Support NeoGAF

[atr0cious]

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.

You literally made up a new "technique" of film critique that literally ignores the rules of what art is to make a point that completely misses what the films are with this thread. You type with authority like you know what you're talking about and you don't. It's really annoying how smug and hostile you post while couching behind nonsense bathed in nostalgia.

Can you even comment on the actual framing of the films via aspect ratio and how this also affects the shot?

 

[dragonyeuw]

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!

I can't access youtube videos at work, so I have no clue what you're posting.

You made a comment that Captain America would thumb his nose up at any notion of being made accountable and I gave you a direct example of Superman more or less doing the same. Don't see where goals are being shifted because I countered your statement with an example of Superman blatantly doing the shit you're saying Cap would do. Cap's decision not to sign the Sokovia Accords was a decision based on his own moral compass that he didn't want to be a tool of the Government, to be deployed as they see fit. We all know Governments can sometimes have 'questionable' motives and agendas. If Superman felt no way about destroying a 12 million dollar taxpayer funded defense satellite( and in another example of thoughtlessness, hurls the satellite towards earth nearly taking out more innocent lives in the process, this time two US Army officials), he'd wipe his ass with the Accords.

Also, the little condescending routine and tone isn't needed. Relax before you pop a blood vessel.

 

[Nev]

The problem is the feeling the viewer gets is that he doesn't really want to be a hero at all.

He has this obnoxious "whatever" thing about him the whole time and it's just an awful and punchable attitude.

He also gives the impression of being a thinly restrained creepy potential killer who would absolutely decimate anyone who crosses him. Case in point: the stupid scene where he sadistically obliterates a fucking truck.

My god does this Superman suck. I don't think they can redeem him at this point tbh. His spot has already been stolen by Jenkin's WW.

Snyder is such a pretentious edgelord and his departure is long overdue.

 

[atr0cious]

Also this thread is based on shaky ground. Watched the transformer analysis section where she calls the scene of Megan fox over the hood of the car, dissonance of framing. That makes no sense, the scene, and the movie by extension, is literally from Sam's pov, so you the viewer are also not supposed to care about what she says, which is effectively filler since we never see her really show any sort of expertise outside of this scene. She's a trophy for Sam to maintain, which he seamlessly "upgrades" from in 3. You can't make up meaning for stuff the film isn't giving, that's not how critique works.

 

[Shoeless]

My god does this Superman suck. I don't think they can redeem him at this point tbh. His spot has already been stolen by Jenkin's WW.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the current incarnation of Superman is irredeemable. I think Cavill's got potential as Clark Kent/Superman, and they clearly had some kind of character arc/transformation plan for Superman to embrace his role as a figure of inspiration. If they can just get to that point, there's still hope for a decent Superman with this current actor, just not with the current version of his world outlook. He needs to lose the doubt and get the moral certainty, decency and compassion back.

 

[Bleepey]

I can't access youtube videos at work, so I have no clue what you're posting.

You made a comment that Captain America would thumb his nose up at any notion of being made accountable and I gave you a direct example of Superman more or less doing the same. Don't see where goals are being shifted because I countered your statement with an example of Superman blatantly doing the shit you're saying Cap would do.

Also,maybe you should go outside for a walk if you can't discuss this without your little condescending routine. You sound like you're gonna blow a gasket.

The video has Superman surrounded by Soldiers who had previously shot at him and he had saved many of their lives multiple times.He had previously been winded and he gets up to find himself surrounded by armed soldiers.The soldiers start putting their guns down and the commanding officer says this man is not our enemy and Superman says thank you. I get it's the soldiers showing and telling Superman that he is not their enemy after having saved a lot of their lives rather than Superman telling them as you'd prefer but Superman literally said thank you at the end! That's gotta count right!?!

Also, apples and oranges, Superman asked not to be surveilled he didn't ask not to be held to account. Look at what happened when he was asked to defend himself, he went to the Capital to do just that, when Cap was asked not to act unilaterally he said it's not worth his time.
Edit: I'll tone down the snark I am being more of a prick than is needed. Mea Culpa

 

[dragonyeuw]

The video has Superman surrounded by Soldiers who had previously shot at him and he had saved many of their lives multiple times.He had previously been winded and he gets up to find himself surrounded by armed soldiers.The soldiers start putting their guns down and the commanding officer says this man is not our enemy and Superman says thank you. I get it's the soldiers showing and telling Superman that he is not their enemy after having saved a lot of their lives rather than Superman telling them as you'd prefer but Superman literally said thank you at the end! That's gotta count right!?!

Also, apples and oranges, Superman asked not to be surveilled he didn't ask not to be held to account. Look at what happened when he was asked to defend himself, he went to the Capital to do just that, when Cap was asked not to act unilaterally he said it's not worth his time.
Edit: I'll tone down the snark I am being more of a prick than is needed. Mea Culpa

Count for what? Superman thanking the officer for the sentiments is supposed to mean......? As I said before, if you can remove the snark we may actually wind up with a good discussion.(EDIT, nice that you recognize the tone isn't needed. We've only just started addressing each other in this thread so that shit really isn't needed.)

He destroyed the satellite and then declared that you're not going to know where his hangs his cape. There was no question asked and he made it quite clear, as if he needed to, who holds the leverage. He also stated that if he's going to help, it's on his terms. He's putting conditions in place and if those conditions aren't met, what then?

 

[Bleepey]

Count for what? Superman thanking the officer for the sentiments is supposed to mean......? As I said before, if you can remove the snark we may actually wind up with a good discussion.(EDIT, nice that you recognize the tone isn't needed. We've only just started addressing each other in this thread so that shit really isn't needed.)

He destroyed the satellite and then declared that you're not going to know where his hangs his cape. There was no question asked there.

1)A train had been thrown at him in the previous scene
2)He was winded and just got up
3)You complained that "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 ^."
4)I posted a scene where he LITERALLY does that

What don't you follow

 

[dragonyeuw]

1)A train had been thrown at him in the previous scene
2)He was winded and just got up
3)You complained that "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 ^."
4)I posted a scene where he LITERALLY does that

What don't you follow

Wow. Ok, are you ignoring that the picture I attached that comment to was the one of him floating above the woman like he was literally Jesus Christ descending from the heavens? THAT is what I'm referring to when I say I have a hard time seeing people having the same kind of love and admiration for this interpretation of the character as say Reeve's version or the comics. That kind of imagery plays into why this version of the character is hit or miss with people. Zach Snyder hits you upside the head with the God imagery, and you don't get why this may or may not register with some people? There are artistic choices being made here, in terms of how certain scenes are portrayed, which disconnect you from the idea that he's a grounded, genuinely good person at his core. Sure, you can pluck out individual scenes and say 'SEE, he really IS a hero! You guys don't get it!!' but the messaging is uneven. You're taking my comment that you keep harping on way too literally. The point I'm ultimately making is that Cavil's Superman, even though he is ultimately a good person, *so far* has not been presented as someone that you'd really mourn over like you lost your best friend or close relative. Nothing depicted in MOS or BvS indicates that he should have that level of connection with the world yet, especially as the movie clearly depicts that opinion on him is divided right up till his death.

