Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 12, 2017 0:18:04 GMT -5
Yeah, they did chop up Justice League. But, he is entirely to blame for BvS, which is why their films have a crummy reputation in the first place. Yep, Batman V Superman is what got them in this mess. Not to mention from what I have heard t's pretty blatant which of his scenes made it into Justice League and which didn't. Since there is mood whiplash throughout the entire thing. Not to mention since almost all of Superman's scenes were reshot it's pretty obvious that at least one of the big things people liked about the movie (how Superman was handled) was from Whedon. Oh man, I can't imagine even enjoying the movie if Superman came back and continued being a mopey dickhead.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 12, 2017 1:21:39 GMT -5
Here's the thing. You point out Boy Scout in Superman and immediately Christopher Reeve comes to mind. I can understand them not wanting to go the Boy Scout route because I guarantee you if they did, those same fans who complained about Superman in Man of Steel would turn around and say "He smiled too much, too cheesy and corny." I can almost guarantee that wouldn't happen. For the VAST majority of the population, Reeve IS Superman. So that portrayal is the default for what people think about the character, and they wouldn't bat an eye. One of the biggest things Justice League has been praised for is for actually letting Superman be Superman. Look at Tyler Hoechlin in Supergirl, people love his portrayal of Superman. He's smiling, happy, nice, and a beacon of hope.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Dec 12, 2017 1:52:28 GMT -5
I can almost guarantee that wouldn't happen. For the VAST majority of the population, Reeve IS Superman. So that portrayal is the default for what people think about the character, and they wouldn't bat an eye. One of the biggest things Justice League has been praised for is for actually letting Superman be Superman. Look at Tyler Hoechlin in Supergirl, people love his portrayal of Superman. He's smiling, happy, nice, and a beacon of hope. That's the television Superman though. Of course I don't know everyone in the world and can't speak for them in the slightest obviously. But I can remember plenty of times hearing people say that they were tired of seeing a smiling, happy, nice, and corny Superman as they wanted to see a more serious, intense, and realistic depiction of the character. I can actually see what Snyder was attempting to do with the character in Man of Steel honestly. There were a lot of aspects where he was still Superman. When Lois mentioned that him attempting to stop the World Engine could kill him and he said "Maybe. But I am not going to let that stop me from trying." His first flight sequence, his willingness to surrender to humanity and allow them to handcuff him, and the fact that he saved the world by stopping the World Engine. So there were a lot of moments where it was true to Superman. I just think a lot of fans focused too much on the tone to notice it.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 12, 2017 3:28:09 GMT -5
Look at Tyler Hoechlin in Supergirl, people love his portrayal of Superman. He's smiling, happy, nice, and a beacon of hope. That's the television Superman though. Of course I don't know everyone in the world and can't speak for them in the slightest obviously. But I can remember plenty of times hearing people say that they were tired of seeing a smiling, happy, nice, and corny Superman as they wanted to see a more serious, intense, and realistic depiction of the character. I can actually see what Snyder was attempting to do with the character in Man of Steel honestly. There were a lot of aspects where he was still Superman. When Lois mentioned that him attempting to stop the World Engine could kill him and he said "Maybe. But I am not going to let that stop me from trying." His first flight sequence, his willingness to surrender to humanity and allow them to handcuff him, and the fact that he saved the world by stopping the World Engine. So there were a lot of moments where it was true to Superman. I just think a lot of fans focused too much on the tone to notice it. That’s surely the point, though. If the tone wasn’t off to a lot of people, they would have noticed those character aspects more instead of noticing the other quite glaring flaws in Superman’s character and tone of the movie. Like, there are parts of Spider-Man 3 that are still Spider-Man. But the other aspects of the character and story that was botched gets noticed more because they stand out more, hence the status that film has with the fans and public.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 12, 2017 7:43:19 GMT -5
