• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Framing Snyder's Superman - Why people think he doesn't care

Sep 25, 2016
694
0
240
Except they keep showing cutaways of crowds people standing in the streets as building explode and topple on top of them as they fight in MoS.

And just ignore the beginning of BvS where we literally see someone in the building as it comes down and people just begin to evacuate the building only minutes earlier.
The people on the streets weren't anywhere near those buildings. I thought that was obvious,seeing as they weren't running for their lives as the two were fighting. They were basically bystanders.

And that building in the beginning of BvS that was destroyed was caused by Zod using his heat vision. So once again,not Supes fault.
 
Except they keep showing cutaways of crowds people standing in the streets as building explode and topple on top of them as they fight in MoS.

And just ignore the beginning of BvS where we literally see someone in the building as it comes down and people just begin to evacuate the building only minutes earlier.
And that's on Zod for throwing him through buildings, going crazy with the heat vision, and so on.
 
Sep 19, 2015
3,801
0
0
Bryan Singer's superman in superman returns was a better superman than synder's/

Yeah no, Singer's Superman had problems that I wouldn't necessarily classify as better than Man of Steel's. For me, they're both at the same level of shittiness: Superman being selfish to explore Krypton despite identifying as a human being (which is already a jarring shift from Donner in which the people are enamoured by Superman and vice versa), leaving his child to be taken care of by another character, taking every opportunity to "stalk" on Lois Lane - being completely unaware that his disappearance is why people moved on, AND despite Lois Lane telling him flat-out that she wanted nothing to do with him. Nothing about his actions make sense and it comes off as a creeper who wanted to relive the past instead of moving on, which seems an apt metaphor for the movie as a whole.

Perhaps the biggest indictment against the film (and this is why characters suck IMO), is the decision to be part of the Donner universe at a time where people wanted to see a new take on Superman. Brandon Routh had no freedom to really put his personality into the character because he was forced to play a portrayal of someone else's. For all my issues with MoS and BvS, it at least tried to give a new take (even if I think it was executed terribly).
 
Sep 25, 2016
694
0
240
If the city was evacuated why was batman so mad?

Where did I say the city was evacuated? There's only one building the we know had people in it when Zod and Supes actually start fighting and that the Wayne Tower. And if you were paying attention you should know who caused that to go down.
 

Schlorgan

Member
Mar 16, 2016
5,344
0
350
Salt Lake City, UT
My impressions on both the Reeve Superman and Cavil Superman - and I say this fully aware they're unique takes on the character and the world they exist in per the respective director(s) vision - is that Reeve's Superman by his very nature would strive to do good regardless of his superior gifts. He's just a do-gooder by nature blessed with abilities beyond that of normal man. Cavil's Superman, if not for the abilities he was graced with, I don't see him as someone who would do the right thing if not for his powers putting him in a situation where he feels compelled to do so. Reeve's Supes, without his powers, would spend a whole day helping old ladies across the street( borrowing a phrase read earlier in this thread) or would climb the highest tree to save a child's cat( yes, an obvious reference to that scene from Superman the movie). Nothing about Cavil's Supes leads me to believe he's that kind of person naturally. Perhaps there's a fair argument that Reeve in Cavill's world wouldn't be 'that' guy, but I see Cavill's conflict as Superman as the embodiment of the lessons taught to him by his parents:

What should I do, just let him die? "Maybe".
Be everything they want you to be, or none of it. You don't owe this world a thing.

And those lessons play out quite clearly, especially in the BvS montage, that the wheels are turning while he's doing these good deeds.
I like this take.
 

foxuzamaki

Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Jul 21, 2013
46,661
2
665
30
st. louis
Well murderous batman did held superman accountable for the deaths in metropolis



If the city was evacuated why was batman so mad?



So when was the Wayne tech building evacuated? Try to imagine all of Manhattan evacuated in a few hours, not going to happen. Supes could have taken zod away from the city. And to insult to injury kisses Lois in the tattered remains of the city.