 

[The Wart]

Jesus christ are all these threads like this.

The OP was pretty good.

 

[Sweet Bellic]

I appreciate there being different interpretations of iconic characters like Bats and Supes. I love cornball, campy Bats and Supes. I love edgelord, brooding Bats and Supes. I think some fans are way too prescriptive and the responses to Snyder's interpretation of the characters are blown out of proportion. MoS and BvS certainly had issues, but the heroes' characterization was hardly ever a problem for me. Honestly, I love the concept of an OTT edgelord DC film where Bats and Supes kill people and Jimmy Olson gets shot in the face... too bad the execution and paper thin plot left so much to be desired.

 

[3rdman]

Jesus christ are all these threads like this.

The OP was pretty good.

LOL so true.

My $0.02...the arguments the OP present are (to be frank) subjective. He (and Snyder) may feel that Superman is fine and presented as an honorable man and so on. But in the end, the film (and art in general) is left to be analyzed by the audience that views it.

If he felt that Superman was a 3 dimensional character, then good for him as at least he was able to enjoy a movie that I found ponderous and free of emotion. In my estimation, MoS simply wasn't a good movie...as an origin movie on a beloved and iconic character, it is a goddamned disaster so whatever Snyder and Co may have hoped to achieve is lost in the rambling plot, a cowardly father played by Costner, and a broody hero.

His argument misses the main problem that most (me alone?) have with the movie...it stripped Superman of his defining characteristics. His selfless spirit, his honor, his empathy. Superman in these iterations does indeed do "heroic" things but at no point do you "feel" that he must save people but rather (like going to work), it has to be done. This is partly the fault of Snyder but Henry Cavill has been pretty awful so he deserves some of the blame.

Anyways, yeah, this version of Supes kinda sucks...the whole "dark" vibe just misses the mark of what a Superman movie (to me) should be. In the end, the whole approach feels as though it was concocted in a board room by a bunch of money men looking to cash in on today's disillusioned and over-stimulated youth.

 

[MHWilliams]

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.

They're not held to a higher standard, folks are just more willing to discuss popular topics that are divisive. See: any Force Awakens/Rogue One thread, of which we have many. Bleepey himself has started threads on the topic, there are folks willing to engage. But for the most part, the films are just enjoyed because of the style of film that Marvel tends to create. It's entertainment with straightforward themes.

When you aim for something different, you set yourself up for the criticism if you don't deliver. People are going to talk more about the three-pointer that missed from the guy who makes three-pointers all the time, than the two-pointer that missed from the guy that doesn't.

I'm more than fine with deconstruction. I'm fine with creator trying something different. That's partially why I love franchises like Gundam, where different creators take on the same basic premise and idea. Some succeed better than others. I don't think Snyder executed on his aims. I've seen the idea done better elsewhere in comics and literature.

And I find it interesting to look at why that disconnect exists for others folks. I think had Snyder hit the full scope of what he was executing, people wouldn't have cared. Casino Royale essentially tore down what Bond was, and the film was loved for it. (Oddly enough, I find Craig's Bond film have gotten worse as they trend towards a more classic film Bond.)

Something is missing. I find it interesting to look at what.

Also this thread is based on shaky ground. Watched the transformer analysis section where she calls the scene of Megan fox over the hood of the car, dissonance of framing. That makes no sense, the scene, and the movie by extension, is literally from Sam's pov, so you the viewer are also not supposed to care about what she says, which is effectively filler since we never see her really show any sort of expertise outside of this scene. She's a trophy for Sam to maintain, which he seamlessly "upgrades" from in 3. You can't make up meaning for stuff the film isn't giving, that's not how critique works.

So you agree the framing of the scene is purely what matters, not the actual text of the scene. It doesn't matter if the dialog present the character as something more of the camera offers something different. Which is Veelk's premise for the thread.

---

Also, everyone calm down. These are films. There is no need to get personal and the "goal posts" talk just gets people riled up.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

So you're a fan of MOS i take it! You do realise the irony of what you just typed right?

See? This is why arguing with you is like arguing with a wall because you have the habit of picking apart one scene within a medium, and if it was portrayed in Man of Steel, you make the crappiest argument of life that they're somehow similar and should be equally liked regardless of the narrative flaws. Additionally, when you try baiting someone into this pathetic old "if you didn't like it in x, then why do you like in y" counterargument, you not only disregard context for each medium, but also come off as very ignorant and trying so hard to catch a hypocrite instead of actually addressing the argument.

This is how I know you not only didn't watch the Justice League animated series, but also expose yourself for the fraudulent and intellectually dishonest poster you've always been since BVS threads were posted. Because Superman in that JL snippet you posted has had multiple instances (dating as far back as the Superman animated series) of holding himself back vs. super powered villains, prioritizing life above all else, and ensuring that Justice is served. It's fitting that the one time he unleashes himself is against Darkseid given their history and Darkseid's thirst to end all life.

Compare that with Man of Steel, where the issue is that Clark never really had enough time to truly flesh out his character to the extent that DCAU Superman had. The way the narrative and development is set up is extremely disjointed and quick going from just learning about his origins to now making a hard choice as a hero. The reason why JL Superman's decision was so significant is bc we had tons of episodes of development to see how Superman would react when given a complicated scenario. Even if you argue that Superman going all out vs. Zod is to explain the need for a no-kill rule, the problem in the logic still remains: why do you need to kill to know that killing is bad? (ESPECIALLY when's clark had already been told to hold himself back for th safety of others. It's pathetically stupid and poorly written)

Furthermore, you make the assumption that this is enough for me to like the film when I have multiple issues with it (now mind you, I originally liked Man of Steel but subsequent rewatches as of 2015 have soured my experience. Especially as I come back to other films like the TDKT, as well as DC animated shows and films). It's almost like a film is made up of more than one scene, like maybe a having a narrative, or how the film itself is edited? But sure let's go with whatever you just said.