Look at Tyler Hoechlin in Supergirl, people love his portrayal of Superman. He's smiling, happy, nice, and a beacon of hope. That's the television Superman though. Of course I don't know everyone in the world and can't speak for them in the slightest obviously. But I can remember plenty of times hearing people say that they were tired of seeing a smiling, happy, nice, and corny Superman as they wanted to see a more serious, intense, and realistic depiction of the character. I can actually see what Snyder was attempting to do with the character in Man of Steel honestly. There were a lot of aspects where he was still Superman. When Lois mentioned that him attempting to stop the World Engine could kill him and he said "Maybe. But I am not going to let that stop me from trying." His first flight sequence, his willingness to surrender to humanity and allow them to handcuff him, and the fact that he saved the world by stopping the World Engine. So there were a lot of moments where it was true to Superman. I just think a lot of fans focused too much on the tone to notice it. Eh, you're wrong with your initial assessment in the FIRST 'corny' post dude. I liked Man of Steel quite a bit, but it WOULD have been better received with just a bit of tweaking to be trueER to Superman, given that him being dour etc was one of the biggest complaints people had especially in BvS.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 12, 2017 8:26:08 GMT -5
I feel the "old school Superman is lame" sentiment peaked in the late 90s or early/mid 2000s. Maybe some older comic fans could argue perhaps even earlier than that, in many ways. But if we're talking the last five years, the vast majority of articles about the DCU I've read haven't exactly been kind to the darker Superman films.
Clark can and should struggle with things. The problem is that David Goyer's Clark Kent is just poorly written. Audiences have shown they'll embrace a variety of tones in their characters if they can relate to the character. Gritty heroes like Logan and more lighthearted ones like Tom Holland's Spider-Man work because they feel believable and they have strong character arcs.
The Superman arcs in the DCU so far have been pretty bad, mostly. They're shot to emphasize how heavy a burden Superman has to carry, and that would be fine if the filmmakers balanced that out with the sense of optimism, hope and awe associated with him. But aside from the Fortress of Solitude scene in Man of Steel, they really don't. There's scene after scene of him getting into fistfights and smashing into buildings, and that would be fine if the filmmakers balanced that out with him rescuing innocents. But aside from maybe...three or so minutes worth of screen time in three movies combined devoted to him actually saving people, they really don't.
Like other posters have noted, Steve in the MCU is the closest thing personality wise to a traditional Supes. The Marvel writers choose to pair up Cap with different, often morally grayer personalities. Since no other MCU character is quite like Cap, his unironic heroism makes him interesting and unique.
There's no reason Clark can't fill that role in the DCU, but instead he's written like a living weapon. A weapon who doesn't have much in the way of personality, outside of wangsting. I never get the sense Cap hates his job the way I do Goyer-Clark.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 12, 2017 8:47:15 GMT -5
I think the people who say that the classic Superman is corny are the same people who praise Snyder's movies as modern masterpieces and dismiss Marvel as kiddie shit.
The rapidly dwindling box office returns is evidence enough that while those types may be the most vocal, they sure as hell aren't the majority.
The DCEU's Superman could've worked if Clark had been the rock everything was built on. The idea of Superman being seen as a threat and encountering widespread mistrust is a good angle to go for, but they chose to have Clark be equally mistrustful and consider humanity a burden ultimately not worth bothering with, before finally coming around.