This article sums it up best Bryan Singer’s Superman is the Hero America Needs





I guess you and i were not paying attention to the movie that showed people in buildings being destroyed in not one but 2 movies.

When superman tried taking the fight away from the city zod brought him back, zod declared to him point blank that since he destroyed the chance of his people flourishing again, he would destroy Clark's. Because Zod's main objective at that point was to kill as many people as he possibly could, Zod wasent leaving the city and idk why that keeps getting thrown back at superman.
 

neojubei

Will drop pants for Sony.
Dec 21, 2005
26,820
0
1,190
Yeah no, Singer's Superman had problems that I wouldn't necessarily classify as better than Man of Steel's. For me, they're both at the same level of shittiness: Superman being selfish to explore Krypton despite identifying as a human being (which is already a jarring shift from Donner in which the people are enamoured by Superman and vice versa), leaving his child to be taken care of by another character, taking every opportunity to "stalk" on Lois Lane - being completely unaware that his disappearance is why people moved on, AND despite Lois Lane telling him flat-out that she wanted nothing to do with him. Nothing about his actions make sense and it comes off as a creeper who wanted to relive the past instead of moving on, which seems an apt metaphor for the movie as a whole.

Perhaps the biggest indictment against the film (and this is why characters suck IMO), is the decision to be part of the Donner universe at a time where people wanted to see a new take on Superman. Brandon Routh had no freedom to really put his personality into the character because he was forced to play a portrayal of someone else's. For all my issues with MoS and BvS, it at least tried to give a new take (even if I think it was executed terribly).

I have to agree half-way. Not saying the Singer's Superman is the best but better than Snyder's however Superman's portrayal has a weird history such as Christoper Reeve's portrayal is considered the gold standard we as the audience gloss over the weird superman powers he had in superman 2 and other horrible sequels thereafter. Its hard to make an all american boy scout interesting though marvel did crack that code with captain america the true portrayal of superman
 

Neophant

Member
Nov 6, 2016
161
2
0
My impressions on both the Reeve Superman and Cavil Superman - and I say this fully aware they're unique takes on the character and the world they exist in per the respective director(s) vision - is that Reeve's Superman by his very nature would strive to do good regardless of his superior gifts. He's just a do-gooder by nature blessed with abilities beyond that of normal man. Cavil's Superman, if not for the abilities he was graced with, I don't see him as someone who would do the right thing if not for his powers putting him in a situation where he feels compelled to do so. Reeve's Supes, without his powers, would spend a whole day helping old ladies across the street( borrowing a phrase read earlier in this thread) or would climb the highest tree to save a child's cat( yes, an obvious reference to that scene from Superman the movie). Nothing about Cavil's Supes leads me to believe he's that kind of person naturally. Perhaps there's a fair argument that Reeve in Cavill's world wouldn't be 'that' guy, but I see Cavill's conflict as Superman as the embodiment of the lessons taught to him by his parents:

What should I do, just let him die? "Maybe".
Be everything they want you to be, or none of it. You don't owe this world a thing.

And those lessons play out quite clearly, especially in the BvS montage, that the wheels are turning while he's doing these good deeds.

I disagree with this take, in regards to Cavill's Superman. MoS and BvS show that Clark continues to help people and use his superpowers for good without a desire to be obligated, and with the consideration of the complex moral quandry that could come from having near-omnipotent power with no accountability. In my view, Cavill's Superman is if anything more like the Reeve version of Superman who wants to be a hero to all of the world but is unable to in the more real-world, grounded, and hotbed geopolitical climate of our modern world.

He chooses to hide himself for so long because he's afraid of what would happen to his family and everyone he loves around him if he were to be targeted by those who would want to take advantage of him or use them unwittingly as leverage. That's part of the reason why he wanders around America for a while, being able to help out where he can without fear of his origin coming back to his Mom and the farm in Smallville.

