those moments too. I'm not saying that people don't like him. I'm saying how that was presented to the audience and how it was integrated in the story was lackluster and lazy in its execution.
The world that Snyder put Superman is too close to reality i think. Snyder's focus is there, what if... Superman was in our world?Superman could still have been writen better ofcourse. I can understand people can't accept this dark version, just as i can understand people that like his approach.
It's Zack Snyder's vision / elseworld.
edit: went off topic, apologies.
It's Zack Snyder's vision / elseworld.
edit: went off topic, apologies.
You state you don't want them to tell it to you but stuff in the background(the monument, Batman's disdain for the daily planets fluff pieces, people praying to him)that had been and will continue to be affected by the narrative is still lazy? At what point isn't it then? How do they get this across then?
And i was commenting on how there aren't many threads trying to "figure out" these movies for marvel films. No real discussion of the themes they present, like the attempted discussion here. It's just canon talk and what people want to see. Veelk mentions the scene where Clark declares he won't be a US puppet as a jokey scene(it's not), but how many posts have actually gone into how bad the transition from the final fight of civil war, to rhodey guilt tripping Tony, and then caps fuck you-I win but we're cool letter via mr stank? Yet they're held to a higher standard without the due diligence.
I'm super late to this thread and there has been plenty of solid points I'd like to address when I have some time (and some really terrible ones I am going to ignore completely) but since I only have a minute at the moment I did want to grab at this one. Short and sweet.
Not all threats are physical. One of the more interesting angles when it comes to Superman is dedication. One true aspect these films have depicted is that Superman is dedicated to what he does. He may not always enjoy it and there's a solid argument to be made that he doesn't even like it BUT despite these things he does it anyway. So if Superman, for whatever reason, is dedicated to carrying this thing out and is basically unkillable what is the threat? How do you beat Superman?
By making him not do it anymore.
Which to me is basically what Lex's objective was all along in BvS. It never occurred to me that Lex ever thought Batman would actually succeed in killing Superman. The goal always seemed to me that Lex wanted Superman to believe that he himself was the fraud that Lex saw him as. He said as much in the rooftop scene. Almost worked too. Superman says to Lois, "No one stays good in this world." Had Superman killed Batman that would also have resulted in the death of Superman. To Clark at least.
Making Clark question himself and ultimately decide he's not up to the task, to me anyway, is much more interesting than wondering if another super strong invulnerable bad guy can win or someone in possession of a green rock.
Someone in the thread mentioned earlier that BvS depicted the world at large getting inside of Clark's head and that being something Clark doesn't let happen. That it misses the point of the character. I disagree. I think it's ignoring additional looks into Superman's psychology.
Monocle
Member
Good insight, Veelk. You're right, a hero's body language and tone, and the framing of the scenes where they save people, are deciding factors in whether or not their humanity and heroic qualities register with the audience.
Snyder's Superman seems aloof because he's consistently presented that way. Characterization is less about what happens (like Superman saving a bunch of people) than how the character behaves in their scenes. We get to know characters through relatable signifiers of their thoughts and feelings.
Superman may have saved the whole world in Man of Steel, but he still comes off as a self-absorbed jerk.
Snyder's Superman seems aloof because he's consistently presented that way. Characterization is less about what happens (like Superman saving a bunch of people) than how the character behaves in their scenes. We get to know characters through relatable signifiers of their thoughts and feelings.
Superman may have saved the whole world in Man of Steel, but he still comes off as a self-absorbed jerk.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Even if they are dead, the fire still has to be pulled out ASAP to prevent it from spreading right?
"oh there's an explosion and there's fire? I'm just gonna assume everyone's dead and walk away, instead of checking if there's anyone still breathing but in critical danger, or help pull out the fire".
dragonyeuw
Member
Relatively few to effectively counter-balance and if you noticed, really none of your examples involved Superman himself did they? Except the 'welcome to the planet... glad to be here Lois' MOS scene, but Cavill delivered that line so dryly I'm not sure if you strengthened your argument using that as an example. I'll give you a few examples of 'levity' in Superman the movie:
-The scene when Clark was pretending that he wasn't strong enough to open the jar.
- When Clark was in Lois' apartment and switched from the nasally 'Clark' voice and posture to the 'Superman' voice and posture
Frankly, pretty much any scene of Clark at the daily planet, getting caught in the revolving door, following Lois to the ladies room, being ignored by his coworkers when he introduced himself. Disclaimer: Clark in Superman the movie was written to be a bubbling buffoon as part of the disguise. That isn't that Superman, that Clark, or that story. That Clark wouldn't work in THIS Superman.The problem is that the story Zach is writing portrays Superman as dour and brooding, and then Clark is played straight, dour and brooding as well. There's no contrast at all between the characters to balance things and provide that levity within the character himself. And, I'm not one of these people referring to Superman 'smiling' but since you brought it up, I've already mentioned that the scene when he was learning to fly( and smiling, obviously enjoying his powers) was the last real moment of any sense of 'joy' he showed in the suit. The next scene of him as Superman he's throwing the two Kryptonians through gas stations without any thought to the idea that they were occupied. And then the next, he's part of the battle of Metropolis with all the death and destruction from that scene. It's not on the audience to force themselves into liking this guy to circumvent the story being told around him and how he's being portrayed as a result of it. You either do or you don't based on what you're given.