The hero's journey shouldn't have been Clark finding his place in a world that was unwilling to trust him, it should've been about the world coming to trust him. Superman shouldn't change for the world, the world changes for Superman
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 12, 2017 10:47:19 GMT -5
I feel the "old school Superman is lame" sentiment peaked in the late 90s or early/mid 2000s. Maybe some older comic fans could argue perhaps even earlier than that, in many ways. But if we're talking the last five years, the vast majority of articles about the DCU I've read haven't exactly been kind to the darker Superman films. Clark can and should struggle with things. The problem is that David Goyer's Clark Kent is just poorly written. Audiences have shown they'll embrace a variety of tones in their characters if they can relate to the character. Gritty heroes like Logan and more lighthearted ones like Tom Holland's Spider-Man work because they feel believable and they have strong character arcs. The Superman arcs in the DCU so far have been pretty bad, mostly. They're shot to emphasize how heavy a burden Superman has to carry, and that would be fine if the filmmakers balanced that out with the sense of optimism, hope and awe associated with him. But aside from the Fortress of Solitude scene in Man of Steel, they really don't. There's scene after scene of him getting into fistfights and smashing into buildings, and that would be fine if the filmmakers balanced that out with him rescuing innocents. But aside from maybe...three or so minutes worth of screen time in three movies combined devoted to him actually saving people, they really don't. Like other posters have noted, Steve in the MCU is the closest thing personality wise to a traditional Supes. The Marvel writers choose to pair up Cap with different, often morally grayer personalities. Since no other MCU character is quite like Cap, his unironic heroism makes him interesting and unique. There's no reason Clark can't fill that role in the DCU, but instead he's written like a living weapon. A weapon who doesn't have much in the way of personality, outside of wangsting. I never get the sense Cap hates his job the way I do Goyer-Clark. Yeah, a lot of this is why Man of Steel 2 is something that should've happened well before any crossover fight with Batman: there had to be another story that showed Clark coming into his own, embracing the role he's taken up, and growing as a person into the more traditional Superman. Doesn't mean he has to be the Silver Age Man of Tomorrow in his behavior or what have you (I honestly didn't mind the depiction of his youth with the Kents as imperfect, there's an interesting angle to take with 'common folk face challenges of raising Space Moses'), but going from a doubt-filled youth to someone who, to shamelessly borrow the phrase, sees the responsibilities that come with his powers, and matures accordingly was needed. Then if you wanted to do a Batman crossover where Clark is forced to confront new doubts, whether it's seeing Batman as a threat or realizing that kryptonite means he's now vulnerable and having to come to grips with that, ok, but at least you've given the audience a chance to see Superman as Superman before going right back to the well of making him look like a guy who wants no part of being a hero. Again, though, the problem seemed to be that Snyder wanted a Randian Objectivist Superman while still dropping him into a narrative that squarely fit a more altruistic character arc (Clark choosing to do the right thing to use his powers to help others), and that tonal dissonance was never, ever dealt with in Snyder's scripts. Hell, there's a potentially great dynamic in BvS where Clark, as a reporter, sees Batman as a threat to civil liberties; that's something an empathetic, altruistic Superman would definitely feel, and his role as a reporter could mean a backdrop of Clark writing stories for the Planet on similar issues in Metropolis (e.g. government surveillance, policing controversies, mass lock-ups, etc.) as he confronts a jaded and cynical Bruce Wayne who needs to be reminded of what being a hero means. That's a great set-up for them being in conflict! But instead Snyder insists on maintaining the "Superman as the suffering ubermensch" angle, which kills the source of conflict because now both guys are cynical about things and not representing different ideas and methods. So whoever takes over this doesn't need to go 100% Blue Boyscout if they don't want to; they can throw serious challenges his way, have his faith in his view of the world and humanity shaken now and again; but by never establishing a strong foundation for the audience to lean back on and say "Ok, I know this Superman will still always try to do the right thing", Snyder never earned that faith from the audience. Granted, this is also a part where I put some heavy blame on WB itself: they clearly rushed things to get to a Batman/Superman crossover, they clearly were the ones with ridiculous "cram as much crap in as possible! ...no, wait, now edit everything down and change the tone! ...now, reshoots!" demands, so it just became a completely toxic stew.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 12, 2017 10:52:43 GMT -5