Martha's dialogue to him about the world not owing him a thing is even more proof that Clark chooses to be Superman as a willing choice, and not as an obligation or responsibility due to the immense powers he has. I know other people might scoff at that due to Diane Lane's delivery of her dialogue, but her sounding mad would be reasonable if she had seen what was being said her son on television and the news media as part of the events of BvS. He wants to help people because that's what he wants to do, and like the last guy in the Question montage of BvS says, "he's just a guy trying to do the right thing".
 
Nov 14, 2005
20,710
27
1,330
Yeah, Superman isn't responsible for those deaths, but again it's a problem of the portrayal. It comes across like he doesn't care what happens to them until the very end of the fight. It would have been much better if we had seen Superman take time out of the fight, even opening himself up to more of Zod's attacks, in order to get civilians out of the way or prevent debris from falling on them. It makes Supes look like he cares, and it lays a stronger foundation for the fight's climactic moment.

The fact the World Engine only took out like 4 city blocks shows that he cares. if he didn't care Zod could have turned the whole place into mulch. Also Zod never directly kills anybody because Clark is keeping him busy. When he finally does try to kill people Supes breaks his neck and kills the last living connection to his race.
 

JCHandsom

Member
Mar 22, 2017
2,081
3
0
Salt Lake City, Utah
Martha's dialogue to him about the world not owing him a thing is even more proof that Clark chooses to be Superman as a willing choice, and not as an obligation or responsibility due to the immense powers he has. I know other people might scoff at that due to Diane Lane's delivery of her dialogue, but her sounding mad would be reasonable if she had seen what was being said her son on television and the news media as part of the events of BvS. He wants to help people because that's what he wants to do, and like the last guy in the Question montage of BvS says, "he's just a guy trying to do the right thing".

Except Superman isn't heroic for altruistic reasons. Remember that scene in BvS where Clark speaks with the ghost of Jonathan Kent who essentially tells him "Trying to help other people for the sake of helping them doesn't work because there are always going to be people who suffer, so just focus on the people you care about"? If you take that, the comment from his mom about "not owing them anything", his discomfort with helping people in the montage, the vision of a world where Superman becomes a dictator because Lois died, and his final words to Lois being "You're my world", a direct callback to his dad's words, put them all together and you get a Superman who comes to the end of his emotional journey and says "You know what? I'm only going to do the right thing because it benefits me/the people close to me."

It's Superman as viewed by an Objectivist, which isn't surprising given Snyder's worldviews and other projects.
 

broncobuster

Banned
Apr 19, 2014
12,794
3
0
I will counter that counterargument: This is conspiracy theory nonsense. The entire thrust here is that viewers, as a whole, cannot be fair criticism of Snyder's work because the 'consensus' is that he sucks, is ridiiculous. There are a select few reviewers, like Arnold White, who specifically go out of their way to troll review, but they are in the vast minority.

The truth is, the vast majority of people, myself included, were 100% behind Man of Steel when it came out and thought it was a decent, if imperfect, beginning to the DCEU. And while I was definitely not 100% behind BvS, that one similarly had everyone hoping it would be good.

And what your describing doesn't really occur with other people. M Night Shalaman was a super star, until he started making movies that were awful, then people turned on him. Pixar was unstoppable, until they made cars which was questionable and then cars 2 which sucked. Meanwhile, after a set pattern of 3 DCEU movies bombing hard, both commercially and financially, Wonder Woman came out and got a lot of success of both kinds, with strong arguments backing why it's good. The consensus breaks all the time once a break in the pattern comes out. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with the consensus, but when you ask, people articulate why they think the way they pretty often and thoroughly, and to write them off as drones who just want to cash in on the "lolol Snyder sucks amirite" bandwagon is pretty disingenuous.

So the idea that Snyder is going to be persecuted regardless of what he does is nonsense. We just want a good movie.

Generally I do think the conspiracy theory stuff is out of line and largely untrue. But then you see people, like the author of video this thread is inspired by, saying things like "Zack Snyder hates his dead mother," and it does seem like people take things beyond the movies themselves. But again, generally, most people don't have that gross warped mindset and judge the movies alone. Most people don't even care who make these movies.