 

[MHWilliams]

Once again, for the rest: Calm down.

I don't care if you think you have the best one true take on these films. Present it here in a way that doesn't insult your fellow posters. This has been the warning.

 

[Paracelsus]

I watched Half in the Bag about the two movies, and then I watched another random review to see if they thought otherwise. They all seem to agree that that is not Superman, you can call it a "different take" but that is not him at all. TDK is one thing, ironically asshole-Batman is more of a hero than Murderman Affleck because Bale keeps his one rule tight no matter what. MoS has nothing of what made Superman the lowest common denominator of heroes, not even the frickin colors. He cries because he snapped an asshole's neck, who cares if hundreds of thousands of people were blown away prior to that snap by his own hand.

In a way, he's basically the opposite of what Adam West Batman was: corny, okay to watch as long as you realize you're not watching Batman, rather a boyscout cosplaying as Batman.

 

[rac]

why is Superman at a senate hearing in the first place? he's Superman

 

[Neophant]

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....

Still at work but I'll take a minute to respond

A: I'll admit, I was very skeptical when I first saw Man of Steel and wondered why it was going in such a serious tone and mindset re: how seriously the world would take a being like Superman and the ramifications when others like him with less benevolent intentions try to terraform the world. But over time (and many rewatches) I've grown to really love this incarnation that is Cavill's Superman. On purely subjective level, I love and relate to his struggle of trying to do the best he can when he's feared or worshipped by everyone on Earth. Unlike you probably, I never grew up watching the Christopher Reeve movies as a kid (was too young) but I watched them later in life and appreciated the time and sensibilities they were set in. I was in junior high and still remember what happened on 9/11, and seeing the scenes of destruction in MoS did evoke him the tone and nature of the climate that currently, political and cultural, we are in. He may not be to your palette, but to mine and a large group of many others (from what I've seen on Twitter, Reddit, and Tumblr), he is to ours. But absolutely, I respect your perceptions on the movie and will not with any willful intention, try to claim that you are wrong.

B: One of my biggest qualms with MoS was that Clark had been 33 when he first started to fly and become Superman, cause I too thought he was old and was only that way for another shoe-horned messiah reference. But he had only just learned to fly, and you could have inferred that he was not in an easily controllable state of mind when someone like Zod is threatening his Mom's life. I absolutely could relate to anyone wanting to hurt my Mom, and I could also see Superman being too blinded by anger to notice a few grain silos and gas stations. As much as we think of Superman being in total control of his powers, there's plenty in the film to doubt that he knows the full scientific principles he needs to effectively utilize them, like momentum and velocity.

C: Good stuff. I'd love to have heard his speech as well. Not much else I can say except that the Senate explosion was his lowest point. I wouldn't have minded if Snyder could have at least sneaked in a few words for Superman to say.

D: I'm OK with people having their own opinions and thoughts of how they perceive Superman in the DCEU, but what I'm not a fan of is people of one side downplaying or accusing the other of being idiots or close-minded, or to go to the extent of personal attacks against people who share dissenting opinions or the filmmakers themselves. For me, that applies to people who are angry at those who criticize Superman as much as it does extend to people who do believe and are inspired by Cavill's portrayal. Likewise, I don't think I'm claiming that you are or would be willing to downplay anyone for believing in something different that you do.

E: And that's something that frustrates me. That people will only look at the merits of one incarnation of Superman by comparing him to the portrayals in the animated series, movies and TV shows, without letting that interpretation stand on it's own. That's probably the biggest weakness WB Films has right now, that their current interpretations will forever be compared to what was beloved in the past with Reeves, Reeve, Routh, Tim Daly/George Newbern and Tom Welling. All I'm saying is, I think there's enough room and character depth to have different portrayals of Superman across different eras and timelines, much as there are multiple versions of Captain America across the same mediums.

F: Wasn't a fan of that mood whiplash either, but I do think Clark cries out at not just because of having to kill the last other survivor of his planet, but also because of the destruction and loss of life that's resulted. I probably shouldn't use this as a defence, but in tie-in prequel comics, Superman is instrumental in the reconstruction and redevelopment of Metropolis and Smallville during the timeframe between MoS and BvS. And by not trusting him and the extent of his powers...well congratulations! Now you know how Bruce Wayne felt .

Always happy to riposte. Swing!

 

[MugiwaraCole]

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.

How does someone being supremely powerful make it less realistic that they'd care about people?

 

[atr0cious]

So you agree the framing of the scene is purely what matters, not the actual text of the scene. It doesn't matter if the dialog present the character as something more of the camera offers something different. Which is Veelk's premise for the thread.

No, I don't, because there are many more elements in a shot besides framing. Transformers takes the focus away from her completely to show you what her function is in the movie, Sam's object, that's the whole show don't tell thing folks keep saying they want. Even in the final battle, she's only really there to get Bee back in the action.

You can not remove context and add what you want because you think it should be this way. This thread is arguing that Birth of a Nation is failing as a movie because it's not framing the obvious bad guys as bad guys, so it should be more like the lotr orc scenes to succeed at what the OP thinks it's trying to do. None of the pictures he uses are supposed to be viewed as heroic or inspiring.

This sequence
https://youtu.be/Igs-Q-3wc2o

And specifically this scene where Clark realizes he must rely on the allies he's inspired while he takes on the threat at it's source

are Clark being heroic.

 

[Neophant]

I'm not sure how to parse the same way you do it

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.

Absolutely agree. What Jonathan was trying to instill in Clark through his vision/ghostly remembrance was that he is always going to be connected to the world by the people he loves. Being completely altruistic and selfless is going down an emotionless, disconnected route very akin to Dr. Manhattan

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.

It's framed like that because of what's happening during those scenes, and that's the group of talking heads questioning their own place in the world, whether there should be an entity with that much latitude of power, and whether overall he's beneficial to the world. He's framed to have his scenes of heroism look ambivalent and distant, because that's how he's being portrayed in those scene. I think the overall message comes from the last guy who says, "Maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right 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.

I don't see why Superman couldn't be motivated by both. It's what makes him not only human but also humble, as he tries to juggle being able to steward and protect the world while maintaining a regular lifestyle and caring for the people he loves..much like he's been portrayed in other stories and media. He does nearly kill Bruce and burn Lex, but in both of those situations his mother's life was on the line. This Superman isn't able to fully control his emotions, and I think that's a valid way to show him considering all of the crap he's had to go through. Like Icon said earlier in the thread, if you can't weaken or kill Superman...you take away his reasons for wanting to help people.