I feel the "old school Superman is lame" sentiment peaked in the late 90s or early/mid 2000s. Maybe some older comic fans could argue perhaps even earlier than that, in many ways. But if we're talking the last five years, the vast majority of articles about the DCU I've read haven't exactly been kind to the darker Superman films. Clark can and should struggle with things. The problem is that David Goyer's Clark Kent is just poorly written. Audiences have shown they'll embrace a variety of tones in their characters if they can relate to the character. Gritty heroes like Logan and more lighthearted ones like Tom Holland's Spider-Man work because they feel believable and they have strong character arcs. The Superman arcs in the DCU so far have been pretty bad, mostly. They're shot to emphasize how heavy a burden Superman has to carry, and that would be fine if the filmmakers balanced that out with the sense of optimism, hope and awe associated with him. But aside from the Fortress of Solitude scene in Man of Steel, they really don't. There's scene after scene of him getting into fistfights and smashing into buildings, and that would be fine if the filmmakers balanced that out with him rescuing innocents. But aside from maybe...three or so minutes worth of screen time in three movies combined devoted to him actually saving people, they really don't. Like other posters have noted, Steve in the MCU is the closest thing personality wise to a traditional Supes. The Marvel writers choose to pair up Cap with different, often morally grayer personalities. Since no other MCU character is quite like Cap, his unironic heroism makes him interesting and unique. There's no reason Clark can't fill that role in the DCU, but instead he's written like a living weapon. A weapon who doesn't have much in the way of personality, outside of wangsting. I never get the sense Cap hates his job the way I do Goyer-Clark. Yeah, a lot of this is why Man of Steel 2 is something that should've happened well before any crossover fight with Batman: there had to be another story that showed Clark coming into his own, embracing the role he's taken up, and growing as a person into the more traditional Superman. Doesn't mean he has to be the Silver Age Man of Tomorrow in his behavior or what have you (I honestly didn't mind the depiction of his youth with the Kents as imperfect, there's an interesting angle to take with 'common folk face challenges of raising Space Moses'), but going from a doubt-filled youth to someone who, to shamelessly borrow the phrase, sees the responsibilities that come with his powers, and matures accordingly was needed. Then if you wanted to do a Batman crossover where Clark is forced to confront new doubts, whether its seeing Batman as a threat or realizing that kryptonite means he's now vulnerable and having to come to grips with that, ok, but at least you've given the audience a chance to see Superman as Superman before going right back to the well of making him look like a guy who wants no part of being a hero. Again, though, the problem seemed to be that Snyder wanted a Randian Objectivist Superman while still dropping him into a narrative that squarely fit a more altruistic character arc (Clark choosing to do the right thing to use his powers to help others), and that tonal dissonance was never, ever dealt with in Snyder's scripts. Hell, there's a potentially great dynamic in BvS where Clark, as a reporter, sees Batman as a threat to civil liberties; that's something an empathetic, altruistic Superman would definitely feel, and his role as a reporter could mean a backdrop of Clark writing stories for the Planet on similar issues in Metropolis (e.g. government surveillance, policing controversies, mass lock-ups, etc.) as he confronts a jaded and cynical Bruce Wayne who needs to be reminded of what being a hero means. That's a great set-up for them being in conflict! But instead Snyder insists on maintaining the "Superman as the suffering ubermensch" angle, which kills the source of conflict because now both guys are cynical about things and not representing different ideas and methods. Basically, Clark and Bruce were far too tonally similar, and thus the conflict in BvS wasn't interesting. That movie badly needed the traditional dynamic between them, it would have fixed a ton of the film's issues. I agree with Rob and Doug on Channel Awesome when they said the way Superman was written really drags the movie down. I would have preferred a less gun-happy Batman, but I was fine with him and Diana mainly.