When superman tried taking the fight away from the city zod brought him back, zod declared to him point blank that since he destroyed the chance of his people flourishing again, he would destroy Clark's. Because Zod's main objective at that point was to kill as many people as he possibly could, Zod wasent leaving the city and idk why that keeps getting thrown back at superman.

In their defense it could've been clearer. There could've been more attempts to take Zod away. I'm not a fan of Man of Steel or that fight scene, but what I saw during it was Zod causing most of the damage, save for the spot Superman pushes Zod's face against some windows. Yeah, you have Superman flying Zod into space, and getting thrown back down along with a satellite (questionable physics). By that point in the movie, it's clear that Superman's only advantage over the Kryptonians is his stability with Earth's atmosphere. Zod very quickly was becoming stable in the same ways, learning to fly on his first attempt when Superman stumbled. So my read was Superman on the defensive that whole fight.

Anyway, for me that fight was too late into the movie and there wasn't enough time after to adequately wrap things up. You jump from Zod's death to the brief scene with General Swanwick to a mix of Ma Kent and the Daily Planet.

And while I do like BvS quite a bit, and it addressed it a bit more, strangely the Turkish Airlines ads had what I wanted. Lex helping rebuild Metropolis and such.
 

Zabka

Member
Apr 7, 2006
10,108
1
0
Bryan Singer's Superman is a dumbass at best. I lean more towards him being an asshole.

Best movie Superman in terms of character is in Superman 3

and here:

That's Superman getting knocked into a building.
 
Sep 25, 2016
694
0
240
Except we see Superman being the one who flies into Zod, then they fly off continuing in the direction that Superman was just flying.

Pay attention. They collide with each other in the middle. Superman then gets knocked back into the building from the impact. Zod then follows him and proceeds to heat vision two buildings.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
"Eh, they're probably all dead already, may as well let it keep burning."

You're right, that does indeed sound like a classic Superman sentiment. Can just picture him writing "Do good onto others and let the motherfucker burn!" on the face of the moon with his heat vision.

Not like he has super senses or anything or that he was shown saving those he could but try again.
 

Kasumin

Member
Feb 16, 2013
727
0
0
A much better way to convey that information would be to have Clark try to interact with people as equals, to try to relate and connect, and have that repeatedly shut down by people not wanting to see the man so much as the symbol. But to do that would make Clark have moments where he's just an awkward guy and not a brooding handsome objectivist symbol of the superior being, and it really feels like the only use Snyder sees in Superman as a character is in what he might metaphorically represent, and not the man at all. He just seems to think the mundane tasks of forming emotional connections -- or even attempting to -- are so petty and human that to show Clark engaging in them would be to belittle what might make him heroic.

Which kind of misses the point of Superman. It's why he can do all the bullet points and still feel off. Because the image and cape are being prioritized over the man underneath. Film is a visual medium and Snyder is an incredibly visual director, so the imagery he uses to frame Clark's actions are why he comes across as inconsistent.

This post nails it.

I didn't care about Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, the Hulk, etc. before the MCU came along. The big thing that Iron Man and Captain America: The First Avenger did for me was make me care about Tony Stark and Steve Rogers outside of their superhero personas. To the point that Iron Man and Captain America as identities feel a bit secondary to me. They're these heroes because of who they are as people.

There are so many little moments in both films where Tony and Steve are allowed to be flawed, even dorky, and it really made them real people to me. Their flaws then inform their superhero personas.

I have no sense of Clark as a regular person. I mean, yes, he's a reporter and he's in love with Lois. But that aside... all I got from the films was this expectation that I see Superman as this shining symbol of hope when there's nothing underneath to suggest such. He's an empty symbol that Snyder propped up.

Edit: And sure, we get to see Pa and Ma Kent. But Pa Kent's worldview is so toxic that I feel bad for Clark because to me it looks like his father was suffering from long term depression and pushed a pretty messed up worldview onto his son (saying that his wife is his world and so on). At least the Iron Man films play it straight with Howard Stark having been a dick and that having an effect on who Tony grows up to be.