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.

I find that kinda nit-picky. He says You are my World to Lois last to emphasize that she's one of the most important people in his life. We've seen in both MoS and BvS that he values earth and it's people more than where he was originally from, and I would call it selfless that twice in the same battle, Superman was willing to lay down his life to take down Doomsday.

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.

But you would still admit that he is struggling between his concern for the world overall and the concern for his loved ones? That's literally what almost every Superhero in comics, TV, and movies has had to deal with.

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.

Completely agree. He chooses to act because he wants to help people and be a hero. If wanting to be a nice, considerate, and selfless person is in his self-interest, then I'm glad that other people can grasp at what I was thinking she was saying all along.

 

[inky]

At least someone at WB gets it:

 

[Bronx-Man]

Short story is Snyder is stuck in the philosophy of Watchmen and wants his Superman to be Dr. Manhattan.

Boom. Fundamentally different characters, Doc’s powers are what alienate him from humanity, Clark’s powers are what make him appreciate the human race so much.

 

[neojubei]

At least someone at WB gets it:

You mean the awesome Patty Jenkins. It irks me that a great director like Patty Jenkins hardly gets any work yet someone like Snyder gets lots of money to make crap like sucker punch. If i had my way Patty would helm the DCEU films.

Boom. Fundamentally different characters, Doc's powers are what alienate him from humanity, Clark's powers are what make him appreciate the human race so much.

This makes a lot of sense.

 

[Bleepey]

I watched Half in the Bag about the two movies, and then I watched another random review to see if they thought otherwise. They all seem to agree that that is not Superman, you can call it a "different take" but that is not him at all. TDK is one thing, ironically asshole-Batman is more of a hero than Murderman Affleck because Bale keeps his one rule tight no matter what. MoS has nothing of what made Superman the lowest common denominator of heroes, not even the frickin colors. He cries because he snapped an asshole's neck, who cares if hundreds of thousands of people were blown away prior to that snap by his own hand.

In a way, he's basically the opposite of what Adam West Batman was: corny, okay to watch as long as you realize you're not watching Batman, rather a boyscout cosplaying as Batman.

hahahahahahah.....




























hhahahha



You might wanna watch those movies again. He arguably killed more people than Murderman when he set fire to the building full of ninjas.. Baelman is schizophrenic with his no kill rule. I'll set fire to League of Assassin's den cos "it has to be done", and then he save's Ra's, then after telling Gordon to destroy the monorail, he refuses to save Ra's and don't get me started with needing to save the Joker in TDK. At least with Murderman he's a logically consistent Batman where the increase in violence is as a result of a Batman at the end of his tether where the increase in violence is a new thing. Meanwhile, Jonah Nolan said he told Chris letting the Joker live was a huge plothole in TDK when he saved Ra's in BB and Nolan said fuck it it's already been filmed so oh well. This isn't conjecture on my part Jonah Nolan said this on an IGN podcast.

 

[PanSexual_Peacock]

At least someone at WB gets it:

To be fair, he actually was smiling in that scene if you pay attention. It wasn't until people started crowding him and worshipping him that he became uncomfortable.

 

[a916]

You mean the awesome Patty Jenkins. It irks me that a great director like Patty Jenkins hardly gets any work yet someone like Snyder gets lots of money to make crap like sucker punch. If i had my way Patty would helm the DCEU films.



This makes a lot of sense.

Well for one, we'd get one DC movie every 3 years if she helmed all DC films... and she's not the only good director out there. (She should get all the DC movies she wants though make no mistake...)

 

[BadAss2961]

At least someone at WB gets it:

lol. Like these scenes are going for the same effect.

Two very different tales at play.

 

[Platy]

At least someone at WB gets it:

The weird part is that it makes more sense for Diana to be all fuck necks and Clark be the "i believe in the goodness of people" one =P

 

[dragonyeuw]

Still at work but I'll take a minute to respond

-snip-

Because of today's discussion, I'm going to watch the extended BvS UHD right now( I bought it on sale a few months ago but have yet to watch it). I understand that some things are better fleshed out, so I'll follow up tomorrow with any new thoughts I have and a proper response to your post.

Till the next time

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

At least someone at WB gets it:

Thats good but honestly the boat scene is the scene that absolutely elevates her as their Superman replacement.

 

[JCHandsom]

I'm not sure how to parse the same way you do it

I'm glad that we can agree on what the film is saying in these scenes, and perhaps I can go from there and explain why I have issues with self-interested Objectivist Superman. For the record, I feel comfortable calling him ”Objectivist" because of a number of factors, including but not limited to the director's own beliefs and previous films, the adapted source material, and Batman being similarly ego-driven and self-interested. So, leaving aside my personal issues with Objectivism as a philosophy, let me get just a little into why I don't like this version of self-interested Superman.

A quick note: I do think being motivated to act ”selflessly" out of self-interest to be the same thing as acting in one's self-interest. Sure, it's nice for other people, but selfless action rooted in self-interest is subject to change depending on the subject's self-interest. For example, Superman might be motivated by self-interest to help everyone, but if helping other people got in the way of his self-interest, say by causing him to suffer through losing a loved, he would no longer be interested in helping everyone. A truly selfless person would push through that and do the right thing no matter what is in their personal interest. It might seem pedantic, but I think it's an important distinction to make.

As you noted, lots of Superman stories are interested in selflessness vs. self-interest. The original Richard Donner film ends with Lois Lane dying in his arms after he chooses to stop the other missile from destroying the West Coast. Of course, he proceeds to turn back time and save her too, which I think is an issue with the film, but he's Superman, cutting the Gordian knot is what he does. The second Donner film hammers this point home even further, with Superman foregoing a normal relationship with Lois to stop Zod and crew from conquering the world. All-Star Superman flies into the sun to keep it from exploding, Red Sun Superman ends up sacrificing himself in space after realizing the negative impact he's had on humanity, etc. A lot of my favorite Superman stories end with a self-sacrifice or loss on Superman's part to reflect the responsibility in doing good for good's sake.