I'm aware of the reasons why he chose to have Lex blow up congress. I'm questioning that plot device. 5 minutes later the film had moved on and people weren't blaming Superman for what happened ultimately, so the choice to have that scene be part of Lex's devious scheme was pointless as there was no real fallout from it. A better use of that scene, in my opinion, would have been for Superman to actually respond to the accusations and state his purpose. Let it play out, Superman before a panel of congressmen defending himself. Give us 'some' sense that this guy understands accountability, versus the guy at the end of MOS who blatantly told the Colonel in so many words 'I'm here to help, but on my terms. Not yours.' Basically, I'm not on your level and I'm not humbling myself to your level. Have him make a grandiose speech at the congress that we can rally behind. The movie and the character would have been far greater served by that, than another death and destruction scene.
I wasn't a Cap fan before the MCU. Didn't give a shit about him before the First Avenger. So I can't speak to his live action portrayal compared to the comics, only that he resonates with me. We can all go into mental gymnastics on this with examples and justifications for what happened and how it was shown, end of the day it either naturally resonates with you or it doesn't. And for many people, this version of the Superman does not( yet) resonate.
Also, I'm not sure what you're referring to as far as Captain America not caring about the ramifications of what he's doing. Please explain, you lost me there. The scenes of the Avengers showing some sense of awareness of the damage being caused is light-years beyond Superman throwing the Kryptonians into oil tankers, flying them through buildings without any thought of the people potentially in the area. There's not a single moment in MOS where Superman reflects on the mass-scale collateral damage and the innocents caught int the cross-fire.
The problem I see in these films is that the characters are forced to do things for the plot instead of it happening naturally. This is why you get stupidity like Superman sacrificing himself to kill doomsday when Wonder Woman could have done it. The whole story is forcing Superman to die instead of letting him die.
When the Senate blows up and everyone is encased by fire, Superman stands around looking sad:
DKPOWPOW
Member
Lol! That was good man
I'm pretty sure I've posted a thread analyzing Civil War, but it was in a positive sense, so you probably wouldn't count it. Which is kinda the problem. You seem to be working from a position that Civil War is equivalent to BvS in quality, so you see it as a double standard that I (and others) don't tear Civil War apart in the same way or frequency. Well, that's not true. In my opinion, the quality between the two movies is night and day.
The scene cap and iron man leave on is a sad one. Tony, his suit broken, is squirming helplessly on the ground, his last words to Steve being that he doesn't deserve the shield he carries, which is little more than him just being bitter (though Steve nevertheless acquiesses and drops the shield before leaving). He looks very small and pathetic. The next scene is to get a look back at what ended up happening with Zemo, both to wrap up his storyline and just to get a break from the Steve/Tony drama and allow the passage of some time. Then Tony comes to Avengers Base, and we get a shot of vision himself trying to recover from the ordeal. And THEN we get our first positive scene of Tony trying to help Rhodey recover with tech for his legs, with them both bantering to try to normalize things. But Rhodey stumbles and falls. Tony looks guilty as Rhodey tries to get up but can't. Rhodey then talks about how he feels about his hero career to assure Tony he shouldn't feel bad for him because he did what he felt was right and would do it again. (where you get Rhodey guilt tripping Tony, I have no idea. He's trying to relieve him of guilt.) It's only THEN that the Tony Stank moment comes in, after a break, showing people recovering, and a heartfelt scene of reconciliation. There is pacing and space involved before the jokes return. (as for the letter, I also feel your mischaracterizing that, but it's not really relevant to my point here)
Compare that to MoS's moment. You have Superman screaming with anguish from having committed his first kill, in complete despair, with only Lois there to comfort him for a few seconds. Then the next scene is the general riding with his lieutenant, drone crashes, and he does a pissy rant about how much it costs. So the first thing we see after Superman at his scene of greatest emotional turmoil is the general bitching about the Drone budget. There is no space for Superman, or the audience, to deal with the apparently intense emotional impact of Zod dying. It happened off screen, apparently.
So, as you can hopefully see, I'm not applying a double standard. I put as much critical weight on Marvel Movies as I do any other. It's just that a lot of the time, Marvel movies tend to stand under that weight, while DC films collapse under it. They're better movies, imo, and I do my best to give my reasons supporting that. If you feel differently, feel free to make your own thread tearing down the movies using your own critical facaulties. That's what discussion forums are for, after all.
But please. For the love of god. Stop this stupid, bullshit persecution complex of "Why aren't you as mean to Marvel movies" whining. It's thread derailing at this point.