My favorite part of The First Avenger is the conversation between Dr. Erskine and Steve the night before he gets the super soldier serum. Erskine tells Steve that he picked him because he gets the sense that Steve wouldn't abuse the power he's given because he's lacked power his whole life and wouldn't take it for granted. He's also compassionate, and doesn't despise others despite his weak position. THAT to me is what makes a hero.
 

Zero-ELEC

Banned
Aug 9, 2015
5,551
2
0
Really good OP.

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

You should read/watch My Hero Academia.
 

Zabka

Member
Apr 7, 2006
10,108
1
0
Anyone else feel the moment where Superman saves Lois from the singularity was shot really poorly and undersold the moment?

When he spots her she's actually falling away from it while everything else was getting sucked in. Then they do that snap zoom on what I think was supposed to be her getting sucked in before he grabs her but it's just real unclear.
 

Shoeless

Member
Feb 12, 2010
2,469
0
0
My favorite part of The First Avenger is the conversation between Dr. Erskine and Steve the night before he gets the super soldier serum. Erskine tells Steve that he picked him because he gets the sense that Steve wouldn't abuse the power he's given because he's lacked power his whole life and wouldn't take it for granted. He's also compassionate, and wouldn't abuse his power. THAT to me is what makes a hero.

That is one of the best written and best acted sequences of the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, in my opinion. It really gets down to the heart of what heroism can be, and why heroic acts are heroic, rather than just visually spectacular. Casting Stanley Tucci as Erskine and giving them that quiet moment defined the heart of the Marvel Universe and really cemented Steve Rogers as that heart.
 

JCHandsom

Member
Mar 22, 2017
2,081
3
0
Salt Lake City, Utah
My favorite part of The First Avenger is the conversation between Dr. Erskine and Steve the night before he gets the super soldier serum. Erskine tells Steve that he picked him because he gets the sense that Steve wouldn't abuse the power he's given because he's lacked power his whole life and wouldn't take it for granted. He's also compassionate, and doesn't despise others despite his weak position. THAT to me is what makes a hero.

I love that part, but I can't wholeheartedly get behind it because I've come to the conclusion that people who've lacked power and then suddenly gain it are just as likely to fall to its temptations and abuse others.

That's what I get for being a part of the geek community for so long.
 

Cuburt

Member
Nov 14, 2012
6,298
1
0
Pay attention. They collide with each other in the middle. Superman then gets knocked back into the building from the impact. Zod then follows him and proceeds to heat vision two buildings.

The direction of the editing was meant to show that Superman got the better of that encounter and was the one who flew into Zod. You can even slow it down and see Superman pushing Zod before they sort of tumble into the building, but it's Superman who is initiating the flight into the building in the first place, much like the previous gif of him pushing a Kryptonian into a gas station. We see Superman flying backwards, into what may very well be a different building, after an edit of several seconds which signifies the crash we see of Superman being thrown by Zod is not the same impact (since we don't see the building crumble the way we see it crumble from the outside, which was also the corner of a building and not the middle) nor the same moment for moments later in the same tussle.

Bottomline, Superman throws them both into that building.
 

dragonyeuw

Member
Dec 18, 2014
4,677
1
445
I disagree with this take, in regards to Cavill's Superman. MoS and BvS show that Clark continues to help people and use his superpowers for good without a desire to be obligated, and with the consideration of the complex moral quandry that could come from having near-omnipotent power with no accountability. In my view, Cavill's Superman is if anything more like the Reeve version of Superman who wants to be a hero to all of the world but is unable to in the more real-world, grounded, and hotbed geopolitical climate of our modern world.

He chooses to hide himself for so long because he's afraid of what would happen to his family and everyone he loves around him if he were to be targeted by those who would want to take advantage of him or use them unwittingly as leverage. That's part of the reason why he wanders around America for a while, being able to help out where he can without fear of his origin coming back to his Mom and the farm in Smallville.