This isn't necessarily an issue; I think it's completely possible to have a Superman story work where Superman ends up acting in his self-interest and gives himself a happy ending (‘Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?' comes to mind). The problem with BvS Superman is that if this Superman (a Superman willing to kill for starters) is motivated more by self-interest than selflessness, then that means Batman and Lex are right. A Superman that isn't preternaturally driven to help people, no matter the cost, is a ticking time bomb that needs to be disarmed. Superman's arc, especially with regard to the advice he gets from his parents, his loose morality when it comes to the safety of people close to him, his frustration and distanced demeanor in the times he does save people, etc., doesn't end up refuting that idea. Again, that's not necessarily a flaw with the film; a film where mere mortals task themselves with putting down an unstable god could be interesting if done well.

The problem is that the film wants us to believe at the end that Batman and Lex were somehow wrong, that Superman was a hero of the people, a beloved martyr. I'm sorry, but the Superman I saw, the one who was driven to attempted-murder (and actual murder in the case of the terrorist dude) over his loved ones, the one who at best wouldn't give a shit if he didn't have his loved ones and at worst would become a tyrannical despot, isn't that. A self-interested Superman who only happens to help others because it suits his self-interest isn't the kind of hero I'd be comfortable memorializing. If I was Batman I would be relieved that Doomsday and Superman managed to kill each other (which is another issue with the film, albeit not as central), not in mourning. The issue is mostly side-stepped by his death at the hands of Doomsday, because the question of ”What do we do about Superman?" is moot now that he's dead, but it feels unearned to end your film one way when you spend the majority of your time depicting him as the opposite.

EDIT: Sorry for all the lightning edits, I'm a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to my long-winded posts

 

[Bleepey]

*Cracks knuckles*

Wow. Ok, are you ignoring that the picture I attached that comment to was the one of him floating above the woman like he was literally Jesus Christ descending from the heavens? THAT is what I'm referring to when I say I have a hard time seeing people having the same kind of love and admiration for this interpretation of the character as say Reeve's version or the comics. That kind of imagery plays into why this version of the character is hit or miss with people. Zach Snyder hits you upside the head with the God imagery, and you don't get why this may or may not register with some people? There are artistic choices being made here, in terms of how certain scenes are portrayed, which disconnect you from the idea that he's a grounded, genuinely good person at his core. Sure, you can pluck out individual scenes and say 'SEE, he really IS a hero! You guys don't get it!!' but the messaging is uneven. You're taking my comment that you keep harping on way too literally. The point I'm ultimately making is that Cavil's Superman, even though he is ultimately a good person, *so far* has not been presented as someone that you'd really mourn over like you lost your best friend or close relative. Nothing depicted in MOS or BvS indicates that he should have that level of connection with the world yet, especially as the movie clearly depicts that opinion on him is divided right up till his death.

Superman being viewed as a Christlike figure has been a point in the two films, whether it's TV pundits and Lex referring to him as such, the stained glass pic, and a shit tonne of other examples. These have been used for reasons to show how the general public view him or because Snyder likes doing wanky allusions to Christ. However the running theme throughout the films has been the character trying to find his humanity whether it's trying to help people even if there are constantly adverse consequences or dealing with his altruistic nature being used against him. My point has been there are a lot of criticisms that only hold up if you ignore a lot. You gave an example of actions that would make you mourn him, I gave an example that objectively met your criteria to a tee and if being honest kind of exceeded it. You can't say nothing depicted shows that level of connection when I literally met your criteria. I have to ask you this, do soldiers saying to Superman that "this man is not our enemy" and Superman saying thank you fulfill your criteria of Superman needs to have something where he says we are all part of the same team?

OH and if anyone wants to hear a different perspective on the disconnect between Superman and audiences


https://overcast.fm/+DhdKDpoD8

Listen from 13.00

Jesus christ are all these threads like this.

The OP was pretty good.

I see you're new here. Neogaf talking comic books is an all out Kingsman style brawl, porn topic discussion usually leads to polite mumbles of agreement.

See? This is why arguing with you is like arguing with a wall because you have the habit of picking apart one scene within a medium, and if it was portrayed in Man of Steel, you make the crappiest argument of life that they're somehow similar and should be equally liked regardless of the narrative flaws. Additionally, when you try baiting someone into this pathetic old "if you didn't like it in x, then why do you like in y" counterargument, you not only disregard context for each medium, but also come off as very ignorant and trying so hard to catch a hypocrite instead of actually addressing the argument.

OH please show me how i removed context from anything? Feel free to quote me. You were the one who said that there is nothing in the Snyder films where Superman
is mocked for his kindness (even though Zod tells him he will kill everyone and finds his love for humans weak), I then show Superman recklessly punching a guy through populated buildings and you said that that's OK because someone brought an invading army to earth. This is despite the fact 1) that's what happened in MOS 2) Superman never punched Zod through any skyscrapers in MOS (petrol station yes, probably unpopulated power station columns, and into a railway yard sure but never a skyscraper).

You're the one ignoring context, Superman couldn't take the fight elsewhere,each time he did he was brought back to a populated area, or how about scenes where Superman looks upset, it's because he doesn't want to be worshiped as a god, he isn't smiling because after he just killed someone because he doesn't like killing people and unlike Reeves he is not a sociopath who relishes in casual murder or premeditated acts of violence.

This is how I know you not only didn't watch the Justice League animated series, but also expose yourself for the fraudulent and intellectually dishonest poster you've always been since BVS threads were posted. Because Superman in that JL snippet you posted has had multiple instances (dating as far back as the Superman animated series) of holding himself back vs. super powered villains, prioritizing life above all else, and ensuring that Justice is served. It's fitting that the one time he unleashes himself is against Darkseid given their history and Darkseid's thirst to end all life.

Compare that with Man of Steel, where the issue is that Clark never really had enough time to truly flesh out his character to the extent that DCAU Superman had. The way the narrative and development is set up is extremely disjointed and quick going from just learning about his origins to now making a hard choice as a hero. The reason why JL Superman's decision was so significant is bc we had tons of episodes of development to see how Superman would react when given a complicated scenario. Even if you argue that Superman going all out vs. Zod is to explain the need for a no-kill rule, the problem in the logic still remains: why do you need to kill to know that killing is bad? (ESPECIALLY when's clark had already been told to hold himself back for th safety of others. It's pathetically stupid and poorly written)

Oh i watched the show. I rewatched the scene to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoejLjTx8hQ

He might wanna stop cutting loose or at least do it in a less populated place because Snyder didn't have Superman punching foes through populated buildings or into the middle of congested streets. He at least had the good sense not to do that on the first day on his job the same can't be said for a much more seasoned Superman.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

I appreciate there being different interpretations of iconic characters like Bats and Supes. I love cornball, campy Bats and Supes. I love edgelord, brooding Bats and Supes. I think some fans are way too prescriptive and the responses to Snyder's interpretation of the characters are blown out of proportion. MoS and BvS certainly had issues, but the heroes' characterization was hardly ever a problem for me. Honestly, I love the concept of an OTT edgelord DC film where Bats and Supes kill people and Jimmy Olson gets shot in the face... too bad the execution and paper thin plot left so much to be desired.