|
|
|
Post by Larryhausen on Dec 12, 2017 12:34:51 GMT -5
I can almost guarantee that wouldn't happen. For the VAST majority of the population, Reeve IS Superman. So that portrayal is the default for what people think about the character, and they wouldn't bat an eye. One of the biggest things Justice League has been praised for is for actually letting Superman be Superman. Look at Tyler Hoechlin in Supergirl, people love his portrayal of Superman. He's smiling, happy, nice, and a beacon of hope. I just started watching Supergirl, and I literally cried tears of nerd joy at his portrayal.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 12, 2017 15:02:29 GMT -5
Yeah, a lot of this is why Man of Steel 2 is something that should've happened well before any crossover fight with Batman: there had to be another story that showed Clark coming into his own, embracing the role he's taken up, and growing as a person into the more traditional Superman. Doesn't mean he has to be the Silver Age Man of Tomorrow in his behavior or what have you (I honestly didn't mind the depiction of his youth with the Kents as imperfect, there's an interesting angle to take with 'common folk face challenges of raising Space Moses'), but going from a doubt-filled youth to someone who, to shamelessly borrow the phrase, sees the responsibilities that come with his powers, and matures accordingly was needed. Then if you wanted to do a Batman crossover where Clark is forced to confront new doubts, whether its seeing Batman as a threat or realizing that kryptonite means he's now vulnerable and having to come to grips with that, ok, but at least you've given the audience a chance to see Superman as Superman before going right back to the well of making him look like a guy who wants no part of being a hero. Again, though, the problem seemed to be that Snyder wanted a Randian Objectivist Superman while still dropping him into a narrative that squarely fit a more altruistic character arc (Clark choosing to do the right thing to use his powers to help others), and that tonal dissonance was never, ever dealt with in Snyder's scripts. Hell, there's a potentially great dynamic in BvS where Clark, as a reporter, sees Batman as a threat to civil liberties; that's something an empathetic, altruistic Superman would definitely feel, and his role as a reporter could mean a backdrop of Clark writing stories for the Planet on similar issues in Metropolis (e.g. government surveillance, policing controversies, mass lock-ups, etc.) as he confronts a jaded and cynical Bruce Wayne who needs to be reminded of what being a hero means. That's a great set-up for them being in conflict! But instead Snyder insists on maintaining the "Superman as the suffering ubermensch" angle, which kills the source of conflict because now both guys are cynical about things and not representing different ideas and methods. Basically, Clark and Bruce were far too tonally similar, and thus the conflict in BvS wasn't interesting. That movie badly needed the traditional dynamic between them, it would have fixed a ton of the film's issues. I agree with Rob and Doug on Channel Awesome when they said the way Superman was written really drags the movie down. I would have preferred a less gun-happy Batman, but I was fine with him and Diana mainly. Exactly; a lot of people were perfectly fine with Batfleck because his characterization largely worked: an older, beaten down Bruce who failed at least one Robin (a reason a separate Batman movie would've been nice, too: setting up this more jaded Bruce with his own story) and takes refuge in cynicism because of his survivor's guilt now contends with feeling utterly powerless in the shadow of the Superman, especially having witnessed the devastation in Metropolis due to Clark's fight with Zod firsthand, and who brings the Bat back because he learns of kryptonite and convinces himself that he alone can stop this all-powerful alien from doing that again. If you need a reason for Batman to be acting antagonistic toward Supes for a movie, that's a damn fine premise. Even ignoring some of the weird plot holes and story skips (e.g. uh...how DID Bruce learn about kryptonite? And did Lex plan on him stealing it?), it's a sound enough premise that it could be made into something special. But then Clark's side is just completely underdeveloped; we ended the first Man of Steel with him getting his bearings as Superman, learning what his personal limitations are (his anguish at having to kill with his bare hands...I know, it was dumb, but I'm looking for silver linings), maybe still having some more stuff to learn about being fully unselfish, and straight up smiling as he begins his new life in Metropolis and at the Planet...and then in the next flick we're back to Mopey Town. As stated, the "How would we REALLY react to a figure like Superman?" angle is a really fine one, but it needed it's own movie to be explored; by cramming it into this one, all we got was Clark acting all doubt-ridden and sad again, as if the end of the first movie didn't happen. If he's tired of humanity's nonsense, and Bruce is tired of everyone's nonsense...what's the conflict?
|
|