Martha's dialogue to him about the world not owing him a thing is even more proof that Clark chooses to be Superman as a willing choice, and not as an obligation or responsibility due to the immense powers he has. I know other people might scoff at that due to Diane Lane's delivery of her dialogue, but her sounding mad would be reasonable if she had seen what was being said her son on television and the news media as part of the events of BvS. He wants to help people because that's what he wants to do, and like the last guy in the Question montage of BvS says, "he's just a guy trying to do the right thing".

We're not arguing whether or not he ultimately does the right thing. The discussion is centered around how he is portrayed as a reluctant hero against the backdrop of a 'realistic' world, and that the balance of tackling the issue of how 'our' world would realistically react to a Superman, while maintaining the hopefulness that the character is intended to inspire, requires some nuanced storytelling that Zach Snyder hasn't proved himself capable of delivering. I think what the movies could have used were some moments of levity to counteract the visceral destruction, the scenes of floating over the outstretched hands of a helpless person while basking in the sun rays, the god statues. There needed to be a counter to the snapped necks, throwing Zod through buildings, pushing a human through a brick wall to certain death, montages of various random feats with a look of pain and disconnect from humanity. As a poster above who responded to me stated, there was an opportunity in the congress hearing for Superman to address the world( and us, the audience) and really lay it out there as to what he's about, but instead they chose to use that moment as another moment of death and destruction that really in retrospect did nothing to advance the plot in any tangible manner.

The TLDR version is Zach Snyder hasn't yet shown the skill to tell the story he wants to tell while having us truly care about this Superman in the way he wants us to. The fact that there's so much debate about this character really shows that Snyder missed the mark. Nobody debates whether or not Chris Evans' Captain America is a symbol of heroism and hope, because he's a much better written character and the essence of his values are displayed in the moments when he's getting his ass kicked as an 80 pound weakling, not when he's hopping around the Hydra carrier as a 225 pound super solider.
 

Kasumin

Member
Feb 16, 2013
727
0
0
I love that part, but I can't wholeheartedly get behind it because I've come to the conclusion that people who've lacked power and then suddenly gain it are just as likely to fall to its temptations and abuse others.

That's what I get for being a part of the geek community for so long.

That's totally fair! That's why I edited my post a bit. It's true that someone who has lacked power all of their life like Steve has could be resentful about it. And if given power, they'd probably use it to get revenge on those they perceive as having hurt them in the past.

The thing with Steve is that he isn't like that. He doesn't like bullies and he's gotten the crap beaten out of him tons of times. The thing is, he doesn't come off as resentful about it. Erskine asked him if he wants to kill Nazis, and he responds that he just doesn't like bullies.

Erskine picks him because after watching Steve (jumping on the grenade, etc. etc.) he comes to the conclusion that Steve would respect power he was given.

Regular people, even those who don't initially take power for granted, are likely to abuse it when they attain it. I totally agree with you. The First Avenger sets up Steve as the exceptional kind of individual who wouldn't do that, though. And that's why his conversation with Erskine really stuck out to me. It's Steve's compassion and strong sense of justice that drives him to not be tempted by the power he gains.
 

Ninjimbo

Member
Nov 11, 2010
6,190
1
0
Saves all those people, saves the world, and some people walk out thinking he doesn't care. Yeah...people are reading it wrong. That's okay. It's just a movie.

Snyder's Superman is still pretty awesome to me.
 

Joeytj

Banned
May 8, 2012
2,438
0
505
Captain America who was a war hero and battle hardened and WANTED to fight and be the best compared to an alien who doesn't know his place amid a bunch of pedestrian humans in his first real fight?

I'd say him saying it quietly is a way to show how unsure of himself he is even though he's walking into battle...because that's what thinks he's supposed to do.

Also Zod dies by his own hands...and the Senate didn't. Not to say the reaction is warranted...but he just killed a dude.

Yeah, which means he cares more about his moral superiority than actually saving people. He cares more about being "good" than being a real hero.

That's the problem with Cavill's Superman. He seems to be doing everything because he has too, not because he actually cares.