The thing is if you make both of your titular superheroes edgy, brooding, and essentially similar, you lose out on the contrast that made the Superman and Batman dynamic so iconic and interesting: the hopeful and optimistic vs. the cynical and negative. Even the colour palette that they represent is designed to be diametrically opposite to one another. That's what I didn't like about the film, is how similar both characters are in terms of being serious and dark and I didn't get enough contrast out of the characters.

 

[Oersted]

Also this thread is based on shaky ground. Watched the transformer analysis section where she calls the scene of Megan fox over the hood of the car, dissonance of framing. That makes no sense, the scene, and the movie by extension, is literally from Sam's pov, so you the viewer are also not supposed to care about what she says, which is effectively filler since we never see her really show any sort of expertise outside of this scene. She's a trophy for Sam to maintain, which he seamlessly "upgrades" from in 3. You can't make up meaning for stuff the film isn't giving, that's not how critique works.

She hijacks the car Bumblebee is strapped on(something she learned from her car thief dad) and drives with him into the combat.

And earlier in the movie she used a power saw as a weapon.

 

[jroc74]

Really good post OP, though, as with all threads like this, it's going to descend into chaos pretty soon.

You may be right. But

That's the same look I have when trying to decide what to get at McDonald's.

There will be gems like this.

 

[Schlorgan]

I can appreciate a movie trying to deconstruct a comic book character, but when that same move has parts like

Spoiler

when Batman tells Superman "Martha won't die tonight" after suddenly dropping all fears of this alien (I lost it laughing)

as well as the part

Spoiler

where Lois Lane throws the spear in a deep water pit and walks away but when, miles away, Batman mentions that they need it she immediately goes back for it, having no knowledge of what's transpiring on the other side of town and has to get rescued by Superman for doing so,

I cannot take that movie seriously.

 

[Monocle]

I don't get this at all. Superman is inherently something bigger than the rest of humanity. Treating him as something you can put in a little city and no outside consequences would come from a godlike being is naivete that worked in the old days. Having a farmer live in the dust bowl and not be cynical of the world is an even greater leap of logic. MoS posits a god living on Earth and deciding to do what's "right" despite being rightly told the world doesn't work that way. The movies drop an alien in our reality and ask us to think about the implications this would have beyond metropolis. Do we really think a "God" fearing nation like the US is going to be ok with that? Are the millions who pray everyday really gonna be ok with being told their beliefs may not hold water?

Mos ends on a note of hope where Superman proclaims he doesn't care how the world works he's going to do what he wants and save who he wants. BvS is Batman and lex, melting down over something they have no power over, and their journey to reconcile that.

Fine, you make logical points, but the ideas you're describing are not what Superman is essentially about. Traditional Superman is an uplifting symbol of hope. His strength, feel-good heroism, and sympathy for the people under his protection give his stories an uplifting optimistic quality.

Snyder's take is drastic departure, modernizing the character in an undeniably grim and cynical way. The tone is distinctly darker. His movies may pay lip service to the idea of hope, but that's at odds with the violent and aloof alien god on screen.

 

[Neophant]

I’m glad that we can agree on what the film is saying in these scenes, and perhaps I can go from there and explain why I have issues with self-interested Objectivist Superman. For the record, I feel comfortable calling him “Objectivist” because of a number of factors, including but not limited to the director’s own beliefs and previous films, the adapted source material, and Batman being similarly ego-driven and self-interested. So, leaving aside my personal issues with Objectivism as a philosophy, let me get just a little into why I don’t like this version of self-interested Superman.

A quick note: I do think being motivated to act “selflessly” out of self-interest to be the same thing as acting in one's self-interest. Sure, it’s nice for other people, but selfless action rooted in self-interest is subject to change depending on the subject’s self-interest. For example, Superman might be motivated by self-interest to help everyone, but if helping other people got in the way of his self-interest, say by causing him to suffer through losing a loved, he would no longer be interested in helping everyone. A truly selfless person would push through that and do the right thing no matter what is in their personal interest. It might seem pedantic, but I think it’s an important distinction to make.

As you noted, lots of Superman stories are interested in selflessness vs. self-interest. The original Richard Donner film ends with Lois Lane dying in his arms after he chooses to stop the other missile from destroying the West Coast. Of course, he proceeds to turn back time and save her too, which I think is an issue with the film, but he’s Superman, cutting the Gordian knot is what he does. The second Donner film hammers this point home even further, with Superman foregoing a normal relationship with Lois to stop Zod and crew from conquering the world. All-Star Superman flies into the sun to keep it from exploding, Red Sun Superman ends up sacrificing himself in space after realizing the negative impact he’s had on humanity, etc. A lot of my favorite Superman stories end with a self-sacrifice or loss on Superman’s part to reflect the responsibility in doing good for good’s sake.

This isn’t necessarily an issue; I think it’s completely possible to have a Superman story work where Superman ends up acting in his self-interest and gives himself a happy ending (‘Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?’ comes to mind). The problem with BvS Superman is that if this Superman (a Superman willing to kill for starters) is motivated more by self-interest than selflessness, then that means Batman and Lex are right. A Superman that isn’t preternaturally driven to help people, no matter the cost, is a ticking time bomb that needs to be disarmed. Superman’s arc, especially with regard to the advice he gets from his parents, his loose morality when it comes to the safety of people close to him, his frustration and distanced demeanor in the times he does save people, etc., doesn’t end up refuting that idea. Again, that’s not necessarily a flaw with the film; a film where mere mortals task themselves with putting down an unstable god could be interesting if done well.

The problem is that the film wants us to believe at the end that Batman and Lex were somehow wrong, that Superman was a hero of the people, a beloved martyr. I’m sorry, but the Superman I saw, the one who was driven to attempted-murder (and actual murder in the case of the terrorist dude) over his loved ones, the one who at best wouldn’t give a shit if he didn’t have his loved ones and at worst would become a tyrannical despot, isn’t that. A self-interested Superman who only happens to help others because it suits his self-interest isn't the kind of hero I'd be comfortable memorializing. If I was Batman I would be relieved that Doomsday and Superman managed to kill each other (which is another issue with the film, albeit not as central), not in mourning. The issue is mostly side-stepped by his death at the hands of Doomsday, because the question of “What do we do about Superman?” is moot now that he’s dead, but it feels unearned to end your film one way when you spend the majority of your time depicting him as the opposite.