I don't get how a straight joke is some how "taken" better than Superman telling the US government he's not going to work for them. This is a supremely generous reading that I think you are aware of. The Tony stank moment is so blatantly bad in not allowing the audience a moment to process, as its in the same scene. The marvel movies are afraid to let the audience feel anything "negative" for too long, a quip is always quick to cut the mood. Snyder makes you feel things you may not want to feel, so you make this thread about how he some how just missed the mark on the emotions he was trying to convey. No, he wanted you to feel doubt in a fledgling Superman, that's a good thing that shows both Cavill and Snyder worked together to make a complete character that can stand outside of the rest of the canon.
Dreams-Visions
Member
As a long, long time comic fan of Superman, I loved and continue to love Man of Steel. Sorry some of you couldn't also enjoy it. Personally, I find his imperfections to be the most grounding and humanizing parts of his character. Unlike "I've been doing this for awhile" Superman, he makes lots of mistakes. He makes lots of questionable decisions. All that discipline and ability to look at a broader perspective in the moments isn't there yet. That calm isn't there yet. He's getting baptized in literal fire. I appreciate being able to ask if I could or would have been able to do better and the answer being "no". But some need to monday morning quarterback decisions made in a literal crisis within a heart trying to do the best he knows how to do and save as many as he can. But I appreciate imperfection. I appreciate a hero not being able to save everyone and being forced to live with the guilt of who he did decide to save; the pain of dealing with the aftermath (as he did in BvS). He never even judged his harshest critics. He simply took their pain on his shoulders and fought on. I can understand that not resonating with everyone. It makes me find some of these critiques shallow and often unreasonable. Like people didn't even try to enjoy them.
I personally give MoS a solid 'A' and BvS a solid 'B'. I'd rather re-watch either of them than I'd want to re-watch most popcorn fluff comic book movies.
I personally give MoS a solid 'A' and BvS a solid 'B'. I'd rather re-watch either of them than I'd want to re-watch most popcorn fluff comic book movies.
AuthenticM
Member
yep
I never liked Superman. Always thought he was boring. Then Snyder made him interesting to me.
His movies might have issues, but good on him for that.
Preach!
They're are forks in the road everyone takes.
In the original Superman, Pa Kent dies of a heart attack in a field, and Clark learns he can't save everyone. No matter how much power he has, he isn't and never will be a god.
In MoS, Clark has the choice to save or let Pa Kent die ... The human thing to do would be to cast away the worries of any repurcussions, including what his father wants, and save a life. Instead, he lets a man die -- implying he believes he is a god with the right to make those decisions.
That's the difference, man ... They got Clark wrong, so they can never get Superman right.
In the original Superman, Pa Kent dies of a heart attack in a field, and Clark learns he can't save everyone. No matter how much power he has, he isn't and never will be a god.
In MoS, Clark has the choice to save or let Pa Kent die ... The human thing to do would be to cast away the worries of any repurcussions, including what his father wants, and save a life. Instead, he lets a man die -- implying he believes he is a god with the right to make those decisions.
That's the difference, man ... They got Clark wrong, so they can never get Superman right.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Imagine shifting the goalposts to forcing similarities between Marvel movies. It's a shitty way to argue your point across without coming off as a Stan desperately asserting that one is superior over the other, or how Marvel did it so it should justify DC doing the same (disregarding context).
No, clark was a teenager who only has a slight clue of what he can do. He did what any scared kid would do, stay with his mom. The best part about all these "readings" attributing malice and carelessness to supermans actions is how close they are to the same mind set of Batman and lex.
Batman and Lex are seeing even less. We're seeing the whole story as presented to us and we're still coming to the same conclusions.
Framing. Trumps. Text.
Watch the Lindsay Ellis video that covers the same issue in Transformers.
You as the audience are supposed to believe in Superman despite what the media tells you. You're supposed to take his word. There's a very deliberate choice not to show him talk to the terrorist who grabbed lois or allow him to plead his case for Holly Hunter. Snyder wants you to take a side, despite the "evidence" we/the movie world are given. We see how the world handles this, some worship him, some hate him, many others are just afraid. He's the hero of the movie and many are condemning him for not smiling, despite him doing everything they could want of him regardless of the consequences they bring to him. At the end of the day, he's a dude from Kansas who's doing the world's laundry, the Christ allegories aren't exactly amiss.
Are we really trying to say a literal sex object is the same as themes on existentialism? That's not how art works. Megan Fox was hired as sex appeal and bay is an artist at framing objects. That doesn't apply to scenes taken out of context to make a point that they aren't getting to the point you thought they would be.
What!? He had just verbally disrespected his father right before the tornado. Then his father asks him to trust him. So Clark does. He proved to his dad that he's not above listening to a human. Even if he may feel pain or disagree with it. It actually makes him more grounded and not godly.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I have my issues with Civil War also, but I hate they come up only to justify BvS or MoS. The issues are in fact similarly the contrast in framing vs text. If anything, they support the fact that Snyder's movies have issues, rather that refute it.
dragonyeuw
Member
And that wasn't helped by how smug Superman was acting in that scene:
" You're trying to find out where I hang my cape. You won't."