Which is what Snyder believes in... that powerful men are heroic because they force themselves to help others, but not actually give a shit.

And, well, a lot of other parts of the movie suck too.

The trouble is that Snyder wants to tell the story of the man who wants to be treated normally, wants to fit in, but at the same time Snyder wants his hero to appear cool and above average, much better than normal, and yes even god-like. It's why you get that one hilariously over the top shot of Clark hovering above those he rescues, silently looking sad and detached while framed in sunlight. Snyder wants him to look like a god to the viewer, even as Clark angsts over that perception. It doesn't work, tonally, to have the director pushing for the exact same image that the protagonist himself seems to want to reject.

A much better way to convey that information would be to have Clark try to interact with people as equals, to try to relate and connect, and have that repeatedly shut down by people not wanting to see the man so much as the symbol. But to do that would make Clark have moments where he's just an awkward guy and not a brooding handsome objectivist symbol of the superior being, and it really feels like the only use Snyder sees in Superman as a character is in what he might metaphorically represent, and not the man at all. He just seems to think the mundane tasks of forming emotional connections -- or even attempting to -- are so petty and human that to show Clark engaging in them would be to belittle what might make him heroic.

Which kind of misses the point of Superman. It's why he can do all the bullet points and still feel off. Because the image and cape are being prioritized over the man underneath. Film is a visual medium and Snyder is an incredibly visual director, so the imagery he uses to frame Clark's actions are why he comes across as inconsistent.

Omph, this one's a keepa' too.
 

JCHandsom

Member
Mar 22, 2017
2,081
3
0
Salt Lake City, Utah
Saves all those people, saves the world, and some people walk out thinking he doesn't care. Yeah...people are reading it wrong. That's okay. It's just a movie.

Snyder's Superman is still pretty awesome to me.

The problem is that framing trumps text, as the Lindsey Ellis video the OP is referencing makes clear. Just because Superman is supposed to be something doesn't mean that audiences will see him that way.

People reading it wrong is the fault of the filmmaker for not properly framing the text for the audience.
 

Fancyarcher

Member
May 27, 2014
4,550
1
305
Saves all those people, saves the world, and some people walk out thinking he doesn't care. Yeah...people are reading it wrong. That's okay. It's just a movie.

Snyder's Superman is still pretty awesome to me.

That's not what the images seem to imply though for many, which is a big issue people have with Snyder's Superman. He doesn't really seem to do much heroic to them.
 

MisterHero

Super Member
Jul 24, 2007
30,524
144
1,495
abload.de
I read the whole OP and the whole thread and want to give an earnest response down the line, about how Clark is developing over the course of the movies and that Justice League will present him with a new demeanor. He claimed Earth under his protection in BvS right before he died "This is my world.", he doesn't exit it like Dr. Manhattan.

I agree with the OP in the sense that I want a ton more scenes of Supes saving people. They shouldn't just be talked about or be newspaper clips in the background. Hell I just want more Superman in general.

I wanted to praise the OP for trying to be balanced and for the replies for being thought out, but then this happened:

Anyway, I just wanted to do one last MoS/BvS topic before we get our next superhero whipping boy next month.

Oh... conclusions have already been drawn. So what am I supposed to debate?

I suppose I'll stick to the comics and let various creators have their individual takes on the character, succeeding and dying on their own terms. I'm capable of enjoying entirely different takes on the same characters.

If Snyder wants to show Supes tossing his opponent around Metropolis like he did Doomsday in the comics or Darkseid in JLU, I'm all for it. Comics are messy affairs but I prefer that to a back-and-forth about how he wasn't smiling in one movie frame. Good grief.
 

JCHandsom

Member
Mar 22, 2017
2,081
3
0
Salt Lake City, Utah
That's not what the images seem to imply though, which is a big issue people have with Snyder's Superman. He doesn't really seem to do much heroic, at first glance.

And given that film is a visual medium, that's a big problem

Oh... conclusions have already been drawn. So what am I supposed to debate?