EDIT: Sorry for all the lightning edits, I'm a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to my long-winded posts

Ummm I was reading through all of this (and would like to add that Superman: Secret Identiy by Busiek and Immonen is another book with an example of that book's incarnation of Clark having a happy ending by taking care of his family first and foremost) but I'm essentially getting that you kind of believe that Lex and Bruce were right in wanting to stop Superman, and that's kind of how those characters perceive Superman's presence in the world...because in many ways we take a look into their perspective and world view. From Bruce's childhood trauma to his paranoia to seeing Superman and Zod responsible for the destruction of the Wayne Enterprises building and 1% Doctrine, to Lex's struggle with the Problem of Evil (you can't be all-powerful if you are good, and you can't be powerful if you're all-good) and how Superman warps that view with his presence, we do see their reasoning but in the end, the movie proves them wrong! For Bruce it was the Martha scene, and realizing that he was being manipulated by Lex, and for Lex it was in being saved from Superman by Doomsday's fists. What I don't really get is that while you see their distrust of him as being genuine, the film clearly states out why they're wrong.

Superman is constantly saving people, but circumstances and the world around him leaves him open to doubt and feelings of hopelessness from believing that he could ever make a positive difference. He never kills after Zod, and a lot of what we see was meant to be ambivalent by Snyder, for us to make our own conclusions. He doesn't kill the terrorist warlord from Nairomi (Secretary Swanwick confirms it to Lois later in the movie), but instead pushes him away using G-LOC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC
in order to safely incapacitate him. I really suggest listening to the most recent Man of Steel Answers podcast to see why the host explains it as such.

And I disagree with your assertion that Bruce should have been relieved that Doomsday and Superman killed each other. For starters, he knew from his dream (and his interaction with Lex) that something far worse and darker is coming. He was also aware of Superman's heroics all throughout the 18 months that he was hunting him down. The film works to show how, even when Superman is at his lowest point, he was willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of the world, including Lois and Bruce. That leaves such an uplifting feeling in me, and only made me more excited when we get a hint of his return at the end of the film.

In the end I would consider your feelings that Superman was callous, destructive, and self-interested at the point of helping others is certainly valid in your subjective mindset, but I don't think there's anything in the film that would support what you claim. Superman never feels reluctant or frustrated from saving people, he's struggling with how he might have created immense ramifications within the larger world and how he was unwittingly being worshipped as a deity. The entire Superman Question montage (where the talking media heads chime in on their thoughts of his presence) works to ponder the nature of having such a being with immense power out there in the world. At the end, a massive funeral is held for Superman the Icon, and the world mourns their loss of a hero who helped inspire them. As much as you would like to think that he was always portrayed in the film as a monster, it's only because we see the events of the film from the two characters who despised him the most. There's much more evidence and scenes that not only shows Superman's selfless heroism and determination (don't forget he also ditched his investigation of Bruce at the party to rescue a girl in Mexico), but that he was beloved by the people within the film.

On a final note, and I might be getting a little long-winded with my response, but your definition of self-interest vs. selflessness with an example of a more self-interested hero would, in fact, be Iron Man. He's clearly a closer fit to the kind of character you're describing, with his personality and self-centredness getting in the way of his ability to be an altruistic hero.

But yeah, like I said, I'm happy to hear your thoughts and I'm glad we're able to discuss stuff like this!

 

[dragonyeuw]

*Cracks knuckles*



You gave an example of actions that would make you mourn him, I gave an example that objectively met your criteria to a tee and if being honest kind of exceeded it. You can't say nothing depicted shows that level of connection when I literally met your criteria. I have to ask you this, do soldiers saying to Superman that "this man is not our enemy" and Superman saying thank you fulfill your criteria of Superman needs to have something where he says we are all part of the same team?

My main point about Reeve's 'we're all on the same team' comment was to talk about how Superman readily humbled himself to the level of humanity. That's how he was written and that's how it was depicted across 4 movies. Superman's comment on its own merits wasn't an action, it merely symbolized to us the way he viewed himself in the world. And it's that kind of genuine humility and desire to do good( not the conditional 'I'm here to help but on my own terms' variety) that's the type of person that you would grow to love and admire enough to mourn like a close friend or family member. I was not, or it was not the intent, to suggest that I would mourn Reeve's character expressly BECAUSE of his sentiments on teamwork. So while you took that comment literally and at face value, it was really a throwaway line within the context of more detailed posts I had made previously on the topic of mourning Superman which I guess you glossed over( and would not doubt disagree with anyway).

The contrast with Cavil's Superman is that if Zach Snyder is obsessed with deity references and that's clearly shown throughout these movies, then the intent can't be for Superman to be especially relatable. He's specifically telling a story about a world that hasn't fully embraced him and as a result, makes him appear aloof and detached, pondering his role and questioning the nature of mankind. He doesn't yet have the obvious 'human' quality, charisma or personality that was so readily apparent in Reeve's Superman, but no doubt you will argue it's there, provide a few random clips and suggest that the fault lies on our end for not getting it. Just because I suggested earlier that this version of Superman hasn't connected in a way yet that the world would stop to celebrate his life and passing, doesn't mean there obviously wouldn't be a big acknowledgement of his death generally. It's not an all or nothing situation.

 

[Lokimaru]

My main point about Reeve's 'we're all on the same team' comment was to talk about how Superman readily humbled himself to the level of humanity. That's how he was written and that's how it was depicted across 4 movies. Superman's comment on its own merits wasn't an action, it merely symbolized to us the way he viewed himself in the world. And it's that kind of genuine humility and desire to do good( not the conditional 'I'm here to help but on my own terms' variety) that's the type of person that you would grow to love and admire enough to mourn like a close friend or family member. I was not, or it was not the intent, to suggest that I would mourn Reeve's character expressly BECAUSE of his sentiments on teamwork. So while you took that comment literally and at face value, it was really a throwaway line within the context of more detailed posts I had made previously on the topic of mourning Superman which I guess you glossed over( and would not doubt disagree with anyway).