" I'm here to help, but it has to be on my terms"
Superman is the absolute last hero I would expect to hear those words from.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I thought MoS at least had a fairly realistic take on Superman. In older movies, Superman was more like a firefigher who deeply cared for people, who he considered his equals, but who he just happened to be stronger than. Like how someone can be a strong boxer, but not think less of his not as strong trainer. That's romantic and all, but IMO it is kind of weird if what is essentially a God would passionately care about people like that. Like, it's OK dude, please stop pretending, you're freaking me out... I think Snyder's superman is inspired more by something like Dr. Manhattan, and it feels more realistic for that.
A: Clark in BvS isn't played to be purposefully dour, straight, and serious, but in how his character understood the gravitas of the situation and contemplated whether what he was doing was beneficial to the world overall. There are actually more moments of levity but they involve Clark's interactions with Perry (and how Perry responds to him being absent so often), but you said it yourself: Reeve's Superman would not make sense in Snyder's interpretation, but I would argue that making Clark light-hearted and goofy would only undermine the seriousness of the situation at hand. When Clark first sees Lois in the bathtub, he wants to be all smiles and kind, but Lois brings him down to the ground with the fact that hearings have started.
B: The impact and destruction of both Smallville and Metropolis worked to serve two purposes - That a fight between multiple super-powered beings would cause a lot of collateral damage, showing the consequences of such actions, and realizing that Clark had little to no idea of how much damage he was capable of. His initial fight with the two Kryptonians was his first time getting into such a large scale fight, and there were many moments from the both of them shoving or hitting each other into buildings due to the impact of their punches. He punches Nam-Ek into a train station with oil tankers so you could potentially infer that it was devoid of people at the time. Ultimately, it was Superman's first fight and he was in many ways out of his depth to be able to dispatch his opponents to somewhere less occupied. Zack Snyder wants to show the destruction because that's how it would have looked in a real fight, and doesn't want to shy away from the potential loss of property and life.
C: I would have loved your story beat when I first watched BvS. Of course I wanted Superman to deliver his speech, to explain why he can be accountable and why he wanted to help out people the way he does. That's why it's such a gut punch when the explosion happens and he's essentially led to the death of dozens of innocent people simply due to his presence being there, and him still being able to witness it all. In the Ultimate Cut he is shown delivering survivors to the emergency team outside, but overall the story wouldn't have been served because this is, quite simply, the worst he's being painted to the public in the entire movie. That he unwittingly was the target of a bombing and that his being there is, in terms of story structure, the lowest point of the movie.
D: And I would tell you that many people do resonate with this version of Superman. At the very least, MoS and BvS made me care about the character a way the comics, TV shows, and animated cartoons never made me did. There's no end to the people on Twitter and outside the greater wide world who are inspired by Snyder's interpretation (they're there if you look).
E: Cap's lack of contemplating the ramifications of his actions are apparent in Winter Soldier and Civil War. Risking SHIELD agent lives on board the ship. Risking innocent lives getting caught in the crossfire during his first fight with the Winter Soldier (he could have just detained or killed him). Compromising his effort when he realized the Soldier was Bucky. No thoughts on him regarding the damage done to Washington D.C. during the third act. Compromising himself again when Rumlow talks about Bucky. Not telling Stark that HYDRA was responsible for the deaths of his parents. Getting indignant about the Sokovia Accords all because Sharon delivered a eulogy at her Aunt's funeral. Not wanting to talk it out at the airport. And finally potentially making his new refuge at the end of Civil War a target for government agents out to apprehend him. As much as I love Cap from the comics (OK maybe not as of late
), his character arc in the films has only gotten less and less ideal and adherent to his principles.F: "There's not a single moment in MOS where Superman reflects on the mass-scale collateral damage and the innocents caught int the cross-fire". He cries and clings to Lois after he kills Zod. I'm not a fan of the next scene where he seems composed, but that's probably the one thing I can agree with you on there.
Man I love talking about the stuff in the DCEU films. Continue on, my good man Dragonyeuw!
Jon Kent: "While I was eating my hero cake, their horses were drowning."
Jon is dismantling the notion of selfless heroism by making the claim that it's pointless to try and selflessly save everyone, because there will always be casualties you can't prevent, disasters you can't stop, another flooded farm. Clark asks Jon how he was able to move on, and Jon says "When I met you mother, she gave me faith that there's good in this world. She was my world." The only reason to be a hero then, to keep going forward, is to further your self-interest, in this case the people you care about. Trying to be selfless leads to misery and horse nightmares, focusing on the people you care about leads to personal satisfaction and therefore true heroism. He doesn't say "Your mother inspired me to be a better person", he says that she was his world and that she made him happy.
He looks perturbed because he is perturbed. He's being weighed down by all the obligations of superheroing, the pressures of worship, the stress of criticism, and the anxiety of being unable to save everyone. He's acting selflessly in these scenes, and he's framed like that isn't a good thing.