Man, I want the movie to be good (especially after seeing how good Wonder Woman was), but you can't deny that this movie has had some nightmarish behind-the-scenes stuff happen to it.

That doesn't mean it's a guarantee that it's going to be bad, but it's a reasonable assumption.
 

DaveH

Member
Jun 11, 2004
2,250
0
1,440
This is already bullshit thirty seconds in because Zod is the novice when it comes to having super powers. Clark's had them his entire life.
And Superman learned to fly literally a day earlier. You're imposing power mastery onto the film that doesn't exist. The only time his edge is relevant is with his senses. Minutes after landing on Earth, Faora could jump to the vessel with precision, Zod could throw a truck with precision, and Nam-Ek plucked an A-10 out of the sky on the first try. You're inventing a nonexistent advantage for Clark.

When's the last time you parked your car, then just sat there in the garage through the middle of the day?
 
Nov 14, 2005
20,710
27
1,330
This is already bullshit thirty seconds in because Zod is the novice when it comes to having super powers. Clark's had them his entire life.

LOL at "People don't stay in garages" This video's ridiculous.
Trained military leader vs farm boy who was taught to hide his powers his whole life and you think Clark is the novice in this matchup?
 

Veelk

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
16,922
0
0
I wanted to praise the OP for trying to be balanced and for the replies for being thought out, but then this happened:



Oh... conclusions have already been drawn. So what am I supposed to debate?

I was just making a tongue in cheek jab at how Snyder's films are received. It's true insofar as I am not expecting JL to be good, but it was just a joke.
 

IndoAssassin

Member
Jul 9, 2014
1,848
0
0
All the DCEU heroes are just as bad. Aquaman would rather not interact with humanity. Batman kills people. WW gave up on humanity and hid herself and stopped being a hero.

The only guy who looks like he wants to save people is Flash
 
Dec 3, 2006
37,576
0
1,260
When I read the Dark Knight Returns there was a scene in which Batman and Superman are conversing about something. Superman is being his all American boy routine, and Batman isn't buying any of it. It read as if Batman legit saw Superman as a self important douchebag and not the selfless hero he's always portrayed as.

MoS and BvS are both from that same perspective - this asshole thinks he's SOOO great, but look at him, he's a fraud.
 

Cuburt

Member
Nov 14, 2012
6,298
1
0
All the DCEU heroes are just as bad. Aquaman would rather not interact with humanity. Batman kills people. WW gave up on humanity and hid herself and stopped being a hero.

The only guy who looks like he wants to save people is Flash
Flash just pushes people out of the way and runs. ;P
 

Joeytj

Banned
May 8, 2012
2,438
0
505
When I read the Dark Knight Returns there was a scene in which Batman and Superman are conversing about something. Superman is being his all American boy routine, and Batman isn't buying any of it. It read as if Batman legit saw Superman as a self important douchebag and not the selfless hero he's always portrayed as.

MoS and BvS are both from that same perspective - this asshole thinks he's SOOO great, but look at him, he's a fraud.

Problem is, neither we the audience or even Superman/Clark Kent himself thinks that he's so great.

That's exactly the point of the OP. There's a dissonance that doesn't go with what Snyder thinks is what he filmed.
 

MisterHero

Super Member
Jul 24, 2007
30,524
144
1,495
abload.de
Man, I want the movie to be good (especially after seeing how good Wonder Woman was), but you can't deny that this movie has had some nightmarish behind-the-scenes stuff happen to it.

That doesn't mean it's a guarantee that it's going to be bad, but it's a reasonable assumption.
True enough. JL is a technical nightmare. From Snyder exiting to the composer changing to Affleck rumors to shoddy reshoots, they all frighten the crap out of me. Still, if the movie must fail I want it to see what Snyder had clear in his mind and not what a dozen course corrections try to half-ass.

Veelk said:
I was just making a tongue in cheek jab at how Snyder's films are received. It's true insofar as I am not expecting JL to be good, but it was just a joke.
No hard feelings I guess. It is what it is.