The contrast with Cavil's Superman is that if Zach Snyder is obsessed with deity references and that's clearly shown throughout these movies, then the intent can't be for Superman to be especially relatable. He's specifically telling a story about a world that hasn't fully embraced him and as a result, makes him appear aloof and detached, pondering his role and questioning the nature of mankind. He doesn't yet have the obvious 'human' quality, charisma or personality that was so readily apparent in Reeve's Superman, but no doubt you will argue it's there, provide a few random clips and suggest that the fault lies on our end for not getting it. Just because I suggested earlier that this version of Superman hasn't connected in a way yet that the world would stop to celebrate his life and passing, doesn't mean there obviously wouldn't be a big acknowledgement of his death generally. It's not an all or nothing situation.

He waked into the courthouse down the hall and into the chamber, opened the bar door by hand, walked to the podium and clasped his hands low in front of him waiting to be addressed. Hands folded in front, hand in hand, shows a person is feeling vulnerable
How is that someone who wants to be seen as a deity?

 

[dragonyeuw]

He waked into the courthouse, down the hall in into the chamber. opened the bar door and walked to the podium and his hands clasped low in front of him waiting to be addressed. Hands folded in front, hand in hand, shows a person is feeling vulnerable

Oh ok.

 

[Bleepey]

He waked into the courthouse down the hall and into the chamber, opened the bar door by hand, walked to the podium and clasped his hands low in front of him waiting to be addressed. Hands folded in front, hand in hand, shows a person is feeling vulnerable
How is that someone who wants to be seen as a deity?

Shhhhh. Quiet with your logic. I think it's telling that every time he saves people in costume he is viewed by them as a deity (the floods, Mexico) but whenever people ask him to come to account for himself or to surrender himself for earth, he chooses to put himself in cuffs or walk into a courthouse to answer for non crimes.

 

[Bleepey]

My main point about Reeve's 'we're all on the same team' comment was to talk about how Superman readily humbled himself to the level of humanity. That's how he was written and that's how it was depicted across 4 movies. Superman's comment on its own merits wasn't an action, it merely symbolized to us the way he viewed himself in the world. And it's that kind of genuine humility and desire to do good( not the conditional 'I'm here to help but on my own terms' variety) that's the type of person that you would grow to love and admire enough to mourn like a close friend or family member

Reeves Superman was the Superman that gave up being Superman to get laid. He didn't even have to do it. He just chose to cos.... reasons. Like I can't even call it selfless, it's straight baffling that he wanted to quit when Lois went weak at the knees over the fact he could fly. I guess he was worried about giving her a super dicking instead of a regular dicking. Cavil's Superman surrendered to humanity in order to save it. Put himself in cufs to make people feel at ease. Hell fuck it he even had hope Zod would not want to destroy earth. But hey I guess giving up your powers in order to get laid, being more than willing to throw the first punch by asking the trucker to step outside (Cavill at least walked away even though he could launch the man into orbit), oh and didn't engage in premeditated acts of violence after being humiliated. I've seen more humility in gangsta rap.

. I was not, or it was not the intent, to suggest that I would mourn Reeve's character expressly BECAUSE of his sentiments on teamwork. So while you took that comment literally and at face value, it was really a throwaway line within the context of more detailed posts I had made previously on the topic of mourning Superman which I guess you glossed over( and would not doubt disagree with anyway).

Take at face value, reference his actions in how they relate to the story, compared his actions to similar characters of the same medium. You suggested an example of what makes someone heroic, I am sorry if my example of a guy who previously had saved many soldiers lives, after they tried to kill him and fulfilled your criteria damn near word for word is not convincing enough for you but whatever.

The contrast with Cavil's Superman is that if Zach Snyder is obsessed with deity references and that's clearly shown throughout these movies, then the intent can't be for Superman to be especially relatable. He's specifically telling a story about a world that hasn't fully embraced him and as a result, makes him appear aloof and detached, pondering his role and questioning the nature of mankind. He doesn't yet have the obvious 'human' quality, charisma or personality that was so readily apparent in Reeve's Superman, but no doubt you will argue it's there, provide a few random clips and suggest that the fault lies on our end for not getting it. Just because I suggested earlier that this version of Superman hasn't connected in a way yet that the world would stop to celebrate his life and passing, doesn't mean there obviously wouldn't be a big acknowledgement of his death generally. It's not an all or nothing situation.

We can just agree to disagree. Some people say they can relate to MOS and BVS because they feel parts of the story are analogous to the immigrant story especially for Muslims in America. others may think he is mopey I think he is pensive. I don't know what's more relatable than a guy who is unsure about to do constantly asking people for help, whether it's his mum, girlfriend or ghost Kevin Costner

 

[dragonyeuw]

We can just agree to disagree

I came to that conclusion several posts ago, good on you for reaching that point yourself. These movies will resonate with some, and not resonate with others, like everything else in life. I don't really feel the need to keep explaining my position to you, so I'm done with this particular exchange for my part.

 

[Violet_0]

the only thing he couldn't save was his hairline (and Kevin Costner)

 

[IndoAssassin]

Batman kills people. WW who is the hero that everyone should look upto abandoned humanity. Yet here we are complaining Superman doesn't smile enough.

Aquabro is an alcoholic and smashes beer bottles on the ground, doesn't he care about people getting flat tires? Seriously doesn't he know that heroes don't litter.

 

[okdakor]

"Did I leave the stove on?"

Bottomline, Superman throws them both into that building.

His best move, like when he killed that terrorist threatening Lois.

Hoping for another Veelk v Bleepey movie.

Who will be our next superhero whipping boy ?

 

[Rymuth]

He waked into the courthouse down the hall and into the chamber, opened the bar door by hand, walked to the podium and clasped his hands low in front of him waiting to be addressed. Hands folded in front, hand in hand, shows a person is feeling vulnerable
How is that someone who wants to be seen as a deity?

He straight up tells the US Army that he is not beholden to them or their laws. He breaks the handcuffs they put him, walks to the one-way mirror in the interrogation room, throwing veiled threats at the General that he's merely playing along with them,

The senate hearing is just another instance of him merely goofing around with them. Had the hearing went on normally, he would've just told the senators where to shove it if he didn't like what they were saying.

How is that someone who wants to be seen as a citizen beholden to the laws of men?

 

[dragonyeuw]

How is that someone who wants to be seen as a deity?

Where are you getting that I said Superman wants to be seen as a deity??!! This is what I said:

The contrast with Cavil's Superman is that if Zach Snyder is obsessed with deity references and that's clearly shown throughout these movies.......

Zach Snyder is the one who is making the God/Jesus references, I've said nothing at all to the effect that SUPERMAN is the one who sees himself in that light. Please address what I actually said next time.