Sure, but we have no indication that Batman was wrong. He nearly killed Bruce trying to save Martha (only relenting and trying to talk it out when he was near death himself), and he was seconds away from blasting Lex with heat vision over nearly killing Lois and revealing he kidnapped his mom. He's conflicted about acting selflessly vs. in his self-interest (going back to the bus and tornado from MoS), and although the film gets around the question by killing him off in a way that makes it seem like he's acting selflessly and for the sake of the people closest to him, I still think it goes over into making Superman someone who is more motivated by his personal relationships than any sense of selfless altruism.
He says "You are my world" after saying "this is my world", implying to me a hierarchy where he clearly prefers Lois to the struggles, toils, and tribulations of the world he protects. Notice how he smiles at Lois after saying that, indicating the happiness she gives him is the motivation he needs. He does end up selflessly sacrificing himself to prevent Doomsday from destroying the world, but he still makes an explicit reference to the fact that he's doing this for her too, something that would be redundant to a selfless messiah figure.
His conflict is self-interest vs. selflessness, and I can see how one reading might have him end up on the selfless side rather than the self-interested objectivist side, but I think the film puts up a stronger front for self-interested Superman and spends more time criticizing the more traditional selfless hero. He's concerned about how his actions affect the world, partly out of a concern for the people, but I'd say more out of a concern for how that would affect the people close to him.
Martha Kent: "Be their hero Clark...or be none of it. You don't owe this world a thing."
To Martha (who is framed to be the wise dispenser of knowledge in this scene) it doesn't matter if you act selflessly or in your own self-interest, so long as it's Clark's choice and he's happy with it.
but he's NOT essentially a god
he's essentially one of us
he has been on earth since he was a baby
he was raised by humans, lived around humans, and acted exactly like a human his entire life
like, do you think it's super weird any time a strong person cares about a weaker person in real life?
Agreed.
I enjoy both Civil War and BvS for different reasons. I appreciate the thoughts and ideas that Snyder put into BvS more so than what we got from Civil War.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
He's the creature that can defy the laws of physics as we understand them. His brain must function on some different level than ours even, or else he wouldn't be able to do anything useful while moving at super-speed. I think things like that would tend to get into the head of anyone - to some degree - despite being raised among humans. In MoS it looked like they accepted that it's realistic to see him showing some emotional distance from us.
I was a bit predisposed at the time i posted last night but I'll respond to some of the posts I missed or skimmed through./
I have to ask when he saved the people on the oil rig how did he feel burdened? Like seriously? People needed help, he's superpowered and he jumped and saved them and damn near died as a result? When he saved the kids on the bus he wasn't feeling the kids were a burden, he felt it was bullshit that his dad was giving him shit about saving kids when even he didn't know what he would have done. Like, I seriously think people are saying shit just to say shit. Imagine if you lived like a hermit saving people where you could, cos you can, just because and then because you don't smile or only wanna be seen as a guy helping out and not a god and even shed blood saving people you'd be taken back by criticism too. I
Cute, this is coming from the person who cited Captain America as an example of what should be done. If you don't feel the character's actions are analogous then don't compare the two, you made the OP not me so you invited whataboutism. I'd like to think I am consistent in my critiques and criticisms and you'd be hard pressed to find an example where I handwaive criticism for DC and then criticise anything from Marvel. If i ever had it was either a) to be sarcastic b) to make a larger point to show hypocrisy. Oh and yes that is an invitation I have given you many a post and thread of material to work with.
I hate the argument that the one thing that makes a character heroic is smiling, The Joker is truly the hero we need! Not their actions, feelings!
1) that is the exact opposite of how he is framed. Art is subjective adn all that i think people will latch onto anything to show their disdain for the film. The guy clearly is happy to help people in Mexico> Whether it's due to humility orjust being a regular guy he doesn't want to be worship[ed as a god.
2) I am curious as to how you can say the film spends next to no time with him as a reporter. LIke Let's see:
Clark talking to bruce
https://youtu.be/bvEj5_EkzBs
About 2 mins
Clark investigating Batman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCik5tlh3m8
4mins
With perry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvzspXvvuPQ
about 30s
talking about the planet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th3WcAVCaKo
40s
Talking about crime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snzSAsS_42s
That's like 10 minutes where Clark is just being a reporter or doing investigative journalism. All of these scenes help to illustrate not only Clark's character, but help to world build andplot progression. I could also add scenes of Clark looking at the branding to the clips too. Clark goes out of his way to make an informed opinion about the Batman and talks to him twice (banquet and Batmobile chase) about his actions. I know it's not the tempermental Superman that would pick fights with people in diners you're used to but if you choose not to ignore these scenes the answers to your criticisms are there.
that's bait.
So you're a fan of MOS i take it! You do realise the irony of what you just typed right?
How is Pa Kent an objectivist? Like explain it to me like I am 5. Insults are welcome but decent arguments would be appreciated to.
I agree with all of this
Oh really? Then what about this scene:
This clip also talks about him surrendering to mankind to make people feel secure.
or this:
or this
Captain America would have told them to fuck off if he was to answer for any criticism in doing any heroic shit except he woudn't have used any rude words and maybe even have smiled whilst doing so so it's ok.
I have to ask when he saved the people on the oil rig how did he feel burdened? Like seriously? People needed help, he's superpowered and he jumped and saved them and damn near died as a result? When he saved the kids on the bus he wasn't feeling the kids were a burden, he felt it was bullshit that his dad was giving him shit about saving kids when even he didn't know what he would have done. Like, I seriously think people are saying shit just to say shit. Imagine if you lived like a hermit saving people where you could, cos you can, just because and then because you don't smile or only wanna be seen as a guy helping out and not a god and even shed blood saving people you'd be taken back by criticism too. I
Cute, this is coming from the person who cited Captain America as an example of what should be done. If you don't feel the character's actions are analogous then don't compare the two, you made the OP not me so you invited whataboutism. I'd like to think I am consistent in my critiques and criticisms and you'd be hard pressed to find an example where I handwaive criticism for DC and then criticise anything from Marvel. If i ever had it was either a) to be sarcastic b) to make a larger point to show hypocrisy. Oh and yes that is an invitation I have given you many a post and thread of material to work with.
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.
I hate the argument that the one thing that makes a character heroic is smiling, The Joker is truly the hero we need! Not their actions, feelings!
1) that is the exact opposite of how he is framed. Art is subjective adn all that i think people will latch onto anything to show their disdain for the film. The guy clearly is happy to help people in Mexico> Whether it's due to humility orjust being a regular guy he doesn't want to be worship[ed as a god.
2) I am curious as to how you can say the film spends next to no time with him as a reporter. LIke Let's see:
Clark talking to bruce
https://youtu.be/bvEj5_EkzBs
About 2 mins
Clark investigating Batman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCik5tlh3m8
4mins
With perry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvzspXvvuPQ
about 30s
talking about the planet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th3WcAVCaKo
40s
Talking about crime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snzSAsS_42s
That's like 10 minutes where Clark is just being a reporter or doing investigative journalism. All of these scenes help to illustrate not only Clark's character, but help to world build andplot progression. I could also add scenes of Clark looking at the branding to the clips too. Clark goes out of his way to make an informed opinion about the Batman and talks to him twice (banquet and Batmobile chase) about his actions. I know it's not the tempermental Superman that would pick fights with people in diners you're used to but if you choose not to ignore these scenes the answers to your criticisms are there.
that's bait.
Honestly though at times I think you're not wrong
So you're a fan of MOS i take it! You do realise the irony of what you just typed right?
How is Pa Kent an objectivist? Like explain it to me like I am 5. Insults are welcome but decent arguments would be appreciated to.
I agree with all of this
I got your point. And my point is, in the context of this universe his death would be felt but not on the scale of what it was in the comics, which is what was more or less portrayed. I'm not saying he didn't earn some kind of acknowledgement, but nothing on the scale of 'funeral for a friend'. Frankly, if Superman had the 'majority' of public support then there's no reason for him to be portrayed as dour, distrusting of humans,or going through the motions. He's portrayed as being weighed down by the burden of duty. It's a different take on the character and if that's the story you want to tell, fine. But this is a Superman that hasn't really 'reduced' himself to our level. I mean, look at this:
If this isn't imagery intended to show that he's 'above' us, then what is? The Superman that we'd truly mourn is the one who says 'Don't thank me warden. We're all a part of the same team.' Not......that ^.
Oh really? Then what about this scene:
This clip also talks about him surrendering to mankind to make people feel secure.
or this:
or this
Captain America would have told them to fuck off if he was to answer for any criticism in doing any heroic shit except he woudn't have used any rude words and maybe even have smiled whilst doing so so it's ok.
dragonyeuw
Member
A: Clark in BvS isn't played to be purposefully dour, straight, and serious, but in how his character understood the gravitas of the situation and contemplated whether what he was doing was beneficial to the world overall. There are actually more moments of levity but they involve Clark's interactions with Perry (and how Perry responds to him being absent so often), but you said it yourself: Reeve's Superman would not make sense in Snyder's interpretation, but I would argue that making Clark light-hearted and goofy would only undermine the seriousness of the situation at hand. When Clark first sees Lois in the bathtub, he wants to be all smiles and kind, but Lois brings him down to the ground with the fact that hearings have started.
B: The impact and destruction of both Smallville and Metropolis worked to serve two purposes - That a fight between multiple super-powered beings would cause a lot of collateral damage, showing the consequences of such actions, and realizing that Clark had little to no idea of how much damage he was capable of. His initial fight with the two Kryptonians was his first time getting into such a large scale fight, and there were many moments from the both of them shoving or hitting each other into buildings due to the impact of their punches. He punches Nam-Ek into a train station with oil tankers so you could potentially infer that it was devoid of people at the time. Ultimately, it was Superman's first fight and he was in many ways out of his depth to be able to dispatch his opponents to somewhere less occupied. Zack Snyder wants to show the destruction because that's how it would have looked in a real fight, and doesn't want to shy away from the potential loss of property and life.
C: I would have loved your story beat when I first watched BvS. Of course I wanted Superman to deliver his speech, to explain why he can be accountable and why he wanted to help out people the way he does. That's why it's such a gut punch when the explosion happens and he's essentially led to the death of dozens of innocent people simply due to his presence being there, and him still being able to witness it all. In the Ultimate Cut he is shown delivering survivors to the emergency team outside, but overall the story wouldn't have been served because this is, quite simply, the worst he's being painted to the public in the entire movie. That he unwittingly was the target of a bombing and that his being there is, in terms of story structure, the lowest point of the movie.
D: And I would tell you that many people do resonate with this version of Superman. At the very least, MoS and BvS made me care about the character a way the comics, TV shows, and animated cartoons never made me did. There's no end to the people on Twitter and outside the greater wide world who are inspired by Snyder's interpretation (they're there if you look).
E: Cap's lack of contemplating the ramifications of his actions are apparent in Winter Soldier and Civil War. Risking SHIELD agent lives on board the ship. Risking innocent lives getting caught in the crossfire during his first fight with the Winter Soldier (he could have just detained or killed him). Compromising his effort when he realized the Soldier was Bucky. No thoughts on him regarding the damage done to Washington D.C. during the third act. Compromising himself again when Rumlow talks about Bucky. Not telling Stark that HYDRA was responsible for the deaths of his parents. Getting indignant about the Sokovia Accords all because Sharon delivered a eulogy at her Aunt's funeral. Not wanting to talk it out at the airport. And finally potentially making his new refuge at the end of Civil War a target for government agents out to apprehend him. As much as I love Cap from the comics (OK maybe not as of late
F: "There's not a single moment in MOS where Superman reflects on the mass-scale collateral damage and the innocents caught int the cross-fire". He cries and clings to Lois after he kills Zod. I'm not a fan of the next scene where he seems composed, but that's probably the one thing I can agree with you on there.
Man I love talking about the stuff in the DCEU films. Continue on, my good man Dragonyeuw!
A. But whether he was 'purposefully' dour, straight and serious or not, all I'm saying is that's how he came across on-screen. He comes across pretty dour in MOS as well. You're explaining to me the 'whys', trust me, I get the 'whys'. It's not a lack of understanding of what is occurring on-screen that is the basis of my opinion. I get it... it's not really resonating. It just isn't, maybe that sounds simplistic for you but I compare to eating a food you like versus one you don't. My taste buds are very clear in terms of what my palette likes, it doesn't require me to 'make' myself like something just as I don't force myself to not like something. As I said before, the material either grabs you or it doesn't. What I'm finding with some of the arguments here( not yours necessarily) is that it descends on occasion to 'it's just you. You didn't get it' levels of defense.
B. The problem I have with 'Clark had no idea of much damage he is capable of' is that we're talking about a 33 year old man, not a teenager. There's a big problem if he's unaware of consequence at this point regarding his own abilities. I mean, how can a guy who can wrap a big wheeler around an electrical pole somehow not be aware of his own power and how much damage he could cause? Yes, there were some scenes where they were throwing or punching him into buildings in Smallville, but the Kryptonians don't care about human life. Superman is supposed to, and I can't accept the argument that because he is 'inexperienced' that doing something like this:
I'm having a hard time believing he needs to gain experience to comprehend that he quite likely took out a few people here.
C. I haven't seen the ultimate cut yet( and I have the UHD, in spite of my criticisms I don't actually dislike these movies as you may think based on this dialogue) so I'll have to see what you're referring to about delivering survivors. Not much else to say other than if I was writing that scene, I've described how I would play it out and I cling to my view on that.
D. Of course. I've not said that this version of the character doesn't resonate with some people. I'm just telling you what works and doesn't work for me. No minds are being changed here nor does anyone need to make the effort to do so on either end of the discussion.
E. And those would be valid criticisms for disliking or having reservations about him. I haven't seen Winter Soldier in a while so I'm going to have to see what you're referring to, but nothing comes to mind as far as risking innocent lives( thoughtlessly) in such a way that it overshadows the good he was doing. What I do recall were his specific efforts to move citizens to areas that minimized the chances of getting caught in the cross-fire. Realistically, anyone is that situation is going to be aware that lives will be lost. It's about how it's shot and portrayed, the actions of each character in those moments. There were just too many moments in MOS where Superman acted carelessly trying to subdue the Kyptonians. FWIW, I had a problem with Cap NOT telling Stark about how his parents died, though I understand the position he was in. That all said, bear in mind that you're doing exactly what I'm doing. I'm measuring Cavil's Superman against other portrayals of the character in comics and live-action, and saying where I feel he measures up and where it's a bit too far out in left field. You're more or less doing the same with Captain America, and as I said before I didn't follow him at all prior to the MCU, so I have no built-in expectations to compare him to. I'm taking at face value what's being fed to me the last 6 years where Cap is concerned.
F. He cries at the realization that he made a decision to kill someone, who also was the only other remaining survivor of his home planet. It does not come off as a response to the catastrophic destruction and lives lost in the process. And as you say, in the next scene it looks like he's already over it, to the point of being smug that he destroyed a US defensive satellite and that you more or less can't touch him. This is a guy that, by your own words, is not aware of the extent of damage he can cause, while also telling us that you can't keep him in check. Not someone I'd entrust to be the protector of the planet.
Your serve....
dragonyeuw
Member
Oh really? Then what about this scene:
This clip also talks about him surrendering to mankind to make people feel secure.
or this:
or this
Captain America would have told them to fuck off if he was to answer for any criticism in doing any heroic shit except he woudn't have used any rude words and maybe even have smiled whilst doing so so it's ok.
You mean like how Superman more or less told a high ranking Government official to fuck himself if he thinks America can keep tabs on him? There are far greater checks and balances at immediate disposal to deal with Cap turning rogue, than if Superman wakes up on the wrong side of the bed one day and decided to be an outright cunt because he can.
Those examples are even nonsense themselves.
In the first one, he walks into the detention facility, but when he gets tired, he just casually breaks his handcuffs and straight up tells them "You can't control me." It was a fake out. "Okay, I did this to make you feel a bit better, but now I'm tired so, straight up, imma do what I want, but we're cool, so don't worry about it".
As for the senate hearing, that's hardly a surrender to humanity or whatever. He's been invited to speak on his intentions to the public and now he's gonna do it in an official capacity. He wasn't gonna give anything away there, he was just gonna say what he's about.
My argument has always been people are
a) people are holding DCEU to previous depictions of characters and refusal to see any change
b) a lot of the things people praise in previous characters don't exist. Batman has mostly killed, Lex is goofy and cheesy in the Donner films. Johnathan Kent in Superman 78 was a cynical fuck and he too was unsure as to Superman's role in the world. If you can find any clips or anywhere in the script below where Jonathan Kent says something along the lines of "Clark you should go out and save the world because i raised you to be a nice guy and the world is puppies and rainbows" instead:
Side note, i find it interesting people can't understand why Superman may feel it futile so try and save people when in a room where if they were lucky they all died instantly but don't criticise the guy with superspeed and time travel (yes i went there) to try and get his father to a hospital.
c) the fans are wrong because they are too stubborn to admit they were wrong or aren't paying attention to the movie. Nothing wrong with not liking it, but it's weird when you complain about things that the movie showed, told and explored
d) I'd also add https://youtu.be/h-k-tQxJv8o
Honestly, I think the reason Marvel characters get away with so much is partly because they have less popular depictions relatively speaking to beholden too hence no one cares that Cap had a no kill rule in the 70s, but when they take risks with more well known things people bitch like with the Mandarin. I'd also add if you hit certain emotional beats people are more forgiving and will overlook more. Superman can engage in premeditated violence but it's OK cos it's played for laughs , Superman can engage in murder cos Lois Lane tells jokes and Superman smiles whilst doing so, Captain America in Winter Soldier can bring down how many hellicarriers, on how many people, over how large an area but because Marvel cut away Cap can still be heroic and say he doesn't need any supervision. When presented with evidence of being indirectly responsible for considerably fewer deaths than Cap was in Winter Soldier Superman stops, thinks and is reflective about whether it's appropriate for him to act unilaterally. When Cap is presented with evidence of being directly responsible for an incalculable number of deaths and people suggest can you try woroking with us to prevent shit like this happening. He does all but give the finger. But hey I get it, a dozen or so deaths is a tragedy, 1000s is just a statistic especially when you cut away from the carnage to take an ass kicking from Bucky.
dragonyeuw
Member
Good point on that.
No, what your arguments are is an endless series of moving goalposts, where you pretend you want to have an honest debate but then try to take over as the sole arbiter of what is a sensible argument, motivated by this persecution complex where you project anyone disagreeing with you as out to get these movies for some reason.
That is all your arguments are.
Oh don't start shifting goalposts, you're better than that. You were 1) talking about Imagery and i presented you with imagery where he walks amongst the common man. SO i presented imagery where he does just that and in cuffs even! Oh and the Superman you'd truly mourn is one where you'd look at him and think we are all part of the same team. Then there must have been some onion chopping bastard when you saw either of these scenes
Here it is in video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM1dVohRaA8
Look! it's the other guy that says we are all part of the same team! Superman even says thank you too! Shocking what you can see when you pay attention!
Yeah if you are being intentionally misleading and ignore the whole conversation with Lois.
Oh and Veelk not all opinions deserve equal merit, espcially when people's arguments can be objectively dismantled as I did just now with the whole "This man is not our enemy" you can't blame me for being very snarky when I can literally time stamp rebuttals . Dragonyew gave a what he thought was a hypothetoical example of what makes Superman heroic. I gave a literal example that showed, told and did everything but slice bread for what he asked for. Oh and you're welcome